Talk:Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic

Page move to "belorussian SSR"

First, it is impolite to move pages without talkingt to other editors. This article is not about some obscure person with unknown spelling no one cares. This is a country.

Second, something is wrong with your google. My search shows 10x majority for "Byelorissian SSR" in both international and English language searches. Simply "Byelorussian" also of notable majority.

Third, whatever google says, that was an official Soviet spelling of the country. We don't call the article "Ivory Coast", do we? Despite 5x google preference.

And fourth, when you are making moves, do not forget to fix redirects. There is a big "click here" popping up when you finish a move. Although in this particular case it is good that you didn't follow the rules; I would have more work to undo. And this is the second reason to talk to people first; to avoid useless work. Mikkalai 18:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My Google may have acted up. When I try it now, you're right. And I didn't fix the redirects precisely because of the possibility of such a move being reverted (in this case correctly). I would have fixed them later. Gzornenplatz 19:27, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

The title "Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic" is fast becoming an anachronism. Byelorusskaya in Russian is Belaruskaya in Belarusian. And the accepted translation of both is Belarusian in English. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 21:02 Z

It cannot become anachronism. It was a name of a defunct state, and it was official spelling "Byelo". Even the domain of Belarus was "by" for this reason. Mikkalai 21:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree with Mikkalai. As it was called "Byelorussian SSR" in all English-language publications of the USSR until the end of its existance, it's obvious, that this official name will always remain unchanged, like will remain unchanged its official flag and COA. Despite, that anyone can call it whatever he/she wants now. To the domain name I should add another set of sources: all United Nations's publications issued during the period of existance of the republic, where it is mentioned (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] etc.). You can see, that UN doesn't change its official name in historical documents to "comply with the new fashion". Cmapm 00:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to add info that Byelorussian can no longer be used at present? That the adjective is now defunct. Because some companies still use it. http://www.belsteel.com/eng/about/bsw.php Vedarough (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

belorussian SSR

I think that Jan 1 1919 it was proclaimed LitBiel Lithuanian-Bellorussian SSR. Am I correct? This "state" was later abandoned and afterwards BSSR was found. Eon 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Eon 05:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Litbel article. They did not use CamelCase at these times :-) mikka (t) 17:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Language

As far as I am concerned, before 1937 there were recognized 4 languages: Polish, Belorrussian, Jiddish and Russian. I read memoires of one guest who was greeted in those 4 languages at the station. Eon 05:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relation to Litbel?

If it was created on 1 Jan, what exactly was it's relation to Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (Feb-August 1919)?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

I find the whole history section highly POV. What "Belarus" was invaded in 1917 ? And wasn't it in 1939 that Soviet Army invaded Poland and "liberated" West Belarus ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit and used text from the main Belarus article. That should help. --Ajdz 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Many thanks. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Early days

Early days of BSSR were carefully censored in the Soviet Union (the rest of the world didn't care). You may guess the reason from the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia I started to write. Therefore until the whole picture emerges in wikipedia, I'd suggest not to write elaborate summaries/intros. `'Mїkka 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember from some sources, not related to the governance of the BSSR, that it was called the SSRB. I was hoping to expand the article, at least take it out of the stub stage. I find it sad an article on a former SSR is a stub. If the lead should be left alone, then what should I focus on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was ALL MOVED, per discussion below. I also moved Kirgiz SSR, which seems to have missed the list somehow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The following moves are also proposed by the same reasoning:

• Moldavian SSR → Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Russian SFSR → Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
• Ukrainian SSR → Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Kazakh SSR → Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
• Tajik SSR → Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic
• Turkmen SSR → Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic
• Uzbek SSR → Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic
• Armenian SSR → Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Azerbaijan SSR → Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic
• Georgian SSR → Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Estonian SSR → Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Latvian SSR → Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic
• Lithuanian SSR → Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Makes sense. Grandmaster (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Fine by me, but what about other 15 republics? They should all be named the same way. VartanM (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)^[8]
• Support Per proposition. Oth (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Another example would be the Democratic Republic of Georgia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Parishan (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Looks better. Húsönd 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support It is my proposal, after all... :-D Micahbrwn (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Some are already named in the long form, e.g., Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. They are the respective Soviet Socialist Republics which are the topic after all. As it stands now, the only word in these short-form titles is an adjective, so poor structure as well. —PētersV (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - longer formal title. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I always wondered about these. While they seem intuitive to folks who were of age then, "SSR" might get a few blank stares today. Good for User:Micahbrwn to make the RM effort. — AjaxSmack 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The comment by VartanM was copied from a talk page prior to the change to a multimove request --Lox (t,c) 11:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disrespectful blind reverts

