Talk:Des Moines speech

Des Moines speech has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 22, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Iowa / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Des Moines speech appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Anne Morrow Lindbergh tried to warn her husband Charles Lindbergh of the backlash that his antisemitic Des Moines speech would receive?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Des Moines speech.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Anne Morrow Lindbergh predicted the backlash that her husband Charles Lindbergh's antisemitic Des Moines speech would receive and tried to warn him about it? Source: Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941 (Random House, 2013), 379: Anne told Lindbergh that his remarks would be interpreted as "Jew-baiting" [...] she asserted, his speech was 'at best unconsciously a bid for anti-Semitism"; Susan Dun,, 1940: FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler—the Election amid the Storm (Yale University Press, 2013), 301–303: Across the country newspapers, columnists, politicians, and religious leaders lashed out at Lindbergh for sinning "against the American spirit", as the New York Herald Tribune put it. "The voice is the voice of Lindbergh, but the words are the words of Hitler", wrote the San Francisco Chronicle
- Reviewed: Talk:Vladimir_Zitta#Did_you_know_nomination
- Comment: Vladimir Zitta was the 1st article of a 5 article hook. It would be nice to get to run this on the upcoming anniversary, September 11, but I didn't finish this as soon as I wanted to and I understand that'd be a tight turnaround.

Created by Hydrangeans (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Looks good Andre🚐 01:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

The article has: '"[n]o person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone" the Holocaust'. 'Holocaust' is outside the quotation and was not a word used at the time in this connection, so what did he actually say? I think the precise words would be useful. -- Robina Fox (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited it to say "the persecution of the Jews in Germany", which is closer to what Lindbergh actually said (he just uses the word "persecution"). Indeed, not only was the word not used in any sense before the war, even in 1941 the idea that the Germans would initiate a full-scale program of mass murder against all Jewish people in Europe still seemed far-fetched to many people outside the Nazi Party, even in Allied countries. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he says the word persecution, why not just use that? I think it's significant that he says that of persecution broadly, and not specifically the Nazi persecution of Jews, and that the article reader would want to know that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date

Not really worth mentioning in the article, but the date Lindbergh gave this speech is just more confirmation for me that, notwithstanding the most obvious reason, the 254th day of a normal year (255th in leap years) is the absolute worst on the American calendar. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Des Moines speech/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hydrangeans (talk · contribs) 08:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this one a go-through! LEvalyn has volunteered to help out with the source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Lede is good, though perhaps just a little on the short side.
Gonna be a stickler for just a second Luftwaffe should use the "lang" template.
Otherwise background section extremely solid.
Anne Morrow Lindbergh, married to Charles Lindbergh oddly phrased, since there isn't really anyone else mentioned in the preceding sentences, and it makes you wonder if this is somehow a different Charles Lindbergh. Maybe "His wife, Anne Morrow Lindbergh"?
Might be good to say "poet Selden Rodman" or something so the name is not just dropped without context.
Does attendance need to be wikilinked? This feels excessive.
Meanwhile, anglophile might need to be linked.
He accused the presidency of wanting to go to war? Wouldn't it be his administration? (or alternatively just Roosevelt himself)
No problems with the Reception section, quite well written.
Images are properly licensed.
Great job on the alt-text.

@Hydrangeans: That's all from me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks very much for the review! I've implemented some of the suggestions and have explanations for the others, though if they don't satisfy you I'll understand and can make further revisions:

Thanks for introduced me to the "lang" template; I've implemented that for Luftwaffe.
I tried to avoid referring to Anne Morrow Lindbergh as "his wife"/"Lindbergh's wife" since language like that can reinforce a sense that men possess women. Since their being married is too relevant to not bring up (because it's the reason she was proximate to Charles Lindbergh and trusted with a draft), I used "married" as a verb to maintain Anne Morrow Lindbergh as the agent/subject in the sentence and to avoid making her an object in the sentence. I know this can seem to some like a minor thing, to have so much meaning turn on a few words, but that's the reason for the word choice.
Good point about Rodman; I've added "poet" in front of his name.
Also a fair point about attendance; de-linked.
I tend to be cautious about linking words in quotations, but you make a good point since anglophile might not be so familiar to readers. Now linked.
I think presidency in this sense can be a synonym for administration (Merriam-Webster)? That's also how administration in this sense gets redirected, like Herbert Hoover administration redirecting to presidency of Herbert Hoover.

If you have any other questions or objections or insistences, feel free to say so. Many thanks again to you and LEvalyn! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for me - thank you for the timely response, and I'll get this promoted. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I like to use a random number generator to pick 10 sources or 10% (whichever is greater) to check. For this article, I'll look at sources 1, 6, 8, 21, 25, 28, 34, 44, 46, and 50 as they are numbered in this diff. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Goodman (2008, p. 351). Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Dunn (2013, p. 50). Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8. Dunn (2013, pp. 54–55). Checks out. A real yikes on this guy's diary for sure. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21. Cole (1974, p. 160); Berg (1998, p. 425). Cole checks out. I wasn't able to easily access Berg, but all the info in this sentence is verified by Cole. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25. Dunn (2013, p. 300). At least in my copy, this quote actually appears on p. 302 of Dunn, not p. 300. Since my page numbers matched for the earlier citations to Dunn that I've checked, I'd advise amending the citation here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! The copy I can access also indicates it's 302. That's my bad. Should be fixed now. And many thanks, to you and Generalissima, for taking up the review! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28. Olson (2013, p. 386). Checks out. Also verifies the 8,000 in-person if you wanted to remove the citation in the middle of the sentence for that fact. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

34. Greenwald (1942, p. 152); Hart (2018, p. 2). Either one of these would be sufficient to fully verify this sentence. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

44. Berg (1998, p. 428). I still haven't been able to track down this source, but honestly, the rest of this source review is so squeaky-clean that I have no concerns. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

46. Greenwald (1942, p. 161). Checks out. I notice that the ellipses in the wiki version of this quote are just eliding the word "has"; I think you could consider just leaving the "has" in, since it's nice to leave a quote 'whole', but it works either way. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50. Cole (1974, p. 176). Checks out. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with this source review! I have no suggested changes to be made. Overall, the sources look highly reliable and well-used. Generalissima, over to you! Hydrangeans, great work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.