Talk:Belarus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belarus is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Peer review Belarus has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Belarus has undergone multiple peer reviews by Wikipedia editors which are now archived. These may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Belarus, or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on its quality.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Wikipedia CD Selection Belarus is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] External Links

[edit] Informational/Cultural

I am not very familiar with wiki, so will just add some comments here about external links. Hopefully, somone with more experience will have a look and take some action:

A Minsk Travelogue: http://www.rumoredcity.com/minsk_belarus.html. What is that? Someone did a write up on a trip they took and stuck it here? Does not belong

A Belarus Miscelany: http://www.belarus-misc.org Seems to be a random collection of stuff of little real value. Does not belong

Virtual Guide: ok

Belarus Inside: ok

Web Directory: ok

IndyMedia belarus: This site is in Russian. My guess is that it does not belong here.

ACI Minsk: http://aci.byelarus.com : Broken / not functioning

Eating the Belarusian way: Ok

History of Belarus: OK

GIS of Belarus: A Russian language messy page, of little value. Does not belong here

www.Belarus.IT: While the indexes are in English everything else is in Italian. Does not belong here.

Should be added:

Belarus Blog: http://www.tolblogs.org/belarus/en/

Travel Guide to Belarus: http://www.travelswise.com/belarus.htm

Dudutki: An outdoor museum: http://www.belarus.net/polyfact/index.htm

When this gets fixed, I will look for others

[edit] Early talk

...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)

I suppose that version Belarussia is an effect of Russian propaganda. It is ridiculous from logical point of view. This is neither exact translation nor non slavic version of original Byelarus. Exact translation should be White Ruthenia (Ruthenia is Latin for Rus - Ruthenia Alba means is Belarus in Latin). It is true that many Belarusians and Ukraninians regard derogatory English translation of word Rus as Russia. From the historical point of view Rus should be translated as Ruthenia. An inhabitan of Rus is Ruthenus in Latin.

In slavic languages (including Russian and Belorusian) there is clear difference between Rus (Ruthenia) and Rossiya (Russia). The first word regards to all East Slavic nations ( for example Belorusians and Ukrainians) as well as for historical Kievian Rus. The second one to Russia and Russian state only. So difference is as between Germanic and German (it would be ridiculous to call the English: German, wouldn't be?). So there is no Great Russia but Great Ruthenia! And the tsar is "the Emperor of Whole Ruthenia (!) - Great, Minor and White". I know that Ruthenia is used to name small teritory in Western Ukraine. But in this case the more proper would be: Carpathian Ruthenia (Karpatskaya Rus). I let myself to include in the article the forms White Ruthenia and Ruthenia Alba. http://www.pravapis.org/art_belarusian_adjective.asp In Wikipedia: Country names etymology.

Regards, SF

"Emperor of All the Russias, Great, Minor, and White": In the English translation of the title, although grammatically correct, the primary idea of "Rus, one and indivisible" is lost as compared with the literal text: "Emperor of the Whole Russia, Great, Minor, and White", so the discussed statement loses some of its power. Mikkalai 01:49, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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)
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)

I removed Ivonka Survilla from "presidence" in the official template on this page. If someone wants to write about Belarus National Republic and link it to Belarus article, they are welcome. Mikkalai 03:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Emperor of All the Russias, Great, Minor, and White". Why are we using "All the Russias" here and not "whole Rus'" which is the meaning in Russian? Maybe Mikkalai can shed some light on the origin of this inadequate translation... Gaidash

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)

[edit] Lacinica

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 -> Baranavič Zhytkavichy -> Žytkavičy ... — Monedula 18:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Foreign quotes

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)

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)

[edit] Ruthenia, Rus', Belarus

I've posted this in [Talk:Ruthenia], but I think it belongs here as well and could be interesting for the other editors of this entry:


The only people who talk about "triedinstvo" (unity of the three Eastern Slav nation) was the Russian empire empiral historians and Stalin in his 1950 "Marxism-Leninism" book.

Here are some excerpts from some other discussions I had about it earlier (taken from my blog http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/282295.html )

My biggest concern is the word "separated". Where did that came from? From what I read about our history, I got the impression that Belarusans of that day (i.e. the "Litvins" and "Ruthenians" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) were much more different from Russians. I would say that modern-day Belarusans (who are in many ways different from Russians in terms of language, culture, mentality) are perhaps 10 times more Russified than our forefathers of those times. Let me give you some examples:

- In 1517-1519 Francyska Skaryna published "Biblija Rus'ka" (Ruthenian Bible) which was studied by many scholars, and shows a big number of differences from Russian (not only lexically, but also in terms of syntax). If you look at the lexicon of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it appears that "Old Belarusan" (Old Ruthenian) had so much richer lexicon coming from Polish and Latin. It's all gone in modern Belarusian. And I guess 97-98% of modern-day Belarusians perfectly understand Russian and speak at least at a passable level. Back then that was not the case. I think Litvins of the Grand Duchy wouldn't understand everything a Muscovite would say.

- Religion. Muscovites then were Russian Orthodox, nothing else. But back then we were not only "Russian" Orthodox, but also Catholic, Uniates, and ... Protestant! Don't forget the Reformation in our lands that brought amazing results to GDL in terms of enlightment, education, prosperity. (Religiously we were never close to each other.) But it was then all over...

- Because of 1654-1673. For 13 years Muscovites/Russians waged a most bloody war against GDL, killing 50% of our population, destroying most of our cities, totaly erasing our European culture. I can't imagine Russians in 2004 waging a war against Belarus in which they kill 50% of our population.

So where's this thing with "separation"? Where does that come from? When were we "together"?

I think Belarusans are ten times closer to Russians in 2004, then they were in 1654, exactly 350 years ago.

- There was never a single "East Slavic Russian nation". There was never a single "East Slavic Old Russian language". This is an invention of Russian empiral historians and Stalinists. Dixi. -- Rydel, July 9, 2004.

Most of this is true, the time period described has very little to do with "separation": separation/diveregence/whatever began 3 centuries before that and probably was largely over, in terms of all things that you listed, in the 15-th century. Of course in the 17-th century a Litvin/Ruthenian was very different from a Russian from Russia. So the word "separation" belongs here, but have to be qualified. There was no East Slavic unity, but there was a sufficent cultural, luinguistic and religous proximity for our ancestors to exist in a Kievan confederation.
Now, this said, can I be enlightened why such offence at the Russian imperialism of the 17-th century is taken in 2005? Is that a surprise that the wars of 1600's were bloody? Is that a surprise that a pretext of reunification is used for territorial gains? Is that a surprise that the Polish speaking nobility of whatever descent were considered an enemy? A surprise that their serfs and soldiers, Ruthenians of course, were killed by extension?
I see a pride is taken in religious diversity. This diversity is mourned. How much longer did you hope to have it? What religious diversity are we talking about in Poland after Counterreformation? How much of it was there in GDL in late 17-th -18-th centiries?
My point is that one assimilation is lamented, the other one is glorified. Finally: were there no Khmelnisky + Mazepa and 19-th century nationalism (against Russia) would there be a Ukrainian nation? Similarly, shall PLC survive and prosper, would there be a Belarus? I bet, we would have a stable, Catholic two-nation state mostly Polish speaking, where Litvins would be as Belarusian as Kuban cosaks are Ukranian. I can easily believe that former Litvins would have been better off in a modern European Polish-Lithuanian state, but what would that have to do with Belarus?
Of course, all of the above have no relation to the Wiki entry (apart from "separation"), just a reaction to an obvious nostalgia of 21st century Belarusian for a 17-th centurt GDL. Gaidash.

BTW, found an interesting link about what Lithuanians think of the Belarusian claims of GDL legacy:

http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/merkys-ru.htm.

