Talk:Belarus/Archive 4

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Remove the arms from 1581 as they are NOT those of Belarus (see my Discussion on the image page: "This is not arms of "White Russia (Belarus)," but instead the arms of one of the Reuss principalities: Hinter Reuss, Recht Reuss, Roth (red) Reuss, Weiss (white) Reuss, etc - in the Schrot book the arms are located within precisely the arms of states of the Holy Roman Empire ("Wappenbuch des Heiligen Römischen Reichs"). The fact that it is a Reuss family arms can be further seen from the Swan and the Lion. As you know, such arms were never used in any sources in reference to actual Belarusian lands - thus, I will go ahead and remove them from all Belarus-related pages on Wikipedia the file is associated with. Also, for future reference, the Latin words "Ruthenia, Ruthenorum, Ruthenus" are not only applied to anything "Russian/Ruthenian/Belarusian/etc" but also to Latin form of the German place/family name Reuss (Reuß). Best wishes, A" Anchorite (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Anchorite (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait! Are you kidding us? First of all, this nonsensical image in the article isn't accompanied by any sources (whatsoever) stating it has anything to do with Belarus (hint: it doesn't). Second: even the description of that file states: "English: Coat of arms of Reuss-Weida branch of Reuss family". It's like placing an image of Australian coats of arms into the article about Austria because it has some "a", "u", "s", "t" and "r" letters in it, and then asking for proofs that Australian coats of arms has nothing to do with Austria, LOL. Someone with editing rights, please remove this nonsense as soon as possible. Vadzim (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

FA criteria

The article has considerable unsourced content; several sections are afflicted by recentism, including the "Public health" section which is exclusively devoted to COVID-19, and Etymology section which is too detailed and should be spun off into its own article, Etymology of Belarus or Names of Belarus. (t · c) buidhe 05:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We need to work on this before status is lost.--Moxy 🍁 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

Alexander Lukashenko was never de fatco president. He was officially inauguarated president in 1994 and again in September 2020. But the fairness of the inauguration is disputed by Human Right activists and the EU and US do not recognise him as president. That does not make it de facto it makes it disputed. De Facto means when it is not official but that is not the case. Disputed is when someone has official power but other people/governments do not recognise the legitimacy, whilst others (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2020_Belarusian_presidential_election_and_protests#/media/File:BelarusElections2020-InternationalReaction.svg, where green are countries that recognise, grey neutral and red don't recognise.) Legally, the Belarussian government recognised the legitimacy and inaugurated him, so it is also not de fatco. But it is disputed as many disagree. Dashing Two (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done and added a link to the international reactions page. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please change current Belarusian red-green flag to the white-red-white for only single day on 25 March 2021

25 March is national unofficial holiday called Freedom Day in Belarus. This day is especially important for Belarusian people this year as in the 2020 summer after a quarter century sopor of Belarusian nation caused by domestic policy of the then and current illegitimate president Alexander Lukashenko aimed at suppressing of Belarusian national culture, disrespect of Belarusian language and history of Belarusian country, Belarusian national identity has started to revive again. The current red-green flag that was adopted as a result of the 1995 Belarusian referendum which was organized in violations of then current legislation (you can read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Belarusian_referendum) and these days it is tightly associated with Lukashenko and its bloody regime because the upgrade if the white-re-white Belarusian flag to the red-green was initiated by Alexander Lukashenko himself and the red-green flags were attached to avtozaks (prisoner transport vehicle in Belarus and Russia) where peaceful protesters were subjected to savage abuse and tortures and those of them who were caught with white-red-white symbols were treated by much more cruel way by Belarusian riot police. No current illegitimate authorities of Belarus direct all efforts to root out Belarusian national identity. Belarusian people who just hang the white-red-white on their own windows are judged as offenders and are sentenced to punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment, 15 days or even more, the Prosecutor General’s Office has done work on the draft law “On amendments of laws on countering extremism” according to which the white-red-white flag would be officially considered extremist (https://belsat.eu/en/news/14-02-2021-mps-to-review-bill-to-ban-wrw-flag/) and etc. So it would be very great if the editors of the article devoted to Belarus country change national flag and national emblem on the right panel from the current ones to the white-red-white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Belarus#/media/File:Flag_of_Belarus_(1918,_1991%E2%80%931995).svg) and the Pahonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahonia#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Belarus_(1991%E2%80%931995).svg) for only one day 25 March to express support to Belarusian people in their struggle for freedom.--BelarusLives (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ADVOCACY. Mellk (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't change flags on encyclopedia articles to celebrate unofficial holidays. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Names in official languages

Put in "Belarus (Belarusian: Беларусь, Russian: Беларусь), officially the Republic of Belarus (Belarusian: Рэспубліка Беларусь, Russian: Республика Беларусь), is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe" instead of "Belarus, officially the Republic of Belarus, is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe." Ilyamurom (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Already done There are footnotes for each of those with the text you requested. You can hover over the a and b to see them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

If it is possible, I would like to have permission to fix any grammar and spelling in the article; this would be throughout the page. If I am allowed to edit, please let me know what kind of English the article is written in (Eg: British English, Australian English, American English, etc). Let me know if it is acceptable. Thanks to whoever reads this in considering my request. Losipov (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how an edit request works; you need to propose a specific change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Belarus in film

The highly regarded film "Come and See" is set in WWII Belarus. It tells the story of a young boy who witnesses the many atrocities of the war, which hit Belarus harder than perhaps any other nation. Here is a link to the movie's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_and_See

While the characters are fictional, the film depicts real events and is considered quite important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.230.38 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Alleged COVID pandemic?

