Talk:Belarus/Archive 3

opposition leader Andrei Sannikov

There's no one opposition leader in Belarus, therefore it is not correct to call Mr. Sannikov or anyone else as opposion leader. Could someone make the necessary change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.145.86 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

carrot-and-stick

they have a carrot-and-stick style government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trosu (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Religion Section

It says Lutheranism is the main religion, even though the Religion in Belarus page, in addition to other areas of the Belarus article, state that Orthodox Christianity is the dominant faith. --Zurkhardo (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC) comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mfa.gov.by/upload/pdf/religion_eng.pdf has Russian Othrodox at 82 percent of believers (and that population is above 50 percent). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean: "About one percent belong to the Belarusian Greek Catholic Church. This population has dropped to 12% in a 2011 report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." Does it mean that the population has dropped *by* 12 percent?--Zurkhardo (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BGCC was a mistake by another person, since it was never a part of the sourced article at all. I removed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem With Page

It seems that half the Belarus article is missing.--Zurkhardo (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes and flubs

It seems to me, it's too many mistakes and flubs for "featured article". For example:

"bordered by Russia to the northeast" — to the northeast and east;

"strongest economic sectors are agriculture and manufacturing" — over one half of GDP in 2008 given by services;

"The borders of Belarus took their modern shape in 1939" — last big changes of the borders were in 1945 when almost all Belastok Voblast and three raions of Brest Voblast were given to Poland, and some little changes between BSSR and RSFSR were occurred in 1960s;

"Despite objections from Western governments, Lukashenko has continued Soviet-era policies, such as state ownership of the economy" — what do "Western governments" care about economic policy of the country?

"Belarus was formally named Belorussia ... in the days of the Russian Empire" — in the days of the Russian Empire it was best known as Northwestern Krai; please, give me any evidence of official use of "Belorussia".

This I found in only first the 10% of the article. Unfortunately, my English isn't enough good for article's editing, so, please, make it better, anybody --Kandrashka (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The location of Belarus is bordered by many states, so just saying "north" will not be accurate since half of this "north" will also be touched by the Baltic states. I didn't see anything about the map changes in 1945, but I found a source that said it did occur. I will write more about it once I have time and have changed that statement. I wrote this article years ago, so I used information that was accurate at the time. I will change it and update it, also when I will have time. As for the geopolitical issues; no matter if I am reading sources from Western or Eastern governments or news agencies, comments about the Soviet-style economy are brought up a lot and how the West just absolutely hate what Belarus is doing (and this is used sometimes as a weapon against the state in the terms of sanctions). As for the Northwestern Krai, I never heard of it before. I need to do some research. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kandrashka is right. Western border of Belarus was formed only in 1945 almost in accordance with Curzon Line. The word Belorussia (Белоруссия) was widely used in USSR and now in Russia. Citizens of Belarus tend to speak "Беларусь". So both variants still exist. 195.222.66.253 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he is getting at is if the term "Belorussia" was used as the name of the area starting in the Russian Empire. I know the term is still used now, so that is not in dispute. But I am still in the process of trying to see when that term was first used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy industry

where is about heavy industry?! uncomfortable topics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.84.40 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More citations needed

~~There are a few citation needed tags that should be dealt with, considering that this is a FA.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

This has now been addressed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange sentence

Groups such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) declared the election "un-free" because of the opposition parties' poor results [...]. Did they really? I see, it is very foolish to declare elections free or unfree basing on their results. I guess they must have said something less foolish. - 89.110.6.0 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About belarusian constitution type in infobox...

There have been changes in constitution type in infobox. Some people keep changing it to "Dictatorship" based on a Condoleezza's Rice statement (HERE). It is unacceptable for wiki to describe as dictator a person that has been legally elected by his country people. Of course it is completely different to write about this statement on the article.--exc (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, of which there are many that describe it as a dictatorship. [1],[2],[3], [4]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we write wiki articles based on propaganda... Like "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", "lazy Greeks" or the "invasions for bringing peace"... Do whatever you want, people.--exc (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The government section should state what type of government it is (presidential republic), not whether or not it's a dictatorship. A dictatorship can be of many forms: military, monarchical, single-party. It's not about whether it has reliable sources, but about whether it's a correct place to state that it's a dictatorship. Changing it back to neutral form. Abstractematics (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the parameters for Template:Infobox country, Ohnoitsjamie. If we were to follow your highly interpretive line of definitions, I could find 'sources' to qualify the United States Government as being an 'Imperialist government dependent on military takeovers'. Any well cited critiques belong in the body of the article under a relevant section and must be well sourced with WP:V and WP:RS. You've been around long enough to be well acquainted with what Wikipedia is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with what? It's not contingent on good luck, and there are a plethora verifiable and reliable sources by researchers throughout the world on this issue... including respected US scholars. Unlike you, however, I don't engage in tendentious editing practices and POV pushes. If you, ~~DagosNavy~~, Capitalismojo, Acroterion, Woloh and others continue to engage in this well documented behaviour, it won't end up in your favour. Your content changes are not in good faith and run contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I really don't care how long any of them have been on Wikipedia and whether they've established reasonable reputations for themselves (or not, as in some instances), they should know better... or should this be taken before an AN/I? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that I for one am just following the RS refs. The refs say dictatorship not presidential republic. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries - North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, etc. could be called dictatorships by reliable sources. That doesn't mean the infobox is the correct place to put those refs. The Governance section of Belarus article begins with a statement of the formal system - "Belarus is a presidential republic, governed by a president and the National Assembly." It later goes on to describe the dictatorship. It doesn't begin by saying "Belarus is a dictatorship." Abstractematics (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is usual with infoboxes, it's hard to strike the correct balance of nuance in a few words. I agree with Abstractematics' latest edit, as it reflects how the nation is officially constituted, rather than how it's actually managed (I'm not aware of any nation that has officially called itself a dictatorship: perhaps there's been a "despotism" at some point?). I'm not sure what "semi-presidential is supposed to mean, so I can't say I agree with the edit-warring account and IP. @ Irnya Harpy, please tone it down: a polite discussion is always better, and my edit (and the edits of others) were mistaken application of the infobox parameter, not, as you've accused, tendentious or POV-pushing. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my borderline uncivil behaviour Acroterion and Capitalismojo. I can't, in good conscience, extend the same to OhNoitsJamie who, by virtue of his/her response to my initial comment, has made it evident that their numerous re-instalments of this use of 'dictatorship' was not a good faith oversight but a POV push.