Just another example of at what length sides would go to construct or defend their national identities :). Gaidash


It all is interesting , but let us base on facts. Which language was used in GDL as "state" language for official documents? Okay, then please tell about GDL constitution dated 1588? You can try to find any other language.(http://litvin.org/glavy/zm123.jpg) "The core lands of the duchy were territories around Kernavė, Trakai and Vilnius cities and Samogitia." Funny. With non-slavic population, except Vilnia? This land had exact name Zhamojc' and Aukshtota, it never was Litva. What about Navahradak? Should I remind how "Vilnia" became "Vilnius" after Stalin's management of lands? Should we "claim" what belonged to us for centuries :) ? Czytacz.
One more link for you: http://txt.knihi.com/urban/fakty.html#3-2


[edit] Capital of GDL

Apologhets of Belorussian POV, would you please explain to me, how it came that, an (orthodox) city of Novohradek became "first capital" of a GDL, which was, as it is stated by belorussain POV article, founded by othodox Polotsk duchy. And pagan (sic!) ruler of the GDL, and later catholic (sic!) king Mindaugas was crowned by catholic Pope. Let me remind you, that early GDL for 200 years was widely known as "last pagan state in Europe", and allmost all ruthenian lands by the time were already baptized by eastern orthodox church. Something surely doesn't click here. --Lokyz 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • First of all, please address to people with respect, if you want to receive an answer. mikka (t) 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • With all the respect, sir, this is not an answer. This is argument called "ad hominem", sir. Widely used, when someone does not have proper answer.

--Lokyz 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

      • Don't give an opportunity, then. mikka (t) 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Question still remains,and I'm stil eager to add another one - please define parts "Samogitia" and "Rus'" that were "swallowed" by the time "Novohradek" was "capital" of GDL. And please define what you mean by stating "Samogitia". Another one question - please state years when Novohradek was a capital, and please state reference to historical document or at least valid historical research. Otherwise I'll seek to declare this article as "original research" or at least "disputable". --Lokyz 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Start from Navahradak article. Original research: Don't make me laugh. This is not like some obscure theory no one knows. Disputable: you are welcome to describe another POV, where applicable.
You come at this page and your very first sentence is an insult. Either you contribute, or go trolling somewhere else. mikka (t) 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me explain my point: 1. if you feel insulted by word "apologhet", i'm sorry, it's my mistake - it should have been "apologists". i did not intend to insult anyone, it's just my bad english . 2. I do not want to be troling, i just ask questions in discussion, because I do not wanna start another one edit-revert war. 2. Navahradek article is also disputable, because no one could give an argument, on what document is "capital" theory based (note, that Strijkowski chronicle is highly "disputed" and it is not regarded as valid source. Anyway this is not the best place to discuss that issue) 4. in this article for me it is very unclear just two sentences, let me cite "In the 13th century, the state was badly affected by a Mongol invasion, and eventually parts of Rus' and Samogitia were swallowed up by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The core lands of the duchy comprised the Belarusian territories that included the modern-day city of Navahradak as the first capital." I do strongly suspect, that in this form is still hidden infamous "Litvania" myth, popular among nonprofessional romanthic belorussian selfcalled "historians". That, let's call it a "theory", is not based on facts, only on some "good wishes" and by the way, insultingly call all nowadys lithuanians samogitians. I do not want to discuss that theory, it is already done in many different places. I just want to get explanation, wheter someone also sees the same problem here. And also that's why i do ask you to provide some reference to research, and not to "common knowledge". Let me remind you, that history is a scientific discipline.--Lokyz 14:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Apologies accepted. 3. Navahradek is the main place where to discus the issue. 4. I am aware about new breed of belarussin historians. The article may be improved by pointing out that the issue of the capital is hypothetical, that no solid documents exist; e.g., copy the phrase from Navahradak about alternative theories. I don't see in the artilces where modern lithuanians are called samogitians, but IMO it is not an insult, just an ignorance of other Baltic tribes. References: this is a general, summary article. You cannot add a reference to each and every sentenlce here. References are due in articles about particular detail. In our case it is Navahradak article, which mentions the original source of the discussed claim. What else do you want? I do agree that the "History" section is written by an ignorant or biased person: "were swallowed up by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.", "core lands", "to the Black Sea" - all these and others are poetic misleading statements. I will try to clean up this weekend. mikka (t) 17:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, i think it's ok with me. Do not see any further problems untill the new edition of those sentences will be made . I just asked for references, in case someone would strongly support current version of the above mentioned section. --Lokyz 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Mikka, Christmas is a good time to keep promises.--Lokyz 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


We do not need myth , do we? Let's look in anciant chronicles. Pls. translate for Lokyz , if have time:
Зьвязаная з гэтай умовай летапісная ведамка гучыць наступна:
«Божиим повелениемь прислаша князи Литовьскии к великой княгини Романовой и Данилови и Василкови мир дающи. Бяхоу же имена Литовьских князей, се старьшии: Живинбоуд, Давъят, Довспроунк, брат его Мидог (Міндоўг), брат Довъялов Виликаил; а Жемойтьскыи князи: Ерьдивил, Выкынт; а Роушьковичев: Кинтибоуть, Вонибоут, Боутовить, Вижейк и сын его Вишлий, Китений, Пликосова; а се Боулевичи: Вишимоут, его же оуби Миндогот (Міндоўг) и женоу его поял и братью его побил Едивила, Спроудейка; а се князи из Дяволтвы: Юдьки, Поукеик, Бикши, Ликийк. Си же вси мир даша князю Данилови и Василкоу и бе земля покойна. Ляхом же не престающим пакостящим и приведе на ня Литвоу. И воеваша Ляхы и много оубиства створиша в них»[116].
Гэтая мірная ўмова з Галіцка-Валынскім княствам дыктавалася актывізацыяй змаганьня Ліцьвіноў зь Лівонскім орданам і іхных набегаў на землі Ноўгарадзкае рэспублікі й Смаленскага княства. Аднак яна цікавіць нас у першую чаргу тым, што сьветчыць пра навязаньне цеснае сувязі Ліцьвіноў з княствамі Наднёманшчыны ўжо перад 1219 годам. Запраўды, як паведамляе той-жа летапісец, у 1237 годзе наваградзкі князь Ізяслаў ачольвае набег «Літвы» на Польшчу[117]. Падругое, калі навет дапусьціць, што ўсе пералічаныя ў гэтай умове прозьвішчы князёў належаць вылучна старажытным Ліцьвіном, мы ня можам не заўважыць працэсу іхнай славянізацыі, пра што й сьветчаць гэтыя прозьвішчы, як Рушковічы ці Булевічы. Князі Рушковічы выступаюць і пазьней, як, напрыклад, у 1246 годзе, калі князь Айшвна Рушковіч ачоліў набег Ліцьвіноў на Перасопніцу[118], або ў 1258 годзе, калі князь Сірвід (Сьвірыд) Рушковіч з ваяводам Хвалам на чале літоўскіх аддзелаў былі высланыя на дапамогу галіцка-валынскім князём у іхным паходзе на Кіеў ды якія, паспрачаўшыся з апошнімі, потым разбурылі навакольныя мясцовасьці каля Луцку[119].
Czytacz.
No need to translate, i can understand this. Would you care to cite what chronicle it is ? Who wrote it ? What year it did appear? How does it relate to "Litvania"? Is this exact citation of chronicle or interpretation by, let me guess, Jarmalovich ? Did you read the chronicle yourself?--Lokyz 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"How does it relate to "Litvania"?" -- I guess you do need a translation since you are posing such a question. --rydel 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me repeat my question. What literary work do we speak of? Without reference it is a fantasy, myth, wishfull thinking. Call it whatewer you like. Please state who is this mysterious "той-жа летапісец", what year is the chronicle of?. You see, in history science such "nude" citations are not taken seriously, and about the period (over forty years), the citation refers to, there is a dosen of research books, so "той-жа летапісец" and one paragraph of interpretation does not look very convincing. I suppose it is citation of Jarmalovich book - first part is citation of mysterious chronicle, another one interpretation. Chronicle speaks about Lithuanian, Samogitian and Deltuva's knights. Interpretator states, that Lithuanians had contacts with Ruthenian lands, and some of their names "sound" slavonic (linguistic recostruction, possibility of tanscribtion error for him does not count) - this is given as a proof of slavonisation of ALL lithuanian dukes. Later interpretator doubts term «Літвы» by putting it into brackets, because army was led by Novgorod duke. On this i'd suggest to try to find some research on what idiom "идти Литвой" means.
I do not see any proof of "Litvania" here, please explain me what i'm missing?. .--Lokyz 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You're currently missing capital of GDL. If you insist it was not Navahradak , then what it was? What is really not convincing is your denial without any proof. For me looks only POV of modern lithuanian(zhmudz) apologist.And one more moment , there was no Novgorod duke in chronicle. Do you know, at all, where Novgorod locates? The fact is that GDL appeared only after slavinization and litvin they called themselves ( like happend with many other small tribes assimilated by slavs [that's actually the reason why litvin-belarus ethnos differs from reussian]) . If not, we would have only small DL without G in the west part of modern Belarus. M.Ermalovich "Following the Tracks of a Myth" - very good book breaking fiction. "идти Литвой" : http://veras.litvin.org/10.htm Czytacz.

