Talk:Augustów Canal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing

• In process of adding more content and the map to the page. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lock coordinates

I've entered the coordinates for some of the locks which don't have their own page in EN-WP. All of the rest (to the east) up to (at least) the national border are already located with polygons in Wikimapia and just need to be copied over here. I'll try to remember to do it when I have the time, but if someone else wants to get there first, you're welcome to do it. By the way, most of the locks have their own pages in Polish Wikipedia, but no coordinates there, either. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

lopsided

There are several lopsided statements in the article, just on first sight:

• the article omits to mention that Congress Poland was part of the Russian Empire, thus implying an exclusively Poland-related background.
• the tariff war was a Prussian-Russian one, not (only) Prussian-Polish, and it wasn't "unilateral".
• Ventspils (btw, I don't see a reason to use a Polonized name here) was part of the Russian Empire too and the canal was rather obviously an attempt to strengthen the inner-Russian trade and a Russian port instead of a Prussian one (Protectionism).
• How does a nation "win" a tariff war?
• Isn't the canal an example of the incorporation of Congress Poland into Russia/the Russian transport routes?

I'm currently short of time, so I will return to these issues next week. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You are actually incorrect here. Kingdom of Poland(popularly known as Congress Poland) wasn't part of Russian Empire till 1831 aftermath of November Uprising and even later was not fully integrated within its structures(the process was ongoing till 1867 but even then it remained in many ways separate from Russian Empire). Secondly it and Russian Empire had different tariffs and custom system. Until 1831 the Kingdom of Poland indeed had its own ministers, government, and economic policy separate from Russian state. So in the time period here the claim that it was part of Russian Empire is incorrect, Polish economic policy was independent from Russian Empire's at that time. As an offtopic-this is actually one of the reason many in Poland see November Uprising as folly, due to significant economic and internal independence of Kingdom of Poland till 1831.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article references in the lede that it was located within then the Augustów Voivodeship of the Kingdom of Poland which is factually correct. The legal name of "Congress Poland" was "Kingdom of Poland". Another reply has covered this topic well. The tariff war was a Prussian-Polish "war" over access to the port of Danzig (and others) the point of building the canal was to skirt Prussia and ship to Russian ports such as Ventspils. Windawa is mentioned because the unbuilt section of the canal from the Niemen to Ventspils was called the "windawski" section. If the city name isn't put in, how will the reader know the relationship? So the canal did cause Prussian tariff rates to be reduce thus in the conflict one side did "win". It has nothing to do with protectionism, it has everything to do with skirting a port with high tariffs. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Usually the Second Polish Republic is described as the first independent Polish state since the third partition in 1795. To describe Congress Poland as an independent country without a single word about the Russian influence is ...lopsided.
• The Polish-Prussian tariffwar ended in 1825 [1], so why was the canal finished in 1839, 14 years after this "war" ended if Prussian tariffs were the only reason for the construction?
• Drucki-Lubecki introduced a protectionist policy towards Austria and Prussia [2] and this canal was (rather obviously) part of this policy.
• We use Polish names (Windawa), because we use a Polish term later on? There's no reason to use a Polish name for the Latvian section of the canal. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Usually the Second Polish Republic is described as the first independent Polish state since the third partition in 1795 Where did you get this idea? Duchy of Warsaw is commonly regarded as a functioning Polish state in Poland, even if strongly connected to France--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Heinrich von Treitschke

Do we really need to use Heinrich von Treitschke as a source ? ([3]) HerkusMonte (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not the sole source in the article. . . Ajh1492 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

3O request

I have asked for a third opinion as I don't think mentioning the Polonized name of Ventspils improves the article or matches the principles of WP:Place. In general we mention alternate names if these names were used in contemporary context, especially if a town/region had a different official name at that time. Ventspils was not part of a Congress Poland at the time of the construction of the canal nor was there any Polish minority living in that region. The contemporary english name seems to be Windau [4]. That Polish sources use a Polish name for the region is self-evident but irrelevant for the english Wikipedia. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There was another part of the canal called Windawski so thus the name is used. I hope this answers your question.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be an answer by an uninvolved editor? Molobo is for sure not neutral talking about Poland related articles. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am quite neutral in naming issues. I opposed Polish editors wishing to add Lwów or Wilno to many articles actually.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You edited the article already before [5] and I actually can't believe you seriously regard yourself "neutral". HerkusMonte (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're being a little personal in your comments toward MyMoloboaccount. You should step back for a minute and cool down. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request: I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed and re-removed your 3O request, but I apologize for being too succinct in my edit summary on my first removal. I should have said that MyMoloboaccount's response after the 3O request was made caused more than two editors to be involved in the dispute. MyMoloboaccount had edited in the article previously and was not neutral (at least not by the standards of the 3O Project, which say that you're not neutral if you've previously edited the article), it is true, but the Third Opinion Paradox causes his opinion, especially when given after a 3O request was made, to have some of the same effect as a 3O even if it's not really one. The Third Opinion Project guidelines say

If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate. Please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

They also say:

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

The initial dispute, with no discussion on this talk page, was between HerkusMonte and Ajh1492, MyMoloboaccount's entry into the dispute became the third editor. Until his subsequent post, above, MyMoloboaccount made no claim to being neutral. Unlike a Third Opinion, which cannot be "counted" towards consensus, MyMoloboaccount's opinion had the additional value of moving towards consensus. Sorry for the confusion, but the bottom line is that this dispute does not qualify for a Third Opinion for those two reasons. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC) PS: One particular place you might get help with this is at the Content noticeboard.

I'm not quite sure why we're referring to it as Ventspils in the first place - I would expect the contemporary Russian name to be used, which as far as I can tell is (transliterated) Vindava. But if Windau really was the contemporary English name, then we could use that instead. So I would refer to the place as something like "Vindava (now Ventspils in Latvia; German Windau, Polish Windawa)" or "Windau (now Ventspils in Latvia; contemporary Russian Vindava, Polish Windawa)". That's at the first mention; subsequent mentions should just use the one name. --Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reason why there is a reference to Windawa is to give some context to the name of the partially built extension canal - the Windawski Canal. The rest of the article just refer to the modern name. Here's a 1915 reference from an English language source on the use of windawski within the article.

The European War, Volume IV, July-September 1915, The New York Time Company, New York, 1915, pp 1093, 1095

Ajh1492 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

B-class review

Status: pending

Comments: close, but the following issues need to be addressed:

• lead should summarize information, not provide new information. Currently I see some claims in lead that are not repeated elsewhere, please ensure this is fixed.

I think I have it fixed Ajh1492 (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tourism section and the two tables look unreferenced

Tourism and Tables - Done. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• if there is no Commons category for the canal, please create it, and add {{commonscat}} template to the article

It was there, on the right side just under the Infobox. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• if possible, it would be nice to create a version of File:Suwalszczyzna.png or another map, in which the location of the canal is clearly indicated (I'd like to see something like File:Panama Canal Rough Diagram.png, but this is not a requirement)

Definitely for GA-Level it is needed, probably from OpenMaps . . . Ajh1492 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• minor MoS issue: section titles are unnecessarily capitalized

Fixed. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• missing section: economic importance in the past and today

• before a GA, I'd suggest reviewing Panama Canal and Suez Canal for potential ideas on what sections to add

Agreed. Ajh1492 (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

All good, just disambig Neman River before you go :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)