Unfortunately, due to my activity in Eastern European, ex-Soviet satellite state, and other highly sensitive, high traffic 'interest group' POV push areas of Wikipedia, I'm constantly caught up in trying to moderate heated talk page discussions, edit warring and encouraging contributors to read talk pages and use them before entering into the bold edit → revert → discuss cycle. The sheer volume of discretionary sanctions pertaining to this region over the years would suggest that it is better to pre-empt than regret.

I suggest that it serve as a reminder to those who have enormous watchlists they don't allow themselves to become lax about double-checking what has been changed and where it has been changed.

Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on using the CIA's World Factbook with discretion... and, according to the factbook, the Belarusian government type is listed as being, "republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship". By the same token, the same source defines Zimbabwe as a "parliamentary democracy". As so eloquently expressed by Abstractematics, in the interests of encyclopaedic neutrality, we do not introduce a subject to the reader by presenting from a position of our own authority. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for opinions to differ short of POV-pushing. As you observe, watchlists can sometimes be a trap. That seems to be the case here, and we all have had to deal with relentless POV-pushing so often that it's easy to see it everywhere, and in this case it has cut both ways. However, we seem to have come out on the right side, so we appear to have worked it out through misadventure and misunderstanding. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope that a spat by constructive, hard-working contributors doesn't undermine any future dealings we all have. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's true that frayed nerves take their toll. All my best and happy editing to all! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect map

The map which have title "Principalities of Kievan Rus" cannot be correct. In map there has been market northern border of Kievan Rus to follow same borderline which Finland have nowadays. That border was made in 1944, so it didn't exists 900 years ago. Before 1944 there was not any cultural, geographical, religious or ethnic border where it is now, so if Kievan Rus border was exactly same 900 years ago, that is so huge coincide that probably it is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.73.113 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with the history of Europe from medieval times to the present before you begin imagining that the many, many changes (Kingdoms, Empires, etc.) over hundreds of years correlate with modern-day sovereign nation-states. The map you are referring to is based on genuine contemporary cartographic depictions of Rus' at the time in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novgorod did collect taxes from some Finno-Ugric tribes, Komi for example. Territory wasn't really controlled by Novgorod, but it was a sphere of influence. Can't say anythinh about modern Finland territories though Viktor Š 09:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this IP is trying to challenge the concept of Belarus as having had a history (i.e., ignoring the fact that Russia (the western European parts), Belarus and Ukraine have a mutual history through Rus'). I wouldn't concern myself with having to justify historical maps to accommodate a piece of WP:POV pushing, Виктор. ;) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Belarus

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Belarus!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil and Tourism in Germany. :) Use proper sources! Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism is not developed in Belarus because of many reasons. So it's not so easy to write about it. --Belarus2578 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

Most countries have a sport sub-section to Culture section, should Belarus? The Almightey Drill (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that it is not an imperative. Such sections are dependent on contributors with verifiable and reliable secondary sources, as well as a good working knowledge of the specifics as related to the country in question. If no one has considered it a priority to develop a subsection on sports, creating one would be gratuitous rather than informative. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sport has it's own Ministry, so You should not include it into the culture. Just administrative reason, but it is. --Belarus2578 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arts

Marc Chagall, though living and working in France most of his life, preferred to be known as Belorussian. As one of the most famous and prolific artists of the 20th century, shouldn't he be mentioned in the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Babs2727 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of his 'preferring to be known as Belorussian'. Do you have reliable sources to back this up? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Lukashenko

The caption of the picture of Alexander Lukashenko says: "Alexander Lukashenko has ruled Belarus since 1994 and is currently Europe's longest ruling Head of state."

This is incorrect, as Queen Elizabeth II has been the Head of state of the United Kingdom since 1952. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.14.111 (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic sentence in the lead

"According to some organizations and countries opposed to Alexander Lukashenko, elections have been unfair, and political opponents have been violently suppressed."