Moreover. In Chronicles there was no king Mindaugas. Please read it carefully as written: Mindoug.

"И еще. Известно, что Аукштайтия приняла католичество в 1387 году, Жемайтия – в 1413 году. В 1405 году туровский бискуп Антоний с согласия Витовта окрестил народ в Литве в православную веру.[69] В связи с этим возникают два вопроса. Если считать, что Литва была расположена на территории современной Летувы, то почему именно туровский бискуп крестил литвинов, в то время как были более близкие епархии, например, Полоцкая?

И второй вопрос: “Куда исчез этот православный народ, крещенный в 1405 г. бискупом Антонием?” Ведь в современной Летуве все летувинцы католического вероисповедания."

Something REALLY doesn't click in your question. Czytacz.

Pleeeeease, pleeeeese state your sources - what chronicle? I do not trust fantasies, because newer heard about any bishop Anthony.
Would you please tell me when ruthenians were baptised ? And descendants of what nation are Litvans? Ruthenian speaking pagans? In XIII century? That would be very original research. Btw Jogaila was Great Duke Of Lithuania, and he baptised not Aukštaitija but Lithuanian Duchy (in supposedly "Litvan" city Vilnius).
About Mindaugas - it is linguistical reconstruction. Different nations pronounce, hear and write sounds differently - read for example German Order or Polish documents and you'll find no Mindoug - there you'll find Mendog. Those both languages are slavic, ant name sounds somewhat similar. here is how germans write this name - Mindowe. Anyway this is not the best place to discuss this issue. It would fit more to Mindaugas article.
At the time there was no exeptions, that state didn't have capital, or capital was where Duke or King resided. BTW, i do not insist that it was absolutely not Navahradak, i do insist that there is no valid proof of that.
Anyway, to finish this discussion, i'd just say, that Ermalovich is a good read for Belorussian patriot, but not the best for someone, who studies or is just interested in history. Especially when it becomes the only one book to trust. I believe that international encyclopedia is resource of knowledge reached by common sense and research, not recitation of just one, IMHO, questionable book.--Lokyz 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, where did you take these names?(Mindaugas, Vilnius) We talk not about prononciation in really different language, but about historical names. Who did reconstruct it with illustrations? Great, state was power uniting all neighbor lands and had no capital. Do you understand what you say? Read last link , there are answers inside. Funny that you don't know that Vilnia became Vilnius only in about 1939. Ermalovich is scientist that just point out when somebody tries to overwrite history using opportunities. What are your sources( suppose with pictures) ? About slavic languges, propose you to read Statut(constitution)of GDL :) I accept that there's no direct proof of Navahradak, but research in this area points exactly this site. If you read provided data , this is not only about capital , but even more, about location of ancient Litva. Czytacz.

P.S. thanks for "belorussian patriot" , knowing truth it sounds "litvin patriot".

Thank you, you've said just enough, to proove me right. If just one book can give you all answers - it's religion, not research. I think, I'll save my time for more productive things, rather than discussing religious beliefs. Have good day:).--Lokyz 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you too. All I heard from you is only complaining and reference to some misterious book with pictures. I thought that you read something in discussion to understand that's not 1 book :), but I see that you listen only yourself, as result discussion with you makes no sense. Good luck in fiction. Czytacz.
Czytacz - read this: cite verifiable, [reliable[1]], chronicle, historiography, bibliography, myth, fiction, - and especialy for you, because you love books with pictures - comics, picture.--Lokyz 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my friend , looking at bullshit you try to push in old belarussian(litvin) history, I feel responsible to look at what you tried to put in lithuanian pages. Let us review it. Esprcially for you my young frind , get rid of pictures :)(that's my advice) , that I see is most preferable in your life. Czytacz.

I aint your friend, and trying to insult me is at least not polite, and also is against wikipedia policy. I do consider calling me "young" an argument, well that's up to you. Anyway this is an argument ad hominem, and as I see you do not have any others.
If you refer to wikipedia policy (many links in my previous post point to it) as a "bullshit" there will be no further discussion with you. In that case any wikipedian will feel free to revert your edits, because you're not contributor, just another npov troll. --Lokyz 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] official motto

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)

  • See List of state mottos.
  • "Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła" is from Polish national anthem. Mikkalai 20:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The phrase "Zhyvie Bielarus!" is simply "Da zdravstvujet Belarus", or "Long live Belarus", and it has nothing special. (Actually, it may sound special for new-bred belarussian nationalists (and their former communist opponents (my colleague was arrested for bearing this very slogan :-) Can you imagine a person arrested fo bearing the slogan "Da zdravstvuet Rossia!" in Russia or even "Long live Iraq!" in Iraq?) weak on their native speech, and the phrase may sound exotic and solemn to their Russified ear. No ofense, but when I listen their speeches full of "вот" instead of "вось" and other trivial blunders, I cannot help but feel a gist of artificiality.) Mikkalai 20:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Possible compromise - to put "Zhyve Belarus" in "Symbols from earlier history" section. It is more appropriate place for this motto then aside official Flag/Coat of Arms. --EugeneZelenko 14:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the link to a list of mottos, Mikkalai! And I totally agree with the comment regarding the perception of the phrase "Zyvie Bielarus". Yet another dazzling example of our twisted reality in Belarus. EugeneZelenko, I don't think it's that important to include it. I was simply curious, what is meant by _official_ motto. - rydel 18:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naturally Litvins didn't understand Russian well because Litvin is derivative from slavised name of Lietava (Slavic Litva). Lietavians (Lithuanians) are Baltic but nohow ruthenian or other Slavic people.

Naturally Litvins were slavic people and Litva slavic name of land. Modern Lithuanians ( named Zhmudz in time of GDL ) really have different language.

[edit] Russian name

Russian name of this country is Белоруссия, not Беларусь (although Беларусь is used sometimes, too). — Monedula 14:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, I don't have time to argue about BASIC things and common knowlege. Have you been to Belarus? Have you? Have you seen what it says on the RUSSIAN-LANGUAGE version of our National Constitution? Have you seen and heard how RUSSIAN speakers in Belarus say and write the name of their country in RUSSIAN? rydel 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Russian is spoken not only in Belarus!  And even in Belarus, the name "Белоруссия" is widely used.  "Беларусь" exists only in "Республика Беларусь" as official name of the country (and as the name of a tractor, too). — Monedula 10:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(1) This is an English Wikipedia. (2) The tractor brand is "Беларус", not "Беларусь". They changed it like 10 years ago, and you still haven't noticed. -- rydel 12:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling that "Belarus" is the name used by the Lukashenka regime, and that the democratic forces are preferring "Byelorussia". In fact both names mean exactly the same! Jakro64 11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jakro64, you are dead wrong. (1) Political affiliations are not relevant. (2) Your comment shows that you didn't even read the entry on Belarus before commenting here. rydel 12:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this important? "Беларусь" is obviously the official Rusian version of the self-appelation and should be used in the article. It is also obvious that since nobody reformed the use of "Белоруссия" in Russia, it stays a luinguistic norm, but not and official self-appelation. Same goes for "Молдова"-"Молдавия", or "Кыргызстан-Киргизия". Also a I honestly don't understand why "Белороссия" is derogatory: not like it is "Белороссия", both "Белоруссия" and "Беларусь" have the meaning of "Rus'" and not "Russia". Gaidash

It is derogatory for some, and you don't really need to understand this. While you correcly pointed out, the word itself is not *-rossia, but its derivatives and translations do look like derivatives from "Russia"/"Russian": Belorusskiy/Russkiy, etc. Mikkalai 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
But so are the Russian derivatives of Belarus: the adjectives for Belarus and Belorussia are identical in Russian, apart from "a"-"o" which has no bearing on "Rus"-Russia". But again, as yoy said, most matters of nationality are beoynd the realm of rational.
From the website of the Belarussian Presidency, the Russian text is Республики Беларусь. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I saw the same text above as Рэспубліцы Беларусь. The latter is probably the Belarussian language, but the first one is in Russian. Many websites of the various administrative bodies of the Belarus Government use Russian, instead of Belarussian. Zscout370 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I also found this variation: Беларусі (Source:http://un.by/by/undp/belataglance/). I am not sure how official is that one. Zscout370 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
This is a declension. Mikkalai 18:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed phrase

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)


[edit] Time zone

An anon changed the entry for time zome as follows, but made a syntax error, and I reverted it for now.

