Talk:East Germany balloon escape

Problem with distance and time

The article says 25 minutes (or 28 minutes) in the air, at a speed of about 30kmph, implying that the distance traveled was about 14km or less. However the distance from Ziegenrück to Naila is about 40km, and the distance from Ziegenrück to the border is about 30km, so something doesn't add up. Anyone able to clarify this? Gilgamesh4 (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gilgamesh4: Ziegenrück was only the testsite, so the distance is not relevant. What is missing in the article is the actual takeoff location which was somewhere near Oberlemnitz. The takeoff location in the infobox points to the hometown instead. Agathoclea (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: That makes sense - thank-you :-) (I see you have edited the infobox - I've also changed 'the clearing' to 'a clearing' to avoid the impression that it was the same site. I guess it's obvious that they would test the balloon much further away from the border and launch from as close as they could) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

It seems like the Aftermath section glosses over the imprisonment of friends and relatives because one friend was not released due to the intervention of Amnesty International and he subsequently became an informant for the Stasi.

• https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/ballon-flucht-aus-der-ddr-mit-heissluft-in-die-freiheit-a-1229965.html
• https://archive.ph/20130211024003/http://www.goethe-rutheneum.de/schueler/semifach/flucht/geschis/peter.html

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Why?

Any hints or sources why they tried to 'escape'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8206:414D:9A00:F5AC:DAF5:A533:2A8A (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Communism 2600:1008:B0A1:87B6:351F:AFA8:E5E9:60F5 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Unit measures

@Avi8tor:, which sentence do you think is clearer and more meaningful to the reader:

They constructed a blower with a 10 kW ( < Most common and recognisable unit here > ) motorcycle engine.

or

They constructed a blower with a 14 hp ( < Official SI unit here > ) motorcycle engine.

MOS:UNIT says that in non-scientific articles without strong ties to either the US or UK, the primary units chosen will be SI units [...] or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (my bold). Horsepower is not just conventional; it's arguably the most common unit measure used in reliable, non-engineering sources when giving the power output of a piston engine (including in the sources of this article). So why don't we leave pedantry aside and write an encyclopedia that makes the job of learning easier for the reader? --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Deeday-UK, This article did not comply with The Manual of Style. Strong ties refer to the the country in this case Germany. Wikipedia is written for a Global audience, if you look in the owners manual of any vehicle outside North America the power is given in kW only, per legislation. Vehicles made Prior to 1980 you can use the original hp or PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_units_of_measurement_directives. Sources can be cherry picked hence we go with the manual of style, SI primary outside the US and the UK. If you need some, I'll send more references tomorrow. Avi8tor (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avi8tor, did you read the Manual of Style? I even quoted it to you. It doesn't say "SI primary outside the US and the UK". It says primary units will be SI units or other units, such as hp, that are 'conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic'. You can't just cherry-pick the parts of the MoS that you like and ignore the others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Deeday-UK I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_247 where we had this discussion at the Dispute Resolution Board. You can read the whole article, but below is the pertinent text:

Second statement by moderator (Peugeot)

The Peugeot 505 article currently lists the power for all engines primarily in CV, which is metric horsepower, and also provides kW, and hp (imperial hp). The Peugeot 5CV article lists power primarily in hp, and also in kW. The SI unit of power is kW (kilowatts). (That is, the watt is the basic SI unit of power, and automobiles have power that can be measured in kilowatts.) I am asking that any editor who wants to list the power primarily either in CV or in hp should provide a reason. One editor referred to cars made for the US market, for which hp is the standard unit of power, but I see no mention in the article of any cars that were specifically made for the US market. So my question is what reason is there for using any measure other than kW as the primary measure.

So if the engine or car is not made in the USA (or UK) your particular preference does not apply. As I mentioned, Wikipedia is for English speakers worldwide of which Australia, New Zealand and Southern and East Africa use kilotwatts only in Primary sources. Hence we go with the Manual of Style. https://www.carmag.co.za/car-reviews/driving-impressions/road-test-chery-tiggo-4-pro-1-5t-elite-dct/

I did state above, that if you need more references I'll send them. Perhaps you'd like to revert your changes? Avi8tor (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avi8tor, what the pertinent text you quoted means is: So my question is what reason is there for using any measure other than kW as the primary measure [in the Peugeot 505 and 5CV articles] (my brackets). You seem to be making a general rule out of a dispute on two specific articles: it doesn't work like that. The only rules that apply everywhere are the official guidelines, including the MoS, and as explained above, using hp in this case is perfectly compliant with the MoS, it's faithful to the source, and is clearer to the reader. You have more references to send me? Sure, as long they discuss the East Germany balloon escape, otherwise you can keep them. Car owner's manuals, EU directives, motor magazines etc are all irrelevant to the point here.

