Talk:Belarus/Archive 1

Early talk
...No mention of Hockey?

I felt the sentence
 * "Some Belarusians suggest the name "Byelorussia" is derogatory..."

is incomplete an imprecise. First, it was unclear what exactly was deriding (I tried to clarify a bit); Second, it was unclear what was an alternative ("Belarus"); Finally, the word "suggest" is wrong IMO. The word "Byelorussia" was not used in derogatory sense (unlike, say "bul'bash" (potato-eater)). It was rather perceived as derogatory by growing (or rather rekindling) national self-consciousness and hence sometimes proclaimed as such. So I took the liberty to change it to "perceive". Mikkalai 18:55, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suppose that version Belarussia is an effect of Russian propaganda. It is ridiculous from logical point of view. This is neither exact translation nor non slavic version of original Byelarus. Exact translation should be White Ruthenia (Ruthenia is Latin for Rus - Ruthenia Alba means is Belarus in Latin). It is true that many Belarusians and Ukraninians regard derogatory English translation of word Rus as Russia. From the historical point of view Rus should be translated as Ruthenia. An inhabitan of Rus is Ruthenus in Latin.

In slavic languages (including Russian and Belorusian) there is clear difference between Rus (Ruthenia) and Rossiya (Russia). The first word regards to all East Slavic nations ( for example Belorusians and Ukrainians) as well as for historical Kievian Rus. The second one to Russia and Russian state only. So difference is as between Germanic and German (it would be ridiculous to call the English: German, wouldn't be?). So there is no Great Russia but Great Ruthenia! And the tsar is "the Emperor of Whole Ruthenia (!) - Great, Minor and White". I know that Ruthenia is used to name small teritory in Western Ukraine. But in this case the more proper would be: Carpathian Ruthenia (Karpatskaya Rus). I let myself to include in the article the forms White Ruthenia and Ruthenia Alba. http://www.pravapis.org/art_belarusian_adjective.asp In Wikipedia: Country names etymology.

Regards, SF

"Emperor of All the Russias, Great, Minor, and White": In the English translation of the title, although grammatically correct, the primary idea of "Rus, one and indivisible" is lost as compared with the literal text: "Emperor of the Whole Russia, Great, Minor, and White", so the discussed statement loses some of its power. Mikkalai 01:49, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so, but "Emperor of All the Russias" is the generally accepted English translation (551 returns on Google versus 30 for "Emperor of the Whole Russia"). If you go for the latter I think the meaning won't be as clear, because it's simply not a title that people will recognise. -- ChrisO 19:17, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already noticed this. What do you think about paraphrasing: "... whose literal translation is: 'of the Whole'..."? Tsar's idea was to stress that there was one and the only Rus, not many Russias. This is the main derogatory part; not just in being a synonym, the latter would show some independence, but in being completely dissolved in "the whole Rus". Mikkalai 21:39, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Emperor of All the Russias, Great, Minor, and White". Why are we using "All the Russias" here and not "whole Rus'" which is the meaning in Russian? Maybe Mikkalai can shed some light on the origin of this inadequate translation... Gaidash
 * I ain't no English expert. Possibly the wordwise does not sound correctly in English: "of the whole Rus: Great, Minor, and White": it might leave and impression that Rus is both Great and Minor, and White, too. BTW, in Russian the archaic version was abandoned: "Vseya Rusi" -> "Vserossiyskiy" Mikkalai 01:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed Ivonka Survilla from "presidence" in the official template on this page. If someone wants to write about Belarus National Republic and link it to Belarus article, they are welcome. Mikkalai 03:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History
User:Zscout370 asked me to read the article on Belarus and check it against my own nose. I noticed a number of issues: Halibutt 23:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Austria did not annex Belarusian lands during the Partitions (corrected that).
 * 2) IMO the section on post-WWI period needs corrections. So far it says that Belarus first declared their independence one year after the Russian Revolution of 1917 on March 25, 1918. The declaration took effect after the end of World War I when Germany ended their occupation of Belarus. However, the Belarus National Republic was short lived and was eventually merged into the Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919.
 * 3) Firstly, the relation between the proclamation of German-led (or rather Ober-Ost-led Belarusian National Republic and the Russian Revolution of 1917 is close to none. Soviet historiography often pointed out that all the states of Central and Eastern Europe declared their independence because Lenin allowed them to in his Declaration of Rights of Peoples of Russia. However, such a nonsense should not be repeated by wikipedia, especially that Lenin did not have much sovereignity over those areas (under German control since 1915 and officially ceded to Germany shortly afterwards, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) and that it's hardly credible that Germans created any of their Mitteleuropa states because there was a revolution in Russia.
 * 4) Secondly, The declaration happened before Germans ceased to occupy Belarus - and that's exactly why such declaration was possible at all. Note that the BNR existed as long as the Ober-Ost garrisons were there. The Bolsheviks entered Minsk as soon as the Germans withdrew.
 * 5) Also, the BNR was not merged into Lithuanian-Byelorussian SSR. It was annexed or swallowed, but the change was not a merger.
 * 6) On another note, shouldn't the situation of the Polish minority be mentioned? After all currently Lukashenka is persecuting the largest non-governmental organization in Belarus (more than 20.000 members) and that organization is Society of Poles in Belarus.
 * I think Mikkalai corrected all of your issues and I added a note in the politics section about the Union of Poles in Belarus event that is going on. I also created a stub article of the NGO. Zach (Sound Off) 03:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

recent changes
I don't know who Imperial Russians were, but I was concerned that the listed items were grammatically consistent: Poles, Lituanians and ?Russians might be acceptable. What is there now is not. Tony 11:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Russia before they became the Soviet Union. Zach (Sound Off) 20:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