[[Coordinated Universal Time|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)

[edit] Tatars

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

[edit] infobox

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)

[edit] Council of Europe issue

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[2] 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)

Are you holding us for idiots, Kostya? If Kazakhstan is in Europe, please block me from editing any geography-related pages on Wikipedia. I don't want to have anything in common with this PC-idiocy. --rydel 20:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

Way too many words have been wasted on discussing the marginal case of Kazakhstan's CoE membership... --Joy [shallot] 23:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Belarus is also one of just two nations in Europe that retains the death penalty for certain crimes.
I'm guessing the other is Kazakhstan. Shouldn't this be mentioned? --Yodakii 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population

Population dropped by almost 10% in a year since 2003 ? What's happening there ? Lysy 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Immigration? -Ld | talk 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I guess you should better ask what is not happening there. And what is happening in Poland, Germany, France, US of A, UK and all the other countries the Belarusians emmigrate to... But I think that there were also a lot of Russians who decided to emigrate after 1991. These are but my assumptions though. Halibutt 20:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Still one million in a year seems a lot. Especially for a totalitarian country where people cannot travel freely. Lysy 21:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is too late to jump in this topic. They are old! This country is fairly low population in "suburbs" and very old population. That is why they still support communists -- they remember the old really really bad times and also they want their government pension. --Noitall 04:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Belarus between 1991 and 1995

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)

[edit] Religion

>>>>For example, by the end of the 18th century 70% of Belarusians were Greek Catholics, 15% - Catholics, 7% - Judaists, and only 6% - Russian Orthodox. In 1839 though Russian empire eliminated Greek Catholic (Uniate) church on Belarusian lands and forcefully turned all of their believers into Russian Orthodox faith.<<<<

Is there any references to prove this statment ? The claim what there were only 6% of Orthodox in Belarus by the end 18th century sounds not very credible to me, even though there was at the time a policy of conversion to Greek Catholism and Polonisation of local population. (Fisenko 17:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC))

I removed the phrase as unsupported. The first official census was in 1897. What was before is guesswork and may be presented only in the form: "according to Prof. Jazep Tutejszy, in 18tth century 70% of belarussians were of the True Faith". Mikkalai 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Best reference so far, quite long but interesting, have a read of it: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 --Kuban kazak 22:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is a nice quote

Воссоединение униатов нанесло католицизму и полонизму в Белоруссии сокрушительный удар, от которого им уже не суждено было оправиться. Но каковыми оказались исторические последствия этого события для белорусов? Конечно, это все те последствия, которые историки связывают с вхождением Белоруссии в состав Российской империи, ведь, как мы уже говорили, без воссоединения Россия не сумела бы цивилизационно привязать к себе свой Северо-Западный край. Во-первых, ликвидация унии духовно соединила все части белорусского народа, расколотые унией, в единое целое, восстановило его цельность.[75] Во-вторых, подрыв позиций полонизма и католицизма в Белоруссии привел к постепенному возвращению белорусов к их истокам. В-третьих, воссоединение дало толчок становление самосознания народа, которое, прежде всего, выражается языковым самоопределением. Со всей очевидностью это явление нашло отражение в результатах всеобщей переписи населения Российской империи, прошедшей в 1897 г. Здесь население всех белорусских губерний, и западных и восточных, однозначно назвало свой родной язык не русским, как во времена унии, но белорусским.[76] В-четвертых, ликвидация унии придала новый мощный импульс развитию белорусского языка, формированию его литературной формы.[77] В-пятых, начало делать первые шаги национально-культурное возрождение белорусов. В-шестых, возник научный интерес к изучению истории, этнографии и фольклора белорусского народа. Из всего сказанного следует, что воссоединение униатов сдвинуло с мертвой точки искусственно замороженный в Речи Посполитой процесс превращения белорусской народности в белорусскую нацию.

[edit] OtherUses template

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.

{{OtherUses|info=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 {{otheruses1}}. {{OtherUses}} redirects to {{otheruses}}, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Lacinka usage

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

[edit] GDP

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)

Fixed. thanks. mikka (t) 20:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capital

"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)
There is no written evidence on that, please take a look on Navahradak article discussion. --Lokyz 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Belarus

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

[edit] Lead section

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

[edit] For Giggles

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)

[edit] Infobox country

I've changed the infobox to the {{Infobox country}}, but I've faced some issues:

  • I had two dates for the independence of Belarus: The History of Belarus says it was declared on July 27, 1990; and the Belarus says it was declared on August 25, 1991. Please clarify.
First one is the date when BSSR declared it's independence of USSR; second one is when Republic of Belarus was established instead of BSSR. --Monkbel 12:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
These two dates should be well documented in the articles. For now they are confusing
I will try and correct that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's three native names for Belarus: Рэспубліка Беларусь, Республика Беларусь and Respublika Biełaruś. Could you specify the language of these three names.
First one should be left only - it is in Belarusian Cyrillics. Second one is in Russian, and third is in Łacinka (Belarusian Latin). --Monkbel 12:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I seen other infoboxes that have more than one language. India has three, including English. I think all except Lacinka should stay. Belarusian and Russian are the official languages and we should have the English version of the name in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The name in all the official languages should be mentioned. There's actually a discussion in the talk page of the template about the presence of an english name. CG 15:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no data about the precentage of water in Belarus, is it because it's negligible?
No, it's quite significant - Belarus has large amount of lakes. --Monkbel 12:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
So why is the info missing? CG 13:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The CIA did not give a percentage for any water inside Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
A Belarusian tourist group is giving a figure of 183 sq. km. Not sure if this is truly accurate, but everyone else is giving me zero. Either someone is not counting or we need to find out how they come up with the figures. Zach (Sound Off) 08:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, it is given in percentages. From the math I did: 183/207,600 comes out to 0.000881. Zach (Sound Off) 08:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

CG 08:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SVG flag image

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)

[edit] History

User:Zscout370 asked me to read the article on Belarus and check it against my own nose. I noticed a number of issues:

  1. Austria did not annex Belarusian lands during the Partitions (corrected that).
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Also, the BNR was not merged into Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR. It was annexed or swallowed, but the change was not a merger.
  6. 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)

[edit] recent changes

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)

Russia before they became the Soviet Union. Zach (Sound Off) 20:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] possible unification with Russia?

According to this, Belarus might reunite with Russia. We should probably work this into the article.--Kross | Talk 01:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this true? User:Bonaparte
Union of Russia and Belarus is the place for this info. mikka (t) 09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks mikka. I will ask there than.User:Bonaparte
Are you crazy? Noone is going to reunite! it's against international law and willing of Belarusian people! Russia is the historical enemy of Belarus at all...--Zlobny 10:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe your historical enemy...Although I do not believe you were alive back then...And currentely with heavy Russian investement Belarusian economy and living standards are higher than Russia's. Although I would not mind a unification, I believe that the move will simply political and up to the Russian and Belarusian people to decide. Personally I have no obligations to Minsk becoming Russia's capital :) --Kuban kazak 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
But if they are having problems trying to create a common currency for both nations, image how hard it would be to create a common defense strategy, and also Belarus would probably have some of it's soldiers dragged into some Russian affairs, e.g. Chechnya. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, personally I would feel very sorry for Belarus if the current Russian regime takes over. And I do not mean the Kremlin, I mean the oligarchs, the mafia etc. However if Batka takes over the Kremlin and puts some order into...well that is a different topic of conversation. And the only real possible way that both Russians and Belarusians will benefit. As for Chechnya, only contract soldiers and Cossacks serve there. --Kuban kazak 00:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we will "re-unite", but only through jail, when everybody who does not agree to go to Russia will be in jail. The same story like recently in Ukraine with pro-moscow guy Janukovich.Czytacz.

[edit] Section about Economics

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)

Facts are facts and nobody can do anything about it but the first paragraph clearly represents an opinion rather than a fact. By the way more facts about Belarus can be found at http://www.belstat.gov.by/. Sorry about the typo “5 out of 6” in the previous message it was meant to be “4 out of 5”. I definitely think that possibility of switching to Russian ruble worth mentioning while discussion “who blames whom” is absolutely inappropriate. Anyway since we both agree that page can be improved I am willing to help. I am not a great writer either. As a first step I suggest to translate section about economics from wiki-page about Belarus in German (they have a decent one). After this the work can be done to improve it.