The articles falls short of the effect of the alleged COVID-Pandemic in Belarus, a country that doesn't have lockdowns. --105.12.7.84 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention the pandemic, but Wikipedia has another article about the COVID-19 pandemic in Belarus. Jarble (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The ref group "mfa" has been defined twice causing a cite error, see the reference section. The first reference is in the info box, while the second is in the "Religion and languages" section. I suggest the second reference is renamed to resolve the issue, I would do so but the article is locked. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the issue. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

Please replace the citation http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081858,00.htm with the updated link http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081858,00.html as the old link is now dead. Chanbakjsd (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Russian Military Bases (or other centres)

There should be a reference to military sites such as Vyaleyka (Signal Centre); Baranvichy, Babruysk (Aircraft); Hantsavichy (Radar) - possibly info also in Russian/Belarusian wiki pages? src: Neil Kent Lawrence18uk (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Lawrence18uk, can you elaborate, why should there be such a reference? --Jabbi (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Not critical enough lead

Currently, the only reference to the actual state of human rights in Belarus in the lead is the following

Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian and human rights groups consider human rights in the country to be poor.

Although this is factually correct it could be more accurate. The current wording suggests that only "human rights groups", view the human rights to be poor when in fact there has been a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus link appointed by the UN's Human Rights Council since 2012, with a renewed mandate every year. The Human Rights Council is probably the world's supreme authority on the state of human rights in a particular place and a continuous need for a special rapporteur dedicated to the cause whose most recent report reads: "The Special Rapporteur regrets the lack of meaningful progress towards the protection of human rights in Belarus." and "Most of the recommendations made in the previous reports of the Special Rapporteur remain valid." should be confirmation enough that human rights ARE poor in Belarus in an objective sense. Contrast for instance with Zimbabwe where the assertion is unequivocal.

So I propose to change the above sentence into the following:

Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian, judicial independence weak and human rights poor.

--Jabbi (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I changed it to: "Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record". So it shows that human rights being described as poor, along with the description of an authoritarian regime, are widely considered as such. Do you consider this to be an improvement? I did not include judicial independence as this seems random to choose this aspect out of several possible options, such as press freedom, corruption, religious freedom, electoral process etc. Mellk (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, thank you. This is definitely an improvement. I am posting here to gauge consensus so your input is very helpful. I added judicial independence because, arguably, it is the most important aspect of the infrastructure necessary to support human rights that is clearly lacking in Belarus. The other aspects you mention are important too. I think this merits inclusion and therefore we should seek to expand on what you've inserted:

"Lukashenko's rule is widely considered to be authoritarian, where judicial independence is weak and human rights such as freedom of expression, are curtailed"

--Jabbi (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I would keep it simple. Perhaps if a (small) expansion was needed, I would just mention unfree/unfair elections, repression and unfree media (such as in Lukashenko's article), though in the previous sentence it already states there was only one free and fair election, and these all, along with lack of freedom of expression and judicial independence, would fall under "authoritarian government" anyway. Mellk (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, the lead is 449 words, most of it is dedicated to a historical summary. Like you point out, the sentence before the one we are discussing establishes that elections haven't been free. This one would establish the state of human rights in Belarus in a simple and precise and well balanced sentence in my opinion. Would you be opposed to it? --Jabbi (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I would not be opposed to briefly mentioning a couple of these, as long as it does not sound like it is repeating itself and does not fall under WP:RECENTISM. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I think your edit here actually makes it a bit "softer". From mentioning a "poor" human rights record (overall) to instead saying that certain rights such as freedom of expression are "curtailed". I also wonder if it is even necessary to mention non-independent judiciary and curtailment of freedom of expression, since this is characteristic of any authoritarian regime, and this description is used immediately before. If a sentence described a subject as a democracy, for example, would it be necessary to state immediately what this means (free and fair elections, independent judiciary, freedom of the press etc.)? Mellk (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I added a mention of accusations of violent repression as an example of human rights issues (which isn't necessarily a characteristic of an authoritarian regime). I am not sure if it does belong in the lead, maybe some thoughts by other editors. Mellk (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to see what other editors thinnk. @Mellk:, thanks for your input, the sentence now reads: "Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record, being accused of violent repression.".

Although it is a marked improvement from it's earlier form I still think it could still be improved.

1) the word government could be understood to mean a specific cabinet whereas Lukashenko's authoritarian rule has been consolidated over 28 years, I think therefore the word "rule" is more fitting than "government"

2) "widely considered" ?, it is authoritarian, what is an acceptable source to confirm objectively what form of governance there is ? UN reports confirm weak rule of law, no judicial independence, there's no freedom of expression, violent repressions are used, NGOs will tell you the same and more. Which sources could possibly make arguments that it isn't authoritarian? Regimes that strategically support Lukashenko, Russia, China....

3) "being accused of violent repression", it's more than accusations, violent repression or threat of violence is daily occurrence in Belarus. Most egregious new example is Protasevich.

So something like: "Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression." --Jabbi (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: "Government" does not refer to a specific cabinet, since it refers to those who govern a state, so a government can be dictatorial or democratic. Current sourcing throughout the article is probably enough to outright state that the government is "authoritarian", though this is not the case for "violent repression", since this from the two sources I added which only quotes the EU. Mellk (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, The thirty-sixth government of Israel, or the Bennett–Lapid government, is the cabinet of Israel formed on 13 June 2021 after the 2021 Israeli legislative election. This is a random example of how governments is used to describe a specific cabinet, see another example under List of British governments (although the British use "ministry"). Clearly, saying "Lukashenko's government" can therefore be ambiguous. Under the section Human rights and corruption there is a paragraph about violent repression. So, the sentence I suggested earlier still seems legitimate to me: Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression." --Jabbi (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: As I said, "government" can be dictatorial (see: Government of Nazi Germany, Government of North Korea, for example) or democratic (which includes parliamentary systems). This is just a standard term. North Korea article may also give idea about how to mention human rights abuses. But for now I think "widely" can be dropped. Perhaps something such as: "Lukashenko's government is considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record due to large-scale human rights abuses". Mellk (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, thank you. I know "government" in an non-specific context is a valid use like you say. When the sentence starts with "Lukashenko's government", it might raise the question for some readers, which government. Using the term "rule" would prevent such a possibility, and it is also more in style with authoritarian governance, authoritarians rule but democracies elect governments.

