This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin 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 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 1, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in
1929 the
Graf Zeppelin completed a
circumnavigation of the
globe in 21 days, 5 hours and 31 minutes? |
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 8, 2004, August 8, 2005, August 8, 2011, August 8, 2012, August 8, 2014, August 8, 2020, and August 8, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin was copied or moved into LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin operational history with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
When this article was created in March, 2004, the format correctly selected was M/D/Y and that was retained (as per WP:MOS guidelines 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.1.4) for almost FOUR years until it was arbitrarily changed to D/M/Y on January 28, 2008 without that either being noted in edit summary or the opening of a section here to discuss it. I eventually restored the original formatting last October and it remained that way for ten months without complaint until three days ago when it was again arbitrarily reverted to D/M/Y without any discussion in here.
Clearly the "English-speaking" with which this article has the closest "national ties" is the United States as the Graf Zeppelin never visited any other English-speaking country.
That being the case, the arbitrary change made on August 8, 2011, to change the dates to d/y/m was contrary to the guidelines of the WP:MOS.
Added back the assesment as "B" class but I suspect it could be graded better, but it might be handy to do some copy editing and I will ask one of the guys with more expertise in assesment to see if it can be put forward for a higher grade. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The footnote was removed and the number of images was reduced to get a better balance. Need to look at unsourced paragraphs - (I know I owe a couple of citation which I will add soon). MilborneOne ( talk) 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi
It seems to me that there are far too many postage stamp related pictures in here. While I appreciate historical imagery, this seems a little over the top. Chaosdruid ( talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The great weakness I see in this article is the very poor documentation. Newsreels may have value as "see also," but they are not very sound as documentation. The same goes for web sites. The web is too ephemeral to use as a reference source or for citations and documentation. Nor is the picture of fans from Tokio (usage at the time) exactly a killer citation for the round-the-world flight. Would not a better citation be the telegram from Commander Byrd on page 688 of the article "Honors to Dr. Hugo Eckener: The First Airship Flight Around the World, in The National Geographic Magazine, Volume LVII, No. 6 be a bit more substantial as well as source material? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 19:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
After voluminous amounts of dialogue/diatribe on the issue, most editors in the WP:Aviation group would assign D/M/Y dating to this article to recognize the subject's national origin. Comments? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
Good Idea. Should we substitute periods for commas in numerals as well? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
English? Like most in this nation I speak American not English. See: H. L. Mencken, The American Language. It seems we have an intense discussion of how many dates can dance on the head of a pin. The 'American' usage is not even universal. One of the few 'growth' industries in the USA is the armed forces and they use the D/M/Y format for VERY sound reasons. If one does not wish to confuse " Boobus Americanus" as Mr. Mencken deemed him, then just put the month in letters. and all is solved. Then Boobus will be a happy camper and we can quit arguing about how many anal-retentives can dance around a toilet. If not, the would it not be best to use the oldest calendar still in use and call this Av 29, 5771? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In the case of the Graf Zeppelin, the strong national ties to the topic is that it is a German airship, and that the conventions of a "German" topic should prevail. HOWEVER, even if a Wiki consensus is called for, the business model of consensus is for all parties to agree or at least, live with the decision made by the group. It isn't a "vote-counting" exercise, although that can be a deciding factor. In this case, there is one (maybe more) obstinate advocate that will never agree with a consensus decision. In that case, the only thing that can happen is that you can only hope that the discussion/arguments/discourse set out the arguments and that even if nothing shakes the foundation of beliefs that dictates a US-centric dating, the resolution than is moved to another forum, that is to ask for "requests for comment" where knowledgeable "experts" take a look at the issues, and recommend, if not adjudicate a decision. More to come on this topic... FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 07:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
I intend to start documenting and editing on this article in a month or two. I am not a 'date' junkie. I collect books, not stamps. I wish to see the article documented and cited from reputable sources, not ephemera. The Graf Zeppelin was the best known aircraft in the world during the very late 1920s and mid-1930s. It was much more than just an airship. The Weimar government funded the construction because the airship could bring recognition to Germany, found an industry, and inspire a nation. It was a social icon to Germans. To the world it was not only colossal, it seemed the long-distant passenger transport of the future. The idea of passengers looking down as they flew over the vacant expanses of Siberia en-route non-stop from Germany to Japan, while partaking fine food and wines was MIND BOGGLING at the time. This article conveys little of that. Nor does it give a realistic idea of what it was like to fly as a passenger in an aircraft which was neither heated, or air-conditioned. These points, I feel, need a bit of attention.