It implies that only those opposed to the leader have said these things, when it is well documented by neutral parties. 2.102.184.78 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for the observation. Indeed, it implies something other than the facts. I'll rework the sentence in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education

There needs to be a section on education: What universities there, what the general structure of the school system is, presnece or absencve of private and parochial schools, how many years are compulsory, that it's coed, what langauge i sgenerally used (the article on languages in B has a ref to mid 20th century figures of roughly 95% Russian and 5% belarusian, but elsewehre Wik says (now -when?) it's 75%/25%.211.225.34.159 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The country is also called as "Belorussia". Ilya Drakonov (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Taken from the article: "The term Belorussia (its names in other languages such as English being based on the Russian form) was only used officially until 1991, when the Supreme Soviet of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic decreed by law that the new independent republic should be called Republic of Belarus ("Республика Беларусь" spelled in Russian), as well its abridged form should be "Belarus". The law decreed that all the forms of the new term should be transliterated into other languages from their Belarusian language forms. The use of Byelorussian SSR and any abbreviations thereof were allowed from 1991 to 1993. Conservative forces in the newly independent Belarus did not support the name change and opposed its inclusion in the 1991 draft of the Constitution of Belarus." Jcmcc450 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jcmcc450, я русский и вы меня учить решили? Ilya Drakonov (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Ilya Drakonov Please use English on the English Wikipedia per WP:SPEAKENGLISH Jcmcc450 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jcmcc450, don't teach me. I am Russian and we use 2 names of Belarussia. So it is right. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
You probably forgot that this is the English Wikipedia. What you use in Russian is highly irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:NOR, we as editors, are not to use our own personal experiences, feelings, or knowledge. We must find Reliable Sources for everything we contribute or contest. Jcmcc450 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms Edit War

@Iryna Harpy: and @Einimi:, what exactly is going on here? Please explain your sides of this instead of revert warring. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try it. Coat of Arms of the Republic of Belarus is changed in 2012. Here is the official site of the country as a reference. Also, I live in Belarus and know it like never others. --Einimi (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcmcc450: Please see the information I've left on Einimi's own talk page. SVG images are the preferred format for Wikipedia, and the SVG image is the identical rendition of the JPEG s/he is trying to introduce as the 2007 indicator date for the upload does not take into account the fact that it was substituted with the approved version in 2012. This is in line with all of the other emblems used for country specific articles (Ukraine, Russia, Greece, United States, France, etc.). Please also read the information provided on the JPEG version: "File:Coat of arms of Belarus.svg is a vector version of this file. It should be used in place of this raster image when not inferior."... that is, it is difficult to render the exact colour pallet of the original, but the image is used as a tiny rendition for this article, which doesn't make enough of a difference to substitute it. Image editors are constantly tweaking the svg images, therefore it will improve with time. If the new JPEG is converted into an SVG of superior colour quality, it will usurp the current SVG. Apologies, I know this sounds convoluted, but all it means is that the quality will be upped, but it should not be substituted. I don't think Einimi has had enough experience as yet to fully comprehend that a vector image can't just magically be created replicating identikit colours in a couple of days. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Time

I think Kiev Time should be Minsk Time in the chart— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldon20004154 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is Moscow time in Belarus. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two archived versions confirmed as correct. One incorrect, but now fixed. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many Catholics?

Data from the bar box differ from what is written in Religion chapter: 7.1% or 9%? Moreover the source cited for the 9% rate does not corroborate it. It says that one-in-seven of Belarus's 10 million inhabitants is Roman Catholic, which translates in about 14.3%. Which one is the right value? Carlotm (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals?

The sub-chapter "Post-independence regime" seems to have been vandalized by an unwarranted addition. Carlotm (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-chapter "Sport" seems to have been vandalized by an unwarranted addition. Carlotm (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet/Belarus POV

The years 1920-1945 are described in a very specific way - nothing about the Soviet extermination of Polish and Belarus people, nothing about the expulsion od Poles after the WW2. Kurapaty should be mentioned according to the time when the people were murdered not in 1988.

The Soviet-controlled Byelorussian People's Council officially took control - what is officially? The Polish Communist puppet government accepted the border in 1946. Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about ethnic structure.Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Sanctions - the subsection should start before it ends.Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Press fredom is discussed under Telecommunications.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the universities and limits of academic freedom (history of Hrodna).Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After the war, Belarus was among the 51 founding countries - not Belarus, but Soviet Belarus, which meant J. Stalin.Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government Unitary presidential republic[1][2]

Link 2 is a Wikipedia article, but an article isn't a source.
Link 1 - The Constitution claims something, but doesn't prove anything. The Soviet constitution was liberal.
Republic power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body - one has to prove that the president was elected.

Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article status

As can be seen from the multiple clean-up tags on the article, it no longer meets the standards of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Are there any regular editors who can address these issues or should the article be taken to Wikipedia:Featured article review? DrKay (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No regular editors here.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this was a one man article and once I left, I had a feeling it would have gone on the wayside. Anyways, what I have done was that I provided the citations in the lead about the UN join date (used the UN website as a source) and the public holidays (Pres. of Belarus website). I know the tools have moved so I do not have the website handy for the citeweb, but I will work with you guys on this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodoxy

Eastern Orthodoxy means Moscow, it should be clearly stated in the text.Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't know such a difference existed, but thank you for your changes and information. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare Ukraine, with its three Church bodies.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious distribution

If we follow the information sourced in Note 184, i.e. "58,9 % of Belarusians are believers. 82 % of them are orthodox, 12 % are catholics, 6% represent other denominations" and relate them to the total population for the year 2011 shown in "After WWII" table of Demographics of Belarus page (9,473,000 inhabitants), we get these values:

Eastern Orthodoxy: 48.30%
Irreligion: 41.10%
Roman Catholicism: 7.07%
Other religions: 3.53%

It seems that the table in Religion chapter is out of order. Carlotm (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph in lead section contains very unrelated facts besides being cumulative (non-summary)

The third paragraph of the lead section contains some interesting demographic facts (urban nature of population, ethnicity, religion).

This is mixed in with some unrelated facts which basically boil down to reporting general agreement in the West that Belarus is not democratic and hasn't been for some years, that there's not much press freedom, and it is "repressed" (quotes in article) economically.

