Talk:Johann Felsko

Tsar approved plan

You're sure about that ? I just read two books stating that no one approved anything as this plan was too expensive and that there hardly was any plan at, though the builders kind of followed this plan. Also if his father's surname is Felskau shouldn't his also be ? ~~Xil (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I was not there at the time, I have to rely on the sources I read. If you have better sources, or if you are able to put it in better words, you are most welcome to do so. When it comes to the paternal surname Felskau — it would have been Felskov in Russian and Felskava in Latvian (like Pleskau becomes Pskov and Pleskava respectively). The source states that his father's surname was Felskau, that is what I write, whatever happened inbetween would be guesswork — even though I could imagine that the family most probably would not like their surname to sound Russian, but that is just my imagination. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 07:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have your source and I don't intend to work on the article, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact ~~Xil (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, attention drawn. But, without sources I can't really add or alter much, and it is pretty thin what is available online on the subject. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Acctualy it's strange, one of my sources is authored by J. Krastiņš, which may very well also be the author of your main source. And in my book it says that the plan was too expnsive and that another person made a new plan which followed Felsko's principles, but developments after 1860 become strange as part of the new plans and rules are cancelled, because someone suggests building new fortifications, after that plns apparently were not concise and ew plns were not approved. ~~Xil (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, Krastiņš is the author of my main source. The situation you find strange is actually not that strange, but most likely a result of the time difference between when he wrote the book you use as source and the one I use as source. Censorship in the Soviet Union is likely the difference, and all books printed during this period had to conform with official policies, and I guess you can imagine what the policy was on tsars, aristocracy etc. One needs to read Soviet publications with a grain of salt. Not saying that all post-Soviet publications are squeaky clean, but authors tend to write with less restrictions and more factual. Just my opinion. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see any gain in leaving that out - if the plan was approved by Tsar they would get an oppurtunity to ephisize how tsar was bad first aproving everything and then changing mind. FYI the propoganda part there is quite obvious - Tsar bad, capitalism bad, workers good. The other of my sources was written during perestroika, when the ruling thought was Soviets good, Facists bad and there were no Facists in the 19th century ~~Xil (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what sick logic runs propaganda — perhaps that he was too decadent to decide or whatever. Death always finds a reason. I will keep an eye out for additional references since it's a valid point you've got there. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)