Talk:Richard Hauptmann
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Hauptmann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 3, 2006 and April 3, 2013. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background
edit> At the age of eleven, he joined the Boy Scouts (Pfadfinderbund).
The link for Pfadfinderbund is for an organization founded in 1970, after this person's death. 2601:2C3:400:EB0:A9B7:7DF1:E7FB:ABF (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The flow of the writing in the Intro
editIn general, I like all the information provided in the introduction section. But I wish we could present those facts in a different order, in a scheme that makes the writing flow logically and naturally.
The thing I don’t like is just how much information is packed between two parentheses in the final sentence. All that stuff about how Anna Hauptmann, later in life, sued the various people who had framed her husband.
(……… in her opinion, that is. But it’s my opinion too! I agree with Anna. I believe her husband was innocent.)
We should absolutely include all of that information, but it’s really bad writing technique to stick all of it into one set of parentheses within one very long sentence. No parenthesized (is that a word?) passage should ever be THAT long. In fact, no SENTENCE should ever be that long!
(I’m not angry, though, I promise. I just use all-caps to emphasize particular words, and exclamation points to make it sound semi-humorous. Or something.)
I propose moving that big long parenthesized passage to the end of the Intro section to form a whole new paragraph. Thus, the Intro section would have two paragraphs instead of one.
This new paragraph would be exactly the same information that’s currently within parentheses, but it might consist of more than one sentence. It would probably make sense to split it into at least two sentences.
But the important thing is: the stuff within those two parentheses in the final sentence of the Intro should be relocated to form a second paragraph of the Intro. Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
"Guilt questioned" mess
editThe "Guilt questoned" section is a mess of strung-together miscellany cited almoset entirely to primary sources, blogs, tertiary sources mentioning the Linbergh case in passing while disussing other stuff, and so on. I can't see anything that can be salvaged beyond the statement that some authors have questioned Hauptmann's guilt, and that Lindbergh believed in it. I'll wait for comments, but unless this gets cleaned up in a reasonable time a machete needs to be taken to it. EEng 05:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)