Talk:Belarus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Belarus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed September 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 26, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 13, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted July 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 27, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Belarus (Rated FA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Belarus To-do: edit purge Template:WikiProject Belarus/to do WikiProject Eastern Europe     (Rated FA-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject Russian history (Rated FA-Class) Russia Portal Belarus is part of the WikiProject Russian history, 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. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject on Countries (Rated FA-Class) 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. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.

Belarus is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Geography

The statement "the geographic center of Europe is situated in Belarus" is not substantiated. I have seen similar claims for the town of Hässleholm in Sweden, and for places in Lithuania. It is all a question of how one defines the extremes of Europe; if the North-South extension is from Spitzbergen to Malta, Belarus is clearly too far to the South. --Hartmut Haberland 09:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the text at [1], though from other places, I see that the "center" of Europe is close to Belarus' northern border (in Lithuania, to be specific). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights record

I put in a paragraph in the opening text about Belarus's failure to sign the European Convention on Human Rights and its consequent exclusion from the Council of Europe. Seems to me that this is the kind of information that a reader unfamiliar with Belarus would expect to find given early on in an overview - i.e. it quickly summarises Belarus's pariah status within Europe.

I modified this a bit, but most of the information is at the lead still. I would suggest about putting the nonsigning of the treaty in the article itself, not at the lead, since there are plenty of other treaties that the Belarusians have not signed yet. Also, another hint, references are usually used in the article themselves, not in the lead sections. But thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:33, 11 February 2007 (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.

There is a sentence in the history section about Chernobyl that's just hanging out in space. It doesn't fit with any of the other historical events mentioned, but I think it's significant enough that I don't want to delete it. Does anyone have more information about the Chernobyl accident in Belarus?--RedPen 23:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All I personally know, and through the sources, is while the accident took place in the Ukraine, Belarus suffered from the fallout and continues to do so. Other information I saw was just some political banter, like Lukashenko sending teachers he hates to that region. I will figure out a place to put it, maybe in the geography. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chernobyl is indeed significant, and its impact on Belarus should be described properly. Much of southeastern Belarus remains seriously poisoned by nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl blast and settlement in many areas is still forbidden. For many years, groups of "Chernobyl children" came to western Europe every summer, allowing their immune systems a break from the radioactive zone but unfortunately such trips are no longer allowed. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I found quite a strange statement "...While it is sometimes wrongly assumed that Belarusian was the official language of the state, Latin, Old Russian (Ruthenian), and Polish were used side by side in state affairs..." What is the ground for this judgment? I am a linguist and it is a surprise for me to know that Old Russian = Ruthenian. Even The Soviet Encyclopedia states that Belarusian WAS the state language of the GDL http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/107/232.htm. In 1991 in Vilnius was published The Statute of the GDL with the commentary that the language of the statute was Old Belarusian. There was no name Belarusian at that time but it does not mean that there is no reason to call the language of that state Old Belarusian while Belarusians are the same Ruskije, Rusiny(Ruthenians) (do not mix with Russians) only under different name due to historical things. Otherwise Belarusians are from Mars. -- dassax

It sounded like original research, so I removed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is OK if there is no mention of the GDL state language at all or one can give all the views on the chancery language but it can cause a certain discussion. The language was literary and differed from the spoken one what gives a good ground for speculations.91.149.145.193 05:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) dassax

Most it could be shifted to the Belarusian language, granted if there is a source or two. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:18, 30 August 2007 (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:

• http://www.br23.net/en/2006/03/24/game-over/#comments
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rydel#.22kuban_coSSack.22

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.[2] -- 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)

Isn't "Zhive Belarus!" a national moto?Galantereischik 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it used, but it is not official. What I am looking for is a national motto that has been codified into national law, like how "In God We Trust" was codified into law for the United States. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:31, 12 October 2007 (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) [3](webserver not stable) but the same is true for quite a lot of other politicians and NGOs[4][5], e.g. Danish politician Bo Libergren [6] and others were deported[7]. 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.[8] I believe the European Parliament has also banned a number of Belarusian officials from entry into the EU.[9][10] 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)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Belarus. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{profit}}

What does this template do and why the small edit war to keep this in/out? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what it is used for, but I think its the "positive mark" for the Human Development Index. It adds this green arrow: ▲ to the infobox. I reverted the anon because I saw its used on other country articles... —dima/s-ko/ 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to check that to make sure it is correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is. The arrow shows if the country is moving up or down compared to the rating the year before. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The numbers are from 2004, not 2006. I need to change that quickly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The ranking is a good idea, but I have a feeling the entire HDI ranking system suffered somewhat after User:E Pluribus Anthony left Wikipedia. It was pretty much his child. As I'm typing this, User:Ran seems to be updating many of these rankings. Perhaps we're in luck? Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind updating the stats for Belarus, since I consider this article my child. But there is a lot of things I am seeing done to articles about contries which I think is either un-needed or just completely stupid. One of the things I removed, and intend to keep out, is a template denoting who borders Belarus in what direction. I have put that intro prose, which I will expand with possible border conflicts since 1991. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Which possible border conflicts are you referring to? The "Lithuanian corridor"? Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That and demarcation issues listed by the Belarusian Frontier Guards. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the second one is news to me. I thought the demarcation had gone rather easily. Oh, and if any Poles or Lithuanians were offended by the phrase "Lithuanian corridor", it was merely the first name that jumped to mind. :) Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independence dates

The article currently says that Belarus declared its independence on August 27, 1990 in the introduction and July 27, 1990 in the history section. As well, the July 27 article mentions that as the date, but states that a referendum in 1996 caused them to change the date of celebration to June 3, however no mention of that date is in this article. I don't know what's actually accurate, so it'd be good to clear it up. - Flooey 21:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The August was probably a typo on my part, fixing that now. We have a list of public holidays somewhere, but I will look. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

The map we got here on the Belarus article is fine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the David Liuzzo design, subject of the survey. — SomeHuman 19 Feb 2007 05:48 (UTC)

Ok, I placed my opinion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arms stuffs

Shouldn't there be some mention of how Belarus is a major arms exporter, or how the US has an embargo on it?? --Kevin ^(TALK) 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this go in the economy? I mentioned some of the US sanctions on Belarus, but I am not sure if it would be fruitful or POVish to add every single embargo the US has on Belarus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The EU has mentioned about the arms trade and I seen on other websites is that the weapons used in Sudan were partially from Belarus. I am not sure how much money Belarus does make in arms trade, but I would suggest of putting something in the article on Arms trading to mention Belarus. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in February 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Copyeditor(s): RedPen 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Proofreader: Galena11 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see edit history for sections with questions (in hidden comments in the article text).

Economy Question: does this mean the year 1990, or is 1990 a quantity of something?

1990 and 1991 are really important years for Russia and the former Soviet republics, what with the dissolution of the Soviet state. So I think what the original author was trying to say was this:

Economic growth returned in 1996, and in 2001 Belarus was first CIS country to reach pre-1990 levels of industrial production and agricultural production.

And I changed the sentence so that it reads this way. (But without the italics.)--RedPen 01:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I also looked at some of the other questions, they have been addressed. Thanks again yall. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad source

This source is simply not adequate in any way for citing the statement "the Belarusian economy is heavily subsidized by Moscow in exchange for political submission and the suppression of a Belarusian national revival." Surely someone can do better? It's nothing more than an opinion article which mentions "subsidizing" but offers no proof and doesn't get into specifics. Frankly, if no better source can be found, taking the statement out should be a consideration. Esn 09:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. I know that little line was a common montra used during the Gazprom oil dispute between Russia and Belarus, but I saw no evidence on how the Russians help fuel the Belarusian economy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To anyone else out there: feel free to add the line back in if you can find a respectable source proving it and exploring it in detail - not just some opinion piece mentioning it offhand as if it were accepted dogma with no need of proof. Esn 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parliamentary republic

There is no consistency between articles. On this page Belarus is said to be a Parliamentary republic however on the Parliamentary republic article there is no word about Belarus. Well one of these articles needs to be changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_republic

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.137.197.10 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lakhva Coat of Arms

• Found recently on a Belarus government website:

  29 April 2004, the regular session of the Heraldry Council under the President of the Republic of Belarus considered designs for 10 coat-of-arms of various administrative localities of Belarus. Nine of them were approved by heraldry specialists - the coat-of-arms and the flag for the town of Osipovichi, as well as flags and coat-of-arms for eight villages of Luninets District (Bostyn, Bogdanovka, Bolshye Chuchevichi, Vulka2, Dyatlovichi, Kazhan-Gorodok, Lakhva, Redigerovo).

  Anyone who can assist with finding the Lakhva coat of arms, the help would be much appreciated. Skeezix1000 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the area during the Russian Empire

A biographical citation I'm editing for the poet Itzhak Katzenelson gives his birthplace as "Korelichi [sic], a town in the district of Minsk, White Russia." For the latter area of Imperial Russia, I'd prefer using the region's name as it was known in 1886. Which is the preferred spelling for US English: Belorussia or Byelorussia? In the online Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate dictionary, generally my preferred reference for US English, Belorussia is the main entry, with Byelorussia a variant, but the entry relates particularly to the name of the Byelorussian SSR (its page name here in Wikipedia). -- Thanks, Deborahjay 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how it was determined to put Byelorussia SSR at it's name, but I think for consistancy, we could use Belorussia for Imperial Russia and Byelorussia for the Soviet period. Would that work for you? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the most common name in English at the time was White Russia. At any rate, the people were called White Russians (see this map published in 1911). But Imperial Russia apparently didn't have an administrative district called anything like Белоруссия anyway [11],[12], so English-language maps of the period didn't really call it anything. —Angr 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response on the Language Reference Desk:

The choice has nothing to do with etymology, but purely reflects different ways of transliterating the Cyrillic into the Latin alphabet. The traditional name in Russian is Белоруссия (note the letter о, unlike the Belarusian name Беларус), in which the single letter "е" is pronounced like /jɛ/, or English "ye". There have always been different methods for the romanization of Russian, some of which would render Russian "е" like Latin "e", others like Latin "ye". For geographic names the currently common BGN/PCGN system is a standard (adopted both by the United States Board on Geographic Names and by the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use), and the choice (which is context-dependent) made here, following a consonant, it just "e". The system is not entirely rational; since "э" is also romanized as "e", there is no easy way back (the system is not "round trip"), and in the similar cases of ю and я the transliterations are always "yu" and "ya". In any case, its use is official policy on Wikipedia. So, for example, we also write "Belorechensk", and likewise it should be "Belorussia". (Not everyone is always happy with this policy.) See the end of this page for more on the etymology.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Postscriptum. Actually, following the BGN/PCGN rules, it should be "Belorussiya". Now that is a fairly uncommon spelling. In Google hits:

• Byelorussia: about 827,000
• Belorussia: about 1,420,000
• Byelorussiya: about 377
• Belorussiya: about 13,100

 --Lambiam^Talk 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belarus WikiProject discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

This project would aim to clean up and collect articles related to Belarus, with a minimum of conflict, like the stated goals at the Law Enforcement WikiProject. This is a thorny area, but there are projects for hotspots like Sudan and Iraq, so we can accomplish this if there are dedicated folks of all stripes willing to work together. Chris 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights section

I had a paragraph or so about Belarus' human rights record in the section of politics, but I personally think the Anmesty report is saying the same thing I have already cited a few lines up before. Do you think that it could be merged together in one section (and we split the paragraphs up). I also added a link from a Belarusian embassy on how they view capital punishment (and to show it is still legal). (Note, I will be on a wikibreak for the weekend). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

What religions predominate in Belarus.. Orthodox or Catholic? Can someone write something about this in the article?

Russian Orthodox. I can try and make a section on religion inside the culture chapter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice this had come up already on the talk page.. I feel even a stub section would be better than nothing. I'll create the section, may you can expand it. Zargulon 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ok; as for the sections, it looks great and I can possibly expand it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suffrage

Hi,

Experts of the history of law of Belarus - please take a look at Talk:Timeline of women's suffrage#Flag of Belarus. Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

It might be a good idea to get rid of subsections in the "External links" section as it's a very small section. To keep subtitles in bold letters after removing subsections you can use semicolons (;), like this:

Media

• News of Belarus (bel)
• Belarus News and Analysis

Otherwise the structure of this articles looks very good. --Victor12 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I did it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chernobyl incident

There's little mention of the Chernobyl plant meltdown in this article, and I'm surprised by that. Much of Belarus was affected by it and millions suffer, and the genetic mutations caused by the fallout will continue to spread throughout the population through the birth of new children. This deserves a greater mention in the country's article. - Cyborg Ninja 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We have it in the lead and in the geography section. I suggest for you to place much of the information at the Geography of Belarus article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

Belarus was named "Belorussia" in the days of Imperial Russia, and the Russian tsar was usually styled "Czar of All the Russias — Great, Little, and White". This practice continued throughout the Soviet era[dubious – discuss], with the country taking the official name of the "Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic".

I don't see how these practices can be equated. The official Belarusian name in Soviet times was "Беларуская Савецкая Сацыялістычная Рэспубліка" (Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic), and the adjective "беларуская" here is just the normal Belarusian word for "Belarusian", derived from "Беларусь", not from "Белоруссия". Thus, there is no reason to translate it as "Belorussian" as opposed to "Belarusian". The official Russian name contained the adjective "белорусский", but this was because it is the only adjective for "Belarusian" in Russian. The only possible objection could concern the official English rendition of the Soviet name (an issue as meaningless as the Kiev-Kyiv debate).--91.148.159.4 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is a variant spelling of the name on English sites. I always see it as Belarusian and I use that in the article. However, people seem fit to use Byelorussia when talking about the country as a Soviet Republic. There hasn't been much of a debate here at all about that and I pretty much have an open mind on the subject. I just want this article to look and sound correct to showcase as one of Wikipedia's top articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

In my opinion, the History section needs some clarification to make it more accessible to non-Belorussian readers. Specifically, it would be great if the following points are addressed.

• The first paragraph mentions that Early East Slavs were organized by the Varangians under the state of Kievan Rus'. What's the meaning of "organizing" in this context? Were Slavs under Varangian domination? Or was the Kievan Rus' the result of cooperation between these two groups. In any case it should be clear in the sentence what kind of relationship was this.
• The second paragraph starts speaking about "the separate Ruthenian principalities". As this entities have not been introduced before the average reader might wonder what they are, and what do they have to do with Early East Slavs or the Kievan Rus'?
• The rest of the paragraph deals with the feats of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Where most Early East Slavs part of this Duchy? What happened to them under Lithuanian domination? Also, are Early East Slavs the ancestors of modern Bielorrusians?

Just this for now. Greetings, --Victor12 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the first one, they were not invaded at all by the Varangians; the state was founded by them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

May i ask if were invided by Lithuanians if you say "dominated"? Were Belarussians really dominated, or like in Varingian case cooperated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.100.60 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Russian vs. White movement

There is a need for clarification:

I believe there is exists a fundamental confusion over English language usage.

(1) When we use, speak, and/or write about Belarus we practically never translate it into White Russian.

(2) On the other hand, when we use, speak, and/or write about White Russians we practically neven mean the Belarus.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And you want the clarification in this article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of room for misunderstanding here. The old English-language translation "White Russia" (meaning Byelorussian SSR) is almost dead but unfortunately not 100% gone, so some readers could easily get the idea that the civil war was just 'Communists v people from Minsk!' Jameswilson 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...well, I hope the section on the name itself is clear, but we should try to make it not only clear but concise. A lot of the material yall wish to add should probably be at White Russian. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Bolshevism

Dear User:Zscout370,

The problem I have is with the above article: Jewish Bolshevism. Every scholar I've read regarding Jew and Bolshevism says that it was White Russians who claimed that Bolshevism was invented/created by Jews. And I do not think anyone who speaks English ever confuses this usage with people of Belarus. When English speakers think of the latter they say Belarus - they never say "White Russians." Best regards, --Ludvikus 03:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can honest with you, I don't know enough about that article or that subject to where I can make an informed subject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the person I should have discussed this with is Jameswilson. The fact is that in English scholars make claims against "White" Russians and by this usage they do not mean people from "Belarus". They mean the "White" who fought against the "Reds" in the Russian civil war! --Ludvikus 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember that from my history classes now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some bot suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 700 millimeters, use 700 millimeters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 700 millimeters.^[?]
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • are considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme).
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks,  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The first point is deceptive, misleading nonsense. I stopped reading after that. Linking to months standing alone shouldn't be done without good reason. Linking to numbers for days standing alone is nonsense, that will take you to a year article. But month and day together should be linked, on every appearance—not so much so that people can get to those articles, but rather to make date preferences work. Gene Nygaard 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please complain on the bot pages. I am just using the script. I don't endorse all of the bot recommendations, but some usually are useful.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prep for GimmeBot

In attempting to prep this page for GimmeBot, I cannot find the March 2007 peer review so I can correct the archives; can someone please find it, and update the article history? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was only one edit on the peer review, [13] for the March one. So, since the only edit was by me, I just blanked and started again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ah, OK, I'll take it out of articlehistory then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Need anything else? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Mr. Lukashenko

If not mistaken, yesterday was uploaded fine images with President Lukashenko, however they do not have licenses , I also checked provided source for clarifications, however could find notes (nor in Belarusian nor in English versions) about their usage in PD (maybe I missed something). Can anybody clarify this, because those images are very valuable and if no action taken they will be removed. Thanks, M.K. 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had images uploaded from that very site before; I was told to put them under fair use because they do not meet the Foundation's requirements for being "free enough." I personally feel the images should not belong here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, at least we have some free alternative images on this issue, M.K. 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I am still looking for more images, but I am happy with what we have now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in October 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Copyeditor(s): Galena11 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit 2

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Add comments Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 05:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of undo

User 217.118.66.57 repalaced "Беларусь" with "Белоруссия". He referred to http://spravka.gramota.ru/offdocs.html?id=85. However http://spravka.gramota.ru/offdocs.html?id=85 seems to be an obsolete document (17.aug.1995). A nower one is http://spravka.gramota.ru/offdocs.html?id=258 (31.jul.2002). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasha1024 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Actually, in russian language both words exist: "Белоруссия" and "Беларусь". But at the moment, only "Беларусь" (and also "Республика Беларусь") is an official name. Sasha1024 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the national constitution, the Republic of Belarus "Республика Беларусь" is the official name of the country. Plus, I would have reverted this anyways, since I have sources stating the official name of the country dotted around in this article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History prior to the 6th century

The introductory sentence is inaccurate. The wording should be changed or the section should be expanded.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not. I checked several books at Google Books and they all said the area was settled by Slavic tribes in the 6th century. The expanded text, which included the 12th century, was removed by copyeditors over time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as is now is correct to say that the Slavs arrived there around the 6th century. It would be nice though to cover earlier inhabitants as well like in Ukraine or Russia. Scythians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..that would be something to suggest at the talk pages of the respective articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name

I remember reading somewhere that the origin of the name comes from the Belarus areas not having to pay either tribute or taxes (can't remember which it actually was) during the Middle-Ages, specifically during the Mongol years, I think. So is that the reason why the country has that name? The article doesn't say why exactly it's called Belarus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.128.224 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government

Is the term dictatorship really appropriate as the form of government? It sounds pov to me. Autocracy sounds less pov and is the term used on Zimbabwe's page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.195.237 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish name of the country, no Polish one

There is no Turkish minority in Belarus, but the Turkish name of the country is quoted. There is a Polish minority, but the Polish name isn't quoted. Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It just shows examples of "White Russia" in other languages and that's it. Population minorities wasn't a factor. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POV - you select certain names from thousands.Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case I will exchange the Turkish one for the Polish one. I thought it might be that the Turks had coined the original appellation, but if it is just one of many possible names, then the Polish Białoruś would be better to put up there. Lstanley1979 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lstanley1979 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The names have been there for a while, so I just left it the way it was. Then, after all people were doing was adding more names, we had to cut some down and put a stop to it. I didn't see the Polish name added before in that section. But it seems fine now (and not a POV issue, we just cannot list them all, so just use the Interwiki links for how to see Belarus in other languages). Lstanley, looks good. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusians converted to the Russian Orthodox Church after Belarus was annexed by Russia

The conversion was imposed by the tsar in 1839.Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The first major musical composition by a Belarusian was the opera Faust by Antoni Radziwiłł

Antoni Radziwiłł article doesn't call him a Belarusian. We have two POVs.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Several newspapers, printed either in Belarusian or Russian

According to the quoted List the majority of newspapers is printed in Russian. There is no comparison of the newspaper circulation in both languages.

Which language is used in television?Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The section came from the Library of Congress, so it is just a generalization. I do not have a full, exact list of what is published in what language and how many actually exist. That would be best at Belarusian_media#Newspapers. As for what used on television, hmm...I honestly have no clue. I would like to say both languages, but I have not watched TVR in at least 2 months. I do know their website and some of their radio programs are in English, Russian and Belarusian, at least. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing the phrase should be rather "printed either in Russian or Belarusian". Belarusian_media#Newspapers doesn't inform about language.Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baltic russia, Baltarussia and meaning of Baltic

Hello, I have read some discussions about the origin of the country. I know that in Latvian language Baltic means white. As Baltic sea means "snow white see" and Baltic countries mean white countries. I suppose Bela=Baltic=means white Russia? and the meaning white comes from the snow? I dunno, but I think I have a point here? If someone who know better this issue could comment please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.250.192 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)