Talk:Belarusians/Archive 1

Archive 1

shoudln't?

Shouldn't this article be somehow related to the Ruthenians thingie? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:20, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

How do you mean "related" to it? They are, the term was used to apply to modern-day Belarusians, too, at some point in time, AFAIR... --Joy [shallot] 21:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mean they should be interlinked very strongly while in the present version there ar no links to Ruthenia. Perhaps the problem is with the Russian nationalists stoling that article, but still the link should be here. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:01, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah... there could be a brief historic overview here, and within it a mention of those 18/19th century events. --Joy [shallot]

How does this look now? --Joy [shallot] 14:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

belarus

i've only recently begun to do research on belarus, so it will be a while till i can add anything to this article.

Gringo300 10:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Political

The political section was added only to show a notable fact that Belarussian only recently gained its own coutry, and it does not have to evolve into a whole history of belarussian nationality. There are History of Belarus and Politics of Belarus for this. this one is about belarusians. mikka (t) 20:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finally bothering to explain your repeated censorship. It still doesn't make sense though to spend a whole paragraph explaining the modern independence of Belarus and then ignore the fact that independence is being negotiated away. That fact should either be mentioned or the entire paragraph should be deleted as irrelevant.

What offends you so much about a single sentence in such a short article - especially one cited as a STUB?

"This ethnic-group-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Well, don't expand it if some Belarusian nationalist is going to get freaked out by the details and deny current events.

--69.140.81.84 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

move to Belarusian people

First you make a strange move to SS, then you request to move it back to the correct spelling (BelaruSian with one S). Is there any logic behind this "move the article" game? --rydel 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed initial move to Belarussian people (Belarussian people is more common spelling). Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we move it back to Belarusians please ? I don't see what was wrong with that name. Certainly Belarusian people seem more sophisticated, but I preferred the simple and straightforward name. Belarusian people could equally mean the people of Belarus. --_Lysy^talk 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Belarusians" was the stable consensus title. Without a proper move request, this article belongs there. —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:49 Z

Both in Russian and Belarusian languages the word is written with one S so i think those guys have are right, it's one S. M.V.E.i. 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

one contributor

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

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

Dear fellow Wikipedians, do you understand that the only purpose of his contributions on articles about Belarus (such as Belarusian language, Belarusian history, Belarus, etc.) is to push Russian imperial POV and lies? Please, see history and talk pages of the Belarus-related articles. Should WP community do something about it? --rydel 16:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lukashenko is the only democrat in Europe. He didn't let the Democratic Mafia to do to Belarus what they've done to the rest of CIS. He makes shure that Belarus is the country of the people, and that's why he's a real patriot. I, as a Russian would be glad if Lukashenko would become the leader of Russia and would bring some order to it! You dont know how lucky you are to have him! M.V.E.i. 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Someone told me that Belarusians are different from Russians because Russians mixed with Turkic or Mongolian ethic groups during the Mongolian invasion while Belarusians did not. Hence the prefix Bela (white as in pure). Is there any basis for this?

This is one of the versions. No one actually knows for sure what does "white" stand for. Another version is that "white" means "Eastern". In other words, Belarus = Eastern Rus. But than we have a "problem" with Russians, who appear to be "Eastern Eastern Rus", or even worse - not Rus at all :). The name of White Rus originally stood for what is now Mogilev, Gomel, Smolensk - i.e. Eastern Belarus, and Western Russia.

Apart from White Rus, there were notions of Black Rus (or Lithuanian Rus), which is nowadays Western Belarus, and Red Rus, which in the North-Western Ukraine. However, the name of Black Rus first appeared in Western European sources, and it might appear to be an artificial creation, or a product of "systematization".Max Kanowski 03:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The Belarusians is for White Ruthenia, which is the historical name for the east-Belarus region. Russians are not mixed with turcs. Both of the nations where Rus, the difference is that whats today is Belarus was taken over by the lithuenians, and thats why when the Russian ethnicity appeared the White Ruthenia region people couldn't be part of it because of being occupied and seperated. M.V.E.i. 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Belarus wasn't taken over by the lithuenians, but people that ocupied the territory of current Belarus and Lithuania was called lithuenians (litvin or licvin), and the corresponding state was called Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Velikoe Knyazhestvo Litovskoe - rus, Vyalikae Knyastva Litouskae - belarus). So I'll not disclaim that Belarusians where Rus, because Belarusians and Russians are resemble, and their native languages are resemble very much. But some sources say that pure Belarusians have blond and dark blond hair and have blue or grey eyes. Now only some part of our people have this features. There wasn't so information about Russians. Sorry for my bad English. I hope, you'll understand me. Read History of Belarus or look this : http://www.belarusguide.com/as/history/history.html Power Of NIRVANA (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The blond and blue-eyed populace composes roughly a quarter to half of the population in both Russia and Belarus. What was that notion of "pure Belarusians" supposed to mean? --Humanophage (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of belarusian people

