Talk:Belarus–European Union border crisis

Free photos

Does anybody have any ideas where to obtain free photos which could be used in the article? There are a lot in the Lithuanian media, but they are copyrighted. --Mindaur (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

there is this Polish organization Ocalenie, if they took their own photos, maybe they will allow to use them, if asked nicely? or for some donation for supporting those people, if they can. https://en.ocalenie.org.pl/news/usnarz-gorny-we-are-in-touch-with-a-group-of-refugees BirgittaMTh (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Overly broad name

Can we make the title of this article less broad? Calling it a "European Union migrant crisis" makes it sound like it's on the same level as the European migrant crisis, when of course it doesn't even come close (without wanting to minimize the very real difficulties Poland, Lithuania and Latvia are experiencing as a result of it). Very few sources are calling it a migrant crisis at this point. It also doesn't reflect the bigger picture - this is Lukashenko instrumentalizing refugees as weapons. How about "2015 migrant surge from Belarus", or "Organized illegal immigration from Belarus to the EU", or "Belarusian retaliation against 2021 sanctions"? --Tserton (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't options because of NPOV. The sources also discuss it in terms of the EU. There was a suggestion at ITN to use "Belarusian border migrant crisis", which might work? Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

How about "2021 European Union-Belarus border crisis"? --Mindaur (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes it sound like they're debating the border, to me. But that with "migrant" before "crisis" would probably work. Any more views? Kingsif (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A bit clumsy title, but "... border migrant crisis" seems okay. --Mindaur (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Either of those suggestions would be an improvement. "Border crisis" doesn't necessarily refer to a border dispute: the Mexico–United States border crisis is about immigration. And a number of sources do actually refer to what's happening in and around Belarus as a border crisis (for example [4], [5], [6]). Not a hill I want to die on though - "2021 EU-Belarus border migrant crisis" is fine with me, and we can always update it if a WP:COMMONNAME emerges.--Tserton (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Belarus-EU border crisis sounds good to me (I think we usually put names on either side of dashes in alphabetical order to avoid lame disputes). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably best. The original title was too narrow in scope because it's not only about Belarus & Lithuania, whereas the current title is too broad, especially as illegal immigration continues at a high rate into the south of the EU. Jim Michael (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Moved to 2021 Belarus-EU border crisis Kingsif (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Why via Belarus?

Why did thousands of people from Iraq etc. illegally enter Belarus? The Belarusian government has a very bad reputation, so what made the migrants or the gangs smuggling them choose Belarus? Jim Michael (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, Jim, but they didn't illegally enter Belarus, they were invited. They arrive on chartered flights, per sources. We could discuss theories but, well, not a forum, especially not for theories. Kingsif (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If the Belarusian gov invited them, that should be stated in the article & backed by RS. The article only mentions claims that Belarus assisted them, rather than stating that they invited them. Also, it doesn't say whether the Belarusian gov have replied to those allegations. Jim Michael (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Fellow editor just explained to you what's going on in layman's terms. The article explains the scheme (see the "Events" section on travel agencies organizing visas and "tours" which are, de facto, to the EU border) and the motive. You are unlikely to get an official confirmation from Belarus about the "invitation", because perpetrator states tend to maintain plausible deniability. However, Belarus did unilaterally withdraw from its readmission agreement with the EU (-- referenced in the article) and Lukashenko was quite mouthful about the whole thing, further threatening the EU with human traffickers, drug smugglers, etc (-- also referenced). So, I guess that's your "reply" from Belarus.

Unfortunately, this is not presented well in the article. I did create the "Causes" section which, after the "Background" section, I hoped could provide a better picture with other editors hopefully improving it too. However, somebody reworked and basically removed it. So, there is a lot of referenced material, but it needs to be reworked to be more coherent. --Mindaur (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

On July 6, 2021 the Belarusian President, Alexander Lukashenko stated: "We will not keep any migrants here. They did not come to us. They are heading to enlightened, warm and cosy Europe. It was them who destroyed these countries." CaribDigita (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Lukashenko's "threats"

As has been noticed over at plwiki, the following fragment of the lead:

The crisis began in early summer of 2021, when Lukashenko threatened to introduce human traffickers, drug smugglers and armed migrants to Europe.

lacks any quotation. I can find the following fragment:

Мы останавливали наркотики и мигрантов — теперь будете сами их есть и ловить

Which roughly translates to

We were stopping drugs and migrants — now you'll be swallowing and catching them yourselves.