My primary intent will be to document the article from sound sources. I don't wish to step on toes or unnecessarily offend some airship buff or stamp collector. I have been through the 'revision wars' with WikiGods who had a hobby horse to ride and have learned that facts do not trump connections. Nor do the endless carping on date formats in this talk page give me much hope of dealing with persons more interested in getting the job done than quibbling.
"The [airship] episode was interesting, but it has now become history (almost legend)." wrote Dr. Eckener to his friend Paul Jaray in 1950. [1] The Graf Zeppelin was the hope of an industry, the pride of a nation, a wonder of the world, and a magnificent accomplishment. The facts of the airship, it's accomplishments, and the legend it created, seem what is important. This article should inform, and it should provide the means for Wiki users to pursue the subject further if they wish. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
References
Ok, everyone on board, great. I did some work for now. Not much, just enough to give an Idea of how I work and where I am going.
I have NO problem with contemporary, or especially 'source' material. Given that this is an encyclopedic work it should be considered that we are not 'writing' history, we are reporting it in article form. Thus the use of reduced data and historical works is of great advantage. A magazine article delightfully revealing of the hype of the times does add color. As does a newsreel. They do little to provide a reader with a concise and coherent view of the subject. Contemporary material is often, usually, inherently too close to the subject for an encyclopedia article.
There ARE historical works which DO give great color. For example Dick's "Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg," is a first hand account of flying as a crew member on both ships, and of being involved in the design, construction and testing of the Hindenburg. De Syon's "Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship," or "Botting's "Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine." address the popular and cultural impacts of the Graf Zeppelin. Botting covers the round the world flight from the aspect of being a fulfillment of a dream. De Syon treats the Graf Zeppelin, the entire subject of Zeppelins, from the standpoint of it's significance to the nation which created them.
It is the Historian's toil to pick through the rubble of history, deduce patterns, analyze causes and effects, draw conclusions and produce enlightenment. The author of an encyclopedia article has to assemble what is known and accepted, then put it in a concise form accessible by the novice.
That Eckener used postal covers to help finance the Graf Zeppelin is a important part of it's history - remember, however, it is the history of the Graf Zeppelin, not postal history we are addressing.
Aéropostale was providing REAL regular intercontinental postal service between Europe and South America BEFORE the Graf Zeppelin ever flew. Eckener unabashedly create 'events' and then sold covers to cover part of the cost of his publicity stunt. Historical? Yes. Yet of what real consequence besides recording a stunt?
I have a couple of books to read on another and quite different subject which I am revisiting now, and will revisit another curiously related incident next month. Then I will dig in on this article. I hope we can improve it together. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 22:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I am still working the other two subjects (neither for Wikipedia) yet am also thinking about what needs to be done to make this a succinct and informative article about the LZ-127. Reworking an article is harder than writing one from scratch.
How 'accurate' must it be to not introduce confusing detail?
For example the information block lists Ludwig Durr as the 'designer', Yet he had not 'designed' a Zeppelin in a long time. Not since the old employee and ally of Count Zeppelin was 'kicked up stairs' to the position of 'Technical Director.' The real demands of war and the technical competition from Schutte-Lanz demanded that the Zeppelin Company adopt scientific instead of empirical methods of design. New men with new methods and approaches had to be brought in to keep the Zeppelin viable and competitive. I know who is responsible for the shape of LZ-127, and who was responsible for the approach to mathematic analysis which determined it's structure. Yet the 'common wisdom' is that Ludwig Durr 'designed' every Zeppelin. And, it must be said that he was "technical director," responsible for seeing that Zeppelins were designed and constructed.
So, do we need a couple of paragraphs to explain why the 'common wisdom' is not quite true? Or do we just roll with it because the article need inform the lay person and not appease the nit-picking that a highly informed scholar might demand?
