Talk:Byelorussian collaboration with Nazi Germany

Belarus, not Byerolussia

Belarus is a modern synonym for Byelorussia: the people are called Belarusians, the language is called Belarusian language, etc - all they existed well before 1991 and are nevertheless called Belarusian. Therefore, the article must be named Belarusian collaboration with the Axis powers to avoid confusion and to ensure uniformity.--Czalex 07:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

First, please read WP:BRD. I've reverted your move and you will need a consensus here before you can move it again to avoid an edit war.

On the title: I disagree. The polity wartime Belarusians belonged to was the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and that's relevant here. Remember, "Byelorussian" here is used as an adjective of the state and does not from the demonym. This is important because we're dealing with the country as a whole, not with the Belarusian ethnic group (one of many in pre-war Byelorussia) and because the modern-day territory of Belarus is slightly different from that of 1940 Byelorussia. I'd add that the term Byelorussia (or its variant spelling Bielarussia) has attested usage 1 2 in modern-day WP:RS. Look through Google Books: it's actually very difficult to find the term "Belarus" used in English-language texts on the history of the country pre-1991 unless used as a direct referent to the modern state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Belarus is a modern synonym of the obsolete word Byelorussia (and its numerous variations). Belarus is a common name for the territory even in pre-1991 historical context, please see Google Books and web sources - 1, 2, 3.

If it's about the territory of the 1941 territory of BSSR and not about the ethnic group, the article might be Collaboration with the Axis powers in the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (a separate question is that that article should be Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic), and should also include sections on Polish and Russian collaboration on the territory of Belarus - and it should be made clear that this information must be added--Czalex 09:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think if you look at the Google Books list you present, you'll see that most WP:RS only use the term Belarus in historical writing when making a direct relation to the modern-day state. I would not necessarily oppose Collaboration in German-occupied Byelorussia but there is a definite convention (Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers, Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany) and I'm inclined to support staying with that. If you really care about this issue, I suggest you open a discussion at WP:Milhist. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Byelorussian collaboration with the Axis powers → Byelorussian collaboration with Nazi Germany – There was no B. collaboration with Japan, nor Italy. Let's make it more precise, just like for example pages on Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The associated category appears to be at Category:Belarusian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Dekimasuよ! 18:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, why is there a "y" in the name? I agree with what Dekimasu and should be renamed to be in line with that category instead. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
• "Byelorussian" is the spelling used by the UN of which the Byelorussian SSR was a member from 1945–1991. Wikipedia uses this spelling for most articles dealing with the 1920–1991 period. The "Belarusian" spelling didn't emerge until 1991 and could be considered anachronistic for this period. Also note this move discussion ongoing on a similar topic. —  AjaxSmack  00:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Seems sensible!—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Uniformity of Wikipedia titling forms is desirable in general and, when sensitive topics are discussed as part of series, such uniformity is desirable in particular. In addition to the move discussion linked above by AjaxSmack, a concurrent RM is presently active at Talk:Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers#Requested move 14 March 2018 which, in its current main header, uses the term "collaborationism", rather than "collaboration", as is the case with another related article, Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers, which has not yet been nominated for renaming. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, because nobody in Eastern Europe collaborated with Japan. Poeticbent talk 04:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 18 March 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: no consensus. After two relists, I'm not seeing much of a policy-based consensus either way. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Byelorussian collaboration with Nazi Germany → Belarusian collaboration with Nazi Germany – "Belarusian" is used throughout the article; Byelorussian is also less popular nowadays Marcelus (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anachronism. The article also requires copyediting to replace instances of "Belarus" with Byelorussian SSR, and "Belarusians" with Byelorussians. 162 etc. (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, it would be an anachronism if the current term were claimed to have been used by someone at an earlier time than the name came into use. The use of the current name for something when we ourselves refer to it is not anachronistic. Andrewa (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I would prefer the name to be kept as is, because otherwise it is anachronistic as 162 etc. said.

I would suggest that it is better to rename the article to Collaboration in German-occupied Belarus (Belarus in its current borders) for a clearer scope, because the extent of where Belarusians lived is rather unclear (where to draw the line between Russians and Belarusians, especially in the Smolensk region?) and Belarusian borders changed rather frequently from 1918 to 1945. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Anachronistic. "Belarusian"'s common usage doesn't make it right. We might as well have "Elizabeth II of England" or "Russia–United States relations because of they are also more commonly used than their correct titles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Their correct titles here are those determined by Wikipedia article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No, those examples are just factually wrong. No debate about it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support pretty sure few people wanting to read about this will imagine they have to type "Byelorussian" to find this article on Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 09:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even if they type "Belarusian collaboration with Nazi Germany", thanks to the magic of primary redirects, they will arrive at this article. 162 etc. (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That does not mean we should put any title. It should be one readers are the most likely to use. WP:COMMONNAME, a relevant policy for changing article titles, is aimed precisely at that for example. Super Ψ Dro 19:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME asks us to use the name " that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". I'll note that neither you or OP has presented any such sources to support the proposed title. 162 etc. (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to use more than one adjective for Belarus Marcelus (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We should note that there is no evidence yet presented either way. Andrewa (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Srnec (talk) 22:30, 7 April 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.