Now with no sympathy toward Lukashenko whatsoever, the topmost fragment feels like an overinterpretation of his words. He didn't threaten to send drug smugglers and armed migrants to the bordering countries here, and he did not mention human traffickers at all. If there's any other quotations that prove his supposed threats, I'd like to ask for them to be added. Hythonia (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There is this quote: "They demand that we protect them from smuggling and drug trafficking. Even across the Atlantic we hear the calls for help to detain nuclear materials so that they do not get to Europe....You are waging a hybrid war against us and demand that we help you as we did before? You are strangling us, systematically and collectively, ruining us, trying to kill our economy and expect us to spend hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, as before, to protect your geopolitical interests?" [7] That's a pretty clear threat. I can't find anything about 'armed migrants,' so we could take that out if no one else finds a source. But Lukashenko did threaten more or less explicitly to "allow" large numbers of migrants and refugees into the EU as retaliation for sanctions (see e.g. [8]). Even if we read his words in the most generous, credulous way possible, it's well-documented that the Belarusian government is behind the influx of people, so in context he was definitely making threats. --Tserton (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead may have citations, but it is not a requirement (as per the WP:LEAD policy). The statement in question appears to be backed up later in the text with the Washington Post article which contains the following: "In June, Lukashenko threatened to allow human traffickers and drug smugglers to stream into Europe." It doesn't mention the "armed migrants", though. --Mindaur (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The "armed migrants" part is here (and the announcement itself is here) which is why the passage appears in the text. It was not in the very first statement of Lukashenko, but as I wanted to keep the summary concise, I was not making the temporal distinction. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Condense "other responses" section

This article, while relatively short, is already somewhat bloated with undue information and excessive detail, especially in the "Other responses" section. There's no need for everything any EU, national or NATO official has ever said on the topic to appear in the article, especially things as mundane as "a Catholic priest urged talks on allowing MSF access to the border" or "NATO accused Belarus of using migrants to put pressure on the EU." Also, the sections are far too short to justify organizing them under discrete subheadings — at this point it would make more sense, and be more readable, to group related information into paragraphs. Aside from that, having individual sections for many different countries and entities in event articles is often inadvisable, because they become places for people to put disjointed information and quotes with little regard to how (or whether) they fit into the article. I'm going to make a few bold edits; if anyone feels strongly about them please feel free to revert — but don't forget that a poorly structured article, or one filled with questionably relevant information, just hinders readability. --Tserton (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd propose that you looked in the Polish article, where there is an "International reactions" ("Reakcje międzynarodowe") page. Of course, the previous layout was suboptimal, but reactions themselves are still pretty notable.

There is one more thing about how to treat the reactions of the European Union, because after all it's a domestic affair from EU's perspective, even if most of the border protection responsibilities are carried out by member states. I think the way the EU reacts to the crisis might warrant a subsection of its own, but we'll see. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: I don't have strong feelings one way or another about including Estonia's "response" to this event. But if we include Estonia, which has scarcely been affected by the crisis, what rationale is there not to also include "responses" by every other EU state that might eventually possibly be affected way down the line? Also: you're right that the three main criteria for adding content to an article are verifiability, NPOV and no original research. But Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, which does necessitate some notability criteria for content ("Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.") --Tserton (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Estonia has forces and others active in the crisis zone, I think that warrents a mention. Also, since Estonia has reinforced the patrolling of its own borders then clearly Estonia appears affected by the crisis. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. There was also rumor, that next wave can come through Pskov airport. And over Peipsi lake. Cannot write about it, as no sources. If it helps, I can look up Estonian news and quote some? Or not...too many information also not good; basics are already covered. Nice job, guys. Edit: this rumor was not in news, just hearsay. What is in news, is already mostly covered here. BirgittaMTh (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi BirgittaMTh, there is no rule saying that sources have to be in English, the guidelines on sourcing say they should be reliable. So all media/news outlet that provide accurate reporting are usable as a source. So yes please use Estonian sources, this helps WP:GLOBAL perspective on the crisis. A Thousand Words (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Section headings need cleanup

