Talk:Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Утварэнне Сацыялістычнай Савецкай Рэспублікі Літвы і Беларусі.jpg

Wordings
There are quite a few problematic wordings in this article; --Soman (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Puppet state' is not the right term here. The dependence of Soviet Russia is evident, but notably Soviet Russia was also in a state of restructuring (which eventually lead to the creation of the USSR few years later). There was a period of revolutionary upsurge across large swaths of Europe at the time, with both revolutionary and counter-revolutionary violence. The nature of governance of Soviet states was not 100% settled at this point, but the notion that the Lithuanian, Belorussian or Polish communists would be 'puppets' is misleading. The Bolshevik party had a multiethnic character, and members of different nationalities were represented throughout Bolshevik/Soviet power structures. Had the Red Army defeated the Polish forces, it's probable that Litbel SSR would have been integrated in USSR on same terms as later occurred with the Byelorussian SSR.
 * "the Soviets decided to"... this term is ambiguous. Who decided to do something? The workers councils? The Soviet Russian govt? The Lithuanian Soviet Republic? The RCP(b)?
 * "The merger of the Lithuanian and Belarusian Soviet Republics was welcomed neither in Lithuania nor in Belarus." - the ref discusses dissent from the leaderships in the respective soviet governments.
 * "The two republics were weak, championed by the newly created Communist Party of Lithuania and Communist Party of Byelorussia but not enjoying public support." - the ref talks about Lithuanian Soviet Republic, stating that it enjoyed "little" (which is distinct from "no") public support.
 * "In particular, Belarusians perceived..." - using wordings like "people from Foo country think..." is problematic. I get was is trying to be expressed here, but for an encyclopedia we need another language. Are we talking about the SSRB leadership, population in general or later nationalist discourse? It could be all three, but the attribution needs to be clear.
 * "Historians describe it as an "artificial creation" - all states are artificial creations, no system of governance is a direct product of the laws of physics.
 * "fiction" - ...but in the lede we say that the state existed. Either it existed or it didn't.
 * "and resented the exploitation of Belarusian nationalism for tactical reasons" - is sentence is odd, because there is no clarity on how Litbel exploited Belorussian nationalism. The same goes for the ref (Pipes). Pipes is arguing that the Soviet Republic was used as a ploy to spread Soviet influence? (duh?)
 * "included no Belarusians" - that's an argument. You can include such an argument with a clear indication of the source, such as "[Foo person] argued that there were no Belorussians in the Litbel government", but it should be presented as a simple fact. Belorussian nationality or ethnicity is complex, especially in this time period, and Kapsukas himself was at least partially Belorussian.
 * "The Polish–Russian border was determined by the Peace of Riga," - Polish-Russian or Polish-Belorussian? I get that RSFSR-BSSR relations are complex before the formation of USSR, but the treaty explicitly says "Russia and the Ukraine abandon all rights and claims to the territories situated to the west of the frontier laid down by Article 2 of the present Treaty. Poland, on the other hand, abandons in favour of the Ukraine and of White Ruthenia all rights and claims to the territory situated to the east of this frontier." (my emphasis)
 * "which left just about half of Belarusian territory to Byelorussian SSR" - 50% of what? Of what Belorussian nationalists at the time considered as Belorussian lands? 50% of the territories initially claimed by SSRB? 50% of present-day Belarus
 * Why you removed two perfectly valid references? Puppet state is a very fair description of this formation, because:


 * 1) This "state" was proclaimed during the Lithuanian–Soviet War;
 * 2) The Republic of Lithuania (1918) already existed as an independent state and this was not disrupted until 1940;
 * 3) The purpose of this proclamation was to form the Communist government structures which would "take over" when the Soviets would win the war, but they lost it. So the plans never really materialized. The Soviets did succeed in Belarus, though, but those events are not directly related to Lithuania at that point.
 * You talk about "Soviet Russia was also in a state of restructuring", as if it's some internal reshuffling, but you ignore the main context: Lithuanian–Soviet War. It is an "artifical creation" in a sense that the proclaimed state wasn't really functioning and it failed to meet its goals of taking over the governance of Lithuania. Moreover, it should be noted that it is not the first such creation by the Soviets: Finnish Democratic Republic, also described as a puppet state in the article, was created in the context of Winter War. It has "Finland" in its name; it had the same purpose to take over if the Finnish government and state would fall. That never happen.
