Talk:Arnold J. Toynbee

message: As a novice user interested in the ideas and contributions of Arnold Toynbee, I find the article distinctly lacking. I also notice more emphasis on the issue of criticism (though it remains unclear to what exactly, it feels as if the article is just trying to make it clear that there sure is a lot of criticism out there) and pretty little on Toynbee's ideas and achievements. Also, surely a work of the scope of a Story of Civilization should merit a bit more attention? What about a bibliography? --190.48.103.105 13:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easiest way to do that (for books and collections, anyway) is go to the Library of Congress website,  and type in his name under "Author Browse." It's a very long list. --Michael K. Smith 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes please do lower case. Please note that Wikipedia has to be careful on all copyright matters. I think it is questionable whether any copyright can obtain on simple lists of works, but I'm not sure the same can be said for bibliographical details. I tend to err on the side of giving quite spare lists of titles and dates. Charles Matthews 20:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: One way would be to create a section of the article surveying the major works. If those summaries are basically your own work (i.e. are not verbatim from your source), there should not actually be any problem here. Charles Matthews 07:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: ::My knowledge of Toynbee is limited but I know more than some here. I've read his "Study of History" a couple of times as well as other writings. While it has been decades since I read his magnum opus the second time when I did so I had some cause to consider the case against Toynbee for antisemitism. While I do not think Toynbee was an antisemite if that is defined as a person who has a deeply ingrained reflexive hatred of Jews or a considered and conscious antagonism towards them, I do think he was influenced by some antisemitic notions as would have been common for a person of his background and age. I have too much respect for Toynbee to conclude that he was antisemitic. I think that he reconsidered his thinking on issues related to the Jewish role in world history at various times during his life with the intention of being fair and objective. I also think that his work was edited by people who addressed the questions raised regarding his statements about the Jews and Israel.
::It is important for me to know that very early in his career Toynbee investigated the Armenian Genocide on behalf of the British government and that his research provided the basis for a "Blue Book" on the subject published by the British Parliament which concluded that there had been a deliberate attempt to exterminate the Armenians by the post-Ottoman government of Turkey during WW I. This has been the subject of endless and bitter controversy ever since and partisans of the Turks are fond of pointing out that Toynbee actually conceded that the "Blue Book" was to at least some extent a product of British wartime propaganda. However, late in his life in his memoir "Acquaintances" Toynbee said that he had been deeply moved by his research into what he called "a great crime" and a "genocide". He specifically said that his study of the Armenian Genocide "left an impression on my mind that was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded genocide, on a far larger scale, that was committed during the Second World War by the Nazis" and that to his mind "any great crime" raised a question that "transcends national limits" and "goes to the heart of human nature itself" confirming "the reality of Original Sin". 
::Toynbee seems to struggle a bit crankily with how the very unique history of the Jewish people fit into his theory of history, but he clearly recognizes the power of the Jewish religious and literary achievement and influence. If I am not mistaken he says or implies that the Armenians are one of the very few other peoples whose history provides a parallel. He was inclined to be critical of Zionism for a variety of reasons which are either widely influential or particular to his studies as a historian. The conviction that this makes him per se antisemitic stems from a desire to prevent the kind of inquiry he did into the Armenian Genocide with regard to the Palestinians. That said, it is not as though Toynbee categorically condemns the Zionist project or the state of Israel as such, or that he does not similarly criticize other states and/or the national movements behind their foundations. 
::As "Acquaintances" implies the Holocaust compelled him to reconsider much of what he thought. He acknowledged that it was an event superior in its dimensions and significance to others of its kinds including both the Armenian Genocide and the dispossession of most of the Arabs inhabiting the lands which now constitute the Jewish State, but unlike some he did not conclude that this made it wrong to compare the conduct of Jewish people when they were victims of powerful states with when their state had power over inconvenient others. 
::Toynbee's reference to "Original Sin" (his capitalization) is very revealing too. Toynbee is fundamentally a Christian thinker. I think this alone may explain both the presence of both a bias against (or critical position at least) and a recognition of the genius and moral stature of Jewish civilization in his work. This was the conclusion I reached about Toynbee and the Jews long ago. I am sure that there is much on the subject I do not know and that Toynbee was not always fair to the Jews in everything he said and thought about them, but I doubt I could be convinced that he shares anything like the antisemitism that inspired the Nazis or that makes him generally morally reprehensible. Millscrawford (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022

