Template:Did you know nominations/1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps


 * 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 Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps

 * ... that a significant portion of the revenue from the sale of the US 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) went to the Zeppelin Airship company in, and as a gesture of good will towards, Germany?
 * Comment: QPQ: This is my 6th DYK nomination: Have reviewed three nominations in past; See User:Gwillhickers/DYK QPQ
 * Also have recently reviewed: Cymbiola nobilis (on June 1) and Thomas Elfe House (on June 2)
 * Also have recently reviewed: Cymbiola nobilis (on June 1) and Thomas Elfe House (on June 2)

5x expanded by Gwillhickers (talk). Self nominated at 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for your effort in improving this article. Your additional text certainly made it more interesting to me. This is my first foray into reviewing a DYK nomination, so please bear with me if I have misundestood or misinterpeted some of the DYK criteria. Bruin2 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Hook Other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruin2 (talk • contribs) 14:43 4 June 2014
 * The article complies with the 5X expansion required for updating;
 * It was nominated within 5 days of completion;
 * It exceeds the minimum 1500 characters length requirement.;
 * It is neutral, has in-line citations and is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism as far as I can tell; (Ido not have access to reference by Ganz, nor have I searched for any uncited references). (unsigned section added by Bruin2 on 4 June 2014, according to page history).
 * The hook is short enough and meets formatting guidelines;
 * It is interesting (to me), accurate and has an inline citation;
 * It is neutral and does not comment negatively on living people.(unsigned section added by Bruin2 on 4 June 2014, according to page history)
 * The images are solely of U.S. postage stamps, so should be in the public domain (as I understand copyright laws);
 * Images meet all other requirements;
 * Confirmed that the nominator previously has reviewed at least one DYK nomination.
 * Comment. Since the 'Ganz' source was not used in any of the citations I have moved it to the 'Further reading' section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg This is an add-on to the above review by Bruin2 which still stands, apart from the issue mentioned below. QPQ OK. The hook checks out with online citations #1 and #2. No problems with disambig links or external links. Issue: The original hook has 205 characters, but should be limited to 200 max. I like the hook's content; it's just too wordy. Gwillhickers, if you could kindly give us a shorter ALT1 that says the same thing, please ping me to review it and let's get this nom done. --Storye book (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that part of the revenue from the U.S. 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) was given as good will to the Zeppelin Airship company?
 * alt1 offered Victuallers (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you Victuallers. ALT1 checks out on same citations. Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I removed this from the prep area.  The article is incorrectly worded.
 * The issuance of the stamp was good will intended for Germany, not the air ship company. Because of its great success in 1928 and 1929, the Zeppelin Company planned a trip to the United States by way of Spain and South America. The Graf Zeppelin was to carry mail both ways. The Postmaster General decided to issue this series of stamps for two reasons. The first and most obvious was to cover payment for mail to be sent on the flight. And secondly, the stamps were intended as a gesture of good will toward Germany.
 * The finances of it did not mention goodwill. The Postal Service agreed to produce a set of 3 unique Graf Zeppelin Airmail postage stamps to commemorate a transatlantic flight, even though the U.S. Post Office would receive only 6.5% of the stamp’s denomination for letters that traveled on the Graf Zeppelin. The German Zeppelin Airship Works would enjoy the lion’s share of the profit from each stamp, but only on stamps that actually traveled on their airship. The U.S. Postal Service agreed to issue the stamps regardless because it was thought that most of the customers would be philatelists looking to add the stamps to their collection, thus retaining all of the revenue for the Post Office. — Maile  (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maile66, you are right. @ Gwillhickers and Victuallers. Please could you kindly give us a hook similar to the original hook, but (a) under 200 characters (this tool works OK) and (b) saying that the goodwill was to Germany and not to the Zeppelin company? E.g. something like ... that the Zeppelin Airship company received revenue intended as goodwill to Germany, from the U.S. 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured)?, or maybe "... that part of the revenue from the U.S. 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) was given to a German Airship company, in goodwill to its fatherland? --Storye book (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the article also needs to be corrected, because that is where the error comes from. The first source says that the act of issuing the stamps was the good will for Germany, not the money.  You know, like issuing an Elvis stamp made the Elvis fans happy, while the financial arrangements with his estate was a separate licensing deal never intended to involve the fans. And only one source mentions good will for Germany.  The only inference in that particular source to finances is where it says it was to pay for transport of the mail. That would be just like the government would pay any other non-government transport carrier. It also says in that source that there were three different stamps issued, the color and denomination of the stamp determining how much mail it paid for. The second source doesn't technically say why the Zeppelin company got any money, only that it got most of the revenue. I think it's easier to leave the money out of the hook altogether. — Maile  (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maile. Citation 4 mentions causes of rarity (costly for collectors, withdrawal from sale, destruction of remainder) and says they're now "treasured" - so maybe a hook about comparative rarity and being "treasured", with a picture? They are nice-looking stamps, after all. --Storye book (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion best of all - go with a hook on the rarity aspect. It's a neat article with some good possibilities on hooks.  We should just stay away from inferring that the money was intended for Germany.  