Talk:Belarus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Geography

The statement "the geographic center of Europe is situated in Belarus" is not substantiated. I have seen similar claims for the town of Hässleholm in Sweden, and for places in Lithuania. It is all a question of how one defines the extremes of Europe; if the North-South extension is from Spitzbergen to Malta, Belarus is clearly too far to the South. --Hartmut Haberland 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the text at [1], though from other places, I see that the "center" of Europe is close to Belarus' northern border (in Lithuania, to be specific). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotta learn Geometry and circle the Europe and get the compass and get the center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashka203 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Human rights record

I put in a paragraph in the opening text about Belarus's failure to sign the European Convention on Human Rights and its consequent exclusion from the Council of Europe. Seems to me that this is the kind of information that a reader unfamiliar with Belarus would expect to find given early on in an overview - i.e. it quickly summarises Belarus's pariah status within Europe.

I modified this a bit, but most of the information is at the lead still. I would suggest about putting the nonsigning of the treaty in the article itself, not at the lead, since there are plenty of other treaties that the Belarusians have not signed yet. Also, another hint, references are usually used in the article themselves, not in the lead sections. But thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

new edits

After a period of fast reforms in the early 1990s, which led to price (but not wage) liberalisation, Belarus has been, perhaps, the least reformed of the transition economies in Eastern Europe and in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In fact, though being the target of recent interventions, which led inflation to go down from three to two digits, macroeconomic stabilisation is still far from being achieved. Privatisation is progressing very slowly. Trade liberalisation is not implemented yet and the state exerts a strict control on the labour market.

This country has adopted a very slow approach to economic reforms, which suggests that the incentive for human capital accumulation has been low. In fact, the state sector still represents an important part of the overall output. On the other hand, Belarus has always been one of the CIS with the highest ranks of the Human Development Index (UNDP in 2003).

In Belarus, tariff wages in the budget sector, representing about 80% of output, are determined on the basis of a tariffs scale (tarifnaya setka), a tariff rate of the first grade (tarifnaya stavka pervogo razryada), a tariff qualification guide (tarifnokvalifikacionnyi spravochnik). The tariffs scale is a system of coefficients measuring the ratio of the wage of each class to the lowest one (so-called first grade). The tariff qualification guide contains detailed characteristics of professions and types of labour. It allows defining the rank of every type of job. There is also an over-tariff part of wages in the budget sector. It implies premiums and additional payments, which depend on productivity, budget allowances and so on. The tariff scale was continuously revised after 1992, mainly to correct for inflation. The current tariff scale includes 28 classes, which already implies wide earnings dispersion. The ratio between the highest and the lowest ranks equals 8.3; however, the lowest nine classes are given additional subsidies from the state. Taking them into account the ratio between the highest and the lowest class becomes 5.03. Bonaparte talk 22:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Under the 1996 constitution, Belarus’s lower house, the House of Representatives (Palata Predstavitelei), consists of 110 deputies elected on the basis of universal, equal, free, and direct electoral suffrage by secret ballot (art. 91). It is a majoritarian system, with the outcome decided by overall majorities in single-member constituencies. Any citizen of 21 years is eligible for election (art. 92). The functions of the House are to consider draft laws and the other business of government; it must approve the nomination of a prime minister (art. 97); and it may deliver a vote of no confidence on the government (art. 97). However, in constitutional as well as political terms, the House is of marginal importance. At the 2000 election, it took four rounds of voting before all the seats were filled; in the end, 86% of the elected deputies were independents, and the remainder were the representatives of parties traditionally loyal to the president (OSCE, 2000).

The House of Representatives sits for a fixed term of four years, hence another election was due in late 2004. But there was another relevant circumstance: as it stood at the time, the constitution stipulated that ‘The same person may be president for no more than two terms’ (art. 81). Thus, Lukashenko, under the terms of his original election, should have sought a renewal of his mandate in 1999. However, the 1996 constitution allowed him to extend his first term to 2001, when he was reelected for a five-year term. This meant that, without a further change in the legislation, he would be obliged to leave office at the end of his second term in 2006. Even oppositionists accepted that Lukashenko, a vigorous sportsman in his early fifties and a charismatic orator, had a considerable public following. But this was still a serious challenge, not least because the electoral code required a majority of the entire electorate, and not simply of those who voted, if a constitutional change was to be approved.

About nice picture

Section of demographics has a nice picture. Thanks to maker. I think page will benefit if similar picture can be put in exonomics section. BTW how people leave signature with time and name? Alex

I am not sure what picture could be used for the economics, unless you want to try a Belarus tractor. As for your signature, what you do is type four tilde's in a row (~ is a tilde). It will post a link to your userpage and also the time when you posted it. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 05:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean tractors but it's actually no a bad idea. I was thinking about economy parameters, like inflation rate, GDP, trade, industry, agricalture, service, debt, etc. Thanks for hint. alex 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

While it will be good to add charts, Those can be added on the economy section, since we have room to expand there. But on here, we should make the article on the economy very brief I will go through it myself and see what needs to be added, including the "let's switch to the RU ruble." Also, good job on the signature, it worked. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 07:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights

I need to know about the human rights in Beluras can you please tell me. thx

Human Rights Watch page on Belarus User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish name in country infobox?

