Talk:Belarus

Not realistic

"After the short-lived Belarusian People’s Republic (1918–19), Belarus became a constituent republic of the Soviet Union, the Byelorussian SSR." Bolshevist invasion from Russia that ended BPR is not mentioned. After that were Slutsk armed rebellion and armed resistance of 20th - 30th XX century. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Upon the death of Kievan Rus' ruler, Prince Yaroslav the Wise, the state split into independent principalities.[26" Has nothing to do with our(Litva/Belarus) lands. In fact this event affected lands of modern Ukraine and Russia. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"These Ruthenian principalities were badly affected by a Mongol invasion in the 13th century, and many were later incorporated into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[27]" Once again - valid for Russia. Person that inserted this text is not familiar with Belarus history , nor with GDL history. The only result of this event was that Ukraine was later incorporated into GDL after Golden Horde defeat at "Sinija Vody" river, while Muscovy(Russia from XVIII century) was incorporated in Golden Horde and won leading political position there. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All belorussian materials are deleted from here. This is hardly history of Belarus. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not neutral

I particularly don´t like this phrase :Some Belarusians object to the name Belorussia as an unwelcome reminder of the days under Russian and Soviet rule It looks anti-russian, not neutral. I think that this should be eliminated. I don´t want to start an edit war so if someone disagrees please say it on the discussion page. (sorry for my english) --Mr nonono (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you looked, I provided a citation for that claim and the other claim that Byelorussia is objected because it looks like the country is still joined to Russia. Sorry, but there are people who object to the term and we have sources to document it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To be more exact - anti-occupational. No wonder in case of stolen independence and ethnocide policy of pro-russian regime Lisouczyk1 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with edit wars not solve problem. But I leave just a clarification. 1) Wikipedia is not a primary source, but neither is the Royal Academy of Language. Who changed the name of the country, the Belarusians not Wikipedia, and this change still does not reach the dictionary, which does not mean that we can not include it. They themselves write in Castilian "Republic of Belarus" (is something to see their official sites), and making a historical difference with Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. 2) These countries have an ancient history, but it belongs to State Rule is the Republic of Belarus (born 1991) was born in 1991 as the Russian Federation and Ukraine, from the ashes of the Soviet Union. As Italy has an ancient history, but the "Italian Republic" dates back only to 1946, it existed before the Kingdom of Italy (established 1861), and before a multitude of different States. The article is about the administrative unit (with legal status recognized by the international community) that governs a specific territory, not the territory. Greetings. Ccrazymann (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I was looking at the sources and some of them are from nationalist pages (for example, source 12, pravapis). I think we should ignore them as well as other biased pages if we want a neutral article.--Mr nonono (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the topic, there will be a lot of sources going for one side or an another. We just need to balance it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, this article says: some belarusians object to the name belorrusia as an unwelcome reminder of the days under russian and soviet rule. And then says: also those who wish Belarus to be reunited with Russia use Belorrusia. This phrases are from biased pages. Yes, there are nationalists who think that, but how many, ten? the great majority of belarusians don´t mind one or another form of the name. We can´t put the opinion of every single person, that´s not encyclopedic.--Mr nonono (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That first phrase has been removed. However, different books I looked at from non-partisan sources does state people will get offended if this name is used and why. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that practically all belarusians don´t mind between one or another form of the name, one recent survey in which participated both russians and belarusians showed that the great majority of belarusians see russia as a friend, and that a very important number of belarusians would like Belarus to form a single state with Russia. This reflects how belarusians stand towards Russia. To say that some belarusians oppose to the russian name is unnecesary and it unnecesary creates an anti-russian climate. It is so necesary to say that?--Mr nonono (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs)

