Talk:Russian icons

Untitled
This article leaves a lot to be desired and is in need of a complete rewrite. It gives only a vague impression of the history and development of icon painting, it doesn't mention the major provincial schools or the Stroganov school. The section on collecting is not encyclopedic in tone and would be better suited to a magazine article. Scholarship and restoration of icons is a late 19th century/ 20th century phenomenon which has a history of its own, without that the Russian icon cannot be fully understood, this article does not give an adequate explanation of it. Twospoonfuls 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with some of what you said. The selection on collecting presents very important facts on this topic. These facts involve numerous textural aspects which may not be 'encyclopedic' by the definitions of some (and not others), but nevertheless, they're highly relevant, accurate and important pieces of information that should be presented in any entry or article that proposes to convey information on the topic of Icons. I agree that this article is in need of some factual additions, but I completely disagree that it is in need of a "complete rewrite". --LoverOfArt 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - the collecting stuff should go to its own article, and the main article considerably expanded. Johnbod 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Libel ?
"corrupt Ministry of Culture officials who are willing to certify an otherwise unexportable icon as being "100 years old" in order to facilitate its transfer." This is an unsubstantiated slur on a small group of living people who could sue ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)