Talk:Belarus/Archive 1

message: ...No mention of Hockey?
I felt the sentence 
:"Some Belarusians suggest the name "Byelorussia" is derogatory..."
is incomplete an imprecise.
First, it was unclear what exactly was deriding (I tried to clarify a bit);
Second, it was unclear what was an alternative ("Belarus");
Finally, the word "suggest" is wrong IMO. The word "Byelorussia" was not used in derogatory sense (unlike, say "bul'bash" (potato-eater)). It was rather perceived as derogatory by growing (or rather rekindling) national self-consciousness and hence sometimes proclaimed as such. So I took the liberty to change it to "perceive".  
Mikkalai 18:55, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so, but "Emperor of All the Russias" is the generally accepted English translation (551 returns on Google versus 30 for "Emperor of the Whole Russia"). If you go for the latter I think the meaning won't be as clear, because it's simply not a title that people will recognise. -- ChrisO 19:17, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I've already noticed this. What do you think about paraphrasing: "... whose literal translation is: 'of the Whole'..."? Tsar's idea was to stress that there was one and the only Rus, not many Russias. This is the main derogatory part; not just in being a synonym, the latter would show some independence, but in being completely dissolved in "the whole Rus". Mikkalai 21:39, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I ain't no English expert. Possibly the wordwise does not sound correctly in English: "of the whole Rus: Great, Minor, and White": it might leave and impression that Rus is both Great and Minor, and White, too. BTW, in Russian the archaic version was abandoned:  "Vseya Rusi" -> "Vserossiyskiy" Mikkalai 01:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early talk 

message: User:Zscout370 asked me to read the article on Belarus and check it against my own nose. I noticed a number of issues:
# Austria did not annex Belarusian lands during the Partitions (corrected that). 
# IMO the section on post-WWI period needs corrections. So far it says that Belarus first declared their independence one year after the Russian Revolution of 1917 on March 25, 1918. The declaration took effect after the end of World War I when Germany ended their occupation of Belarus. However, the Belarus National Republic was short lived and was eventually merged into the Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919.
# Firstly, the relation between the proclamation of German-led (or rather Ober-Ost-led Belarusian National Republic and the Russian Revolution of 1917 is close to none. Soviet historiography often pointed out that all the states of Central and Eastern Europe declared their independence because Lenin allowed them to in his Declaration of Rights of Peoples of Russia. However, such a nonsense should not be repeated by wikipedia, especially that Lenin did not have much sovereignity over those areas (under German control since 1915 and officially ceded to Germany shortly afterwards, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) and that it's hardly credible that Germans created any of their Mitteleuropa states because there was a revolution in Russia. 
# Secondly, The declaration happened before Germans ceased to occupy Belarus - and that's exactly why such declaration was possible at all. Note that the BNR existed as long as the Ober-Ost garrisons were there. The Bolsheviks entered Minsk as soon as the Germans withdrew.
# Also, the BNR was not merged into Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR. It was annexed or swallowed, but the change was not a merger. 
# On another note, shouldn't the situation of the Polish minority be mentioned? After all currently Lukashenka is persecuting the largest non-governmental organization in Belarus (more than 20.000 members) and that organization is Society of Poles in Belarus. 
Halibutt 23:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
**I think Mikkalai corrected all of your issues and I added a note in the politics section about the Union of Poles in Belarus event that is going on. I also created a stub article of the NGO. Zach (Sound Off) 03:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I don't know who Imperial Russians were, but I was concerned that the listed items were grammatically consistent: Poles, Lituanians and ?Russians might be acceptable. What is there now is not. Tony 11:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia before they became the Soviet Union. Zach (Sound Off) 20:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: I was wondering if the improvements to the lead section are ok with yall. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I will post the link here http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Belarus. Some might like it, some might hate it. I will not add it to the article, unless yall want to. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Giggles 

message: While I was told flag images should be in SVG, I cannot draw images into SVG. Another user did it for me. However, if yall are having problems with the file, I still have my PNG file on my local computer. Zach (Sound Off) 23:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG flag image 

message: Belarusian language is written not only in Cyrillic, but also in Latin script (łacinica). Perhaps we should indicate it also? E.g. Homyel' -> Homiel, Mahilyow -> Mahiloŭ, Vitsebsk -> Viciebsk, Baranavichy -> Baranavi&x10Dy; Zhytkavichy -> Žytkavičy ... — Monedula 18:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Belarusian language could be written, but usually is not written in Latin. Most languages could be written in most alphabets, Belarus was written in Latin at one point of time, but rarely is now. Of course, it should be mentioned at Belarusian language if it's not already. Nikola    08:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacinica

message: Why are there two long sentences entirely in Latin and German untranslated? 
: "Sunt qui principem Moscovuiae Album Regem nuncupant. Ego quidem causam diligenter quaerebam, cur Regis Albi nomine appellaretur, or Weisse Reyssen oder weissen Khünig nennen etliche unnd wöllen damit ain underscheid der Reyssen machen."
Are we supposed to understand that in an English encyclopedia? I find leaving foreign quotes untranslated an antiquated and snobby practice best left in books from Victorian times. --Menchi 23:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea culpa :-) It was me who entered these phrases for the sake of substantiation of the ancient usage of the term. Unfortunately my knowledge of Latin and archaic German doesn't reach much further than to recognise the words ""Album", "Weisse" and some others. Please consder these phrases as images of archaic manuscripts (untill someone comes willing to translate them). Mikkalai 20:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Weisse Reyssen oder weissen Khünig nennen etliche unnd wöllen damit ain underscheid der Reyssen machen." - White Russians(Ruthenians?) or white kings (contemp. Ger: König=king) call/name some und want by this a difference of (between) the Russians (Ruthenians) make - this seems to be literal translation Brugues 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign quotes

