Talk:Alexander Lukashenko/Archive 4

Last dictatorship
Comment from intro:
 * Belarus has been called "the last true remaining dictatorship in the heart of Europe" by the former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Is this encyclopaedic? A lot of people say a lot of things about Condoleezza Rice, very little of it favourable. We don't publish it though do we? She isn't a philosopher, commentator, academic or anything whose comments count. That remark is worthy of an internet forum. Does anyone else feel it needs to stay? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote is very well-known and quoted very frequently (by the British media at least) whenever Belarus crops up. I'd say it's definitely encyclopaedic (it's attributed to Rice, so is hardly thrown in as an anonymous comment) and succinctly sums up the world's overall view of Belarus and its politics. And of course Lukashenko's leadership. Malick78 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's surely not only Rice who has this view, and she is surely not just a woman on the street. I can also recommend you to read the British historian Andrew Wilson's new book "Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship" [ http://www.amazon.com/Belarus-The-Last-European-Dictatorship/dp/0300134355 ]. Närking (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that lots of people say lots of things about others. Ahmadinejad has made scornful remarks about the U.S. leader (whichever at the time). Publications all over the world agree with him; do we operate a principle whereby sources close to the U.S. achieve encyclopaedic status whilst others against them are dismissed as unessential? I'm no apologist for Lukashenka and I would be far happier to keep the comment but state that it is widely believed, or mention a handful of people such as Wilson who I accept has academic value. Rice alone? Merely words from an agent of one regime opposed to another. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree: the Rice phrase has been repeated in very many articles, which then go on to endorse the view. Any repetition of an Ahmadinejad phrase usually then goes on to mock it. This is not about being pro-US, it's just the US has spoken out quite a lot against Belarus and Rice's words have risen above those of other people from other nations. It is, of course, handy to have an English quote for English WP, rather than a Polish quote for example... Malick78 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lukashenka was referred to as a dictator, his country a dictatorship long before people had heard of her. That section serves to promote her importance on the world scale and I'd have been shocked to discover that any rhetoric from her was original. usually the nonsense that comes out of her and Bush's mouth (needless to say Obama) is not so much oratory but regurgitated nonsense that people who follow world affairs have heard from others millions of times before. This source for instance dates back to 2002, three years before Rice's pronouncement; I've found others from 2004, people began to say it the very time Milošević was ousted in Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), "one more down, only Belarus left". Tudjman of Croatia was dead, and Izetbegović of Bosnia and Herzegovina only attracted negative reviews after his death in 2003. Suffice it to say that Rice neither introduced Lukashenka to the international scene nor were her remarks a seminal verdict that taught us what we didn't already know. All that happened was that media for the next few years began to quote her 2005 statement. Be that as it may, even if the comment is fine for the article, I don't see it as essential for the intro. These days, the MOS even instructs not to use birthplace details in the opening lines. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source from 2002 is by JACOB RESNECK, never heard of him. Is he notable at all? I'm pretty sure Rice is more notable and therefore trumps him. All I can see here from you is an attempt to avoid quoting an American. There's no policy that says a non-notable European (Resneck, probably) is better than a notable American (Rice). Sorry.Malick78 (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, I don't know Resneck myself. You obviously do since you have surmised that he is not American; for all I know he may be. The American nation is multi-ethnic so U.S. identity and citizenship produces persons of every kind of colour, origin and surname. You may not know Resneck but the work was published, at the world's disposal and this was three years before she made her speech. I know the way Wikipedia works (have edited since 2005) and I accept that the source I have provided lacks notability but if I were to search deeply, I'd probably find something higher profile. For me it was way back in June 2001 when Slobodan Milošević was handed over by Yugoslav authorities to UN staff in Bosnia for transfer to the Hague that I (living in Britian) was day and night listening to BBC Radio 4 (and World Service which covers the 0100-0520 hours). At the time there was a lot of news and comment and Belarus came up quite a lot, and it was the familiar theme, "Europe's last dictatorship". By the time Rice produced the speech, it was enough to put people familiar with Belarus into a deep coma - same old song. I am not anti-American simply because I do not swear by the wisdom of their government officials, or because I do vehemently oppose their foreign policies. It seems that too often people jump ship wherever possible to uphold the principle that a U.S. spokesperson's comments is encyclopaedic. Rice throughout her time stopped short of declaring Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain as "dictatorships" or "non-democratic", neither did she impugn their human rights records. If she did, we could all have tons of fun discredting those regimes on their articles, instead editors have to be ultra-cautious. We are presenting the word of Rice as gospel when Lukashenka himself has refuted the allegations time and time again. Other sources will then reveal that there is indeed an authoritarian structure in Belarus but by this time, Rice's 2005 plagiarism is irrelevant to both the republic of Belarus and Lukashenka. It's one woman's remark towards an administration unfavourable to her government. Still encylopaedic? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Jacob Resneck here! It's true, I'm not terribly notable, though I have been a professional journalist since 2003. I wrote that article as a student at the University of Leeds after traveling to Belarus in during the spring break in 2002. The dictatorship moniker was fairly common in eastern and central Europe at the time but less so in the English-speaking world. The context was the fall of Milošević in Yugoslavia. And I hardly think a person's nationality matters much. But in case you're curious, I was born and raised in the United States. 72.135.200.15 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest edits
The latest edits on this page should be checked by the editors of this page, as the whole statement made by the Wu Bangguo is really important. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Parker
I think references to Stewart Parkers "The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko's Belarus" should be removed. The author is obviously fake, there are no records about who he is anywhere to be found on the internet, the book is published by Trafford Publishing, a self publish website. The book itself is more like a copy of Lukashenkos opinions than a history book. The reasons are discussed more thoroughly here: http://allbranwen.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/lukashenko-on-my-desk/#comment-742 178.23.6.97 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I found another reference with the election results so I will replace it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is he a communist or a socialist?
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.56.50 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All Communists are Socialists, not all Socialists are Communists.