possible unification with Russia?
According to this, Belarus might reunite with Russia. We should probably work this into the article.--Kross | Talk 01:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this true? User:Bonaparte
 * Union of Russia and Belarus is the place for this info. mikka (t) 09:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks mikka. I will ask there than.User:Bonaparte
 * Are you crazy? Noone is going to reunite! it's against international law and willing of Belarusian people! Russia is the historical enemy of Belarus at all...--Zlobny 10:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe your historical enemy...Although I do not believe you were alive back then...And currentely with heavy Russian investement Belarusian economy and living standards are higher than Russia's. Although I would not mind a unification, I believe that the move will simply political and up to the Russian and Belarusian people to decide. Personally I have no obligations to Minsk becoming Russia's capital :) --Kuban kazak 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But if they are having problems trying to create a common currency for both nations, image how hard it would be to create a common defense strategy, and also Belarus would probably have some of it's soldiers dragged into some Russian affairs, e.g. Chechnya. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, personally I would feel very sorry for Belarus if the current Russian regime takes over. And I do not mean the Kremlin, I mean the oligarchs, the mafia etc. However if Batka takes over the Kremlin and puts some order into...well that is a different topic of conversation. And the only real possible way that both Russians and Belarusians will benefit. As for Chechnya, only contract soldiers and Cossacks serve there. --Kuban kazak 00:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we will "re-unite", but only through jail, when everybody who does not agree to go to Russia will be in jail. The same story like recently in Ukraine with pro-moscow guy Janukovich.Czytacz.

Lead section
I was wondering if the improvements to the lead section are ok with yall. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

For Giggles
I will post the link here http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Belarus. Some might like it, some might hate it. I will not add it to the article, unless yall want to. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Infobox country
I've changed the infobox to the Infobox country, but I've faced some issues:
 * I had two dates for the independence of Belarus: The History of Belarus says it was declared on July 27, 1990; and the Belarus says it was declared on August 25, 1991. Please clarify.
 * First one is the date when BSSR declared it's independence of USSR; second one is when Republic of Belarus was established instead of BSSR. --Monkbel 12:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * These two dates should be well documented in the articles. For now they are confusing
 * I will try and correct that. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's three native names for Belarus: Рэспубліка Беларусь, Республика Беларусь and Respublika Biełaruś. Could you specify the language of these three names.
 * First one should be left only - it is in Belarusian Cyrillics. Second one is in Russian, and third is in Łacinka (Belarusian Latin). --Monkbel 12:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I seen other infoboxes that have more than one language. India has three, including English. I think all except Lacinka should stay. Belarusian and Russian are the official languages and we should have the English version of the name in. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The name in all the official languages should be mentioned. There's actually a discussion in the talk page of the template about the presence of an english name. CG 15:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no data about the precentage of water in Belarus, is it because it's negligible?
 * No, it's quite significant - Belarus has large amount of lakes. --Monkbel 12:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So why is the info missing? CG 13:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * The CIA did not give a percentage for any water inside Belarus. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A Belarusian tourist group is giving a figure of 183 sq. km. Not sure if this is truly accurate, but everyone else is giving me zero. Either someone is not counting or we need to find out how they come up with the figures. Zach (Sound Off) 08:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, it is given in percentages. From the math I did: 183/207,600 comes out to 0.000881. Zach (Sound Off) 08:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

CG 08:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

SVG flag image
While I was told flag images should be in SVG, I cannot draw images into SVG. Another user did it for me. However, if yall are having problems with the file, I still have my PNG file on my local computer. Zach (Sound Off) 23:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Lacinica
Belarusian language is written not only in Cyrillic, but also in Latin script (&#x142;acinica). Perhaps we should indicate it also? E.g. Homyel' -> Homiel, Mahilyow -> Mahiloŭ, Vitsebsk -> Viciebsk, Baranavichy -> Baranavi&x10Dy; Zhytkavichy -> Žytkavičy ... &mdash; Monedula 18:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Belarusian language could be written, but usually is not written in Latin. Most languages could be written in most alphabets, Belarus was written in Latin at one point of time, but rarely is now. Of course, it should be mentioned at Belarusian language if it's not already. Nikola   08:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Foreign quotes
Why are there two long sentences entirely in Latin and German untranslated?


 * "Sunt qui principem Moscovuiae Album Regem nuncupant. Ego quidem causam diligenter quaerebam, cur Regis Albi nomine appellaretur, or Weisse Reyssen oder weissen Khünig nennen etliche unnd wöllen damit ain underscheid der Reyssen machen."

Are we supposed to understand that in an English encyclopedia? I find leaving foreign quotes untranslated an antiquated and snobby practice best left in books from Victorian times. --Menchi 23:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa :-) It was me who entered these phrases for the sake of substantiation of the ancient usage of the term. Unfortunately my knowledge of Latin and archaic German doesn't reach much further than to recognise the words ""Album", "Weisse" and some others. Please consder these phrases as images of archaic manuscripts (untill someone comes willing to translate them). Mikkalai 20:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Weisse Reyssen oder weissen Khünig nennen etliche unnd wöllen damit ain underscheid der Reyssen machen." - White Russians(Ruthenians?) or white kings (contemp. Ger: König=king) call/name some und want by this a difference of (between) the Russians (Ruthenians) make - this seems to be literal translation Brugues 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruthenia, Rus', Belarus
I've posted this in [Talk:Ruthenia], but I think it belongs here as well and could be interesting for the other editors of this entry:

The only people who talk about "triedinstvo" (unity of the three Eastern Slav nation) was the Russian empire empiral historians and Stalin in his 1950 "Marxism-Leninism" book.

