This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
re: '{{
quotation needed|Citation of this title is needed, this article title sounds like a revisionist historian's politically correct title in a academic tome, not any sort of cultural or political reference|date=September 2013}}
'
• I placed this tagging above last week expecting an explicit reference to where in actual historic culture this article title is used. That means magazine or newspaper usages (media of the day), not academic studies years later. In response, their were given three key citations, sans quotation. The enabling act act (here) makes some interesting reading, for example ca. pp-35-37 it's unclear to me whether the entity was borrowing on bonds or funding by issuing stock —which while fun, is off point, nowhere in searching that document, does the phrase "Main Line of Public Works" appear, whereas repeated references to the Pennsylvania Canal do pop out on search. Similarly, 'Public Works' does show a few times, leaving the confusion over what is meant by 'main line'.
• Inasmuch as much of that document refers to surveying measures and route choices made by the Canal Commissioners being instituted, again we see a corporate entity, a commission giving lie to Public Works which were funded by borrowed funds or stock... not paid for by the Pennsylvania Legislature, afaik, the more corrupt way things are done now. To me that also gives the article title a cachet of deceit -- misconstruing and deliberately conflicting the actual history with terms now used in a very different sense.
• As written the title would make a A) pretty good term paper, B) possibly even a thesis topic in advanced work C) A good book chapter giving the overview of the 1820s-1870s technological boom in Pennsylvania, or even D) a justifiable section title in the main article herein. The material itself should be part of a History of 19th Century Transportation in Pennsylvania or the Pennsylvania Canal. IMHO, we shouldn't be spawning articles with titles no one would ever think of, or search for. Test? How many 'Main Line of anything' articles can we list that don't reference an object? Virtually all of them refer to Railroads or roads, not something as ambiguous as 'Public Works', and all certainly are far more geographically well defined.
• The title integrity... is not even accurate and self-consistent, inasmuch as there are multiple lines of development of transportation infrastructure as your very own map shows. These were built by differing groups of capitalists from the brothers behind the Delaware and Hudson to the iron works owners backing the LC&N (Who's role as the Microsoft of day (High tech, High visibility, capable by reputation, successful, central) wasn't even mentioned—despite the fact they singlehandedly joined the Susquehanna and the Lehigh/Delaware, and so the Hudson and central New Jersey and Delaware. Oops. THAT for Bulk cargo was the Mainline far sooner, and effectively—it was built by private enterprise-albeit on a right of way granted by legislation in 1837. It is likely so was the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad anchor stretch was as well... political arm twisting for such benefices has it's routes in Merry Olde England, aside.
• Lastly, the very phrase 'Public Work' is espousing a non-neutral POV. There are those who recognize such are virtually always controversies.
What I don't see is 'any reason' it shouldn't be anything more than a subsection of the article Pennsylvania Canal, which historically covers the topic; to me, the title is very misleading. While the acts of legislature were enabling, the great majority of the costs were capitalized by private investment making the public works phrase a pretty big misdirection. In short, I've been given no reason to even suspect it is anything less than WP:OR without such a quote. So before I actually formally cast a vote on mergeto or not, I'd like to hear justification for how the title is useful (to me it is just adding confusion to articles which should be linking the Pennsylvania Canal, or section linking at worst) and whether others are struck with the same sense of 'creeping unsourced article titles' that strike me as so wrong. // Fra nkB 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The Main Line of Public Works was a railroad and canal system across southern Pennsylvania between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that was planned and funded as the Pennsylvania Canal system in response to the advent and success of the Lehigh Navigations and the Erie Canals.
