This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National emblem of Belarus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
National emblem of Belarus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is listed as a featured article, but does not meet the current criteria. There is uncited text in several areas, including the entire symbolism section (which may be original research). There is also an indiscriminate number of image in the Pahonia section. Hog Farm Talk 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there Pofka and Cukrakalnis
I want to suggest that the edit where Toynbee is referenced be removed completely despite the adjustments recently made. Toynbee is not considered a reliable historian post-WWII, he was popular before WWII. Around mid 20th century he might have been considered "a leading specialist on international affairs", as Pofka suggests in his edit history, but that is clearly not the case today. I will quote a passage from the article about A Study of History:
After 1960, Toynbee's ideas faded both in academia and the media, to the point of seldom being cited today.[12][13] Toynbee's approach to history, his style of civilizational analysis, faced skepticism from mainstream historians who thought it put an undue emphasis on the divine, which led to his academic reputation declining, though for a time, Toynbee's Study remained popular outside academia.
Toynbee is known for a macroscopic, non-academic view of history that was only popular with the general public. Taking into account that the edit makes a rather POV statement about the "greatness" of Lithuania, I would suggest other readers look at a recent RFC about the National emblem of Belarus for context. -- Jabbi ( talk) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
"Russian" culture? "Russian" subjects? In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? What is this? A Putinist propaganda outlet? There were Eastern Slavs in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, speaking Belarusian or Ukrainian depending on the territory, and using an artificial Koine known as "Ruthenian" for cultural issues. All this was "from the Rus'", but it was not "Russian" in any sense. Or maybe there were not yet "Ukrainians" nor "Belarusians", but Russians did exist? Be serious, please! FerranLup ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National emblem of Belarus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
National emblem of Belarus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2008. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is listed as a featured article, but does not meet the current criteria. There is uncited text in several areas, including the entire symbolism section (which may be original research). There is also an indiscriminate number of image in the Pahonia section. Hog Farm Talk 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey there Pofka and Cukrakalnis
I want to suggest that the edit where Toynbee is referenced be removed completely despite the adjustments recently made. Toynbee is not considered a reliable historian post-WWII, he was popular before WWII. Around mid 20th century he might have been considered "a leading specialist on international affairs", as Pofka suggests in his edit history, but that is clearly not the case today. I will quote a passage from the article about A Study of History:
After 1960, Toynbee's ideas faded both in academia and the media, to the point of seldom being cited today.[12][13] Toynbee's approach to history, his style of civilizational analysis, faced skepticism from mainstream historians who thought it put an undue emphasis on the divine, which led to his academic reputation declining, though for a time, Toynbee's Study remained popular outside academia.
Toynbee is known for a macroscopic, non-academic view of history that was only popular with the general public. Taking into account that the edit makes a rather POV statement about the "greatness" of Lithuania, I would suggest other readers look at a recent RFC about the National emblem of Belarus for context. -- Jabbi ( talk) 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
"Russian" culture? "Russian" subjects? In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania? What is this? A Putinist propaganda outlet? There were Eastern Slavs in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, speaking Belarusian or Ukrainian depending on the territory, and using an artificial Koine known as "Ruthenian" for cultural issues. All this was "from the Rus'", but it was not "Russian" in any sense. Or maybe there were not yet "Ukrainians" nor "Belarusians", but Russians did exist? Be serious, please! FerranLup ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)