Here are some excerpts from some other discussions I had about it earlier (taken from my blog http://www.livejournal.com/users/rydel23/282295.html )

My biggest concern is the word "separated". Where did that came from? From what I read about our history, I got the impression that Belarusans of that day (i.e. the "Litvins" and "Ruthenians" of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) were much more different from Russians. I would say that modern-day Belarusans (who are in many ways different from Russians in terms of language, culture, mentality) are perhaps 10 times more Russified than our forefathers of those times. Let me give you some examples:

- In 1517-1519 Francyska Skaryna published "Biblija Rus'ka" (Ruthenian Bible) which was studied by many scholars, and shows a big number of differences from Russian (not only lexically, but also in terms of syntax). If you look at the lexicon of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, it appears that "Old Belarusan" (Old Ruthenian) had so much richer lexicon coming from Polish and Latin. It's all gone in modern Belarusian. And I guess 97-98% of modern-day Belarusians perfectly understand Russian and speak at least at a passable level. Back then that was not the case. I think Litvins of the Grand Duchy wouldn't understand everything a Muscovite would say.

- Religion. Muscovites then were Russian Orthodox, nothing else. But back then we were not only "Russian" Orthodox, but also Catholic, Uniates, and ... Protestant! Don't forget the Reformation in our lands that brought amazing results to GDL in terms of enlightment, education, prosperity. (Religiously we were never close to each other.) But it was then all over...

- Because of 1654-1673. For 13 years Muscovites/Russians waged a most bloody war against GDL, killing 50% of our population, destroying most of our cities, totaly erasing our European culture. I can't imagine Russians in 2004 waging a war against Belarus in which they kill 50% of our population.

So where's this thing with "separation"? Where does that come from? When were we "together"?

I think Belarusans are ten times closer to Russians in 2004, then they were in 1654, exactly 350 years ago.

- There was never a single "East Slavic Russian nation". There was never a single "East Slavic Old Russian language". This is an invention of Russian empiral historians and Stalinists. Dixi. -- Rydel, July 9, 2004.


 * Most of this is true, the time period described has very little to do with "separation": separation/diveregence/whatever began 3 centuries before that and probably was largely over, in terms of all things that you listed, in the 15-th century. Of course in the 17-th century a Litvin/Ruthenian was very different from a Russian from Russia. So the word "separation" belongs here, but have to be qualified. There was no East Slavic unity, but there was a sufficent cultural, luinguistic and religous proximity for our ancestors to exist in a Kievan confederation.


 * Now, this said, can I be enlightened why such offence at the Russian imperialism of the 17-th century is taken in 2005? Is that a surprise that the wars of 1600's were bloody? Is that a surprise that a pretext of reunification is used for territorial gains? Is that a surprise that the Polish speaking nobility of whatever descent were considered an enemy? A surprise that their serfs and soldiers, Ruthenians of course, were killed by extension?


 * I see a pride is taken in religious diversity. This diversity is mourned. How much longer did you hope to have it? What religious diversity are we talking about in Poland after Counterreformation? How much of it was there in GDL in late 17-th -18-th centiries?


 * My point is that one assimilation is lamented, the other one is glorified. Finally: were there no Khmelnisky + Mazepa and 19-th century nationalism (against Russia) would there be a Ukrainian nation? Similarly, shall PLC survive and prosper, would there be a Belarus? I bet, we would have a stable, Catholic two-nation state mostly Polish speaking, where Litvins would be as Belarusian as Kuban cosaks are Ukranian. I can easily believe that former Litvins would have been better off in a modern European Polish-Lithuanian state, but what would that have to do with Belarus?


 * Of course, all of the above have no relation to the Wiki entry (apart from "separation"), just a reaction to an obvious nostalgia of 21st century Belarusian for a 17-th centurt GDL. Gaidash.

BTW, found an interesting link about what Lithuanians think of the Belarusian claims of GDL legacy:

http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/etno/merkys-ru.htm. Just another example of at what length sides would go to construct or defend their national identities :). Gaidash


 * It all is interesting, but let us base on facts. Which language was used in GDL as "state" language for official documents? Okay, then please tell about GDL constitution dated 1588? You can try to find any other language.(http://litvin.org/glavy/zm123.jpg) "The core lands of the duchy were territories around Kernavė, Trakai and Vilnius cities and Samogitia." Funny. With non-slavic population, except Vilnia? This land had exact name Zhamojc' and Aukshtota, it never was Litva. What about Navahradak? Should I remind how "Vilnia" became "Vilnius" after Stalin's management of lands?  Should we "claim" what belonged to us for centuries :) ?  Czytacz.


 * One more link for you: http://txt.knihi.com/urban/fakty.html#3-2

Capital of GDL
Apologhets of Belorussian POV, would you please explain to me, how it came that, an (orthodox) city of Novohradek became "first capital" of a GDL, which was, as it is stated by belorussain POV article, founded by othodox Polotsk duchy. And pagan (sic!) ruler of the GDL, and later catholic (sic!) king Mindaugas was crowned by catholic Pope. Let me remind you, that early GDL for 200 years was widely known as "last pagan state in Europe", and allmost all ruthenian lands by the time were already baptized by eastern orthodox church. Something surely doesn't click here. --Lokyz 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, please address to people with respect, if you want to receive an answer. mikka (t) 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