That would have to be earmarked in the government's annual budget, approved by both houses of Congress, and signed off by the President of the U.S.  It was more likely a licensing agreement with the trademark holder, Zeppelin.  — Maile  (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't both write the hook and pass it. Which do you want me to do? --Storye book (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Storye book, This is the hook trimmed down a bit and the one I prefer. ... that a significant portion of the revenue from the sale of the US 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) went to the Zeppelin Airship company in, and as a gesture of good will towards, Germany? Two sources are used for parts of the one sentence. One for 'good will', the other for 'support for the Zeppelin airship' company. Statement is factual per reliable sources and much more interesting than a comment about rarity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not factual if you indicate any money was intended for the country of Germany, for any reason. Nothing in the sources says this. The United States earmarking money for another country requires an act of Congress. — Maile (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am relating what reliable sources have said and like anyone else, assuming what was said is true. I didn't realize it was going to be examined for its legalities, per congress, et all. Money "earmarked" for Germany was controversial at the time, like the sources says, probably because Congress was not involved, the source didn't go into the legal details, but this is why I found this particular hook much more interesting than a comment about rarity, something that is shared by many different individual stamps. You're also entering a debate about the reliable sources and for all practical purposes are trying to impeach them it seems. The sources are reliable, are recognized and major stamp dealers, one of whom offers consultation for and sponsors the Smithsonian National Postal Museum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Gwillhickers, my bad, we can no longer have a goodwill-for-Germany hook or a revenue-from-stamps hook, because that got thrown out of prep. So unless you can can think of a better idea, it's the rarity hook. Please could you kindly write it for us so I can (hopefully) give it a tick and get it done with? It's waited too long now. --Storye book (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Storye book -- Thrown out of prep? What does this mean? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, Let me take a guess that there might be a misunderstanding or two going on. By "thrown out of prep", Storye book means this was in a Prep area and got pulled because the hook does not jive with the source.  Both you and  have understood the sources to say exactly how he worded the ALT1 - "that part of the revenue from the U.S. 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps was given as goodwill to the Zeppelin Airship company?". This is not factual.  The goodwill and the revenue were two different things and say so in the sources.  The act of issuing the stamp was in part as a goodwill gesture to Germany.  However, the revenue was a separate issue.  It was took a legal document to divy up the proceeds -  licensing agreement between the US postal service and the trademark holder, that being Zeppelin. The source says only Zeppelin got the money.  Zeppelin got the proceeds because they were the trademark holder , but those proceeds were simply a business deal, not a part of any good will.  Please read the source carefully.  The good will gesture with Germany had no money attached.— Maile  (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Maile, Okay, I can forego the 'goodwill' part. It would be an assumption that the money generated was seen as a gesture of good will, albeit not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption nevertheless. Sorry about that. Here is the revised hook. *ALT2 ... that a significant portion of the revenue from the sale of the US 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) went to the Zeppelin Airship company in Germany?  I'll also reword the article and present the "good will" part as a separate idea, independent of any money involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The "thrown out of" is an unfortunate phrase. @Maille66 is very clear that the intention here is to fix this and get it back to where it belongs. I haven't looked at the sources at all but I support the idea that we are all working to get this on the front page. Could I suggest that Maille might suggest an alt that avoid this "good will" phrase. As I understand it the US post office still gave money to the Zeppelin company - that's interesting.... or that even... in 1930 the US post office thought that the main profit for their stamps would be from stamp collectors.... that's interesting too. There is no punishment for getting "thrown out" (eugh to that phrase). This is a pause whilst we avoid publishing a mistake. We can work to help this article despite its minor issue which we have spotted because that's how the wikipedia process works (so well!) We need to celebrate each time we improve an article - (as Maille implies) (i.e. not by reading a rant written by an editor strutting their imagined perfect hindsight). Well done to all involved in this very good article. Lets get it back to the main page. Victuallers (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

*ALT3 ... that as a nod of good will to Germany, the U. S. Postal Service issued a three-stamp set (sample pictured) to celebrate the 1930 Graf Zeppelin long-distance tour that included Europe, South America and the United States? Per Victuallers, here is an ALT suggestion. I edited the article accordingly. I left out who got the money, because all trademark holders get money when the postal service issues a stamp. If this doesn't work, try another suggestion. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @ Maile Thanks for the additional content. I'm hoping we can use my original hook, less the "good will" part, mainly because U.S. postage stamps were never used to raise money for any private enterprise before. It was a controversial undertaking at the time. The Zeppelin stamps were the only U.S. stamps that held this distinction up until they issued the the Breast Cancer Research stamp in 1998. This is a highly unusual distinction and much more interesting than rarity or any perceived gesture, which could be said of many U.S. stamps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

*ALT4 ... that the German Zeppelin Airship Works received 93.5% of the revenue from the sale of the 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured), which the U.S. Postal Service issued as a gesture of good will towards Germany?