 * You claimed "Either it existed or it didn't", but why do you assume that every proclamation of state is equal? There are multiple aspects: de jure recognition, de facto governance and control, independence from or dependance on foreign powers, the size of the controlled territory, etc. So, please restore the removed references and clarify the description to reflect all the main aspects of the state. --Mindaur (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point here. The issue is not whether the state was politically legitimate or not, this is an encyclopedia. Arguably this state functioned intertwined with RSFSR, and notably it didn't claim to be independent from RSFSR (The precise nature of Moscow-Vilna/Minsk relations 1919-1920 ought to be detailed further, without the nationalist hyperbole). The notion that the state was fictional is weird, since it had functioning institutions on the ground for few months. --Soman (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of encyclopedia is also to reflect the reality (well, at least the mainstream view) in an accurate manner. Let me put it this way: if the Soviet Union (or any other country for this matter) would occupy a village of a foreign country, proclaim a new country there, form a Congress of Soviets, form a cabinet and imitate the work of government -- would that really be a functioning country? It is not just about the legitimacy. You wrote: "Arguably this state functioned intertwined with RSFSR". Let's focus on two main points we have a dispute about:
 * You just implied yourself that this formation was dependant on RSFSR. Can you explain how does that not fall under the definition of puppet state? I am sure you looked at this page. There is an entire list of them in the context of World War I, see Puppet_state. Can you please explain how is this one different?
 * You write that the state functioned. Well, did it? You removed two valid references without backing it up. A functioning state (regardless whether it is legitimate or not) has certain characteristics, e.g. tax collection, some system of laws, some kind of governance, some participation of population, permanence, etc. Can you please provide any evidence of that?
 * If you don't like the wording used by some historians, such as "fiction" (-- I agree this one is pretty poor) or "artificial creation" (-- I think this one is more or less accurate), then feel free to suggest a better wording. I am not disputing your other points. However, I think this is a puppet state at the best. Arguably, it's more of a failed attempt to create a puppet state, hence no permanence. That deserves to be reflected in the article. --Mindaur (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agrabah is a fictional state. The Carpatho-Ukrainian Republic was a real state, that existed for a few hours. SSR LiB/Litbel was a real state. It might not have been fully independent (and seemingly, never claimed to be) but was nevertheless a political reality. It had a government (various People's Commissariats) and other government institutions. For example, this article details the process of setting up the People's Commissariat for Health: https://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/object/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2020~1610810813729/J.04~2020~1610810813729.pdf. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For some reason you locked on the word "fictional" which I neither added (just copied the already existing referenced sentence into the main description area) nor disagreed on it being poor term; that is a detail. I numbered my points, so we could discuss each one individually -- let's try again:
 * Regarding the puppet state: It is disappointing that you ignored most of my points as well as questions above and did not provide your reasoning. Also, the reference you just provided also supports the view that LitBel was not an independent entity: "The governments were formed with the participation of local politicians, but were in fact fully controlled from Moscow." (p. 3). Given additional references and a lack of engagement on your part on this point: can you please re-instate the puppet state status, unless you prefer me to go ahead and make the change?
 * Regarding the authority and statehood: Yes, it does indeed look like LitBel managed to form some operational structures. However, we should also look into the bigger picture. The author of this publication states: "The statehood of LitBel had mostly a propaganda character, and only formal trappings of an independent state. Due to this, part of the government, such as the Commissariats of Health Care and Social Protection, was not a priority of the Bolsheviks, which shifted these duties to several departments of the Commissariat of Internal Affair"" (p. 4-5). The essay in general describes the struggles of forming an operational institution:
 * "[The health-care commissar] Puzyroŭ did not have even a basic medical education (regular practice in Soviet states in 1920–1930), but due to a lack of personnel, he was the only experienced administrator who agreed to run LitBel health-care. It seems there were very few medical specialists in Vilnius who agreed to collaborate with the Bolsheviks".
 * "Despite the short and mostly formal existence of LitBel, its Commissariat for Health Care tried to prevent epidemics, but the Polish offensive led to its relocation from Vilnius to Minsk and Bobruisk, and later to the end of LitBel."
 * "It was found that, due to the outbreak of the 1919–1921 Polish-Soviet war, the efficiency of the Commissariat during its time in Vilnius was limited."
 * Hence my point about the lack of authority and other characteristics of a functioning state, which makes LitBel more of a failed attempt to create a puppet state. If you don't like the wording -- sure, let's discuss how to phrase this better.
