Jump to content

Talk:Zeppelin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

During World War I / Raids is too long & detailed

The current [World War I#Raids] section is too long and detailed and should be cut down to at least 1/3rd of its current size. While an admirable amount of work seems to have gone into this section, I think that it would be more suited for Wikimedia Commons or similar, I'm sure WP:NOT has something on that issue. Also, this section doesn't reference any sources. 82.83.184.113 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The period in which the Zeppelin airship went from primitive to highly developed was WWI. The force driving that development was WWI. The changes in Zeppelin development and operations during the raids of WWI are a concise example of the forces which molded the development of the manned bomber. The vast majority of rigid airships served the German Army and Navy during WWI. The majority of men who ever commanded or flew in airships did so in Zeppelins during WWI. The Zeppelin raids against England, France, Russia, Italy and Austria deserve coverage in depth for a multitude of reasons.Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sutton's Farm / RAF Hornchurch

  • Could you please make a reference to the first recorded interception of a Zeppelin in WW1?
    "The first recorded interception of an enemy airship was Lt John Slessor on 13th October 1915, in a BE2c flying from Sutton's Farm. As he approached to start his attack, however, the aircraft disappeared into cloud and he had to break off the engagement". The reference is: Richard C Smith, Second To None, p10, Grub Street, 2004, ISBN 1-904010-78-4. Snapper five (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Edit/Minor Edit

I just changed the text from "Economically, it was a bit of a surprise even in the 1930s that Zeppelins could actually compete with other means of transatlantic transport." to "Economically, it was surprising that even in the 1930s, Zeppelins could compete with other means of transatlantic transport." I marked it as a minor edit, but maybe should not have. If anyone has any input, that would be great, or if you want to revert it back to the original text, please do so. I just thought it sounded much to informal. It still does sound informal, especially without any citation, but it does sound better.

If anyone has any references, please add, because this article is very under-sourced. Lost kafei (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The airship name's connection to the rock band's name

'For the English rock band, see Led Zeppelin' being located at the top of the page is good, but I think it would also be a good idea to have something in the 'Cultural References' section explaining the connection between the names.

This site, http://ledzeppelin.alexreisner.com/faq.html, bears an answer:

" 3. What is the origin of the Led Zeppelin's name?

When Jimmy Page was assembling the group, Keith Moon (drummer from The Who) got word of his plans and predicted the group would go down "like a lead balloon" (this is a common English expression). Bassist and keyboardist John Entwistle thought it would be "more like a lead zeppelin." Page took the phrase and manager Peter Grant changed the spelling to "led" in order to avoid mispronunciation. "

I remember the same info from Stephen Davis' "Hammer of the Gods" biography, but I don't have the exact quote from that book in front of me. Ergo, the connection isn't huge, but I think it should be explained.

KingAlanI 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

older entries

I removed the reference to the Hindenburg operating profitably. They were barely breaking even and only because the Americans offered the use of Lakehurst at a heavily subsidised rate. As well, the artile indicated that non-rigids "generally" do not have multiple cells. The reality is that they never have multiple cells.

I reverted the changes by 80.148.17.33. They consisted of removing contents (two images, some headlines, last sections of article, links to foreign language versions) for no apparent reasons and without justification. J.Rohrer 10:55, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I removed this from the article: "all Zeppelins have a no smoking rule."

— Matt 15:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


David Schwarz

The mention of Croat/Jew from Zagreb David Schwarz in this article is great. As most people NOW know he was the inventor of the airship and made a few prototypes. Upon his sudden death his wife sold the plans to the Germans. The Germans for many years made no reference to David Schwarz as the inventor and passed the invention as German. Good to see the truth come out and he has finally got some recegnition for his work. It also says alot about the Jewish community in Eastern Europe who have always been outstanding citizens to which ever counrty.