--Lokyz 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * With all the respect, sir, this is not an answer. This is argument called "ad hominem", sir. Widely used, when someone does not have proper answer.
 * Don't give an opportunity, then. mikka (t) 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Question still remains,and I'm stil eager to add another one - please define parts "Samogitia" and "Rus'" that were "swallowed" by the time "Novohradek" was "capital" of GDL. And please define what you mean by stating "Samogitia". Another one question - please state years when Novohradek was a capital, and please state reference to historical document or at least valid historical research. Otherwise I'll seek to declare this article as "original research" or at least "disputable". --Lokyz 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Start from Navahradak article. Original research: Don't make me laugh. This is not like some obscure theory no one knows. Disputable: you are welcome to describe another POV, where applicable.
 * You come at this page and your very first sentence is an insult. Either you contribute, or go trolling somewhere else. mikka (t) 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Let me explain my point: 1. if you feel insulted by word "apologhet", i'm sorry, it's my mistake - it should have been "apologists". i did not intend to insult anyone, it's just my bad english . 2. I do not want to be troling, i just ask questions in discussion, because I do not wanna start another one edit-revert war. 2. Navahradek article is also disputable, because no one could give an argument, on what document is "capital" theory based (note, that Strijkowski chronicle is highly "disputed" and it is not regarded as valid source. Anyway this is not the best place to discuss that issue) 4. in this article for me it is very unclear just two sentences, let me cite "In the 13th century, the state was badly affected by a Mongol invasion, and eventually parts of Rus' and Samogitia were swallowed up by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The core lands of the duchy comprised the Belarusian territories that included the modern-day city of Navahradak as the first capital." I do strongly suspect, that in this form is still hidden infamous "Litvania" myth, popular among nonprofessional romanthic belorussian selfcalled "historians". That, let's call it a "theory", is not based on facts, only on some "good wishes" and by the way, insultingly call all nowadys lithuanians samogitians. I do not want to discuss that theory, it is already done in many different places. I just want to get explanation, wheter someone also sees the same problem here. And also that's why i do ask you to provide some reference to research, and not to "common knowledge". Let me remind you, that history is a scientific discipline.--Lokyz 14:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. Apologies accepted. 3. Navahradek is the main place where to discus the issue. 4. I am aware about new breed of belarussin historians. The article may be improved by pointing out that the issue of the capital is hypothetical, that no solid documents exist; e.g., copy the phrase from Navahradak about alternative theories. I don't see in the artilces where modern lithuanians are called samogitians, but IMO it is not an insult, just an ignorance of other Baltic tribes. References: this is a general, summary article. You cannot add a reference to each and every sentenlce here. References are due in articles about particular detail. In our case it is Navahradak article, which mentions the original source of the discussed claim. What else do you want? I do agree that the "History" section is written by an ignorant or biased person: "were swallowed up by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.", "core lands", "to the Black Sea" - all these and others are poetic misleading statements. I will try to clean up this weekend. mikka (t) 17:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, i think it's ok with me. Do not see any further problems untill the new edition of those sentences will be made . I just asked for references, in case someone would strongly support current version of the above mentioned section. --Lokyz 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mikka, Christmas is a good time to keep promises.--Lokyz 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We do not need myth, do we? Let's look in anciant chronicles. Pls. translate for Lokyz , if have time:


 * Зьвязаная з гэтай умовай летапісная ведамка гучыць наступна:


 * «Божиим повелениемь прислаша князи Литовьскии к великой княгини Романовой и Данилови и Василкови мир дающи. Бяхоу же имена Литовьских князей, се старьшии: Живинбоуд, Давъят, Довспроунк, брат его Мидог (Міндоўг), брат Довъялов Виликаил; а Жемойтьскыи князи: Ерьдивил, Выкынт; а Роушьковичев: Кинтибоуть, Вонибоут, Боутовить, Вижейк и сын его Вишлий, Китений, Пликосова; а се Боулевичи: Вишимоут, его же оуби Миндогот (Міндоўг) и женоу его поял и братью его побил Едивила, Спроудейка; а се князи из Дяволтвы: Юдьки, Поукеик, Бикши, Ликийк. Си же вси мир даша князю Данилови и Василкоу и бе земля покойна. Ляхом же не престающим пакостящим и приведе на ня Литвоу. И воеваша Ляхы и много оубиства створиша в них»[116].


 * Гэтая мірная ўмова з Галіцка-Валынскім княствам дыктавалася актывізацыяй змаганьня Ліцьвіноў зь Лівонскім орданам і іхных набегаў на землі Ноўгарадзкае рэспублікі й Смаленскага княства. Аднак яна цікавіць нас у першую чаргу тым, што сьветчыць пра навязаньне цеснае сувязі Ліцьвіноў з княствамі Наднёманшчыны ўжо перад 1219 годам. Запраўды, як паведамляе той-жа летапісец, у 1237 годзе наваградзкі князь Ізяслаў ачольвае набег «Літвы» на Польшчу[117]. Падругое, калі навет дапусьціць, што ўсе пералічаныя ў гэтай умове прозьвішчы князёў належаць вылучна старажытным Ліцьвіном, мы ня можам не заўважыць працэсу іхнай славянізацыі, пра што й сьветчаць гэтыя прозьвішчы, як Рушковічы ці Булевічы. Князі Рушковічы выступаюць і пазьней, як, напрыклад, у 1246 годзе, калі князь Айшвна Рушковіч ачоліў набег Ліцьвіноў на Перасопніцу[118], або ў 1258 годзе, калі князь Сірвід (Сьвірыд) Рушковіч з ваяводам Хвалам на чале літоўскіх аддзелаў былі высланыя на дапамогу галіцка-валынскім князём у іхным паходзе на Кіеў ды якія, паспрачаўшыся з апошнімі, потым разбурылі навакольныя мясцовасьці каля Луцку[119].


 * Czytacz.