They need some cleanup. Poland had unsectioned content, then incidents with a random subsection for the current month (November). Lithuania has a shorter unnamed section, then Events, Incidents (in a bullet format) and Responses. Latvia has a short section with no subections. This is a mess that needs organization - each country's section should be in a similar format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Supporting countries in infobox

Please do not add any countries to the infobox that simply pledged to contribute something and did not actually contribute anything. Sending barbed wire - good; some small group of soldiers - fair enough; saying that sending migrants is unacceptable is not enough. Simply suspending flights for citizens of country X does not make that country an ally, either. Thanks Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Btw, who keeps adding "claimed by Poland" to the infobox? That is the misrepresentation of how RS see Russia's role in the conflict, and it becomes annoying to constantly revert it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Who keeps including Turkey to supporters of Belarus section within infobox? They have clearly stated they are not party to this problem, however, they are still supporting their allies Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Turkey also restricted certain nationalities from flying to Belarus to support the European Union, and then the EU have thanked Turkey for their action which shows the EU also do not accuse Turkey about these migrants. The accusations have already been mentioned in a neutral section thanks to Szmenderowiecki, where seems an appropriate section for such allegations as these are not proven and there are more developments which objecting these allegations. I am going to remove Turkey from infobox but keep the mentioning in relevant section. Thanks. An ip user who contributes to Wiki voluntarily to have non-biased informative pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.12.161 (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Potentially biased page

Hopefully this is a constructive discussion. I am starting to smell a biased page here. Somehow Belarus gets out of this clean handed and the countries that are aggressed by Belarus are the ones accused of human rights violations in this article. Also, there are pictures of protesters holding "Refugees Welcome" signs, but the article completely ignores the anti immigration majority view present in EU and their protests. I guess we all can objectively agree this is a hybrid act of agression on EU borders from Belarus side. The article breaks the neutrality of view on the issue and is against WP:NPOV. I hope this review will be helpful in maintaining neutrality on this sensitive subject. Cheers! --Kotys ek Beos (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, note the sentences Migrants stated that Belarus provided them with wire cutters and axes to cut through border fences and enter the European Union. However, those who did not manage to cross the border were often forced to stay there by Belarusian authorities, who were accused of assaulting some migrants who failed to get across. Belarus refused to allow Polish humanitarian aid for the migrants, which would have included tents and sleeping bags. in the lead I believe that's pretty much of an indictment of BY's behaviour towards migrants, and for me "accused of assaulting" seems kind of unnecessary attribution. No, we don't forget about Belarusians. That doesn't mean, however, that we don't mention faults on behalf of the countries against which the migrants are sent, which we also do. Legalising pushbacks and denial of the right to lodge an asylum claim is no less a violation of international law than is abetting migrants to illegally cross the border.

Secondly, read the paragraphs Also in July, the Lithuanian... and In general, Poles are somewhat... which outline the support for the government policies (the polls are summarised in the lead in one sentence). Sadly folks did not add polls for LT and LV (I don't know either of the languages). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I am just concerned that the neutrality on this topic could easily be broken since there is huge misinformation in the media over this issue. Many media outlets pushed forward the idea that migrants are stuck between Poland and Belarus area, even though in reality such a buffer zone doesn't exist. Also they focus on human rights issues involving Poland as if Belarus has no responsibility. We must be aware that media is not neuter and that when using sources from media, we should select the information in manner that follows WP:NPOV--21:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotys ek Beos (talk • contribs)

No such 'buffer zone' exists and the media didn't state that it does - you are probably having some trouble reading English idiomatically - anyway, what that sentence in the press meant was the border area. 50.111.45.222 (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Could this article be translated into more languages?

I am not sure if my comment belongs here, but is it possible or advisable to translate this article about ongoing event into e.g. Turkish, Farsi (Parsi? Persian), Arabic? (I attempted to ask this on Arabic wiki but I could not find place to do so bc I barely know letters but cannot understand anything.) BirgittaMTh (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

2022?