Evergreen

The Germans have no monopoly on nationalistic tendencies when writing history. Just look at the Wright-brothers/Santos-Dumont controversy vis-a-vis the first airplane flight. Most histories of airships that I've read (in English) do mention Schwarz's work. However, none of Schwarz's designs ever flew successfully. So it is a bit over the top to say Schwarz was "the inventor." There were lots of folks who had similarly limited successes. And, although popular historians and the press can't seem to resist, it is an oversimplification to label any one person as "the inventor" in most cases. For example, without the talent and contributions of Durr and others, the Count's ships might never have been successful either. Rather than a particularly strong technical vision, what Zeppelin brought was a driving focus and the ability to work the levers of public sentiment and government to obtain the resources necessary to move the work forward. Blimpguy 11:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The history section must be well overdone. Not only it is completely biased towards Count Zeppelin but is also neglecting any other inventors. My grandgrandgrandfather bacame interested in constructing an airship around 1840 but he is also not mentioned. To be objective and include all the facts, one must start the history with genius of David Schwarz. After all, his airship was the first successful attempt to fly it, but happened month after his death. On the other hand, Zeppelin must be labeled with two labels. One as a thief (as many people like Carl Berg, that collaborated with both and Schwarz and Zeppelin called him) and the second label as a buyer of Schwarz's patent from his widow. Starting the history with Zeppelin is really a no-go. The fact that the ship would later be called after a buyer or a thief is not a reason enough to state that everything started with him.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Never flew? Not true! The German Army flew it. And the Zeppelin was created accordingly, following his drawings. So it turns out that on both sides of WWI (Weizmann for the British and Schwartz for the Germans) sadly, by trying to be over patriotic, contributed to great destruction. See David Schwartz.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Schütte-Lanz

The section Technological progress should really include a mention of Shutte-Lanz, as many innovations were copied from this company. An aerodynamic shape and simple cruciform empennage (tail) are good examples. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to mess up a featured article (I'm new to this).

13:43, 14 July 2004 (UTC)

You are right, Schütte-Lanz (sic!) deserves to be mentioned there, so I put this on my to-do list (though you should not feel too intimidated by the featured status). They should, however, be treated rather briefly as the article is already quite long, so the focus should remain the "actual" Zeppelins. By the way, I intend to translate de:Schütte-Lanz (after some expansions there) when I find some time, but I cannot promise that will be soon. --J.Rohrer 22:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Done. If you are a native speaker, please check my additions for syntax and grammar, because I am not. --J.Rohrer 00:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, so I can't spell. ;) I've changed the ventilation shafts slightly. I hope you like it. 12:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to some sources, LZ2 was first flown 30 November 1905. 17 January 1906 would have been the second and last flight.

Zeppelins were used extensively by US during the IIWW

Seriously. See 'Zeppelins in the Second World War' section. And to think this got featured with such a serious factual error claiming IIWW was the death of zeppelins... :> Enjoy :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that section is badly broken. The biggest problem that I see is the inclusion of information about non-rigids as "pressure zeppelins". This information belongs elsewhere (perhaps it's time to create an article on US Navy Airships during WWII) and the discussion here focused on rigids -- particularly those produced by the zepp company. Blimpguy 23:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was translating this from Polish article and I admit I didn't know the right English terminology. Based on Polish wiki article, there are three types of zeppelins: szkieletowe (skeleton?), półszkieletowe (half-skeleton?), ciśnieniowe (pressure?). They have their stubs on pl wiki but no linkage to English one, so I couldn't base my translation on that :( If this artcle is getting to long, it would be a good idea to create a subarticle you mention. I'll leave it up to you - my main goal was to correct the mistake that zeppelnis were not used in IIWW. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gimme them WW2 zeps! I'd love to know more, being a buff of both. Trekphiler 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The last two rigid airships (the Zeppelins LZ 127 and LZ 130) were wrecked 1940. In World War 2 there were only US-non-rigid-airships in service.

I edited the WWII section

I cleaned up the language, although there is still some unusual terminology in there. I'm familiar with the technology and history, but not about the specific facts of the WWII service.