I think the answer is that we address the layman's needs in accessing the Wikipedia for a concise and thorough overview, Yet the article should contain references be extensive enough that if that layman wishes to be guided to greater learning he might have what he needs.
There are a number of aspects of the article which need the same sort of editorial efficiency coupled with the references that might supply the leads to further information that need not be included. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
This article remains a very mixed bag. Poorly documented, some sections excellent, some bloated, and the most critical in the mind of Dr. Eckener, diminished to insignificance.
I finished works my works in progress and prepped to take on the task of turning the Graf Zeppelin into an article of scholarship worthy and true.
I re-read Botting's wonderful Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine, Dick's incredibly revealing (about technical operation) Graf Zeppelin & Hindenburg, Dr. Eckener's own operating manual for DELAG personnel, and had started upon Lessor's 'The Millionth Chance' about the R101, and a cautionary tale of how to do it all wrong. . . then a realization set in.
As fascinating as I once found the subject - fascinating enough to write, over 40 years ago, my historiography thesis on 'The Military Rigid Airship" - I had to face reality.
I am an old man. I must accept that I have only a decade or two ahead of me, and wasting my time editing Wikipedia is not worth a second of the life I have left.
Adeiu gentlemen, I wish you all good luck. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys.
I have a nice, original photo of the Graf Zeppelin - link is - http://nobandwagonhere.deviantart.com/#/d4y72yh
I also have 3 more, that are not uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 ( talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the photo (that's my DA page) and I have the originals that I scanned.
Via DA I have granted it Creative Commons license, just acknowledge the source! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 ( talk) 15:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the original photographer is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 ( talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone add altitude figures, e.g. maximum, normal? I can't find anything in the article. -- ML5 ( talk) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I challenged the addition of a conversion to Dollars in the article, this article is about a German airship and has no connection with the United States. As it has been challenged it really needs to gain a consensus before it is added, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Another editor has now twice reverted a recent addition of sourced information relating to the US Dollar equivalent then (1934) and now for passenger fares on the German airship "Graf Zeppelin" that is already supported by at least two other editors (the original poster and myself) as offering a modern basis upon which readers can understand how relatively expensive transatlantic travel was on the Graf. The reason given for reverting is that it "Dollars doesn't [sic] appear to be relevant to Germany or Brazil". I strongly disagree with this. As the borders, government(s), and financial systems in Germany have changed several times since the 1930s and WWII while there has been continuity and stability in the US Government, its financial system, and monetary denominations, the US Dollar, as the world's leading international exchange/accounting currency (the "Euro" did not exist until January 1, 1999), is by far the best unit of exchange existing in both 1934 and today to help readers understand the relative cost of travel on the Graf from Germany to Brazil. For that reason this information should be restored to and kept in the article unless and until there is consensus to remove it, and not the other way around. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Notification that comment on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Dollars. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the misattribution. MilborneOne has given their reason for removal. I have not concerned myself with their reason as I identified an alternate reason based on policy. It also relates to giving the reader an understanding but I think is of greater concern; going beyond the question of relevance of values to some readers they may not be the right values. Combining source A (RM cost of a ticket) with source B (1934 exchange rates) is analogous to giving the conversion of a person's height from metres to feet and inches. So long as the conversion is reasonable (contemporaneous or international standard) it comes under "routine calculation" as far as I am concerned. However picking one of several values given in source C (which doesn't have any overlap with source A) to then say the worth of that ticket price is such-and-such a value is a piece of original research. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This revision of the article seems to use UK English ("travelled", "aluminium"). Is there some reason it was changed? -- The Huhsz ( talk) 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Also aboard was the film-maker Merian Cooper, who was fascinated by the gorilla and the airship, and may have been influenced to make the film King Kong as a result. [1]