message: A new reader having plowed through the entire -word article would have learned little about Toynbee's theories. Only 775 of th 2300 words are about him, and the 450 words about his approach to history shed little light on his views: they don't even list all the stages in a civilizations lifecycle and ignore completely Toynbee's concept of "Affiliation". Challenge-and-response is but one aspect. Uncle Ed 14:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; most analysis like this always claim Toynbee's Theory of Challenge & Response is related to environment; that may be the first example he uses in his text, however the threory recurs again and again and again, as social challenges, political challenges, economic challenges etc.  This would be an excellent place to expand upon, and clarify some of Toynbeee's ideas.  nobs 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can add some of what Curtius wrote. Charles Matthews 16:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This page right now is owned by Toynbee's critics; it needs input from people who not just read Toynbee, but actually have some understaning of what he said.  nobs 20:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more meat

message: :Yes! 20% or more of article explainting Toynbee's thought itself apart from criticism seems a modest request. (Should be a Wikipedia minimum.)
:I came to the page from Samuel_P._Huntington which referred to "Arnold Toynbee's controversial religious theories about Asian leaders during the early twentieth century" and found nothing about them.  Religion and Christianity are hardly mentioned except for complaints that he was biased in favor of Christianity. Which suggests it was important in his thought, but left out of this article. Ttulinsky (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 2024

message: I note that the article twice mentions that Toynbee was an academic at the University of London. Whilst  there is some centralisation of certain resources (examinations, libraries etc) the UoL only really exists in an abstract sense; it is a composite of 30 or more institutes and colleges, the larger of which are basically universities in their own right (amongst which the LSE is prominent). I therefore don't understand how one can be a research professor at the 'University of London', and thus this passage seems a bit misleading (it's particularly tautological to talk about the LSE AND the UoL (although I'm not certain when the LSE joined the federation)). I suspect it would be better to explicitly state which college or institute he was a professor at- can anyone enlighten me? Badgerpatrol 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , he started at King's College London. Charles Matthews 23:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's quick work! (Although the link seems to be broken...) Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic History

message: Is About.com stealing this article's text, or is much of this article stolen from here ? GrubLord 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is certainly stolen from here. Charles Matthews 12:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About.com 

message: Peter Jenkins is married to Polly Toynbee, rather than being a sibling. Charles Matthews 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family tree

message: James Blish's famous "Cities in Flight" series of science fiction novels is organized around a whole elaborate quasi-Toynbeean scheme (a full-page chart correlating future historical events with Toynbeean stages is included in some editions of the books), and Toynbee is also mentioned several times in the text of the novels themselves... AnonMoos 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is also mentioned in Chapter 6 of Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke in reference to the character Sir Lewis Sands - "A man whose knowledge was matched only by his urbanity, Sir Lewis was reputed to lose his composure only when called the Arnold Toynbee of his age." Dunno if it bears mentioning here or not. Weaponofmassinstruction (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Oops, I think that Spengler may be mentioned more prominently than Toynbee in "Cities in Flight"; partially disregard my comments above... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: I am all for "trivia" - very much so, since it adds "flesh" to "bare bones". Which is why I cannot comprehend the reasons for the omission of T.'s "visions". (Anyone who knows enough about him to have written an encyclopaedic entry about him surely knows which "visions I am referring to.) It is a vital piece of "trivia" - certainly important to Toynbee himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.38.43 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing piece of "trivia" 

message: The New College of Florida article claims that Toynbee came out of retirement to join the institution's faculty upon its foundation. Can anyone verify this? If this is true, it really ought to be added to this article. Harel Newman (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New College of Florida

message: Everything Toynbee wrote was "stolen" (colloquially speaking) from Oswald Spengler, the German philosopher who introduced the Cyclic Theory of History in 1917.  93.219.181.143 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toynbee = plagiator  