• 
• 
• File:Kastus.jpg
• 
• 
• 
• File:Nesterenko0.jpg

Tadeusz Kościuszko · Adam Mickiewicz · Kastus Kalinouski · Kazimir Malevich · Maksim Bahdanovič · Vasil Bykaŭ · Yulia Nestsiarenka

---

I'm going to create more or less representative gallery of belarusian people (in one image, like this). I have collected these photos as start point (haven't found free photo for Alexander Medved, Yanka Kupala, Yakub Kolas, Olga Korbut, Mikalay Husowski, Francysk Skaryna). And I want to hear your opinion for these. Should these people be pure belarusian or not? Should they born, work in Belarus or not? --Valodzka 12:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All this people are pure belarusian. We (belarusian) are studiing them at schools and high schools. 88.210.57.170 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations, now Belarusian people article has it's famous-people-image

It was made by me from images found and decided by me and Valodzka (who was the first to bring up the idea for an image for the article). Hope you all like it. We made it by 3 principles: 1) The people in the image must not be political (because for example i support Lokashenko, and someone else supports someone i dont and that might make conflicts on who should be here), and in that way we kept politics out. 2) The people in the image must be considered one of the greatest in what they do (and thats why it took us a while to decide who should be here. The choice wasn't random). 3) The people need to be clearly Belarusian and not just "had some Belarusian blood in them". And by those principles me and Valodzka made an image that is, at least at my opinion, amaizing and one of the best nation-articles-images in Wikipedia. M.V.E.i. 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Discussion is here. --Valodzka 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

United States

The article mentions significant numbers having emigrated to the US and the article Belarusian American does the same, but there is no estimate in the side bar. If there is a reliable source on current population given the confusion mentioned on that article about 'true' identity. Paliku (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Old talk

"...since the 13th-14th centuries and where Ruthenian language was the official state language." There were NO 'state languages' back then. Languages, used in the GDL, were: Latin, Ruthenian and Polish. And none of them was 'official state language' whatsoever.

"...it is considered that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Belarusian national state when it existed." Considered by who? Two or three or even ten Litvinists? You make me sad. Read more books please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.238.247 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Using the term "White Russians" is misleading as it incorrectly suggests being a subgroup of Russians and some Belarusians take offense for it being applied. Belarusians trace their name back to the people of Rus' and not to Russians, who are also descendants of the people of Rus. Not russian, naming russian to a belarusian is an offense... Yes, there is a group of nationalists in Belarus that don´t like russians ( a minority) but you can´t write this paragraph, it´s not neutral, not all belarusians are nationalists.--Mr nonono (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

White-Russians isn't misleading and it isn't an offence. It is correctly that White-Russians are part of the all-Russian people. E.G Karski, White-Russian born was a professor, academic who wrote the first work and study of White-Russia. There he studied the White-Russian dialect and the influences of the Polish, Lithuanian on the White-Russians.

Collage of Belarusians

Regarding following Belarusian individuals; proving their ethnicity:

Kastus Kalinouski: http://arkushy.narod.ru/kalinouski/kalinouski.htm http://www.nn.by/index.php?c=ar&i=5805 http://jivebelarus.net/at_this_day/events_calendar207.html

Leu Sapieha: http://asoby.belinter.net/cont.php?x=ls http://jivebelarus.net/at_this_day/events_calendar262.html

Vincent Dunin-Marcinkievich http://slounik.org/157551.html

Stanislau Bulak Balachovich http://jivebelarus.net/history/faces/bulack-balahovich.html

Ales hurko (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your collage is not objective.See:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.Sentinel R (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen neutral point of view in Poles (Tadeuss Kosciusko) and Lithuanians (Barbara Radzivil and Kings of Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Once they carry out n.p.v. I will carry it out here. Good luck convincing them. Ales hurko (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like it, why did't you tell them about this? I did not add these people and anyone for anything not going to convince.Sentinel R (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I already did, one other user also did. They keep changing it back. Not going to convince? Why are you here then? To discriminate Belarusians? You clearly don't treat Poles, Belarusians and Lithuanians the same way. That a definition of discrimination. Careful with that. Ales hurko (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

your participation on this page - trolling and vandalism. Be careful with this.Sentinel R (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I created collage and you constantly remove it, making that page look like cr.p. Isn't that vandalism? Ales hurko (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do not you want to go a compromise? I have nothing against those people whom you added, but you did it BEFORE resolve the dispute over Yanukovich.Sentinel R (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look carefully at history of this article you will see that there already was discussion between marekchelsea, Glebchik and me (my previous account Roscislaw Roman)and there was compromise. They took away disputed people, that have overweight in Polish favour, to Poles, I'm talking about Tadeusz Kosciuszko, and left historical people, that have overweight in Belarusian favour, here. That's why I strongly defend this article. There already was the compromise.