The article could be improved by separating the more objective part of the third paragraph (the demographics) from the assessments of its freedom since these are presumably unrelated.

If these assessments of its freedom are so important to knowledge of Belarus then they should probably be lumped in with the second paragraph which reports more concerns from the West about elections. Perhaps it could be summarized in one or two sentences? (E.g., "Western observers think Lukashenko leads a failed state denying basic freedoms and acts like a Soviet".)

And if the politics and social policies in Belarus are so important to an understanding of the country (more important than the climate, it appears), perhaps a word could be thrown in about income distribution, incarceration rates, and the number of foreign countries they send troops to. Surely these could be easily sourced without doing original research.

Son of eugene (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl

Why does this article make no mention of the Chernobyl disaster and the impact it had on the country. The article on the disaster suggests that it had a very significant impact on Belarus. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

h

H Raj surywanshi (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why Polish names ?

Why are neither English nor Belarusian names used in the largest cities section, but Polish ones instead ? Looks like rather something with a bad intentions. These are sensitive issues for whats should be neutral encyclopedia.

I mean Gomel which became Homyel, Mogilev which became Mahiylow, Grodno which became Hrodna etc. This should be corrected with English names. Nowhere else would you find that names of the cities of a certain country are written with a language of completely another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.14.59 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual polish names of those cities are Homel (not Homyel), Mohylew (neither Mahilyow nor Mahiylow as you misspelled it), and Grodno (yes, this IS actually a polish name of the city!) And those you mentioned above are not polish, but rather belarusian names. Contemporary though, as, for example, the current caplital's name 'Minsk' is also of polish origin, with originally belarusian name 'Mensk' diminished use since the first half of the 20th century.Dread Knight (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government

I can not find mention or an article on local government in Belarus. How do cities, urban-type settlements, and villages relate to the raions? Is it more similar to, say, their level in Ukraine or Russia? Are cities subordinate to a raion or administratively seperate and instead subordinate to the region? How about urban-type settlements and villages? This information should at least be added in the administrative divisions sub-section here or on the Regions of Belarus page, since they are mentioned in articles. --Criticalthinker (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, you might think of a sielsavet as "a sielsavet center with a couple of villages", raion as "the raion center with its sielsavets", and region as "a region center with its raions" with sielsavet center being a part of its sielsavet (and not having an administrative entity of its own), raion center also being a part or its raion (and not having an administrative entity of its own) and region center being a part of its region (but having its own administration, subordinate to the corresponding region), with several exclusions:

Minsk, as the capital and the largest city, subordinates directly to the state's government, not being a part of Minsk raion or Minsk region. I.e. sielsavets of Minsk raion report to the Minsk raion administration (which seats in Minsk); Minsk raion together with other raions of Minsk region report to Minsk region administration (which also seats in Minsk), and Minsk together with Minsk region and five other regions reports directly to the state's government (well, you'd have guessed it, also in Minsk).
All five other region centers, as I said, have administrations of their own, being also their corresponding raion centers, but not being a part of those raions. They subordinate to their region administrations directly.
Four raion centers have their own administration, subordinate to their corresponding region (not raion!) administration, hence not being a part of their regions.
The city of Navapolack has its own administration and subordinates to the Viciebsk region directly, being neither center or a part of Polack raion where it is situated, though due to its close vicinity to Polack, it's quite common to speak of Polack or Polack-Navapolack agglomeration.
The list of such exclusions is not consistent, and has been changed a few times for the last two decades. Also, the largest cities are themselves split into raions (i.e. city districts) with their own administrations. Dread Knight (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government in exile?

Why is there no mention of the government in exile? The Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic. 137.205.170.52 (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President listed as Barack Obama

Hello all, I was reading this article and I notice that the president of Belarus is listed as Barack Obama. This should be Alexander Lukashenko I believe, though I am not an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.188.128.39 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://belstat.gov.by/en/ofitsialnaya-statistika/otrasli-statistiki/naselenie/demografiya_2/current-data/demographic-situation/demographic-situation-in-2015/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712192515/http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://press.coe.int/cp/97/11a%2897%29.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726234207/http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a%2C11316%2Cin-chase-of-upgrade-serfdom-for-woodworkers.html to http://belsat.eu/en/wiadomosci/a%2C11316%2Cin-chase-of-upgrade-serfdom-for-woodworkers.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216164953/http://www.un.org/members/growth.shtml to http://www.un.org/members/growth.shtml

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214000000/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2014
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ru.forsecurity.org/nato-and-belarus-partnership-past-tensions-and-future-possibilities
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eurovision.tv/page/timeline

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government Absolute Monarchy(?) leader is King(?)