Could someone please exlplain what might be the reasons for having polish name in country infobox? --tasc 14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On some previous Belarusian articles I wrote, several editors asked me to add the Polish name, or they added the name. I, personally, have no problem with it. However, if you do not wish to have it in the infobox, thats fine, since we have the spelling inside the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So, am I free to remove it? --tasc 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Only official names are used in the country infoboxes. See also Talk:Falkland Islands and Talk:Myanmar. //Big Adamsky 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

tasc, yeah. But I removed it alreasy, based on Adamsky's comment. Thanks for bringing it up tasc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in intro

User:K4zem removed twice followin phrase. Since 1994, amidst allegations of human rights violations and autocracy, Alexander Lukashenko has been the nation's president. As a consequence, Belarus has been excluded from joining the Council of Europe. If you'd like to discuss it, please indicate your opinion in this topic. If not, please refraing from editing this part of article in future. --tasc 06:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Three times: you, myself and Mikkalai reverted him. I also think that today is the elections in Belarus, we will be getting alot of this. I am watching TB now, and they are pretty much in pro-Luka election mode now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TB? oh, tv? --tasc 07:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TB is Television Belarus, the state run television station from Minsk, Belarus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they are pro-Likashenko. what choice do they have. If you're reading russian i can give you some links on how the 'election' goes. %\ so frustrating to read. --tasc 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm RU-1, so I can read the Russian links just fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

just as an example lj community --tasc 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A revolution is going on

A revolution is going on can we get an article going?

Jeans Revolution is what you are probably looking for. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

one contributor

Just wanted to point this out: Wikipedia contributor Kuban coSSack's talking about dictatorial ruler Lukashenka (who massively and monstrously falsified the vote) and today's storming of the October square, when hundreds of special police arrested peaceful demonstrators, totally destoryed the camp, threw empty vodka bottles into the mess and videotaped that for Belarusan state television. Here's Kuban coSSack's comment about this police action and break-up of a peaceful protest, which took place at 3AM so that there would be no witnesses of their activity:

• http://www.br23.net/en/2006/03/24/game-over/#comments
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rydel#.22kuban_coSSack.22

Dear fellow Wikipedians, do you understand that the only purpose of his contributions on articles about Belarus (such as Belarusian language, Belarusian history, Belarus, etc.) is to push Russian imperial POV and lies? Please, see history and talk pages of the Belarus-related articles. --rydel 16:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland

The link to Kingdom of Poland below leads to a disambiguation page which doesn't exactly have a lnik to the Kingdom of Poland as described. Does anyone have an explanation?

The union was transformed by the May Constitution of 1791, Europe's first modern codified national constitution, which abolished all state subdivisions and merged everything into the Kingdom of Poland. However, by 1795, the state was divided and annexed by Imperial Russia, Prussia and Austria in the course of the Partitions of Poland.

Should I even mention that the politics section is absolutely wrong for calling it a republic? It is the only country in Europe that the CIA views as a dictatorship. My source is the CIA World Factbook. Ironearth 14:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw that reference, and I added a note (see note 10) by the name "republic". User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are confusing a republic with a democracy. The former is not always the latter - see the republic article for a lengthy discussion. Belarus clearly seems to be a republic (whether democratic or not is obviously contendable) under most present definitions. Also note that articles on e.g. PRC, Vietnam, or, indeed, any other country on the list of republics that I've checked do not have such footnotes. int19h 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Could someone add the current statistics in regards to religion in Belarus, and some historical prespective as well? In the article, not the talk pages. Dr. Dan 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to create a subheading for religion in Belarus, go right ahead. I will be away for a few days, so you can get it started and I will try and help out once I get back. But, to answer your question: the situation from what I have been reading so far has been "bleak." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I look forward to objective information about religion in Belarus, and its history, and its present condition. "Bleak" or not "bleak", I'm sure everyone wants the facts, nothing more, nothing less. My purpose in asking, is to understand something that I am unfamiliar with. Personally, I dislike fanatical atheists, as much as I dislike fanatically religious people who have a direct pipeline to God, telling them how to make other people's lives miserable. Thank you for whatever information you can provide. Dr. Dan 00:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The information can be found, that is not the problem; the problem is the time. However, I can state that Lukashenko's state is not complete atheist on the line as the Soviet Union, but those who practicing Hindus, among others, are being beaten, arrested, with the OK from the State. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, young man, time is the problem for many of us. Trust me, it doesn't get better in time, either. So when you have time, please, go for it! BTW, the web site on Russian National anthems is awesome. Dr. Dan 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It's not mine, but I am a major contributor to it and I am friends with the webmaster. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Italics in Cyrillics

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think we had an issue here, or on the other Belarusian and Russian articles, with the italics, but thanks for the heads up. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Information Technology Certification

According to the 2006 Global Skills Report, the overall largest growth percentage in IT Certification was garnered by Belarus

Hmm...this could go into the economics section, with a web source. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lenin's photo

In the politics section, there is a photo of Lenin that is placed under the Lukashenko/Putin photo. I believe this photo is not relevant to the article, though this photo of Lenin is his statute that rests by the Parilament building in Minsk. What do yall think? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

National motto

Has this been decided yet or not. I saw the motto "The State For The People" placed here in the article, which I removed. According to http://www.president.gov.by/en/press24149.html#doc, while this is a 5-year plan slogan Lukashenko is using, but I do not believe this is the national motto. Any thoughts or changes since this? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Email sent to the Belarusian embassy in the US. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is what a Belarusian user said on the Vietnamese Wikipedia (random, I know): Hey, I'm from Belarus. I've deleted national motto, because "За Беларусь!" is not a national motto of Belarus. We have none. Aleś.[2] -- WGee 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Za Belarus, which is "For Belarus" was a campaign by the Government and also a song that was played during the 2006 elections. This was put as the motto before, but I removed it. Thanks for the tip. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Zhive Belarus!" a national moto?Galantereischik 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it used, but it is not official. What I am looking for is a national motto that has been codified into national law, like how "In God We Trust" was codified into law for the United States. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The European Parliament

under Poltics, with the comments of the Secretary of State, and Council of Europe, I believe that you should include information about the European Parliament comments and role. They have make a lot of resolution on Belarus, one were it is called a dictatorship, and have this year given their top prize to Milinkevich. Belarus has also banned almost all members of the parliament, at least twice this year. see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/euro/id/d_by/default_en.htm

before comment, yes, my IP address is in the European Parliament.