Alex

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)

OK, I'll prepare draft. Alex

Here is the draft. The words which were linke to wiki-articles I have put into {}. Some numbers were corrected to be up to date.

The Belarussian {economy} was so far not converted into a {free-market economy}, since the central steering element economy is still preferred by the government. However, it does not come to no such economic collapse as in other states of the former Soviet Union and the country is economically stable. The country depends to a large extent on {raw material} supplies from {Russia}. {Industry} and {agriculture} are in large amount in state hands. Belarus ranks thus among the few existing state-capitalistic {national economies}. The agriculture is dominated by collective agriculture and with major branches: {cultivation of potato}, {cattle breeding}. Historically important branches of industry are the {textile industry} and the {wood processing}. After 1965, creation of heavy industry and {mechanical engineering} ({tractors},{refrigerators}) significantly strengthens countries development. Within the Soviet Union Belarus was one of the industrially most developed republic. Economically Belarus engages itself in the Commonwealth of Independent States, {Europe Asian Economic Community} and Union with Russia. After 1990 with the introduction of free market structures the economics production was decreasing. The economics growths started again in 1996, so that by 2001 the industrial production and agricultural production came back to the level of 1990 and since then further rise. The {GDP (PPP)} of the year 2005 is $ $70,524 billion (estimate), which results in approximately 6,800 dollar per head. In the year 2005 the {GDP} increase approximately to 8-9%, with inflation rate laying on the level of 10%. Besides Belarus has the highest standard of living under all {CIS} states according to UN, the average monthly income grew from $20 euro to $225 within last 10 years. According to data of Byelorussian government unemployment rate in 2005 was about 2 % wile experts say that the country may have high underemployment rate.



Thanks for updating the article. I will start from this version and work on. Currently the information is not complete and not well organized. I'm going to write it acoording to the plan:

  • General overview
  • Natural resources
  • Agriculture
  • Industry
  • Transport and infrastructure
  • International trade
  • Current economical situation
  • Anything else??

As soon as I get some version I'll put it here in discussion. alex 18:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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)


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)
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)

One phrase that consistently appears in the economics section is "However, the country has arguably handled the difficult transition since the collapse of the Soviet Union better than most of its peers." I've deleted it 3 times now, on the grounds that this claim relies on the weasel-word arguably, is not sourced, and does nothing to define either the peer-group being referenced or explain what befell them during the post-Soviet transition that Belarus avoided. Cshirky 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new edits

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] About nice picture

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

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

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

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

[edit] Human Rights

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

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

[edit] Polish name in country infobox?

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

On some previous Belarusian articles I wrote, several editors asked me to add the Polish name, or they added the name. I, personally, have no problem with it. However, if you do not wish to have it in the infobox, thats fine, since we have the spelling inside the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So, am I free to remove it? --tasc 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Only official names are used in the country infoboxes. See also Talk:Falkland Islands and Talk:Myanmar. //Big Adamsky 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
tasc, yeah. But I removed it alreasy, based on Adamsky's comment. Thanks for bringing it up tasc. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in intro

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

Three times: you, myself and Mikkalai reverted him. I also think that today is the elections in Belarus, we will be getting alot of this. I am watching TB now, and they are pretty much in pro-Luka election mode now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
TB? oh, tv? --tasc 07:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
TB is Television Belarus, the state run television station from Minsk, Belarus. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, they are pro-Likashenko. what choice do they have. If you're reading russian i can give you some links on how the 'election' goes. %\ so frustrating to read. --tasc 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm RU-1, so I can read the Russian links just fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
just as an example lj community --tasc 08:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A revolution is going on

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

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

[edit] one contributor

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

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

[edit] SWAROGH

A MESSAGE FOR BELERUSIANS (AND UKRAINIANS AND OTHER...) (use some effort to read it all you lazies and later-on you'll be satisfied that you did)

I'm writting from Serbia and Montenegro. We Serbs had some expirience regarding the so called "west", and it is always nice to learn from expiriences of others than to learn it the hard way.

First of all you must bear in your minds that noone has a monopol over democracy (!!) - e.i. you don't need to be "westernized"(!?!) to implement ideals of democracy(!) - the opposite would be injustice (thinking that it is so, on the other hand, is just being plain-old stupid). You can have your own democracy that can, but doesn't have to, be like the one found in western states, who knows - maybe you can make even a better system. Think with YOUR OWN heads. Come to a conclusion on your own - who has a right to say that democracy can exist exclusively under their rule - AND WHAT RIGHT WOULD THAT BE - ANSWER!??!? (that's what we are talking about here - by folowing that pro-western jerk of yours you willingly submit yourself to the rule of "western" (Roman catholic/catholic descendant) states - DIRECTLY (!) - and what's the purpose of that if you yourself can create everything good you see in the west - or are you (as a group of individuals) willingly admitting that you are just a bunch of incompetents - a bunch of stupid people incapable of doing anything right - a bunch of lazy morons?!? Are you saying that? (because if you want "west" to take care about you instead of you taking care about yourselves then you do actualy "say" exactly that (being aware of it or not!))) All those things from "west" that are so atractive to you (I talking mainly about products in general (both substantial and intelectual)) can be produced in ANY country on their own, and have its own signature - most importantly: to develope your own economy (so you have jobs and a way to plan your own destenies instead of "west" doing it for you (mainly dresing you up nicely in NATO uniforms to fight wars (that actualy doesn't concern you) for them)) - manufacture your own products instead of buying things from western countries. UNDERSTAND that even all the SOCIAL characteristics found in western countries can be developed in your own contry your own way - it doesn't directly have to do anything with "west" (stop making false asotiations of the terms). There is only RIGHT and WRONG - do not assotiate it with anything else (e.i. don't allow to be polarised as people). Do not be naive as Serbian people once was (six years ago) - "west" is dirty - they play dirty games, and still like in medieval times they use brute force - look what happened to Serbia - our ex president Slobodan Milosevic didn't want to submit Yugoslavia (Serbia and Monte Negro) to western rule - and what did the west do (?) - did the west left an indipendent state of Yugoslavia the freedom of choice - to willingly chose weither they will be the part of the "west" or remain independant (surely you think: "Well, western countries are among the most democratic ones; surely they did!" - you think) - well - WRONG! They didn't! (and where is all that talk of democracy then? down the drain!).