Regarding the commemorative 3 Reichsmark coin for the 1929 world flight, this might be a source:
Apart from this numista entry and assorted auction entires that's the best I can find. - 84user ( talk) 20:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The source for the Neutrality Act 1937 paragraph is archived here, although it is does not specify any particular restricted material (and helium is not in the text). - 84user ( talk) 21:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Links that were removed that might still be of interest, some archived to avoid link rot:
- 84user ( talk) 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I've just discovered that this edit from 2011-08-20 removed text incorrectly, including the Clarence Tehune story (added by me but with a typo which was later fixed). Likely an innocent oversight, but editors may wish to check that edit in case anything else was lost, there appear to be two or three other very short text passages removed. - 84user ( talk) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I can see only the limited free preview example showing headlines and a tiny thumbnail with the LZ 127's path down coast of France and Spain and its return to Germany. (EDIT adding this and that. - 84user ( talk) 21:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)) In the past I have made requests for old media pages with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request and I see others have successfully used it for The New York Times. - 84user ( talk) 21:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I came here six weeks ago with a question about spelling. I've ended up rewriting the article, adding from dozens of high-quality sources, mostly ones that were already referenced here but being under-utilised. I've kept almost all of the original postal images which are beautiful and highly significant to the airship. I've added a few more historical shots to give balance as the article is longer now. Perhaps a little too long, but I've tried to move ancillary detail into notes. I've also tried to achieve a balance between technical data and cultural/historical stuff. I reckon it's pretty good, but I'd definitely welcome a critique from other editors who are watching this page. Does the King Kong story belong, even in a footnote? Anyway, thanks to those who started this and who have indulged me in the weeks I've been gathering and reading sources, writing, and editing. I've learned a lot about the subject and I've enjoyed it very much. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 00:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I really like www.airships.net as a site and I have read a fair bit of it. While there are very few out-and-out errors in it, it is a hobbyist site written and compiled by Dan Grossman. His sources are listed here. I don't think he has anything very much that we don't have access to ourselves, and it's therefore a tertiary source. I've therefore progressively reduced the article's use of it; from quite a lot it's now down to zero. I'm happy to see this article now pretty much all sourced to what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
After a request for review I've had a very quick look, it is busting MOS:SANDWICH a lot. It seems well written but too long, it could be split ( WP:SPLIT) into child articles detailing the world tours etc. and expanded at the same time (win/win situation). 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This source gives 13 April 1935, and both Vaeth (1958) p 188 and Dick & Robinson (1985) p 57 give 25 April 1935. Any thoughts? -- The Huhsz ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin 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 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 1, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in
1929 the
Graf Zeppelin completed a
circumnavigation of the
globe in 21 days, 5 hours and 31 minutes? |
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 8, 2004, August 8, 2005, August 8, 2011, August 8, 2012, August 8, 2014, August 8, 2020, and August 8, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin was copied or moved into LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin operational history with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
When this article was created in March, 2004, the format correctly selected was M/D/Y and that was retained (as per WP:MOS guidelines 2.4.1.3 and 2.4.1.4) for almost FOUR years until it was arbitrarily changed to D/M/Y on January 28, 2008 without that either being noted in edit summary or the opening of a section here to discuss it. I eventually restored the original formatting last October and it remained that way for ten months without complaint until three days ago when it was again arbitrarily reverted to D/M/Y without any discussion in here.
Clearly the "English-speaking" with which this article has the closest "national ties" is the United States as the Graf Zeppelin never visited any other English-speaking country.
That being the case, the arbitrary change made on August 8, 2011, to change the dates to d/y/m was contrary to the guidelines of the WP:MOS.