I personally have no problem with the IP address coming from the EP. The last bit about the Sakharov Prize going to Milinkevich, that would be best placed at the article of Milinkevich. There are a lot of people who call the Belarusian leadership a dictatorship, which we have sourced already. I have not heard anywhere about the Belarusian Gov't banning MEP's from the country, but I will look at that myself, since the above link you gave me redirects me to the new website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this editor is referring to the elections previously this year where MEPs / MPs / NGOs / etc from West European nations were denied entry into Belarus in the weeks around the election to avoid foreign election observers. (Belarus TV naturally told a completely opposite story, but the OSCE mission couldn't operate under normal conditions either). The most prominent cases I know myself are MEP Anne E. Jensen (denied entry) [3](webserver not stable) but the same is true for quite a lot of other politicians and NGOs[4][5], e.g. Danish politician Bo Libergren [6] and others were deported[7]. It didn't matter much if would-be observers already held visas or not, since these were simply cancelled at the border. Unfortunately, little of the material I know of is in English. Material about a delegation of Polish MEPs being denied entry trying to visit the Polish minority in Belarus should be more easily available.[8] I believe the European Parliament has also banned a number of Belarusian officials from entry into the EU.[9][10] Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this should go more into the foreign relations article, thinking about it now. I mentioned the various sanctions in the article, such as the embargo, frozen assests and travel bans. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Belarus. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

{{profit}}

What does this template do and why the small edit war to keep this in/out? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what it is used for, but I think its the "positive mark" for the Human Development Index. It adds this green arrow: to the infobox. I reverted the anon because I saw its used on other country articles... —dima/s-ko/ 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to check that to make sure it is correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is. The arrow shows if the country is moving up or down compared to the rating the year before. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The numbers are from 2004, not 2006. I need to change that quickly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The ranking is a good idea, but I have a feeling the entire HDI ranking system suffered somewhat after User:E Pluribus Anthony left Wikipedia. It was pretty much his child. As I'm typing this, User:Ran seems to be updating many of these rankings. Perhaps we're in luck? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind updating the stats for Belarus, since I consider this article my child. But there is a lot of things I am seeing done to articles about contries which I think is either un-needed or just completely stupid. One of the things I removed, and intend to keep out, is a template denoting who borders Belarus in what direction. I have put that intro prose, which I will expand with possible border conflicts since 1991. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Which possible border conflicts are you referring to? The "Lithuanian corridor"? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That and demarcation issues listed by the Belarusian Frontier Guards. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the second one is news to me. I thought the demarcation had gone rather easily. Oh, and if any Poles or Lithuanians were offended by the phrase "Lithuanian corridor", it was merely the first name that jumped to mind. :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Independence dates

The article currently says that Belarus declared its independence on August 27, 1990 in the introduction and July 27, 1990 in the history section. As well, the July 27 article mentions that as the date, but states that a referendum in 1996 caused them to change the date of celebration to June 3, however no mention of that date is in this article. I don't know what's actually accurate, so it'd be good to clear it up. - Flooey 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The August was probably a typo on my part, fixing that now. We have a list of public holidays somewhere, but I will look. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:10 (UTC)

The map we got here on the Belarus article is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the David Liuzzo design, subject of the survey. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 05:48 (UTC)

Ok, I placed my opinion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arms stuffs

Shouldn't there be some mention of how Belarus is a major arms exporter, or how the US has an embargo on it?? --Kevin ^(TALK) 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this go in the economy? I mentioned some of the US sanctions on Belarus, but I am not sure if it would be fruitful or POVish to add every single embargo the US has on Belarus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The EU has mentioned about the arms trade and I seen on other websites is that the weapons used in Sudan were partially from Belarus. I am not sure how much money Belarus does make in arms trade, but I would suggest of putting something in the article on Arms trading to mention Belarus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Belarus sold the Anti Air Defence Vihicles to Iran for 1 billion I think in summer of 2006

Copyedit

Please see edit history for sections with questions (in hidden comments in the article text).

Economy Question: does this mean the year 1990, or is 1990 a quantity of something?

1990 and 1991 are really important years for Russia and the former Soviet republics, what with the dissolution of the Soviet state. So I think what the original author was trying to say was this:

Economic growth returned in 1996, and in 2001 Belarus was first CIS country to reach pre-1990 levels of industrial production and agricultural production.

And I changed the sentence so that it reads this way. (But without the italics.)--RedPen 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also looked at some of the other questions, they have been addressed. Thanks again yall. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad source

This source is simply not adequate in any way for citing the statement "the Belarusian economy is heavily subsidized by Moscow in exchange for political submission and the suppression of a Belarusian national revival." Surely someone can do better? It's nothing more than an opinion article which mentions "subsidizing" but offers no proof and doesn't get into specifics. Frankly, if no better source can be found, taking the statement out should be a consideration. Esn 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. I know that little line was a common montra used during the Gazprom oil dispute between Russia and Belarus, but I saw no evidence on how the Russians help fuel the Belarusian economy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To anyone else out there: feel free to add the line back in if you can find a respectable source proving it and exploring it in detail - not just some opinion piece mentioning it offhand as if it were accepted dogma with no need of proof. Esn 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary republic

There is no consistency between articles. On this page Belarus is said to be a Parliamentary republic however on the Parliamentary republic article there is no word about Belarus. Well one of these articles needs to be changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_republic

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.197.10 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Lakhva Coat of Arms

• Found recently on a Belarus government website:

  29 April 2004, the regular session of the Heraldry Council under the President of the Republic of Belarus considered designs for 10 coat-of-arms of various administrative localities of Belarus. Nine of them were approved by heraldry specialists - the coat-of-arms and the flag for the town of Osipovichi, as well as flags and coat-of-arms for eight villages of Luninets District (Bostyn, Bogdanovka, Bolshye Chuchevichi, Vulka2, Dyatlovichi, Kazhan-Gorodok, Lakhva, Redigerovo).