my first and foremost grievance is your disrespect: you are reverting the whole my edit while looking only at first line. Second, it is you who has to explain yourself, since you are reverting. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Russian language, I don't really care. If you say so. Just treat other editors with respect. Although this policy of forceful Soviet-style Russification of Belarus is dislikable. Just go and try to enter Russian spelling of Таллин in Tallinn and see what happens. You all Russians are taking an advantage of mellow Belarussian character. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I am sorry you took my revert as a sign of "disrespect", but note how it is not me jumping to conclusions based solely on ethnic stereotypes. Normally, it is considered wise to research the situation before making any changes, and, in case of relatively high-profile articles such as this one, it is also a sign of common courtesy to request a comment on the talk page if the situation seems questionable. If it's of any consolation to you, I apologize for not providing more details in my first revert's edit summary, but that was a good reason for you to either post a note here or contact me directly for further clarifications of the revert, instead of immediately re-reverting.

If you look at all of the other articles about the Soviet republics, you will see that Russian name is present in every one of them. This isn't really surprising, considering how Russian was a de facto official language of every Soviet Republic, and the lead is supposed to include an entity's name in every official language of that entity. If this were, say, the Belarus article (which, incidentally, also contains the name in Russian), you wouldn't see me reverting your change, because the circumstances (and arguments) of that situation would be completely different.

Hope this helps. Don't hesitate to let me know if you have any further concerns. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You still fail to understand my another major grievance: your rever was carelesss. You reverted not only language issue, but my other editing as well. As for ethnic stereotypes, well, they rise not without reason. Anyway, I understand wikipedia is not place to fight them. Your another problematic action was edit summary I considered as disrespectful: if you are reverting someone, make sure state reasons clear. I am not a stubborn nationalist and don't need long text you wrote above: something like "it is customary in wikipedia for Soviet republics" would have made me happy (or start was against this custom, which I will not). Dzied Bulbash (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only "other editing" of yours (i.e., not related to the name in Russian) that I reverted was your removal of a link to Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia (here and here). Please note that it is customary to provide explanations in the edit summary when any information is removed, so I reverted this part of your edit on those grounds. Judging by the fact that you later restored this link yourself, what I fail to see is how my revert was "careless" and why in the world you would make a conclusion that it was "blind". I do, of course, make mistakes every now and then, but I take pride in being able to substantiate each and every edit I make and particularly in reviewing every revert I am about to make; before actually making it. I also do not quite understand how my edit summary for the two reverts above was offensive in any way (the first one directly addressed your statement in your first edit summary, and you could've asked for clarification instead of immediately re-reverting; the second one explained one of the reasons for keeping the Russian name and advised you to comment on talk if you disagreed with that reason or found it insufficient), but, again, if it is of any consolation to you, I am happy to apologize.

Hope this resolves the matter. If there is still anything left that you wish to discuss further, you are welcome to continue this thread or to contact me directly. Otherwise, I consider this issue closed. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"I fail to see is how my revert was "careless" " -- very simple. I made two very small edits. One you did not like another you didnt notice. It is not like I made a big sweeping change of nonsense and only one little true thing. In this case I can believe you had high chance not notice it. But in the discussed case I attribute it only to your haste and not desire wasting your time on minor issues. You didn't like the top thing of two - you have a nice button to click without checking. You say that my second was minor. Not so. It was small by text, but significant by meaning. It was fixing a misinformation disseminated from Soviet times about Belarusian Soviet history: the first soviet belarusian republic was not exactly very "bolshevik". Your careless revert was revert to Soviet lies. This means you don't even know what was this edit about and cannot judge its value. Yet you are ready to boldly hit "revert" button despite your claim that you "take pride <...> in in reviewing every revert". Even your reply here shows you don't see what I did: I was not deleting the link, I was 'adding an exact historical reference. I would like to suggest you to take some extra pride in admitting your errors in judgment, since your review of your revert told you nothing. Apologies simply to make me happy is actually an insult. Now is my turn to consider the issue closed. If you did not learn your lesson, it is not my grievance. See you in the next article. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you take any more offense in anything else I am about to say, my friendly advice to you is to first read up on our assume good faith policy, which will not only alleviate many of your concerns, but will also make your wikilife easier in the long run.

As for this particular situation, let me do what I always do when faced with hostility I do not understand—to dissect the situation one step at a time. You don't have to reply, if you don't want to; what follows below is mostly for my consciousness and a process I use to double-check my actions in case I misstepped somewhere along the way. It is also useful in case someone else will for some reason want to review this incident. Of course, if you are willing to comment, by all means feel free.