Why do you want to keep "considered". That implies that it is a subjective matter, or to some degree open to debate whether or not it is authoritarian. He fulfills all the criteria listen under authoritarianism and the only sources likely to disagree would probably be published by authoritarian regimes.

Lastly, "large-scale human rights abuses" sounds a bit much. I know that over a long period there has been violent repression every time there were elections, with the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests being especially popular, political opponents have disappeared, human rights defenders intimidated, assaulted, Protasevich is an example but only on Western radars because Lukashenko violated international law and effectively hijacked a civilian aircraft. Using the wording "large-scale" invites- proportional comparisons and is problematic in my view. I still think my earlier suggestion is the most succinct one: "Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression." --Jabbi (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

In Politics of Belarus: "Lukashenko heads an authoritarian government". --Jabbi (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Opening statement: "Belarus is an authoritarian state." [1] --Jabbi (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I just gave an example. The meaning is the same. "Large-scale" can be replaced with something like "widespread". Mellk (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Also the U.S. State Department is not an authoritative source on human rights to be used without attribution. Mellk (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

And to bear in mind from the authoritarianism article: "There is no one consensus definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report" and the examples it lists are those "which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian". Mellk (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, Can you explain to me what you disapprove of in the following statement: "Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression.". In Britannica it states that Lukashenko is "[a]n authoritarian and unpredictable leader, " [2]. These sources can of course be cited. Do I understand your argument correctly that it is not clear that Lukashenko is authoritarian? --Jabbi (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I said: Current sourcing throughout the article is probably enough to outright state that the government is 'authoritarian'. I already explained about the phrase "violent repression" which is from a quote. Moreover, I do not think your suggested sentence is as fluid. Also I really do not think there is any confusion about what "Lukashenko's government" means (clearly this is not a problem for RS [3][4][5]), and "considered" can be replaced with "characterised", it does not suggest a debate. Or whatever doesn't sound so simple. I think what you suggested is too simple. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, yes you did, but then you suggested this version: "Lukashenko's government is considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record due to large-scale human rights abuses" which is weasel wording. I am surprised that you do not seem to understand my point about how the word "government" can have subtle different meanings in different contexts. What's more, you do not explain what's wrong with using "rule". Anyway, using government is fine. I explained how you inadvertently introduced a valid description of Lukashenko's rule with the phrase "violent repression" because it is consistently used over his presidency, the fact that you got the idea from a quote in a specific source does not matter, in the subsection about Human rights there are accounts of violent repression. Replacing "considered" with "characterised" is just one weasel word for another. It makes the statement more ambiguous. This should be avoided unless there is a specific reason to have it. We've established that his government is authoritarian. The current sentence reads:

Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record, being accused of violent repression.

which is anything but fluent, how about:

Lukashenko's government is authoritarian and has a poor human rights record. --Jabbi (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: What about it is weasel wording? Saying his government is considered/characterised as authoritarian is well-supported. Also I preferred government because if we are stating regime type (authoritarian regime), then we should be referring to government. Anyway what you suggested now I think is good. Perhaps maybe worth adding "due to widespread human rights abuses" at the end? So: "Lukashenko's government is authoritarian with a poor human rights record due to widespread human rights abuses." Mellk (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk:, saying that the United States government is considered/characterised as democratic is also well supported but most would simply state that it is democratic. That's great, I'll add in the sentence you've suggested. Thanks --Jabbi (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I would say it's a bit different because on paper (as its constitution states), Belarus is a democracy, and it retains the facade of democratic governance, but fair enough. Mellk (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Russian hegemony

Belarus has a long history of being a Russian satellite. It was a Belarusian Governorate in the 18th century. The Belarusian People's Republic was probably the shortest lived attempt at independence before Soviet Russia created the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia (twice?) as a buffer state. Fast forward to modern times with actual independence coming in the 1990s, the Russification of Belarus is a sensitive issue (here is a current court case where a defendant refuses to speak Russian in the court but demands to use Belarusian). Putin and maybe Orban are Lukashenko's only friends in Europe, Lukashenko is very isolated (unless you look further east to; Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). Belarus has been economically dependent on the rents from re-exporting Russian oil/gas imports for years. This is a very considerable part of Belarusian GDP. Add Russian loans and Belarus is starting to look like it's heavily dependant on Russia. This is not reflected properly in the article and should be. --Jabbi (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Government of BNR.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Belarusian Orthodox Church

Wikipedia has an article Belarusian Orthodox Church. This link should be used first time is mentioned. I guess article is locked and cannot to edit myself. --142.163.195.114 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased over-attribution?

Suggested re-assesment for bias / over-attribuion ;

In this section,

" The official version of events as publicised by the Belarusian government was questioned in the unprecedented wording of the UN Security Council statement condemning "the apparent terrorist attack" intimating the possibility that the Belarusian government itself was behind the bombing.[90] "

The word intimating, is too much for what is presented here - if the contributor has MORE than that, as-to-why they think the UN was trying to suggest that, then they can present something more material / concrete - REASON? Simple - often bodies MORE responsible than your average populist newspaper or careless TV station, like the UN, use the word "apparent" , because they do not want to create, further, or perpetuate misinformation or make misleading statements that infer too much, in usually, 2 circumstances ;

1 where they do not have enough information to be sure of what they would like to say at the point-in-time of publication/release

2 where possibility is all that has been able to be identified, not fact, from EVIDENCE, in what has been discovered, shared, presented, etc, to the global media or to them directly.