  Anyone who can assist with finding the Lakhva coat of arms, the help would be much appreciated. Skeezix1000 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of the area during the Russian Empire

A biographical citation I'm editing for the poet Itzhak Katzenelson gives his birthplace as "Korelichi [sic], a town in the district of Minsk, White Russia." For the latter area of Imperial Russia, I'd prefer using the region's name as it was known in 1886. Which is the preferred spelling for US English: Belorussia or Byelorussia? In the online Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate dictionary, generally my preferred reference for US English, Belorussia is the main entry, with Byelorussia a variant, but the entry relates particularly to the name of the Byelorussian SSR (its page name here in Wikipedia). -- Thanks, Deborahjay 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how it was determined to put Byelorussia SSR at it's name, but I think for consistancy, we could use Belorussia for Imperial Russia and Byelorussia for the Soviet period. Would that work for you? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the most common name in English at the time was White Russia. At any rate, the people were called White Russians (see this map published in 1911). But Imperial Russia apparently didn't have an administrative district called anything like Белоруссия anyway [11],[12], so English-language maps of the period didn't really call it anything. —Angr 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response on the Language Reference Desk:

The choice has nothing to do with etymology, but purely reflects different ways of transliterating the Cyrillic into the Latin alphabet. The traditional name in Russian is Белоруссия (note the letter о, unlike the Belarusian name Беларус), in which the single letter "е" is pronounced like /jɛ/, or English "ye". There have always been different methods for the romanization of Russian, some of which would render Russian "е" like Latin "e", others like Latin "ye". For geographic names the currently common BGN/PCGN system is a standard (adopted both by the United States Board on Geographic Names and by the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use), and the choice (which is context-dependent) made here, following a consonant, it just "e". The system is not entirely rational; since "э" is also romanized as "e", there is no easy way back (the system is not "round trip"), and in the similar cases of ю and я the transliterations are always "yu" and "ya". In any case, its use is official policy on Wikipedia. So, for example, we also write "Belorechensk", and likewise it should be "Belorussia". (Not everyone is always happy with this policy.) See the end of this page for more on the etymology.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Postscriptum. Actually, following the BGN/PCGN rules, it should be "Belorussiya". Now that is a fairly uncommon spelling. In Google hits:

• Byelorussia: about 827,000
• Belorussia: about 1,420,000
• Byelorussiya: about 377
• Belorussiya: about 13,100

 --Lambiam^Talk 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviving the discussion, as it seems important. Based on Łacinka (Belarusian romanisation) "Беларусь" (Belarus') should be romanised as Biełaruś. This romanisation seems to be accepted by everyone but not followed, even when Belarusian pronunciation is used as a base. Especially for Gomel/Homel, Mogilyov/Mahilyow and Vitebsk/Vitsebsk, which should be romanised as Homiel, Mahiloŭ and Viciebsk. Was this discussed in naming conventions? --Anatoli (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I paid no attention to the naming conventions, since I don't know any bit of the language to make any useful comments. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Belarus WikiProject discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

This project would aim to clean up and collect articles related to Belarus, with a minimum of conflict, like the stated goals at the Law Enforcement WikiProject. This is a thorny area, but there are projects for hotspots like Sudan and Iraq, so we can accomplish this if there are dedicated folks of all stripes willing to work together. Chris 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights section

I had a paragraph or so about Belarus' human rights record in the section of politics, but I personally think the Anmesty report is saying the same thing I have already cited a few lines up before. Do you think that it could be merged together in one section (and we split the paragraphs up). I also added a link from a Belarusian embassy on how they view capital punishment (and to show it is still legal). (Note, I will be on a wikibreak for the weekend). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion

What religions predominate in Belarus.. Orthodox or Catholic? Can someone write something about this in the article?

Russian Orthodox. I can try and make a section on religion inside the culture chapter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice this had come up already on the talk page.. I feel even a stub section would be better than nothing. I'll create the section, may you can expand it. Zargulon 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ok; as for the sections, it looks great and I can possibly expand it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Suffrage

Hi,

Experts of the history of law of Belarus - please take a look at Talk:Timeline of women's suffrage#Flag of Belarus. Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

It might be a good idea to get rid of subsections in the "External links" section as it's a very small section. To keep subtitles in bold letters after removing subsections you can use semicolons (;), like this:

Media

• News of Belarus (bel)
• Belarus News and Analysis

Otherwise the structure of this articles looks very good. --Victor12 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I did it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl incident

There's little mention of the Chernobyl plant meltdown in this article, and I'm surprised by that. Much of Belarus was affected by it and millions suffer, and the genetic mutations caused by the fallout will continue to spread throughout the population through the birth of new children. This deserves a greater mention in the country's article. - Cyborg Ninja 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We have it in the lead and in the geography section. I suggest for you to place much of the information at the Geography of Belarus article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Belarus was named "Belorussia" in the days of Imperial Russia, and the Russian tsar was usually styled "Czar of All the Russias — Great, Little, and White". This practice continued throughout the Soviet era[dubious – discuss], with the country taking the official name of the "Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic".

I don't see how these practices can be equated. The official Belarusian name in Soviet times was "Беларуская Савецкая Сацыялістычная Рэспубліка" (Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), and the adjective "беларуская" here is just the normal Belarusian word for "Belarusian", derived from "Беларусь", not from "Белоруссия". Thus, there is no reason to translate it as "Belorussian" as opposed to "Belarusian". The official Russian name contained the adjective "белорусский", but this was because it is the only adjective for "Belarusian" in Russian. The only possible objection could concern the official English rendition of the Soviet name (an issue as meaningless as the Kiev-Kyiv debate).--91.148.159.4 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is a variant spelling of the name on English sites. I always see it as Belarusian and I use that in the article. However, people seem fit to use Byelorussia when talking about the country as a Soviet Republic. There hasn't been much of a debate here at all about that and I pretty much have an open mind on the subject. I just want this article to look and sound correct to showcase as one of Wikipedia's top articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

History

In my opinion, the History section needs some clarification to make it more accessible to non-Belorussian readers. Specifically, it would be great if the following points are addressed.