 * No need to translate, i can understand this. Would you care to cite what chronicle it is ? Who wrote it ? What year it did appear? How does it relate to "Litvania"? Is this exact citation of chronicle or interpretation by, let me guess, Jarmalovich ? Did you read the chronicle yourself?--Lokyz 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "How does it relate to "Litvania"?" -- I guess you do need a translation since you are posing such a question. --rydel 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat my question. What literary work do we speak of? Without reference it is a fantasy, myth, wishfull thinking. Call it whatewer you like. Please state who is this mysterious "той-жа летапісец", what year is the chronicle of?. You see, in history science such "nude" citations are not taken seriously, and about the period (over forty years), the citation refers to, there is a dosen of research books, so "той-жа летапісец" and one paragraph of interpretation does not look very convincing. I suppose it is citation of Jarmalovich book - first part is citation of mysterious chronicle, another one interpretation. Chronicle speaks about Lithuanian, Samogitian and Deltuva's knights. Interpretator states, that Lithuanians had contacts with Ruthenian lands, and some of their names "sound" slavonic (linguistic recostruction, possibility of tanscribtion error for him does not count) - this is given as a proof of slavonisation of ALL lithuanian dukes. Later interpretator doubts term «Літвы» by putting it into brackets, because army was led by Novgorod duke. On this i'd suggest to try to find some research on what idiom "идти Литвой" means.
 * I do not see any proof of "Litvania" here, please explain me what i'm missing?. .--Lokyz 03:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're currently missing capital of GDL. If you insist it was not Navahradak, then what it was? What is really not convincing is your denial without any proof. For me looks only POV of modern lithuanian(zhmudz) apologist.And one more moment , there was no Novgorod duke in chronicle. Do you know, at all, where Novgorod locates? The fact is that GDL appeared only after slavinization and litvin they called themselves ( like happend with many other small tribes assimilated by slavs [that's actually the reason why litvin-belarus ethnos differs from reussian]) . If not, we would have only small DL without G in the west part of modern Belarus. M.Ermalovich "Following the Tracks of a Myth" - very good book breaking fiction. "идти Литвой" : http://veras.litvin.org/10.htm Czytacz.

Moreover. In Chronicles there was no king Mindaugas. Please read it carefully as written: Mindoug.

"И еще. Известно, что Аукштайтия приняла католичество в 1387 году, Жемайтия – в 1413 году. В 1405 году туровский бискуп Антоний с согласия Витовта окрестил народ в Литве в православную веру.[69] В связи с этим возникают два вопроса. Если считать, что Литва была расположена на территории современной Летувы, то почему именно туровский бискуп крестил литвинов, в то время как были более близкие епархии, например, Полоцкая?

И второй вопрос: “Куда исчез этот православный народ, крещенный в 1405 г. бискупом Антонием?” Ведь в современной Летуве все летувинцы католического вероисповедания."

Something REALLY doesn't click in your question. Czytacz.


 * Pleeeeease, pleeeeese state your sources - what chronicle? I do not trust fantasies, because newer heard about any bishop Anthony.
 * Would you please tell me when ruthenians were baptised ? And descendants of what nation are Litvans? Ruthenian speaking pagans? In XIII century? That would be very original research. Btw Jogaila was Great Duke Of Lithuania, and he baptised not Aukštaitija but Lithuanian Duchy (in supposedly "Litvan" city Vilnius).
 * About Mindaugas - it is linguistical reconstruction. Different nations pronounce, hear and write sounds differently - read for example German Order or Polish documents and you'll find no Mindoug - there you'll find Mendog. Those both languages are slavic, ant name sounds somewhat similar. here is how germans write this name - Mindowe. Anyway this is not the best place to discuss this issue. It would fit more to Mindaugas article.
 * At the time there was no exeptions, that state didn't have capital, or capital was where Duke or King resided. BTW, i do not insist that it was absolutely not Navahradak, i do insist that there is no valid proof of that.
 * Anyway, to finish this discussion, i'd just say, that Ermalovich is a good read for Belorussian patriot, but not the best for someone, who studies or is just interested in history. Especially when it becomes the only one book to trust. I believe that international encyclopedia is resource of knowledge reached by common sense and research, not recitation of just one, IMHO, questionable book.--Lokyz 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, where did you take these names?(Mindaugas, Vilnius) We talk not about prononciation in really different language, but about historical names. Who did reconstruct it with illustrations? Great, state was power uniting all neighbor lands and had no capital. Do you understand what you say? Read last link, there are answers inside. Funny that you don't know that Vilnia became Vilnius only in about 1939. Ermalovich is scientist that just point out when somebody tries to overwrite history using opportunities. What are your sources( suppose with pictures) ? About slavic languges, propose you to read Statut(constitution)of GDL :) I accept that there's no direct proof of Navahradak, but research in this area points exactly this site. If you read provided data , this is not only about capital , but even more, about location of ancient Litva. Czytacz.

P.S. thanks for "belorussian patriot", knowing truth it sounds "litvin patriot".


 * Thank you, you've said just enough, to proove me right. If just one book can give you all answers - it's religion, not research. I think, I'll save my time for more productive things, rather than discussing religious beliefs. Have good day:).--Lokyz 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you too. All I heard from you is only complaining and reference to some misterious book with pictures. I thought that you read something in discussion to understand that's not 1 book :), but I see that you listen only yourself, as result discussion with you makes no sense. Good luck in fiction. Czytacz.


 * Czytacz - read this: cite verifiable, [reliable], chronicle, historiography, bibliography, myth, fiction, - and especialy for you, because you love books with pictures - comics, picture.--Lokyz 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, my friend, looking at bullshit you try to push in old belarussian(litvin) history, I feel responsible to look at what you tried to put in lithuanian pages. Let us review it. Esprcially for you my young frind, get rid of pictures :)(that's my advice) , that I see is most preferable in your life. Czytacz.