 * --Mindaur (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - as you can see, the article expanded significantly. The mention of 'puppet state' and related reference has not been removed, on the contrary there is now more detail to this. The mentions on dependence on RSFSR, politically and militarily, has been expanded as well and given greater depth. However, I feel that including the label as a defining characteristic in the infobox/lede is misleading. The notion that Litbel should be described merely as a puppet state is not universally accepted, especially in regards to the intent. Was Litbel kept dysfunctional on purpose? (sources seem to indicate that on the contrary, the Moscow centre wished it would be self-sufficient in terms of military and agriculture, which failed in the course of the war) Was Litbel a defensive measure, who's sole purpose was to provide a defensive barrier against Polish attacks against RSFSR? Was Litbel intended as a bridge for westward expansion? Or, if the Polish-Soviet war had ended differently, would the Litbel SSR have been integrated in the USSR on similar terms as Ukrainian SSR? Historians differ and placing the most narrow reading into the lede/infobox isn't helpful. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Many authors reinforce the point that it was very much a puppet state. You've added multiple citations yourself on this and it is quite evident that it's the mainstream opinion. It can also be noted that you quoted some Soviet historiography, but that is hardly WP:RELIABLE due to censorship and ideological propaganda. They may have a due representation (and may even reliable on technicalities) and you are right that historians do differ - but some are WP:FRINGE.
 * So, point on the puppet state deserves to be in the lead. Deliberately omitting it is misleading the reader, because it might create a false impression that it was bigger than it actually was: a mere device for Soviet expansion, propped up by some local, but marginal, communists. This is pretty much what multiple authors say (different phrasing, but the same essence). Very much like many of the other Soviet puppet states, so please don't create an impressions that this one is somehow exceptional. Regarding your other questions: they are about the rationale behind the creation of such puppet state. It is a separate topic. And yes, this is something what might be found in Soviet historiography with their communist demagogues. However, the ideological aspects have little to do with the realities on the ground: Soviet-Lithuanian and Polish-Soviet wars.
 * I'm trying to assume your WP:GOODFAITH, but if you will keep pushing your POV without discussion, then it's not going to be helpful. --Mindaur (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I retain that overly emphasizing the 'puppet state' label distorts the complexities involved. The "A Buffer for Soviet Russia" reference, shows how the RSFSR-Litbel relations were not uncomplicated with contradictions in decision-making, with the Litbel leadership at time challenging interference from the RSFSR authorities within their territories. When Stalin wanted to abolish Litbel, the Litbel govt successfully managed to pressure the Moscow centre against that move. I don't want to get involved in OR in the article mainspace, but clearly the state wasn't just a façade. Now in addition, 's reverts on the lede have some additional issues;
 * The quote "The governments were formed with the participation of local politicians, but were in fact fully controlled from Moscow. <...> The statehood of LitBel had mostly a propaganda character, and only formal trappings of an independent state." is included in the article mainspace, I don't see why the exact same quote has to be repeated twice a footnote?
 * "for approximately five months" (in 1919) isn't helpful, since there is a process in 1920 whereby the Red Army recaptures parts of Belorussia in 1920. The wording "defunct" is better than "dissolved" for reasons elaborated later in the article (no formal act of dissolution of the republic).
 * On the "The state was not internationally recognized" bit - neither was the RSFSR at the time. This was a period of war and revolution. The Litbel republic had bilateral relations with Soviet Russia and Soviet Ukraine. From what I can gather didn't attempt to seek diplomatic recognition, apart from a telegram to the Polish govt Feb 27, 1919. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Using "defunct" instead of "dissolved" seems fine to me. Now, on other points:
 * The quoted reference doesn't have to be used twice. We can use another reference to support two separate statements here -- but see below.
 * Regarding the "[existance] for approximately five months" and "The state was not internationally recognized <...>": these are important points. As I mentioned already in the discussion above, a state (even a puppet state) should have certain characteristics which, among other things, includes authority, legitimacy, permanence, etc. If you are writing a WP article about a state, then these aspects matter and are quite essential. It is important so that we could distinguish it from other forms of entities, e.g. an organization, military administration, underground communist movement, a group of like-minded people, etc. It is also important so that we could distinguish a degree or level of statehood (or lack thereof). So, if you don't like "for approximately five months" phrasing, then let's find a better phrase, but the facts that it had no permanence and legitimacy should be reflected in the lead -- they are important aspects of any state.