This is what happened to Serbs: when the eastern block weakend chatolic nations hurried up to reclaim entire Germany as the roman-catholic brothers they are, and further their rule even more; then they went a first logical step further - they saw that SFR Yugoslavia consists of the catholic republics (Croatia and Slovenia, on the west), muslim republic (Bosnia, at the center), and orthodox-christian republics (Serbia, Montenegro and Macadonia on the east) - quickly the (so peacefull and just) west simply decided to blow-up Yugoslavia into pieces by helping non-orthodox-christian countries (impartial, objective and so completely neutral "west" - very much...) to separate (mainly those naive Croats who were first brainwashed with paranoic propaganda coming from that same peacefull and democratic west - the paranoya that: Serbs seriously intend to consume Croatia into some "Greater Serbia", while the actual truth was that for Serbs Yugoslavia was just fine - I mean - all Serbs in one state - what else is there to care about, that country WAS ex socialist federal republic of Yugoslavia; and the idea of Serbs taking over was just absurd - I mean: to do anything they had to out-vote the others in federal council - Serbia (1) vs. others (5!) - imposible!! paranoic propaganda (!) - but Croats bought it - because some Croat nationalistic organisation killed 700.000 Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia in World War 2, and burried some of them in the infamous Jasenovac mass grave - a german-style concentration camp, and they never got really punished because a Croatian comunist named Josip Broz Tito ruled Yugoslavia (including all the Serbs) after the world war 2 - but don't look at the number - look at the procentage - 700.000 was a far far FAR grater procentage of over-all population than it is for example now (and to think that those Serbs in the military region of Krayina fought the Turks defending those same Croats while they were in Austro-hungarian empire...)). When Tito came to power (after WW2; if there actually was 'The Tito' - as it was only a "code name" - so after the war enyone (who survived the war) strong enough and with most support could declaire that he's exactly the (so famous) "Tito" everyone was talking about during the war). All Josip Broz ("Tito") talked was about brotherhood and unity ("bratstvo i jedinstvo") - bullsh** - the deeds are the ones that count not the words (anyone can say ANYTHING!) - he divided Yugoslavia into 6 strict republics - that was the deed (and to finsh-off Serbs - two autonomous provinces were reenforced INSIDE the Serbia itself (the Kosovo being the national autonomy of Albanians)) so whenever even some fart wants to separate one of the republics he can so easily do it too - and what is the outcome (?) - civil war - because when you want to superimpose a separatistic solution to still numerous Serbs (despite the WW2 genocide against them (and Serbs aren't national minority - mind you, but a constitutional people of the republics)), Serbs won't accept that unilateral conclusion - and they (Croats and other traitors of the Slav cultural and historical heratige) knew it! (remember the nine circles from the Dante's book...) In 1990's western states helped paranoya ridden Croats thorough weapons, training (and brainwashing media campaigns-for-all). So much about justice. (Don't get me wrong. Today even Croats could get it right if they would start to think with their own heads - if the "Hrvat"s would have a word instead of "Croats" which turn them against their Serbian brothers for the interest of some 'new roman empire') It all started when Serbs seeked to revision the rights given to Albanians in Kosovo thorugh greater autonomy, because Albanians missused it. They didn't grew-up to the responisibility it implyes - they sacked people from work only because they were Serbs, they took their property, they didn't process issues in favour of individuals of Serbian nationality in court, they were leting Serbs be killed by their Albanian neigbours - simply put the Serbs fled all of the sudden from their homes in Kosovo when Albanians got greater autonomy back in 1974. - they fled for their bare lives (what else do you have when you don't have a job - you don't have money - you cannot pay bills nor food for yourself and your family, and still you are at risk that some Albanian will come to your house and rob you knowing that he won't be processed in court because - hell - they have the autonomy - they (Albanians) run te court!). Slobodan Milosevic was the one who "drew the line" because it had to be drawn at some point because Albanians went too far (that's for sure - Milosevic didn't get even the slightest idea of what his roll is to be in that historical moment - he lacked the expirience - he took it so easily - when the truth was that it was extremely serious; logicaly - Milosevic lowered the degree of autonomy of the Kosovo (before it was to late?)) - that was (...a transparently dumb) excuse for the Slovenian, Bosnian and Croat polititians to demand independence of their republics (Stipe Mesic is one of them and still alive and responsible for the treachery against Slav heratage) - with support of the "west" we are all amused with. Latter on they (the "west") helped terorist groups in Kosovo to make war - hence the "Kosovo Crisys" - an excuse for the "west" to use brute force (I'm talking about bombardment in 1999.) to finish-off Serbian resistance, and throw Serbs under mighty western hegemony after they tortured its economy thorough economic sanctions and numerous infiltrations of the saboteurs to bring Serbia down on its knees from the inside (Belarus, and Ukraine are at that point in the scheme right now). (When the government of Slobodan Milosevic "went bananas" raging and yelling on all their mouths that the jurnalists of the so called "independent media" are traitors and funded and instructed by foreign element - we didn't believe - we thought it was bulls*** because they were all so crazy-looking when they were saying that - but actualy they were saying the truth (...) - those "western dependant media" jurnalist bustards actualy ARE TRAITORS, and I personaly think (as far Belarus and Ukraine are concerned) that all of them should be nicely gathered and deported away, and refused to get back into country - all of them - no matter how much of them ("There's your "west" so enjoy it a**holes." - to say it in Arnold Schwartzenegger's style)) That same west still sees "problems" in Serbia - the current situation is that Serbia is being publicaly BLACKMAILED to submit under "European Union" rule (nothing more then a "new Roman Empire" on "European" lands) - otherwise they will take away a piece of legaly Serbian historical teritory and give it to Albania (and who knows what else to punish our choice of freedom from them). (...But polititians in Serbia today are so obviously blackmailed not to talk about that, because if they do the ever so peaceful, democratic, diplomatic and neutral "west" will yenk some Albanians to start making problems, so our polititians are all sitting-up nicely and staight and keep their mouths shut-up about it.) (Note: in our country we had one (very ACTIVE) polititian during ALLLLLLLL the Yugoslavia crysi; he was posing as an extreme Serbian nationalist and patriot (by the way he didn't have a Serbian surname) - but, "somehow" everything he did (mainly barking against other nations in region) was an excuse for "west" to react against Serbs everywhere (you should also see leading men and women around him - comic-strip material...); so beware of the "extreme nationalist" too; this one of ours had a degree in law (phd. dr mr etc etc; knowledge of international law, professor of law in Belgrade University), yet somehow he "didn't know" how his public speakings (and his actions) will be interpreted in "west" (you put two and two together and then tell me what was his part in all of this...)) (Note Nr.2: comunists/comunist descendant individuals are suspicious too; the above mentioned Croat Josip Broz "Tito" used force against anyone who said anything during his time under excuse that it is against the "ever so great and wonerfull" comunism (comunism my a**!!) - it was just a plain-old excuse to use force - to TAKE AWAY AND KILL everyone against Croat interests; beware of comunists - they are infiltrators and everything is possible there (I mean - do you think they are not aware of the fact that comunism sucks - but they implement it to slow your nation down to a halt and sabotague it... bustards (they used chaos and anarchy to come to power - you tell me what's going on there then). The best governement would be the government made of the people for which you know for sure that they are of your nation, but it is also important that they are smart and that they don't give any excuse for the filthy "west" to intervene))

The new way of exploatation (unlike slavery and other forms of exploatation) is thorough means of "frendly occupation" (very smart (perfid) if I might add - you are occupied, but you're happy because they make you too stupid to relize that) - e.i.: you see, they start by buying-off your entire economy after you accept your pro-western-jerk polititian (they buy-off all your greater firms (they stick some famous company names with center at some typicaly western country)) - so you give the procentage of whatever you produce to them directly; then they slowly put their banks into your country, so - everything you earn yourself - you give to them also (how nice) - so simple; but, that's not enough - they lure you with their credit loans - so when you get some you think that you can repay it, but later on it proves dificult, so the interest rate adds it up so much that you can't pay it at all - so they end-up owing not only your country and its economy, but even you. Then, to kick-off with the "playing with your mind" game - they brainwash you with TV comercials and shows (day after day, after day) that are so stupid and degrading that they are an insult to even a basic human inteligence - (it looks so "inocent", but rest assured IT IS a serious SOCIAL PROPAGANDA) - they promote irresponsible social behaviour, alchocolism, prostitution - and all that with smile - assuring you that it's all normal (so, Belarussans, Ukrainians - if you want your sisters and moters to become prostitutes (all in a positivistic manner of course), and if you want to "party all night long" having your "brother's" sister or a mother for a bitch, and get drunk (not to mention drugs) till your eyes pop-out, finaly realizing that your brain rotted away and you became nothing, and that you must wear a NATO uniform and go to war that doesn't actually concern you because you was left out to be SO STUPID that you can't do anything else for living - then - GO RIGHT ON BABY! (that's the process that's happening in Serbia RIGHT NOW - as we speak, and I guess it's even worse in on in your countries - make no mistake all that crap that leads to poverty and dispare comes from "west" - don't let them make you believe that your national government has something to do with it - they create that social crisys thorough infiltrators and stupid morons who sell drugs and pseudo-western-ideology on your streets (...Hmmmm... I wonder what babe will be in your nation's XXX movie if prowestern jerk wins some day... maybe that Ruslana chick... Stay tuned and see...))).

...And about so called "independent media" the west is so found of - f*** them off. Do not buy their cr*p. They really are TRAITORS. Believe me. I myself was once in doubt and I even supported "opposition" when I was young (six years ago) because I saw what all-nice "west" is capable to produce and I admire the possibilities for the individual, but now, when I see what they did and how they do it I say "The f*** with the "west"." - all that your country can make it be without the "west" - IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU PEOPLE. The only difference between west and us, Slavs is that they have a well organised group behind all of it, who drive it all thorough centuries (mostly developing technologies to create more powerfull weapon than the victime has). ...So, what's the deal - knowing that - it is clear what is the only right way - educate in todays educational system to earn your credibility, then you superimpose and become the one that can make good things happen regardless of so-called "west" - you can make it happen - do it for you and your own country - your specific cultural heratage; and what ever you do during that time - DO NOT VOTE FOR THE PRO-WESTERN BUSTARD. Maybe the patriotic polititians are old-fashioned and even stupid, but even that is good comparing to being "taken-care" by the "west" like you're some incompetent idiot (actualy THEY are the ones who make you start thinking that way). You Belarusians and Ukrainians have what it takes (unlike fragmented and tiny little Serbia down here with people all around so easy-minded that they can't learn from the fact that we all speak one exact same language, so instead we let "west" cook us some war games so we can play with each other "nicely"). It is all like "crazy f**ks confused" down here - it's like it is all obvious what's happening but noone can speak for some reason - a blackmale I tell you... No polititian can say what's really happening - they are just playing dumb. And the ones that have balls to say something about what's happening are dumb and stupid for real so I doubt they realize it at all - they let national minorities and other groups take advantage of them - it's like they play along with those troublemakers - so they end-up "setting fire in their own house" with their 'mongoloid-like' public speakings (and for the elections they go around in those clown-mobiles with megaphones anouncing that they want everybody to vote for them and plaing some silly old nationalistic music of some losers who fought on our side during WW2 who ended up being beaten by stupid commies).

