Content deleted Content added
Asilvering (talk | contribs) →Lukas: Reply |
→Arbitration case, and Legitimizing fringe academics: support for TNT |
||
Line 159:
::There is no point in various victim groups bidding for the role of sole, or even chief, victim. There was victimhood enough to go around for all.
::[[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
: I think a TNT is a good idea. It is indeed very achievable with book articles (which are my primary area of expertise) to write a simple, uncontroversial article. And then we would have a clean slate to address the problem of "reception" from the ground up. For that task I'd suggest beginning with the most recent scholarship in the area, for assessments of its current legacy. I'd expect the literature review sections of more recent monographs on the topic to have some good synthesis of its impact, which would spare us the task of trying to do our own research and make our own decisions about how to weight the reactions. [[User:LEvalyn|<span style="color: #6703fc">~ L</span><small> 🌸</small>]] ([[User talk:LEvalyn|talk]]) 22:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
=== Refs ===
| |||