On July 21, you made this edit, stating that inclusion of the Russian name in the article is "irrelevant in english wikipedia". In addition to removing the Russian name, you also removed the link to Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia—an action for which no explanation was given in the edit summary or elsewhere. As you explained in your comment above, you consider this link to be "Soviet lies" (which, while not a very good reason without further proof, is still a reason), but this motivation was, obviously, unknown to me at the time your first edit was made. One of my duties as an administrator is to preserve the integrity of the articles, which means that when information is removed with no reason given whatsoever, I am supposed to restore it. You seem to think, based on my statement that I carefully review each revert I am about to make, that I was supposed to check the factual accuracy of the sentence and to determine if the link really belonged there. This is not correct. If I knew enough about the subject, I would have, of course, done additional analysis, but since my knowledge of the topic is cursory at best, I limited myself by fulfilling technical duties, which, I repeat, say that information removed without a stated reason should be restored unless it is patently obvious to be untrue. Please note that despite reverting your edit, at no time I assumed that you are not willing to provide the reasons at a later time. I addressed the part of your edit removing the Russian name in the edit summary, and I did not address the removal of the link because it was so obvious to me (as well as, I was hoping, to you) that justification of information removal is necessary any time such a removal is made.

After the revert was done, my expectations were as follows: that you would either make an inquiry into the nature of the revert if the information I gave in the edit summary was insufficient, or that you would re-revert, providing your reasons in the edit summary, in which case I would be able to contact you for further clarifications. You did neither of these two reasonable things; instead, you repeated your edit, accusing me of acting "blindly" and requesting to voice "my objections" along the way. As you can see, this simply returned us to square one—the situation identical to that after your first edit. Neither my reasons or motivation changed, and you still have not provided any explanation. Please, remember, that it is the responsibility of the person making an edit to justify that edit. I was merely restoring the article to the state it was before unexplained and controversial edits of yours.

In any case, since your second edit's edit summary requested explanations, I provided them in the edit summary of my second revert. I explained that the Russian name should not be removed because Russian was the official language of all Soviet republics. I did not explain that we include the Russian name in articles about all Soviet republics, because the edit summary box space is fairly limited, and because the first reason I've given is, in my view, good enough already. I also did not explain why I restored the link to the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia, because, again, it was patently obvious to me that removal of a piece, no matter how small, from an article, requires justification (and even something as simple as "lack of sources" is often a justification enough). Finally, I pointed out that you can use the talk page for any further discussion. Where "disrespect" in that is, I don't know, but I certainly know that hastily accusing an opponent of carelessness based on feelings and not facts is disrespectful enough. All I expected from you is to understand why the Russian name belongs in the article, as well as some coherent explanations regarding removal of the link. Instead, I got accusations of being careless (I was not), reverting blindly (I did not), "not noticing" parts of your edits (I did notice, although did not address it due to obvious lack of justification of the removal), lying about the level of scrutiny each and every one of my reverts goes through, and insulting you on purpose by turning an apology into a non-apology (not the case; I was sincere). All of which brings me back to where I started this post—assume good faith. It helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From your looooonng rant I conclude that you did not not bother read my last answer. We really like to have the last word, and refuse to be wrong, aren't we? And this is so overbearing that you cannot read and comprehend what other people write. Let me make one last attempt to speak to your senses: please tell me what were the major points in my last answer. (I could have repeated them myself, but from ages long experience I know that if a person refuses to hear, repetitions would not help). Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read what I wrote? I addressed every single concern of yours in the post above; please read it carefully. Feel free to repeat anything you think I have missed, I will gladly admit I missed it and address it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did, hence my previous comment. Right now I am disinclined to further educate you in communication skills. I am kinda new here and didn't meet you much, and the first encounter was rather discouraging. If in the future I conclude you are a worthy person to talk, I will retry to explain your mistakes and problems. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I am flattered. For future reference, my wikiphilosophy is based on assuming good faith, on logic, on readiness to explain my every action, and on willingness to accept (or, by providing a logical explanation, to refute) my mistakes, so please bear this in mind next time you are about to contact me (which you are very welcome to do any time you want). See you around.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1959 Census data

Belarus being 81% Belorussian, 16% Polish, 1% Ukrainian, 1% Jewish and under 1% Russian in 1959? Those numbers are way off. Here are the following figures from the 1959 census [9]:

• 6,532,035 Belorussians or 81.10%
• 659,093 Russians or 8.18%
• 538,881 Poles or 6.69%
• 150,084 Jews or 1.86%
• 133,061 Ukrainians or 1.65%
• 8,654 Tatars or 0.11%
• 8,363 Lithuanians or 0.10%
• 24,477 Others or 0.31%
• 8,054,648 Total

• Note--I only listed ethnic groups of over 5,000 individuals

Prussia1231 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Prussia1231

Historic Demographics?

Do you want me to collect data for the Soviet Census' of 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979 and 1989 regarding Belarus? Prussia1231 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Prussia1231

If you have sources, why not?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Stalin's massacre

The theme is absolutely not revealed in the article.