There's nothing in the article about events in 2022 and no mention of the months of January and February. The article needs an update if this event is still going on or it should have a firm end-date in the infobox and a title change. -- Veggies (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations

I reverted [9] as half of the section, with long and excessive quotes (hardly WP:NPOV), is backed by a single source which totally fails WP:RS (it's basically somebody's personal website/blog). It is perfectly fine to cover mistreatment at the border, but it has to be backed by reliable references. Please revert this immediately. --Mindaur (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We had the same issue in the article about the Belarus–Latvia border on Latvian Wikipedia (see discussion, revision history) with the same user that appears to be the author of the self-published work and her sock puppet account. It would be good to have them investigated to have my suspicions verified along with the new IP address that cancelled your final revert. I would prefer that someone else does the reverting here since I was already involved in the discussion there. –Turaids (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's reverted for now, but if disruptive editing will continue, I can raise the issue with the admin's noticeboard. Mindaur (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

No woman/man is illegal

Do you mind fixing all the illegal migrant terms to irregular migrants? Seeking asylum is a right. Access to rights is also a right. So, crossing borders is not illegal and migrants are not illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.188.178 (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Entering any country is not a right, breaking the law of that country is also not a right. You have the right to ask for asylum only in accordance with local law. Illegal migration is not equivalent to seeking asylum, and if you cross the border illegally, you are an illegal migrant. Quickcheat (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarification please

As a new reader of this article I don't immediately see where it explains why the refugees or migrants are buying flights from the Middle East (especially Turkey) to Belarus - instead of to Germany - which repeatedly appears to be their most common intended destination according to this article. Do we have an explanation for this in the reliable sources, which we can cite and add content on? -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article misses the point in a few big ways, most importantly in that it doesn't even clearly outline what actually happened (Lukashenko tried to engineer a migrant crisis to punish the EU for sanctions). I would like to reword some of the main text to make it more to the point: a lot of it currently makes it sound any other "migrant crisis" around the world (asylum seekers try to enter a country; the country shuts them out), and in many parts of the article it's not apparent that it that this was engineered for geopolitical purposes. I'd also take out some of the excessive details in parts (for example, I think the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya and Roman Protasevich incidents, while certainly worth a mention, aren't really considered "causes" by any RS). --Tserton (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Germany is inside the Schengen Area, and Turkey is outside the Schengen Area, so refugees are unable to be able to book flights from outside of Schengen into Schengen without the proper visas or pre-clearances. I think they fly to Belarus under the "hunting visas" mentioned in the second paragraph (which are given out intentionally by Belarus because Belarus knows these folks will immediately try to illegally immigrate into the E.U.). Most of these folks then sneak into the EU via the land borders at Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland (according to this article, often with help and advice from the Belarusian government).

Feel free to add this "Schengen Area" concept to the article for clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

---

2021–2022 Belarus–European Union border crisis → Belarus–European Union border crisis – It’s the only border crisis they have with the EU. 89.122.39.11 (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Human trafficking inside the EU borders and deaths in 2023

Info from these sourcee [10], [11] should be added to the article. This also further answers the previously posted question by Chumchum7. Respublik (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

President vs dictator

Diff. I'd be in favor of president. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

My personal preference for the wording this situation would be something like self-appointed president or self-proclaimed president, which is a more factual and thus WP:BALANCED statement. Respublik (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Even though the election was rigged, it seems like he still ended up being the president, both de facto and de jure. There are plenty of good spots where this election rigging can be mentioned, but I'm not sure every time his title is used in an article is a good spot for this. Just my two cents. Happy to hear other thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RS widely refer to him as the Belarusian "president" or "leader," although most of them follow that up with a statement that he runs an authoritarian regime or that he doesn't allow free elections. We could do something similar. Tserton (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

He is not self-proclaimed if most countries still recognize him as a president, and this is not the right article to discuss his legitimacy. Mellk (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I am a fan of calling things as they are. Lukashenko is not recognized as president of Belarus by any free and democratic country in the world, only countries with serious problems with democracy congratulated him on "winning" the 2020 elections. He is also not recognized as president by the domestic opposition, which Lukashenko does not allow to exist. There are no free media or fair elections in Belarus, so Lukashenko cannot hold the office of president in accordance with the Belarusian constitution. He and his sons hold absolute power in the country, it is quite obvious that he is a dictator. Pretending otherwise is not consistent with a neutral point of view. Quickcheat (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Defining an end date