 * I aint your friend, and trying to insult me is at least not polite, and also is against wikipedia policy. I do consider calling me "young" an argument, well that's up to you. Anyway this is an argument ad hominem, and as I see you do not have any others.
 * If you refer to wikipedia policy (many links in my previous post point to it) as a "bullshit" there will be no further discussion with you. In that case any wikipedian will feel free to revert your edits, because you're not contributor, just another npov troll. --Lokyz 00:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

official motto
Mikkalai deleted the motto "Zhyvie Bielarus!" (Žyvie Biełaruś!) from the page with a comment - "there is no official motto". I think you are absolutely right, there is no _official_ motto. But this _is_ the most important greeting/motto, similar to "Nie zginela jeszcze Polska!" or "Ne wmerla szcze Ukraina". And I am just curious what is meant by _official_ motto. Could you give examples for other countries? Does it mean motto should be a part of the Constitution or some other legal document? - rydel 19:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * See List of state mottos.
 * "Jeszcze Polska nie zgin&#281;&#322;a" is from Polish national anthem. Mikkalai 20:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Zhyvie Bielarus!" is simply "Da zdravstvujet Belarus", or "Long live Belarus", and it has nothing special. (Actually, it may sound special for new-bred belarussian nationalists (and their former communist opponents (my colleague was arrested for bearing this very slogan :-) Can you imagine a person arrested fo bearing the slogan "Da zdravstvuet Rossia!" in Russia or even "Long live Iraq!" in Iraq?) weak on their native speech, and the phrase may sound exotic and solemn to their Russified ear. No ofense, but when I listen their speeches full of "&#1074;&#1086;&#1090;" instead of "&#1074;&#1086;&#1089;&#1100;" and other trivial blunders, I cannot help but feel a gist of artificiality.) Mikkalai 20:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possible compromise - to put "Zhyve Belarus" in "Symbols from earlier history" section. It is more appropriate place for this motto then aside official Flag/Coat of Arms. --EugeneZelenko 14:32, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to a list of mottos, Mikkalai! And I totally agree with the comment regarding the perception of the phrase "Zyvie Bielarus". Yet another dazzling example of our twisted reality in Belarus. EugeneZelenko, I don't think it's that important to include it. I was simply curious, what is meant by _official_ motto. - rydel 18:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naturally Litvins didn't understand Russian well because Litvin is derivative from slavised name of Lietava (Slavic Litva). Lietavians (Lithuanians) are Baltic but nohow ruthenian or other Slavic people.

Naturally Litvins were slavic people and Litva slavic name of land. Modern Lithuanians ( named Zhmudz in time of GDL ) really have different language.

Russian name
Russian name of this country is Белоруссия, not Беларусь (although Беларусь is used sometimes, too). &mdash; Monedula 14:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, I don't have time to argue about BASIC things and common knowlege. Have you been to Belarus? Have you? Have you seen what it says on the RUSSIAN-LANGUAGE version of our National Constitution? Have you seen and heard how RUSSIAN speakers in Belarus say and write the name of their country in RUSSIAN? rydel 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Russian is spoken not only in Belarus! And even in Belarus, the name "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103;" is widely used.  "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;" exists only in "&#1056;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1091;&#1073;&#1083;&#1080;&#1082;&#1072; &#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;" as official name of the country (and as the name of a tractor, too). &mdash; Monedula 10:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (1) This is an English Wikipedia. (2) The tractor brand is "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;", not "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;". They changed it like 10 years ago, and you still haven't noticed. -- rydel 12:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have a feeling that "Belarus" is the name used by the Lukashenka regime, and that the democratic forces are preferring "Byelorussia". In fact both names mean exactly the same! Jakro64 11:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Jakro64, you are dead wrong. (1) Political affiliations are not relevant. (2) Your comment shows that you didn't even read the entry on Belarus before commenting here. rydel 12:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this important? "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;" is obviously the official Rusian version of the self-appelation and should be used in the article. It is also obvious that since nobody reformed the use of "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103;" in Russia, it stays a luinguistic norm, but not and official self-appelation. Same goes for "&#1052;&#1086;&#1083;&#1076;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;"-"&#1052;&#1086;&#1083;&#1076;&#1072;&#1074;&#1080;&#1103;", or "&#1050;&#1099;&#1088;&#1075;&#1099;&#1079;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1085;-&#1050;&#1080;&#1088;&#1075;&#1080;&#1079;&#1080;&#1103;". Also a I honestly don't understand why "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103;" is derogatory: not like it is "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103;", both "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1086;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1103;"  and  "&#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;" have the meaning of "Rus'" and not "Russia". Gaidash
 * It is derogatory for some, and you don't really need to understand this. While you correcly pointed out, the word itself is not *-rossia, but its derivatives and translations do look like derivatives from "Russia"/"Russian": Belorusskiy/Russkiy, etc. Mikkalai 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But so are the Russian derivatives of Belarus: the adjectives for Belarus and Belorussia are identical in Russian, apart from "a"-"o" which has no bearing on "Rus"-Russia". But again, as yoy said, most matters of nationality are beoynd the realm of rational.