Just noticed it says the in the box that the Government is an Absolute Monarchy and it is led by a King. That can't be right can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.152.187 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307072633/http://news.yahoo.com/belarus-appeals-imf-8bln-rescue-loan-161455781.html to https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-appeals-imf-8bln-rescue-loan-161455781.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326221817/http://www.ehu.lt/ru/news/pokazatj-statjju/shagal-v-belarusi-ignoriruemj-zabtj-i-snova-otkrtj to http://www.ehu.lt/ru/news/pokazatj-statjju/shagal-v-belarusi-ignoriruemj-zabtj-i-snova-otkrtj

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050225084753/http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/1211/wh28-1.html to http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/1211/wh28-1.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170208114205/http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php to https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belarus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217010640/http://www.mod.mil.by/7okrugarmia.html to http://www.mod.mil.by/7okrugarmia.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of Belarus' name

WikiArticleEditor – What were the reasons for removing transliterated names from the lede? You must discuss if you get reverted per WP:BRD. The Romanization of Belarusian page clearly says that Belarus' transliterated name in Latin alphabet is Biełaruś. In addition, the country's official website clearly says that Беларусь is the correct Russian name. You should also refrain from personal attacks as you did in your last edit summary. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Lede"? You don't even speak proper English. I'm not going to discuss anything with you. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiArticleEditor: The term "lede" is used by some people as an alternative spelling for "lead" in this context, see WP:LEDE, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19#Lede and also WP:NOTALEDE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of independence in 1917-1920 (beginning of the article)

In december 1917 People's Commissariat of National Affairs of RSFSR helped belarusian national movement to organize Wholebelarussian National Congress in Minsk. Local government of West oblast closed this Congress. In 1918 territory of Belarus was occupied by Germany. And under german occupation same delegates of Congress declared independence of Belarusian People's Republic. But, because of Brest-Litovsk treaty of 1918 independence of BPR was not recognized by Germany and Russia. Territory of BPR was under control of german military administration and BPR government had no power there. Official possibilities of BPR was bordered only on school questions and relations of local people with military administration. After November revolution in Germany Brest-Litovsk treaty was canceled, German army moved back to homeland, BPR governement moved to the West and Russia taken control on this territories. Soviet Russia and BPR hadn't got any military actions in 1918. In december 1918 other delegates of Wholebelarusian national congress began preparations to organization of Belarusian Soviet Republic. And January 1, 1919 Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus was proclaimed. Then it was united with Lithuanian Soviet Republic in LitBel in february 1919. Then territory of Belarus was occupied by polish forces during Polish-Soviet war. And after liberation of Minsk in 1920 Soviet Belarus declared independence again.

Current article in beginning tells other story: BPR was organized as a real state and then conquered by Soviet Russia. Then Belarusian Socialist Soviet Republic cofounded USSR in 1922. Noone mentions of founding of Soviet Socialist Republic of Belarus (that officially recognizes as a beginning of modern Belarus) in beginning of the article.

So I propose include in beginning of article, that Belarusian Peoples Republic was declared under german occupation (so in current article in Russian Empire chapter it mentioned), and include information about founding of SSRB in 1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.17.63.75 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the removal of transliterated and Russian names

CLosing this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure; there have been no comments in over 2 weeks. Objectively the consensus here (4 to 2) is to include them, however this is not a vote, and I appreciate the cogent points made by Mathglot and Place Clichy around WP:FORLANG and WP:FIRSTSENTENCE; these are Wikipedia guidelines, and are based on far wider community consensuses than that which could ever be obtained here. Given the arguments to include the host of transliterations in the first sentence of the article have no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy, I have to close this RFC as no consensus and suggest a further, considered discussion takes place around the opening sentence and whether some of the transliterations should be moved to an etymology section, as per the sensible suggestions by Mathglot and Place Clichy. Should you have any questions about this closure please contact me on my talk page. Regards, Fish+Karate 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transliterated and Russian names were removed from the lede. The user who removed them is not willing to discuss the matter as can be seen in the section above. The page about the Romanization of Belarusian clearly shows that Belarus' name in Latin alphabet is Biełaruś. As for the Russian name, the country's official website clearly uses Беларусь as the correct Russian name. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a block evasion by one of our indefblocked friends. Not sure why we need an RfC, the issue is better served by SPI if we can guess who the sockmaster is. Anyway, needs to be reverted to the pre-war state.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Well RfC is one of dispute resolution options. Since I was not sure which one to pick, I chose RfC. As for SPI, I did not encounter similar behavior as that user so I could not possibly go to SPI without any proof. However, personal attacks and hostility could imply that it could be a sockpuppet. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Include Russian and anglicized names. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include Russian names as historically significant.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 13, 2018; 14:37 (UTC)
Include - Summoned by bot. I see no convincing argument not to include. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close Rfc and discuss - It seems to me to be premature to open an Rfc, just because of a single churlish response; maybe they were just having a bad day. Discussion is supposed to happen first. That said, let's remember that [t]he lead is the first part of the article that most people will read, and in many cases, the only part. Currently, the subject of the first sentence is "Belarus", and the predicate, "is a landlocked country," is found 36 words later. That is not a user-friendly first sentence, and reminds me more of a sentence out of a German philosophy text. Regardless which approach comes out of the Rfc, imho per WP:FORLANG most of the in-between verbiage should be moved out of the lead and into the #Etymology section (perhaps renamed to, "Etymology and name variants" or some such) leaving the lead with only a single foreign language equivalent, as the guideline recommends. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include - No reasons not to.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close Rfc and discuss per Mathglot. While the informations given and the variations between names in Russian and Belarussian are most interesting, the first sentence is currently unnecessarily cumbersome and repetitive. Especially, mentioning a "Russian" name, actually identical in spelling to the "Belarussian" name, followed by the sentence formerly known by its Russian name Byelorussia or Belorussia (Russian: Белоруссия) is not in any way understandable to the casual reader. This must be rephrased altogether, with part of the information moved lower in the article, probably together with the notion that the Russian language is probably in fact used in Belarus more that the Belarussian language. Place Clichy (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belarus declared independence on 25 August 1991

What is that fact about? I have never heard about Belarus declared independence except of the start of 20 century. It only reclaimed the sovereignity which is mentioned earlier in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.64.11 (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page and edits