 * , I count 195 characters in ALT4. I think it has everything you want, with no contradictions.  What do you think? — Maile  (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the extra spaces after "(pictured)" and separating the letters of "U.S." in ALT4, which leaves 196 characters when "(pictured)" is omitted. Question on content: it seems clear that the Airship company didn't receive 93.5% of the revenue from the sale of the stamps, just 93.5% of the revenue of the stamps used on letters mailed with them. Unless every single stamp sold was used on a postcard or letter that traveled on the airship, then ALT4 would seem to be inaccurate. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict: I wrote these paragraphs before seeing BlueMoonset's comment). Sorry I've been away while the above conversation happened. To backtrack a bit - no I didn't misunderstand, and I fully accepted and respected what Maile said about the sources - that's why I said "my bad", meaning I had not expected that kind of financial set-up and had therefore misunderstood the sources. In British usage, "thrown out" is not an offensive term in this context, by the way; it is frequently used e.g. in reporting political developments in which certain plans are "thrown out" of party policies; i.e. it is simply a light-hearted way of saying "removed". In this DYK nom context it was intended to be a light-hearted way of saying that it was rejected, with no suggestion that it was improperly rejected. People often wonder why I have to write such long explanations here; I tend to constantly expect cultural misunderstandings, and with good reason. I would rather bore you with long paragraphs than cause you offence due to an unfamiliar usage of words.--Storye book (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding a review of ALTs 3 and 4 - since Maile understands the sources regarding finance, then I'll accept any ALT dealing with finance that is approved by Maile. Peace and love. We are all here to get this backlog of DYKs reviewed in the proper way as quickly as we reasonably can, and I don't think there are any contributors to this template who intend otherwise. --Storye book (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT5 ... that the USPS issued the 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) as a good will gesture to Germany, and the Zeppelin company received 93.5% of the sales of any of the stamps used on mail carried by the airship?
 * Good catch, . Whatever hook is decided on here, I think maybe it's a good idea if an uninvolved editor checks it out after agrees to the hook.  Whether or not it's my hook chosen, I did some editing to the article, so I shouldn't be approving anything here. — Maile  (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT4 looks best, which mentions sales to the Zeppelin Co first, a unique and almost exclusive distinction. We can simply say most instead of "93.5%", which is later clarified, per use on actual postage, in the body of text. Besides, the greater bulk of stamps sold went towards postage. During this Great Depression era, only a relatively few number of people could afford to spend money on (expensive) stamps for stamp collecting purposes. This advent contributed greatly to their high value as collectibles later on.
 * ALT 6 ... that the German Zeppelin Airship Works received most of the revenue from the sale of the 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured), which the U. S. Post Office issued as a gesture of good will towards Germany?