The Main Line of Public Works was the name given in the mid 1850s to the collection of railroad and canal system properties owned by the Pennsylvania Canal Commission that ran across southern Pennsylvania between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh at the time when the Commission was undergoing consideration of being dissolved and the properties were to be sold to private enterprise; the whole had been planned and somewhat funded in the 1820s as the Pennsylvania Canal system in response to the advent and success of the Lehigh Navigations and the Erie Canals.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Main Line of Public Works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
re: '{{
quotation needed|Citation of this title is needed, this article title sounds like a revisionist historian's politically correct title in a academic tome, not any sort of cultural or political reference|date=September 2013}}
'
• I placed this tagging above last week expecting an explicit reference to where in actual historic culture this article title is used. That means magazine or newspaper usages (media of the day), not academic studies years later. In response, their were given three key citations, sans quotation. The enabling act act (here) makes some interesting reading, for example ca. pp-35-37 it's unclear to me whether the entity was borrowing on bonds or funding by issuing stock —which while fun, is off point, nowhere in searching that document, does the phrase "Main Line of Public Works" appear, whereas repeated references to the Pennsylvania Canal do pop out on search. Similarly, 'Public Works' does show a few times, leaving the confusion over what is meant by 'main line'.
• Inasmuch as much of that document refers to surveying measures and route choices made by the Canal Commissioners being instituted, again we see a corporate entity, a commission giving lie to Public Works which were funded by borrowed funds or stock... not paid for by the Pennsylvania Legislature, afaik, the more corrupt way things are done now. To me that also gives the article title a cachet of deceit -- misconstruing and deliberately conflicting the actual history with terms now used in a very different sense.
• As written the title would make a A) pretty good term paper, B) possibly even a thesis topic in advanced work C) A good book chapter giving the overview of the 1820s-1870s technological boom in Pennsylvania, or even D) a justifiable section title in the main article herein. The material itself should be part of a History of 19th Century Transportation in Pennsylvania or the Pennsylvania Canal. IMHO, we shouldn't be spawning articles with titles no one would ever think of, or search for. Test? How many 'Main Line of anything' articles can we list that don't reference an object? Virtually all of them refer to Railroads or roads, not something as ambiguous as 'Public Works', and all certainly are far more geographically well defined.
• The title integrity... is not even accurate and self-consistent, inasmuch as there are multiple lines of development of transportation infrastructure as your very own map shows. These were built by differing groups of capitalists from the brothers behind the Delaware and Hudson to the iron works owners backing the LC&N (Who's role as the Microsoft of day (High tech, High visibility, capable by reputation, successful, central) wasn't even mentioned—despite the fact they singlehandedly joined the Susquehanna and the Lehigh/Delaware, and so the Hudson and central New Jersey and Delaware. Oops. THAT for Bulk cargo was the Mainline far sooner, and effectively—it was built by private enterprise-albeit on a right of way granted by legislation in 1837. It is likely so was the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad anchor stretch was as well... political arm twisting for such benefices has it's routes in Merry Olde England, aside.
• Lastly, the very phrase 'Public Work' is espousing a non-neutral POV. There are those who recognize such are virtually always controversies.
What I don't see is 'any reason' it shouldn't be anything more than a subsection of the article Pennsylvania Canal, which historically covers the topic; to me, the title is very misleading. While the acts of legislature were enabling, the great majority of the costs were capitalized by private investment making the public works phrase a pretty big misdirection. In short, I've been given no reason to even suspect it is anything less than WP:OR without such a quote. So before I actually formally cast a vote on mergeto or not, I'd like to hear justification for how the title is useful (to me it is just adding confusion to articles which should be linking the Pennsylvania Canal, or section linking at worst) and whether others are struck with the same sense of 'creeping unsourced article titles' that strike me as so wrong. // Fra nkB 16:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The Main Line of Public Works was a railroad and canal system across southern Pennsylvania between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh that was planned and funded as the Pennsylvania Canal system in response to the advent and success of the Lehigh Navigations and the Erie Canals.
The Main Line of Public Works was the name given in the mid 1850s to the collection of railroad and canal system properties owned by the Pennsylvania Canal Commission that ran across southern Pennsylvania between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh at the time when the Commission was undergoing consideration of being dissolved and the properties were to be sold to private enterprise; the whole had been planned and somewhat funded in the 1820s as the Pennsylvania Canal system in response to the advent and success of the Lehigh Navigations and the Erie Canals.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Main Line of Public Works. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)