Page has been protected due to excessive edit warring. Please discuss what the content should be and arrive at a consensus. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why the caption of the image should be changed. The official article is Partitions of Poland, even in all English sources. I will not emphasize why or how but this is how the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were referred to. Moreover the Grand Duchy of Lithuania ceased to exist (1791) as declared by the Constitution of 3 May, before the very last partition in 1795. Also, the extra information added creates clutter and is detrimental to this article's status. All of this chunk could be summarised in 2 sentences. I also require an explanation why it is the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth? I believe you shouldn't be taken seriously in this matter and that you are simply a vandal who distorts history by creating misconceptions. Oliszydlowski, 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit inserted false information, which claims that Samogitia is today's Lithuania, while Belarus is the "real Lithuania". The user who added this information tends to insert Litvinist content, which is accepted by a very small number of scholars. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Grand Duchy of Lithuania ceased to exist in 1791, also I noticed that this article oddly overemphasizes Lithuanian in everything, which is a sign of POV pushing, best example of this is the section on Republic of Central Lithuania which basically had very little to do with Belarus (not even inhabited by Belorussians, but by Poles and Lithuanians), yet it completely ignores Belarusian People's Republic, which actually covered the territories of modern Belarus. --E-960 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.200.100.28 (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Empty edit request.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You need to change the coordinates to 27E as currently the coordinates are in Western Poland 92.2.92.16 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing it out! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I just wanted to repair the dead link on Belarus page. Number 97 should be changed to this https://www.uef.fi/documents/428549/854028/countryreport-belarus-borders.pdf/751f5e6f-b72f-468e-999e-e1988a790aa7. Thanks Romanzh (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Belarus has four UNESCO-designated World Heritage Sites: the Mir Castle Complex, the Nesvizh Castle, the Belovezhskaya Pushcha (shared with Poland), and the Struve Geodetic Arc (shared with nine other countries).

Usalidar (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the "−0/−5" to "0/−5" in the "Average daily maximum and minimum temperatures for the six largest cities in Belarus" chart under January's Celsius column. I believe it should be 0°C; not −0°C. Arkadyich (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The "Languages" section states "Belarusian, the official first language, is spoken by 11.9%" but later says "Belarusian, although not as widely used as Russian, is the mother tongue of 53.2% of the population", which doesn't make sense. 146.198.161.95 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I have changed the 11.9% to the number of people who use the language at hoe, and made this clear in the text. Danski454 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boring!

This is a REALLY boring article! Belarus has some excellent things happening, but there's little or no mention - and NO photos worth a look. How about some readers stepping up and adding some really energetic images and info? I can't because I've been banned from editing "East European articles" for a year due to asking questions about aircraft performance. But surely can't someone else contribute something? Santamoly (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You ban includes talk page discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is allowed to edit this page?

I'm new to Wikipedia, and just figuring out protected pages. If I wanted to add something on here and a source, how do I edit it? Kay girl 97 (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kay girl 97: you can read about the protection level of this page at WP:BLUELOCK. The way to proceed here is that you initiate a conversation on the article's talk page (which you have done). Please tell us what is it that you want to be added, why, and identify the source. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore this in image in article

Image was removed with reason "Rmv copyvio image" by user Sabbatino: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarus&diff=887707021&oldid=886334282

But it seems it was made by mistake cause image is in Open source by Library of US congress. Link: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g7050.ct000058

The Library of Congress is providing access to these materials for educational and research purposes and is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection (see Title 17 of the United States Code) or any other restrictions in the Map Collection materials.

Image looks really intersting. So please revert this edit, article lacks of any original maps really hard. Thank you!

I've corrected the licensing at File:Magnus ducatus Lithuania, 1780.jpg. I have no opinion on whether it's a suitable image in this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop, picture is very suitable because actually it's original political map of modern Belarus in 18 century. Whole Belarus territory represented in it.

@Finnusertop: But you did not fix anything. It is not an "own work" as it is stated and the image was taken from grafika.ru website as the watermark from there is clearly visible. I also want to point out that the IP that created this discussion, along with many other IPs (see page's history), belong to the sockmaster (the uploader of this image) so the edits and/or messages should be treated with causion. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: I did change it from own work. I've now tagged it for watermark. In any case, File:Grand Duchy of Lithuania WDL143.png is probably a better version. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Thanks for clarifying as I did not take a good look at it. Seeing that the same map has already been uploaded in the past, I believe the version with visible watermark should be deleted. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: @Sabbatino: Thanks for founding a better image. Can we guys automatically change urls to not-watermarked version to save articles in not broken condition as we have now? Dear Sabbation, could you also revert this edit partly for GDL page? It's better image os Statute was suddenly changed back to pale version by you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania&diff=880913502&oldid=880326259 I think it's also good idea to place image of Statute to this article cause this law was active till 1840s on modern Belarus lands. 300 years of active state (16-19 centuries) is significant for Statut to be represented here. Many thanks.

Bad English

The article has many mistakes in grammar and style, making it in places hard to read. Here is one example: “The Lithuanian nobles were forced to go for rapprochement because of the threat coming from Muscovy.“ Yikes! Is this from Google Translate? —Q douglasii (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Q douglasii: Google Translate could have been used since this and other Belarus-related pages were edited by a banned user and its sockupppets. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Q douglasii: That's true, cause some users care more about protection of personal views in Belarus-related articles than collaborative work for grammatical quality and fact richness. Craft37by (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore GDL section in the article, five centuries worse to be represented.