 * Btw, in 1930, the Post Office was referred to as the 'U.S. Post Office'. It didn't become the 'U.S. Postal Service' until 1978. The spelling used in the hook should be consistent with the spelling (and correct title) used in the opening sentence in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Uninvolved editor needed to review ALT6, which is the one Gwillhickers prefers, and is his reworking of ALT 4.  Striking all other previous hooks. — Maile  (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Sorry to be a pain, but the assertion that most copies sold were actually used doesn't appear to be in the article. (If I'm mistaken, please point it out.) As such, I'm not sure we can even say "most" - if say 50% of the stamps were not used, then it wouldn't even be a majority of the revenue going to Zeppelin Airship Works.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Uninvolved editor needed to review ALT6, which is the one Gwillhickers prefers, and is his reworking of ALT 4.  Striking all other previous hooks. — Maile  (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Complete new review from scratch for ALT6; everything looked at again. (Note: the above request, which has my full respect, is for an uninvolved editor. I am not involved in that I have not offered an ALT, and I have not edited the article. I have never met in RL any WP editor and have not collaborated in depth on any article with any editor who has worked on this nom. If, however, by "uninvolved" you wish to exclude anyone who has already contributed to this page as a reviewer, then you will have to get another reviewer.) Both QPQs OK. Hook image and article images are free. New enough with expansion 31 May (for nomination 1 June), and long enough. No problems with disambig links or with external links. The hook is acceptable and hooky enough; it is repeated in the article header, and is fully supported by online citations #1 and #2 (I have just double-checked these again myself, and this review is not swayed by the above discussion). The article is written in an objective and neutral manner, and is fully cited.
 * Issues:
 * (1) Re copyvio or close paraphrasing: Duplicated passages: "the graf zeppelin the german zeppelin airship works would " (citation #1); "as a gesture of good will toward germany the" (citation #4); "made the complete round trip" (citation #15); "1930 and returned there on june 6 the" and "flying eastward over the atlantic ocean the" (citation #9); "the bureau of engraving and printing created plates of two hundred" and "postcard and letter rates on the may 1930 pan american flight" (citation #10).
 * (2) ALT6 has 214 characters according to this character-count tool, whereas the limit is 200 characters. --Storye book (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re the above comment by ThaddeusB on 12 June. To my understanding, "revenue" means moneys/profit received. You don't receive money or profit from unsold/destroyed stamps. Therefore the relative portion of revenue they are talking about is the relative portion of revenue from the sold/undestroyed stamps. So for the hook itself we do not have to worry about this matter. If the destruction is not adequately mentioned in the article, that is a separate matter for further editing of the article and does not affect my review. --Storye book (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The German Zeppelin Airship Works did not receive any revenue from stamps that were sold, but not used (which may be a large #, as the US PO's guessed collectors would buy stamps to keep).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ ThaddeusB. I have looked again at citation #1, and it supports what you say. If you would like to substitute "some" for "most" in ALT6 and call it ALT7, then I could accept it. Alternatively I would be happy to consider a new ALT7. But issues 1 and 2 above (close paraphrasing and length of hook) still have to be dealt with. --Storye book (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Storye book Here's a hook that makes the distinctions mentioned above. I had to condense some of the wording to do this, simply saying "issued by the U.S", as the Post Office Department was a branch of the U.S. Federal government. According to the character counter (linked to above) the following hook has 199 characters. (whew!):
 * ALT7: ... that the German Zeppelin Airship Works received most of the revenue from the sale of the 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps (pictured) used as postage, issued by the U.S. as a gesture of good will towards Germany?

This includes the characters in "(pictured)". Are we supposed to count these also? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, Gwillhickers. I have seen different reviewers count hooks in different ways, but the only rule I can find is the bare 200 characters: here. To be on the safe side I count every character, space and punct initially (excluding formatting), but am prepared to accept a compromise where possible. All issues resolved (hopefully this time). ALT7 checks out with its online citation and is short enough. Good to go for ALT7. --Storye book (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT7 should solve the concerns - "most" could even be changed back to "93.5%" if desired. I would suggest dropping the "issued by..." clause to make it shorter w/o losing the interstingness. The promoter should feel free to decide whether to include it or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, Still good to go for ALT7 which was suggested by the nominator. --Storye book (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, in the world of philately (stamp and postal history collecting) the word issued, or issue, is commonplace and also understood by the average reader, and if we dropped "issued by" only then we'd have to adjust grammatically. It would be simpler all around to keep the term. -- Much thanks for all those who gave their time and patience dealing with the issues that came up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I meant the whole clause ("issued by the U.S. as a gesture of good will towards Germany") not just the words issued by. In hooks, less is often more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, Still good to go for ALT7. Keeping green tick visible.--Storye book (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: fixing ellipsis spacing and added a "that" at the beginning of ALT7; it's still short enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, Still good to go for ALT7. Keeping green tick visible.--Storye book (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)