Added back the assesment as "B" class but I suspect it could be graded better, but it might be handy to do some copy editing and I will ask one of the guys with more expertise in assesment to see if it can be put forward for a higher grade. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The footnote was removed and the number of images was reduced to get a better balance. Need to look at unsourced paragraphs - (I know I owe a couple of citation which I will add soon). MilborneOne ( talk) 18:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi
It seems to me that there are far too many postage stamp related pictures in here. While I appreciate historical imagery, this seems a little over the top. Chaosdruid ( talk) 20:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The great weakness I see in this article is the very poor documentation. Newsreels may have value as "see also," but they are not very sound as documentation. The same goes for web sites. The web is too ephemeral to use as a reference source or for citations and documentation. Nor is the picture of fans from Tokio (usage at the time) exactly a killer citation for the round-the-world flight. Would not a better citation be the telegram from Commander Byrd on page 688 of the article "Honors to Dr. Hugo Eckener: The First Airship Flight Around the World, in The National Geographic Magazine, Volume LVII, No. 6 be a bit more substantial as well as source material? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 19:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
After voluminous amounts of dialogue/diatribe on the issue, most editors in the WP:Aviation group would assign D/M/Y dating to this article to recognize the subject's national origin. Comments? FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
Good Idea. Should we substitute periods for commas in numerals as well? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
English? Like most in this nation I speak American not English. See: H. L. Mencken, The American Language. It seems we have an intense discussion of how many dates can dance on the head of a pin. The 'American' usage is not even universal. One of the few 'growth' industries in the USA is the armed forces and they use the D/M/Y format for VERY sound reasons. If one does not wish to confuse " Boobus Americanus" as Mr. Mencken deemed him, then just put the month in letters. and all is solved. Then Boobus will be a happy camper and we can quit arguing about how many anal-retentives can dance around a toilet. If not, the would it not be best to use the oldest calendar still in use and call this Av 29, 5771? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In the case of the Graf Zeppelin, the strong national ties to the topic is that it is a German airship, and that the conventions of a "German" topic should prevail. HOWEVER, even if a Wiki consensus is called for, the business model of consensus is for all parties to agree or at least, live with the decision made by the group. It isn't a "vote-counting" exercise, although that can be a deciding factor. In this case, there is one (maybe more) obstinate advocate that will never agree with a consensus decision. In that case, the only thing that can happen is that you can only hope that the discussion/arguments/discourse set out the arguments and that even if nothing shakes the foundation of beliefs that dictates a US-centric dating, the resolution than is moved to another forum, that is to ask for "requests for comment" where knowledgeable "experts" take a look at the issues, and recommend, if not adjudicate a decision. More to come on this topic... FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 07:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
I intend to start documenting and editing on this article in a month or two. I am not a 'date' junkie. I collect books, not stamps. I wish to see the article documented and cited from reputable sources, not ephemera. The Graf Zeppelin was the best known aircraft in the world during the very late 1920s and mid-1930s. It was much more than just an airship. The Weimar government funded the construction because the airship could bring recognition to Germany, found an industry, and inspire a nation. It was a social icon to Germans. To the world it was not only colossal, it seemed the long-distant passenger transport of the future. The idea of passengers looking down as they flew over the vacant expanses of Siberia en-route non-stop from Germany to Japan, while partaking fine food and wines was MIND BOGGLING at the time. This article conveys little of that. Nor does it give a realistic idea of what it was like to fly as a passenger in an aircraft which was neither heated, or air-conditioned. These points, I feel, need a bit of attention.
My primary intent will be to document the article from sound sources. I don't wish to step on toes or unnecessarily offend some airship buff or stamp collector. I have been through the 'revision wars' with WikiGods who had a hobby horse to ride and have learned that facts do not trump connections. Nor do the endless carping on date formats in this talk page give me much hope of dealing with persons more interested in getting the job done than quibbling.
"The [airship] episode was interesting, but it has now become history (almost legend)." wrote Dr. Eckener to his friend Paul Jaray in 1950. [1] The Graf Zeppelin was the hope of an industry, the pride of a nation, a wonder of the world, and a magnificent accomplishment. The facts of the airship, it's accomplishments, and the legend it created, seem what is important. This article should inform, and it should provide the means for Wiki users to pursue the subject further if they wish. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 16:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
References
Ok, everyone on board, great. I did some work for now. Not much, just enough to give an Idea of how I work and where I am going.
I have NO problem with contemporary, or especially 'source' material. Given that this is an encyclopedic work it should be considered that we are not 'writing' history, we are reporting it in article form. Thus the use of reduced data and historical works is of great advantage. A magazine article delightfully revealing of the hype of the times does add color. As does a newsreel. They do little to provide a reader with a concise and coherent view of the subject. Contemporary material is often, usually, inherently too close to the subject for an encyclopedia article.
There ARE historical works which DO give great color. For example Dick's "Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg," is a first hand account of flying as a crew member on both ships, and of being involved in the design, construction and testing of the Hindenburg. De Syon's "Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship," or "Botting's "Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine." address the popular and cultural impacts of the Graf Zeppelin. Botting covers the round the world flight from the aspect of being a fulfillment of a dream. De Syon treats the Graf Zeppelin, the entire subject of Zeppelins, from the standpoint of it's significance to the nation which created them.