Much tnx. I was dead tired yesterday so you saved me the trouble of doint this myself now :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not a prob. I think this section needs more research and discussion because I suspect it is inaccurate in the United States references. There seems to be a lot of confusion in terminology between what is a Zeppelin, Airship, Dirigible, "Pressure Zeppelin", and Blimp. While the US did have some Zeppelins at the start of the war, most of the patrols and reconnaissance were performed by Blimps which the Polish reference seems to call "Pressure Zeppelins". I'm not sure how these should best be split but most of this should be moved to Airship, if not Blimp. It may have been accurate that Zeppelin-Zeppelins were not actually used in WWII but only in the immediate prelude to the conflict by LZ130.
The section is based entirely (so far) on my translation of a Polish article from magazine 'Lotnictwo' 3/92, Sterowce w drugiej wojnie światowej by Andrzej Morgała, member of Wingfoot Lighter Then Air Society. I think it is factual accurate (otherwise I'd have not translated it for Wiki), but I admit my lack of specialized terminology might have resulted in some errors. You are right, however, that most of this section (about non-German airships) should be moved. The lead sais Due to the outstanding success of the Zeppelin design, the term zeppelin in casual use came to refer to all rigid airships. This article, however, focuses on Zeppelins in the narrower sense of the word. - seems that I have missed it before. I will take care of moving it in a few hours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
WWII section on non-German aircraft moved to aircraft article. Part of the Recent Developments section may be moved as well, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. If some of the external links are reliable sources and were used as references, they can be placed in a References section too. See the cite sources link for how to format them. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

You want a list of sources?

I have over 30 books on the subject of rigid airships. Can I help?Mark Lincoln 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DELAG

Can somebody with better German than me translate it? Is it Ger Airship Mfg Inc? Trekphiler 15:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to translate DELAG - Deutsche Luftschifffahrts Aktiengesellschaft? German Airship Shipping Stock Corporation. It was the first Airline of the World. Hadhuey 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

planned use of helium on Hindenburg

70.121.164.118 - Every history of the Hindenburg discusses it's initial design assuming Helium. For example Dr. Eckener's Dream Machine page 249. The LZ128 design was cancelled after the crash of R101 because it had been designed with to work Hydrogen. Please provide a credible reference for your position that Hindenburg was expected to be Hydrogen ship from the outset. Regards. Blimpguy 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mooring

Anyone know where these were moored in the alps?

Led Zeppelin

Someone deleted the disambiguation link to Led Zeppelin. I went and read Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and it seems to fit just fine (I can imagine a Zeppelin fan simply writing Zeppelin, or someone who is not quite a fan forgetting just how to spell "Led"). If you would like to delete that link, please let us know why. Thanks. Ted 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, it would be different if Wikipedia had a decent search engine. It doesn't, so we are stuck with adding redirects when useful. Ted 15:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an insanely small number of people you're helping out, compared to the large number of people who at the very least have to skim over it to make sure it doesn't apply to them. The search engine isn't as bad as you claim. --Dtcdthingy 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That can be applied to many of the disambiguation lines I've seen, although I do agree with you that Zeppelin fans are probably insane. In any case, I'll move on. Do what you want.

As for the search engine, I can only think that you really haven't used it. In most cases, you are better off using an off-site search engine. For example, try to find Led Zeppelin without being able to spell it correctly. "Led" leads to LED, and you get nothing for "Zepp*" or "Led Zep*". Its embarrassingly awful. Cheers! Ted 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The search engine is horrible. There have been times when I've spelled one letter wrong, and i couldn't come up with anything. And no, us Led Zeppelin fans aren't insane. Muchachos (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dirigible

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I believe that dirigible includes non-rigid airships, such as blimps, so it isn't a synonym for rigid airship. If that is the case, the first sentence should be re-written. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please. Phil 07:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I decided not to be a wallflower about it and made the change. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. Phil 07:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

references

I have just finished reading "i know you got soul" by jeremy clarkson who devotes an entire chapter of his bestseller to the airship - in particular the zepplin - I know that you people are the best authority but there are some good references in there Ericmakesthree 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The term Dirigible was first used in 1572. The first actual 'dirigible' was flown by Henri Giffard of France in 1852. You are correct Phill. Jeremy Clarkson is quite funny. He is not, however, a competent historian.Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

moving cultural influences to a separate article

This article is quite large. We should consider moving distinct sections to their own articles. I propose creating an article "Zeppelins in culture" in the spirit of the existing "airships in culture" article and moving the entire contents there. Thoughts? Blimpguy 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

technical error: "powered by three Maybach motors of around 400-550 horsepower (300–410 kW) each, thus reaching speeds up to about 80 km/h (100 mph)." MPH must be less than km/h for equivalent speed. If 80km/h is correct, then 50 mph should be used. If 100 mph is correct, then 161 km/h should be used.