• The first paragraph mentions that Early East Slavs were organized by the Varangians under the state of Kievan Rus'. What's the meaning of "organizing" in this context? Were Slavs under Varangian domination? Or was the Kievan Rus' the result of cooperation between these two groups. In any case it should be clear in the sentence what kind of relationship was this.
• The second paragraph starts speaking about "the separate Ruthenian principalities". As this entities have not been introduced before the average reader might wonder what they are, and what do they have to do with Early East Slavs or the Kievan Rus'?
• The rest of the paragraph deals with the feats of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Where most Early East Slavs part of this Duchy? What happened to them under Lithuanian domination? Also, are Early East Slavs the ancestors of modern Bielorrusians?

Just this for now. Greetings, --Victor12 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the first one, they were not invaded at all by the Varangians; the state was founded by them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

May i ask if were invided by Lithuanians if you say "dominated"? Were Belarussians really dominated, or like in Varingian case cooperated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.100.60 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

White Russian vs. White movement

78.151.173.242 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)slavs propaganda continues to call this land slav's land, however this land even in Kiev Rus time (800 AD) was not even a part of Kiev Rus, but paid vasalage to Kiev Rus and was inhabited by Balts. Now everyone can understand why Lithuania was established in Balts lands between Vilnius and Minsk, and why all lakes, rivers, cities and places names originate from Lithuanian language. Russian tsar took advantage of the fact that this part of Balts was christinized in Kiev Rus time and the language of religion was an old Bulgarian language, with time it was used together with Lithuanian language. But russians occupied this land and ripped from the Samogitia banned Lithuanian language (it was latter banned even in Samogitia). However Samogitia means the low land, and nowadays Belorus was the high landers land...both parts are the same Lithuanian nation!!! But occupants always rewrite the history...the very vivid example of such behaviour is polish nazis occupation of Lithuania's the only capital Vilnius. They claimed that those lands are and always was inhabited by polish...but everyone now knows that this is nonsence, but imaging if it would be not 20 years occupation, but 200 years, as in Belorus russian occupation lasts.78.151.173.242 (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a need for clarification:

I believe there is exists a fundamental confusion over English language usage.

(1) When we use, speak, and/or write about Belarus we practically never translate it into White Russian.

(2) On the other hand, when we use, speak, and/or write about White Russians we practically neven mean the Belarus.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And you want the clarification in this article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of room for misunderstanding here. The old English-language translation "White Russia" (meaning Byelorussian SSR) is almost dead but unfortunately not 100% gone, so some readers could easily get the idea that the civil war was just 'Communists v people from Minsk!' Jameswilson 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...well, I hope the section on the name itself is clear, but we should try to make it not only clear but concise. A lot of the material yall wish to add should probably be at White Russian. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism

Dear User:Zscout370,

The problem I have is with the above article: Jewish Bolshevism. Every scholar I've read regarding Jew and Bolshevism says that it was White Russians who claimed that Bolshevism was invented/created by Jews. And I do not think anyone who speaks English ever confuses this usage with people of Belarus. When English speakers think of the latter they say Belarus - they never say "White Russians." Best regards, --Ludvikus 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can honest with you, I don't know enough about that article or that subject to where I can make an informed subject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I guess the person I should have discussed this with is Jameswilson. The fact is that in English scholars make claims against "White" Russians and by this usage they do not mean people from "Belarus". They mean the "White" who fought against the "Reds" in the Russian civil war! --Ludvikus 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember that from my history classes now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some bot suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 700 millimeters, use 700 millimeters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 700 millimeters.^[?]
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The first point is deceptive, misleading nonsense. I stopped reading after that. Linking to months standing alone shouldn't be done without good reason. Linking to numbers for days standing alone is nonsense, that will take you to a year article. But month and day together should be linked, on every appearance—not so much so that people can get to those articles, but rather to make date preferences work. Gene Nygaard 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please complain on the bot pages. I am just using the script. I don't endorse all of the bot recommendations, but some usually are useful.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Prep for GimmeBot

In attempting to prep this page for GimmeBot, I cannot find the March 2007 peer review so I can correct the archives; can someone please find it, and update the article history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was only one edit on the peer review, [13] for the March one. So, since the only edit was by me, I just blanked and started again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ah, OK, I'll take it out of articlehistory then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Need anything else? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Images of Mr. Lukashenko

If not mistaken, yesterday was uploaded fine images with President Lukashenko, however they do not have licenses , I also checked provided source for clarifications, however could find notes (nor in Belarusian nor in English versions) about their usage in PD (maybe I missed something). Can anybody clarify this, because those images are very valuable and if no action taken they will be removed. Thanks, M.K. 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had images uploaded from that very site before; I was told to put them under fair use because they do not meet the Foundation's requirements for being "free enough." I personally feel the images should not belong here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, at least we have some free alternative images on this issue, M.K. 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am still looking for more images, but I am happy with what we have now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Thanks! User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of undo

User 217.118.66.57 repalaced "Беларусь" with "Белоруссия". He referred to http://spravka.gramota.ru/offdocs.html?id=85. However http://spravka.gramota.ru/offdocs.html?id=85 seems to be an obsolete document (17.aug.1995). A nower one is http://spravka.gramota.ru/offdocs.html?id=258 (31.jul.2002). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha1024 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Actually, in russian language both words exist: "Белоруссия" and "Беларусь". But at the moment, only "Беларусь" (and also "Республика Беларусь") is an official name. Sasha1024 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the national constitution, the Republic of Belarus "Республика Беларусь" is the official name of the country. Plus, I would have reverted this anyways, since I have sources stating the official name of the country dotted around in this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