It is the Historian's toil to pick through the rubble of history, deduce patterns, analyze causes and effects, draw conclusions and produce enlightenment. The author of an encyclopedia article has to assemble what is known and accepted, then put it in a concise form accessible by the novice.
That Eckener used postal covers to help finance the Graf Zeppelin is a important part of it's history - remember, however, it is the history of the Graf Zeppelin, not postal history we are addressing.
Aéropostale was providing REAL regular intercontinental postal service between Europe and South America BEFORE the Graf Zeppelin ever flew. Eckener unabashedly create 'events' and then sold covers to cover part of the cost of his publicity stunt. Historical? Yes. Yet of what real consequence besides recording a stunt?
I have a couple of books to read on another and quite different subject which I am revisiting now, and will revisit another curiously related incident next month. Then I will dig in on this article. I hope we can improve it together. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 22:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I am still working the other two subjects (neither for Wikipedia) yet am also thinking about what needs to be done to make this a succinct and informative article about the LZ-127. Reworking an article is harder than writing one from scratch.
How 'accurate' must it be to not introduce confusing detail?
For example the information block lists Ludwig Durr as the 'designer', Yet he had not 'designed' a Zeppelin in a long time. Not since the old employee and ally of Count Zeppelin was 'kicked up stairs' to the position of 'Technical Director.' The real demands of war and the technical competition from Schutte-Lanz demanded that the Zeppelin Company adopt scientific instead of empirical methods of design. New men with new methods and approaches had to be brought in to keep the Zeppelin viable and competitive. I know who is responsible for the shape of LZ-127, and who was responsible for the approach to mathematic analysis which determined it's structure. Yet the 'common wisdom' is that Ludwig Durr 'designed' every Zeppelin. And, it must be said that he was "technical director," responsible for seeing that Zeppelins were designed and constructed.
So, do we need a couple of paragraphs to explain why the 'common wisdom' is not quite true? Or do we just roll with it because the article need inform the lay person and not appease the nit-picking that a highly informed scholar might demand?
I think the answer is that we address the layman's needs in accessing the Wikipedia for a concise and thorough overview, Yet the article should contain references be extensive enough that if that layman wishes to be guided to greater learning he might have what he needs.
There are a number of aspects of the article which need the same sort of editorial efficiency coupled with the references that might supply the leads to further information that need not be included. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
This article remains a very mixed bag. Poorly documented, some sections excellent, some bloated, and the most critical in the mind of Dr. Eckener, diminished to insignificance.
I finished works my works in progress and prepped to take on the task of turning the Graf Zeppelin into an article of scholarship worthy and true.
I re-read Botting's wonderful Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine, Dick's incredibly revealing (about technical operation) Graf Zeppelin & Hindenburg, Dr. Eckener's own operating manual for DELAG personnel, and had started upon Lessor's 'The Millionth Chance' about the R101, and a cautionary tale of how to do it all wrong. . . then a realization set in.
As fascinating as I once found the subject - fascinating enough to write, over 40 years ago, my historiography thesis on 'The Military Rigid Airship" - I had to face reality.
I am an old man. I must accept that I have only a decade or two ahead of me, and wasting my time editing Wikipedia is not worth a second of the life I have left.
Adeiu gentlemen, I wish you all good luck. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys.
I have a nice, original photo of the Graf Zeppelin - link is - http://nobandwagonhere.deviantart.com/#/d4y72yh
I also have 3 more, that are not uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 ( talk) 21:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded the photo (that's my DA page) and I have the originals that I scanned.