message: Mikkalai deleted the motto "Zhyvie Bielarus!" (Žyvie Biełaruś!) from the page with a comment - "there is no official motto". I think you are absolutely right, there is no _official_ motto. But this _is_ the most important greeting/motto, similar to "Nie zginela jeszcze Polska!" or "Ne wmerla szcze Ukraina". And I am just curious what is meant by _official_ motto. Could you give examples for other countries? Does it mean motto should be a part of the Constitution or some other legal document? - rydel 19:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  official motto 

message: In English, Belarus and Belarusian are the common terms: they refer to the historical connection with the people known as Rus' that predated Russians, Ukrainians or Belarusians.
:What the heck it was supposed to mean but a POV on the usage of the term? And why would they be "common"? I didn't see them much, like, 10 years ago. Personally, I see a connection with Poles that to the land long known as "Rus Cherwona" (Red Ruthenia), they added similar terms, Rus White and Rus Black, for the lack of better names. Mikkalai 23:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed phrase 

message: An anon changed the entry for time zome as follows, but made  a syntax error, and I reverted it for now.
: UTC +2/[Daylight saving time|+3]
Since I cannot ask him what he meant, I am asking here: does Belarus really not observe DST? Mikkalai 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zone 

message: Anyone knows exact percentage of tatarts or Muslims in the country? OneGuy 20:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tatars

message: What's this reversal war regarding the "infobox"? What's the problem? I think either template is OK. Or is it like some religious quest?
: It's a long story... See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, Wikipedia:Country infobox vote. --Joy [shallot] 01:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: Kazakhstan is indisputably in Europe, in the same way Russia and Turkey are. It is partially located west of the Ural. The government says it is in Europe. The CIA says it is in Europe. The Council of Europe says it is in Europe - that's why they had to justify barring them from entry by using their human rights and democracy record, and why they have offered to allow them entry if they improve those records. The Wikipedia entry on Europe says it is in Europe. This is not a controversial issue. To say that Belarus is the only European country to be barred entry to the CoE is false.
--Kostya 20:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rydel, nobody holds you for idiot but for now (just, you know, this historical moment) Kazakhstan is surely in Europe (at least partly). May be in the future (for example, mountains move, or everybody counts western Russia border as eastern European border) it won't be in Europe... but now you should agree with facts. Or you can provide maps which can clearly prove your point. --Monkbel 21:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Europe issue 

message: Hi!
Could somebody please expand on Belarus' history from July 1991 until the Referendum of 1995?
I'm quite interested in it but couldn't find any information on it on Wikipedia. (It's mentioned in the section called "Symbols from earlier history".) Thanks. :)
TigerDE2 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Belarus between 1991 and 1995 

message: Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.
 
For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs) .
:Note that that functionality is now at .  redirects to , and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OtherUses is unnecessary and clutter. If the reader is at this page, they can readily see themselves. mikka (t) 16:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OtherUses template 

message: Please see the discussion at Talk:Belarusian language#Lacinka. mikka (t) 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacinka usage 

message: The article says that the GDP per capita of Belarus is $6800 and the population is 10,310,520. Simple multiplication yields the total GDP of about $70 billion. Yet the article cites only $13 billion. Am I mistaken in my calculations or what? --Gabix 11:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. thanks. mikka (t) 20:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP 

message: "The city of Navahradak in today's western Belarus was the first capital of this state". Has anybody heard about this theory? I always thought that Vilnius was the respective capital.
:Vilnius was the second capital of this state. But Mindowh declared creation of GDL in Navahradak and for decades it was the capital. --Monkbel 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no written evidence on that, please take a look on Navahradak article discussion. --Lokyz 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital  

message: Section about economics is complete speculative. My major concerns are:
* References to non-trusted sources of information, like journalist papers or CIA reports.
* References to old (3-5 years old) documents.
* No references to any official data. See for example http://www.belstat.gov.by/homep/ru/indicators/gross.htm for data about economics growth.
* Clear inconsistence about situation with poverty. After saying that "Today the country has one of the highest GNP per capita growth of all the former USSR" goes "poverty is a significant problem in Belarus and the country is falling behind many of its neighbours". 5 out of 6 neighboring contries are former USSR republics. How Belarus can be behind many of them if poverty if it has one of the highest GNP per capita? Besides poverty is not the major problem in Belarus.
* Speculation about common currency make wikipedia look like cheap newpaper. Simple mentioning is enough for encyclopedia.
* Reference #25 is absent.
I suggest to rewrite the section from the scratch.
Alex
:I admit that this section was probably not the best that I wrote, but I do not see how CIA reports are "not trusted sources." We use the CIA reports, such as the World Factbook, for some of the information that deals with population, area of the country and other things. But, I was wondering if we can include in this section about the possibility of Belarus switching to the Russian rouble and the associated problems with it. Zach (Smack Back) 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Alex, I am willing to help write this too, so if you could translate the sections from German to English, I can polish up the English. I am willing to write about the rouble, but in order to be factual, I need to say that it has been delayed on several occasions. I will not state who is blaming who for the delay, but that needs to be mentioned. Zach (Smack Back) 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I will probably mention about the rouble stuff and that is all that I can think of. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy  19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to sound biased but I do not trust "official" economic information from a regime without democracy, freedom of the press or similar rights. Belarus TV is full of propaganda, the economy is no exception. Economic indicators should be based on material from e.g. the World Bank, UN data and other undisputed sources. Regards. --Valentinian 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize. I know what you mean about Belarusian TV since from the times I watched TVR at my home computer, I pretty much see Lukashenko treated like a living diety. Sure, we could try to have economic indicators come from international sources (who knows, that could give us a brand new paragraph to write about).User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy  14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about Economics