I gotta say I'm not proud about discussion on history page, but back then I was an amateur. Ales hurko (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ales, I do support your point of view. I see strong russian trolling on this belarussian page done by Sentinel R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvin68 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Again.I have nothing against those people whom you have added. But I am disappointed because you did not add to the collage of Yanukovich. If the IP vandalism or simething else - I will also participate in the defense of this article. Once again: the people you have added - deserve to be in the list, but you have to do it after the dispute.Sentinel R (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to ask - some of the user to click Undo, because they see in collage of a few Poles.I looked up their biography - the Poles did not find. Who are the Poles in the collage?.Sentinel R (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi I deleted the image about "historic borders of belarusians", becasue it not historical, this nationalistic maps of Belarus.91.196.249.63 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)SANCHEZZZ

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic territory of Belarusians Image

Can someone explain to me, please, why is that image is "nationalist" and therefore isn't neutral? That map shows the distribution of ethnic Belarusins. What is wrong about that? If that image is nationalist and isn't appropriate for this place I guess maps showing the distribution of a religion, like that one, [[1]], are religionistic (or whatever), and they are offensive to Europeans who are not Christians. So, that image also have to be removed then. Logical? I think so. Ales Hurko (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For several months, some editors regularly change this article. Let them express their opinions on the Talk Page.If they continue to delete the map without explanation, you will need to ask the administrators of the full protection of this article by IP.Sentinel R (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This "Ethnic territory of Belarusians image" is nationalistic fib because it is only acknowledged by Belarusian nationalists. They file territorial claims to the neighbouring countries, thereby rousing national hatred. Their dream is Great Belarus. Is Wikipedia a place for nationalist fancies? Here is the real map of the peoples of former USSR [2]. Compare that map with "Ethnic territory of Belarusians image". 91.79.29.84 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any time to explain obvious things. At first, prove that Yefim Karskiy, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy and National Academy of Sciences of Belarus are “Belarusian nationalists”. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Karskiy and Dovnar-Zapol'skiy are not absolute truth. In addition now it is 2010 year! See the real map [3]. 91.79.29.84 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Если не понимаете по-английски, то повторяю на вашем родном языке: прекратите вандалить статью, приведенные на карте границы установлены двумя известными учеными — Е. Карским (доктором филологии, академиком Петербургской и Чешской академий наук) и М. Довнар-Запольским (доктором исторических наук, профессором). К тому же данная карта была опубликована в статье “этническая территория” энциклопедии "Этнаграфія Беларусі", изданной Академией наук Беларуси. Посему, её удаление согласно Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources абсолютно необоснованно и иначе как вандализм трактоваться не может. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Карский и Довнар-Запольский не являются истиной в последней инстанции, эта карта – их точка зрения и не более того. К тому же, мы живём в двадцать первом веке (вы возможно до сих пор в девятнадцатом). Я привёл ссылку на современные источники, как современные специалисты определяют границы между народами, в том числе и границы расселения белорусов. Ваша карта – не более чем националистическая пропаганда, мечта националистов о том, какими должны быть границы страны, ничего общего с реальностью не имеет! 91.79.29.84 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

И еще, в легенде под картой приведены года установления границ. При начилии современных авторитетных исследований (карта неизвестного авторства из справочника времен СССР таковой не является) никто не запрещает составить еще одну карту и добавить её в статью. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Карта вполне соответствует критериям авторитетности и энциклопедичности как опубликованная в Беларуском академическом издании (Этнаграфія Беларусі. Мн.: Беларуская Акадэмія навук, 1989) и отражающая объективную картину “этнической территории” беларусов - “территории компактного расселения определенного народа (этноса), с которой тесно связаны его этногенез и этническая история”. Посему, кроме ващих личных убеждений, для её удаления нет никаких объективных причин. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ха-ха! Значит карта столетней давности, абсолютно не совпадающая с фактическими на сегодняшний день границами расселения белорусов – это авторитет, а официальное издание времён СССР, отражающее реальное расселение народов, нравится оно вам или нет, – это не авторитет! Абсурд! Ну вы же не будете спорить с тем, что границы на вашей карте не соответствуют реальности, что это всего лишь ваша мечта? Люди, живущие в Смоленске, Вильнюсе, Даугавпилсе, Белостоке, Брянске, в подавляющем своём большинстве сегодня себя белорусами не считают. Зачем же тогда упираться рогом, публикуя здесь эту карту? Вы же этим вводите людей в заблуждение! Статья и иллюстрации в ней должна отражать реальное положение вещей, а не чьи-то мечтания. 91.79.29.84 (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Карта отражает реальное расселение беларуского этноса на момент, указанный в легенде к ней (1903 и 1919 года). К тому же она полность подпадает под академическое определене “этнической территории” — “территории компактного расселения определенного народа (этноса), с которой тесно связаны его этногенез и этническая история”. Еще раз повторяю: имеете под рукой авторитетные современные исследования - на здоровье, создавайте по ним свою карту и добавляйте ее в статью. Замечу только, что для подтверждения авторитетности любой карты, необходимо привести 1) фамилии исследователей, которые её составили, 2) учреждение, которое её издало. И еще, не путайте понятия: расселение народов в текущий момент времени и “этническая территория” - это разные вещи. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Усе ведаюць што Смаленск ё этнічная тэрыторыя беларусаў-крывічаў, што была заваёвана Масковіяй у пазнейшы час. Мы тут не кажам пра сучасныя дзяржаўныя межы Расеі з заваяванымі землямі — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litvin68 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • Any ideas whether Lukashenko is an ethnic Belarusian? He could be included, if that's the case. Aliaksandr Hleb and Vitali Kutuzov could also be worthy additions. 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.138.182 (talk)

