Talk:Flag of Belarus

Old comments

Why can't I see the thumbnail on the main page? I have to click on the image link to see the flag, and then only full-size. Also, several other flag images are blank.Yahnatan 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I had some problems in the past trying to load images, mainly due to server issues. Also, depending on what browser you use, the SVG images might not work. Zach (Sound Off) 00:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

i dont know...-User:Carsoncocars

I really don't see the point of using SVG images in this article, especially for the first image. It doesn't load in IE, and most people visit Wikipedia with Internet Explorer. Why do we need SVG so badly as to alienate those users and prevent them from seeing the flag on one of our featured articles? Ronline 03:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I was bitched at to do SVG images, mainly flag images. Zach (Sound Off) 03:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence about "independent observers"

I removed the sentence "Independent observers have said that the referendum that selected the current flag did not meet democratic standards." for the following reasons:

1. no reference/source given, which is not good, considering article's features status. Who reported this? When? Is that a consensus view?
2. vague
   1. who were the observers? How many were they, what exactly have they found?
   2. they are independent from whom? Were they financed by Western political groups? By Western governments? By international and supranational organisations? Or are they not "independent", but rather "opposed to existing government"?
   3. what exactly standards were not met? Were there violations at polling stations? Were some groups limited from participating? Was government trying to force people to vote in one or another way?
3. misleading. It uses a loaded and poorly defined term "democratic". Saying that a referendum didn't met a democratic standard is extremely disengenious and misleading. A referendum is the epitome of democracy, itis democratic almost by its very definition.
   1. biased. Clearly the line was inserted as a potshot at the current administration of Belarus by one of its opponents.

Paranoid 05:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The main source was from http://www.fotw.net/flags/by_law.html#ref, but the main website presenting this information are kaput. The information in the lead is fine now, I am not going to turn this into an edit war. Zach (Sound Off) 06:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Better yet, I personally thank you Paranoid for coming by and checking my work. While I try to maintain NPOV as much as possible, I do admit that I have a slight bias that might be towards Luka. Most of the sources I have are government information, and Belarusian websites about the flag are few and far between. Zach (Sound Off) 06:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link

The 'White Rus' link is broken. Should it point to "White_Ruthenia"?

Yeah, lets try that. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "Pahonia" the former coat of arms?

This article makes two references to the pre-1995 flag as the "Pahonia" flag. The pre-1995 coat of arms was indeed called "Pahonia" (other spellings exist) but I've never heard the flag referred to by the same name. See e.g. Pahonya. Comments anyone? --Valentinian 14:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

you're right. --Monkbel 14:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My apologizes. BTW, I was wondering if yall wish to stick around and possibly work with me on trying to get this article to the Wikireader?

Not interested. This red-green awful flag is too temporary, too autocratic and too anti-Belarusian to contribute to article about it. Why to write about something what will ceize to exist in less then a year? --Monkbel 00:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there are elections in Belarus next year. I will try to pay attention to the debates, though I think they will get little interest in the USA. I remember watching the news about Luka's "victory" in Sept of 2001, but after about two days of the election coverage and the US State Department debates, it happened. Also, if the flag changes, it will give us a chance to have people look at this and also, perhaps, bring other Belarusians into the project. Though, Monkbel, many of the topics I have written about have many ties into the current Belarusian "government," such as Hero of Belarus and My Belarusy. Zach (Sound Off) 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Flag's proportions

The construction sheet shows the proportions of the flag incorrectly: the decorative pattern is given here as occupying one tenth of the flag's width, not the stated one ninth. Correct proportions are (reduced to the lowest integer factors): across, 2 and 16; down, 6 and 3. Vilcxjo 16:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Belarusian Presidency website, http://president.gov.by/eng/simbol/90d2c3741d228.html, said that the length of the ornament/decorative pattern is 1/9 of the flag's width. Zach (Sound Off) 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are getting at. I'll fix it. Zach (Sound Off) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Typo? "rye, bread, and salt"

I know little of Belarus, though more than before after reading the article. But there may be a typo in the sentence "An example of their use would be a host offering his guests rye, bread, and salt, which would then be served on a rushnik." Shouldn't it read "rye bread and salt"? Peter 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. Zach (Sound Off) 00:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Border image for the Flag of Belarus

Hello! Can you please place a border around the flag of belarus it should not be so difficult i think

Sondre

Ensign?

According to the flag protocol ("By law, the Belarusian flag is supposed to be flown daily, weather permitting, from the following locations: (...) Military bases or military ships owned by the government"), the flag could be used as an ensign (governmental and naval), so I guess the right vexillological symbol is or or even . Am I right? NL-Ninane 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no official navy of Belarus, but the border guards have their own ensigns. Ill take a look at it when I get home, but yes, the FIAV symbol might change on here (I will probably have to change it on FOTW too). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

The text says the following:

The referendum that was held to adopt the state symbols took place on May 14, 1995. With a voter turnout of 64.7%, the new flag was approved by a ratio of three to one (75.1% to 24.9%). The other three questions were also passed by the voters. The way of carrying out the referendum was heavily criticized by the opposition. Also, actually only 48.6% of the total electorate approved of the new emblem, since over a third of the eligible voters did not express an opinion. Some claim that this failure to win a majority is a violation of the Law, but the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian Law cannot resolve the issue.

This is not because of the imperfection and incompleteness of the Belarusian law but this is the way how democracy works. Meursault2004 12:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Does democreacy work overriding constitution where it is writtent that "referendum has no law power" and only "advisory"? It happend only in Belarus (breaking constitution). Any other country with such "democracy"? Lisouczyk1 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence you highlighted, there are statements that they deem this election flawd due to the low vote count that was used to adopt not just the flag, but the state emblem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence reads better now. Meursault2004 01:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, is this an article by the regime? "Certain elements" use the right flag... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.165.141 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)