message: New article, Toynbee's law of challenge and response needs help. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it here. The book by Graeme Snooks looks like an interesting critique:"he was badly equipped for the task, he did not possess a dynamic model, he focused upon events rather than mechanisms (outcomes rather than processes),he adopted the wrong level of aggregation, and he lost his way—what had begun as a scicntific expedition ended as a kind of Pilgrim's Progress. Toynbee was unable not only to derive any useful law's of history but also to provide a satisfactory explanation of the dynamics of human society. The fundamental reason is that he asked die wrong questions. To understand die rise and fall of civilizations it is necessary to focus upon issues of material expansion and growth. Civilization is a brick-and-mortar thing. Instead. Toynbee, consciously and at the very beginning, tackled the issue of mankind's spiritual progress". See also . Ludger Kühnhardt attempts to apply it to current issues here.. If it's enlarged, maybe sometime it should have its own article written by editors with no COI. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance please at [[Toynbee's law of challenge and response]] 

message: I've deleted this. We have (since my edits) a section on challenge and response. Some people do call this a law, others don't and I'm not sure we should/need to. But the main problems are that there is actually no discussion in the new edits of this 'law', just a list of civilizations Toynbee wrote about and some original research about those civilizations. What the article actually needs is more discussion of the concept, pro and con, and if the sources are there maybe discussing it in terms of one civilization.
This editor means very well and is working hard but I don't think yet understands at all how this Wikipedia works and our relevant policies concerning original research and verification. Sociology of revolution is also basically original research with no references. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Law of challenge and response" 