Victor Yanukovych. Belarusian?

So apparently Victor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, is Belarusian now, according to Sentinel R (talk). I know his father is Belarusian, but mother is Ukrainian. So? He identifies himself as Ukrainian. And special reply to Sentinel R (talk): Yanukovych is quite pleasant to me. Ales hurko (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I consider that Janukovych and Lukashenko should be in pictures. These two persons are leaders of the two post-soviet countries and are worthy to be in the list.About Yanukovich - if you undestand russian,prooflink http://wek.com.ua/article/22182/.Sentinel R (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No one argues about Yanukovich having Belarusian father from Vitebsk. What about his Ukrainian mother? Why can't we put him in a list in Ukrainian people article, you know, since he is half Ukrainian and + to that is president of Ukraine and has spent most of his life in Ukraine? There is a huge overweight to Ukrainian side. I also wanted to suggest to list here only those Belarusians who shaped their culture, language, nationality and etc. I think modern politics doesn't contribute to any of that. Please think about it. Ales hurko (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yanukovych recognised that it the Belorussian. The person considers itself as the Belorussian. What for to carp? About his mother - the Ukrainian... Open the page french people- there is Zinedine Zidane.How many in him the French blood? About politicians... People abroad did not hear about Janka Kupała. You know her, I know her. But people abroad? Why not to add the known and powerful person?. Sentinel R (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yanukovych did acknowledge that he is half-Belarusian-half-Ukrainian. Even in that article you provided he doesn't say "I am all Belarusian". He clearly stated he doesn't forget where his father came from, which means he is only half-Belarusian. Why don't we list Obama as Keniyan? Because he is American of Keniyan descent. Same with Yanukovich - Ukrainian with Belarusian descent. Why don't you consult Ukrainians first. And again let's not use modern politics here. And FYI Janka Kupała is a he, that is his pseudoname.Ales hurko (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no such nationality - "the Kenyan". Obama - Luo, even in the Wikipedia is a mention of it.The half-blooded has the right to concern any of groups to which his parents belong. About Janka Kupała - I am not right, wished to copy Alaiza Pashkievich but was mistaken.My bad." And again let's not use modern politics here". Arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sentinel R (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Arguments? I tried several times to put here Milinkievic and Sushkievic, but they were removed because they are politicians. And also Yanukovich is Ukrainian. Not Belarusians. I think it's obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ales hurko (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"I think it's obvious" - This is not an argument. Encyclopedia based on links, and not on what you think.Sentinel R (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What are your arguments? None. Belarusian father is not an argument. Ales hurko (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

My argument - prooflinks For example. I can even with ten similar proof-links to add. This encyclopedia is based on the common contributions, but you want to make her his. It is not. And please do not change the article before the end of the dispute, otherwise your actions like vandalism. Regards.Sentinel R (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is nationality of his mother?

By the way your link is a mistake. Ales hurko (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Special for you - http://wek.com.ua/article/22182/ and http://www.rosbalt.ru/2010/02/25/715605.html.Sentinel R (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is nationality of his mother? Ales hurko (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

His father - Belarusian. Mother - Ukrainian. This was discussed.Sentinel R (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So, mother is Ukrainian. He spent most of his life in Ukraine. Plus, he is Ukrainian president. And, he identifies himself as Ukrainian. This is from Yanukovych article: Yanukovych is Ukrainian, [10] who has both Ukrainian and Belarusian roots. How can we list him here?.. Ales hurko (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I passed on the link from the article.Read what is written there. Can quote :"Виктор Янукович корнями из Витебской области. В 170 км от Минска находится село Януки, которое лидер оппозиции признал своей исторической родиной"(с)http://www.segodnya.ua/news/14050686.html. If the ukrainians themselves consider Yanukovich is belarusian, Yanukovich has repeatedly said that he considers himself belarusian, then what are we arguing about then?.Sentinel R (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