It's not a matter of cherry-picking sources. I challenge you: find any source that discusses the East Germany balloon escape and gives the power of that motorcycle engine in kW, and we can talk about putting kW as primary unit, otherwise we go with the sources that we have. ---Deeday-UK (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Deeday-UK You are trying to read between the lines to justify using horsepower contrary to the MOS which talks about obscure units like hands. I don't think you read the complete discussion on the link I provided. The other editor was using the same argument you are using, "it's from a source." sources can be cherry picked says the moderator. The source is doubtful because it's probably a German or Soviet motorcycle engine which at the time would have stated power in PS not HP. Being an American source, did they convert it to HP or just change the unit name? You need a better source. The other editor in this arbitration tried the same justification and the moderator Robert McClenon stated the primary unit shall be SI as there is no connection to the UK or USA. As this is a motorcycle engine you should read [Project Automobiles]. Avi8tor (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Avi8tor,

• Stop saying that using horsepower in this article is against the MoS. I explained above that the MoS allows other units to be used if they are used in reliable sources on the topic. You should understand it by now.
• Stop talking about cherry-picking sources: we only have one source quoting the power of the balloon blower, and it is proper reliable (Popular Mechanics). If you don't like it, the onus of finding other sources is on you.
• The source's use of horsepower is doubtful? That is a strong argument to quote the power as reported in the source and remove the kW figure altogether. How do you know that your conversion in kW is correct?
• Finally, please stop pinging me with {{u}} in every message you post. I got this page on my watchlist, so I'm not going to miss any of your comments, don't worry.

-- Deeday-UK (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither the German nor the French article in Wikipedia quote any motor at all. For clarification I pointed out you should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions as this is apparently a motorcycle engine and it would apply. Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions go down to Power and Torque. This will explain the Wikipedia conventions for vehicle engines. To paraphrase, Power and torque figures should usually be written in metric form with the imperial conversion in parentheses. Metric measurements of power should be expressed in kilowatts (kW). Metric horsepower (pferdestärke, PS) may be included for older vehicles. Metric measurements of torque should be expressed in Newton metres (N·m). Avi8tor (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Are you seriously suggesting that we should discard reliable sources because they are not used in other Wikipedia languages? What sort of logic is that?
• This article is not part of WikiProject Automobiles, and even those guidelines allow for exceptions ("In some cases power figures should be written in imperial units first"). You don't even know if those 14 hp are metric or imperial and you want to convert them into another unit and put that as the main figure? Can you not see how misleading that is to the reader?

I think I know where you are coming from; I was once a bit like you, dreaming of a Wikipedia where few clear, systematic rules could be applied to the whole encyclopedia, bringing complete consistency and order to every single article. I've long realised that such effort is not only futile; it's also not particularly useful, and sometimes it's even counterproductive, as in this case. It's an obstacle on the road to becoming a better Wikipedian. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Deeday-UK I've filed a request for a Third opinion on this conversation. Avi8tor (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

When deciding content organisation on Wikipedia, we do not go by the local consensus of a WikiProject, nor Wikipedias which are themselves not reliable sources: we go by the Manual of Style. Here, it is clear: we use SI units as primary unless another unit is conventionally used by sources discussing the article topic. In this case, I have found three sources that mention the amount of power: all three use horsepower, including the account by Wetzel himself. If there was one or two sources which used kW, there would be a much better case, but I can see zero. Thus, hp should be used as the primary unit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Obviously we should lead with (metric) horsepower, as per WP:MOS and to respect sources. Pferdestärke is merely the German word for horsepower; all citations are for PS but have been translated to hp. The difference is only 1.4 percent, so it is largely irrelevant, but there is no doubt about the unit: See period, German-language reference for 14 PS here - this article also specifies that the motorcycle engine in question came from a 250cc MZ, as confirmed by Wetzel himself at his website, which also states 14PS. I'm guessing it was an MZ ES250, should anyone care.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Very good detective work! I had wondered how they got the HP because I could not find a reference (other than the citation) and being a 1970's or prior motorbike/engine it would comply with the WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions to have PS then kW. Avi8tor (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Avi8tor, it would comply with WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions to have PS then kW on the MZ ES250 article (whenever it gets created). On this article, Mr.choppers too concurs that "obviously we should lead with (metric) horsepower, as per WP:MOS and to respect sources". -- Deeday-UK (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"PS" is metric horsepower, which can also be "hp". The metric parts of the world defines a horsepower as 735.5W, whereas the US and UK and other non-metric lands define it as 746W; a difference of merely 1.4 percent. There is no officially recognized abbreviation or standard way to distinguish the two kinds of horsepower, so many people use the German abbreviation for hp (=PS) to indicate metric hp but it is in no way certain. It is a frequent cause of confusion.

{{cvt|14|PS|kW|3}} gives 14 PS (10.297 kW)

{{cvt|14|hp-metric|kW|3}} gives 14 hp (10.297 kW)

{{cvt|14|hp|kW|3}} gives 14 hp (10.440 kW)

Whether we should abbreviate it PS or hp is less important than using the correct definition (imo). "PS" has the advantage that those of us who care will know immediately that we are talking metric hp, but it will cause confusion for the majority of readers. This article topic is not primarily about machines, which is why I used "hp-metric".  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)