History prior to the 6th century

The introductory sentence is inaccurate. The wording should be changed or the section should be expanded.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not. I checked several books at Google Books and they all said the area was settled by Slavic tribes in the 6th century. The expanded text, which included the 12th century, was removed by copyeditors over time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as is now is correct to say that the Slavs arrived there around the 6th century. It would be nice though to cover earlier inhabitants as well like in Ukraine or Russia. Scythians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..that would be something to suggest at the talk pages of the respective articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Balts lived in that territory prior to Slavic people, at least Balts wiki article implies so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.220.64 (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name

I remember reading somewhere that the origin of the name comes from the Belarus areas not having to pay either tribute or taxes (can't remember which it actually was) during the Middle-Ages, specifically during the Mongol years, I think. So is that the reason why the country has that name? The article doesn't say why exactly it's called Belarus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.128.224 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Government

Is the term dictatorship really appropriate as the form of government? It sounds pov to me. Autocracy sounds less pov and is the term used on Zimbabwe's page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.195.237 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkish name of the country, no Polish one

There is no Turkish minority in Belarus, but the Turkish name of the country is quoted. There is a Polish minority, but the Polish name isn't quoted. Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It just shows examples of "White Russia" in other languages and that's it. Population minorities wasn't a factor. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POV - you select certain names from thousands.Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case I will exchange the Turkish one for the Polish one. I thought it might be that the Turks had coined the original appellation, but if it is just one of many possible names, then the Polish Białoruś would be better to put up there. Lstanley1979 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lstanley1979 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The names have been there for a while, so I just left it the way it was. Then, after all people were doing was adding more names, we had to cut some down and put a stop to it. I didn't see the Polish name added before in that section. But it seems fine now (and not a POV issue, we just cannot list them all, so just use the Interwiki links for how to see Belarus in other languages). Lstanley, looks good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Belarusians converted to the Russian Orthodox Church after Belarus was annexed by Russia

The conversion was imposed by the tsar in 1839.Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The first major musical composition by a Belarusian was the opera Faust by Antoni Radziwiłł

Antoni Radziwiłł article doesn't call him a Belarusian. We have two POVs.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

78.151.173.242 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Radvila is Lithuanian family which in slavised form is written Radziwiłł, like many Belorus people names78.151.173.242 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Several newspapers, printed either in Belarusian or Russian

According to the quoted List the majority of newspapers is printed in Russian. There is no comparison of the newspaper circulation in both languages.

Which language is used in television?Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The section came from the Library of Congress, so it is just a generalization. I do not have a full, exact list of what is published in what language and how many actually exist. That would be best at Belarusian_media#Newspapers. As for what used on television, hmm...I honestly have no clue. I would like to say both languages, but I have not watched TVR in at least 2 months. I do know their website and some of their radio programs are in English, Russian and Belarusian, at least. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the phrase should be rather "printed either in Russian or Belarusian". Belarusian_media#Newspapers doesn't inform about language.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Baltic russia, Baltarusia and meaning of Baltic

Hello, I have read some discussions about the origin of the country. I know that in Latvian language Baltic means white. As Baltic sea means "snow white see" and Baltic countries mean white countries. I suppose Bela=Baltic=means white Russia? and the meaning white comes from the snow? I dunno, but I think I have a point here? If someone who know better this issue could comment please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.250.192 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Belarus" literally means "White Russia",in Russian Empire's times Ukraine was called "Malorossija" which means "Little Russia" and Russia itself was called "Velikorossija" which means "Great Russia". Frank Russian (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A RUSSIAN AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC?

It is time for Reunification of Belarus and Russia so Belarus can become another Autonomous Republic inside the Russian Federation.

After all Russian is more widely spoken in Belarus than in several Russian republics and okrugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.90.184 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

78.151.173.242 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)BELORUS PEOPLE FORGET THEIR ROOTS - YOU ARE LITHUANIANS LIKE THOSE IN LITHUANIA. SLAVS ALWAYS WANTED TO INCORPORATE AND SLAVISE OUR NATION...AND THEY SUCCEEDED IN BELORUS, BUT YOU ARE NOT SLAVS REMEMBER FOREVER THAT!!! slavs propaganda continues to call this land slav's land, however this land even in Kiev Rus time (800 AD) was not even a part of Kiev Rus, but paid vasalage to Kiev Rus and was inhabited by Balts. Moreover in 12th centuru when crusades and slavs rades started, RUS CHRONICS WROTE THAT VITEBSK CASTLE IS BEING BUILT IN LITHUANIANS LAND AND NOALL LITUANIANS ARE HIDING IN THE FOREST NOT DARING TO FIGHT WITH RUSSIANS!!!. Now everyone can understand why Lithuania was established in Balts lands between Vilnius and Minsk, and why all lakes, rivers, cities and places names originate from Lithuanian language. Russian tsar took advantage of the fact that this part of Balts was christinized in Kiev Rus time and the language of religion was an old Bulgarian language, with time it was used together with Lithuanian language. But russians occupied this land and ripped from the Samogitia banned Lithuanian language (it was latter banned even in Samogitia). However Samogitia means the low land, and nowadays Belorus was the high landers land...both parts are the same Lithuanian nation!!! But occupants always rewrite the history...the very vivid example of such behaviour is polish nazis occupation of Lithuania's the only capital Vilnius. They claimed that those lands are and always was inhabited by polish...but everyone now knows that this is nonsence, but imaging if it would be not 20 years occupation, but 200 years, as in Belorus russian occupation lasts.78.151.173.242 (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.lituanus.org/1975/75_1_05.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.242 (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A practical theory of the origin of the name

Russia is originally from word RO that is swedish. You can actually hear the correct spelling voice here: http://www.sanakirja.org/search.php?q=soutaa&l=17&l2=15 The viking boats had sails, but mostly

travelling in rivers (Neman ect. on the rivers from Baltics to Contantinopol.) was made with rowing the boat

Rus there for mean land of rowing.