But that is a historical motherland on his father's side. We cannot ignore his other parent's, mother's nationality. And the article you provided doesn't say Ukrainians consider Yanukovich to be Belarusian. Ну и ок, вставь рядом Януковича с коллажом на пока что, но обсуждение надо продолжить. Но я не смогу обратно вставлять его рядом с коллажом если его кто-нибудь удалит. Ales hurko (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes,his father Belarusian.If his mother was a Jewish, then we can say that he is Jewish.But in European countries, the child is considered how ethnic father, as a rule.Думаю,что страницу будут продолжать херачить с ИП.После еще одного случая вандализма,попрошу защиты страницы у администрации.Sentinel R (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Quote "If his mother was a Jewish, then we can say that he is Jewish." It's religion, it has nothing to do with nationality. IF his mother was Jewish, but Ukrainian, she still would be Ukrainian. Also I have never heard about father's nationality passing to a son. I think its made up. I think all the questions will be gone if you find a source where Yanukovich himself said that he is Belarusian. Ales Hurko (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the mother is Jewish, and this is recorded on the birth certificate you can apply for citizenship in Israel. I know people who are moved to Israel, they all had Jewish roots on his mother.http://lb.com.ua/news/politics/2010/02/09/25382_yanukovich_poobeshchal_rodnomu_selu.html. Here's another example. Personally, his words I can not give because I do not know him personally.Sentinel R (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to know Yanukovich personally. If he is Belarusian, there has got to be some interviews or press conferences where he stated that. Ales Hurko (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. you have proof-link where Yanukovych says he is Ukrainian,Russian or someone else?.Sentinel R (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You see, the fact that Yanukovich is Belarusian is controversial. It has to be proven. Whereas the fact that Yanukovich is Ukrainian is not controversial one since he was born in Ukraine, to Ukrainian mother, spent most of his life in Ukraine and is Ukrainian president. If you cannot find some interviews or press conferences, find a source where it clearly says the Yanukovich is Belarusian. Ales Hurko (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ну и ок, вставь рядом Януковича с коллажом на пока что, но обсуждение надо продолжить".We have agreed that Yanukovich may be in the list. If I'll have proof-link with his assertion, I would also add. The main thing that a consensus was reached.Sentinel R (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached. Prove with a source that Yanukovich is Belarusian, please. Articles saying that he has Belarusian father are not accepted. Ales Hurko (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yanukovich and Lukashenka should not be put in because they are controversial and involved in a lot of corruption. I don't see the article English People adding George Bush (he's ethnically English) to the pictures for the same reasons. 94.0.160.176 (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Glebchik, regarding editing.

Dear Glebchik, before constantly clicking on "undo" saying that somebody is not Belarusian, please read biography of famous Belarusians (upper left corner section). You keep removing Kastuś Kalinoŭski and Tadeusz Kaściuszko from that section just because you don't consider them Belarusian despite of biographical and historical facts.

First of all, Kastuś Kalinoŭski's family has Polish background which was centuries ago but all his recent ancestors were Belarusian. Me for instance, I have Polish Catholic great-grandmother, all my other relatives are Belarusians. Does the fact that I have Polish background makes me not Belarusian even thought almost all my relatives are Belarusian?

Second, regarding Tadeusz Kaściuszko, again, please, read his biography, even here on Wikipedia. He was born in present-day Belarus, in Kosava to Belarusian parents. Yet, somehow he isn't Belarusian.

Looking forward to hear from you.

With all respect,

     Roscisław R.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscislaw Roman (talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 

Roscislaw Rom 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscislaw Roman (talk • contribs)

You are wrong. Kościuszko himself did not speak Belarusian; his family had become Polonized as early as the 16th century.[16] Like most Polish-Lithuanian nobility of that time, the Kościuszko family spoke Polish and identified themselves with the Polish culture.[17] The fact that he was born in present day Belarus is ridiculous because he wasn't born 'in present days' but in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth when many ethnic Poles were living in Belarus. The fact that he had Belarusian ancestors 200 yeasr before his birth doesn't make him Belarusian. Would be better for you to include someone more Belarusian, just saying...

16^ "Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – 100 ВЕЛИКИХ АРИСТОКРАТОВ – всемирная история" [Kościuszko, Tadeusz Andrzej Bonawentura – 100 Great Aristocrats – World History] (in Belarusian). History.vn.ua. Retrieved November 17, 2012. 17^ Storozynski, 2011 p.27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.78 (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Language

Hi. We have a discussion in our wiki about the language in this template. I found out that the template for Ukrainians in enwiki has only Ukrainian language filled in. Despite this, there are also russian and polish in the template for Belarusians. What's the matter? Not to start an edit war, I ask here. Thanks. Wizardist (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is russian because is the most used language by belarusians, and because is the official language in Belarus, along with belarrusian. There is also polish because some famous poles lived in the territory of Belarus, but I disagree using polish, because this template is for ethnic belarusians, not for poles. (sorry for my english)--Mr nonono (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So you've just said it. The language here must be what makes an etnic group different from another one. I don't think russian does. Wizardist (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just posted that before but I'm pasting here as well as it's relevant. If you removed Polish please remove Kosciuszko as well. Kościuszko himself did not speak Belarusian; his family had become Polonized as early as the 16th century.[16] Like most Polish-Lithuanian nobility of that time, the Kościuszko family spoke Polish and identified themselves with the Polish culture.[17] The fact that he was born in present day Belarus is ridiculous because he wasn't born 'in present days' but in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth when many ethnic Poles were living in Belarus. The fact that he had Belarusian ancestors 200 yeasr before his birth doesn't make him Belarusian. Would be better for you to include someone more Belarusian, just saying...