I'd like to discuss defining an end date to the event this article describes. Yes, I know the humanitarian consequences of it are still ongoing and there are still trafficking victims trapped on the Belarusian border (and I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate article on the humanitarian crisis, if editors feel it would be useful and we can find enough sources on it post-2022). I'm also aware that the level of border crossings from Belarus is still well above the baseline from before 2021, and a few scattered sources still refer to it as a "crisis". But the geopolitical event that constituted the crisis described by this article is clearly over. Most reliable sources bear this out, describing the event in the past tense:

• "The Commission considered the instrumentalisation of migration by Belarus that unfolded in late 2021 to be a novelty to which the EU’s existing asylum acquis was incapable of providing an adequate response." Jacques Delors Institute [12]
• "Poland is fearful of a repeat of 2021, when the EU accused Lukashenko of staging a hybrid war by luring tens of thousands of migrants...." The Financial Times [13]
• "Belarus' EU neighbours built barbed wire fences after the 2021 migration crisis" EU Observer [14]
• "The events at the borders between Belarus and Lithuania, Poland and Latvia in 2021 are undeniably a humanitarian crisis for many migrants and their families." Kużelewska and Piekutowska, University of Bialystok
• Starting in the summer of 2021 and continuing through the fall and winter, Poland together with Lithuania and Latvia experienced a humanitarian crisis precipitated by an irregular influx of migrants, among them many asylum-seekers, across its border with Belarus.... By June 2022, the 'attempts of illegal border crossings' had fallen significantly..." Grześkowiak, University of Warsaw [15]

Not many describe a specific end date; many just say it occured in late 2021. I see two decent options for an "end date" to the crisis (although I'm of course totally open to other ideas). The first is defining it by when border crossing attempts dropped off to the "new baseline (roughly 1000-2000 per month). That would be the end of 2021 (Statista - unfortunately, I couldn't find any corresponding figures for Lithuania or Latvia.) The second possibility might be to use the end of Poland's state of emergency on July 1, 2022 [16]. I personally favor option 1, because I don't think Wikipedia should take its cues from national governments.

Any thoughts? Tserton (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tserton: It's a tricky one. I agree that the crisis generally culminated in late 2021. You found the statistics for Poland and you can see it for Lithuania here: [17]. Isolated attempts to cross the borders still continue [18], but the numbers are small. On the other hand, in Latvia, the illegal crossings remained high in 2022 and deteriorated in 2023: [19][20][21]. Worth noting that the border barrier is still under construction in Latvia, while both Poland and Lithuania completed their barriers in 2022. So, the geopolitical event is arguably not over. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mindaur I would place the construction of the border barriers under aftermath of the crisis, not necessarily a part of the crisis itself. Regarding the numbers (thank you, by the way, for sharing those sources!), I see where you're coming from, but the risk with waiting for border crossings to recede to their pre-2021 levels to declare the crisis "over" is that that may not happen for a very, very long time. By definition, a crisis is an extraordinary event relative to the times before and after it; at a certain point, it just becomes the new reality.

I agree with you that the movement of people from Belarus into Poland, Latvia and Lithuania is still very significant, but not many sources still describe this as part of the same crisis as happened a few years ago. I'm not dogmatic about this – it's complex and there might not be a completely satisfactory solution – but I think we should be open to adjusting our terms of reference. Maybe by putting an end date to the "crisis" but describing the continued migrant flows in a separate article, perhaps on the Belarus-EU border or on Belarusian hybrid warfare. Tserton (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tserton: I don't think the construction of the border barriers should go in the aftermath, because it's a response to the crisis and its direct consequence. The barriers played an important role in reducing the illegal migration flows. Therefore, they contributed to the end of the "crisis". Note that some reports quote statistics about crossing attempts, as opposed to successful crossings. Those numbers can be quite different.