Baltic in Lithuanian language means white. Why word white is used is because in the region at winter time snows.

Bela means white and Rus means rowing.

Polotsk and Rutheinia had a lot of contanct with Vikings at viking time so it is not hard to figure out what is the origin of words.

Origin of words are even more proven since in Estonian laguage Russia is called "Venemaa" =Land of boat and Belarus is called Baltic->White->Valg-venemaa.

Oh yeah and Bela is white and rus is to row. "Venemaa" in Estonian and "Venäjä" Finnish words are quite close so that thing origin of word is easy to follow also.

May I add further more that Finnish word “Ru otsi” is with high possibility from word Ro -pronansiation “Ru”- also.

So Sweden and Russia have no doubt common Viking history. That is a fact. High posibility that given words in different languages support the common history.

Precipitous progression

In the history section, rather a quick jump from 1486 to 1918. Sca (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Belarus was a part of other unions, such as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, during that time frame. Once Belarus began to act on their own, then we have the history recorded. However, this is a summary, so click the History of Belarus article for more details. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Belarusian parliamentary election, 2008

Hello,

It is time for a change.

You will see on 28 September that opposition will have this time major amount of seats in Belarussian parliament. It will prove that the country is comming more democratic.

This election is not going to be similar as the presidental election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_presidential_election,_2006#Belarusian_President.27s_comment

Check out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_parliamentary_election,_2008

Will observe. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Aww no opposition this time to parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Street maps of Belarus

Howdy,

I found some streetmaps from belarus (really rare since googlemaps and other maps are not working) Since someone removed the maps from article I put them here. May I ask why they were removed??

Because that is too many external links. I kept some, but not all. If the maps are region specific, why not just add it to the articles on the regions themselves? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I will trye to put some region related links to link specific pages. Anyway, I did a hell of a job to find out all the links. The googlemaps show just white in whole country and I am sure if someone actually visit the country that they appriciate that those links are available :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.28.144.2 (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/belarus.html is the Belarus page from the generally best source for finding country maps. The link is included in the Open Directory category for Belarus, which I've now added. There really are too many links in the External link section of this article. Flatterworld (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Natural resources

The “natural resources” paragraph will be more complete if Potassium will be mentioned as the significant resource and production and export of Potassium Fertilizer as significant economic activity. According to [14]

Belarus is one of the world largest potash fertilizer producers. More than 14% of the world production capacity and about 16 % of the world export of potash fertilizers fall at Belaruskaly Production Association, Republican Unitary Enterprise.

72.81.141.106 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment

"The rate of unemployment has been decreasing since 2003, and the overall rate is the highest since statistics were first compiled in 1995.[89]"

I edited this sentence concerning unemployment in Belarus because it was not right according to the reference. It doesn't make sense. According to reference [89], the unemployment rate has been decreasing since 2003 (1995 actually). Thus the overall rate is not the highest but the LOWEST(check reference page, at the bottom of the page). We're talking about unemployment not employment, so why was it undone?--Pedro magalhaes86 (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Belarus

Just a minor observation - the statement: "There was no discrimination against any of nations or religions nor any major tension between them and people of them all dominated in their own regions" is poor grammatically and also sounds like a bit of a sweeping generalization. I'll leave it for others with more of a stake here to edit if they choose.

There is a sentence in the history section about Chernobyl that's just hanging out in space. It doesn't fit with any of the other historical events mentioned, but I think it's significant enough that I don't want to delete it. Does anyone have more information about the Chernobyl accident in Belarus?--RedPen 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All I personally know, and through the sources, is while the accident took place in the Ukraine, Belarus suffered from the fallout and continues to do so. Other information I saw was just some political banter, like Lukashenko sending teachers he hates to that region. I will figure out a place to put it, maybe in the geography. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl is indeed significant, and its impact on Belarus should be described properly. Much of southeastern Belarus remains seriously poisoned by nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl blast and settlement in many areas is still forbidden. For many years, groups of "Chernobyl children" came to western Europe every summer, allowing their immune systems a break from the radioactive zone but unfortunately such trips are no longer allowed. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea where Valentinian got this information from, but my friends (UK) still have couple of Bielorussian children in for the summer. Sometimes at Christmas as well. It is still possible - through some charity program I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.10.205 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I found quite a strange statement "...While it is sometimes wrongly assumed that Belarusian was the official language of the state, Latin, Old Russian (Ruthenian), and Polish were used side by side in state affairs..." What is the ground for this judgment? I am a linguist and it is a surprise for me to know that Old Russian = Ruthenian. Even The Soviet Encyclopedia states that Belarusian WAS the state language of the GDL http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/107/232.htm. In 1991 in Vilnius was published The Statute of the GDL with the commentary that the language of the statute was Old Belarusian. There was no name Belarusian at that time but it does not mean that there is no reason to call the language of that state Old Belarusian while Belarusians are the same Ruskije, Rusiny(Ruthenians) (do not mix with Russians) only under different name due to historical things. Otherwise Belarusians are from Mars. -- dassax

It sounded like original research, so I removed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is OK if there is no mention of the GDL state language at all or one can give all the views on the chancery language but it can cause a certain discussion. The language was literary and differed from the spoken one what gives a good ground for speculations.91.149.145.193 05:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) dassax

Most it could be shifted to the Belarusian language, granted if there is a source or two. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Death Penalty

"The only country in Europe to have the death penalty in both peace and war"? What about Russia and Turkey? 146.235.130.52 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkey abolished the death penalty in 2004 (see Capital_punishment_in_Turkey). Russia still has it, but does not use it (see Capital_punishment_in_Russia).--Oz1cz (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Honorary consulates. ==

Is it unthinkable that the article might reflect, in a footnote, that there are honorary consulates in CyprusNicosia, representing Belarus and other countries ? Perhaps in this manner:

• (Such footnotes, ought not to be mixed together with the reference section. Such footnotes are doable.)

