Talk:Veyshnoria

Name

Why is "Veyshnoria"? There's no need of transliteration. Original Latin-script name is "Viejšnoryja", so it should be used here like any others Latin-script names of non-English origin. --Skoropadsjkyj (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Veyshnoria" is the more common name being used in English media. I imagine it's similar to why the title is "Belarus", and not "Biełaruś". --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It exists for several days - it couldn't be "common"! Now Wiki just helps "Veyshnoria" become common, because media and Internet users check out the Wiki page. It isn't too late, so I propose to use generally "Viejšnoryja" (as is used to the proper names) with the remark "also known as Veyshnoria" though. (Well, "Belarus" has the different story. There were no official Łacinka in early 1990th, so it had been used one of the Russian romanization systems). --Skoropadsjkyj (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war...

@81.109.161.68: Please remove the unsourced content you've continued to add (by reverting to this version). Adding images and geographic descriptions without a reliable source is not how Wikipedia is edited. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that 149.254.234.176 has added citations about Belarus, but they don't pertain to Veyshnoria. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Flag and motto

Please don't add various flags, coa, motto, etc. from various joke websites of no prominence. The country is invented by Russian/Belarus military and "belongs" to it. Any other jokers must wait until they become notable enough to have their own wikipedia article, with flags and all. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I had the page semi-protected because of very similar things. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

False statement

The following statement must be removed from wikipedia:

"Veyshnoria coincides with the Roman-Catholic territory of Belarus where a large percentage of voters supported Zianon Pazniak"

This is a false statement based on shameless color map manipilation of Nasha Niva who published the claim of some blogger. If you look at their map overlay, you will see that "Veyshnoria" covers some areas with only <10% of Pazniak support and on the other hand it misses areas with >30% of Pazniak support, i.e., nowhere near "coinside", and the illusion of "concidence" is only due to color blurring. As for Roman Catholic territory, the latter actually corresponds to former Polish lands of Kresy inside Belarus, i.e., West Belarus, again, only partially overlap with Veyshnoria. The only reasonable selection of Veyshnoria is subdivisions of Belarus adjacent to Baltic states. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC).

The information is still valuable, because it reflects the Belarusian opposition's reaction to this exercice on the territory of Belarus (Nasha Niva is an opposition newspaper). I believe, you can add "Opposition media speculate" or something similar rather than trying to "bleach" the article.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• False information cannot be valuable.
• It does not come from reliable source, since it is clearly a manipulation from a non-neutral source, and wikipedia cannot propagate manipulation and speculations, unless it becomes so significant as to be noticed by multiple neutral, independent sources. Otherwise true info in wikipedia will be overrun with various conspiracy theories and numerologists.
• A single blogger reported by a single newspaper is not ""Opposition media speculate": it is WP:UNDUE to report a single false opinion.

Since wikipedia is not a myth-busted website by itself, the only thing we can do is just not let "fake news" into article space. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you exactly mean by a "reliable source"? A link to the Belarusian state website?

Please, don't be biased. There are no "neutral sources" at all. See WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The key words are "all of the significant views". I remind you, Nasha Niva is a flagship newspaper of the Belarusian opposition. What exactly is a "reliable source" for the Belarusian opposition, if you even don't consider this source reliable?

Considering the above, do you have any idea how to add a "neutral" point of view of the Belarusian opposition? Think about it before "bleaching" the article.

Also, read WP:NPOV and check Category:Conspiracy theories, if you still think there are no "conspiracy theories and numerologists" on Wikipedia. I'm starting to doubt that you properly understand NPOV. It doesn't mean you have to erase all opinions that you don't like. I've already said you, you can add "Opposition media claimed" and so on. Repeat, the information is still valuable.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't go into politics. A source which publishes false claim cannot be reliable regardless its position. "Nasha Niva" publishing a false sensatiolalist statement of some blogger is not speaking for all opposition. Publishing falsehoods without verification because it nicely fits its political position makes 'Nasha Niva" nonreliable source. It is not an "opinion I don't like" . It is a falsehood, as I explained at the top. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you just suggesting to take your word for it? I think you should clearly understand, that you can't be a reliable source yourself to disprove something. Wikipedia doesn't allow original researches (WP:OR), every editor should rely on reliable sources. Nevertheless, the information received much attention is still considered valuable. For example, check the 9/11 article, where you can find information about conspiracy theories as well.