 * Otherwise, again, it creates an illusion of something more than it was (and it's WP:FRINGE). You keep forgetting the much bigger and more important context of Polish–Soviet War. Ultimately, Byelorussian SSR was "properly" formed and started functioning after this war. Meanwhile, LitBel had little relevance to the Republic of Lithuania (1918) as its continuity wasn't disrupted (despite the Polish–Lithuanian War). These are also the points which ought to be reflected in the lead, as it's supposed to provide a decent summary of what happen in this historical context in association with LitBel, not only the very narrow description of the puppet state. --Mindaur (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that the whole statehood discussion largely irrelevant. Now - the article has been expanded, with more detail. Litbel had a government, an army, various public institutions, etc.. It was in process in building institutions, which was complex due to the prevailing situation of warfare. Again, the "A Buffer for Soviet Russia" reference provides more depth - on one side the RSFSR was pressuring Litbel to get up to speed on state-building (especially by building its own army, to allow the RSFSR to concentrate its military elsewhere) but on the other hand the situation of RSFSR was so dire that they stripped Litbel of supplies and resources. In terms of real power, Litbel wasn't independent visavi RSFSR (and the article is pretty explicit about that) but you could say the same about Central America and the United States for much of the 20th century.
 * In terms of territory, I'd prefer to have more maps showing the territorial evolution. We now have maps with the frontline as of 27 Feb, the day of the founding of the republic but this was also Litbel at its grandest extent, from there onwards the soviet side would progressively loose ground. This also poses other dilemmas - there were areas that were claimed by Litbel but never was under its control (even in a nominal sense, without going into the whole RSFSR-Litbel relations issue), some that were claimed and under its control for a few weeks and some areas (essentially the Minsk region) that was under Litbel control for at least a few months. But find good sources to illustrate this evolution has proven difficult so far. I did a calculation of km2 based on the various uyezds and governorates, but this could only provide the claimed area of the republic as most governorates were never fully under soviet control for any period of the existence of Litbel. --Soman (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are writing about this puppet state as if it was a "normal" country, with authority (whether by popular support or tight control), legitimacy, functioning institutions and most other characteristics of a state. However, as multiple quoted authors very clearly spelled it out: no, it wasn't. We already discussed why. For example, again, you just stated that LitBel had an army. However, it was ultimately the Red Army. They put a "LitBel army" label on it, but that is immaterial: the essence is not its label, but the fact that it was "supplied" by a foreign state and was formed primarily from the foreign troops. The boundary between mere "foreign help" and "foreign intervention" is not really that blurry here. Perhaps you don't like it, perhaps you prefer to see things in a different way, but that seems like wishful thinking. The nature of the puppet state is very much relevant, essential and it should have a proper coverage as per the WP:DUE policy, even if you don't particularly like it. So, perhaps it was a little bit more than façade and "a mere device for Soviet expansion", but the sources are fairly unequivocal that it was primarily that. That's how modern textbooks cover it too; I included Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia as a reference for the puppet state as a good example of a tertiary source, which, as per the WP:TERTIARY policy, are helpful for broad summaries.
 * On a general note: if you will look at the history of various Soviet puppet states, you will find a common pattern that the Soviets often used puppet states as a way to legitimize and justify their invasions or expansions; as always in the warfare, that would go with a large amount of propaganda, including the imitation of popular support, fake elections, etc. This is a whole separate topic, but LitBel is not much of an exception from this pattern, even though it has some other unique aspects in this particular historical context.