Soldiers naysayed by Norw.-speakers (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Population (demographics section vs facts and figures section)

Hi all

In demographics it states " Minsk, the nation's capital and largest city, is home to 1,741,400 of Belarus's 9,724,700 residents.

In the facts and figures box (top right of page) it states "Population

-  2008 estimate 9,689,800 "

Should the article use one figure consistantly throughout the article? Frognsausage (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably might be a good idea to update the population counts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric period

"The region that is now modern-day Belarus was first settled by Slavic tribes in the 6th century".

In the VI th century the Slavs had settled area just south of Pripyat. North Pripyat Slavs came only in the IX-X centuries. --Azgar (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some literature in Russian:

• Загорульский Э.М. Древняя история Белоруссии. Очерки этнической истории и материальной культуры до IX в.. — Минск: изд-во БГУ им. В.И.Ленина, 1977.
• Загорульский Э.М. Начало формирования населения Белоруссии (дославянский период).. — Минск: РИВШ и ГО, 1996. — 46 с. — ISBN 985-6299-05-5
• Седов В.В. Длинные курганы кривичей. М., 1974.
• Седов В.В. Славяне в раннем средневековье. М., 1995.

Minor grammar correction

In the section "Politics", there is a picture of a statue of Lenin, with part of the caption reading "with a statue to Vladimir Lenin in the foreground.". Should this not be "of Vladimir Lenin"? Xero Xenith (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it??? (Belorussia, Byelorussia) It`s a russian trivial words. What they are doing here?

Both issues have been resolved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Contribution

I wanted to contribute to the concept of a planetary society with the inclusion of Belarus in a particular file. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth belarus.svg

Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Belarus

Umm...what is this? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to promote his self-made flag of the earth and coat of arms for it all over Wikipedia. It was already added to a template and some pages, making it appear on pages like Globalism and European Union. I have removed all uses of this and similar images from Wikipedia mainspace pages. Discussion on talk pages (like here) is of course allowed, but seems fruitless to me. Fram (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to know what it even was. Now that I know, I refuse to let this touch anything else. I prefer my Soviet arms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious! Who does this person think he is? Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of thing. @Camilo Sanchez: Build your own website and promote your "society" to your heart's content. Nojamus (talk) 15:06, 16 January 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@11.08.2010

Somehow it's true. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was officialy changed into Polish-Lithuania-Rus Commonwelth (Rzeczpospolita Trojga Narodów) when the terytory of nowadays Ukraine and a part of Belarus were moved into "The Crown" (Polish Part od Commonwelth). But the truth is that all nobilitis were using Polish, that's why the other languages weren't official languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.1.248 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 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))

From Belarus#Etymology, the first paragraph explains the meaning of White Russia and "After the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the term White Russia also caused some confusion because it was also the name of the military force that opposed the "red" Bolsheviks.[24]" User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

badly needs pre-7th century AD history additions

There is nothing on paleolithic finds of the region. There is nothing about the area's ancient history (Sarmatians, etc.) It's like BR popped out of nowhere in the early Middle Ages. I'll try to add a few lines here and there, but someone who is both more dedicated to the topic and has more expertise should expand the early history of the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is one area that I am not sure if there are anything that I can find. If you want to add a few lines, that is fine, gives me something to look for. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a confusing part as well: It says that "By 500 BCE, Slavs had taken up residence there" and also that "The region that is now Belarus was first settled by Slavic tribes in the 6th century". This needs some clarification. Should that be "6th century BCE", or is there a difference between "taking up residence" and "settling", or are these two dates from different sources that disagree by over 1000 years, or is there an editing mistake somewhere? Ifdef (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what the contributor meant was 6th century BC(E). There were definitely Slavs there prior to the 6th century AD - that's referenced in many history books, Penguin Atlas of Ancient History, etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

When? and When?

I like this sort of article, always learn something new. However two questions:

• Belarus#Demographics 10% of the country was Jewish, but this has been reduced etc ... when was it 10%, or over what period?
• Belarus#Cuisine "...Dinner being the largest meal of the day" is a tautology I'm afraid. When is it eaten? Edgepedia (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are details I have not been able to locate. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Names

I'm none the wiser about why the Belarusian language seems to have about 10 different ways of transliteration, but shouldn't only one be used in this article? The city Mogilev/Mahilyow is spelled three different ways within this article, and the section about administrative regions can't agree on whether they are "oblasts" or "voblasts" - the latter being very confusing because looking at the belarusian cyrillic, this appears to be the singular. If this discussion has already been resolved then apologies, but this article could be potentially confusing in parts. - filelakeshoe 10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no discussion and people have just been making changes left and right. For the names of the (v)oblasts and cities, I will try and see what the official government sources use and apply that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Different ways of transliteration are used because of two official languages in Belarus. Mogilev is a transliteration from cyrillic Могилёв in Russian and Mahilyow is a transliteration from cyrillic Магілёў in Belarusian. Same with "oblast" (Russian) and "voblast" (Belarusian). --Jauhienij (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the only country in Europe with Death penalty

Spain has also in a constitution´s part where accepts death penalty:

"estado de excepcion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.28.19.238 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian - Ruthenian not the same

"The Russians, led by Ivan III of Moscow, began military conquests in 1486 in an attempt to reunite the Kievan Rus' lands"

That is what he claimed, but at the time of the Kievan Rus Moscow didn't even exist. There was Veliky Novgorod near which was... burnt by Ivan III... It was 1792 / 1795 when Belarus was dominated by Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calm nut (talk • contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Belarus-Minsk-New National Library-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Belarus-Minsk-New National Library-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Under the politics section: In December 2010, Lukashenko was elected to a fourth straight term with nearly 80 percent of the vote in elections that were criticized by independent observers. The only reason Lukashenko did not get 100 percent of the votes is because some people believed that he was gay and about 20 percent of the population is homophobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.122.145 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)