Talk:The Flight Across the Ocean

message: *https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/ein-naziorden-fuer-charles-lindbergh/288308.html
*https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/charles-lindbergh-and-the-rise-of-1940s-nazi_1/
*https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-22684773/charles-lindbergh-the-nazis-and-american-isolationism
*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1491010/Aviator-Lindbergh-fathered-children-by-three-mistresses.html
*https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/enthuellungen-ueber-den-pionier-der-luefte.950.de.html?dram:article_id=133416
*https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/11/04/Lindberghs-spy-missions-in-Germany/8186468392400/
--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on Lindbergh's attitudes towards Germany and Nazis

message: The stated performance was in none of the sources I looked at, hence I removed it (and suggested "what actually happened" in a comment in the article's history just below yours). In any case unsourced content that is suspected to be incorrect, is to be removed that is policy. So if you want keep that or readd it please provide a proper source.
However having said that, it seems the edition history of the piece is rather complicated and i'm beginning suspect that various summary sources probably provide a somewhat incomplete picture. In other words i've become a bit suspicious about some incosustencies in sources i've surveyed to verify the content. I've requested a book now that deals with that issue in greater detail and I hope after reading that any inconsistencies will be clarified and I'll be able to add a revised version of the publication history.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy someone able to command German language sources is working on this article and look forward to future clarifications. That said, I still don't understand what "sources [you] looked at" or whether Knopf is one of them. The deleted paragraph is not exactly "unsourced", so does the given citation actually disagree with the facts put forward? Sparafucil (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a closer look at the version history, the source you've mentioned (Knopf) was added by me and doesn't not source the disputed paragraph. So yes,it is among the sources I surveyed and not only does it not source the disputed paragraph but it seems to contradict it even. Originally that paragraph was not sourced at all and the paragraph after contained invalid sources (see ). When I started adding sources including Knopf, I originally assumed the content being correct and that simply adding one or two reputable sources would fix the article's issues. However upon closer inspection i had to realize that the sources I've surveyed did only confirm the last paragraph but not second last, instead they seem to contradict the second last paragraph, hence I removed it for now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: sources and performance/edition history 

message: Mannheim's translation of Bertolt Brecht Letters 1913-1956 contains (p.486) a letter from bb to SWR (dated Jan. 2 1950 rather than Dec. '49) demanding the change of title and expunging of Lindbergh's name from 4 lines, and giving as reasons L's 1) ties to the Nazis ("well-known" in the article's earlier version seems hence a statement of bb's view rather than WP's objective assessment) 2) the demoralizing effect of L's praise of the Luftwaffe 3) L's role as a US fascist (again, we're talking about bb's view). I wonder how much this differs from the discussion in the new preface? Sparafucil (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what "discussion in the new preface" refers to. If you mean the new preface Brecht added to his play, then that one pretty much expresses the sentiment or assessment as in the latter (that's at least what i got from the summaries like Knopf and without having read the original preface myself). I changed the original "well known" to "widely perceived" as this seems a disputed point by various Lindbergh biographs (see Andreas Conrad in the article or the sources in the section above) and the original formulation imho didn't make quite clear to readers, what was Brecht's personal view and what was "reality". I don't mind the "stronger" original formulation as long as it phrased or augmented in such a way, that it is clear to readers, that it is only Brecht's personal view (differing somewhat from "reality"). --Kmhkmh (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  from Lindbergh to Ocean