16^ "Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – 100 ВЕЛИКИХ АРИСТОКРАТОВ – всемирная история" [Kościuszko, Tadeusz Andrzej Bonawentura – 100 Great Aristocrats – World History] (in Belarusian). History.vn.ua. Retrieved November 17, 2012. 17^ Storozynski, 2011 p.27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:B (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello :-) On the 1st of October I added pictures of famous ethnic Belarusians, sorry for starting a discussion only now. The people I selected are: Branislaw Tarashkyevich, Pavel Sukhoi, Tadeusz Kościuszko, Lavon Volski, Yanka Kupala , Alaiza Pashkievich, Vasil Bykaŭ, Vintsent Dunin-Martsinkyevich, Lew Sapieha, Francysk Skaryna, Euphrosyne of Polatsk, Olga Korbut.

Feel free to suggest new people or comment on the existing selection! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Great selection! I like the fact that old Litvins-Ruthenians like Kosciuszko and Sepieha appear in the collage. It's important to remember that the Ruthenians/Litvins of the Great Duchy of Lithuania and modern Belarusians are the same ethnic group, which simply went through a change of name, and it's important to not forget about the Litvin part of Belarusian history. After all, Old Belarusian was the official language in Lithuania at the same time, most of the aristocracy was Ruthenian/Litvin (=Belarusian), and Belarusians were a majority in that state.

I also like the fact that Belarusian contemporary culture is well-represented. Vasil Bykau is no doubt the greatest Belarusian writer, and Lavon Volski is probably the most influential popular music I Belarusian language ever.

I think there is place to add Yefim Karskiy to the collage, but I am not sure instead of who. 2.124.14.197 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I added Symon Budny, Yefim Karsky and Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy. Didn't see who to put them instead so just added them without removing anyone. 90.216.193.145 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Haplogroups blah blah blah

Re: [4]. Yes, this is junk. It's some kind of weird obsession with genetics that is very much WP:UNDUE. Look at the article at say, Italians... or Fijians. Nothing about bloodgroups or genetic composition there. For a reason. At best, all this info tells you is that Belarusians are closely related to Russians, Poles and Ukrainians. Which, duh, we sort of already knew. At worst it looks like some kind of "purity of race" nonsense. Stepping back and looking at the article it makes Belarusians as a group look bad. Because what an average reader is going to think when they see this nonsense is that "oh, there's all this stuff about haplogroups and purity of genes in the Belarusian article but it's not in the other ethnicity articles, therefore Belarusians are folks who are obsessed with racial purity, i.e. they're bigoted anachronistic racists". Of course that's not what Belarusians are actually like, it's just what one particular fucking racist idiot who keeps adding this crap to this article is like. But if the material stays here then... let's call that POV.

I recall another user who was obsessed to adding these haplogroup and genetic differences to the articles on Poles and Ukrainians. Forgive me my bad faith but I'm willing to bet this is the same stupid crap all over again.

Please please please implement flagged revisions! Volunteer Marek 03:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Genetics is a cutting edge science, information about which belongs in Wikipedia, including how it relates to ethnic groups. Nobody is talking about some "purity of race nonsense". Genetic information is widely availble on ethnic pages, and if it is not available on some page, then it should be added, because the information is relevant and significant and belongs in a serious encyclopedia.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Many articles have sections about genetics and for a good reason. It teaches you a lot about a history of a nation and it's just interesting and relevant information. It has nothing to do with "ethnic purity", but it's a fact, different ethnicities have different genetic composition and it's a part of what defines those ethnicities. I do think you need to be blocked for your statements. Swearing and blaming people in racism and fascism shows a simple fact which is you need mental help. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Belarus, like most other regions, is POLYPHYLETIC. Modern DNA science is providing us with evidence of multiple heritages during multiple periods of population. Some Haplotypes may have been dominant at one time, then get reshuffled with additional immigration. Thus, the interpretation of DNA testing results is complex, and is not well suited for simplistic explanation. Seven males tested from the Xiaohe cemetery in the Tarim basin were Y-DNA R1a1a ( Chunxiang Li et al 2010 ), but does that support a generalization that Belarus is Chinese? Of course not. Absent from the discussion is the CCR5-Delta 32 allele, LWb allele, PI Z alleles, etc. The fiction of ethnic "purity" reflects a quantifiable low IQ by it's adherents ( G. Hodson et al., 2012 ). Embrace the Chaos. Sudowite (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Every ethnic group has various roots, but those are specific compositions which formed specific ethnic groups. No one talks about ethnic purity, as much as about a specific ethnic composition. Belarusians trace their history to specific tribes and kingdoms, just like the English, Russians and any other ethnicity. 90.216.193.145 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