 * From the website of the Belarussian Presidency, the Russian text is &#1056;&#1077;&#1089;&#1087;&#1091;&#1073;&#1083;&#1080;&#1082;&#1080; &#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I saw the same text above as &#1056;&#1101;&#1089;&#1087;&#1091;&#1073;&#1083;&#1110;&#1094;&#1099; &#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;. The latter is probably the Belarussian language, but the first one is in Russian. Many websites of the various administrative bodies of the Belarus Government use Russian, instead of Belarussian. Zscout370 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I also found this variation: &#1041;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072;&#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1110; (Source:http://un.by/by/undp/belataglance/). I am not sure how official is that one. Zscout370 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a declension. Mikkalai 18:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack--I've been trying to help make this article read more smoothly. As I worked through the history sections and the name sections, I noticed that&mdash;despite some clarifying notes in the name section about the proper way to refer to the country&mdash;there is a lot of switching between Belarusian and Byelorusian in the history section. Since I don't know the author's intent, it's hard to make it clear whether we're talking about the Soviet Republic, the current Belarus, or Belarus in general. Can someone help clarify this section?--RedPen 23:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed phrase
In English, Belarus and Belarusian are the common terms: they refer to the historical connection with the people known as Rus' that predated Russians, Ukrainians or Belarusians.
 * What the heck it was supposed to mean but a POV on the usage of the term? And why would they be "common"? I didn't see them much, like, 10 years ago. Personally, I see a connection with Poles that to the land long known as "Rus Cherwona" (Red Ruthenia), they added similar terms, Rus White and Rus Black, for the lack of better names. Mikkalai 23:09, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Time zone
An anon changed the entry for time zome as follows, but made a syntax error, and I reverted it for now.
 * UTC +2/[Daylight saving time|+3]

Since I cannot ask him what he meant, I am asking here: does Belarus really not observe DST? Mikkalai 23:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tatars
Anyone knows exact percentage of tatarts or Muslims in the country? OneGuy 20:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

infobox
What's this reversal war regarding the "infobox"? What's the problem? I think either template is OK. Or is it like some religious quest?


 * It's a long story... See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, Country infobox vote. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Council of Europe issue
Kazakhstan is indisputably in Europe, in the same way Russia and Turkey are. It is partially located west of the Ural. The government says it is in Europe. The CIA says it is in Europe. The Council of Europe says it is in Europe - that's why they had to justify barring them from entry by using their human rights and democracy record, and why they have offered to allow them entry if they improve those records. The Wikipedia entry on Europe says it is in Europe. This is not a controversial issue. To say that Belarus is the only European country to be barred entry to the CoE is false. --Kostya 20:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you holding us for idiots, Kostya? If Kazakhstan is in Europe, please block me from editing any geography-related pages on Wikipedia. I don't want to have anything in common with this PC-idiocy. --rydel 20:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Rydel, nobody holds you for idiot but for now (just, you know, this historical moment) Kazakhstan is surely in Europe (at least partly). May be in the future (for example, mountains move, or everybody counts western Russia border as eastern European border) it won't be in Europe... but now you should agree with facts. Or you can provide maps which can clearly prove your point. --Monkbel 21:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Way too many words have been wasted on discussing the marginal case of Kazakhstan's CoE membership... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Belarus is also one of just two nations in Europe that retains the death penalty for certain crimes.

I'm guessing the other is Kazakhstan. Shouldn't this be mentioned? --Yodakii 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Latvia, only during times of war. That is covered at Capital punishment in Belarus. Zach (Sound Off) 17:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Population
Population dropped by almost 10% in a year since 2003 ? What's happening there ? Lysy 16:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Immigration? -Ld | talk 20:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess you should better ask what is not happening there. And what is happening in Poland, Germany, France, US of A, UK and all the other countries the Belarusians emmigrate to... But I think that there were also a lot of Russians who decided to emigrate after 1991. These are but my assumptions though. Halibutt 20:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Still one million in a year seems a lot. Especially for a totalitarian country where people cannot travel freely. Lysy 21:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is too late to jump in this topic. They are old!  This country is fairly low population in "suburbs" and very old population.  That is why they still support communists -- they remember the old really really bad times and also they want their government pension.  --Noitall 04:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

History of Belarus between 1991 and 1995
Hi!

Could somebody please expand on Belarus' history from July 1991 until the Referendum of 1995? I'm quite interested in it but couldn't find any information on it on Wikipedia. (It's mentioned in the section called "Symbols from earlier history".) Thanks. :)

TigerDE2 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Religion
>>>>For example, by the end of the 18th century 70% of Belarusians were Greek Catholics, 15% - Catholics, 7% - Judaists, and only 6% - Russian Orthodox. In 1839 though Russian empire eliminated Greek Catholic (Uniate) church on Belarusian lands and forcefully turned all of their believers into Russian Orthodox faith.<<<<

Is there any references to prove this statment ? The claim what there were only 6% of Orthodox in Belarus by the end 18th century sounds not very credible to me, even though there was at the time a policy of conversion to Greek Catholism and Polonisation of local population. (Fisenko 17:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC))

I removed the phrase as unsupported. The first official census was in 1897. What was before is guesswork and may be presented only in the form: "according to Prof. Jazep Tutejszy, in 18tth century 70% of belarussians were of the True Faith". Mikkalai 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Best reference so far, quite long but interesting, have a read of it: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 --Kuban kazak 22:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

OtherUses template
Please change the article to use Template:OtherUses instead of Template:otheruses it currently uses. The OtherUses template has information about the contents of the article.

For a sample use of this template refer to the articles Alabama or Algiers-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DuKot (talk • contribs).


 * Note that that functionality is now at otheruses1. OtherUses redirects to otheruses, and is deprecated.--Srleffler 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OtherUses is unnecessary and clutter. If the reader is at this page, they can readily see themselves. mikka (t) 16:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Lacinka usage
Please see the discussion at Talk:Belarusian language. mikka (t) 16:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

GDP
The article says that the GDP per capita of Belarus is $6800 and the population is 10,310,520. Simple multiplication yields the total GDP of about $70 billion. Yet the article cites only $13 billion. Am I mistaken in my calculations or what? --Gabix 11:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. thanks. mikka (t) 20:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Capital
"The city of Navahradak in today's western Belarus was the first capital of this state". Has anybody heard about this theory? I always thought that Vilnius was the respective capital.
 * Vilnius was the second capital of this state. But Mindowh declared creation of GDL in Navahradak and for decades it was the capital. --Monkbel 19:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no written evidence on that, please take a look on Navahradak article discussion. --Lokyz 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Section about Economics
Section about economics is complete speculative. My major concerns are: I suggest to rewrite the section from the scratch.
 * References to non-trusted sources of information, like journalist papers or CIA reports.
 * References to old (3-5 years old) documents.
 * No references to any official data. See for example http://www.belstat.gov.by/homep/ru/indicators/gross.htm for data about economics growth.
 * Clear inconsistence about situation with poverty. After saying that "Today the country has one of the highest GNP per capita growth of all the former USSR" goes "poverty is a significant problem in Belarus and the country is falling behind many of its neighbours". 5 out of 6 neighboring contries are former USSR republics. How Belarus can be behind many of them if poverty if it has one of the highest GNP per capita? Besides poverty is not the major problem in Belarus.
 * Speculation about common currency make wikipedia look like cheap newpaper. Simple mentioning is enough for encyclopedia.
 * Reference #25 is absent.

Alex
 * I admit that this section was probably not the best that I wrote, but I do not see how CIA reports are "not trusted sources." We use the CIA reports, such as the World Factbook, for some of the information that deals with population, area of the country and other things. But, I was wondering if we can include in this section about the possibility of Belarus switching to the Russian rouble and the associated problems with it. Zach (Smack Back) 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Facts are facts and nobody can do anything about it but the first paragraph clearly represents an opinion rather than a fact. By the way more facts about Belarus can be found at http://www.belstat.gov.by/. Sorry about the typo “5 out of 6” in the previous message it was meant to be “4 out of 5”. I definitely think that possibility of switching to Russian ruble worth mentioning while discussion “who blames whom” is absolutely inappropriate. Anyway since we both agree that page can be improved I am willing to help. I am not a great writer either. As a first step I suggest to translate section about economics from wiki-page about Belarus in German (they have a decent one). After this the work can be done to improve it.

Alex
 * Dear Alex, I am willing to help write this too, so if you could translate the sections from German to English, I can polish up the English. I am willing to write about the rouble, but in order to be factual, I need to say that it has been delayed on several occasions. I will not state who is blaming who for the delay, but that needs to be mentioned. Zach (Smack Back) 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll prepare draft. Alex

Here is the draft. The words which were linke to wiki-articles I have put into {}. Some numbers were corrected to be up to date.

The Belarussian {economy} was so far not converted into a {free-market economy}, since the central steering element economy is still preferred by the government. However, it does not come to no such economic collapse as in other states of the former Soviet Union and the country is economically stable. The country depends to a large extent on {raw material} supplies from {Russia}. {Industry} and {agriculture} are in large amount in state hands. Belarus ranks thus among the few existing state-capitalistic {national economies}. The agriculture is dominated by collective agriculture and with major branches: {cultivation of potato}, {cattle breeding}. Historically important branches of industry are the {textile industry} and the {wood processing}. After 1965, creation of heavy industry and {mechanical engineering} ({tractors},{refrigerators}) significantly strengthens countries development. Within the Soviet Union Belarus was one of the industrially most developed republic. Economically Belarus engages itself in the Commonwealth of Independent States, {Europe Asian Economic Community} and Union with Russia. After 1990 with the introduction of free market structures the economics production was decreasing. The economics growths started again in 1996, so that by 2001 the industrial production and agricultural production came back to the level of 1990 and since then further rise. The {GDP (PPP)} of the year 2005 is $ $70,524 billion (estimate), which results in approximately 6,800 dollar per head. In the year 2005 the {GDP} increase approximately to 8-9%, with inflation rate laying on the level of 10%. Besides Belarus has the highest standard of living under all {CIS} states according to UN, the average monthly income grew from $20 euro to $225 within last 10 years. According to data of Byelorussian government unemployment rate in 2005 was about 2 % wile experts say that the country may have high underemployment rate.

Thanks for updating the article. I will start from this version and work on. Currently the information is not complete and not well organized. I'm going to write it acoording to the plan:
 * General overview
 * Natural resources
 * Agriculture
 * Industry
 * Transport and infrastructure
 * International trade
 * Current economical situation
 * Anything else??

As soon as I get some version I'll put it here in discussion. alex 18:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will probably mention about the rouble stuff and that is all that I can think of. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to sound biased but I do not trust "official" economic information from a regime without democracy, freedom of the press or similar rights. Belarus TV is full of propaganda, the economy is no exception. Economic indicators should be based on material from e.g. the World Bank, UN data and other undisputed sources. Regards. --Valentinian 11:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I know what you mean about Belarusian TV since from the times I watched TVR at my home computer, I pretty much see Lukashenko treated like a living diety. Sure, we could try to have economic indicators come from international sources (who knows, that could give us a brand new paragraph to write about).User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One phrase that consistently appears in the economics section is "However, the country has arguably handled the difficult transition since the collapse of the Soviet Union better than most of its peers." I've deleted it 3 times now, on the grounds that this claim relies on the weasel-word arguably, is not sourced, and does nothing to define either the peer-group being referenced or explain what befell them during the post-Soviet transition that Belarus avoided. Cshirky 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)