...And about comunism: ONE thing is wrong with it - the problem being that it is the one thing that is the exact most crucial one - it denies private ownership; but as we all know human beings are hunter-gatherers by nature - it is in our biology to "privately own"... you can't take that from humans - else they fell uncomfortable, and further more - those in government and public sector who have some (any) power in comunist states, when they "get up there", they have their "private owning" natural instinct kick-in - so they end-up taking everything for themselves (and they don't want to appart from it - mind you), having some fun with their wifes and family (they come from vacation laughing and pointing, and then some guy in a suit comes and says "May I remind you, ser, that you have a public speach today." (you know - the one - once in every thousand years), so quickly he eats some raw lemon, puts on a cardboard suit and says something really serious for the TV news - so that's it - back to the "office"), and so they forget about 'research and development' for the sake of the progress of the comunity/public/nation; so the old things keep rotting away, colecting dust, rusting away, and there are no new ones to replace them (who would have think about that?!?) - I mean - ALL people are LAZY (it's in their nature too) - you have to have someone to drive them on, to motivate them toward something from nothing (read: to motivate them to own something) - and if those lucky bustards in governement and public sector don't do that - WHO WILL?!? They have to be near the people, to listen to them - maybe they can get some ideas like that. They can implement some ideas from "west" and call it their own (why not - else "west" acts monopolistic, and that's injustice), let people earn money thorough it, and state can benefit from it thorough taxes, so everyone is happy. BUT STILL - DOES IT HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH "WEST" - NO! Of sourse not. Imitate them - turn their principles into entirely your benefit. Take "Coca-Cola" for example - make your own non-alchoholic drink - go wild with imagination - let it be a (I don't know) - an exploding melon juice - something crazy - put some originality into it - make your own product - advertize it - make it competitive to what's comming from the west - make all the nation crazy for it - associate it with something universaly positive - like youth, like inter-human relationships, social-interactions etc. Use some brains for god's sake. Don't let "west" fool you e.g. by showing young nice-looking chicks saying pro-western things, and some middle-aged little fat wrinkled women with some nasty mold across her face saying patriotic things - they (western TV's) show it like that INTENTIONALY! (Western media is dirty - they lie, they cheat, they decieve - and they lie again - all in their nationalistic egoistic interest! They are not objective - contrary to oppinions of the stupid ones.) It doesn't mean that a cute young women couldn't say or do something patriotic (it's good as long as it is not too obvious what you're doing - use some brains I say it again!). Maybe it would be easiest if current patriotic government would change its ways of acomplishing what they stand for and transform itself to "Belarus Democratic Party" - pointing-out that they have nothing to do with western democracy, but that is authentic Belorus democracy - so then they modernise economy (basicaly use informatic systems to achieve absolute controll over economy), and give Belarus people some fun so they look away from politics and then happily educate and open their private bussineses - all working for strong and healthy independent Belarus (independent from "west"). Then - on the "even legs" everyone can cooperate in Europe - that's the only right way. Peace and individual freedom is what only matters.

Don't you get it?!?!? "West" only creates a virtual beautiful world for the people in their own countries - a virtual world where everyone can have everything in his/her life - so much things to distract their attention from what their governemnt does to other countries - the products, the TV shows, the movie industry, sports, the night-life, the culture, art and everything else - YES - it is good (most of it anyway (missused for the "evil" purpose, but good in itself)) - you can have it all on your own in your own country - IT has nothing to do with "west" - develop your own specific social life, or copy the "western" but adding your own style just for fun! OK - let us have the united world - where everybody (every country) would coopearte with everybody else, and where people would be educated from the begining of their lives in a syle that implies that there is no greater value than the moral values of a human being and a value of yourself as an individual implying that there is no great enough reason for anybody to sacrify his/her own life for something silly such as war; let us have a united world I say - but not under a hegemony of one culture (THE WESTERN ONE in this case) - as they are so obviously trying to do - that's wrong! In the west they preoccupy their people with so much things, so it is enough only to say a few lines in news - like "those nasty Serbs this - those nasty Serbs that" - and the fools believe it - cause they don't have time to dive into it and see the actual truth and the roots of it - they don't bother - they just eat what their media serves (and if you ask me -- what they serve is big, brown and stiming hot, loads of it too - ...you answer what it is). Even their (e.g. American) people can begin to realize it - like those films that dude James Moore did - he showed how American media used even on their own people a paranoya scheme (now remember what I said about Croats) to manipulate people's minds - preparing them for the comming war, and he also showed how it affected the American community (e.g. practicaly: children using real weapons killing each other in schools).

Make no mistake.

This is "west": 1. Roman empire lasted untill Jesus Christ came to scene of history and organised a freedom movement against the Roman empire. That freedom movement is today known as Christianity. That movement came from Jews (Jesus was one) because they had a long history of slavery (Egypt, then Rome...), and their alphabet to memorize it for the future generations. The movement was successfull. People all over the "Europe" accepted (as the symbol of the movement) the symbol of Roman terror - the cross which they used to torture and kill so many people all over today's Europe (also parts of Africa and Asia).

2. Roman empire gets back on it's feet after a thousand years of infiltration by disrupting institutions of freedom against their hegemony in western part of the continent - christian chuches - those very citadels defending people from their repeated invasion. They missused christianity and the naive (ex-slave) people fall back into their hands so they can do with them what ever they please (again!). They called it Catholic church. The analogy is so CLEAR that it cannot be any more clearer: Chatolic/catholic descending domain - Roman empire, catholic church - Roman Senat, Pope - Cesar. Can it be more clearer - they even have those great squares - old-Roman style where people meet to greet the emperor (now: pope standing on the window giving hails to the masses)! I mean: what are you (not to realize such obviosness)? Dumb!?! Dumb as a dumb can be!?! Dumb as a pile of sh**!?! Or even dumber maybe? Those same perverted forcefull a***oles that spread whole forests of crosses with all those missobediant Germans and Kelts and Gaoulls and Slavs (Your ancestors) and others "left out to dry" (and die), from then on rulled them again! (only using some more cunning and perfidous methodes) ...And, yes, I know they imagined some little story to (miss)explain it in their favour - don't bother to say it...

3. Templars (crusador "knights") then went to islam lands (and don't forget it: Romans were the ones who brought Arabs to those Jew lands in the firstplace!) under excuse "to defend Christ's grave" (what sarkasm! to defend the 'sacred grave' of the one who brought down their empire a milenium before that?!?!? Ha, ha! That's laughable! (and: I know they invented a story to rectify it too - don't bother)) instead they went pillaging - robbing and killing unsuspecting muslims. When muslims came to Europe searching for revange against "Christians" - who were the ones who payed it dearly - the Balkan states (the orthodox christian ones!). Those double-crossers...

4. Meanwhile they've spread all over the Earth's globe killing and destroying everyone and everything in their path - remember inquisition; remember Spanish invasion of the south "America" (as they imagined to call it); remember the most unhonorable way they robbed Mayan people, then raped and killed everyone in blood and spilled brains like the darkest satanic cult there can be, all in name of christianity!?!?!??!? Bloody sarkasm... They went to that "new world" - but what was their final intention? - To make a new "Roman empire" - from the fundament upward - from the very begining - so pure - greater and more powerfull then ever before - it learned the mistakes from the past, it grew stroner and stronger until noone can stand in it's path. That new and strong EMPIRE was to have all the characteristics of the old one - it was to have its provinces (states), it was to have its great SENAT, and all the looks of the great and powerfull ancient Rome (including magnificent architecture and slaves (mostly "black" people)); and, as once they used metal instead of wood to make armour, shields, spears and swords to pierce the flesh of the unsuspecting and hopelessly barehanded people they came across thorough history, this new empire was to develope new and even more stronger weapons and even stronger weapons than that - always staying ahead in military technology (perpetu-mobile) so they could torture, kill, occupy and exploit the survivors once they finaly break them and occupy them; to have "slaves" all around to work for the budget they will spend to go even further. That new empire was to be called: United States of America. And so there it is. A thousand-year-old dream - and then there it was - brand new and perfect - more powerfull then ever.

