This subject is featured in the Outline of Belarus, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Eurovision, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Eurovision-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Belarus is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Belarus at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Groups such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) declared the election "un-free" because of the opposition parties' poor results [...]. Did they really? I see, it is very foolish to declare elections free or unfree basing on their results. I guess they must have said something less foolish. - 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The map which have title "Principalities of Kievan Rus" cannot be correct. In map there has been market northern border of Kievan Rus to follow same borderline which Finland have nowadays. That border was made in 1944, so it didn't exists 900 years ago. Before 1944 there was not any cultural, geographical, religious or ethnic border where it is now, so if Kievan Rus border was exactly same 900 years ago, that is so huge coincide that probably it is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with the history of Europe from medieval times to the present before you begin imagining that the many, many changes (Kingdoms, Empires, etc.) over hundreds of years correlate with modern-day sovereign nation-states. The map you are referring to is based on genuine contemporary cartographic depictions of Rus' at the time in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Novgorod did collect taxes from some Finno-Ugric tribes, Komi for example. Territory wasn't really controlled by Novgorod, but it was a sphere of influence. Can't say anythinh about modern Finland territories though Viktor Š 09:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I suspect this IP is trying to challenge the concept of Belarus as having had a history (i.e., ignoring the fact that Russia (the western European parts), Belarus and Ukraine have a mutual history through Rus'). I wouldn't concern myself with having to justify historical maps to accommodate a piece of WP:POV pushing, Виктор. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
About belarusian constitution type in infobox...
There have been changes in constitution type in infobox. Some people keep changing it to "Dictatorship" based on a Condoleezza's Rice statement (HERE). It is unacceptable for wiki to describe as dictator a person that has been legally elected by his country people. Of course it is completely different to write about this statement on the article.--exc (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So we write wiki articles based on propaganda... Like "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", "lazy Greeks" or the "invasions for bringing peace"... Do whatever you want, people.--exc (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The government section should state what type of government it is (presidential republic), not whether or not it's a dictatorship. A dictatorship can be of many forms: military, monarchical, single-party. It's not about whether it has reliable sources, but about whether it's a correct place to state that it's a dictatorship. Changing it back to neutral form. Abstractematics (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see the parameters for Template:Infobox country, Ohnoitsjamie. If we were to follow your highly interpretive line of definitions, I could find 'sources' to qualify the United States Government as being an 'Imperialist government dependent on military takeovers'. Any well cited critiques belong in the body of the article under a relevant section and must be well sourced with WP:V and WP:RS. You've been around long enough to be well acquainted with what Wikipedia is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Good luck with what? It's not contingent on good luck, and there are a plethora verifiable and reliable sources by researchers throughout the world on this issue... including respected US scholars. Unlike you, however, I don't engage in tendentious editing practices and POV pushes. If you, DagosNavy, Capitalismojo, Acroterion, Woloh and others continue to engage in this well documented behaviour, it won't end up in your favour. Your content changes are not in good faith and run contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I really don't care how long any of them have been on Wikipedia and whether they've established reasonable reputations for themselves (or not, as in some instances), they should know better... or should this be taken before an AN/I? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I would have to say that I for one am just following the RS refs. The refs say dictatorship not presidential republic. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Many countries - North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, etc. could be called dictatorships by reliable sources. That doesn't mean the infobox is the correct place to put those refs. The Governance section of Belarus article begins with a statement of the formal system - "Belarus is a presidential republic, governed by a president and the National Assembly." It later goes on to describe the dictatorship. It doesn't begin by saying "Belarus is a dictatorship." Abstractematics (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As is usual with infoboxes, it's hard to strike the correct balance of nuance in a few words. I agree with Abstractematics' latest edit, as it reflects how the nation is officially constituted, rather than how it's actually managed (I'm not aware of any nation that has officially called itself a dictatorship: perhaps there's been a "despotism" at some point?). I'm not sure what "semi-presidential is supposed to mean, so I can't say I agree with the edit-warring account and IP. @ Irnya Harpy, please tone it down: a polite discussion is always better, and my edit (and the edits of others) were mistaken application of the infobox parameter, not, as you've accused, tendentious or POV-pushing. Acroterion(talk) 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for my borderline uncivil behaviour Acroterion and Capitalismojo. I can't, in good conscience, extend the same to OhNoitsJamie who, by virtue of his/her response to my initial comment, has made it evident that their numerous re-instalments of this use of 'dictatorship' was not a good faith oversight but a POV push.
Unfortunately, due to my activity in Eastern European, ex-Soviet satellite state, and other highly sensitive, high traffic 'interest group' POV push areas of Wikipedia, I'm constantly caught up in trying to moderate heated talk page discussions, edit warring and encouraging contributors to read talk pages and use them before entering into the bold edit → revert → discuss cycle. The sheer volume of discretionary sanctions pertaining to this region over the years would suggest that it is better to pre-empt than regret.
I suggest that it serve as a reminder to those who have enormous watchlists they don't allow themselves to become lax about double-checking what has been changed and where it has been changed.
Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on using the CIA's World Factbook with discretion... and, according to the factbook, the Belarusian government type is listed as being, "republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship". By the same token, the same source defines Zimbabwe as a "parliamentary democracy". As so eloquently expressed by Abstractematics, in the interests of encyclopaedic neutrality, we do not introduce a subject to the reader by presenting from a position of our own authority. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is possible for opinions to differ short of POV-pushing. As you observe, watchlists can sometimes be a trap. That seems to be the case here, and we all have had to deal with relentless POV-pushing so often that it's easy to see it everywhere, and in this case it has cut both ways. However, we seem to have come out on the right side, so we appear to have worked it out through misadventure and misunderstanding. Acroterion(talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly hope that a spat by constructive, hard-working contributors doesn't undermine any future dealings we all have. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's true that frayed nerves take their toll. All my best and happy editing to all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Most countries have a sport sub-section to Culture section, should Belarus? The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that it is not an imperative. Such sections are dependent on contributors with verifiable and reliable secondary sources, as well as a good working knowledge of the specifics as related to the country in question. If no one has considered it a priority to develop a subsection on sports, creating one would be gratuitous rather than informative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)