When I stated that the geopolitical event is arguably not over, I meant that Belarus still appears to be organizing the illegal migration and therefore attempts to cross the border continue. That should be reflected in the article. However, that doesn't mean that these activities are effective and constitute a "crisis". So, we are not in disagreement here. :) I don't know what would be a good end date, though, perhaps just "late 2021". -- Mindaur (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @Mindaur: thanks for your response! I think "late 2021" is a good suggestion for an end date, and there are plenty of instances of the civil conflict infobox specifying endpoints like his, without a precise date. I'll change the infobox and the article lead now. --Tserton (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The crisis never ended, and building a border barrier did not reduce tensions or stop illegal immigrants from trying to cross the border. The political part of the crisis also continues, the hybrid war continues, sanctions are in force, immigrants and soldiers on both sides are dying at the border in various circumstances, recently also in direct combat. Inventing some artificial date "late December 2021" does not mean that the crisis will magically end. I am in favor of pointing out that the crisis is still ongoing. Quickcheat (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey Quickcheat, all the things you say are true, but at the same time the reality is that the numbers of migrants and trafficking victims are nowhere near their peak in 2021. I still see where you're coming from, and as Mindaur said above, it's tricky. I would say "crisis articles" can justifiably be open-ended – the Mexican drug war article is a good example – but numbers are a good metric to judge whether the crisis in question is still ongoing.

But I don't think we're so far apart and should be able to find a wording that everyone can agree on. One option might be to note late 2021 as the end date, but with a footnote stating there are still occasional flare-ups on the border. The lead (which I actually find a bit clunky at the moment anyway, see for example MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:AVOIDBOLD) could be adapted to reflect the ambiguity in whether or not it's ongoing. Something like, "In 2021, the government of Belarus began coordinating an influx of migrants, mostly from the Middle East and North Africa, to the borders of Lithuania, Poland and Latvia...." And in the following sentences, note that numbers peaked in 2021 but have not returned to pre-crisis levels. I'm going to take a bold stab at it. Let me know what you think and feel free to build on my ideas! Tserton (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the changes you introduced in the lead section are less factual and in several places downright untrue (Lukashenko directly admitted that Belarus is involved in this crisis). You removed the information that it is a hybrid war and rewrote the first paragraph in such a way that the reader is falsely convinced that it is about the migration crisis, which is a wrong concept. This crisis is primarily political, deliberately caused by Belarus to put pressure on the EU to recognize Lukashenko as the rightful leader of Belarus and more broadly, part of joint Russian-Belarusian actions aimed at destabilizing the EU. The previous version of the article did a great job of summarizing this in the first paragraph, and I'm definitely in favor of restoring the previous version.

If we consider that numbers are a good measure of the crisis (which I agree with you to some extent), right now there are an unprecedented number of direct attacks on soldiers and border guards, with simultaneous attempts to break through the border. This is why the article should not treat 2021 as the only correct part of the crisis and the idea of ​​artificially ending the crisis with a certain date or artificially separating the political and migration parts is wrong and we should restore the previous version of the lead. After all, the article is about the border crisis, not about the migration crisis at the border. Regards Quickcheat (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response, but I'm genuinely confused. The hybrid war aspect is definitely still mentioned in the first paragraph, as is the fact that Belarus caused it deliberately. The only things not in the lead now that were there before are the diverted Ryanair flight and Belarus' attempted repatriation of Krystsina Tsimanouskaya. And re: put pressure on the EU to recognize Lukashenko as the rightful leader of Belarus and more broadly, part of joint Russian-Belarusian actions aimed at destabilizing the EU, are we talking about the same version of the article? This one? The previous version of the first paragraph didn't cover any of those things. I'm totally open to including them. I'm also open to modifying my drafted paragraph, but I wouldn't want to simply restore the the previous version of the paragraph; I think that could have used re-wording one way or another. Tserton (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox cleanup

The infobox is way too long. Infoboxes are meant to provide an at a glance overview of a topic, not a comprehensive list of every one and everything involved in it. I think it would make sense to trim the list of lead figures and units involved to only those people and organizations for which it is firmly established by reliable sources that they were key to the event. The only people I would "automatically" include are the heads of government of Belarus, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. Others should only be listed if there are third-party sources describing their roles - for example, a military leader stationed at the site of a major border crossing. Tserton (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tserton: Absolutely. No idea why somebody stuffed massive lists of leaders and units involved there. It should be removed. -- Mindaur (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)