 * All juiceheads are gorillas, but you can be a gorilla without being a juicehead. Familiar? --88.89.69.104 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.207 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He is above that, he's a lukashist. Speaking about the economy of the country, so they are sort of moving to the Chinese model now, liberalisation of markets without democratization. Mcleinn (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he is asking in the terms of what party he belongs to. Constitutionally, the President is not a member of any political faction and does not run on any political party tickets. He can be supported by party members, but not elected as a Communist or Democrat or Socialist or anything like that. I would leave it as none. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A Lukashenkoist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.251.71 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lukashenko's ethnicity
He has Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish roots? It's slightly confusing, because a while ago there was the following sentence in the article: "It has been alleged by the media that Lukashenko is of Ukrainian descent". Is there any proof regarding his Polish and Ukrainian ancestry, does he acknowledge it? Not that I doubt it, but it would be nice to have one or two additional sources focusing on this aspect. 19 November 2012
 * It seems to have been removed due to the lack of sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Russia mafia reference
With regards to the following text
 * Lukashenko responds that his policies are the only alternative to instability, and have spared Belarus from the poverty seen elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and from powerful networks of organized crime known as the "Russian mafia.

Objections: Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No citation given.
 * Sounds conspiratorial.
 * Who knows them as the Russian mafia? WP:WEASEL

Lukashenko: better dictator than gay
Lukashenko recently said: "It's better to be dictator than a gay man." http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,819206,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is, one does not exlude another, so if Luka is a dictator it doesn't mean he's not a homo, dig?81.30.86.205 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110718093150/http://www.rec.gov.by/refer/refer1995.html to http://www.rec.gov.by/refer/refer1995.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090617025030/http://law.by:80/work/EnglPortal.nsf/0/89452FE328F40067C22574D3003DECEE?OpenDocument to http://law.by/work/EnglPortal.nsf/0/89452FE328F40067C22574D3003DECEE?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110105105337/http://www.rec.gov.by:80/pdf/prb2010/soob9.pdf to http://www.rec.gov.by/pdf/prb2010/soob9.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101223091356/http://www.osce.org:80/item/48242.html to http://www.osce.org/item/48242.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

human rights violations in lede
Mention of alleged human rights violations are given prominent mention in the lead. Unfortunately the article does not expand on this point. There are only a couple mentions of human rights violations in the article, and they are entirely tangential.Snarfblaat (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Belarusian atheists
I removed this category as searches for "atheism/atheist", "God" and "religion" had no relevant matches in the article, ergo it is unsourced. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody with such high regard of the Soviet Union were an atheist, but it needs a source. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

for alleged human rights violations
It happened on alleged Earth in alleged 21st century in alleged Wikipedia.Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Good article? Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lukashenko opposed Western-backed "shock therapy" during the post-Soviet transition
Why does a 2011 article support the opinion? Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

despite objections from Western governments
Strange. There are certainly such opinions of internal/external experts and organisations but only Western governments are mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Life expectancy at birth
Quite good measure: country comparison to the world: 138 Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Lukashenko a world leader?
downhill skiing, which he often practices together with other world leaders, including Putin and Medvedev
 * 1) The news is 7 years old, does he practice still?
 * 2) Are Putin and Medvedev world leaders? Maybe Putin, but Medvedyev isn't visible.
 * 3) other suggests that Lukashenko is a world leader. What is a world leader?Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The quoted source wasn't serious so I have removed the phrase.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the lead use the word dictator?
The lead currently states "Belarus has been labeled "Europe's last dictatorship" by some Western journalists". It's a bit weird, IMHO, to discuss Belarus rather than Lukashenko; I'd suggest rewriting this so that the sentence reads something like "Lukashenko is often labeled a dictator". We can discuss what Belarus is called in Belarus article, or even here, but I'd suggest the lead should focus on the person, not the country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 one external links on Alexander Lukashenko. 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 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/europe-and-central-asia/eurasia/belarus
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.president.gov.by/en/press35803.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://president.gov.by/en/press10003.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/15/10890.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/profiles/3080936/Alexander-Lukashenko-Dictator-with-a-difference.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/03/20/gallup
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/63597.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/24/belarus.protest/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,581019,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/video/europe/2010/12/20101219113519102551.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/12/20101218142317982604.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12037486
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12029814
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12029814
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12029814
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c92f7a2-0c0f-11e0-b1a3-00144feabdc0.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://noc.by/eng/nokrb/htdocs/1/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://brusselsreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=211&Itemid=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011152228/http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/indicators/labor.php to http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/indicators/labor.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.open.by/belarus-now/cont/1998/1117/politics/bg5-pol.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zubr-belarus.com/english/index.php?show=oldpress/oldpress058
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.data.minsk.by/belarusnews/032006/528.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3882843.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209868.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3461548,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Hastings_Call_on_Belarusian_President_to_Apologize_for_Remarks.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/About
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fap.ru/prem_laur.php?lt=believe&id=1864
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsvm.com/articles/2000/09/05/prez.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zatulin.ru/institute/sbornik/018/02.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportpanorama.by/content/advanced/3546/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.religare.ru/print17451.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.embassybel.ru/press/soft/2005/07/18/4334/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maranatha.org.ua/cnews/index.php?id=28365
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.president.gov.by/press19427.print.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/253631.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201849/http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/03/20/gallup to http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/03/20/gallup
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0%2C1518%2C581019%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706163519/http://news.belta.by/en/main_news?id=580390 to http://news.belta.by/en/main_news?id=580390
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c92f7a2-0c0f-11e0-b1a3-00144feabdc0.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zubr-belarus.com/english/index.php?show=oldpress%2Foldpress058
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209868.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3461548%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/About%2Bthe%2BMinistry/MFA%2BSpokesman/2007/FM%2BLivni%2Bcondemns%2Banti-Semitic%2Bremarks%2Bmade%2Bby%2BBelarusian%2BPresident%2B18-Oct-2007.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305135136/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10580407-better-a-dictator-than-gay-belarus-president-alexander-lukashenko-says to http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10580407-better-a-dictator-than-gay-belarus-president-alexander-lukashenko-says

