 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Don't have my usual references handy - but there is much more that can be said here. Perhaps later. Williamborg (Bill) 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And amusingly enough, this is a very hard topic to write about. As I reread it, I find it unsatisfying, but have nothing to add without research. Williamborg (Bill) 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Weird article edit
The article is as bullshitty as the concept itself.
All non-factual utterances must be clearly attributed to its author. Take, e.g., As opposed to the preceding “Russian spirit”, which focused on Russia’s past, “Russian soul” was an expression of optimism.
- I say, WTF? It is good as an opinion, but do you really want a reader to believe that "Russian soul" is something different from equally quacky term "Russian spirit"? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)