I would not be able to estimate the number of times, i've heard "apparent" ... in relation to bombings, in my life - i am only 40, but i must've heard it used ... literally a thousand times.

That is NOT enough. Ask the contributor to elaborate-on-WHAT , in their reference, is suppost to be more concrete than their conjecture, or give more detail referring to other UN processes , statements, or other material that EVIDENCES what would be their opinion.

From all i can see, the contributor's OWN presumption, that that-was what the UN was trying to infer/intimate, is entirely their own, and has no basis to be in a Wiki as relevant to the bombing incident. How about instead, RESEARCHING the incident more, and putting both/however-many theories about the bombing, INCLUDING any about conspirers in the government doing it themselves, but not ONLY, that one, which is how the page appears at the moment - quite biased, and without anything substantial, on this supposed 'intimation'.

One person's "intimation" , is another person's momentarily-dismissed dis-interest, in the mere word-choices of different media, and different article writers and presenters, and producers of media-releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.89.255 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

National anthem names

Does anyone think that some national anthem names are very unimaginative 31.22.14.161 (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saraherixson, Bruton-Sarah, Kvesquer24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for the Republic of Belarus from 1991-1994.

I think we should make a new page called "Post-Soviet transition in Belarus" which shows facts about Belarus from 1991 to 1994, when the Constitution was adopted! Ukraine already got it, so why don't we do this with all Post-Soviet republics? 188.25.121.67 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Partnership update

Belarus has suspended its membership of the Eastern Partnership can someone update the summary to mention this? Thank you.

--Mctogs (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Mctogs, I bumped in your question somehow earlier today but I was a few edits short of the 500 edit limit to unlock this page. But it's fixed now. Labrang (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

map

Seriously, no locating map at the head of the article? 2604:2D80:E51C:8100:E480:3FE:AA3:7E1F (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Location Belarus Europe.png? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Belorus marked as "under a dictatorship"?

How come its like this? If you find it reasonable enough, you should also add China and Russia to this list. Not to mention half of the world. 85.115.248.233 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How come its like this?... Um, because it's true? This is the talk page for Belarus, not Russia or China. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Because it is under dictatorship.. Russia and China also need to be included! going against your own citizens because they do no agree with you IS dictatorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14C:23C:5000:5819:CFBC:A41A:5250 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Belarus has been accused of being dictatorial by many nations, that's why the describe it as a dictatorship. Russia is not a dictatorship and China is one party state so no need to add the word dictatorship for them. If you want to discuss about Russia and China go to their respective pages and don't spam the Belarusian one. Bilikon (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it not so clear, when Belarus is member of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, a supranational organization consisting of Russia and Belarus, with the stated aim of deepening the relationship between the two states through integration in economic and defense policy. The supranational union is ruled through the Supreme State Council and other governing bodies. The current president of the Supreme State Council of the Union is Alexander Lukashenko, who has held the position since 2000. The present goal of the Union State mainly focuses on economic integration, taxation, and integration of defense and intelligence apparatuses.

Update Largest cities/towns list

The table that is already there doesn't have a source and looks inaccurate compared to what worldpopulationreview says. Because of the current events involving Belarus, only "extended confirmed users" can edit this page. I am not one of those people. However, the chart should be updated. If anyone who is an eligible user would be willing to update it, here's the link to worldpopulartionreview's page on the population of the largest cities and towns in Belarus: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/cities/belarus Anyad Leszbikus (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

Found the Law "ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE-TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS". But I'm still confused:

"Территория района делится на территории сельсоветов, поселков городского типа и городов районного подчинения, являющихся административно-территориальными единицами, поселка городского типа, являющегося территориальной единицей (в случае, если он является административным центром района), городов районного подчинения, являющихся территориальными единицами.

В состав территории сельсовета входят территории поселков городского типа, являющихся территориальными единицами (в случае, если они не являются административными центрами районов), территории сельских населенных пунктов и другие территории, находящиеся в границах сельсовета."

Early in the law it differentiates between "administrative-territorial units" (with local government) and "territorial units" (without local government). But the excerpt above from later in the law seems to not make quite this distinction. It first describes an urban-type settlement as and administrative-territorial unit, but just a few words later describes an urban-type settlement territorial unit. It also lists cities of district significance as territorial units; I was sure these had local governments. Then in the very next paragraph it says that urban-type settlements are included in village councils...but if they aren't administrative centers of districts. I don't know if it's just poor translation of the text or if this is written to be confusing. Can someone who can read Russian or Belarusian clear this up?--Criticalthinker (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wait, maybe I do understand this. Is the first paragraph just listing the kinds of units - both administrative and territorial - that exists within a raion? So, a raion may include the administrative units of villages, urban-type settlements & cities of raion subordination, and territorial units of those urban-type settlements which are administrative centers and non-administrative cities of raion subordination? And then it would appear that they also define the same thing at the administrative village level in which rural settlements and those urban-type settlements which aren't administrative centers of districts are territorial units of villages? What confuses this a bit more is that there seems to have been a 1995 presidential decree that nearly wiped out all administrative urban-type settlement units (those which served as administrative centers of districts) and a lot of administrative cities of raion subbordination units, but not all.