Sing what?

"calypsonian"? Trekphiler 11:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if this was cited in cultural references, but also in Doctor Who, The Doctor, Rose and Mickey end up in a parallel universe. There, Cybus Industries use zeppelins for transportation, while the elite actually live in them. Apologies if I sound geeky, but I thought I'd might include that here.Fangarius (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What was it like to fly on a zeppelin?

Can we get some contemporary accounts as to the experience of flying in a zeppelin? What about navigating one? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.3.215.250 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

No problem. Harold Dick's book is excellent. He was a Goodyear Zeppelin inside man who flew often as crew on the LZ-127 and LZ-129.

There was lots of press coverage during the 20s and 30s.

I would also recommend Douglas Botting's "Dr. Ecckener's Dream Machine" ISBN 0-8050-6459-1

Potential errors

The page states that zeppelins "can be built much smaller, which enables them to lift lighter loads ... than non-rigids".

I'm not an aerospace engineer, but weren't zeppelins larger and lifting heavier loads than blimps?

Mbini 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the largest blimps ever flown, the ZPG-3Ws were far larger than most WW II blimps and much smaller than the larger WW I Zeppelins.

Because the volume increases faster than structural weight as the size of a rigid airship goes up, the bigger the better - that is until you try to put it in the hanger.Mark Lincoln 22:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Coordinates: 47°40′27″N, 9°30′26″E?

Why? Anyone? J. D. Redding 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing either first flight location, or headquarters of the company, since the coordinates seem to be in Germany. --OuroborosCobra 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the coordinates point to an airport near the Bodensee, where the first zeppelin was constructed and flown.[1] As for their being placed there, I am uncertain as to whether or not this is customary. --TheFinalFraek 12:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

hmmm ... does it need to be there? Can someone provide a source or note to it? J. D. Redding 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeppelin NT

Interesting or not: The Zeppelin NT has 3 tail fins: one at the top and the other two below at a 120 degree (or so) offset, and there are 2 tail propellers. -- 02 July 2007 Puddington

Sutton's Farm

  • Could you please make a reference to the first recorded interception of a Zeppelin?
    "The first recorded interception of an enemy airship was Lt John Slessor on 13th October 1915, in a BE2c flying from Sutton's Farm. As he approached to start his attack, however, the aircraft disappeared into cloud and he had to break off the engagement". The reference is: Richard C Smith, Second To None, p10, Grub Street, 2004, ISBN 1-904010-78-4. Snapper five (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

The cost of fuel for flying is now a major issue. What are the basic facts about energy efficiency, for modern heavier-than-air vs. lighter-than air flying, of goods and/or passengers? -69.87.200.75 (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight simulation

Do any computer games exist that provide reasonably accurate simulation of Zeppelin control and flight? Drutt (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Second flight date question

This sentence needs clarification. Any ideas when the second flight was??? Thanks. "the second and third flights were in October 1900 and October 24, 1900 respectively" Treborragob (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added a citation for October 17 and October 24 for the second and third flights. I then noticed several other sections did not match the sources I have (Dooley and Eckener), so I rewrote quite a bit. -84user (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Kirby's dream land?

There is a zeppelin boss in the game Kirby's dream land (Kaboola) Should i add that to the Culture page? --Manty64 (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The future of the Zeppelin's

Hello,

The Zeppelin article covers quite well the history, but there is no mention about the future. Is it really so that the technology is outdated and there is no need to say anyting about future since there is one for this type of technology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the technology is outdated.Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

carbon dioxide emissions & other emmissions of Zeppelin versus Aircrafts?