New Mosaic

I should have done this before, but as you can see the moaaic infobox has been changed into a more organized array of famous people from Belarus, or famous ethnic Belarusians. This is the discussion for people who should or shouldn't be in the infobox.PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

But why do we need a new one...? Why not work with the old one? I personally think we shouldn't start from scratch but stick to the current collage, and offer specific changes based on the current collage. The current selection, in my opinion, is among the best on Wikipedia regarding ethnic group collages. There is no need to delete it completely and start everything from scratch for no reason.

• I love the current selection! I do support your offer to change from 3 lines of 5 to 4 lines of 4. Looks much more esthetic! Also, the way you styled it makes the images look the same size.
• I support your offer to add Victoria Azarenka to the collage. She is one of the most famous Belarusians today, and she is a woman, which is good for the male-female balance. Also, the move from 3 lines of 5 (15 people) to 4 lines of 4 (16 people) gives us an additional slot in the collage without having to remove anyone.
• I do strongly oppose your offer to add Angelica Agurbash for 3 reasons:
  • Performing at the Eurovision still doesn't make someone notable. After all, someone represents Belarus every year.
  • As a "musician" she does have a reputation similar to any other pop "bimbo". I mean I don't see English Americans proudly putting Britney spears on their collage... and that one didn't even make it outside of Belarus, while singing in Russian.
  • Modern Belarusian music is represented very well in the collage by Lavon Volski, the "father" of Belarusian-language rock, and also an ideological icon.

I really like every person selected in the collage, especially:

• Lavon Volski - The "father" of Belarusian-language rock, and also an ideological icon.
• Vasil' Bykaw - The greatest Belarusian novelist.
• Tadeusz Kościuszko - I am so happy he was included, many don't even realize that by modern ethnic definitions he would definitely be defined as a Belarusian. At the time the term Belarusian didn't even exist, but the term Litvin was mostly used for Belarusians and he definitely used it.
• Lew Sapieha - Same as Kościuszko, whoever did the original collage obviously did his home work regarding Belarusian history, because what was Ruthenian at the time=Belarusian today. It's the same nation, but with a new name. I am happy they made that historical clarification by including him in the collage. Belarusians didn't appear out of nowhere in the 19th century!
• Francysk Skaryna - If you ask me, the greatest Belarusian ever. He did a lot for book printing on a European level, and for Belarusian language individually.

If you have any specific people you want to add just propose them, suggest who insert them instead and why will they be better. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fairytales

The book "Сказанія русскаго народа, собранныя Иваномъ Петровичемъ Сахаровымъ, 1836, 1886" is translated in English as "Folklore tales of the Russian people, collected by Ivan Petrovich Saharov" (1836 AD, 1886 AD). It's not an academical science)). It's not a serious reference))--Pracar (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What...? No one is even using the book as a reference. What is being mentioned here, however, is how a name of a book was changed in Russia. The book was originally released as Tales of the Litvin people, and suddenly fifty years later the name Litvin is being changed to Belarusian due to government policies. It has nothing to do with the content of the book and no one is using the content of the book as reference! What is being used is the name of the book and an example of the word Litvin being removed by the Russian regime. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat again. The book "Сказанія русскаго народа, собранныя Иваномъ Петровичемъ Сахаровымъ, 1836, 1886" is translated in English as "Folklore tales of the Russian people, collected by Ivan Petrovich Saharov" (1836 AD, 1886 AD). It's not an academical science)). It's not a serious reference -- just a the book of fairy tales. // If you find a book "Folklore tales of the Litvin people, collected by Ivan Petrovich Saharov" or "Folklore tales of the Belarusian people, collected by Ivan Petrovich Saharov", please let me know. // I recommend You read a modern book written in 2001 AD by scientists of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences "Беларусы : у 10 т. / Рэдкал.: В. К. Бандарчык [і інш.]; Інстытут мастацтвазнаўства, этнаграфіі і фальклору імя Кандрата Крапівы НАН Беларусі. — Мінск : Беларус. навука, 1994–2007. — Т. 4 : Вытокі і этнічнае развіццё / В. К. Бандарчык [і інш]. — 2001. — 433 с." (about origins and ethnic development of Belarusians), not fairy tales. // Otherwise I will require Your blocking.--Pracar (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You are probably the biggest clown I have seen so far on Wikipedia. Adding racist phrases ("superior culture"), adding people to the collage who are not even Belarusian, avoiding discussion, yet somehow thinking you will get away with it. You will just get reverted.