5. (Now back to the story: remember the muslims they've pulled-across, who came to revange against christianity.) Immediately after Otoman (Turkish) empire broke down after half of a millenium of torturing, exploiting and killing Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romaninas and others, raping women, disrupting families, converting to islam (traitors) and stealing our children to make them Turkish mercenaries; immediately after that there came two world wars. ...And about the second world war - did the catholic church united and stand in defence of inocent human lives - did they all accomplished their sole duty no matter the cost - if needed to even die a saint's death in defence of humanity - NO!!! (only some missinformed souls) Catholic nations clensed themselves from the Jew influence (and, by the way, get rid of the comunists in France who are descendants of the France revolution against burgeoisie)) (what a coincidence: just before Jews started a zionist movement to get back (AND THEIR INDIVIDUAL BELONGINGS!) to the land of Jews). Even today those catholic countries injoy 'the fruits of their succesful genocide' over Jews and other "marked ones". Germans (west G.) came the greatest Europian main-land economy force almost immediately after the WW2! Who knows - maybe Americans would let the Germans win and form their "Reich" (under excuse that they had Japan on their hands at the moment) if Russians didn't beat the odds and came pouring on Berlin - then, for Americans, it was like: "O-o! Those Russkys 'r' gonna make us lose!" - so they suddenly came running to Europe and said "Never mind - we're gonna finish the Jap's by dropping the nuclear bomb on them, erradicating their civilian population... ...oh, and military industry. (but it's bad, and don't think we are not ashamed for it hitting our heads with our hands in punishment)"

6. Who would have thought that comunist revolution will bring that mush result?!? After all German government payed crazy Lenjin only to make troubles so Germans could take advantage of the comotion and occupy a part of Russia (as it happened). Now "west" has a new enemy! (O' boy, what we are going to do now?) The commies, the red ones - fight, fight, fight - there can be only one super-power! And they did fight in their own ways (the so-called "cold war"). Never mind communism was invented in western states; never mind a real enemy of the Russian nation (and Belarusians and Ukranians...) was actualy Stalin himself because even after the WW2 long have ended he keept sending inocent people to die in Cyberia - milions and milions DIED for no reason (maybe just because they didn't BELIEVE in f***en comunism) - he did that in order to revange his (Stalin's) fellow Armenians against whom Turks commited genocide and empirial Russia back then did nothing to stop them even if they could.

7. After USSR finaly broke down because of incompetence of the silly system they kept enforcing, there was nothing left to do for "Romans"/"Templars"/"West" (call them what you want) but to expand to the east - and that's where we are now. European Union really IS a new form of "western" hegemony. They could have called it anything they like, but they chosed that missleading name. Do you really think that catholic countries would give Slavs to rule - to be equal with themselves... don't be silly. They fight even now among themselves; national minorities are rising (muslims), secret prisons grow everywhere like mushrums after rain, social instability, war against islam they are trying to superimpose like back then in the old times - and like back then in the old times orthodox-christian nations are going to get it in the a** (again)... and western ones are going to pull theirs back in time (Templars have stolen everyhing they got their hands on back then, now "west" is stealing again (look at Iraq...))... So, Belarusians, Ukrainians - don't be stupid. You think "west = good" - now that's stupid - "west" is "west", and "good" is "good" - you can have "good" without "west"... Learn from our mistakes... (and come help us some time you lucky bustards...)

Maybe the so-called "west" is strong, but put it on one side of the scales and put the rest of the world (because that much of the world they double-crossed) and see what's heavier.

It is a pitty that we (Slavs and others) must comunicate in this primitive language (English) in order to understand eachother instead of having some other language to use it for this purpose. (I said that English is primitive just because it is true - it's a fact - actualy that exact primitive nature of it is what makes it so easy to learn it (grammar is primitive); one more thing going in favour to that claim is the fact that more than a half of the "English" words - even the most basic ones - are actualy Latin... what more to say... ...maybe to mention a fact that William Shakespeare actually INVENTED (quite literaly) a lot of the words in that other (non-Latin) half of the word fond). Someone might say "Aha! But you couldn't say what you've said if there wasn't Internet, and the western countries are the ones that developed it!" - then I say: computers wouldn't work if there wasn't electricity, and who implemented the alternating-current (AC current) in America placing the first electrical generators on Niagara Falls and distributing it for the first time - Tesla - a Serb, a Slav (remember that every time you plug in the power cord into wall socket and every time tou press a power button!!); who first started scientificaly exploring real rocket technology today used to put those satelites in orbit so we could comunicate via Internet world wide (hence acronym WWW) - it was a Russian; then look at the CRT technology (Cathode Ray Tubes) - still superior in computer monitor industry - who developed it (?) - most of them Russians - Slavs (not to mention all the matemathicians and other scientists (chemistry first of all), and artists who all helped in their own ways who were also of Slav nations (also: who invented a helicopter (which is the only currently available flying vehicle for individual transportation)? where does the word "Robot" comes from - a Slav word for "Worker") - point being - we all deserve some respect (maybe they brought back "catle" in "catholic", but we for one do not wish to be treated like one - that's why there's Christianity for Christ's sake (literaly!) - and not the false (missused Christianity (Roman Christianity!?!? - look at the irony), but the real one - the orthodox - it reminds us of what it's all about - the "Roman" domination ("western" or what ever you might call it) - THAT IS what it's all about - and it is W R O N G ! ...))).

[edit] Kingdom of Poland

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

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

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

I saw that reference, and I added a note (see note 10) by the name "republic". User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems you are confusing a republic with a democracy. The former is not always the latter - see the republic article for a lengthy discussion. Belarus clearly seems to be a republic (whether democratic or not is obviously contendable) under most present definitions. Also note that articles on e.g. PRC, Vietnam, or, indeed, any other country on the list of republics that I've checked do not have such footnotes. int19h 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Italics in Cyrillics

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

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


[edit] Information Technology Certification

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

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

[edit] Lenin's photo

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

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

[edit] National motto

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

Email sent to the Belarusian embassy in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is what a Belarusian user said on the Vietnamese Wikipedia (random, I know): Hey, I'm from Belarus. I've deleted national motto, because "За Беларусь!" is not a national motto of Belarus. We have none. Aleś.[3] -- WGee 21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Za Belarus, which is "For Belarus" was a campaign by the Government and also a song that was played during the 2006 elections. This was put as the motto before, but I removed it. Thanks for the tip. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The European Parliament

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


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

I personally have no problem with the IP address coming from the EP. The last bit about the Sakharov Prize going to Milinkevich, that would be best placed at the article of Milinkevich. There are a lot of people who call the Belarusian leadership a dictatorship, which we have sourced already. I have not heard anywhere about the Belarusian Gov't banning MEP's from the country, but I will look at that myself, since the above link you gave me redirects me to the new website. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this editor is referring to the elections previously this year where MEPs / MPs / NGOs / etc from West European nations were denied entry into Belarus in the weeks around the election to avoid foreign election observers. (Belarus TV naturally told a completely opposite story, but the OSCE mission couldn't operate under normal conditions either). The most prominent cases I know myself are MEP Anne E. Jensen (denied entry) [4](webserver not stable) but the same is true for quite a lot of other politicians and NGOs[5][6], e.g. Danish politician Bo Libergren [7] and others were deported[8]. It didn't matter much if would-be observers already held visas or not, since these were simply cancelled at the border. Unfortunately, little of the material I know of is in English. Material about a delegation of Polish MEPs being denied entry trying to visit the Polish minority in Belarus should be more easily available.[9] I believe the European Parliament has also banned a number of Belarusian officials from entry into the EU.[10][11] Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this should go more into the foreign relations article, thinking about it now. I mentioned the various sanctions in the article, such as the embargo, frozen assests and travel bans. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/l/Talk%7EBelarus_7aa1.html"