This edit should be checked in my opinion. Teritory of Belarus was a part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania since the beginning till the very end for 13-18 centuries and it's a bit uncomfortable to read about this as "unsourced" fact. Five centuries worse to be represented as a section. Thanks for attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belarus&diff=879197962&oldid=878256586 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.57.192.67 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential or semi-presidential republic?

The Prime Minister of Belarus article describes the PM as head of government, and the President of Belarus describes the president as head of state. The president does seem to have significant powers, however, which suggests Belarus might be a semi-presidential republic and not a presidential republic. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2019

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 2017 information to past tense not future. Zoeywool (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed "From 1 July until 31 December 2016, the old and new currencies will be in parallel circulation and series 2000 notes and coins can be exchanged for series 2009 from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021." to "From 1 July until 31 December 2016, the old and new currencies were in parallel circulation and series 2000 notes and coins can be exchanged for series 2009 from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021." As the only mention in the main body of the article to 2017, I am assuming that this is what was requested. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian system?

Pages for Russia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and numerous other countries have "under an authoritarian system/state/dictatorship" etc. in the Government section, I think it would be appropriate to add this to Belarus' Government section for the sake of consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FantasticRiceCrackers (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BSSR section

Someone who can edit this needs to put a space before "Treaty of Riga" since it looks wrong with no space between words. 2600:1004:B102:B0F0:34F9:D278:E2DF:BC73 (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean Peace of Riga. Seems fine to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HDI

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Alinstan (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The HDI section hasn't been updated with new information of 2018 that came out in 2019, please replace the 2017 information with the 2018 one. Alinstan (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Belarus. Krakkos (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add link to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X74KhXTAigs Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I do not know if this video should be in the article or where to place the video. Please reopen another edit request with a clearer description. A a s i m 22:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament diagrams

The diagrams at National_Assembly_of_Belarus seem to be incorrect or out of date, but I don't know enough about the politics of Belarus to correct them. Also, I have found these two diagrams: File:Consejo_Supremo_2020.svg and File:Rusia Blanca Consejo Supremo 2020.svg, which also seem to be wrong. Can someone help me understand what the correct, current status of the Belarusian assemblies is? --Slashme (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Soviet guerilla.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 elections

Shall we start making a start on this. How much do we want to include? it's a huge story and might require quite a lot of work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs)

See 2020 Belarusian presidential election‎. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the President of Belarus now? Samogitia (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting to change the flag of Belarus to its correct flag. https://cdn.britannica.com/s:500x350/39/22539-004-500D0D36/Flag-Belarus.jpg Although it is incorrect according to the dictator president, the majority of the country supports the real president - Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. 2A02:C7F:6013:A500:DD9B:BBB1:74BF:CCF2 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Ed talk! 11:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leader name in infobox

While as of today there is a serious challenge to Lukashenko's authority and legitimacy, until he is ousted/exiled/resigns, his name should remain in the infobox, along with the disputed label and a link to the dispute. A somewhat comparable situation is Venezuela, though in that situation Guaidó is recognized as legitimate by a number of states. If states begin to recognize Tsikhanouskaya as legitimate leader, her name should be added to the infobox along with Lukashenko. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, language

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The caption of the old flag next to the section "Human rights", says "used ... between 1991 to 1995". This is bad English. Please change it to "from 1991 to 1995" or to "between 1991 and 1995", at your option. 2A02:2149:A000:8200:FD54:61BD:C8BC:96FD (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Belarusian protests

Why not linked for the article at the top of the country page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:F80:67C0:3DEE:F3A0:AA35:60D4 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lukashenko

I would like to remove Lukashenko from the president section. Lukashenko is no longer considered the president of Belarus in the eyes of the international community. The disputed election proves that point. Thanos2556 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any reliable sources that say in their own voice that he is no longer the President? CMD (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CMD, does history know dictators who would pronounce in their own voice they no longer the presidents?

Violeance (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does the International community decides the leader of a sovereign state? Unless Lukashenko is removed either through a Belarusian institution or through the actions of the people of Belarus including the use of force you cannot simply decide a person is not leader based on the views of other countries. For instance, if the world/EU decided that Trump was not president due to an electoral interference I do not think we would remove him as President on the Wikipedia page until actions happen in the United States as it is a sovereign country. Regardless if Lukashenko is a dictator or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStrama (talk • contribs) 08:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Presidency

I think that it may be helpful to note that the presidency is disputed with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya in the infobox under Lushenko's name. Jkd4855 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree Tcrvocbth (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus history

Belarus only emerged as an independent nation in 1918, gaining independence from the Russian Republic (de jure) or the Russian Soviet Republic (de facto). The earlier events, described in the infobox, are also part of Belarusian history, but they are not directly connected with the establishment of Belarusian state. CapLiber (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "sudden" independence from Russia would mean a weird act of separatism. Modern Belarus emerged as a consequence of historic events such as Prinsipality of Polotsk and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as they influenced formation of separate Belarusian language and identity.--Dƶoxar (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the state, and that portion of the infobox is about the sovereignty status of the polity in question, not the people or ethnic identity. Most states have clear moments of "sudden" independence, which I suspect in very few if any cases lines up with a specific moment of ethnogenesis. CMD (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Poland gained independence in 1918, it is not "directly connected" with medieval Kingdom of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, however they are mentioned in the infobox. The same logic works in articles about other countries (e.g. Lithuania, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia).--Dƶoxar (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other articles do something wrong doesn't mean this article should. The field descriptions are

|sovereignty_type =   <!--Brief description of country/territory's status ("Independence [from...]", "Autonomous province [of...]", etc)-->