I will repeat again, for the especially challenged. The book by Sakharov is not being brought in as academical science, non of the content of the book was used. What was mentioned is the name of the book which underwent a change due to political reasons.

The way you can't require anyone's blocking, and you'll be blocked yourself before you know it.

And my recommendation, learn proper English and stop relying on Google translate. Wikipedia has a certain standard for its texts.Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do recommend You read a modern book written in 2001 AD by scientists of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences "Беларусы : у 10 т. / Рэдкал.: В. К. Бандарчык [і інш.]; Інстытут мастацтвазнаўства, этнаграфіі і фальклору імя Кандрата Крапівы НАН Беларусі. — Мінск : Беларус. навука, 1994–2007. — Т. 4 : Вытокі і этнічнае развіццё / В. К. Бандарчык [і інш]. — 2001. — 433 с." (about origins and ethnic development of Belarusians), not fairy tales. This book was not written by clowns. // I am ready to discuss the question about the infobox after returning of my edits. --Pracar (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edits will not be returned until they are discussed. You are the one with the burden of proof. "//" And I have no problem with adding that book to the references, I actually did it myself (in case you didn't notice as you were too busy edit warring). However, that does not give you the right to delete content without agreement.

Fact is, you are writing personal opinions in horrible grammar. Why do you think anyone will allow you that?

"The results of the First General census of the Russian Empire (1897) indicated that only 6,6% of the population in the regions around the city of Smolensk considered the Belarusian language as their mother language[16]. This was contrary to the ethnographic mapping made by ethnographers without regard to the selfdetermination of the population." - Opinion+original research.

"and cultural advantages of the East Slav population" - ?? Shoot your English teacher.

The maps might have place in the article, but certainly not all of them. One or two are enough. Also, not with those weirdly written descriptions. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Belarusian Academy of Sciences is not a troll. Belarusian Academy of Sciences must do and have “Opinion+original research”.--Pracar (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that the BAOS has a Wikipedia account. In any case, one or two researches is not "the opinion of the Belarusian academy"... change your formulations, improve your English and we'll talk. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Belarusians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131003220103/http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/grandduchy.htm to http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/grandduchy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genetics

It won't do, as happened a few times now, that users add their own opinions to sourced text, if the material added is not in the sources given or in contradiction to what is in the sources given. No matter what you personally may think about the matter at hand. Frankly I'm also a bit concerned about al this haplogroup stuff anyway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Genetics source wrong

It states that "Studies show that genetically, Belarusians have also close similarities with Poles, which belong to the same group."

However, this is false. Poles and Belarusians only share the R1a haplogroup marker. Almost all Slavic peoples have R1a present within them. Poles however, have a substantial amount o haplogroup R1b within them that Belarusians do not exhibit. That does not make them have "close similarities". Poles are a Western Slavic peoples that have more similarities with their fellow West Slavic neighbors, Czechs and Slovaks. Saying that Belarusians have "close similarities" with Poles is arbitrary, because the similarities they share are merely only the R1a haplogroup (which almost all Slavs share). What separates this makes this post wrong is the fact that the high percentages of R1b in Poles is not present in Belarusians, therefore they are NOT closely related to Poles. Can someone please fix this?

Thank you. King Mieszko (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Mieszko

See the section below, King Mieszko. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on genetics for ethnic groups

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Although it has gone past the 30 day response time limit, I submitted for an uninvolved admin/experienced user to officially evaluate it and close it a week ago, but editors are still !voting and commenting. Until such a time as someone is ready to close it, other interested editors are welcome to voice their opinions. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass extermination

The Belarusians were exterminated in the SU and by the Nazis.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean exterminated as in removed completely? If you mean persecuted, yes, but that is mentioned at Soviet repressions in Belarus#Number of victims. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Nazi persecutions are addressed in the History of Belarus: Belarus in WWII section. It may be worthy of breaking up the "History" section into a few small, neutral summary sections with see also/main article hatnotes as has been done on a number of ethnic group articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands is more than persecuted.

Belarusians died everywhere - in German POW camps, working in Germany as Ostarbeiters, in Siberia, as Red army soldiers.Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The subject seems to be poorly covered. Demographics of Belarus says The population of Belarus suffered a dramatic decline during World War II, dropping from more than 9 million in 1940 to 7.7 million in 1951. The 9 million includes however citizens of Poland including Poles and Jews. Many Poles were deported or run away, the Jews were murdered by the Germans. The same problem is with the data in World War II casualties. A source is needed.Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

[5]Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belarusians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stat.kz/p_perepis/Documents/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%20%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141005122222/http://kamunikat.fontel.net:80/www/czasopisy/almanach/09/16.htm to http://kamunikat.fontel.net/www/czasopisy/almanach/09/16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129020526/http://kamunikat.fontel.net/pdf/albaruthenica/06.pdf to http://kamunikat.fontel.net/pdf/albaruthenica/06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)