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731100026/http://www.charter97.org/rus/news/2003/08/15/rodstvennik to http://www.charter97.org/rus/news/2003/08/15/rodstvennik
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20071110222410/http://www.president.gov.by/en/press35803.html with https://archive.is/20121130162456/http://www.president.gov.by/en/press35803.html on http://www.president.gov.by/en/press35803.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927182051/http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/15/10890.html to http://www.serbia-info.com/news/1999-04/15/10890.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428174816/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/24/belarus.protest/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/24/belarus.protest/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103135642/http://www.house.gov/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Hastings_Call_on_Belarusian_President_to_Apologize_for_Remarks.html to http://www.house.gov/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Hastings_Call_on_Belarusian_President_to_Apologize_for_Remarks.html
 * Added tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380645386&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328200603/http://forsecurity.org/swedish-pen-awards-prize-uladzimir-nyaklyayew to http://forsecurity.org/swedish-pen-awards-prize-uladzimir-nyaklyayew
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130219190847/http://news.belta.by/en/news/econom?id=235239 to http://news.belta.by/en/news/econom?id=235239
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201608/http://fap.ru/prem_laur.php?lt=believe&id=1864 to http://fap.ru/prem_laur.php?lt=believe&id=1864
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005335/http://www.newsvm.com/articles/2000/09/05/prez.html to http://www.newsvm.com/articles/2000/09/05/prez.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929161702/http://www.zatulin.ru/institute/sbornik/018/02.shtml to http://www.zatulin.ru/institute/sbornik/018/02.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080116065940/http://www.yerevan.am/index.php?page=hon_citizens to http://www.yerevan.am/index.php?page=hon_citizens&lang=arm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110222415/http://www.president.gov.by/press19427.print.html to http://www.president.gov.by/press19427.print.html
 * Added tag to http://www.mre.gov.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3444%3Apresidente-chavez-se-reune-con-su-par-bielorruso-lukashenko&catid=142%3A03-2010-visita-del-presidente-alexandr-lukashenko&Itemid=520
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618103701/http://www.predsednik.rs/sh/node/566 to http://www.predsednik.rs/sh/node/566
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130410025833/http://president.gov.by/en/press142871.html to http://president.gov.by/en/press142871.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2017

 * 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: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko → Alexander Lukashenka – More and more media outlets are using his Belarusian name rather than his Russian name. Taivo (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. I haven't seen "Lukashenko" in at least a year in the various media outlets that I follow for Eastern Europe.  --Taivo (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment His Belarusian name is Алякса́ндр Рыго́равіч Лукашэ́нка and his Russian name is Алекса́ндр Григо́рьевич Лукаше́нко. Do you have any evidence to support your specific assertions that "Alexander Lukashenka" is the most common name in reliable sources? The most recent article from The Guardian uses "Alexander Lukashenko" as has the most recent article from France 24. Those are just two examples from reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The most recent article from Radio Free Europe has "Lukashenka" and you can hear it on all their podcasts. Britannica's article is "Lukashenka". Forbes uses "Lukashenka".  English language Ukrainian sources use "Lukashenka".  It's being used in scholarly works.  It's appearing in on-line news sources.  Here's an older article from The Economist.  Here's an article from the Jamestown Foundation.  Belarus English language sources also use "Lukashenka".  That's just from my usual sources plus a Google search.  So there is evidence of a change in English language usage.  --Taivo (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not consider many of those independent, reliable sources. Most of them, such as Radio Free Europe and euromaidanpress.com are established with the intention of pushing POV agendas. Britannica is interesting because it does not use the name you have proposed, instead using "Alyaksandr Hrygorevich Lukashenka" AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources continue to use "Alexander" with "Lukashenka", so the Britannica's usage of the Belarusian first name is an outlier. The key is that it demonstrates "Lukashenka" in a reliable English source.  Your definition of "reliable source" seems more personal than policy, but the point nonetheless is that English-language reliable sources are moving toward "Lukashenka".  I was not systematic in my search for "Lukashenka", but even with a nonsystematic search there are equivalent reliable sources to those you cited above that are locatable without a lot of effort.  --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Still by far his commonest name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is his most commonly used name that is found in reliable, english language sources and the article should reflect this fact. The evidence above presented by AusLondonder also casts doubt above the independence and reliability of these sources you have provided. As per Necrothesp and AusLondonder I strongly oppose this move. --Sau226 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:AusLondonder's objections only deal with two of the sources I presented. The definition of reliable sources clearly includes all the other sources I cited besides the two that AusLondonder objected to.  He ignores the evidence of Britannica, Forbes, Springer, EUObserver, The Economist, Jamestown.org, and Belarus Digest, all of which are reliable sources, but that AusLondonder obscures with his overly-broad "propaganda" statement.  --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I objected to many of the sources on the basis of WP:SOURCES but dealt with only some specifically in my comments. The Jamestown Foundation is another example of a source which is not neutral or reliable in this context and has a specific agenda to push. It was established with the intention of "supporting Soviet defectors" and is actively hostile to Russia. It is using the less-common Lukashenka name for political purposes. Google ngram shows Lukashenko remains the name overwhelmingly used in book sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. And even though it isn't the most definitive evidence, a simple Google search for "Lukashenka" yields 496,000 results, while a simple search for "Lukashenko" yields 528,000 results .  That's hardly overwhelming usage of his Russian name instead of his name in his native language.  --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But neither is it evidence that his common name in English-language sources has switched to his native language! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose cite a source or two proving your claim that "More and more media outlets are using..." plus, isn't he a Russian speaker himself? what does he prefer? -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:40, 16 October 2017 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223210521/http://blogs.reuters.com/andrei-makhovsky/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/andrei-makhovsky/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070927210004/http://sportpanorama.by/content/advanced/3546/ to http://sportpanorama.by/content/advanced/3546/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714230237/http://archive.kremlin.ru/text/news/2001/04/136690.shtml to http://archive.kremlin.ru/text/news/2001/04/136690.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Highly Problematic Article: Clarity issues, irrelevant information, mis-named sections, context issues
I rarely edit articles anymore, though that might start changing soon. In any case, this article was particularly problematic for me. It is long, yet doesn't actually provide much information about Lukashenko himself! Many parts of the article feel like they belong in the article for Belarus and/or its economy rather than in a biography.