• KurapatyLisouczyk1 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Kurapaty near Mensk (Minsk) is one of the many places where mass executions of Belarusian civilians were carried out during the Stalin regime (1937 - 1941) by the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs - at the time this was the name of what is today the KGB). Until the late 80s the Soviet government carefully concealed this information from the people.

In 1988, thanks to the efforts of Z. Pazniak and J. Smyhaliou, the articles "Kurapaty - the Road of Death" and "The Pines are murmuring above the grave" were first published in the Belarusian newspaper "Litaratura i Mastactva" (Literature and Art) - both articles are reproduced in the following. These articles were the first to reveal the truth about how the totalitarian Bolshevist system liquidated more than 200.000 innocent victims in Kurapaty alone, without any investigation or trial. The articles include numerous reports by witnesses of the tragedy, they report about the archaeological excavations carried out by the authors themselves at the place where the victims were buried, and they draw conclusions about the significance of this tragedy.

External links:

• Kurapaty - the road of death Zianon Pazniak, Yauhen Shmyhalou
• Internet-вэрсія кнігі: Курапаты.
• Books

Photo:

File:Exhumation-01.jpg

File:Exhumation-02.jpg

File:Exhumation-04.jpg

File:Exhumation-05.jpg

Lisouczyk1 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BSSR Emblem?!

Who deleted it and why?

Why isn't it displayed?71.207.105.10 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. There was a mistype in the info box template. -- Lord Gorbachev (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Article editing

There are certain users who have been editing other SSR articles on Wikipedia for the past year, by stating that the soviet republics existed until the adoption of their new constitutions in the mid-1990s.

Byelorussian SSR declared itself independent and changed its name to Republic of Belarus in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1994. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these yearspans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? The People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Belarus did not adopt a new constitution before 1994, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Belarus' history than the adoption of a new constitution. A.h. king • Talk to me! 20:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://zakon2006.by.ru/part28/doc37855.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311191726/http://www.nn.by/1999/03/10.htm to http://www.nn.by/1999/03/10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003062059/http://baj.by/belkalehium/lekcyji/historyja/kuzniacou_02.htm to http://baj.by/belkalehium/lekcyji/historyja/kuzniacou_02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

SSRB vs BSSR?

The article states: "On 11 April 1927, the republic adopted its new Constitution, bringing its laws in tie with those of the USSR and changing the name from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Byelorussia to the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic "

However, the Treaty on the Formation of the Soviet Union, from 1922, specifies that it was the "Беларуская Сацыялістычная Савецкая Рэспубліка (БССР)", Byelorussian Socialist Soviet Republic, the same word ordering as the other republics mentioned in the treaty, and implying that the name at the time was BSSR, not SSRB. Anyone have more info on this? --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Golbez: According to the Belarusian Government,

Revolution in Russia (1917-1919)

March 1917 – Revolution in Russia resulted in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II.

November 1917 – Bolsheviks seized power in Russia.

March 1918 – the Belarusian People’s Republic declared independence. This lasted until the German withdrawal later that year.

1 January 1919– creation of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic.

https://www.belarus.by/en/about-belarus/history Jack90s15 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

... that's nice, but doesn't remotely answer the question. The article says they were named the SSRB until 1927; the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR contradicts that. So is it true? ... In fact I'll just go tag it now. --Golbez (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Golbez OK I get it you are trying to find out what the name was before the supposed switch do I have it right?Jack90s15 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm trying to find out if the supposed switch actually happened. It says the name changed; I see no evidence of this. The Treaty says BSSR, so unless we have some source saying that at some point after 1922 the name was SSRB then ... ? --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is from the United Nations Statistics Division,

In 1924 the Central Statistical Bureau was re-organized into the Central Statistical Office of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (CSO BSSR)it showing the name before was SSRB?

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/wsd/docs/Belarus_wsd_history.pdf Jack90s15 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a start, though that doesn't source 1927 as changing the name... and it doesn't say when it had ceased being SSRB, since it's just about the name of the CSB/CSO. --Golbez (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

ok I Will still look around and see what I can find if you find it can you let me know please.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

this is from Yaraslau Kryvoi http://kryvoi.net/index.html in his book he says the name changed january 1924 https://books.google.com/books?id=8o2WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&dq=Yaraslau+Kryvoi++ssrb+ussr&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigyJ_Ko8rjAhVxw1kKHUimDpMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=Yaraslau%20Kryvoi%20%20ssrb%20ussr&f=false

@Golbez: scroll down two pages and the date is there for the name switching Jack90s15 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful! Still, I'd like to know why the Treaty specified the name as BSSR. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OK I will still look and see what I can find Jack90s15 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)