My impression from ru:wiki is that a lot of Belarussian visitors clames that official Russian name of Belarus is Belarus, but Byelorussia is a former Soviet period name.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Preamble of the Belarusian Constitution, the country is either called Республики Беларусь or Беларуси officially. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In infinitive this name is Республика Беларусь or Беларусь. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and I remember there was a law passed about the name. I think I have it on the article already, but if not, I will try and find it again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I´m not talking about the name of the country, I know that the name is Belarus, not Belarrusia (I come from Belarus), I say that in Belarus, some people still using the term Belarrusia, and the denomym belarrusian, and the great majority of belarusians don´t might using one or another name, but this article suggests that in Belarus exists some kind of polemic with the name Belarrusia, wich actually don´t exist or exists only in small nationalist groups, and it creates an anti-russian climate. That´s why I want to eliminate those phrases.--Mr nonono (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but I already have two book sources that discuss the name is not totally accepted, even if it is a minority position. The book I added yesterday talked about changing the name during the Stalin period because of it's connection with Russia. I also further defined the groups so it is not just "some people." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that book, it only talks about Russia and the Soviet Union from the Western point of view (all we know how Western stand towards the Soviet Union) the book is biased for me. sources have to come from historical, non biased, webs or books.--Mr nonono (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The first suggested name change was going to happen during the Stalin era. I just also found http://www.belradio.fm/en/909/news/35335/ stating that foreign names sounding close to White Russia being changed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I think that we should change this phrases:(`Belarusian intelligentsia atttempted to change the name from Byelorussia to a form of Krivia because it shows a connection with Russia. Some nationalists also object to the name for the same reason´) to this one:(Belarusian intelligentsia atttempted to change the name Byelorussia because it considered that it shows a connection with Russia. nationalists also object to the name for the same reason) and add this phrase: (but the great majority of belarusians is indifferent and it indistinctly uses one or another form of the name) I think it will be more balanced. --Mr nonono (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I applied the changes and gave more context to the Stalin issue in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This statement is senseless. Кrivia is only part of belorussians. Read work of professor E. F. Karsky about belorussian lands definition. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

History

I feel that the history section represents a biased view of Belarussian history. It makes almost no mention of the 500 year history of Belarus as a part of the Polish Commonwealth, and when it does it gives the impression that it was under occupation. The fact that Ruthenian was an official language in the Commonwealth, and that Belarussian culture flourished is not mentioned. Russia is presented throughout as though it were the saviour of Belarus from Poland, and no mention is made of the forced Russification that was done during the times Belarus found itself under Russian rule. Also using the term "occupied by Poland" to describe the borders between Poland and the Soviet Union following the Peace of Riga is so clearly biased towards the history revisionists of Russia that I cannot let it stand... sorry. Katarzyna (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. No rebellion described after GDL termination in 1795. No T.Kasciuszka, nothing about executed in Russia K.Kalinouski. Nothing about tsar's decree about prohibition of names Litva and Litvins and how we obtained name "Belarus" under russian rule. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All I ask is you just make sure the statements match the sources (if you have to change or remove some, that is fine). You all will probably know this better than I do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The statements don't match the sources. What you do is deleting information backed by sources and introducing new text without providing any new source. You can't do that just because you personally find this text biased. This is not constructive and breaks the rules of the project. — Glebchik (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather the statements you are so intent on defending don't match your sources. An example, you use the terms "reunite" to describe Russian attempts to conquer the territories of Belraus and Ukraine from Poland, when in the source you cite it states that Russian wanted to "acquire" the former territories of the Kievan Rus'. Reunite sounds very biased to me, as if these territories were naturally Russian when in fact they are not. There are other examples of biased wording in this history piece that does not match the wording in the cited sources, and that is my problem with this whole article. Katarzyna (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Russia wanted to reunite the former territories of the Kievan Rus' is commonly accepted amongst the majority of historians. But "Russian attempts to conquer the territories of Belraus and Ukraine from Poland" is exacly a Polish POV. — Glebchik (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh, but that's why I use the term "acquire" the Kievan Rus lands, that way it's not biased. It's the same wording used in the source you cite. Why do you insist on using "reunite"? These aren't Muscovy lands, they are Kievan Rus' lands... they were never before under the control of Moscow so how is Moscow conquering them "reunification"? So was Operation Barbarosa an attempt by Hitler to "reunite" the territories of Belarus and Ukraine with Germany? Sorry to throw him into the discussion but it's just to make a point of how that word is not always the right one to use. I agree that my original overhaul may have been biased as well, but I hope that the changes I made recently are more acceptable. Cheers, and thank you for your civility in trying to resolve this problem through dialogue. Katarzyna (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Katarzyna, as I already told realistic data grts immediately deleted from here, I think by russians , because they point out to russian links. Here everybody writes but not belorussians. BTW, I know about russian re-union when up to 53% of our lands population was killed by tsar during 13 yers war. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see belorussian national/historical flag and coat of arms. Only soviet symbols are present that were forced after dictatorship regime was established in Belarus and de facto independence was lost. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember having a picture of the former flag in the article, but was later removed. I will see what I can do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a picture on Flickr, uploaded it and put it into the politics section. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Describing the areas annexed to Belarus in 1939 as "ethnically Belarusian-Russian lands" is inaccurate. The population of those areas at the time was mainly Belarusian and Polish, with some Tutejsi (Slavs with no stated nationality) and Jews. The proportion of Russians in the population of the area was very low. Incidentally, the area annexed to the BSSR in 1939 included the ethnically Polish Bialystok area, returned to Poland at the end of World War II. The (then ethnically Polish) Vilnius region was also briefly in the BSSR before being transferred to Lithuania. The phrasing of the introduction makes it sound like the western border of today's Belarus dates from 1939, which is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.214.99 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"the lands of modern-day Belarus belonged to several ethnically different countries, including the Principality of Polotsk, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Russian Empire, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." Statement is more than inaccurate. In fact distinctive national identity process was stopped with russian occuapation at the end of XVIII century. Later names "Litva", "Litvins" were forbidden by tsar's decree and population was re-named. Lisouczyk1 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Caricature