Given the length of time Lukashenko has held power, it is appropriate to discuss his policies and policy views. However, this isn't what is actually in the article. I began to edit the 'domestic policy' section but quickly found myself overwhelmed by the problems with it. The issues is that the section doesn't explain anything about Lukashenko's actual policy positions and actions he's taken to implement them. It talks about his nickname. It provides some seemingly random information regarding monetary policy and discusses elections (which are already discussed, at length, elsewhere in the article). It includes a few references to foreign policy issues. It even references what appears to be a political-economic ideology which is what this section should actually be about, but it fails to elaborate on that ideology (Lukashism?). The economic information largely belongs in the Belarus article and instead needs to discuss Lukashenko's positions on fiscal and monetary policy. There is nothing here about social policy at all, nothing about views on development, education policy, healthcare policy. There is nothing here to explain Lukashenko's views which are what this section should only contain!

The problem isn't just the domestic policy section either, many statements are confusing or lack clarity due to contextual issues. (e.g. 'Salaries raised to $500USD' - relative to what? Whose salaries? Is this monthly, weekly, annually?).

Beyond that, the article is missing a lot of information that it should have despite its length. There is virtually nothing about his youth or time as a Soviet official. Nothing about how he managed to maneuver into power in 1994. Nothing about his upbringing, personal beliefs, relationships (personal and political). There is some information about his willingness to cooperate with international institutions, but doesn't explain why - especially given his anti-Western outlook (or, at least, that's how it comes across). There are multiple references to being friendlier to the EU, but not following through, following 2010 - but nothing about why Lukashenko did this, it isn't contextualized in regards to the man the article is about.

Other parts are repetitive; some are worded awkwardly; some seem to have an implicit POV; and some of the sources are questionable in terms of validity while others don't necessarily say what the article says they do. Again, using the domestic policy section as an example, there is mention of pegging the Byelorussian Ruble to the Russian Ruble, Euro and US dollar. It is clear that the writer of this particular bit of information isn't well versed in monetary policy, which is fine. However, it isn't fine to make statements about monetary policy based off of a short abstract that lacks specificity. It appears that the reference states the Ruble would be pegged to a basket of strong international currencies - and that those would not include the US dollar (given that the only statement answering 'why?' says that this was done to strengthen their ruble against the dollar.

Anyways, I write too much - I don't think this should be a 'good article' anymore, but not personally ready to propose it having that status revoked. However, this isn't a biographical article when it should be. It's not chronological at all, it is more about elections and... the socioeconomic position of Belarus? I'm not even sure - but it isn't about Lukashenko specifically. RememberToForget (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to begin fixing the pro

Gypsy father
The article says " another version that's very widespread in Belarusian society said that his father was an unknown gypsy." This is almost certainly just a rumour. The source provided only says "по другой, очень популярной в белорусском обществе, — некий неизвестный цыган." The wording should be changed to reflect. Also, the word Romani is preferrable to Gypsy. --Greece666 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Greece666: I have removed the sentence. It looks like reliable sources support that his father is unknown. We could certainly cover rumors if they had important coverage in reliable sources. Since it is a living person biography, reliable sources that demonstrate the rumor is WP:DUE should be presented first. --MarioGom (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s not necessary that his father was a gypsy, but certainly an eerie marginal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.60.229 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversial statements: COVID pandemic: encourages citizens to drink vodka and visit the sauna
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-belarus-urges-citizens-to-drink-vodka-visit-saunas.html

> Lukashenko encouraged citizens to drink vodka (unless working) and visit the sauna at least twice a week to stay healthy.

--Tuxayo (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Forged referendum
It should be mentioned, that the results of the referendum were known before referendum actually started. There was a lot of talk about it in Polish press Szopen 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Various people have come forward with proof for forgeries being ready few days before the election and were ingored (in Belarusia). Also, Lukashenko 'predicted' the outcome (75%). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The results of this referendum were known half a year ago, when he first announced that "If people ask me to run for the office once more, how can I go against their will?". Whatever "proof" these people have, they cannot disprove that Luka is supported by the majority of Belarusian electorate, if even for the sole reason only: there is no serious alternative (I am not discussing why it is so). Mikkalai 08:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether we understand each other here. We are talking about actual documents with "results" for counties like Minsk etc, which were posted to Polish press by Belarussian opposition, not about some people's predictions. Szopen 12:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You are not sure correctly. Please re-read your first phrase. Now that you clarified, I say, why not, if you can provide exact references. (My personal opinion, though, after my last visit to Minsk this summer is that Belarusian Popular Front (BPF) started using of dirty and disgusting methods). Mikkalai 19:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having only just found this page, I'll refrain from making edits yet, but would like to raise the issue of whether we have any reason to suggest that the Gallup poll would have been skewed/failed to survey voters in the countryside. I'm not blind to the difficulties of carrying out representative exit polls in Belarus - I'm only questioning the second sentence here:

"An exit poll survey performed by the Gallup Institute showed that only 48% of people voted "yes" on Lukashenko's referendum, with a margin of error of 1%. On the other hand, this poll is probably skewed, since the majority of Lukashenko supporters are in the countryside." Valerie, 17.06, 22 Oct 2004


 * An expected exit poll from the independent Gallup Organization/Baltic Surveys was in doubt after more than half of its 200 poll-takers were detained, opposition leaders said.
 * Do you really expect 100 persons can conduct a non-skewed all-country poll? Mikkalai 17:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Valerie, I understand your concern about the disbelief expressed towards the results supposedly from the respectable "Gallup Institute" (?).  What worries me much more is that the information is added to wikipedia articles by random copying of pieces from various websites who copy it from somewhere else, without minimal verification, readily available in the very same internet. I am glad you had common sense to refrain from immediate editing (I hope because you wanted to check the facts yourself first). Welcome to wikipedia. Mikkalai 17:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello! Just a quick point which I hope to come back and clarify, but the Poles are not the best source for any FACTUAL information on Belarus and Lukashenko. Hostility there goes back years, probably even centuries. I am currently writing a political biography of Lukashenko, with an involved history of the country, and they are absolutely inseperable, and the Polish issue is a significant one. It is no accident that the first inter-ethnic dispute within Belarus was with the 'League of Belarusian Poles'. As I said, just a brief point, I'll try and qualify it better soon! Like most of you, I'm a busy person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.86.51 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement from Gallup
http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/03/20/gallup

Gallup/Baltic Surveys announces impossibility of independent and reliable exit polls under present conditions in Belarus 11:53, 20/03/2006

Independent and reliable exit polls would be impossible in Belarus, said Vilnius-based Baltijos Tyrimai (Baltic Surveys)/The Gallup Organization in a press statement. The group noted that owing to Belarusian authorities` measures, it had decided not to poll exiting voters in this presidential election in the country. Baltijos Tyrimai coordinated such polls during Belarus` parliamentary elections and referendum in 2004.

Director General Rasa Alisauskiene said that when the exit poll project was discussed a few months ago, it became clear that Belarus` security agencies were going to prevent any independent exit polls, harassing interviewers and coordinators, spreading slander about Baltijos Tyrimai/The Gallup Organization, and "trying to create an atmosphere of fear."

"Given the present situation in Belarus, it would be impossible to conduct an independent and reliable poll of voters, which would be free of pressure from authorities," Ms. Alisauskiene said. She noted that two Belarusian government-controlled pollsters, EcooM and the Belarusian Committee of Youth Organizations, announced the results of their exit polls before noon, although the polling stations closed at 8 p.m. "One of those pollsters says that it polled 6,638 voters at 2,800 polling stations, that is less than three voters per station," Ms. Alisauskiene said. This is evidence that those who had been officially allowed to poll exiting voters "did not have the slightest idea of how to conduct such polls," she added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avraamrii (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?
The page is unwieldy. 22:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no dispute in RS that he rules an authoritarian regime
The editor "Goodposts" has removed RS characterizations of his regime as "authoritarian" and included ludicrous labels to academic research saying that these are "Western" analysts. The editor also laughably characterized in Wikipedia's voice Lukashenko's rule as having become more democratic and adding unsourced gibberish about how Lukashenko "spared Belarus from the poverty and oligarchy seen elsewhere in the former Soviet republics." It's very troubling to see a long-time Wikipedia editor demonstrate such incredibly bad judgment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree and have restored the stable version. The language "spared Belarus from the poverty and oligarchy" is neither cited, nor accurate, nor neutral. Describing the near unanimous-consensus of political scientists and observers as "Western analysts" is also improper. Neutralitytalk 22:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First off, if you're going to discuss me, it's common courtesy to at least tag me. I have not removed the characterization of his 'regime' - quote from my edit "Lukanshenko's rule over the country has been described as authoritarian..." and I further elaborate who made these statements in regards to him. This is common practice, especially as this is WP:BLP, which these new edits violate. The lead reads like an anti-Lukashenko essay. I recommend you read WP:BLPSTYLE. If the adjective of "Western" appears to be problematic - fine, remove it, as I had done in my most recent diff. I really don't see what the issue is, considering that it is descriptive of the sources used, but whatever, leave it out. Let it just be 'analysts', that's fine by me.


 * You quote "spared Belarus from poverty and oligarchy" completely out of context. Let me repost what I wrote, as you appear to be leaving it out "...his supporters nevertheless have pointed to his high approval ratings, claiming that his policies ... have spared Belarus from the poverty and oligarchy". That little quote mine completely takes what I wrote out of context - in reality it was just offering the point of view and claims of his supporters. This is done in order to provide a neutral tone. Do you believe it is neutral to have a paragraph deriding him and then completely leave out the points of view of the sizable portion of the population that supports him?


 * Imagine an article on Donald Trump that reads "Donald Trump is the current President of the United States. He has made racist and sexist remarks, has been criticised for a lack of political experience, aggravated speech, ignorance, lack of tact and authoritarian tendencies. Trump routinely gives the majority of his interviews to fringe far-right channel OAN, has advocated for a military invasion of Venezuela and supported the shooting of protesters in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd". Then you leave nothing else in the lead, as RS have all stated the above at one point or another. Would that fly? Absolutely not. Wikipedia articles are not exposes, they are supposed to be encyclopedic. Especially in regards to living persons, especially currently ruling heads of state, especially those up for re-election this year, it is a gross violation of policy to have a lead that features nothing but unattributed negative characterisations, then delete anything else that provides the other side of the argument, even when cited by the same publications.


 * Furthermore, how come you appear to have no issues deleting other RS, sometimes even the same RS you use, when they're not used to prove the point that you appear to be pushing? You deleted Reuters, DW, NYP and even official OSCE statements. Those weren't added there to absolve him, they were added to let the reader know that this is a dynamic situation and his governance has swung the pendulum in both directions at times, rather than being some comic super villain.


 * Your accusations of edit warring are also fallacious. Yes, I changed your edits, but each edit I made was different. Concessions were made to accomodate for your criticisms and to address your concerns. Working on wikipedia articles is a labour of compromise and numerous iterations.


 * Lastly - this version is anything but "stable". The old style of the lead was stable for years and this new edit is very recent, while the old style was even listed as a good article a few years back. If you want to rollback to a pre-dispute diff, then revert to the diff before these edits, as I dispute this lead just as much as you dispute mine. BLP articles in particular require a very heavy focus on attribution and with good reason. This doesn't dampen the criticism - it only clarifies it. I look forward to hearing back from you. Have a nice day. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The key point is this: RS (in particular peer-reviewed research and academic assessments) characterize his regime as authoritarian and cite examples of how it's authoritarian. We do not attribute these RS descriptions as if they were opinions and as if this was an active dispute among different RS and research. You have not presented any RS that dispute the authoritarian characterization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * As I've stated, the lead I put in already stated that Lukanshenko's rule over the country has been described as authoritarian. Then I go on to describe on what basis and by whom that description was made. What's wrong with stating that Oxford Press, or this or that analyst made the statement? If it's a reputable institution, as is the case with Oxford, that only increases, not deminishes the value of the description. Goodposts (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * By claiming this is an opinion held by one scholar or one book, you're giving readers the false impression that there is an active dispute about whether his regime is authoritarian. Again, there is no dispute in RS that the regime is authoritarian. Stating that in anything except Wiki voice would be a npov violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nowhere did I ever claim that, and in fact I attributed pretty much every single source you used.... Goodposts (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to say, it takes chutzpah here to complain about "not being pinged" - you had notes from two users on your user talk page. Those posts plus the edit summaries made it plain your edit was being challenged. So obviously looking at the article talk page should have been your first port of call, especially before proceeding to revert. On the content:
 * When the set of relevant experts is unanimous or near-unanimous on a point, it's improper (or at best terrible writing style) to attribute, especially in a way that implies that it is, as Snooganssnoogans said, an "opinion held by one scholar or one book." In such circumstances, we don't distance ourselves from the source material with weasel, passive-voice constructions like "has been described as..." For example, you use the phrase "Oxford University Press dubbed his 2015 reelections having taken place in an 'authoritarian context...'" But that's a very strange way to distance ourselves from the source material, which actually says there is "unanimous agreement among serious scholars that... Lukashenko's 2015 election occurred within an authoritarian context." Describing what virtually every serious political science book says as just the opinions of "analysts" or "Western analysts" is also terrible.
 * It is not proper to credit Lukashenko in the lead with "sparing Belarus from ...poverty and oligarchy seen elsewhere in the former Soviet republics" (even if we attribute that to amorphous "supporters"), given that few high-quality sources actually support this proposition (Also what's up with using a 1994 Reuters article as a source in the lead, too? Strange). For example, the Encyclopedia of World Poverty (2006) describes Belarus as a country where "poverty is endemic" and official statistics "are unreliable owing to political influences and questionable methodology." (The same work calls Belarus "the only remaining dictatorship in Europe" under "its authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenka, [who] has imposed various restrictions on economic and political freedoms"). This economic working paper says that poverty increases during repeated economic crises "casts doubt on Belarus's record in poverty reduction"). So to put in unchallenged praise in the lead section about the Belarusian economic record seems very odd to me, to say the least.
 * --Neutralitytalk 15:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * He had only pasted a fallacious template on my page that never mentioned any discussion, this was started before your message on it. Checking the talk page was how I found this. I'm merely saying it's courtesy to tag people when discussing them.


 * At no point was it ever implied, expressly or otherwise, that that constituted the opinion of one author or book. The consensus was written in pain text (and quoting for the third time here) "Lukanshenko's rule over the country has been described as authoritarian ". That's a full sentence. Following the end of that sentence, exerpts are taken from different sources to explain the reasoning. Multiple sources are used in that regard, and none of them are used in such a way as to frame the conclusion as merely an opinion. The word "opinion" or any of it's synonyms or degoratives - such as "opined", "claimed", "asserted" or even the more neutral "said/stated" are all completely absent from my proposal.


 * As for your second point - very well, how about "Oxford University Press publications peg scholarly consensus as unanimous in condemning the 2015 elections as having taken place in an authoritarian context". Does that address your concern?


 * Lukashenko isn't credited with anything. Again, that's a claim made by his supporters. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. Its purpose there is not to credit him with anything, but to explain the reasoning behind those that support him and why he was even elected in the first place. Something completely and utterly lacking from the current lead. What's wrong witn a 1994 article? It's used specifically to prove why it is that people voted him into office in the first place. How is it not relevant? The discussion on poverty has nothing to do with this article. It's the rationale behind his supporters, not an assertion of its own right. They believe that Lukashenko "saved the country from poverty". So how about this - we put that back in, but add it in quotation marks, to make it absolutely clear that it's a statement attributed to his supporters, not an encyclopedic assertation? Goodposts (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "Oxford University Press publications peg scholarly consensus" is just terrible. We report the scholarly consensus. We don't hedge in the manner you describe. There's no serious dispute that he's an authoritarian leader. As for the poverty stuff, you need much better, and much more recent sources before we could even think about inclusion - and then in the body of the article, not the lead section. Neutralitytalk 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No part of that is "hedging", it's called attribution, as is proper in a BLP article. What is wrong with the sources? You appear to be applying an insane double standard here. In the body, not the lead? Very well then, do that for all of the text in question, not just the part that doesn't fit the POV that is pushed with the current lead. Goodposts (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. - let me give an example of what I'm talking about. The Wikipedia entry for none other than Adolf Hitler, perhaps humankind's worst dictator, has phrases such as " Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. According to Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination – physical and moral – been associated with the name of one man."[4] "


 * Notice how the descriptive statement is made and then examples are made with attribution. That doesn't degrade the statement made, nor the criticism. It lets the reader see examples of who is making these statements and why they are making them. In this case, it only furthers the reader's understanding that Hitler was perhaps the most dangerous psychopath and despicable human being to ever have lived, let alone held power. Yet it is done in such a way as to allow the reader to come to this conclusion by themselves, rather than appearing as an argumentative essay on the matter. The article is made better, not worse, due to this attribution. Goodposts (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hitler's lead literally in Wikipedia's voice refers to "his dictatorship", "he attempted to seize power in a failed coup", says he engaged in "anti-semitism", and says he did "propaganda". The lead does not say that "Hitler's critics accuse him of governing a dictatorship" or "this book says he was a dictator". The lines you're cherrypicking are placed towards the end of his lead in order to emphasize the utter depravity and evilness of his rule. It has no relevance to this discussion (has anyone been trying to add content calling Lukashenko "immoral"?) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Do I really need to quote that first sentence I wronte again again for the fourth time? The point was to write exactly what somebody did, rather than just stating "this person was a dictator" and deleting all context. In Hitler's case, it only proves to show how sick he was and the evil and misery he unleashed upon the world. Goodposts (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * More than a week and no reply. What about the other issues I addressed in my statement? Any dispute? Goodposts (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I've made my position plain. You don't have consensus for your edit. If you want to move to an RfC, you can do so. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, a position that is thoroughly intellectually flawed and that refuses to address, let alone accept any crticisim, even when the opposing side has taken yours into account. You similarly do not have consensus for what was done to the lead. It's a shame that you're unwilling to provide even the slightest bit of good faith assumption, and instead turned this into some kind of ego trip. It appears as though RfC is the only option, as your username betrays you heavily - you are anything but neutral. Goodposts (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Popular Opinion
The section of this article labeled "Popular Opinion" is at best poorly sourced and at worst reads like it was added by the Belarusian Government's press office. Further, I think the legitimacy of a poll of an approval rating for an authoritarian dictator conducted by that same dictator's regime should be considered dubious. It also seems like a weird item to include more generally, as it something you wouldn't find on an article for a Western leader, since it's constantly changing. I recommend deletion of the entire section.


 * It's in need of attribution, not deletion. I've reworded it to attribute the claims made and hyperlinked to the article on BelITA, so the reader can decide for himself wether or not to trust the agency. PS. Please sign your posts with four tides, so we can easily tell who is writing what. Goodposts (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed the government poll, and added RS content on his public support. The Carnegie report contains more history on Lukashenko's public opinion. Someone interested in expanding the article can find more about his historical public support in that report (which summarizes polling in Belarus). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Leaked polls? On what Earth are you living on? This is BLP. "Leaked polls" are miles bellow state-run ones in credibility (and that's not a high bar to clear!). "Leaked polls" are entirely unacceptible for use in BLP articles. Goodposts (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Per RS, there are no recent independent surveys in Belarus. But an internal government survey was leaked, and reported on in RS, so the page covers that one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Leaked surveys are not credible enough to be included on a BLP page, even if RS mentioned them - the RS doesn't clear them of their origin. Goodposts (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Source of allegations
It seems fair to state that Lukashenko's government is "authoritarian". But some of the quotes attributed to him are poorly sourced. For example, in the section "Third Term (2006-2011)" we read:

'Lukashenko reacted by saying that anyone going to opposition protests would have their necks wrung "as one might a duck"'

and the citation is to an article in the British newspaper Daily Telegraph, which doesn't give any source for the quote. Essentially, it's an unsupported allegation by one Daily Telegraph journalist that Lukashenko said that. There also isn't any context. I don't think that's good enough for a firm statement in a Wikipedia article. Longitude2 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lukashenko2020.jpg

Citation overkill
Is including close to 10 citations really necessary for the line in the introduction: "Elections are not free and fair, opponents of the regime are repressed, and the media is not free."? Looks like a case of WP:OVERCITE. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Health issues
The corresponding Russian article has a section about health issues, including the claim that Lukashenko suffers from "mosaic psychopathy". Why doesn't this article have that information? Debresser (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably because nobody has translated this section. - Ace111 (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020
former president* 85.145.106.119 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  12:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is very clear what they want. They want to update that he is not president any more. However, that is not really true. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

He atleast was a communist/socialist
, While as you may say that Lukashenko isn't a communist, I am not able to comment on that. However he was, undeniably, a communist. He may or may not still be a communist, but he was a communist. Would you not call Otto Skorzeny a Nazi? Supposedly he worked for Mossad after WW2, but I don't think anyone is going to argue he isn't a nazi. He was and as such that title shall follow him into the history books (or online encyclopaedias as it is). As such, I'm not saying he is or is not still a communist. I'm saying he was a communist. As such like Skorzeny, the politics that Lukashenko at least did follow should be kept in history. 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 election fraud-better citations needed
Right now there are two sources supporting the claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent. The first is a large Oxford handbook of democracy which makes passing reference to the 2015 elections, clearly not useful. The second is an Atlantic council piece which offers the oft-written line about "widespread allegations of fraud," and provides this additional claim: "These suspicions appeared to be confirmed by data from a limited number of polling stations that broke ranks with the government and identified opposition candidate Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya as the clear winner."

Nearly all the press sources make the same comments about widespread fraud. But can we find a source which provides harder evidence of fraud on the ground? Is there something more concrete than allegations?

This OSCE statement is a start, but it can only cover abuse of electoral process before the election, not during or after, since they did not send a monitoring mission. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/457309

Toadchavay (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020
However, relations with Russia have not always ran too smoothly under his tenure either (such as during the Milk Wars) with Lukashenko occasionally having claimed that Moscow wanted to annex Belarus, as late as January 2020.
 * There is tense issues here. Suggest change ran to run. Frankly the entire sentence should probably be rewritten. 2001:4898:80E8:0:615C:D55C:1198:4E90 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, rewritten. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 22:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020
According to Russian media reports, Nikolai in September 2020 begins to study at one of the Russian gymnasiums. Ghjcnj&#59;jgf (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the source that would be a Gymnasium in Moscow.
 * Where precisely would you like to see that information added? After all, this article is not about him, rather about his father. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Thank. This information is for the Family section (Personal life) Ghjcnj&#59;jgf (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Let's see what other editors say, because I feel a bit uncomfortable with this proposed edit. For the reason I stated above, that this article is not about the son but about the father.
 * ❌ In addition to Debresser's concerns, I'm not convinced "belaruspartisan.by" is a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There is also a later report giving more info: https://www.kp.ru/daily/217183.3/4287447/. — Ace111 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Last dictator
Should the lead mention that many news organizations have been calling him Europe's last dictator -> The Atlantic Council, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, Business Insider? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * is the Atlantic Council the same as the Atlantic Journal? Thank your for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, sorry for the silly typo. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, :-) Lotje (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is absolutely appropriate to include mention of it in the lede. Its notability is well-established by many global news organizations including CBS News, Fox News, The New York Times, BBC News, etc. I will adjust the lede and reference this talk page in the editing comment upon publishingWritethisway (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I too agree. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ice hockey
Lukashenka has been said to have more than a passing interest in ice hockey. It seems it was a personal goal to get the 2014 IIHF World Championship and so this year's 2021 IIHF World Championship.

There is only a single reference to ice hockey under hobbies, noting that he played exhibition games. There is no reference to the more political aspects of his hobby sport. The money involved and international recognition. The decisions to hold the IIHF Championships in Belarus have been controversial, most recently the 2021 Championship has been moved from Belarus.

This EUobserver article states says Lukashenko "has built 25 so-called ice palaces throughout the country with another 27 planned. Each ice-palace costs around €22.7 million, according to Fedynitch Gennadi, chairman of a Minsk-based trade union"

A Fair Observer article reads: "As an avid ice hockey fan, President Lukashenko was determined to shape the championships into a success and a tool to legitimize his governing methods. He diverted public funds to beautify Minsk and make it more cosmopolitan for Western fans coming to root for their national teams. A visa-free entry regime was established for the duration of the competition. It was an excellent opportunity to present Belarus to those who barely gave the country any consideration as a viable host and to present a carefully constructed positive image."

This Index on Censorship article: "Hockey is the favourite sporting activity of the Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko. Every year he organises hockey tournaments in which he himself participates and wins. "

This Current history article: "But there was talk of one day banning Belarus from prestige projects like Eurovision or denying it the world ice hockey championship finals, which Belarus's number one hockey fan, Lukashenko, hopes to stage in 2014.

This Belarus Digest story: "It is difficult to overestimate the importance of ice hockey in Belarussian politics. The officials heading the Belarusian Ice Hockey Association belong to the inner circle of the president. For a long period of time (from 2001-2009) the Minister of Internal affairs Uladzimir Navumau headed the association. The ex-minister of sports and the deputy secretary general of the Eurasian Economic Community Yaugeni Vorsin stepped in to fill his shoes back in 2010."

This EUObserver article: "Lukashenko’s love for ice hockey has resulted in dozens of so-called ice palaces. Every evening he strolls across the grounds of his palatial home in the city outskirts to one such ice palace he uses for his own personal amusement."

I just wonder if Hobbies is the proper place for this. Jabbi (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Heavy introduction
I feel that the introduction to the article is too heavy. It's 421 words and the second paragraph starts with asserting what his policies were back in the mid 90s. I feel that the balance between giving a good overview is a bit too detailed here. I think ~200 words should be cut of and transferred to main content. --Jabbi (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lukashenko belarusian state university-.2021-01-29.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexander Lukashenko 12-02-2021 (cropped).png

Hijacker?
According to Aircraft hijacking hijacking is "the unlawful seizure of an aircraft by an individual or a group." If he gave the order to force Ryanair Flight 4978 to land in Belarus then I think he is a hijacker according to that definition. The article does not use that word and he is not in Category:Hijackers? In Osama bin Laden the word hijack is used in the article but he is not in the category of hijackers. Does that mean that hijackers are only used for the persons doing the actual hijacking? --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021
Should be changed from “president” to “authoritarian dictator” 2600:8801:C303:7000:D85C:E5DC:ADAB:B821 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: he is still the president, which is generally something that should be included per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, and I don't think calling him an dictator in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence would be very neutral. Besides, the whole third paragraph of the lead is about that topic anyway. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

About photo
, I would like to say that the lead photo, on the contrary, is in poor quality, it was heavily processed, if it wasn't processed, it would be somewhere 200x200px. And in the new June photo, the color is more pleasant (the president in the September version has an orange nose at all). In this version, imo he looks more natural, there are no sharp transitions of colors. Maybe we should open a consensus so that people choose an illustration? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, I'm fine with inviting further comments here. I probably won't have much more to say on the matter myself. ― Tartan357  Talk 17:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Name
Right now the article writes "Lukashenko" or "Lukashenka". This is confusing. Would it not be simpler to refer to the pronounced name, and then skip the other one? There is a big difference between "o" and "a". It's even worse when you keep in mind that different websites, such as the german wikipedia, doesn't mention the same name-issue. For example: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljaksandr_Lukaschenka - this is all quite inconsistent. The english wikipedia is this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko - it may seem insignificant but when you speak german, and someone else uses the alternative end, then it's confusing. So how is his name pronounced in his native language? That should be the number one criterium really. See other german-pronounciations such as "Peking" versus "Beijing" (for the city in China); we tend to say Beijing these days, but back in 1980s, "Peking" was often used, which IMO was just always wrong and catered to the local population in europe, rather than the natives in China, who used Beijing all the time. Note: I wrote this here, because the german editors on wikipedia are sometimes weird, so I hope that someone who actually KNOWS the pronounciation can clear this up here. I don't speak any of these languages, be it russian or whatever any similar dialects in ~eastern europe nor can I read the cyrilic alphabet. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * see section Notes in the article, explains this confusion. in correct belorussian, his name is Lukashenka. russian version is Lukashenko. as he seems to be pro-russification, and a person's preference is relevant, how his name should be written, then it makes sense that wikip article is named as his russian name. BirgittaMTh (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021
Please changed back his birthday to 30 August 1954. The archive source indicated "30 августа 1954" 219.78.190.67 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Orchestrated Migrant Humanitarian Crisis, Other Minor Amendments
This was a major internation event in his presidency which, arguably, he orchestrated, shouldn't it be mentioned. Minor Issues: His mother (and potentially his father) was an ethnic Ukrainian so shouldn't Ukrainian be provided as a third option of his name. As used in other pages (Yemen President) for example, I think the non-diplomatic recognition of the A. G. Lukashenko should be a footnote not a long message due to the fact it is not traditional on Wikipedia and that more countries recognise him than not (and Western Countries non-recognition doesn't stop him from being President in his own country). Second of all the evidence for disputed is about the protests which is irrelevant rather it should be about dipolmatic non-recognition by certain countries.

-Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.123.17 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BelarusProtestBLR.jpg

Diminutives
Because of the lock can someone with the right add that both Sascha and Kolya are common diminutives of their respected names (Alexander and Nikolai). I feel like for those who don't know it, it sounds like somebody made up completely new, unrelated names. Thanks. 2604:3D08:7386:200:6C82:D7D5:A278:6466 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Farmer, Farm Manager
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko-fires-governor-cow-welfare-5645984/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/25/belarus-leaders-trajectory-from-communist-farmer-to-paranoid MMQ735 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing Awards
Why aren't the "Ig Nobel Prices" in the list of awards? He is one of the few people who managed to recieve 2 of them in his lifetime. 46.114.151.9 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
In the middle of the paragraph about his 6th term a link is improperly inputted in the middle of a word (Both are critics of LukashMeeting of Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko 02 (22-02-2021).jpgenko, with the latter) I believe this should link should be removed or properly formatted. MilkWithPulp (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ EnIRtpf09b chat with me 11:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"Dictator of Belarus" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dictator of Belarus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)