There must be an easier way of explaining this, particularly urban-type settlements. It appears the distinction being made is that urban-type settlements can exist as territorial units at two levels: raion and village level. However, the ones at the district level may also be administrative units (it appears only 8 of them are left), and the ones at the village level are never administrative units (because they are always a compnent of an administrative village). Perhaps there is a way to show this in a chart? You know, perhaps a chart listing all local territorial units, but with a column showing whether they are also administrative units or not? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

In the first sentence, Belarus is said be historically Byelorussi. The correct spelling (as far as I can tell online) is Belorussia without a 'y.' 2600:1700:F91:8320:74FF:5B15:7180:3E70 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

The sentence “Inflation reached 108.7% and a currency black market was created, recovery was difficult” is not grammatical. Suggested changes: “Inflation reached 108.7% and a currency black market was created. Recovery was difficult” or “Inflation reached 108.7% and a currency black market was created, making recovery difficult”. 76.212.85.5 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've taken your last suggestion. Unfortunately, I can find no mention of "108.7%" in that source, so I have added a tag. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Something I noticed

"Under Lukashenko, Belarus has been considered an autocracy where power is ultimately concentrated in the hands of the president, elections are not free and judicial independence is weak." Could this be considered a violation of NPOV? It is attacking the Belarusian Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.17.203 (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any NPOV violation and that's hardly an "attack". If the Belarusian government and their supporters dislike being labeled as an autocracy, then they should stop behaving as one. The sentence merely describes what hundreds of sources have concluded upon analyzing Lukashenko's presidency, a government that started in 1994. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Can someone revert this [6] edit. Don't know if it's vandalism or genuine mistake but due to this, the figures about religion in the infobox don't add upto 100%. Regards Neplota (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Seloloving (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Vitryssland" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vitryssland and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Vitryssland until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Future - Healthcare section

Today, I added article "Republican Scientific Medical Library" to See also section. Going forward, if a Healthcare section is created, it is Okay to move this Med Libr. article into Healthcare. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022

It should be mentioned that Belarus was used as a staging area for the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022.

It should also be mentioned that Belarus introduced a new law about death penalty for "terror" after Belarusian railway workers helped sabotage the railway, thereby making the Russian attack on Ukraine less efficient. Joreberg (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be more appropriate for more specific articles on the topic. CMD (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

1991-1995

I believe given the 1995 constitution changes and subsequent changes that followed soon after it the country between independence and the 1995 Belarus was in fact a completely different Republic to the current one, just like the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic was and therefore should there be a separate article Republic of Belarus (1991-1995) with the white-red-white flag and Pahonia as its symbol? Even the History of Belarus splits the two eras. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This is still the same state. Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic was a republic of the Soviet Union. Belarus declared independence and became independent in 1991. Soviet Union was also very different during its history with different flags, coat of arms, constitutions, borders, government forms etc. Which sources treat 1991-94/95 Belarus as a separate entity? Lukashenko was also elected in 1994, shortly after introduction of new constitution. Mellk (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. After the '95 referendum the entire way the state is structured and ran and all its symbols were radically changed. All the sources reflect this. The only thing that remained the same is the name "Republic of Belarus", except the last real elections were in '94.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

How the state is structured and change of symbolism does not necessarily warrant a separate article. Unless there are RS which treat early 90s Republic of Belarus as some kind of former state, where it can be listed under list of former sovereign states, then to me it looks like OR. Mellk (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The WP:OR is a harsh assessment and to dismissive of a much more complex situation. I refer to Constitution of Belarus#Amendments, 1995 Belarusian referendum and 1996 Belarusian referendum. Granted it is not a black and white situation and it was done in several stages but all the sources point to these events as a complete change in the statehood. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you point to some sources which call that period a complete change in statehood? CMD (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning that all the sources support what you are saying, so can you give examples? Mellk (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Puppet state

Ever since Putin came to power but especially since last year, Belarus has become a puppet state of Russia. Lukashenko rules by the grace of Moscow and his to accept his every whim, even allowing wholesale warfare from "his" territory. That's nothing like an independent nation. We should change the page accordingly. Steinbach (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have plenty of high-quality RS to support this assertion or are you just simply expressing your opinion? Mellk (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

The Formation Section is incorrect as most recent constitutional amendments took place in 2022. Even a Wikipedia page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Belarusian_constitutional_referendum Dashing24 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

white stork as a national bird

Hello,
I cannot understand if the white stork is a national bird of Belarus (perhaps not the only one); in 2019 it was portrayed in the PostEurop EUROPA series stamps that had a "national birds" theme that year.

more about this here:
Talk:White_stork#peace_symbol_on_first_russian_PostEurop_1995_stamp

--151.44.32.191 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

I see a problem with the picture that in Belarus page possibly called "The first government of the People's Republic" Arkadz Smolich has a page of Wikipedia but not as Arkadz Smolich, instead of Arkadz Smolich is called Arkadź Smolič, and i would like to add that page on the image as a link, for the community of Wikipedia can see the Biography, Early life, etc... Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done – I also created two redirects from slight variations. Madeline (part of me) 20:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Dictatorship vs. autocracy

@25stargeneral:, I believe that your bold edit to change the Government defintion from Unitary presidential republic under a centralised authoritarian government -> dictatorship, while factually true is not made less POV'ed by reference to the CIA World Factbook. In light of allegiances of the US on one hand and Belarus on the other with regards to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, it can hardly be seen as credible. If you have a look at the Governance section of Belarus there is an academic source, on constitutional law, describing Belarus as an autocracy. Jabbi (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting a recent change to restore the long-standing version is not a WP:BOLD edit. It is actually the second step in WP:BRD. It is widely referred to as a dictatorship in media and academic sources. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahh my bad, I should have looked more closely at the edit history. Regardless, my comment is still valid I feel about your choice of sources. Can you provide another more reliable source? If you search through the article for references to "dictatorship" it's only your edit that has any content to support that. Other references are to the phrase "Europe's last dictatorship" which is a phrase to refer to Belarus, not an actual categorisation by a reliable authority.--Jabbi (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What type of dictatorship