Via DA I have granted it Creative Commons license, just acknowledge the source! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 ( talk) 15:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the original photographer is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.14.170 ( talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone add altitude figures, e.g. maximum, normal? I can't find anything in the article. -- ML5 ( talk) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I challenged the addition of a conversion to Dollars in the article, this article is about a German airship and has no connection with the United States. As it has been challenged it really needs to gain a consensus before it is added, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Another editor has now twice reverted a recent addition of sourced information relating to the US Dollar equivalent then (1934) and now for passenger fares on the German airship "Graf Zeppelin" that is already supported by at least two other editors (the original poster and myself) as offering a modern basis upon which readers can understand how relatively expensive transatlantic travel was on the Graf. The reason given for reverting is that it "Dollars doesn't [sic] appear to be relevant to Germany or Brazil". I strongly disagree with this. As the borders, government(s), and financial systems in Germany have changed several times since the 1930s and WWII while there has been continuity and stability in the US Government, its financial system, and monetary denominations, the US Dollar, as the world's leading international exchange/accounting currency (the "Euro" did not exist until January 1, 1999), is by far the best unit of exchange existing in both 1934 and today to help readers understand the relative cost of travel on the Graf from Germany to Brazil. For that reason this information should be restored to and kept in the article unless and until there is consensus to remove it, and not the other way around. Centpacrr ( talk) 22:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Notification that comment on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Dollars. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the misattribution. MilborneOne has given their reason for removal. I have not concerned myself with their reason as I identified an alternate reason based on policy. It also relates to giving the reader an understanding but I think is of greater concern; going beyond the question of relevance of values to some readers they may not be the right values. Combining source A (RM cost of a ticket) with source B (1934 exchange rates) is analogous to giving the conversion of a person's height from metres to feet and inches. So long as the conversion is reasonable (contemporaneous or international standard) it comes under "routine calculation" as far as I am concerned. However picking one of several values given in source C (which doesn't have any overlap with source A) to then say the worth of that ticket price is such-and-such a value is a piece of original research. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This revision of the article seems to use UK English ("travelled", "aluminium"). Is there some reason it was changed? -- The Huhsz ( talk) 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Also aboard was the film-maker Merian Cooper, who was fascinated by the gorilla and the airship, and may have been influenced to make the film King Kong as a result. [1]
Regarding the commemorative 3 Reichsmark coin for the 1929 world flight, this might be a source:
Apart from this numista entry and assorted auction entires that's the best I can find. - 84user ( talk) 20:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The source for the Neutrality Act 1937 paragraph is archived here, although it is does not specify any particular restricted material (and helium is not in the text). - 84user ( talk) 21:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Links that were removed that might still be of interest, some archived to avoid link rot:
- 84user ( talk) 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
References
I've just discovered that this edit from 2011-08-20 removed text incorrectly, including the Clarence Tehune story (added by me but with a typo which was later fixed). Likely an innocent oversight, but editors may wish to check that edit in case anything else was lost, there appear to be two or three other very short text passages removed. - 84user ( talk) 00:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I can see only the limited free preview example showing headlines and a tiny thumbnail with the LZ 127's path down coast of France and Spain and its return to Germany. (EDIT adding this and that. - 84user ( talk) 21:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)) In the past I have made requests for old media pages with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request and I see others have successfully used it for The New York Times. - 84user ( talk) 21:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I came here six weeks ago with a question about spelling. I've ended up rewriting the article, adding from dozens of high-quality sources, mostly ones that were already referenced here but being under-utilised. I've kept almost all of the original postal images which are beautiful and highly significant to the airship. I've added a few more historical shots to give balance as the article is longer now. Perhaps a little too long, but I've tried to move ancillary detail into notes. I've also tried to achieve a balance between technical data and cultural/historical stuff. I reckon it's pretty good, but I'd definitely welcome a critique from other editors who are watching this page. Does the King Kong story belong, even in a footnote? Anyway, thanks to those who started this and who have indulged me in the weeks I've been gathering and reading sources, writing, and editing. I've learned a lot about the subject and I've enjoyed it very much. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 00:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I really like www.airships.net as a site and I have read a fair bit of it. While there are very few out-and-out errors in it, it is a hobbyist site written and compiled by Dan Grossman. His sources are listed here. I don't think he has anything very much that we don't have access to ourselves, and it's therefore a tertiary source. I've therefore progressively reduced the article's use of it; from quite a lot it's now down to zero. I'm happy to see this article now pretty much all sourced to what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
After a request for review I've had a very quick look, it is busting MOS:SANDWICH a lot. It seems well written but too long, it could be split ( WP:SPLIT) into child articles detailing the world tours etc. and expanded at the same time (win/win situation). 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
This source gives 13 April 1935, and both Vaeth (1958) p 188 and Dick & Robinson (1985) p 57 give 25 April 1935. Any thoughts? -- The Huhsz ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)