Also, I ask you to select expressions more carefully when you are trying to detect a falsehood in the article about a fictional (!) country. As you can notice, the country's border is a pure speculation.--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've also added a Medusa link to show that it received much attention in the opposition media, both Belarusian and Russian.--Russian Rocky (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes we rely on reliable sources, but my point is the source gives false information, which is clearly seen. And it is wikipedian's job to decide whether the source is reliable. Wikipedia i not in the jon to "disprove" something, but at the same time wikipedians apply common sense to exclude various false statements. We cannot believe everything what is printed. The falsehodd is not about fictional country, it is about the real map used in the military exercise. The fact the fake news repeated by some other websites does not change the fact that it is fake news. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on reference to 1994 election):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Veyshnoria and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

This statement is not demonstrably false. Multiple sources have commented on the similarities of it, and the fact that all but one stronghold of Pazniak supporters is included is something worth mentioning. It does not say that this is the reason this region was chosen; it is merely stating that it is an observation. See uk:Вейшнорія#Назва і територія, which handles it well: Also, the territory of Weihnshire coincides with the territory where, during the elections of the President of Belarus in 1994, a large percentage of voters voted for the pro-Western policy of Zenon Poznyak, leader of the Belarusian Popular Front. In addition, in this part of Belarus, the largest number of people speak the Belarusian language, as well as the regions of Belarus with a large proportion of the Catholic population. I'm less convinced on the Roman Catholic portion as I was unable to find religious demographics for the country. Nonetheless, the fact that a pro-Western bloc is singled out for a "pretend invasion" is significant enough to warrant inclusion. However, I suggest it be moved from the lead and into the body of the article somewhere. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik:This statement is not demonstrably false -- the statement is demonstrably false, as seen merely by looking at the maps. See the top of this section for detail. Once again and again, look it for yourself it does not coincide with Poznyak's. I agree it would be noteworthy if it were true. No, Ukrainian wikipedia has it wrong as well. What's wrong with you, people? Can't you look at the map yourselves, in the very same Ukrainian wikipedia?. The areas do noticeably overlap, but far from coincidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The maps seem to coincide considerably. Of course, it can never be exact, because they're voting percentages; however, this is very close. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• 
  Electoral map
• 
  "Veyshnoria"

In my mathematical mind "coincide considerably" is nonsense. There is a French saying "you cannot be a little bit pregnant". They are either coinciding or not. I do not deny they overlap considerably, but just as considerably differ. Some guy made a sensationalist claim, which was a wide overstatement. Since we cannot directly rebut or rephrase (WP:NOR), the only solution is not to propagate it. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: As I stated in my opinion, no one is stating that this is the reason and only reason that this region was chosen. It is merely an observation. Your continued insistence on anything but is disruptive and a case of WP:IDHT. – Nihlus (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In my answer to you I said nothing about reasons why it was chosen. Your continued rejection of arguments rather than addressing them is even more disruptive. So drop wikilawyering and please allow me to disagree with your disagreement. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is that there are no similarities; however, there are similarities any reasonable person would point out. This was discussed and addressed above by me and others (i.e. see the maps posted by Hameltion). – Nihlus (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yours is straw man argument. My argument is that they do not "coincide" and that other nonsense is nonsense. Anyway, the current text is OK with me. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Various internet jokers

This article is about the "original" Veyshnoria. Various jokers who create their own Veyshnorias have no place here until they are not noticed by independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Veyshnoria official site is the only one, it's not a joke, but more like an internet-based micronation, as I has written, and there are no other Veyshnorias at the moment. Even in case other Veyshnorias exist, they also are worth mentioning in the article. By the way, this Veyshnoria issues Veyshnorian passports, which was mentioned in BBC article. Also not giving a notice to that site in Internet reaction section looks like a hushing up of information. Moreover, existing of the webpage is an obvious fact and it may play a role of independent source by itself. So I believe, you are to revert at least a part of your revertions, otherwise there is no sense in having a separate article and it should be merged with an article about Zapad-2017. --Hondurazian (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Original" Veyshnoria has no meaning and significance apart from military exercises. Value is only in the Internet reaction, which continues and the description of which should be expanded in the article. --Hondurazian (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

BBC article does not name the website which issued Veyshnoris's passports. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not object that notability of Veyshnoria is primarily to internet reaction, but describing this reaction needs independent 3-rd party refs, per WP:UNDUE, otherwise wikipedia will be aflush with numerous jokers on all possible subjects. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Therefore please let us wait and see whether the micronation will survive without teh support of the Russian military:-). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I do insist, that reference to official Veyshnoria site should be in this article. It's not a one of various internet jokers, but the main representation of Veyshnoria in Internet. More than 12 thousand of 'citizens' is a strong reason to add such reference and mention the site in Internet reaction section.Hondurazian (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding joke without consensus. It is not "official Veyshnoria site" regardless what this joke site says. It is a nonnotable joke not discussed by third party sources. Our policies are clear: independent reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Man, it's reality. When someone calls an apple "an apple", are you waiting for proofs to be shown on TV or published in media to agree on this? The same is with the site of Veyshnoria. Just revert back the reference to that site and let's stop editing war. This article is not your property and you are not a steward or admin here. I tend to escalate the issue, if you are going to continue all these unreasonable reverts. --Hondurazian (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