Hello,

Does anyone know how much is the carbon dioxide emissions & other emmissions of Zeppelin versus Aircrafts? I have not ever heard any kind of comparisons. I suppose the zeppelin creates more emissions since it is old technology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1930 zeppelin international cruise plans that newer came into reality

I saw an old video where was menion that before the war Zeppelin company was developing international zeppelin cruise routes. There was already build halls and airfield in Germany but then the war came.

I suppose if some one knows more about this cruise plan I would appriciate the info. I am intrested to study would "luxury cruises in the air" have business plan idea in modern day Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Passivating" the hydrogen gas for less flammable gas

Hello,

I read an article from internet that there is serious study done to make hydrogen less flammable. I wonder would this kind on "new hydrogen" have future in the Zeppelin business? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everything you read on the internet is true. Hydrogen has a great affinity for oxygen. The ONLY way to make hydrogen 'safe' is to keep it away from ANY element which is capable of redox, reduction oxidation, with hydrogen. The value of hydrogen as a lifting gas is its molecular weight. There are gases used for lifting gas which hydrogen exists in a reduced state such as coal gas and natural gas. They have far less lifting power and are STILL flammable.Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on non-British targets

Much of the WWI section details attacks on British targets yet there is hardly any info on attacks against France or other Allied powers. This needs to be fleshed out. There is also a scarcity of information about Allied airships in Wikipedia.--Countakeshi (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against other targets were few and of little importance. Attacks against France usually encountered intense opposition with a number of airships destroyed (I have a piece of the structure of L-39). Allied Airships constituted British rigids and blimps. The rigids were a story of too little, too late, and ill handled. The blimps were significant and perhaps need to be addressed. The other major operators were the French who used their blimps for coastal patrol and the Italians who used semi-rigid airships for bombing and patrol work (the first military use of an airship in war involved an Italian semi-rigid bombing Libyans).Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

As mentioned at the top of this page, the section on WW 1 seems inordinately long, (the article is 82k, the WW 1 section is more than half that). Somebody has also pointed out the potential copyright violations.
Having said that, there seems to be a summary of casualties and damage for 1916 but not for 1915 and 1917. It rather unbalances the article. RASAM (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahistorical judgement

I support the previous deletion of "although the public and media reaction was out of proportion to the death toll", this judgement appears to me to be ahistorical and POV. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems a fact to me that the press and public went schizo over the Zeppelins, when in reality the threat was very minor and the Germans used it more as psychological warfare, with the added bonus of tying up resources at the home front. So maybe the wording isn't right, but the zeitgeist should be conveyed somehow. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The British DID go bonkers at the idea of being attacked from the air. This was an extension of the Zeppelin hysteria preceding the war which bears great similarity to the flying saucer hysteria of the late 1940s and early 50s. The Germans who promoted strategic bombing were far more concerned with the idea of destroying British economic power and industry. As it became clear those goals were impossible it became normal to argue that the Zeppelins pinned down large numbers of troops and aircraft in the British Island which would have been deployed on the Western Front were there no threat.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger of two articles

I think that the articles on airship and zeppelin need to be merged with each other, and the the remainin article have redirects from both titles airahip and zeppelin. Just look at the two articles, and you will see that the overlap to a huge degree. There are two ways of explaining this:
A. About 75% of all airships have been zeppelins (German-made and used, during the First Reich (the German Empire) and the Third Reich, or
B. The word zeppelin became a generic term for an airship no matter what country built or flew them. From this point of view, even the United States and the United Kingdom have flown zeppelins (look up the U.S. Navy's zeppelins named the USS Akron (ZRS-4), the USS Macon (ZRS-5), and the USS Los Angeles. 98.67.161.233 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that Zeppelin has a great deal of its own source material, separate from Airship. The two articles can coexist. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture of "Observation Car"

Is this really the observation car!? It looks much more like a bomb from a zeppelin than the observation car.