message: where on earth did u find this article? 
^ Michael Lang, "Globalization and Global History in Toynbee," Journal of World History (2011) 22#4 pp. 747-783
Toynbee against Greek Humanism?? u cannot cite an article with the opinion of someone about Toynbee for the general description on the introduction. Also, it makes no sense, nobody can understand what is this person famous about (therefore mentioned on wikipedia), ur rushing into criticism from the very beginning of the wiki   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.55.83 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article in the Journal of World History--it's the leading scholarly journal in the field and Toynbee was very much into world history.  Wikipedia depends on scholarly secondary sources like the Journal, or McNeill's scholarly biography. I recommend editors who work on this article read that article and McNeill's book--or they will be ignorant of the best scholarship. I cited it in the introduction because some anonymous editor erased the earlier version. I would be happy to send a copy of the Lang article to anyone who writes me at rjensen @ uic.edu  it opens: "To many world historians today, Arnold J. Toynbee is regarded like an embarrassing uncle at a house party. He gets a requisite introduction by virtue of his place on the family tree, but he is quickly passed over for other friends and relatives. For much of the twentieth century though, Toynbee was perhaps the world’s most read, translated, and discussed living scholar. His output was enormous, hundreds of books, pamphlets, and articles. Of these, scores were translated into thirty different languages. In 1947, Time magazine considered his historical significance to be on par with Marx. Among intellectuals, response to his work was de rigueur. Indeed, the critical reaction to Toynbee constitutes a veritable intellectual history of the midcentury: we find, for example, Aron, Frye, Huxley, Kennan, Kracauer, Kroeber, Morgenthau, Mumford, Niebuhr, Ortega y Gasset, Popper, Ricouer, and Sweezy, as well as a long list of the period’s most important historians, Beard, Braudel, Collingwood, and so on."  Lang provides a very useful survey of Toynbee's intellectual heritage.  Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki rules do not allow the blanket erasure of sourced text.  If you think something is mistaken, the rules WP:NPOV say you must ADD a countervailing statement by a reliable secondary source. [Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.] Rjensen (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I read the article in the Journal of World History--it's the leading scholarly journal in the field and Toynbee was very much into world history. Wikipedia depends on scholarly secondary sources like the Journal, or McNeill's scholarly biography. I recommend editors who work on this article read that article and McNeill's book--or they will be ignorant of the best scholarship. I cited it in the introduction because some anonymous editor erased the earlier version. I would be happy to send a copy of the Lang article to anyone who writes me at rjensen @ uic.edu it opens: "To many world historians today, Arnold J. Toynbee is regarded like an embarrassing uncle at a house party. He gets a requisite introduction by virtue of his place on the family tree, but he is quickly passed over for other friends and relatives. For much of the twentieth century though, Toynbee was perhaps the world’s most read, translated, and discussed living scholar. His output was enormous, hundreds of books, pamphlets, and articles. Of these, scores were translated into thirty different languages. In 1947, Time magazine considered his historical significance to be on par with Marx. Among intellectuals, response to his work was de rigueur. Indeed, the critical reaction to Toynbee constitutes a veritable intellectual history of the midcentury: we find, for example, Aron, Frye, Huxley, Kennan, Kracauer, Kroeber, Morgenthau, Mumford, Niebuhr, Ortega y Gasset, Popper, Ricouer, and Sweezy, as well as a long list of the period’s most important historians, Beard, Braudel, Collingwood, and so on." Lang provides a very useful survey of Toynbee's intellectual heritage. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: All Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable secondary sources--of which there are many on Toynbee. That is editors follow the scholars who worked through tens of thousands of pages by Toynbee and others.  We can NOT use text based on one editor's personal reading of a little sliver of Toynbee.Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  IN Wikipedia, neutrality WP:NPOV means neutral among the reliable secondary sources; it does NOT mean neutral toward Toynbee. The great majority of historians in the last 50 years have a negative view of Toynbee's "Study of History" --it's hard to find anyone alive in 2013 who endorses his ideas. Therefore a neutral article will emphasize what his reputation actually is.  To say that his ideas are accepted today is a fringe view.  However I have been adding sourced info on why his ideas were accepted in 1950s among both scholars and the public. [eg I added Parry's argument that "A religious outlook permeates the Study and made it especially popular in the United States, for Toynbee rejected Greek humanism as too man-centered, distrusted the Enlightenment belief in humanity's essential goodness, and rejected the "false god" of modern nationalism.[fn to Parry]"]  Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: the lede has to summarize the meat of the article, not give hints that the real story comes later.  What's with all these "undue weight" markups--each one needs to be explained here with cites to show they are undue. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: u cannot write a wiki page based on a biographical book, its supposed to be either of an encyclopedical tone or the result of further research, kind of the voice that resumes what is generally said. The wiki clearly cared to portray Toynbee as somethng he wasn't, emphasizing on the citicism. Still needs a lot of work both on becoming more neutral and on offering more rich information. I started correcting, please join me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.55.83 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki rules do not allow the blanket erasure of sourced text.  If you think something is mistaken, the rules WP:NPOV say you must ADD a countervailing statement by a reliable secondary source. [Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.] Rjensen (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article in the Journal of World History--it's the leading scholarly journal in the field and Toynbee was very much into world history. Wikipedia depends on scholarly secondary sources like the Journal, or McNeill's scholarly biography. I recommend editors who work on this article read that article and McNeill's book--or they will be ignorant of the best scholarship. I cited it in the introduction because some anonymous editor erased the earlier version. I would be happy to send a copy of the Lang article to anyone who writes me at rjensen @ uic.edu it opens: "To many world historians today, Arnold J. Toynbee is regarded like an embarrassing uncle at a house party. He gets a requisite introduction by virtue of his place on the family tree, but he is quickly passed over for other friends and relatives. For much of the twentieth century though, Toynbee was perhaps the world’s most read, translated, and discussed living scholar. His output was enormous, hundreds of books, pamphlets, and articles. Of these, scores were translated into thirty different languages. In 1947, Time magazine considered his historical significance to be on par with Marx. Among intellectuals, response to his work was de rigueur. Indeed, the critical reaction to Toynbee constitutes a veritable intellectual history of the midcentury: we find, for example, Aron, Frye, Huxley, Kennan, Kracauer, Kroeber, Morgenthau, Mumford, Niebuhr, Ortega y Gasset, Popper, Ricouer, and Sweezy, as well as a long list of the period’s most important historians, Beard, Braudel, Collingwood, and so on." Lang provides a very useful survey of Toynbee's intellectual heritage. Rjensen (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: All Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable secondary sources--of which there are many on Toynbee. That is editors follow the scholars who worked through tens of thousands of pages by Toynbee and others.  We can NOT use text based on one editor's personal reading of a little sliver of Toynbee.Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible wiki