And here is an independent source and one more, just for instance. --Hondurazian (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No it is not reality, it is the internets. When somebody calls something an apple on the internets, only idiots believe. In any case, thank you for independent sources. Now you have to add it into the article, not in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "original Veyshnoria" (conventional adversary of Zapad-2017) has no independent notability according WP:NOTE. All sources are dedicated to the internet meme and hype (as well as to the "elements of micronation", in which it took shape). --Klangtao (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Another interesting map overlay

Polish parliamentary election, 2007 results vs. German Empire map overlay

AFAIK, a similar phenomenon of history influencing politics exists in Ukraine and modern Germany (a consequence of BRD vs. DDR), probably elsewhere. I am wondering whether politologists have a special term for this (ana a wikipedia article about it)... Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Micronation

If micronation becomes notable enough, it can have a separate page. Right now this article is about a fictional state invented by Russians. Hence the current top infobox is correct, and placing miocronation infobox on top is WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Micronation is only mentioned as development of fictional country invented by Russians and its fictional background. Therefore, the current infobox is correct. Although in the Ukrainian version of the article it is categorized as "micronation" (Ukrainian: віртуальна держава). Alternatively we can put the second infobox to the section "Internet reaction" --Klangtao (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Prosze, I don't get it. In the article about Taler you call it a micronation. You added a micronation category to this article. And now you are undoing my work (which was referenced all through), to the version of the article which states false and unproved (and uncited!) information about "quick businessmen". Why? Could you please explain? 178.124.162.152 (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: micronation is a minor blip. There were several jokers of this kind. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of a business of one guy. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

>There were several jokers of this kind.
No, you're wrong, there were not: site вейшнорыя.бел was the only one of its kind.
>promotion of a business of one guy.
It is not a business, as he clearly stated in his own interview, which you were fast to delete though: he runs a project country on the platform.
>WP:UNDUE
And now this. This, as you call it, "business of one guy" was (several times!) featured on TUT.by, one of the biggest Belarusian Internet media – and this featuring was cited in the part of the article you were fast to delete, again. Also interview on 1863x, all the same – you delete it. The fact this dispute between us is taking place, and I'm not the "quick Belarusian businessman", but the actual citizen of this micronation (ID-card acquired) – is a reason to start to have some doubts about your position. Maybe it is you violating the WP:NPOV, being for whatever reason biased against this project nation? 178.124.162.152 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

he clearly stated in his own interview - he can clearly state what he wants, but this is business because he makes money. Period. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

вейшнорыя.бел was the only one of its kind there were jokers about Veyshnioria nation of different kind. One smart man decided make some money from it and was a bit more persistent with the joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

the actual citizen of this micronation - therefore you have conflict of interest and hence by Wikipedia rules you should refrain from promoting your micronation in this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

>this is business because he makes money. Period.
So, we must then remove any information on Wikipedia about the micronation of Sealand, as they have been selling their passports the same way? Or maybe we better look upon the general article about micronation term and will find out that it is common for micronations to issue and sell their symbols, coins and "personal IDs", and therefore this "business" on Veyshnoria site does not make it less of a micronation – and even proves the exact opposite?
>therefore you have conflict of interest
No, you misinterprete the rule. I am neither Laryčaŭ relative nor employer/client (we do not share any personal relationship), and this micronation is not my personal project; I am writing about my area of expertise, because I have more knowledge about the topic due to my examinations of Belarusian mass media. Therefore, as Rule 8 states, I should not refrain from sharing my experience – moreso, I am encouraged to do this.
>there were jokers about Veyshnioria nation of different kind
Could you please explain then how anybody making a joke about a duck derives it from its duckness? Founder of site considers it a host for "digital project country", Belarusian mass media consider it a host for "digital project country". I can not see any relations with Twitter jokes about Veyshnoria military forces and this considerations.

At the moment the situation is you removed the cited information I added and replaced it with an uncited statement which is completely false. Please elaborate on expanding sources of your statement or stop this editing war with cancellation of other users' work, because it is clear that you are violating WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Thank you in advance. 178.124.162.152 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 178.124..., but despite being article creator, I have no wikipower nor will to review the disputed text. So far, there are only 2 of you talking. Please follow WP:Dispute resolution, starting with a request for WP:3O. - üser:Altenmann >t 10:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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:

• Taler.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)