and |established_event1 = . The sovereignty type field provides the reader a quick understanding of the polity's status. Often key pre-independence polities/developments are included in the established events when they lead to the state, but a set of 11 varying events lacking context is not an easily accessible list of key events. CMD (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In very many articles about sovereign states the infobox is used this way. If this is wrong, this should be disscussed on the project level and changed in all those articles (not to confuse users and not to provoke edit wars). Removing this information from separate articles looks not neutrally, as there's always a political context of this topic.--Dƶoxar (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I provided to you the descriptions on the infobox documentation, which is as close as there is to a project level consensus. Referring to the infobox documentation is not a "political" act. CMD (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user like in other pages making OR connections and falsely claim other pages would follow his way of thinking, on the contrary.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"Falsely" according to you, KIENGIR, but correctly according to the common sense. I'll continue my argumentation at Talk:Ukraine.--Dƶoxar (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by far the fallacious argumentation of yours has been already demonstrated, it's not according to anyone.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Incorrect flag

Cordyceps-Zombie has repeatedly changed the flag of the country to the opposition-used white-red-white flag. As I noted, this is not the country's current flag. Despite this, they have persisted on the change. ArbDardh (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to say what is correct or not Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belarussia's flag is what it is. Fact don't care about your feelings. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A ban is needed. 217.209.1.128 (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Cordyceps-Zombie at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. NedFausa (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he is doing it for bragging rights on discord, i have seen him brag about it on a server i frequent. Mrwillard02 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cordyceps-Zombie is currently blocked for 72 hours. He is not the least bit contrite. NedFausa (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, pinging blocking admin: OhNoitsJamie I don't doubt what Mrwillard02 is saying. I'm here from a thread on Twitter - absolutely a WP:NOTHERE. Should we move this to a better venue? Ed talk! 00:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is going to overrule the blocking administrator, who in effect applied a slap on the wrist. NedFausa (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block duration is based on the user's previous history of constructive edits, otherwise it would've been an indef block. As I noted here, any further hijinks will result in a swift indef block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current flag recognised by the state is disputed and should be presented alongside the opposition flag, being the widely recognised flag by the people. Tcrvocbth (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner? Do you mean "lunch"? Or "supper"?

"Typically, Belarusians eat a light breakfast and two hearty meals, with dinner being the largest meal of the day" Considering that "dinner" generally means "the largest meal of the day", this sentence is completely unhelpful. I know many people who use the word "dinner" for the midday meal and many others who use it for the evening meal. Does anyone know which is meant here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PLEASE Replace Flag Photo (green) with Belarus White-Red-White Flag Prior(1991, & 1918) to Lukashenko Reign Currently listed as "Variant flag of Belarus" should be switched with white red flag and the green is the variant Flag forced upon the people. SocialRebelAgency (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The flag in the infobox currently matches the flag at Flag of Belarus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what the flag of a certain country is should be a matter of fact, not consensus, the БЧБ is widely used around the world as the flag of belarus unlike the green which has become exclusively synonymous with support for the illegitimate government, which is already marked as disputed in the infobox. the logical consequences of this are to either remove the flag completely, as done with the current president of belarus, or to put both flags on the same altitude. 2A00:1028:96D0:CDA2:D898:B246:F5C5:63AB (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We just reflect what reliable sources say. Reliable sources do mention that the white-red-white flag is becoming popular in certain regions, but they don't yet call it the flag of the country. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

This edit request to Belarus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "Over 40% of its 207,600 square kilometres (80,200 sq mi) is forested." to "Over 40% of its 207,600 square kilometres (80,200 sq mi) of land area is forested." Aldicom (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visa-free entrance to Belarus

From the 26th of October 2016 residents of 80 countries can travel to Grodno and the Grodno District and from the 9th of January 2017 to the whole territory of Belarus, from the 1st of January 2018 also to Brest and some districts of Brest Province without a visa and stay there for up to 10 (Grodno and Brest regions) or 30 (the whole Belarus) days. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

Good afternoon, dear colleagues! Please, allow the following important information to be added onto the wikipedia article about Belarus. Thank you! Herasimchyk, 13:08, 30.04.2019— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herasimchyk (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Grodno visa-free in Belarus". grodnovisafree.by. How to come to Grodno, the Awgustow Channel and Grodno District
^ "Visiting Belarus without visas". belarus.by/en/. Thirty-day visa-free travel to Belarus and ten-day visa-free regime to visit two tourist zones of Belarus
^ "Visa-free travel". mfa.gov.by/en/. Visa-free travel (general information)
^ "Brest visa-free in Belarus". bezviz.by.

Languages of Belarus

Census results from 2019 have been reported in Russian. Could the percentages be updated to reflect the new numbers? For "Mother Tongue", Belarusian = 54.1%, and Russian is 42.3%. For languages spoken at home, Belarusian has gone up slightly, to 26%, while Russian is used by 71.3%. <ref>https://www.belstat.gov.by/upload/iblock/345/34515eeb3bb5f4ea5ca53b72290e9595.pdf<ref> Snd3054 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Grodno visa-free in Belarus". grodnovisafree.by. How to come to Grodno, the Awgustow Channel and Grodno District

[2] "Visiting Belarus without visas". belarus.by/en/. Thirty-day visa-free travel to Belarus and ten-day visa-free regime to visit two tourist zones of Belarus

[3] "Visa-free travel". mfa.gov.by/en/. Visa-free travel (general information)

[4] "Brest visa-free in Belarus". bezviz.by.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]