It is, honest. The bombs used by Zeppelins looked nothing like the observation car shown. The observation car, despite it's imaginative appeal, was of little use.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

The kaiser authorised air raids against England on 19 January 1915 but the first raid was launched on 13 January? Can someone check this. Drutt (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am moving an expired Reuters link from Zeppelin#Further reading (oldid) to here:

A single-sentence fragment of that article is at [2] with this added explanation:

The story "Zeppelin seeks hidden diamond stashes in Kalahari" published June 10, 2006 at 6:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News. Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

-84user (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research?

I'd like to discuss a change by an anonymous User:82.24.219.17. The large unsourced text was entered as described here in this diff page. I've confirmed via Google/GoogleBooks that at least it's not a copy violation of the publicly available source; i.e. it seems that all pages in the Internet copied it from Wikipedia, not the other way around. I'm assuming this is WP:original research and not copyvio. As the text is much to detailed for an encyclopedic article and seemingly WP:OR, I think it should be moved to Wikibooks. (Or maybe Wikiversity?) Here it needs to be re-written as a concise summary. Also, the bombing description has British-centric POV, and re-write would correct this too. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean by British-centric POV? As far as I can see it is descriptive of the Zeppelin raids on Britain, and does not seem to express a point of view. I'm pretty sure my Dad (who witnessed Zeppelin raids on a residential part of London and described collecting shrapnel as a very small boy) would have described this very differently! I agree it seems too detailed and probably ought to be cut down. Pterre (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've expressed myself imprecisely. I meant lack of balance. Descriptions of raids over UK are long and very very detailed, while there is almost no information about Zeppelin bombings in other countries (France? Russia?). Similarly I see lack of balance in the amount of text devoted to naval patrols as contrasted to bombing (although at least article states that the former was a primary use of airships, not the latter). --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentleman, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. - President Murphy Muffin

When ever one of the Wiki Gods doesn't like what is published they invoke the Original Research Spell. This is intended to damn by ignorance anything that they do not like.

Original Research in the sense that would count for points in a doctoral thesis would involve finding source material which had not been used before and using it to develop a hypothesis or opinion about the history affected. This, of course, has nothing to do with the use of the term by Wiki Gods. All they mean is they don't like what is being reported.

The only way to defend against this is to cite prior research no matter how undependable. Even this will not work if the Wiki God is determined to force their opinion against actual research which is cited.

If you wish to edit Wikipedia you have to understand that there are those who are 'in' and the rest who are 'out.'

An 'Out' cannot oppose an "In,' one may , however, post a sound enough citation and reference that the 'In' (aka Wiki God) will cause the ignorant to stop opposing. If the passion of the Wiki God, aka 'In,' is passionate enough in their ignorance no one will dare to read the cited reference, or having done so, risk opposing the Wiki God.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Cultural influences

With this edit I removed most of the unsourced stuff and inserted cites for the first musical influence. I am sure sources for most of the others can be found, but until they are it is best if this section remains (mostly) fully sourced. I added a citation needed tag on the rarity claim (I was tempted to simply remove it), after finding a contrary source, but, again, they may indeed be a source that comments on the relative rarity of Zeppelin postal covers that could be used to reword that paragraph. -84user (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Zed Zeppelin! That really matters. As a proud possessor of Led Zeppelin's first album and from it's first pressing, I agree.

To pretend that the most important cultural influence of the Zeppelin only involved the name of a rock band and a cover of the Hindenburg reduced to black and white is . . . well idiotic.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Other types of rigids

Anyone else feel that this article should just be about Zeppelin airships and that all other types/makes mentioned belong in the Rigid airship article? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the Zeppelin#Non-German Zeppelin-type airships, I suppose the discussion of the British airships could be reduced to their design similarities to Zeppelins. Otherwise, it should be Ok to mention Schutte Lanz airships in that their design had a direct effect on Zeppelin development. -84user (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
"Zeppelin" is correctly used in reference to rigid airships designed by companies founded by Count Zeppelin. It ALSO was a generic term (as I child my best friends mom called the Goodyear blimp a 'zeppelin.' I think this article should only reference the pathetic British airship program or the ground-breaking Schute-Lanz ships in passing as they were either affected by, or affected the history of Zeppelin airships.Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Leefe Robinson