I keep seeing the same debate about if its a dictatorship or authoritarian state.....this is a misunderstanding of the use of terms. Historians refer to dictatorship as a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism (with hybrid versions). In this case they call it authoritarianism. Moxy- 10:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly @Moxy:, dictatorship is a sub-category of authoritarianism, and autocracy is as well. What are you proposing is the correct term then ? --Jabbi (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Belarus is an authoritarian state Moxy- 11:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you propose as an acceptable source for that? Surely not the US embassy to Belarus? --Jabbi (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Already in the lead and body. Moxy- 13:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't make it right does it? Jabbi (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry was not clear.....Sources already in the article...

• Bidzina Lebanidze (22 May 2019). Russia, EU and the Post-Soviet Democratic Failure. Springer. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-3-658-26446-8. OCLC 1098917173.
• John R. Short (25 August 2021). Geopolitics: Making Sense of a Changing World. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 163–. ISBN 978-1-5381-3540-2. OCLC 1249714156.
• "Belarus: Country Profile". Freedom House.
• Navruz Nekbakhtshoev (29 September 2022). Russia and Eurasia 2022–2023. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 165–. ISBN 978-1-5381-6583-6.

Moxy- 16:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. But not cool, especially not to use Freedom House for such an assertion (see debate). I will see if I can't come up with something a bit more bulletproof. --Jabbi (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thousands of sources.....would ask if any say different? Even the added CIA source says this.Moxy- 20:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Have simplify add "authoritarian dictatorship"....both link back and forth. Moxy- 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Change officially the Republic of Belarus, to officially the Republic of Belarus, This adds transliterations for both Belarusian and Russian Blurengo (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. TGHL ↗ 🍁 01:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

Please update Belarus’s economic data . GDP per capita PPP: ranked 71 , 21,709 GDP nominal per capita ranked 82 , 8,567 Qplb191 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

GDP : 79.7 - ranked 74 GDP PPP - 201.96 ranked 73 Qplb191 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/BLR Qplb191 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done (hope I got everything this time). Colonestarrice (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Qplb191 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Developing Country

"Belarus is a developing country, ranking 60th in the Human Development Index". In fact, 60th places Belarus inside the highest category of development in the UN's Human Development Index ("Very High Human Development"). There are lists at different sources of developing countries which employ different variables, but it does seem odd to describe the same country as both "developing" and "very high(ly)" developed. I suggest the developing country indices draw the line too liberally and that Belarus (along with a number of other countries) should not be described as "developing" here - in line with the UN HDI. Any thoughts, other editors? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, the classification of a country as developing or developed is determined by the bodies: the International Monetary Fund, the UN and World Bank. In fact, for a country to be fully "developed" by definition, it must be a member of the OECD. All other countries that are not members of the OECD are usually not defined as developed by all these bodies, even if they have a very high HDI. Qplb191 (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Emmentalist look at the comparative table only countries defined as developed by all 4 different criteria/bodies are classified as “developed country”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country Qplb191 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, there are competing indices which use different criteria. The question is whether the use of the term "developing country" is still an appropriate one; it's quite a mature discourse. The World Bank, as noted in the Wikipedia article on the subject, is phasing out use of the term. The primary problem is that it implies that Western democracies are viewed as the ideal and all other countries - the great majority in the world - are in effect expected to aspire to that ideal. Many people across the world simply don't share the same ideals as the norms in developed democracies. Moreover, most improvement at the bottom end of societies is being made in non-democratic ones (China, most notably). I share the reservations of the World Bank, where a country like Belarus is regarded as 'very highly developed', has a decent GDP per capita and, interestingly, a very low Gini co-efficient which means that society-wide wealth distribution is very good, should be placed into the same 'developing country' category as, say, Sudan and the DRC. I've been to all of these countries and the notion is not helpful at all; it's purpose seems to be to flag the Western/Northern 'ideal'rather than to serve as a useful category. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Emmentalist,I can understand what you mean, but in fact an overwhelming majority of the countries in the world are not defined as developed, acutely only the 38 member countries of the OECD are defined as developed. There are different criteria according to which the international bodies determine whether a country is developed or not, for example most of the developed countries in the world are ranked among the 30 countries with the highest per capita GDP in the world and more. Qplb191 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Also Belarus doesn’t has decent GDP per capita , it’s ranks 82nd in nominal GDP per capita it’s not that good (I mean it’s fine but not in the same level of countries like UK or France) Qplb191 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

And also, the Gini index does not indicate how rich a country is, it indicates the distribution of wealth among the population in the country, for example Afghanistan and Denmark have an almost identical Gini index, but Afghanistan is among the poorest countries in the world and Denmark is one of the richest countries in the world. Qplb191 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Qplb191, I've made a new comment below under a new heading; "overhaul". All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Overhaul

This article needs an overhaul, in my opinion. The lead is far too long; some of the material there might be merged with other material in the main body. I've amended the first paragraph following my comment above and feel that the first para as it is now should probably be the lead in its entirety. Any thoughts? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your editing is not good, it contradicts what is written later in the article. You cannot make such an edit based on your opinion, if you want, bring the issue up for discussion. Qplb191 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Qplb191. I brought the issue up for discussion here; that's how we're discussing it! Above, I explained that I believe the whole article needs and overhaul and that the first section as it stood after my edit should be the lead with all the other material moved. I have expressed no opinion in my edits and relevant citations were included. I have simply inserted well-reported facts. Notably, I edited the comments you say contradict my new insertions (actually, there were not contradictory, simply repetitive in view of my edit). My editing here is perfectly in order; your negative opinion is uncalled for in my humble opinion. Please assume good faith. Do you agree the lead is too long and requires considerable editing? Emmentalist (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You brought the subject up for discussion, you didn't get consent to change the article in such a rude way, open a discussion and if there is consent then you can change. Beyond that you cannot change the facts that Belarus is categorized as a developing country. Qplb191 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Qplb191, I'm afraid I literally have no idea what your comments mean. I made a bold edit and opened a discussion here to warn anyone interested (indeed, I specifically included you because I could see you had an earlier interest) and awaited any follow on. You reverted - that's quite right if you felt the edit was not an improvement. Now we're discussing it; that's precisely WP:BRD in action. I don't understand your objection to my edit either, to be honest. My edit did two small things. The first was clarify Belarus' development status according to the UN Human Development Index (which was already referred to). The article referred, correctly, to a ranking of 60 but I felt this would be improved by inserted context; that is to say that this ranking places Belarus in the top, "very highly developed", category. I made a note here explaining why this was, I felt, an improvement. My edit also removed the previously extant sentence further down the page to the same thing (so there was no contradiction in the main body as you seem to think there was). That was the extent of my edit. It was very small. Finally, I have noted above that the lead is too long and much of it belongs in the main body (if anywhere at all): I suggested that the new lead should be more or less what is in the paragraph I edited and I asked for opinions. This is all textbook Wikipedia editing. For further context, international development is a particular scholarly interest of mine and there is a strong trend within the field to move away from claims that OECD countries are 'developed' and everyone else is not. This language gives the strong appearance that powerful Western economies are placing a pejorative upon the great majority of other states. In addition, it is widely agreed that specifically numbered league tables give a misperception of great accuracy when in fact they are highly arguable and often go further than the the methodology meaningfully allows (leading to legitimate worry about the specificity). That is why the UN HDI named categories are important; they seek to move away from 'them and us', which is invariably heavily value and politics laden, and to reflect more impartially on broad development metrics. I hope when you reply to this, and to my eventual edits, it is in a spirit of assumed good faith. I assume your good faith, but I have no doubt this article needs improving. Please let me know what you think about the length of the lead and make any proposals you'd like to. You're free to make your own improvements, of course. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all you cannot erase the fact that Belarus is a developing country. Secondly, if you already specify the HDI, you must also specify the rating. Your editing was wrong and contradicted other parts of the article and you don't mention the Gini and HDI at the top of the article, you can't rudely change the article like that. As long as you didn't get consent from anyone. Qplb191 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Qplb191, I really want to be constructive here. I am following the spirit of the Wikipedia article on "Developing Country", which is a very good base. Perhaps you could have a read? I wonder if you might work on the basis of good faith, though? Moving on, can I just ask if you agree that the lead is too long and should be reduced as I suggest? Emmentalist (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

First , at the moment Belarus is categorized as a developing country by all the international bodies and that is a fact. You can not just wipe it off. Secondly the lead is not too long , it’s actually quite an average compared to others countries articles. You cannot add the HDI without including the rating. Qplb191 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. Well, we're not going to reach consensus between the two of us on the need to edit but I thank you so much for your reply. I'll go ahead with working out how the article might be improved, take into account what you say then edit it and you can see what you think. Can I just ask you, since it will take a bit of work, to consider editing rather than reverting the whole thing? All the best. Emmentalist (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Emmentalist. Developing country isn't well-defined, and Belarus is considered one by some metrics but not by others. I note Russia isn't described thus, despite being close to Belarus in the HDI rankings. I suggest omitting this term from the introduction, and dealing with it in the body of the article. Stara Marusya (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Stara Marusya. I'll do just that, it's a good idea. Emmentalist (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I've ended up editing in the lead because @Qplb191 wanted the lead at the same length (see below). All the best Emmentalist (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I've edited to contextualise Belarus' development status. I've also inserted the country's high economic distribution and mid-ranking GDP per capita. This combination is notable, since it implies a meaningful distribution of resources. I've left the reference to the specific ranking as per @QPlb191's opinion and for the same reason of consensus I've left the lead at the same length. However, I've re-arranged the paragraphs in the lead to place the historical paragraph after the contemporary ones. I intend to edit two sections next. First, the "Human Rights and Corruption" section and second the "Economy" section. The former is probably best de-coupled as the title refers to two quite different things. The latter does not contextualise the nature of the Belarus economy with comparisions with states with freer-market economies. Emmentalist (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Emmentalist. The lead is not perfect, but it is not the place to insert new information or length. It is a summary of the article body, and its information is based on what is written in the article body (see WP:LEAD). Details on particular economic designation are likely undue there. Lastly, external links should not be added to the article text, lead or otherwise. As a course of action, could I suggest you add the information you are looking at in the Economy section, including the appropriate references etc.? Once that is in place, it would be much easier to see how to summarise it for the lead. CMD (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Super. Thanks so much for this, @CMD I'll do just that at the economic section then leave it for any comments then, if appropriate, pop a concise and succinct summary sentence at the lead. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is not “arguably” developing country. It’s categorized as a developing country by all international bodies in the world! Qplb191 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Qplb191: As noted on talk, 'developing' is not currently cited directly to any international bodies in the article, so even if correct, this needs supporting. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You cannot write that Belarus is a "developed country" because there is not a single body in the world that defines it as a developed country and according to all possible criteria it is far from being categorized as a developed country. You do not determine which countries are developed and which are not, these are official bodies that clearly determine that Belarus is not a developed country. If you brought one international body that defines Belarus as a developed country or a high GDP per capita, I would agree with you, but this is simply not true. Qplb191 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Qplb191. I've said this before. I'll try again - 1. The relevant Wikipedia article - Developing Countries - begins: "A developing country is a sovereign state with a lesser developed industrial base and a lower Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries. However, this definition is not universally agreed upon. There is also no clear agreement on which countries fit this category". 2. Belarus is categorised by the UN HDI, originally your own reference point, as a "very highly developed country": I literally have no idea why you are saying this is not the case. 3. Different bodies use different criteria in their indices. 4. As the article and other sources lay out, the World Bank and other bodies are moving away from a simplistic developed/developing dichotomy because it is highly arguable and unhelpfully pejorative. Most UN countries object to being described as "developing" simply because they choose not to join the OECD.

Developing country status is therefore manifestly arguable.

I don't doubt you are editing in good faith, but your edits are quite clumsy, if I may say, and you seem to revert all of my edits without coherent reasons. Your most recent edits have cut and pasted text without tidying up the new version in place. For example, one line reads: "Belarus is a developing country , although its ranking of 60th in the Human Development Index ." (ibid). This sentence does not make sense and has erroneous gaps between end of text and punctuation. I also provided a rationale for altering the order of the lead paragraphs; to place contemporaneous information before historical in order to improve the flow. You have reverted this with no reason given.

Can I ask if any other might editor to take a view on this? It would help resolve what seems to be me continuously making what I think are improvements to this article and one other editor reverting them all without any apparent good reason (in my opinion). CMD (talk) Stara Marusya (talk) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Belarus is clearly scored at 0.808 in the UNDP HDI visible at developed country, where above 0.8 qualified it to be described as having 'very high human development'. As a way out of this impasse, I suggest citing all the relevant sources and creating a hybridized sentence saying something along the lines of: Belarus is a developing/emerging country that has nevertheless (been ranked as having 'very high human development'/scored very highly) in the UNDP's human development index. The statement about developing/emerging also needs directly referencing. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that there is a broad consensus on what a developed country is and in fact the international bodies such as the World Bank, IMF and the UN determine this. As I said, as of today, Belarus is not classified as a developed country according to all possible criteria and is far from being defined as such. Belarus is one of the poorest countries in Europe by GDP per capita and also according to the HDI rating, so to write that it is a very developed country is misleading and not true. I think that Iskandar323 idea is excellent and the best way to solve it. Qplb191 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey I fixed it , I think that it is the best way to solve it as isakandar323 offered. Qplb191 (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, isakandar323 I put my comments at the other page before i saw this. Good result. All the best, both, Emmentalist (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Belarus

Why is /ˈbɛləˈruːs/ BEL-ə-ROOS not listed as a possible pronunciation when it's used in many online dictionary sites? [7][8][9] The one we have listed as /ˌbiːləˈruːs/ BEE-lə-ROOS seems a lot less common too. A wild wild world (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

How can Belarus be discussed as having “lost” territory to Poland? This seems factually incorrect.

Poland should be mentioned as recovering territory from the Soviet Union; and, it should be noted that Poland was forced to cede some territory to the Byelorussian ssr in 1939. At no point was Belarus, or its predecessor states, a nation. 2601:199:C201:31C0:54DA:85B:6760:77B9 (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There's some anachronistic language there. The Byelorussian SSR did lose territory to Poland; would you be happier with language something like that? Mathglot (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The borders were established in 1921. Soviet Union did not exist then. How were the territories "recovered"? Mellk (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Belarus Is Most Active Death Penalty Country In Europe Savya Verma (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Belarus Is The Strictest Country In Europe Since 2016! Savya Verma (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

Savya Verma (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Please Erase A Dictatorship Of Belarus Page!

Please Erase The Dictatorship Of Belarus Page. Savya Verma (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid reason given to support the request. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

Please add the following cite:

• Korosteleva, Elena; Petrova, Irina; Kudlenko, Anastasiia, (2023). Belarus in the Twenty-First Century: Between Dictatorship and Democracy. Routledge. ISBN 9781032318059.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Cyberman1969 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Cyberman1969: Where? To support what? Thanks. small jars tc 15:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Add to bibliography

can you add the cite book to the bibliography section please? It's the most up to date academic text on Belarus and should be included, as the editors and contributors are world leading researchers on Belarus. Cyberman1969 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The bibliography is for stuff that's been used in writing the article, not just any good stuff. I know what you mean though, so I've added a "refideas" box to the top of the talk page with your suggestion in it, and hopefully someone will put it to good use in the article eventually. small jars tc 21:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Potash?

Why no mention? Belarus produces a huge amount of potash -- just after Canada and Russia, more than China. 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:B0C9:E795:AFDE:C87A (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

New paragraph: Agreement on deploying nuclear weapons in Belaurs

According to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Belarusian Constitution, Belarus shall not have nuclear weapons. On 25 May 2023, Belarus and Russia entered into an agreement about deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Shoigu signs agreement on deploying Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus — Meduza Joreberg (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If Alexander Lukashenko's title as 'President' is disputed, shouldn't Prime Minister Roman Golovchenko also be disputed?

In the infobox, shouldn't Golovchenko's title as Prime Minister also be disputed? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

why? Summer ^talk 16:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

a fief of Russia

I feel like there should be "a fief of Russia" added at the beginning. Thoughts? Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on what? Your personal opinion? Mellk (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Please add categories:

Category:Member states of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations

Category:Observer states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

-- MaliMail (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Please add this template to where the other templates for membership in international organizations are.

--- MaliMail (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)