Wikipedia:Featured article review/National emblem of Belarus/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [1].

National emblem of Belarus[edit]

Notified: Czalex, Cukrakalnis, Zscout370, Nieszczarda2, Pofka, Valentinian, Mzajac, Cordyceps-Zombie, WP Belarus, WP Heraldry andvexillology, noticed over a year ago

Review section[edit]

This 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:

The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
The whole sentence "According to the formerly popular historian Arnold J. Toynbee, the pagan Lithuanians performed sweeping conquests of the Orthodox Ruthenians and this medieval greatness of Lithuania was conveyed in its heraldic emblem – a galloping horseman." is problematic (why Toynbee is the source here when there are thousands more reliable and recent sources to qoute? Toynbee wasn't an expert on Belarusian or Lithuanian heraldry)
ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian". That's very close to hoax
Lithuanian mythologists presented as a reliable source of information (why they are even quoted here?)

The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Encyclopedia Britannica (possibly the most reliable information source in the entire world), no distinctive Belarusian national symbols were developed until the 20th century (see: Britannica's article). Also, Belarus had no statehood traditions until the 20th century and only in 1918 they created their first sovereignty (see: Britannica's article). Encyclopedia Britannica is the cornerstone of this article. That being said, I see no significant issues regarding Belarus' national symbols, but the "20th century" and "As a state symbol in the Republic of Belarus" sections certainly requires expansion with more details. I have strong doubts about this article's status as FP in 2022 because it certainly is not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia, thus I support its denomination from a FP status. -- Pofka (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Britannica online is a very good source. I've seen uneven quality and accuracy in articles on other topics, and it's frequently out of date when compared to recent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Belarus-related articles in Britannica have not had major updates since being transferred online. So much has happened in scholarship since then. They are of a substandart quality nowadays. In addition, the articles on Belarus and the flag of Belarus do not deal with Pahonia directly anyway. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is factually correct and ensures WP:NPOV. It may lack further details, but its facts are simply unchallengeable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a definite difference between the old print volumes (which will be out of date for some topics, but of reasonable quality), but the Britannica Online stuff is simply less good than Britannica's reputation would say. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would reject britannica sourcing at the FA level, and probably other levels as well. Have a look at this trainwreck, which I encountered while peer reviewing nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is undoubtedly written in NPOV and it is trustworthy. These are the most important things. Britannica's article about Belarus was last updated on March 2, 2022, so it is certainly not outdated. -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and suggest the POV template placed. The Pahonia part of the article does not meet several WP:FA criteria.

It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should have been a demotion of the article National emblem of Belarus from Featured-class to something lower already a long time ago, owing to the article's shortcomings.

Regarding what Marcelus wrote. When Marcelus claims The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem, he is misconstruing the article. What he claims goes against WP:RS like Encyclopedia Britannica, various academic books and journals, even the expert vexillologist Whitney Smith among others. Some of Marcelus' criticisms are simply untrue, as there are explanatory phrases like Belarusian nationalists viewed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a historical form of Belarusian statehood along with medieval principalities of Polotsk, Turov and others and there is also an explanation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania vis-à-vis its Slavic populations which are connected to the Belarusians. This is necessary for context. Toynbee's phrase also adds to that context, so it is unreasonable to remove it. Blaming statements that rely on Western sources for trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem is inaccurate and also a suspicious statement that reminds me of WP:POV. At its essence, the phrase blames WP:RS for being WP:POV. I must point out that the statements about ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian" come from WP:RS. This does not mean that they are undoubtedly true, but still, just erasing it would be improper and against Wiki guidelines. As for "Lithuanian mythologists", those are included because of the sentence Some Belarusian historians make a connection between the Pahonia and the cultural context, religious and mythological beliefs of Belarus's earliest inhabitants. Belarus' earliest inhabitants include Balts/Lithuanians. Ergo, they must be written about. Finally, the proposed solution that there should be more reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists, is totally OK. However, care should be taken, as even some professional historians are NOT WP:NPOV (not according to me, but to academic sources), e.g. Jan Zaprudnik (named as nationalist in John Stanley's Book review of Jan Zaprudnik's "Belarus: At a Crossroads in History" (from 1994): Zaprudnik's views are those of a moderate nationalist).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can be neutral, but their selection can create a non-neutral narrative. As in this case. It is obvious that the article is not written in a neutral way. And if the statement that Russian culture prevailed in Belarus comes from sources, it proves the worst about these sources and is a confirmation that they are not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV sources means that narrative is WP:NPOV, that's the reason that the guideline exists. Statements like Belarus only beginning in 1918 are WP:NPOV. If the Coat of arms existing for centuries before 1918 suddenly means that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem according to you, then it can't be helped. Also, it proves the worst about these sources - you are talking about Encyclopedia Britannica. Calling it unreliable is very strong language.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, it seems that everyone is in agreement that this needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. Cukrakalnis (Who says the article should be demoted) made one edit; there has been no other improvement, and the article still contains large amounts of uncited text, along with what now appears to be an NPOV dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC I haven't read the above, except for HF's original statement. However, I see that minimal edits have been made to the article in the past few months, and uncited statements, paragraphs, and sections remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Unsourced sections, paragraphs and statements. DrKay (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It is clearly not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above, work is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no progress to fix concerns since it's move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.