The reference to Lt. Leefe Robinson being the first pilot to shoot down a Zeppelin is incorrect. The airship which he destroyed was a Schutte-Lanz, hence its designation SL 11. H.J.Woodthorpe Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref></ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.181.54 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-06:11:12:10

I agree. Thanks for the heads up. I reworded it here. -84user (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced sections problematic

I was very tempted to boldly move the wholly un-sourced sections on raids from the article to Talk page here. It has been challenged as Original Research since 2009, and two years later not a single inline citation has been added. This causes several problems. 1. I am reluctant to edit or check any changes made to it because there is no easy way to verify them. 2. There is a chance it is a copyright violation which will make any work on it a waste of time. This happened once before to edits I and other editors had made to an extensive block of unsourced text. The whole lot had to be removed and several years of edits were removed. I have tried to check whether the text appeared elsewhere before its appearance here, but so far draw a blank, but the possibility remains. Maybe we should give these sections a six months ultimatum and any paragraph still unsourced must be then removed? I have started by adding a couple of sources to a copy and pasted section I found (unrelated to the massive text dump, note). I also modified the claim about Leefe noted above, still sadly needing a source.

Please note that adding unsourced material is against Wikipedia's principles. -84user (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be to farm out much of the detail on the bombing raids during each year of the Second World War to a separate article, with just an overview here. That would at least contain the problem so far as this article is concerned, and that new one could be worked on independently. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Most of it can be sourced from the following book: Castle, Ian (2008). London 1914-17 : the Zeppelin menace. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 9781846032455. Not a copyvio. The text is valuable IMHO. Creating new articles about zep/SL bombings during WWI is not necessary. It make more sense to expand articles Strategic bombing during World War I and German strategic bombing during World War I with: birth of strategic bombing, shift of military tactics with terror bombings of civilians, first attempts with rigid air ships (Zep, SL) then with Gothas --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Far more important as a source than the anemic Osprey re-hash would be The Zeppelin in Combat (Robinson), Zeppelin (Lehman and Mingus), The British Rigid Airship (Higham)" Zeppelin (Rimel), The Zeppelin Fighters, (Whitehouse), Mr. Eckener's Dream Machine (Botting) and Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship, 1900-1937 (de Syon).

A good editor will cite and reference their additions though all too many use the crappy 'notes' rather than Foot Notes method.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The DREADED "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" Issue

I cannot say I have read anything approaching 'original research' in this article. It is VERY poorly documented and cited. Too much is hanging upon web references and citations. Too little upon books subject to editorial review. There are important histories of overwhelming authority and importance which are not even given as references nor cited upon critical points. it seems clear from the text that some of these may have been either the source of material, or can be used to cite the claims made. Nowhere is this more true than in the sections concerning WWI raids. I would like to work this article over to improve it's credibility as serious history.

Of particular concern would be the citation of works which would remove the doubts causing the Dreaded Original Research tag.For this to be done the Wiki God who invoked the killer 'Original Research" Spell might provide specific issues. As I have NEVER seen the Dreaded Original Research Spell invoked by a Wiki God where they stated EXACTLY what they though the "original research," I do not expect any response from those Ever So High and Exhaulted Gods. Their right as Gods is to dictate and decree. Our role as peasants toiling in the fields is to submit and eat shit.

I shall again try to post this including my self-citation.Mark Lincoln (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A thoroughly entertaining post! As you seem to have such strong feelings about this issue why don't you trawl back through the article's history and shake the monkey off its branch? As the article stands at the moment there seems to be very little in the way of original research. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall do so as soon as I clear the decks on a few pages I have been working upon including one I authored, US Army Airships.Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops.

Apologies for accidentally reverting in the wrong direction. I wasn't paying enough attention. APL (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No sweat, no worries. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zeppelin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated Fa because it is an FA, rated top because it is a "core topic", i.e the basis for all Zepplin articles. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeppelin/Archive_1&oldid=791798158"