message: User:Rjensen, do you have a specific reason to repeatedly promote the criticizing of Toynbee, against the majority here who clearly say that this article emphasizes on this aspect and needs to become more neutral?  Since the introduction already mentions in a neutral way both his achievements and the critique he received, please add relevant information only to the criticizing paragraph and NOT on the introduction.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt1720 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  IN Wikipedia, neutrality WP:NPOV means neutral among the reliable secondary sources; it does NOT mean neutral toward Toynbee. The great majority of historians in the last 50 years have a negative view of Toynbee's "Study of History" --it's hard to find anyone alive in 2013 who endorses his ideas. Therefore a neutral article will emphasize what his reputation actually is.  To say that his ideas are accepted today is a fringe view.  However I have been adding sourced info on why his ideas were accepted in 1950s among both scholars and the public. [eg I added Parry's argument that "A religious outlook permeates the Study and made it especially popular in the United States, for Toynbee rejected Greek humanism as too man-centered, distrusted the Enlightenment belief in humanity's essential goodness, and rejected the "false god" of modern nationalism.[fn to Parry]"]  Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the lede has to summarize the meat of the article, not give hints that the real story comes later.  What's with all these "undue weight" markups--each one needs to be explained here with cites to show they are undue. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede issues

message: Can anyone locate a list of Toynbee Prize winners by year? Their website seems to list the winners alphabetically, rather than chronologically. It would be nice to incorporate who won in what years here. KConWiki (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Prize Winners by Year

message: I came to this page knowing little about Toynbee, but had seen his views cited elsewhere. I came here to find out what those were. The introduction says:
: "Toynbee's work lost favor among both the general public and scholars by the 1960s, due to the religious and spiritual outlook that permeates the largest part of his work."
It looked like I was going to find out, but reading through the whole thing, I see nothing specific about this "religious and spiritual outlook". It appears that the authors know this already, and forgot that the reader might not. "needs more meat" above is correct.
BillyKwiki (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically it is about Hegel, "elevated Christianity", Buddhism as medium between cultures and religions, and so on. As of "lost of favor": it depends on definition of "general public and scholars" but my little hint would be the rise of postmodernity. Postmodernity no longer likes all of these spiritual, aufgehobening stuff. Postmodernity prefers insanity, infinite interpretation, "structures", drugs, and so on. Even areas of direct overlap with previous generation (like ancient myths, etc.) is treated using different words (but the goal hasn't changed too much). 94.230.156.130 (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumes the reader knows Toynbee's views already

message: The lead paragraph to this article is a bit awkward; I think it best to simplify it so it focuses on Tonybee's work and not his reputation. Discuss if desired.Chagallophile (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've already made some changes. I've restored some valuable material to the body (you know that you're working too fast when a bot is rescuing references, especially when they're ones that I've set up). The quote was out of place, but it deserved to be moved not deleted. Some of the bits concerning the recent languishing of Toynbee's reputation might have been too lurid, but some mention of it should be included. I think that what's there now, giving a limited time frame to his greatest influence, does that by implication. A more careful summary of that languishing could be included at some future date, for which the second deleted reference I rescued could be useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede is awkward 

message: How can such an article be accepted in Wikipedia? It says NOTHING about Toynbee's works, his philosophy of history, nothing essential. Only things which could have been written in a yellow press article. Trivialities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5045:1BC0:8C:1B10:BE32:B512 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shocking 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arnold J. Toynbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130328184207/http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/bulletinF01/29.23-33.pdf to http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/bulletinF01/29.23-33.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053522/http://www.sgi.org/news/c-activities/ce2005/ce050723.html to http://www.sgi.org/news/c-activities/ce2005/ce050723.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article got some anti-German bias as it states that pre-WW2 had territories of Poland, which is untrue.--105.4.5.113 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The book was written in 1915... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-German Bias 

message: Why is spelling not uniform in this article ? "z" is favored over "s" -by 26 to 8- but there are still many occurrences of the latter. It seems that US spelling is "z", and that this is general for words ending in [aiz...], while british english uses "s". I lean towards US spelling but in any case i think any given article should stick to a single spelling -which i believe is wiki's general recommendation. Plm203 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, a single article should be consistent in the use of English language variants. This article is flagged as , so the uses of American spelling do need to be changed — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they need to be consistent, but "z" is also fine in Oxford spelling, which many over-zealous editors seem unaware of. Toynbee was an Oxonian, and many of his book titles suggest this is what he used himsef. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The clash of "civilization" and "civilisation"