That caricature does not belong to a serious article, it only shows the personal opinion of the autor and makes the history section biased, apart from being largely irrelevant. I saw articles about other countries and no one uses political caricatures to describe a part of history.--Mr nonono (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked and agreed. The Peace of Riga is not even mentioned in the article, but the partition was. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of articles written by Polish users in WP do use caricatures extensively. Soviet invasion of Poland is just of many examples. Further on, this article belonging to Belarusian history is very often visited by Polish users who censor out of here any view which is not consistent with their Polish history POV.

This caricature was initially printed by Belarusian newspaper in Prague and was exactly depicting the nature of Riga treaty. This is not dubious putting together of Stalin and Hitler on the same place like it is done in Soviet invasion of Poland.P.S. Not peace of Riga, but Riga treaty, lol.Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, if you state that your edit "would likely put the article in war", then, please, refrain from such edits in Belarusian articles. Or at least start with Polish ones. Is it not enough that Belarus was a territory for almost all devastating European and all World wars? Vlad fedorov (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said to other users, I have no connections to Poland, Belarus or any E. European nation for that matter. I wrote a majority of this article in 2005/2006 and I expect a lot of new information to come out (and a lot of information for me to even find out). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The caricature only reflects the personal opinion of the author (very biased). How it can be used to describe an historical event? that´s not neutral.--Mr nonono (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Very Biased Article

This whole article is so biased and POV-ridden that it hampers its credibility. I don't want to get into an edit war with the nationlists and history revisionists from Russia on here, but the wording used attempts to misrepresent history. The same concerns I mentioned above are back, and it seems that discussing this problem is too civil for some people that continue to edit the history section. I don't know if its kids or diehard fanatics, but even from this discussion page its clear that I'm not the only one that is concerend with the neutrality of this article. Can someone take a look at this and fix it? Preferably someone that's not from E. Europe so its non-POV. Thanks. Katarzyna (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even without the POV issues, the article needs a very major overhaul and I will take that task on. I just fixed up the section Belarus#Etymology, but I know I need to make more edits to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the dataset from the IMF was updated by another user, I am changing the citation style of the article and I am also reworded several sections at Belarus#Etymology and redid the sources (took out some ones I did not like and replaced them with actual books). I would like a grammar check of that section. The lead (or lede) section is going to be another main goal of mine soon, but I would like all of your help to get the wording right. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to all. As I already told to Katarzyna here, you may have to consult:

• Polonization (section on Western Belarus) and Peace of Riga articles.
• It may be noted that majority of sources cited there in Belarus and Polonization are neutral Western books taken from Google books project, which support this version more than Polish one, especially considering that modern Belarusian sources cited are in line with them.
• Editing Belarus from Polish POV, e.g. Polish history textbooks is not reasonable, since Belarusians view those issues differently and Poles are unable to make NPOV version combining with Belarusian textbooks anyway. And it is even weird, why English Wikipedia history article on Belarus should be written according to Polish POV.
• I expect diplomatic interaction from Polish users. I understand that for many of them something new they learn about Western Belarus under Poland (which is negative of Poland in most of the cases) is a reason for immediate claim that this is Russian communist propaganda, Belarusian nationalism and etc.(defensive reaction).
• I note that lots of Polish users and IP's regularly come to the article to revert of vandalize history secton which sheds negative light on Poland.
• I also may note that article Soviet invasion of Poland is so irreparably biased that it even didn't mention in background that Western Belarus which was "occupied" by Red Army itself was illegaly acquired by Poland by Peace of Riga. Which neccesitates revision of it.
• Jestem otwarty na wszelkie propozycje.Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So for all intensive purposes, it is all in the history section? While I did have some issues with Mrnono with the section on the name of Belarus in the past (over the perception of the term Byelorussia), everything else looks alright and there no actual edit warring (until that one nationalist came in a week or two ago). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don´t want to start another discussion here, but I have to say something. This article has to be reworded. For example, look how the article starts:

Until the 20th century, the Belarusians lacked the opportunity to create a distinctive national identity because for centuries the lands of modern-day Belarus belonged to several ethnically different countries, including the Principality of Polotsk, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Russian Empire, and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. After the short-lived Belarusian People’s Republic (1918–19), Belarus became a constituent republic of the Soviet Union, the Byelorussian SSR.

Now look to the ukrainian article:

After a chaotic period of incessant warfare and several attempts at independence (1917–21) following World War I and the Russian Civil War, Ukraine emerged on December 30, 1922 as one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic's territory was enlarged westward shortly before and after World War II, and southwards in 1954 with the Crimea transfer. In 1945, the Ukrainian SSR became one of the co-founding members of the United Nations.

You understand what I mean? The same passes in the poilitics section, one example: Lukashenko won the election with 80% of the vote, but the OSCE and other organizations called the election unfair.

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 and media bias in favor of the government.

these are only a few examples. I am not saying that the information is not true, but it is written in a biased form, it looks that the article was edited by a couple of nationalists. It omits some information and shows it from only one point of view, making the article biased. It does not say, for example, that Lukashenko really won with the 90% of votes, or that observers from the CIS called the elections free. If you want to make this article more neutral, please, redact correctly and don´t show only one point of view.--Mr nonono (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the lead section is going to be one of my goals for re-writing and I fixed the politics section (or was it foreign relations, not sure) to talk about the current revisions of the travel bans. Before, it just said he was banned from traveling, but last year and this year, those bans were lifted so Lukashenko can go to certain places (like the UN). I will probably also mention that Soviet Belarus was also a founding member of the UN. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

blond

=part ofetym?----pl.note:i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!>contactme thruMSNpl.if unclear[sven70=alias (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed in First Monday article Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia’s feature articles

Hey, I noticed that this article was mentioned in this April 2010 journal article entitled Evaluating quality control of Wikipedia’s feature articles. The comment was:

On the other hand, Grigory Ioffe (Professor of Geography at Radford University and the author of Understanding Belarus and How Western Policy Misses the Mark), wrote of the article on Belarus, "This is a piece of immature writing unusual even for the Wikipedia".

The article scored a 4 on a ten-point scale. II | (t - c) 00:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And I spoke to the professor via email. He says the article is getting better and likes what changes since April was done. However, due to a recent ArbCom ruling, the main person I can use for editing this article is now banned from all FSU topics and articles, including this. So...I'm boned. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish Crown supporting Belarusian identity?

"Despite Russian attempts at conquest, the territories of modern day Belarus remained an integral part of the Polish-Lithuanina Commonwealth for over 400 years, with the local traditions and languages being supported by the Polish Crown"

How exactly? By demoting the Litvin luanguage from the official status in the end of 17th century? Or by Polonizing most of nobility? It's one thing to say that GDL "supported local traditions", but this statement about the Crown is just false: from Lublin on the policy of the Crown was that of creeping Polonization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.23.121 (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Belorussian = White Movement?

In the English speaking world, White Russians are more to do with Monarchistic Russians, and not as much the Belorussians. Or maybe it is the same thing. Anyone with some info?(83.108.30.141 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC))