Talk:Belarusian language/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Polonization 2 POV 3 Monedula's major rewrite 4 Monedula has no authority to make such changes 5 The referendum of May 14, 1995 6 Belarusian country names 7 Why is this passage in the article on "Belarusian language"? 8 Akannie 9 Lacinka 10 How to name biographies 11 ч is hard? 12 Speakers of Russian in Belarus 13 Comparison with Russian 14 map of russian speakers in Belarus 15 Comparison 16 Persecution and russification 17 Cyrillic in Wikipedia 18 Edit war: Kuban Kazak and Rydel 19 Dialects and Accents of Belarusian 20 Kuban kazak 21 A disputed point 21.1 Previous Edit: 21.2 My edit: 21.3 New edit 21.4 Comments 22 Belarusian as an endangered language?? 22.1 National identity, mother tongue and home language use in Belarus 23 Belastok 24 Protected from reversion war 25 Recent reverts by Kuban kazak 26 Time for unprotection? 27 interwiki 28 A thourough review needed 29 Answers to "answers" 30 Reprotected 31 Belrusian Student Union organizes rock festival Basovishcha. 32 Belarusian language was taught in many schools in Western Belarus (annexed part of Poland 1939-1941), even in Polish ethnic territory. 33 Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia 34 Unprotecting 35 Oddness 36 NPOV tag 37 About one contributor

[edit] Polonization

Was Belarusian subject to polonization or not? It is evident that Belarusian has incorporated a great quantity of Polish words. Still Rydel has deleted link to polonization. What's the matter with it? — Monedula 14:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, I don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, there was Polonization in Belarus. The word polonization refers to the process that took place after we made a union with the Poles, the famous Recz Paspalitaja, and our nobles and even some simple people started switching to Polish, started educating their kids in Polish, etc. This is what Polonization means.

I am not aware of any polonization that took place inside the Belarusian language. I never heard of the term "polonization" in the linguistic sense. I should add, Old Belarusian language basically died, became extinct, stopped existing (thanks to Poles and Russians!). And there was a big hiatus between Old Belarusian of the times of the Grand Duchy and the modern Belarusian. And I never heard anything about polonization of the modern Belarusian language at any point.

So I'm looking forward to hearing from you. And I'd like to see some concrete example. E.g. some concrete grammatical, syntactical features that let's say Old Belarusian did not have, and that modern Belarusian does have, and that it was indeed from the Polish language that this particular change came from.

I'm really excited about your new discoveries. --rydel 18:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess that Monedula meant the huge number of Belarussian words of Polish origin. There are lots of such words in many languages, but it should be noted that it had nothing to do with polonisation of the language. Similarily, the huge number of Turkish words in Russian language does not mean that Russian was turkified. Halibutt 19:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that was what she was referring to, to the common vocabulary between the two languages (Belarusian and Polish). Overall, and this is just my personal opinion, a real IMHO, etymology often seems to be a pseudo-science, that people use for political means. This whole "word origin" thing often times seems very fishy, IMHO.

Of course, it's customary to speak of Belarusan having thousands of Polish loan words. But are they loan words? Who determined that? Some people found them in older Polish texts, and didn't find them in some Old Ruthenian texts? Is that the proof? I think the only proof would be 12-16th century audio tapes from Warszawa, Krakow, Bialystok, Hrodna, Navahradak, Vorsza, Polacak. ;) Otherwise, it's all a bit suspcious, and could be used for political means. Are "cikavy" and "ciekawy" cognates, or we should call it a Polish loan word? Are "siastra" and "siostra" cognates, or we should call it a Polish cognate? How about abzac, bursztyn, babior, dach, tlumaczyc, drot, jajka, jesci, plaszka, hvalt, hurok, handal, klajnot, kufar, koszt, kuchnia, lamantavac, lichtar, nyrki, achviara, kvitok, rachunak, szyba, szynka, szryft, szrot, szvagier, szpacyravac, sztraf, talerka, chvala, cybula? And thousands of others. Are they Polish? Are they Belarusian? Well, in fact, all the Belarusian words that I just wrote are, most probably, German loan words. So does it mean somebody "germanized" our language? I really have no answers to that, and I don't really like the answers I hear from the traditional "etymology specialists". --rydel 20:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, if there was no polonization, then what do you mean by "Russification" of Belarusian, and why it must be mentioned? — Monedula 22:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far my understanding goes, the term russification primarily means this (the same as with polonization): Belarusian-speaking people (mostly villagers) switching to Russian which is perceived as more "prestigious" and "urban" language, and Belarusian-speaking people educating their children in Russian.

And when I say "government pursuing russification policies" I mean that in spite of the fact that equality of the two languages is proclaimed in the Constitution of this country, one of the languages is most of the time ignored, abandoned, not used, and simply discriminated.

As for the Russification of our language (i.e. from the linguistic perspective), I guess the best example is the Bolshevik's reform of 1933. This reform changed the language quite a bit, and affected the language for 70+ years, and it's still in place. (And there never was such a reform at any point in the past when someone would forcefully introduce some Polish grammatical, syntactical or other features into our language. It simply never happened). --rydel 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, the reform of 1933 is the only thing that makes the difference? And did it really make Belarusian more like Russian? Russian language was reformed, too (in 1918), but it did not make it any worse. — Monedula 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It did. 1933 reform was mostly a reform of orthographical rules, which means obviously that only spelling rules were changed. So theoretically it should've only affected the spelling, not how the language is spoken. But, of course, in practice it turned out differently. Here is an example (arguably one of the most damaging changes of that reform). This reform cancelled soft sign to show palatalization. E.g. before 1933 you had to write "сьнег", "песьня". And after 1933 the soft sign was abandoned, so you had to write "снег", "песня" (exactly like in Russian). Of course, you still had to pronounce all those words just the way you did before. But now the writing looked more like Russian, and I personally noticed that it affects pronunciation: most of the Russian-speaking kids from Minsk when they learn Belarusian in school, pronounce such words "лазня", "з'ява", "свет" just like in Russian, with hard з and с. They simply don't realize they should pronounce it very softly сь, зь (сЬвет, зЬява), almost like in Polish.

After 1933 there was another reform in Soviet 1957, which did some damage too, but only a little bit. Unfortunately there is very little information in English about either of the two reforms. Here is one article which I put on pravapis: 1968: Grammatical Changes in Modern Literary Belarusian Language, Professor R. G. A. de Bray. The professor is not an expert in Belarusian language studies, so he himself misunderstood a couple things, but in any case I guess that's the best text in English so far about 1933 reform that is available online as of this moment. --rydel

Now, if "they" really wanted to Russify Belarusian spelling, why did they change so little? Just replace all ці, дзі, це, дзе, ць, дзь with ти, ди, те, де, ть, дь, replace all ў with в, replace some stressless а and я with о and е, and the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian. But nobody tried to do what. So, I suppose, the spelling reform was motivated by the internal logic of Belarusian, not by desire to "Russify" it. (In 1930s, the standard Russian did not differ from Belarusian in the matter of softening с in песня and снег — the hard с here is only a recent phenomenon). — Monedula 11:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"the spelling reform was motivated by the internal logic of Belarusian, not by desire to "Russify" it". No, I just gave you an example. And you still don't get it, do you?

And, anyway, this is a bizarre question, a strange way of trying to play Devil's advocate perhaps? "Why did they do so little?" My guess is that (1) there were enough resistence within that system (among linguists), (2) it was not possible to do much more damage within that system. Changing it any more than that would mean really to create a new system, which would not be phonetic at all. While modern Belarusian (like many other newer languages) by definition tries to be as phonetic as possible, it's considered to be a fundamental principle "як чуецца, так і пішацца" (although of course, it's no 100% phonetic). Now, I personally wouldn't mind using the "traditional" way, because that would create a tighter and more obvious link with the old language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But I think it would be more difficult for people to be able to read and write properly in that language. So personally I am fine with what we got from our early 20th century linguists.

"the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian" - oh, please... Please... If you like having discussion at such a level, then I better stop right here, right now and not waste anymore time on you. Please, do me a favor. Open any text in Belarusan. Let's say, for random purposes, just any article on rydel.net: -1-, -2-, -3-. And do this conversion of soft d', t' and post the results here, and see how easy or "difficult" it is to "distinguish it from Russian". (Or, alternatively, just stop bullsh***ing on the subject you don't seem to know much about). --rydel 12:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian — yes, it is an exaggeration. Still many Belarusian words would become spelled identically with the Russian ones. (It has nothing to do with phonetic changes — Russian ти is in reality pronounced as ці!) The simple reality is that, both in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, nobody cared to "Russify" Belarusian language. What purpose would it serve? The actual policy was to teach standard Russian language to everyone. — Monedula 13:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Look: "and the government does not provide any support for the Belarusian language.". Perhaps it is true, but the way of saying it, isn't.

Perhaps the independent Belarus is just too poor to give the support required. Under the Soviets, national cultures and languages were heavily subsidized, but Soviet Union was much richer than today's independent republics. — Monedula 11:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Anonymous and Monedula just proved that they've never been to Belarus and that they do not know anything about current sociolinguistic situation in that country. Indeed, the above statement is, in my opinion, a POV, but the other way around. It should instead say something like "Government actively fights and oppresses Belarusian speakers."

Here's just one example for you ladies and gentlemen: There is not a single school in Minsk (almost two million people, the capital) where all subjects are taught in Belarusian. Lukashenka closed them all down. Get it: there is not a single Belarusian-language school in 1.5-million capital. The last one was shut down two years ago after Lukashenka called it "a bee-hive of the opposition." Just search the web for [1]"ліцэй"].

Now they exist underground. For example, right now for two weeks they are having normal classes in a normal building in ... Vilnia Lithuania. Lithuanians invited them. Lithuanian school let them use their premises while the Lithuanian kids are having X-mas vacations. And those kids are under complete ban in Belarus. For one single reason - all subjects were taught in Belarusan in their school.

And this is just one of many examples.

In fact, I think a separate section in this article is needed to describe and suumarize what the government of Belarus has been doing to Belarusian speakers since 1995-1996 (after Lukashenka turned authocractic and almost dictatorial). --rydel 18:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a bit about this liceum case in the Alexander Lukashenko#Economic and political problems section some time ago. Mikkalai 19:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A new big article about Belarusan Lyceum in Gazeta Wyborcza:

• Lekcja tajnego języka. Białoruś (Original article in Polish)
• “Gazeta Wyborcza” пра беларускі Ліцэй: “Заняткі па тайнай мове. Беларусь” (Short summary of the article in Belarusian)
• Беларусь. Урок запрещённого языка. (a translation of the article into Russian)

--rydel 03:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monedula's major rewrite

Hey-hey, hold your horses, Russian miss. This is like a totally new, different article. I personally disagree with the changes. I propose that we discuss each change step-by-step and then do it (or not do it).

1) First, I don't agree with the restructuring. Can you explain the reason for shifting paragraphs and sentences around? I think it weakened the chronological and logical flow.

No, quite the reverse — I just attempted to put everything in chronological order. Maybe something got wrong, but we can work it out. Do not revert it wholesale.

And here are some other concerns that I have:

2 After partitions of Poland (1772-1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive.

Did you forget about Kosziuszko's anti-russian uprising and Kalinouski anti-russian uprising and Slucak anti-bolshevik uprising? No one lacked identity at that point. The problem with Belarus' identity is the problem of USSR times and Russification policies. The above sentence is in both versions, but in the original version this phrase does not stand next to 1772-1796, so it does not create a false time frame association with the 18th century.

To what time it belongs, then? In Soviet times, at least, there was no problem with Belarusian identity, because Belarusians had their own republic.

3 By the 16th century, the term "ruski" ("Russian" or "Ruthenian" in Latin) continued to refer to the language spoken in modern-day Ukraine and Belarus, not to the language of Muscovy (the Russians).

It is a fact. Why did you delete that? You, Muscovites, wanted to call your language "Russian", that's true, but it's very important to note that back then no one else called it "Russian". Later, yes. But not in 16th century. "Russian" was refered to "Old Ruthenian" or "Old Belarusian". For example, one of the many sources is http://txt.knihi.com/mova/dyplamat.html Дыпляматычная кантравэрсыя 1646 году за беларускую мову. (And this is even 17th century - Polish, Litvins, Ruthenes still resisted calling your language "Russian", even a century later)

I suspect the major reason for juggling with paragraphs and sentences was to delete this sentence. Very cunning.

I did not delete it, but moved to a different place. You just did not notice.

4 A process of divergence that accelerated in the 17th century, created a new division between the languages spoken in the south (Ukraine) and north (Belarus) of Ruthenian-speaking territory.

This was deleted too without any grounds for doing that. Care to explain?

The division appeared much earlier. For instance, the transition of "o" → "a" in unstressed syllables appeared in the 15th century (and Belarusian shares this feature with Russian language, not with Ukrainian!). And the Ukrainian transition "o" → "i" (not featured in Belarusian) appeared in the 15th century too (possibly even earlier). So the phrase about 17th century is clearly disinformation.

5 The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed since 1930s. The orthographic reform of 1933, although minor, is seen by some as an attempt to "russify" Belarusian language. In 1938 Russian language become an obligatory subject in all Soviet schools. The final blow was the school reform of 1958, when parents were given right to select the language of instruction for their children. After that, more and more people began to send their children to Russian-language schools, and the number of Belarusian-language schools began to diminish.

"is seen by some" is ridiculous. The only reason for the reform was to bring the spelling (orthographic) rules closer to Russian. Period. I don't think anybody ever questioned that. It's obvious. Just read something about the reform or compare the spelling rules.

Nonsence! If someone really wanted to "Russify" Belarusian language, one could just reintroduce the Old Belarusian spelling, which is much closer to modern Russian spelling. Obviously that was not the issue.

6 The interest to Belarusian language was revived at the end of 1980s during perestroika. In 1990 Belarusian became the only official language of Belarusian SSR, and a second campain of Belarusization followed.

Has it become the only official language of BSSR or independent Belarus? I think BSSR is wrong here.

Yes, it's true! In 1990 Belarusian was proclaimed the official language of Belarusian SSR! And Russian was not!

7 However, the Belarusization proved to be unpopular, and at the 1995 Referendum people overwhelmingly (83.3%) voted for giving Russian language an equal status with Belarusian.

God! Ridiculous! What's next? You'll write that Saddam Husseyn is more popular and democratic than Bill Clinton, because Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote, and Saddam Husseyn got almost 99.999%? Of course, that Lukashenka's referendum was rigged and falsified. No one knows what were the real figures. Whether it was 1% or 99% for any of the questions.

Oh! I see. If you dislike a referendum, you just declare it rigged. Can you give some proof that it was rigged? So far as I know, people really disliked the Belarusification campaign of early 1990s.

8 This lack of a strong ethnolinguistic identity, along with the popular association of Belarusian dialects as rural, peasant languages as opposed to Russian's modern/urban connotations, is seen by some as a threat that may lead to the eventual extinction of the Belarusian language in Belarus.

I think that refers to Soviet times and early 90's. Nowdays the socio-linguistic situation is different and not so simple.

Try to ajust the sentence.

9 The situation changed dramatically after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the creation of Belarusian SSR. In 1920s Bolsheviks have launched a massive campain of forced Belarusization (a part of a larger korenizatsiya program), combined with a campain for universal literacy ("likbez"). It was the only then that the notions of "Belarus" and "Belarusian language" have become clear-cut.

My god, you are putting things upside down, giving credit to Bolsheviks for something which they actually fought against. What's your agenda here, by inserting this misinformation?

You are totally misinformed. Bolsheviks have never fought against Belarusian. Of course, at times massive repressions caused disruption, but, all in all, Belarusian had a firm position in Belarusian SSR, and Belarusian culture was well subsidized.

First of all, you should not start with Russian Revolution of 1917, but mention the BNR of 1918, the first national state that really cared about national values. And in 1917 Russians were not even in Belarus. There were Germans on our territory. World War I, ok?

BNR was ephemerial and disappeared without traces. Modern Belarus is a successor of Belarusian SSR, that's clear.

Second, please provide facts on "forced Belarusization". Who was forced? When? By whom?

Bolsheviks forced everyone in Belarus to study Belarusian language, and children were sent to Belarusian-language schools without asking the parents what langauge they preferred. All administration and legal affairs began to be carried out in Belarusian. Many people really disliked this. If you want facts, just read something beyond the official Polish propaganda.

Third, what is "clear-cut", and what was not "clear-cut" before the Bolsheviks?

Before 1920, Belarusian language was just a collection of rural dialects, plus a few literary works written and read mainly by Polish nationalists. 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica stated that Belarisian dialects belong to Russian language. Most Belarusian peasants called themselves not Belarusians, but tutejshiye ("local people"). The real Belarusian identity was created by Bolshevics (and not by the Polish).

10 I agree the "history" section could be rewritten, improved and extended, but what you've done seems just to be a mere juggling around and random insertion of Soviet propaganda. Sorry. That's not the way to make a good NPOV and informative entry. --rydel 12:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not Soviet propaganda, it's truth. Just try to read something beyond the Polish propaganda nonsense. — Monedula 19:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. I believe that some restructuring could be in place. Also, Monedula's version had certain advantages too. I guess the best solution would be to prepare a new version that would be the mixture of both versions.
2. Both of you are right here - to some extent. OTOH perhaps the wording should be changed, but the basic idea seems true - while the Belarusian folks openly supported the fight of others and in this aspect were the direct descendants of the Great Duchy, there is a huge difference between the sense of national identity in Poland or Ukraine and in Belarus. The Ruthenian gentry (and peasants as well, at least to a certain degree) took part in both January Uprising and November Uprising, the movement was by no means massive. Also, with Kalinoŭski's role in the January Uprising the modern Belarussian was starting, it was an early beginning. The sentiments were strong, but aimed in different directions. In 19th century the difference between a Belarusian, Pole or Lithuanian was still difficult to tell. Lithuania, my motherland wrote Mickiewicz - about Belarus.. The same was also true for Kościuszko who was a Pole, yet he was a Lithuanian (and Belarusian). Such a statement of identity was not contradictory at that time. Also, note the number of tutejsi even in 20th century. So, IMO Monedula's statement about lack of strong nationalistic drive seems acceptable.
3. Indeed the deleted sentence seemed true. I have no idea why was it deleted either.
4. See above
5. Indeed, this seems like an introduction of unnecessary weasel term.
6. Hmmm... never heard of SSRs adopting a new sole national language.
7. Indeed, the effects of the voting and the actual support for Lukashenka are openly questioned by almost anyone in the world. Even if the election results were true (which I seriously doubt), I believe we should avoid using them as a proof of anything unless any hard evidence is available - which I doubt will happen anytime soon...
8. Perhaps the situation is even more complex than it was, but I personally met a young couple from Minsk who told me that they knew Belarusian, but they never used it since they didn't want to be considered peasants. (BTW, they changed their mind after two years of studying here in Warsaw).
9. Well, initially the bolsheviks were not as Russo-centric as they were since late 1920's or early 1930's. Although the political independence of the national regions (SSRs, autonomous regions and such) was limited and mostly theoretical, initially they had a vast cultural autonomy. Even the Poles were given two autonomous districts with Polish-language schools and Polish newspapers. What happened later is a different story though.
10. Indeed this article deserves expansion. However, for me the arguments about Soviet propaganda are too strong. Let's just cool down and try to cooperate, without offending other contributors. Ok? Please leave the Polish propaganda/ Soviet propaganda/ Martian propaganda arguments on the side and try to prepare a great article. And please, stop the revert war, or else the article gets blocked and we'll have to cope with the wrong version, whichever it is. Halibutt 20:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monedula has no authority to make such changes

Sorry, Halibutt, but I don't see any reason in arguing with this woman from Russia.

1. I spent most of my life in Belarus, she never lived in that country (don't know if she ever even visited it);
2. I have read dozens of books about Belarusan language; I doubt she ever read anything (because she couldn't - there is almost no books about it in Enligsh or Russian - those books were in Belarusan).
3. I formally studied Belarusian in school, she did not;
4. I speak native Belarusian, she does not know it;
5. I am a Belarusian language editor in a mass-medium, a language proof-reader and style editor; she has no knowledge of this language;

If she demolishes this article into some pro-Russian, pro-Soviet propaganda piece of ..., I am just going to leave. I am spending most of the time on http://be.wikipedia.org/ anyway. And let the English speakers read the BS POV from some Jaroslavl "language specialist." --rydel 23:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is not your property! If you want to make a page according to you taste only, then create your own Internet site and put there anything you like. If you cannot cooperate and negotiate, then indeed you must leave Wikipedia. — Monedula 00:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't even understand this comment. The page is not my property. Of course, not. With this comment I presented my credentials. And as reasonable individual I hate it when true facts presented by someone who has knowledge and expertise is destroyed or changed into false information by someone who has no knowledge or expertise. Please, answer my comment. Please, present your credentials. Show me that you know this language and its history. (Unforuntatley, your questions and comments about "polonization" and "Polish propaganda" show that you are totally off.) If you can't prove your knowledge and if you can't show credible sources of your information, then stop changing this article. --rydel 01:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord in Heaven, could you both close your eyes and count to twenty? Dear friends, cool down, please. Both of you have made lots of great edits (even if I at times opposed them) and you both have right to have your own views, even if they are wrong. Just show a little patience and try to cooperate. How about that?

Even if Monedula does not speak a word in Belarusan she might know a lot about it - as a historian, for instance. But please, be so kind as to show some maturity (both of you) and refrain yourself from future remarks similar to "Soviet propaganda", "Polish propaganda" and so on. This leads nowhere, i had the same disease when I first entered Talk:Gdansk some year ago and saw some nationalist idiots wanting to promote their stupid POV over and over again. It took me some time to realise that a compromise could be reached - and I guess a compromise could be reached here as well. I wish it to both of you and to myself as well, since I like this article and would love to read more on the "most western Slavic of the east Slavic languages".

So, Monedula, how about that: Rydel has written down his objections to your version. Could you write yours in a friendly and specific tone, without using the words "nationalist", "propaganda", "nonsense" or "bullshit"? Halibutt 01:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

For certain things compromise can indeed be reached, but for some things it's simply out of question because a given statement is either true or false. So if Monedula keeps reverting to 2+2=5, I will not settle for 2+2=4,5. Sorry. No. And the changes she made to this article so far suggest that she does not have any solid knowledge about Belarusian language and her changes fall into the category of 2+2=5 (that especially concerns statements about Bolsheviks, about 1933 reform, about Soviet policies and about sociolinguistic situation in BSSR and after the independence.) --rydel 02:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's wait for her reply (Monedula is a she, isn't she; her user page doesn't give any clue). Halibutt 15:34, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The referendum of May 14, 1995

Rydel has wrote: All international observers said that the results of the referendum were falsified.

Can you please indicate, who exactly said that the results were falsified, and where the reports have been published? — Monedula 19:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe Russian and CIS observers said it was fine. Gotta search the archives. (I removed it for now.)

I am not proposing to delete the mention of the referendOOm. Sure, we should mention this referndum. But you seem to be making wrong conlusions from its results (even if they are true, which we do not know). Let me give you an example. I have a blog http://blog.rydel.net/ which initially was 90% only in Belarusan (with an occasional entry in English or German), but after a year or, maybe, two years I made a decision to make it bilinguial. Now I make almost all of my entries both, in Belarusan and in English. So, Monedula, does instroducing a second "official languge" to my blog mean that I don't like Belarusan so much or that I prefer English over Belarusan? Of course, not! --rydel 13:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it means that "Belarusian-only" policy is not viable. — Monedula 00:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's leads to a question that most smaller languages/cultures have to answer (let's say under 10 million). Can Danes or Slovaks or Norwegians or Belarusians survive by only knowning their native tongue? The answer is "yes" and "no". (Besides, there is at least one good counter-example: 10 millions of Hungarians. Hungarians had a state in Europe for 1000 years, they have rich culture, rich history, and they never really had a problem of losing their mother tongue). IMHO, the problem with Belarus is that it'd be wiser (and nicer) if the first foreign language would've been English, not Russian. --rydel 02:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian country names

Over at List of country names in various languages there's a whole slew of names purporting to be Belarusian but clearly aren't (a lot of them use the letter и for one thing). Apparently someone went through adding "Belarusian" to every Russian name, assuming they'd be identical. Could someone who actually knows Belarusian (I don't) please go through and correct the Belarusian spelling of the names, or at least remove the "Belarusian" label from the names where it doesn't belong? Thanks! --Angr/_comhrá 09:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank for pointing that out. You are right, they are all totally wrong (except for 4-5% of the cases when the spelling of a given country name coincides in Russian and Belarusan). Maybe I'll do it, when I have a bit more free time. --rydel 16:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this passage in the article on "Belarusian language"?

"Under the Soviets, there was also the elimination of the Belarusian middle class between 1917 and 1941 by the Communist Party; in Kurapaty (a suburb of Minsk), the NKVD killed perhaps 100,000 people. Many thousands of people were sent to concentration camps (Gulag) or resettled to Siberia. Around 400 Belarusian authors were repressed during anti-nationalism campaigns that started around 1929 and culminated during the Great Purge."

If you want to bring this home again and again, put it in the "History of Belarus" article. All in all the history section look more like "History of Belarusian nationalism", then language. Related, of course. Not identical though. It has to be rewritten somewhat.

[edit] Akannie

1. akannie (аканьне) — the tendency to pronounce unstressed "o" and "e" as clear open front unrounded vowel "a";

Something is fishy here. First, AFAIK, by Belarussian orthography, there cannot be an unstresed "o". So I guess this phrase is written from the point of view that Belarusian langauge is a dialect of Russian language. Second, what kind of "e" is spoken about? "е" or e? I guess, the second one, if my "dialectologic" guess is correct. It can be unstressed in Belarusian orthography, but only in non-slavic loanwords, AFAIK, and I am not so sure in such words, e.g, "syntez", it reduces to "a"; I would rather think of schwa mikka (t) 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is about Belarusians speaking other languages. --Monkbel 09:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you have a morpheme with a stressed "o" and then when you make a word with several morphemes that "o" might become unstressed and turn into "a" -Iopq 15:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unstressed "o" is possible (foreign words): Токіо, адажыо and so on.

[edit] Lacinka

I see a growing number of articles using lacinka for various Belarusian names. While I agree that it is best suited for the phonetics of the Belarussian language, it is far cry for being in English language usage, which is now transliteration (and I have serious doubts about other langauges as well, including Belarussian itself; in the latter case it is a matter of entusiasts of belarussian national revival). Therefore usage of lacinka is against wikipedia policies, not to say it makes names nonrecognizable.

I am going to start removing lacinka as main usage everywhere I see it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of some POV (including POV on how to write in Belarusian language). mikka (t) 16:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So you want to promote your POV (especially in areas you don't know anything about) in Wikipedia simply because you have some more time and can apply more energy to revert and so on? it's a pity this has become usual practice in en:... :( --Monkbel 22:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have something to say argumented, say it. I did not rush into the revert spree yet. I am listening. And I know more than you think, and willing to learn more. From your remark I learned only that you know how to use emoticonss and that you are prone to jumping to conclusions.

So far the usage of lacinka in native English language texts is not prominent. And there was a precedent: a very heated battle on the Kyiv/Kiev issue. So I don't think "Miensk" will be accepted in the near future. mikka (t) 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the case of Minsk is obvious. However, in cases where there is no commonly accepted English name I believe we should use lacinka for transliteration - as that is what it's for. Similarily, in Wikipedia we use Russian system of transliteration for Russian names, Japanese for Japanese language, Pinyin for Chinese and so on. Halibutt 06:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

For geographical names there is an officially adopted transliteration system, linked from lacinka article. For the reasons of uniformity we better use it for personal names as well. mikka (t) 07:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to name biographies

I'm presently writing biographies on sport shooters, and there are quite a few Belarusian ones. I wonder what transliteration I should use for these. The International Shooting Sport Federation itself seems to use Russian-style transliterations (Sergei Martynov, Igor Basinski etc), but I'm not sure whether that's a preference given to them by the Belarusian shooting federation, or just an old habit that hasn't been broken. I have seen 2000-style transliterations (Siarhei Martynau, Ihar Basinski) in some situations. What should we use here? (So far the only entry in Category:Belarusian sport shooters is Kanstantsin Lukashyk, which is what the ISSF uses.) -- Jao 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The question about naming Belarusian sportsmen is not quite easy. Almost every sportsman has numerous available transliterations of his name and different organisations use different transliteration. I propose this algorithm to select proper transliteration for Wikipedia:

1. First of all, check if there is one widely used name transliteration for this sportsman (for example, he is playing in club in Western Europe); if it is available, one should use this transliteration. See Sergei Gurenko (while he is probably transliterated Siarhei Hurenka in his international passport), Vitali Kutuzov and so on.
2. Second, check any official protocols on international competitions. We usually can find really official transliteration in protocol, not something just translated (like on website). See Ivan Tikhon article for example (while his name should be transliterated Ivan Cichan).
3. If neither widely used nor official transliteration couldn't be found, one shouldn't prefer one website's transliteration over any other's - all they (even official ones) can give different transliterations created without any logic (often in Russian style). One should use direct one-to-one Cyrillics-to-Łacinka transliteration, because it reflects name in Belarusian absolutely exactly. For shooters it should be Siarhej Martynaǔ and Ihar Basinski. Transliteration rules should be available on Łacinka page. Anyway, feel free to consult about transliteration. --Monkbel 10:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ч is hard?

In the section on noun declension it says that ноч is a feminine noun ending with a hard consonant? Is ч really hard in Belarusian? It isn't in Russian. --ChadThomson 12:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian isn't Russian. it has its own letters and pronunciation. --Monkbel 14:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so what you're saying is, ч in Belarusian is pronouced equivalent to тш? Meaning if you write чи, it's really pronounced like чы? Just curious.--ChadThomson 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for your curiosity: There is not even a letter и in the Belarusian alphabet, so you never write чи (nor чі) but чы, as you pronounce it. Belarusian is a language different from Russian, not a Russian dialect. --Daniel Bunčić 09:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the deal? I didn't say Belarusian is a Russian dialect. I'm interested in it though, as I know Russian and some Ukrainian. Very interesting. Maybe this could be added somewhere in the article: "Although ч is palatalised in Russian and Ukrainian, in Belarusian it is retroflex." Or "Belarusian differs from other Slavic languages such as Ukrainian and Russian in that ч is retroflex, as opposed to palatalised." --chad 07:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That ч is hard is clearly visible from the Phonetics section of the article, and the article about the Voiceless postalveolar affricate even says that the Russian ч in contrast to the Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Belarusian one is a different sound. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so I think it does not make much sense to describe a foreign language like Belarusian in contrast to another foreign language like Russian. This has to be done in the so far very poor Russian-language article. Maybe it would be a good start to translate the information from the English article (which is more exhaustive even than the Belarusian one) into Russian, and then such comparisons can be made there. --Daniel Bunčić 12:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Ukrainian ч is also a Voiceless postalveolar affricate and it can be palatalized and unpalatalized. I can translate the article when I have time :D -Iopq 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In Ukrainian, ч [tʃ] is palatalized before [i], but in Belarusian, ч [tʃ] cannot occur before [i], so that it is never palatalized. --Daniel Bunčić 11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, it is interesting how some phonetic features overlap with Russian and some with Ukranian. One can't even say which language is "closer" -Iopq 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speakers of Russian in Belarus

A little preface/disclaimer:

• This is a serious question and not a political one. I want to know the real situation "on the ground".
• I was born in Moscow. My mother tongue is Russian. Now i live in Israel, speak mostly Hebrew and English, but remember Russian well.
• I have a great interest in languages and an above-average talent for language study. Although i never properly studied it, i can understand written Belarusian pretty well (i daresay - better than an average Russian-speaker).
• I don't have the slightest sympathy towards neither Lukashenko nor Putin.

Now the question:

Suppose that a group like BPF or whatever throws Lukashenko away. Flag is changed back to white-red-white, metro stations are renamed, integration with the Russian Federation is put on hold, etc. And then comes the question of language. What would actually happen in that field? The official status of Russian can be cancelled on paper, but what would the people do? How many would willingly and consciously choose to send their kids to the first grade of a Belarusian school? And if the child is already learning in a Russian school in the fifth grade, how many would choose to send him to the sixth grade in a Belarusian school? And to what extent Belarusian education will be forced?

And what about the adults? I study linguistics, and one of the most important i learnt is that people, especially adults, just hate when someone messes with the language they are used to. For example: What will actually happen if 50-years-old Russian speakers will have to fill out their tax forms written in Belarusian only? How many adult people who speak Russian at home are able to conduct a conversation in Belarusian or write it?

Yes, the referendum about the status of Russian might have been rigged, but what would be the results if it would not have been rigged? If all advertisement in Belarus is in Russian, as i read on some pro-Belarusian site, there must be a market demand for it - advertisers don't want their message to be misunderstood, so they use the language that people want; from this i understand that Russian is what people want. And please, please correct me if i'm wrong.

So the main question is: Is it possible to make Belarusian a viable state language in a democratic way, without forcing it on people?

I read the pragrama at the BPF site, in Belarusian. And even though i don't really know Belarusian i understood most of it and i didn't find a solution to this problem in their platform. I'm sure that they're not the only anti-Lukashenko movement, but they seem to be the dominant one (and correct me if i'm wrong).--Amir E. Aharoni 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all go and check Partyja BNF site (real acting party, one of the most dominant among opposition, not near-extint KCHP-BNF one you visited). Second, does your question concern Wikipedia in any way? :) may be you should move this discussion to forums or lj or anything more appropriate... if you need links, I can try and help with some. --Monkbel 12:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that i might get such an answer, that's why i wrote that this question is not political. Documenting the facts about the relations between Russian and Belarusian makes excellent encyclopedic material. I don't trust Russian and Lukashenko's official media that want me to believe no-one in Minsk cares about Belarusian and everyone speaks Russian. On the opposite side, anti-Lukashenko sites say that people know Belarusian but are afraid to speak it, but they have their bias too. So whom can i trust for solid facts? Wikipedia is far from perfect, but i found the dispute between rydel and monedula above very interesting and more than that - scientific. So yes, it does concern Wikipedia.--Amir E. Aharoni 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Those are difficult questions. I guess our neighbours could serve as role models for us. Ukrainian situation is the closest to ours (although they are ahead now, in terms of Ukrainization; for us the last 11 years have been totally lost, kind of like a "time machine" that took us back). Ideally, it would be cool to have something like Czech Republic or Poland where most people speak the state language. But I think this is highly unlikely to happen in Belarus within the next 20-30 years. So I guess it'll be something like Ukraine. And then, maybe, something like Switzerland or Canada, a country where, hopefully, Belarusian is a dominating state language, but other languages are respected, and speakers of those languages do not feel opressed. (Although Russians are a special case. Just look how they stage resistance in Latvia and don't have any respect for Latvia and Latvian language.) But we have only about 10-12% of Russians, fortunately. And the others (Russians-speaking Belarusians) will be on our side, if the Belarusization is done properly without causing them too much inconvenience. --rydel 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not just 2 cents, you wrote some important things, rydel. (But first: let me remind yet again that my interest is scientific and not political - i'm studying Balto-Slavic linguistics in the university.)

First of all, the "time machine" you mentioned: Do you consider it "going back in time" to a certain point? To what time exactly? Was there a time in the history of Belarus, that you would consider similar to the current situation? Or would you go as far as calling it the worst time ever? And if not - what was the worst time?

Second, when you say "10-12% of Russians" what exactly do you mean? Those who speak Russian exclusively? Does that mean that 88% wouldn't mind if most of the state affairs - official documents, education, media - would be Belarusian? Or do you mean ethnical Russian? (God, i hope i'm not opening a Pandora box here.)--Amir E. Aharoni 15:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with Russian

It would be nice to be added a comparison with russian.--Bonaparte 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be nice? --rydel 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to add comparisons of Slavic languages to articles pertaining to them (same for Turkic languages, or whatever else). Slavic langauges are much more similar to one another than say, some Germanic languages such as English and German, and would be useful for people studying (a) Slavic language(s). --chad 07:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian. Please add a comparison to Ukrainian instead. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 08:16 Z

Is this meant to be sarcastic? I suggest a comparison to Slavic languages in general. --chad 08:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry chad, that was my glib response to the heading, not to you. I have been a bit frustrated by the way a few things in Wikipedia are compared to Russian, which does me little good and even less to the majority of anglophones.

I think the way to approach this is to list some of the features which are defining or unique to Belarusian, and then some of the ways in which it is similar to related languages. Naturally, in the course of this contrasts, similarities, and influences of other particular languages can be mentioned where they are significant, but it doesn't have to start out as a comparison at all. It should be useful to a reader who knows nothing about Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, or Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 2005-12-2 01:39 Z

My questions are:

1. Are they identical?
2. If yes why two names?
3. If not what are their differences?
4. Some examples would be very useful. Bonaparte 1 December 2005

My mother thongue is Russian. I have never studied Belarusian properly. But without being an expert i can tell you that:

1. They are definitely not identical. There are a lot of similarities, but they are definitely distinct languages.
2. The names are different, because the languages are different.
3. There are quite a lot of difference and theoretically an article could be written about them, but the very existence of this article wouldn't be NPOV, because that would imply that Belarusian is like a little sister of Russian, and Belarusians rightfully don't like it.

The more neutral reason do to it in spite of the above would be pragmatism: it is a fact that more people know Russian and there is considerably less research about Belarusian, so a comparison between Russian and Belarusian can serve as a quick overview for those who know Russian. But the politically - and scientifically - correct way to do it would be to write a three-way comparison of Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian and treat the three languages equally, being careful not to imply that Russian is some kind of a base language or that any of them is greater or older than the others. And sorry - i am not the man to do it (at least now - but i'm in the provess of studying the subject properly in the university).

Such a comparison can go to East Slavic languages.--Amir E. Aharoni 15:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. So they are different. Again some example would be very useful. Bonaparte

Although it is not the most important difference, it is the most striking - the spelling rules are completely different. Accents of many words are different. Adjectives endings are different. Vocabulary is not the same at all. Some old Slavic words survived in Belarusian, but not in Russian (and vice versa). I'd better not go into details here, 'cuz i'll make terrible mistakes and then rydel might do to me what he did to that pig.

I would advise you to try this site. It looks like a good introduction to Belarusian for speakers of Russian and includes lists of differences in the sections "Грубые ошибки" and "Произношение". It also has a rather comprehensive grammar and textbook.

I've gotta say that i've seen at least one encyclopedia in which the article on Belarusian language consisted mostly of comparisons to Russian (i'm talking about Encyclopaedia Hebraica, an otherwise good encyclopedia in Hebrew printed in the 70's). While i can't deny that it was quite useful - especially for me - i didn't like it when i saw it a few years ago, and now i understand better then ever why it is wrong to write an encyclopedia like that.--Amir E. Aharoni 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just the same, a comparison with Polish language can be made. Belarusian was heavily influenced by Polish. Also, there are words that exist only in Belarussian, and Belarussian has grammar traits found in Lithuanian language. 21:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC) signed by user:Mikkalai

Actually there are a lot of grammar traits of Lithuanian in Russian too - and vice versa. While true, it is definitely not the only thing that differentiates Russian and Belarusian. It wasn't (just) Polish and/or Lithuanian influence that made Belarusian distinct. A lot of people just find it really hard to accept that Russian and Belarusian are simply two related, but different languages - for whatever reasons. Just like Dutch and German, Spanish and Italian. Proper research of those differences and the reasons why they came to be is valid, but it's hard to find good scientific material amongst the various unscientific claims soaked in ignorance and stupid politics.--Amir E. Aharoni 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the majority of Belarusians in Belarus speaks Russian? -- Bonaparte 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Will Belarus unite with Russia? and if so, what language will be official in that political construction? -- Bonaparte

No-one knows. This is an encyclopedia, not an oracle. But see discussion above, called "Speakers of Russian in Belarus", it might shed some light.--Amir E. Aharoni 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There must be a reason for all Amir. Yes indeed I wonder what will happen if Belarus will ever look West rather then "East". -- Bonaparte

Bonaparte, although they are from the same family, the languages are not identical. In fact, an average Russian speaker who didn't have any exposure at all to Belarusan or Ukrainian before, will probably understand very little (I'd say 25-30%, just a wild guess). Here are some places for you to start reading (this is just about vocabulary, for starters):

• Belarusan Basic Phrases (please compare, for example, how many times Russian is much more similar to Bulgarian, than to Belarusan)
• Introduction to Belarusian Alphabet (this is done exactly in the fashion that you wanted: I'm comparing it with Russian)
• Letter Frequency (Belarusian and Russian comparison again, as you wanted it)
• Swadesh List (And here, the part you probably wanted the most: the Swadesh list for Belarusian - Polish and Russian - Belarusian. The Swadesh lists are used to measure lexical similarity of the languages and the approximate dates of the "divergence" of similar languages. The result seems to suggest that Polish and Belarusian vocabulary are more similar than Russian and Belarusian.)

Once you are done reading those articles I'd be happy to answer further questions. --rydel 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] map of russian speakers in Belarus

I would like to see a map of the russian speakers in Belarus. I think is very related to this article and maybe someone has one. By the way is the russian minority uniformly widespread in Belarus or it is only in big cities?

The second question is regarding to the level of comprehension of Belarus people of the russian langauge, after all it is one of the official isn't it? -- Bonaparte

A map of Russian speakers in Belarus? Well, take any map of Belarus, where Belarus is, say, red. And then make a legend where red is defined as places where Russian is spoken and understood. :-(

It would be more difficult to draw a map of Belarusian speakers of Belarus. Although I think that there are more than one would think, as many people speak some kind of Belarusian at home, even in the big cities. The problem is just that Belarusian is spoken very little in public.

To answer your second question: Everyone in Belarus speaks Russian fluently. They might speak it with an accent, and they might say things that someone from Moscow would consider a mistake. And in every-day conversation they would mix Belarusian elements in their speech, too (see Trasyanka). But (unfortunately? fortunately?) there's no-one who cannot communicate fluently with a Russian who does not know Belarusian. --Daniel Bunčić 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So, hmm Everyone in Belarus speaks Russian fluently. Is there a process that is called "russification"? -- Bonaparte

This process is completed in Belarus. See also Alexander Lukashenko#Economic and political problems about his negative attitude to Belarussian language. He effectively clamps down the language in part because nearly all who try to revive Belarussian language are in opposition to Luka (as it was the case of shutting down the only and single Belarussian liceum in Minsk). mikka (t) 09:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. Is he russian? -- Bonaparte

No and he speaks with a heavy Belarussian accent. (BTW this topic is also probably undercovered in wikipedia: the most distinctive (by ear) features are

• a very hard consonant "ch" (retroflex) (in Russian language "ch" is always palatalized); as a result, the words with syllables "ch" + "iotified wowel" are pronounced as "ch" + "non-iotated counterpart", i.e., a process opposite to iotation (de-iotation?) (is there a linguistic term for this?) So "Chyorny" (чёрный black) would be pronounced "chorny", чорный.
• "Malorossian" Ge, i.e., voiced glottal fricative (in Russian it is voiced velar plosive). mikka (t) 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it true that Belarusian language is used mostly by nationalists? -- Bonaparte

Belarusian is also spoken in rural areas in Western Belarus. So in terms of the amount of Belarussian population, the answr to your question is "no". Even in rural it is to a various degree corrupted into trasianka. In towns with population over 50,000 you will hear the Belarussian speech only rarely. Also, AFAIK the Belarussian diaspora in some places in Canada and USA pretty much tries to preserve the national culture. I don't know whether it is just a hobby or they use Belarussian at home as well, but I did hear them speak Belarussian very nicely. E.g., the Belarussian Sunday School in New Yourk is known (this reminds me to write an article Danchyk (Dančyk) (Данчык, Багдан Андрусішын, Bahdan Adrusišyn (Bahdan Adrusishyn))). All Belarussian topics are heavily undercovered in Wikipedia. mikka (t) 19:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, any dweller of a major city who consciously speaks Belarussian language in everyday life is 95% sure nationalist, in positive sense, the one who strives for the preservation of national culture and identity. (There are no Belarussian nationalists in "negative" sense: Belaruis is already a separate nation; it was/is negative only in Soviet lingo. Soviets had a good knack in turning the meanings of the words upside down with respect to the rest of the world). mikka (t) 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I hope it will be still preserved the language but as I realized now the image is quite mournful. Bonaparte

[edit] Comparison

Link: (http://www.pravapis.org/art_phrases1.asp)

Belarusian (Беларуская мова)	Bulgarian (Български език)	Russian (Русский язык)	Polish	English
Вітаю/Vitayu	Здравейте/Zdraveite	Здравствуйте/Zdravstvuyte	Witam	Hello
Прывітаньне/Pryvitannie	Здрасти/Zdrasti	Привет/Privet	Cześć	Hi
Так/Tak - Не/Nye	Да/Da - Не/Ne	Да/Da - Нет/Net	Tak - Nie	Yes / No
Дзякую вам/Dziakuyu vam	Благодаря ви/Blagodarya vi	Спасибо/Spasibo	Dziękuję	Thank you
Спадар/Spadar Спадарыня/Spadarynya Спадарычна/Spadarychna	Господин/Gospodin Госпожа/Gozpozha Госпожица/Gospozhitsa	Сударь/Sudar Сударыня/Sudarynnya	Pan Pani	Mister / Missis / Miss
Выдатна;Vydatna; файна/fayna	Отлично/Otlichno	Отлично/Otlichno	Fajnie	Excellent

Bonaparte

The table is difficult to read, especially in a narrower browser window, which makes the text wrap—you can't tell where the rows start. I believe this table compares the words themselves, and not the orthographies, so the Cyrillic can be safely removed to make the table will be easier to read with just the Latin transcriptions. —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 07:42 Z

How does this look? I've added Ukrainian—please correct my Ukrainian Canadian idiom. —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 08:47 Z

Belarusian	Bulgarian	Russian	Polish	Ukrainian	English
vitaju	zdravejte	zdravstvuyte	witam	vitaju	hello
pryvitan’ne	zdrasti	privet	cześć	pryvit	hi
tak	da	da	tak	tak	yes
nye	ne	net	nie	ni	no
dzjakuju vam	blagodarja vi	spasibo	dziękuję	djakuju	thank you
spadar	gospodin	sudar	pan	pan	mister
spadarynja	gozpoža	Sudarynnya	pani	pani	mrs.
spadaryčna	gospožitsa	–	–	panna	miss
vydatna/fajna	otlično	otlično	fajnie	xorošo	excellently, grade "excellent"

Should the last row agree in gender? —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 08:48 Z

But it is: all entries but English were genderless adverbs. This is a bit confusing example: the term is used to refer to the highest grade, which in Rus/Bel is traditionally adverb, but adjective in English: "excellent". I'd rather deleted it. mikka (t) 09:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; some of them sounded like adjectives to my Ukrainian ears. Would "very well" be a suitable translation? —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 09:04 Z

I'd like to add that this table is very selective and designed to demonstrate differences between Russian and Belarusian best. Russian in particular has a lot of regional dialects and vocabulary that at times make it sound very much like Belarusian, for example; what's used here is the most common word TODAY; there are many older synonyms that are still widely used that diminish the apparent differences between Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian...and even Polish. The compilers of this table only take contemporary, official Russian words and ignore the vernacular totally. It is somewhat misleading. - V.

Quite true. My mother who left Lviv during WWII often says faino or znamenyto in Ukrainian for "excellent!". I've rarely heard pryvit or khorosho, and I don't even know if non-Galician Ukrainians use pan/pani/panna very much or at all. —Michael Z. 2005-12-8 09:49 Z

[edit] Persecution and russification

I've seen this text on the Ukrainian language article. We should add something like this also!

Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, when Stalin had already established his firm control over the party and, therefore, the Soviet state. In December, 1932, the regional party cells received a telegram signed by Molotov and Stalin with an order to immediately reverse the korenization policies. The telegram condemned Ukrainianization as ill-considered and harmful and demanded to "immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian".

The following years were characterized by massive repression and many hardships for the Ukrainian language and people. Some historians, especially of Ukraine, emphasize that the repression was applied earlier and more fiercely in Ukraine than in other parts of the Soviet Union, and were therefore anti-Ukrainian; others assert that Stalin's goal was the generic crushing of any dissent, rather that targeting the Ukrainians in particular.

The Stalinist era also marked the beginning of the Soviet policy of encouraging Russian as the language of (inter-ethnic) Soviet communication. Although Ukrainian continued to be used (in print, education, radio and later television programs), it lost its primary place in advanced learning and republic-wide media. Ukrainian was considered to be of secondary importance, and an excessive attachment to it was considered a sign of nationalism and so "politically incorrect". At the same time, however, the new Soviet Constitution adopted in 1936 stipulated that teaching in schools should be in native languages. Bonaparte

[edit] Cyrillic in Wikipedia

Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at

1. Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
2. Discussing potential revision of current practices

—Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:39 Z

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 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war: Kuban Kazak and Rydel

Would the user Rydel like to explain his actions of reverting my corrections, factual addition and a more NPOV approach? -- Kuban kazak 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a specialist in Belarusian language or the demographics of Belarus, so i won't tell who's right, but: User Rydel knows Belarusian (do you?), and learnt a couple of things about Belarusian linguistics (did you?) and he spent his childhood in Belarus (did you?).

Well I lived in Volyn for five years along with my wife who is native Volynian herself. The Ukrainian dialect of Volyn is identical to the Belarusian Polessian dialect. Moreover I have absoloutely no problem understanding Volynian since I first heard it. (Although being from the Kuban, where the local dialect, balachka is spoken I cannot give an honest Russian POV). And having been preatty much everywhere in Belarus I cannot say that there was an instant where I could not understand what people were talking about (rural native Belarusian from Vitebsk to Brest, from Grodno to Gomel). And as for origin family records indicate a root to my Zaporozhian ancestors who in turn were runaway peasents from the modern territory of nothern Belarus (around Lida I presume). -- Kuban kazak 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rydel's edits don't seem so disastrous to me, he's quite serious. But again, i can't tell that they are perfectly correct.

I neutralised his edits. Actually factually expanded them added more NPOV slant on the history. He just seems reverting them without ANY discussion. -- Kuban kazak 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to convince each other here on the talk page about the validity of each other's sources (remember WP:NOR) and then go back to editing.--Amir E. Aharoni 06:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I suggested that twice in my edit summary and started a heading here and on his talk page for that fact. -- Kuban kazak 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dialects and Accents of Belarusian

I suggest this should receive some attention. Here is a good map: http://www.belarusguide.com/as/map_text/havorki.html

I know that Polessian dialect of Belarusian is identical to Volynian dialect of Ukrainian and their only difference is that the former uses Belarusian language and the latter Ukrainian.--Kuban kazak 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuban kazak

Can someone stop Kuban Kazak from inserting misinformation onto this page? The person is from Russia and has no clue at all about Belarusan language.

May I please know who I am speaking to and have some credible sources. BTW is there a problem with being Russian? -- Kuban kazak 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A disputed point

[edit] Previous Edit:

After partitions of Poland (1772–1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive. During the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth times, educated people of Belarus tended to identify themselves with Poland, and today some prominent persons are claimed both by Poland and Belarus for their nationality. More recently, the population of Belarus tends to identify itself as a close associate of Russia (if not considering themselves Russian outright).

One of the reasons for this situation is the minority status of Belarusian speakers in urban areas—traditional cultural centers. For example, according to the 1897 Imperial Russian census, in Belarusian towns of more than 50,000 residents, only 7.3% respondents reported Belarusian as their mother tongue (the criterion in defining nationality for the purposes of the census). This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language.

In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, very few people wrote in Belarusian, peasants being mostly illiterate, and urban dwellers preferring Russian, Polish or Yiddish. Still there existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

And then: The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed beginning in the 1930s. Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia. The orthographic reform of 1933 clearly "russified" the Belarusian spelling rules. In 1938

[edit] My edit:

After partitions of Poland (1772–1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive. During the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth times, educated historical people of Belarus tended to identify themselves with Poland, and today some prominent persons are claimed both by Poland and Belarus for their nationality. For the peasents, however, most continued to refer to themselves as Russian.

Initially Imperial Russian athorities thought that the language spoken by Belarusian peasents was nothing but Polonised Russian, nevertheless as Polish influence over the territory slackened, the Russification of Belarusian peasents proved counter productive. In the 1897 most refered to their home language as not Russian during Polish rule, but as Belarusian

Table In all respects the urban language of Belarusian towns remained either Polish or Russian and in the same census towns exceeding 50000 had Belarusian speakers of less than a tenth. This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language

However the census was a major brakethrough for the first steps of the Belarusian nation, as it clearely showed that by this point the population and the language was neither Polish nor Russian. In 1904 the Russian Imperial athorities legalised the language and Belarusian schools along with communities switched their language of communication. Initially only in Rural areas, but in cities all schools too were mandatory to include Belarusian language

And then: The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed beginning in the 1930s. The orthographic reform of 1933 changed the Belarusian spelling rules and somewhat brought it closer to Russian.

The sentence:More recently, the population of Belarus tends to identify itself as a close associate of Russia (if not considering themselves Russian outright), was moved towards the end of the article thus allowing for a continuous timeline.

[edit] New edit

Only before the table: One of the reasons for this situation is the minority status of Belarusian speakers in urban areas—traditional cultural centers. For example, according to the 1897 Imperial Russian census, in Belarusian towns of more than 50,000 residents, only 7.3% respondents reported Belarusian as their mother tongue (the criterion in defining nationality for the purposes of the census). This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language

In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, very few people wrote in Belarusian, peasants being mostly illiterate, and urban dwellers preferring Russian, Polish or Yiddish. Still there existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

My table In all respects the urban language of Belarusian towns remained either Polish or Russian and in the same census towns exceeding 50000 had Belarusian speakers of less than a tenth. This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language

However the census was a major brakethrough for the first steps of the Belarusian nation, as it clearely showed that by this point the population and the language was neither Polish nor Russian. In 1904 the Russian Imperial athorities legalised the language and Belarusian schools along with communities switched their language of communication. Initially only in Rural areas, but in cities all schools too were mandatory to include Belarusian language

[edit] Comments

Now the new edit which the trolls keep on reverting compleately repeats ALL of the facts that I have listed after the table in my edit.

--Kuban kazak 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your version is less complete than Rydel's one. In particular, you removed without any explanation the following

• That "руська мова" (Ruthenian language) spoken in 16th century inb Belarus should not be distinguished from the language spoken in Muscovy.

• About the percentage of Belarusian speakers in towns
• About Belarusian speaking circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

You also added wrong info, for instance "not Russian as they did during the Polish rule." The languge was referring to as "руська мова" (Ruthenian language), not Russian language. This was the reason for my reverts.--AndriyK 18:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To adress the points:

1. Actually by the 16th century the laguages would have been more similar to each other than by the mid-19th century. Unless of course you have audio cassetes with 16th century recordings.
2. Yes I have, actually I was going to expand the census table breaking into Rural and Urban, before you came and started trolling the article.
3. Like I am not against returning him unless of course his section be expanded. (Have a look from a side, circle of freinds of a Polish poet). So his page should also be expanded to accomodate these facts. If you will do them by all means return him back.
4. Now that is the confusion. Before 19th century all of the Ruthenian population of Astro-Hungary, Poland, and Malorossia were called Ruthenians. They called themselves Ruthenians as well. Russians translated that as Russians, whilst calling themselves Velikorossians (Great Russians). So they (wrongly) assumed that the dialect that local peasents spoke was nothing more than Polonised Russian. However after a century of depolonisation (which included disestablishment of the Uniate Church, the removal of Polish magnates and nobility from Belorossian lands) the national consciosness of Belarusian peasents rose. And in 1897 they overwhelmingly referred to their nationality nor as Ruthenian (which Russians wrongly interpreted as Russian) but as Belarusian. This is a very important historical fact. Have a look here (Account of the history of the Unia and its disestablishment in 19th Century Russia)

Воссоединение униатов нанесло католицизму и полонизму в Белоруссии сокрушительный удар, от которого им уже не суждено было оправиться. Но каковыми оказались исторические последствия этого события для белорусов? Конечно, это все те последствия, которые историки связывают с вхождением Белоруссии в состав Российской империи, ведь, как мы уже говорили, без воссоединения Россия не сумела бы цивилизационно привязать к себе свой Северо-Западный край. Во-первых, ликвидация унии духовно соединила все части белорусского народа, расколотые унией, в единое целое, восстановило его цельность.[75] Во-вторых, подрыв позиций полонизма и католицизма в Белоруссии привел к постепенному возвращению белорусов к их истокам. В-третьих, воссоединение дало толчок становление самосознания народа, которое, прежде всего, выражается языковым самоопределением. Со всей очевидностью это явление нашло отражение в результатах всеобщей переписи населения Российской империи, прошедшей в 1897 г. Здесь население всех белорусских губерний, и западных и восточных, однозначно назвало свой родной язык не русским, как во времена унии, но белорусским.[76] В-четвертых, ликвидация унии придала новый мощный импульс развитию белорусского языка, формированию его литературной формы.[77] В-пятых, начало делать первые шаги национально-культурное возрождение белорусов. В-шестых, возник научный интерес к изучению истории, этнографии и фольклора белорусского народа. Из всего сказанного следует, что воссоединение униатов сдвинуло с мертвой точки искусственно замороженный в Речи Посполитой процесс превращения белорусской народности в белорусскую нацию That is what I inputed into the article back in first edit. If Rydel knows so much about his native language why would he remove one of the most significant historical details which allowed to transform a peasent dialect into an officially recognised language? -- Kuban kazak 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian as an endangered language??

Where a language disappears, there you have the disappearance also of the national structure and the national spirit. The death of a language is the death of its people.

The case of Belarusian, a national and co-official language, which the great majority of the population of Belarus considers as its mother tongue, but which has become endangered due to sustained official policies discriminating against it, and the general apathy of the population.

For a variety of complex historical and contemporary reasons, Belarus missed out in this nationbuilding process and the Belarusian language failed to emerge as a catalyst for national revival or as the undisputed hallmark of Belarusian identity (Radzik). Although the rising national significance of Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and Ukrainian has been well documented in each country’s history, literature and scholarly research (Davies, 1996), the fate of Belarusian has been very largely neglected. The complex set of historical, social, cultural and political circumstances that prevented that country from following the common trend set by its Central and Eastern European neighbours, where each has emerged as a separate nation with its own distinct language, is worthy of closer investigation. The exceptional status of Belarus throughout the twentieth century continues to this day, with the country generally regarded as one of the most enigmatic nation-states of Europe. Although freed from Soviet rule, it appears to disdain its national language and its newly independent status, shows distrust of western-style democratic institutions and hankers after its old links with Russia. This quixotic behaviour, so much out of keeping with the explosion of nationalism and the simultaneous craving for a market economy evident among its Baltic neighbours and all the other countries of East-Central Europe, can be traced to the turbulent history of Belarus which reflects the deep-rooted east–west cultural split derived from the country’s dual allegiance to rival forms of Christianity (Radzik).

[edit] National identity, mother tongue and home language use in Belarus

The 1999 census data are very illuminating in highlighting the dissonance among the population in relation to their self-declared national identity, ‘mother tongue’ and the language spoken at home Belarusian was the declared ‘mother tongue’ for 73.7% of the citizens, but no more than 36.7% claimed Belarusian as the language ‘usually spoken at home’, while 62.8% said they used Russian. What is even more remarkable was that among the clear majority of people (81.2% of the republic) claiming to be ethnic Belarusians, as many as 85.6% declared Belarusian was their mother tongue, but only 41.3% stated that they actually used Belarusian as their usual home language. Belarusian was better maintained among the rural population, with 96.8% claiming Belarusian as their mother tongue and 79.2% speaking mainly Belarusian at home. The corresponding figures for the urban Belarusian population revealed that while 80.2% regarded Belarusian as their mother tongue, only 23.0% usually spoke it at home.

Reference: Radzik, R., 2001. Belarus between the east and the west: The Soviet-Russian option versus the nationalist option in Belarusian society. International Journal of Sociology 31 (3), 11–45.

 Bonaparte  talk 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belastok

If I understand correctly - Belastok is a Belarusian name of the city. But it's an English Wiki, containing the entry - Białystok.

But this is about a Belarusian laguage not Polish. And it is logical to be consistent. Fell free to add (Polish: Białystok) to it. --Kuban kazak 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an English Wiki. There is Białystok entry here. I have checked French language and there are English geographical names used there, e.g. the English Channel. You may eventually claim that the English name should be Belastok, but it's an another story. Xx236 10:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names, both of you. --_Lysy^talk 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected from reversion war

The article has been protected from editing to stop a content dispute reversion war; please see the dispute resolution process. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. If you'd like to make a change to the article that aren't related to the content dispute, please use the template {{editprotected}}. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe, this was not a very wise decision, especially considering the fact that you froze the Kuban Kazak's version. There was no reversal war, at least not in a conventional sense. It was one lying Russian POV-pusher, named Kuban Kazak, who knows nothing about Belarusan language, and there were many Wikipedia editors who tried to block and revert his unreasonable additions. Kind regards, a native speaker and the owner of the linguistic Belarusan website pravapis.org site. --rydel 18:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Go away, troll. --Ghirla | talk 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Pls stay civil and do try not to call other editors trolls. This does not help the situation. --_Lysy^talk 19:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a close look at the accusations:

1. Russian, well I mean if one takes a look at the POV of pravapis.org website then the Russophobic tendencies of the content there is clear enough.
2. POV pusher. If a rational person takes a look at my edit of this site alone then they would rephrase that as NPOV-pusher.
3. No knowledge of Belarus, i.e. naive. Well considering I have been over 30 times to Belarus and can actually easialy read the language and understand upon hearing it.
4. Lier... oh dear, speak for yourself.
5. Previous scandals. Well then go, file an arbitration and lets see what respectible editors like Irpen, Michael Z, Alex Bakharev and others will say. Actually my only scandal with WP admin was when AndriyK (surprise, surprise) asked to block me following an edit war on a very controversial topic Holodomor, however the admin (JamesTeterenko), actually supported me not him. --Kuban kazak 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for locking the article. I was just about to ask the admin to that anyway. You see there seems to be two separate instances of misunderstanding

1. My original edit, which Rydel tried to remove twice on the 14th and 21st of December. After his second revert I started a heading on this talk page offering explanations, reverted to my new edit. This time Rydel puts a slightly different edit. Keeping my factual expansions he returns the POV sentences and two paragraphs which I have slightly rewritten and NPOVed before the table, which I put in and after which my edited versions of the paragraphs go.
2. Since Rydel offered no explanation for his action and labelled it a minor edit. I though of it as a revert, warned him on his talk page of reporting him to the WP:3RR. In the meantime another user (-Amir E. Aharoni) on the same day (22nd discusses with me a few points about my edits, I explain them.
3. On the 27th and 28th two anons restore Rydel's section, one even brings this up. However with absence of actual explanation I revert, Rydel (who has been silent since the 22nd comes back and again reverts the article, under a pretext of it being Russian vandalism). On his talk page I repeat my warning and once again urge him to respond on the talk page. Nothing happens. I suspect heavy sockpuppetry.
4. Fast forward to 10th January, AndriyK comes along. A user who has a very controversial edit history. A user who is under an arbitration might I add, without any explanation on the talk page once again restores Rydel's version with the two paragraphs and POVed sentences.
5. Here is where the second misunderstanding took place. AndriyK, as expected from him based on his previous behaivour, simply did not bother to read the important history, did not bother going to the talk pages, started a revert war with me which of course I responded to urging him to read the page history. (Mind me adding previously AndriyK has contributed nothing to this article).
6. AndriyK's behaivour is defined under Wikipedia's rules as trolling. However when on the 16th after a fifth attempt of the revert war. I add a section here on the talk page summing the three versions of the article]. Also I add one on AndriyK's talk page and title it as "For the trolls". AndriyK responds with a comment I am not going to read anything that is title "For the trolls".
7. Then out of nowhere Rydel shows up, (again nearly three weeks since begining of conflict not a single explanation in the meantime). At this point I report it to WP:Vandalism notice board. However AndriyK pulls a stunt which I think the admin will be very intersted to know. Since he has either not looked in history deep enough to realise how stubborn he is acting with this revert war, or he simply wanted shared Rydel's POV and wanted to get it across. In any case he puts on a 3RR notice board, I get blocked. The admin tells me off, realising that it is the other party who has started the edit war (its their job to have something to legitimise the ban, but personally I hold nothing against User:William M. Connolley, or anyone else on the admin board) for using the term "troll".
8. However although the ban took me off for an hour, it has nevertheless attracted admin's attention.
9. It takes little knowledge to realise that this is not a content despute (otherwise we would not have people putting grammatically incorrect paragraphs). This is a classic case of a)someone trying to get a POV across b)someone deceiving the admin about it. The only thing that has changed is that next time either Rydel or AndriyK pull something like this off I will not give warnings and report it straight to the Admin. For the latter persona, I think this is an excellent addition for his arbitration. -- Kuban kazak 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Kk made an edit with the summary Well having spoke to the admin and offcially having myself deblocked... [2]. This is wrong/misleading. He has not been deblocked - the block simply expired. William M. Connolley 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Not knowing much about how blocks work (previously never coming across them and never asking anyone to implement them -> another point to Rydel's statement). I assumed that a 3RR lasts for 24 hours (I was not told how long I was blocked for) and then they are manually removed (like its done on some forums). --Kuban kazak 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no it was only for 1 hour - blocks are variable, I deliberately set yours low. But they are set for a fixed length of time, then they remove themselves. William M. Connolley 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for the explanation. Like I said, I hold nothing against your actions. I do thank you for intervening and finally making the opposite party indulge in discussions. --Kuban kazak 22:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, would you start explaining your edits below, instead of raging about who reverted or blocked who ? This is not interesting and does not bring us forward an inch. --_Lysy^talk 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to suggest which edits are correct, but protecting the article was certainly warranted considering the childish exchange of reverts. To help resolve this I recommend everyone considers the way they've ignored the spirit and the rule of Wikipedia editing. Look at the article's history: at least four or five editors should be ashamed of their contribution here. We all have lapses, now it's time to grow up and get a grip on yourselves.

• Read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Learn what vandalism is.
• Read Wikipedia:Civility. Don't call editors vandals if they're not vandalizing.
• Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Don't call editors anything; insults and ethnic labels are not welcome.
• Read Wikipedia:Edit summary. Always enter a summary of your edits. Don't use the edit summary as a discussion board or a soapbox. Don't use the edit summary to talk about other editors.
• Read Wikipedia:Revert. Don't be lazy when you revert (why did a list of cities have their wikilinks removed and restored several times? Is this a point of contention at all?). Don't repeatedly revert. Don't revert at all.
• Read Wikipedia:Talk pages. Use the talk page to discuss the edits. Identify the points of contention, and discuss each one. Which ones are trivial, or just a matter of wording. Which ones concern specific disputed facts. Which are supported by references. Cite specific references.

And behave with a bit of respect for others. —Michael Z. 2006-01-22 19:45 Z

[edit] Recent reverts by Kuban kazak

Kazak, would you explain why have you reverted the edits of Xx236 ? --_Lysy^talk 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bialystok I explained. Apart from that I reverted the main articles' which xx236 put his edits on top. That was merely an accident, for which I apologise, and should a concenssus be reached...then his edits will be the first ones to be put back into the text. --Kuban kazak 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I support my opinion - Belastok isn't correct here. Xx236 11:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to move this discussion to Talk:Bialystok, please begin with expressing ideas there, I created a heading. Also may I suggest that you go through a process of registration and create a personal discussion page. --Kuban kazak 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names, both of you. --Lysytalk 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for unprotection?

We have a request on RfP for unprotection. Everyone think thing are resolved. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the opposite party has still not came and talked about anything so if they return to their vandalism I am afraid I would have to ask you to take more stricter sanctions against them. --Kuban kazak 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you expect to get sanctions brought against someone if you can't get straight what vandalism is? The first step is to confront reality and stop the hyperbole and name-calling, or no admin will take you seriously after they waste their time looking for the alleged "vandalism". —Michael Z. 2006-01-26 14:35 Z

Well considering that I am yet to see despite my calls for discussion any input into resolving this situation from the opposite parties I am under the impression that these users, who put no dicussion even before the edit war started, either have agreed for unprotection (in that case this version sticks and I am fine with that) or, given at least one of their histories, are simply waiting for the page to be unprotected prior to coming back to their old ways. --Kuban kazak 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep it protected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly what Russian POV-pusher would like to see. Bravo. --rydel 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would like to see that, because after multiple pleas from me to engage in discussion during the past six weaks, I am yet to see any constructive input on your behalf. Oh careful with insults and name-callings, it really does show your true colours to the wiki community... --Kuban kazak 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. You keep inserting information which is false, and removing information which is true. You have neither knowledge, nor authority on the subject, but imperial Russian nationalist ambitions. --rydel 13:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This "false" information is very well sourced and referenced, and just because you are Belarusian (or maybe I should call you Litvian to avoid shaming the majority of the population of a respectable nation) it does not make you the god of Belarus-related topics on wikipedia. Now if you are still not keen to discuss the topics then I will agree for this article to be unlocked only if you promise not to return to reverting. Also please keep the petty childish insults aside, sorry mate I could not care less what your write on your websites but wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and you will have to learn to respect other people's opinions and counter-opposing facts. Remember your current attitude is being watched by the admin who locked this article. And seeing your willingness to resolve a six week dispute...personally I am not impressed. --Kuban kazak 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Rydel lives abroad and, thoroughly brainwashed by CIA prop, he doesn't know/understand much about the country. He is as Belarusian as you and me. I don't know why he privatized Belarus-related articles. In my experience, for him Belarussia should better be renamed to Belapolska or Lesser Poland, if that name were not already associated with another area. The Russians snatched the country from Poland, depolonized it, and made it an independent state. Without them, it would still have been another Polish province, just like Masuria or Pomerania. Mother Russia saved your country from total annihilation in the WWII. Dear Rydel, please reflect on this subject. --Ghirla | talk 09:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You simply can't live without offending people, can you. Does it make you better if you start your day with calling someone an idiot or brainwashed moron? Also, as to your interpretation of history... I wonder whether you ever asked yourself a question would Belarus be involved in WWII if the "Mother Russia" did not start the war. "Yeah, we started the war, but then we saved you from it"... Halibutt 11:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So you assume the WWII was started by "Mother Russia" and not Poland, which greedily clung to Danzig but ignominously lost the resultant war (like it had lost most conflicts throughout its history). Halibutt, although I know that your Russophobia is boundless, I didn't expect such ridiculous claims. You obviously need to read up on the subject before spreading your nationalist mythology around. --Ghirla | talk 12:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what use this silly discussion is. Clearly it does not belong to an article about the Belarusian language. But as a German I have to say one thing when I read nonsense like this: Both World Wars were started neither by Russia nor by Poland nor by anyone else but by Germany alone. (Of course, one might discuss the fatal alliance system before the First World War and the unsuccessful appeasement policy before the Second World War, but the ultimate aggression came exclusively from Germany.) Full stop. Daniel Bunčić 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I could not understand why Mr. Halibutt brought this OT into the conversation in the first place? --Kuban kazak 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

administrators please add an interwiki link to Chinese: zh:白俄罗斯语 --Hello World! 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A thourough review needed

This article needs a thourough review to delete the mistakes, falsehoods, misinterpretations and POV inserted by our Russian friends such as that Kazak guy... I'm tired of fighting with their imperial propaganda. Is anyone up for this task? --rydel 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Look this article has been a dispute that you started and refused to cooperate. Once again the issues can still be found on the talk page higher up. You are still welcome to take part in discussions. Just stop reverting senselessly, and please be civil in relation to others, especially for a person with your reputation. --Kuban Cossack 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of the many problems that I've corrected today (and that Kuban Kazak is trying to revert):

1. Skaryna's Bible was the first East Slavic Bible. It's a fact. This was returned to the article;

All bibles existed in slavonic since Cyril and Methodius, ruthenian, serbian and bulgarian.

1. I reinstated the removed sentence "The 16th century was the Belarusian golden age". This is also a fact;

What was so gold about living under Polish rule?

1. I reinstated the removed explanation that term "rus'ki" means "Ruthenian", not the language of Muscovy. It's a very important clarification.

Ruski = Ruthenian; there are Great Ruthenian (aka Russian); Small Ruthenian (Ukrainian); White Ruthenian (Belarusian). That is a fact.

1. I reinstated the removed sentence: "Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive."

And, how does this OT belong in the subject, feel free to expand on this.

1. I reinstated the removed sentence: "There existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz."

Reference the facts about how a Polish poet is relevant and by all means return

1. I removed this paragraph (because it contains false information suchs claims that Russification was good) and makes a point of how the language was called during census (as if that matters, "rose by any other name..."): "This latter fact caused many nobles of Imperial Russian authorities to assume that the language spoken by Belarusian peasents was nothing but Polonised Russian, nevertheless as Polish influence over the territory slackened, the Russification of Belarusian peasents proved counter productive. In the 1897 Imperial census most refered to their native language not as Ruthenian as they did during the Polish rule, but as White Ruthenian or Belarusian."

Russians translated that as Ruski as Russian, whilst calling themselves Velikorossians (Great Russians). So they (wrongly) assumed that the dialect that local peasents spoke was nothing more than Polonised Russian. However after a century of depolonisation (which included disestablishment of the Uniate Church, the removal of Polish magnates and nobility from Belorossian lands) the national consciosness of Belarusian peasents rose. And in 1897 they overwhelmingly referred to their nationality not as Ruthenian (which Russians wrongly interpreted as Russian) but as Belarusian. This is a very important historical fact. Have a look here (Account of the history of the Unia and its disestablishment in 19th Century Russia)

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

1. I reinstated the removed sentence: "Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia [3]". Adding a link where you can see last names and biographies of these persons.

Well noting that they can't even spell the name of the capital of Belarus correctely I can only raise an eyebrow on that site. However you will have to provide evidence that there repressions were done directly against Belarusian culture, and not as part of a wave where thousands of other representetives of all Soviet Union's nationalities were killed or deported to Siberia.

1. I rephrased this sentence: "In terms of lexicon, Belarusian is most closely related to Ukrainian, then to Polish." This can be proven by looking at Swadesh lists, for example. You can find them on Wiktionary.

--rydel 00:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I simply reworded the sentence...

Look Rydel the reason of all my edits is that the POV of the article is not to provide history of the Belarusian language but to prove how a group of finno-urgic/mongolo-tatarian bears roamed across a land and brought no good to it for 200 years. Ommiting the fact that by the end of the 17th century all noble class was Polish and Belarusians were looked upon as second-class people. Even after forcibly converting them into Unia it was still not possible to assertain the privliges that a Latin catholic could have. What I tried to say is that during the 19th century Russians removed those influences, wether to Russify Belarusians, wether to liberate them from the Poles and turn them into a destinct separate nation, it was the latter fact that they achieved. BE GRATEFUL!!! --Kuban Cossack 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answers to "answers"

My further comments are in italics.

1. Skaryna's Bible was the first East Slavic Bible. It's a fact. This was returned to the article; Cyril and Methodius did not write in an EAST Slavic language, did they?
2. I reinstated the removed sentence "The 16th century was the Belarusian golden age". This is also a fact; Kuban Kozak's answer "What was so gold about living under Polish rule?" is just a bitter sulky comment, not an answer or a rebuttal.
3. I reinstated the removed explanation that term "rus'ki" means "Ruthenian", not the language of Muscovy. It's a very important clarification. And no, "russian" and "ruthenian" are not the same thing at all, although Kuban Kozak wants to confuse the matters (just like the propagandists of the Russian empire did before him).
4. I reinstated the removed sentence: "Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive." It's not off-topic. Ukraine and Belarus have very similar histories, so it's worth making a comparison. And national identity is also very closely related to languages in our region. So it's not OT, as Kuba Kozak said.
5. I reinstated the removed sentence: "There existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz."
6. I removed this paragraph (because it contains false information suchs claims that Russification was good) and makes a point of how the language was called during census (as if that matters, "rose by any other name..."): "This latter fact caused many nobles of Imperial Russian authorities to assume that the language spoken by Belarusian peasents was nothing but Polonised Russian, nevertheless as Polish influence over the territory slackened, the Russification of Belarusian peasents proved counter productive. In the 1897 Imperial census most refered to their native language not as Ruthenian as they did during the Polish rule, but as White Ruthenian or Belarusian." Kuban Kozak wanted to confuse things further, by posting large texts on the talk page of propaganda nature (with "proofs" how destruction of Uniate faith on Belarus' lands was a good thing).
7. I reinstated the removed sentence: "Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia [4]". Adding a link where you can see last names and biographies of these persons. Of course, thousands were shot. I meant the people of culture: writers, historians, journalists, politicians, prominent people. And, again, Kuban Kozak has nothing to answer, but just picks on the spellings of the word "Minsk" in a language that he doesn't even speak (hint: the languages is called Belarusian).
8. I rephrased this sentence: "In terms of lexicon, Belarusian is most closely related to Ukrainian, then to Polish." This can be proven by looking at Swadesh lists, for example. You can find them on Wiktionary. No one provided a rebuttal or more precise data, so this definetely stays.

--rydel 00:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC) new timestamp: --rydel 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Replies First of all the name is Kuban Kazak on Kozak, get it right, Second WP:NPA for all the other insults fired at me. Third you accuse me of POV pushing and yet all of your explanations are exactly hard POV-pushing, no references nothnig. If you are going to hold such an attitude then it will be impossible to work with you. Now

1. Cyril and Methodius did not write in an EAST Slavic language, did they? Bibles existed in Slavonic at that point, you will have to provide references for this.
2. Kuban Kozak's answer "What was so gold about living under Polish rule?" is just a bitter sulky comment, not an answer or a rebuttal. What a good example you are of constructive discussions, and no what you are doing is Original Research, unless you will provide references for this.
3. And no, "russian" and "ruthenian" are not the same thing at all, although Kuban Kozak wants to confuse the matters (just like the propagandists of the Russian empire did before him). Russian - citizen of Russian. Ruthenian - ethnically eastern slavic. No need to victimise of an empire that does not exist for 90 years. My ancsestors, Zaporozhians also called themselves Ruthenian, after the governments of Kievan and Moscovian (per Ivan III) Ruthenia.
4. It's not off-topic. Ukraine and Belarus have very similar histories, so it's worth making a comparison. And national identity is also very closely related to languages in our region. So it's not OT, as Kuba Kozak said. Did Belarus became sight of the famous Cossack resistance and uprising to defend Orthodoxy? No it was reaquired in late 18th century as a sorry land with Poles and Jews ruling everythnig and the Ruthenians working for the land.
5. No explanation why
6. Kuban Kozak wanted to confuse things further, by posting large texts on the talk page of propaganda nature (with "proofs" how destruction of Uniate faith on Belarus' lands was a good thing). Proper sourced material which is directely related to history of development of your language you stubborn Litviak. This sentance stays at all circumstances!
7. I meant the people of culture: writers, historians, journalists, politicians, prominent people. And, again, Kuban Kozak has nothing to answer, but just picks on the spellings of the word "Minsk" in a language that he doesn't even speak (hint: the languages is called Belarusian). I questioned the souce. Official spelling of your capital is Miнск, and everybody I met in Belarus prounces it like that, even in Belarusian which I perfectely know it exists, having lived in the Rivne Oblast in Ukraine (preatty much same Polessia). As for people once again you will have to provide evidence that these repressions were done not out of the general Soviet Purge but deliberately as a culutral genocide.
8. No one provided a rebuttal or more precise data, so this definetely stays. I did, I simply said what difference does it make saying that Belarusian is close to Ukrainian Polish and Russian or first to Ukrainian then to Polish then to Russian. Actually being able to speak Ukrainian quite well, I can say that it depends on where in Belarus you are. If it is Polessia then obviously that is true. However Vitebsk dialect on the other hand is much closer to Russian. --Kuban Cossack 10:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reprotected

Work it out. And. Legit edits are not "vandalism". I'd suggest dispute resolution at this point. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belrusian Student Union organizes rock festival Basovishcha.

Kuban kazak has removed this information. Xx236 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really improtant? Please reference of its significance and you can put it back in?--Kuban Cossack 14:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot because the article is protected. You have removed my contributions without any reason, now you tell I can prove I'm right. Xx236 08:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Why not explain the significance here, I shall ask to keep it protected until all parties have been satisfied.--Kuban Cossack 11:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC) You mean people who contribute have the same rights as people who destroy? Xx236 14:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What does a rock festival have to do with Belarusian language? That is what I am asking and trying to get you to explain here!--Kuban Cossack 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Read Басовішча to learn. Xx236 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of attitude is this? All I am asking is for you to explain the significance of this concert to Belarusian language. You can do it in two sentances. I mean I can also put that Iron Maiden toured in China. Except that would not have any relevance to this article and so far neither does Basovishcha. --Kuban Cossack 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belarusian language was taught in many schools in Western Belarus (annexed part of Poland 1939-1941), even in Polish ethnic territory.

Also removed by ... Xx236 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually have a look from the article West Belarus

Belarusians in Western Belarus faced extensive Polonization, though the suppression of Belarusian identity was not as deep compared to the Russification of Soviet Belarus across the border. According to Polish national census of 1921, there was around 1 million of Belarusians in the country. Most of the historians however estimate the number of Belarusians in Poland at that time to be 1.7 million^[5] or even up to 2 million.^[6]

In the 1921-1926 period Poland did not have a consistent policy towards its ethnic minorities. The Belarusian schools, not being subsidised by Polish government, were facing severe financial problems already since 1921. After the 1930 elections in Poland, Belarusian representation in Polish parliament was reduced and since early 1930's Polish government started to introduce policies intended to Polonize the minorities. In 1938 about 100 Orthodox churches were destroyed or converted to Roman Catholic in the eastern parts of Poland.^[7] The use of Belarusian language was discouraged. Not a single Belarusian school survived until spring of 1939, and only 44 schools teaching Belarusian language still existed in Poland at the beginning of World War II.--Kuban Cossack 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, do you understand English? I have written: Belarusian language was taught in many schools in Western Belarus (annexed part of Poland 1939-1941), even in Polish ethnic territory. You answer - You beat "Afroamericans". Xx236 08:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not according to referenced sources, whilst it was taught, it was largely repressed. In Soviet Belarus on the other hand, Belarusian language was taught in all schools.--Kuban Cossack 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Only the pupils were transfered to Kasakhstan about 1936.

What? what pupils? What are you on about?

You pretend you don't know? Thousands Belarusians, including pupils, were deported to Kaskhstan. The happy ones, not killed. Xx236 13:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No I don't you will have to provide references from a Credible Source, that all pupils were transfered to Kazakhstan in 1936.--Kuban Cossack 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

All? Aren't tens of hundreds not enough?

SOURCE??? This is Original research until then, that tens of thousands. You make me think that there was no pupils in Belarusian schools after 1936. --Kuban Cossack 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean that Belarusian language was taught under Soviet rules 1939-1941, even in ethnically Polish area. Xx236 14:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was immediately reinstated in all schools, however that seems to be going off to what you were saying earlier about the pre-1939 times --Kuban Cossack 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Belarusian language was taught in many schools in Western Belarus (annexed part of Poland 1939-1941), even in Polish ethnic territory. I have given the 1939-1941 period. Xx236 13:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What is ethnic Polish territory in your opinion? Was it east or west of the 1939 nazi-soviet border?

Lomża region, where almost noone spoke Belarussian. Xx236 11:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that is probably true given that the area was part of Byelorussian SSR, so fair enough that fact can stay

[edit] Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia

Thousands are burried in Kurapaty only. "Hundreds"? Xx236 13:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

re: discussion with Rydel above. --Kuban Cossack 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your discussions. Hundreds thousands isn't hundreds. Xx236 08:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references, and it does help to go over previous discussions to avoid repeating myself, please feel free to add to that discussion. --Kuban Cossack 11:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.martyraloh.org/victims.asp

It helps to read on what was written earlier when Rydel brought up the same source and I said:

Well noting that they can't even spell the name of the capital of Belarus correctely I can only raise an eyebrow on that site. However you will have to provide evidence that there repressions were done directly against Belarusian culture, and not as part of a wave where thousands of other representetives of all Soviet Union's nationalities were killed or deported to Siberia.--Kuban Cossack 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the Soviet national policy. Certain nations were during certain periods supported and during certain periods exterminated. Xx236 13:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I was born in the USSR and I have not been aware of any extermination going on around me, neither were my parents, the extermination was when Germany invaded the USSR, that was extermination. There was a famine in 1933 caused by Soviet abuse of its agricultural potential and there was quite a ruthless anti-Cossack and anti-Orthodox campaign in 1918-1920s. Apart from that there is nothing that would confirm extermination, particulary in Belarus.

en:Kurapaty

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/russia/belarus192239.html

Have a look at the reference: Hübner's Weltstatistik, 73rd edition, edited by Ernst Rösner, Wien 1939. Vienna, when it was part of Nazi Germany, Read WP:RS. --Kuban Cossack 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of victims of Stalinism in Belarus (for the period until 1953, that is) is estimated at 1 million. Xx236 14:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SOURCE??? One that is not published in Nazi Germany and one that is not published in websites that can't spell the capital of the country correctely. --Kuban Cossack 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Source, not the Soviet one, that the number of victims was "hundreds". Wht do you want to prove? That Kuropaty and hundreds of such places don't exist? Xx236 11:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I want a source confirming numbers, and I want a source confirming that the purge was directed against Belarusian inteligentsia deliberately, and was not part of the General Purge in Soviet Union in 1937--Kuban Cossack 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

After nearly two weeks, I can't think of a good reason to continue preventing edits to this article. I'm unprotecting.

[edit] Oddness

In the middle of all this reverting, some poor langauge remains: Old Belarusian was actually the language of the first Bible to be printed in one of the Eastern Slavic languages – the achievement of Francysk Skaryna. Wrong already, see Saints Cyril and Methodius. Errrm... if the statement is wrong, it shouldn't be there! William M. Connolley 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I never edited the article, but still... Can't you see a difference between "written", "translated", and "printed"? The first Bible in the world was printed in 1455, no? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I have no idea what the facts are. I'm objecting to a sentence being, apparently, negated by the "wrong already" in the very next sentence. William M. Connolley 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is ridiculous. What can I say? The article needs work but Rydel and KK are too busy revert warring to even read it carefully. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry was meant to put it in invisible addition, one sec.--Kuban Cossack 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You have 12 hours [8] :-) William M. Connolley 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed it already...--Kuban Cossack 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Many Belarusians were people of the Renaissance, educated at the universities of Western Europe or the Lithuanian university in Vilnius that was founded in 1579. AFAIK name Belarusia originates somewhere in XVIII th century, but Belarusians in in XVI th century? Very opriginal research.--Lokyz 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

These are the untouched yet remnants of the previous text which was indeed very shallow, to the point of being wildly humorous. ---Yury Tarasievich 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Having survived roughly for a three weeks with no reverts I think it is safe to remove the NPOV tag from the article, unless of course dear Rydel still has any objections and CONSTRUCTIVE proposals to the dispute, I think everything else is settled the tag should be removed. --Kuban Cossack 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how do I add new section to the talk? Have to settle for "replying" here. Anyway, folks, article seems somewhat shallow. Lot's of important facts glossed over, let's hope in good faith. Telling the Belarusian language history with e.g., Karsky not mentioned? I've committed one correction already and have rather more coming... Yury Tarasievich 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About one contributor

Wikipedia contributor Kuban coSSack talking about dictatorial ruler Lukashenka 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 his 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 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello; well, strangely how long some parallels run: the same with Serbian failed interventions on the Croatian language page. But, dont worry: as Gandhi had said: "In the end, deceivers deceive only themselves." Mir Harven 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all mate anything on non-wiki sites is simple gibberish, actually it is you who is pushing your POV, by adding irrespective and irrational comments and continuously reverting with no discussions. Add that with the sum of the insults that I got in my direction sent from you, I can only say speak for yourself. What you put on your userpage is your userpage. What put in articles is not Here everybody plays by the same rules... If you really want to, start an RfC get some independent opinion on this topic. Otherwise I will remove this OT from the discussion. .Oh btw I do sincerely congradulate Lukashenko and the Belarusian people, pity you don't fall into the latter category.--Kuban Cossack 17:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're addressing a wrong guy. Be as it may-Belarusians have chosen security with Lukashenka. Fine. Just, he'll, in retrospect, remain a footnote in history's textbooks, just like 100,000 Irish who had died during the WW1 fighting on the Britain's side. Unlike those few killed in Kilmanhaim jail after the Easter rebellion. Lukashenka will go down in history as a temporarily successful anachronism. Mir Harven 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)