 * --Mindaur (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Why you persistently push your POV? Pretty much all WP:RS agree it was a puppet state, with plenty of evidence (you found plenty yourself). The definition of it is very clear (just click on Puppet state and read the first sentence -- it is exactly how LitBel was). This is consistent with how describe other Soviet puppet states. --Mindaur (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is push a pov. I've consistently tried to illustrate complexity, and display differences in histiography. The sources aren't unanimous, as shown in the article, and attitudes of RSFSR towards Litbel weren't consistent. On one hand Litbel had only nominal independence, but on other hand we note the frustration of RSFSR with the lack of development of autonomy of Litbel. At least in part, RSFSR wanted Litbel to become more self-reliant in economic and military affairs, which isn't exactly the typical feature of how a puppet state is set up. Much of the literature points to the institutional weakness of Litbel governance as consequence of dire economic and military situation, not by intent. I don't want to go into deep speculation, but I can't see much indication that had the war turned out differently that Litbel would have become a full-fledged soviet republic with same status as other SSRs. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You just keep confirming the fact that it was a puppet state. It doesn't matter that RSFSR desired it to be more autonomous.. but just this fact itself, again, is another evidence confirming just that (nor it matters what it could have been.. WP is not for speculations). You take the details of the relationship between the master and the puppet and then conclude that the relationship was "complex", but that is your WP:SYNTH. All mainstream sources agree that LitBel was fully dependent on an outside power -- that is all what matters (as per Wikipedia's pillars), even if your personal interpretation is different. Mindaur (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny how you apply 'mainstream' only to sources that confirm your own bias. External dependence is not the same as being a puppet state. Large number of present day states have some degree of external dependence, but we don't use the label 'puppet state' for them. For example Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Soman (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which sources don't? The vast majority -- even the ones YOU added -- confirm it was a puppet state (using different wordings, but the same substance: fully dependent on and generally controlled by Moscow). Even if Smith (1999) was, umm.. puzzled about the state formation, it doesn't reject the broad consensus by other sources.
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina is absolutely different in the way it was formed, in its nature and the degree of dependance.. not even remotely comparable to LitBel (and while this could be an interesting discussion, it's totally offtopic).
 * I am pointing out what WP:RS state, while you keep relying on your own interpretations. If you want to further pursue this, then please reach out to WP:HIST. Mindaur (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

3O
Should have copy-pasted this from WP:3O in case you weren't aware: It is recommended that the filing editor (in this case Mindaur) notifies the second editor (Soman) about their 3O request. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to. I'm here only to offer an uninvolved opinion on your content or sourcing dispute.

If this discussion is still active and you have time, please summarize your points and include any references below. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC) updated 04:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Mindaur)


 * The dispute is whether this state should be specifically defined as a Soviet puppet state. Summary of my points:
 * WP:RS overwhelmingly agree on puppet state:   etc. Soviet historiography doesn't quality as WP:RS in this case (as it primarily served an ideological purpose).
 * Puppet state is a universally understood term and generally accepted in historiography. It is WP:CONSISTENT with how other short-lived Soviet puppet states have been described.
 * If we step back from WP:RS and just do a reality check: this state was proclaimed during the Lithuanian–Soviet War; it lasted five months; it was fully dependent on Soviet Russia and it didn't match the characteristics of a functioning state (e.g. ability to collect taxes, etc).
 * I covered all these points in greater detail in the long discussion above. --Mindaur (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Soman) The disagreement is on whether the term 'puppet state' in the article lede and the infobox. I find this label unhelpful. 'Puppet state' is a politically charged term, with heavily negative connotations, and adds no factual info. If you want to state that SSR LiB was highly dependent (economically, militarily, politically) on Soviet Russia in the lede, then say so without resorting to politicized language. I've included the wording "During its brief existence, the Litbel puppet government had limited authority over the territories it claimed."

Further down in the article I've tried my best to outline both the practicalities of the functioning of the SSR LiB, with its various limitations, as well as outlining the viewpoints of different historians including anti-communist writers like Pipes as well as how SSR LiB is presented in Soviet historiography. I disagree with Mindaur's approach to solely consider the anti-communist POV as legitimate, I think we should try to maintain a factual and balanced tone.

I think that 'soviet republic' would be a better label in the lede. I think the lede can include clear mentions of dependence of RSFSR and the limitations of territorial authority. The state emerged in the midst of warfare, but I cannot see indications that if the fortunes of war had been different that SSR LiB would have been treated differently than other Soviet republics. SSR LiB was founded by communist movement, in same vein and with the same objectives as Ukrainian, Hungarian, Russian etc soviet republics that emerged at the end of WWI. --Soman (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Questions

Thank you both for the summaries. There appears to be agreement at least on the 'puppet' nature of the Litbel government. In case I've overlooked anything from the article or you want to add something new, let me ask a couple of questions just to make sure. The first question is: How important was this 'puppet' quality, was it notable for example as part of a larger design or theme, or as a precursor to other major events, in ways that would have affected things quite differently had it not been a 'puppet' government? CurryCity (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My second question is: How often is puppet government associated with Litbel, that is, when academics or the general public think of Litbel, is 'puppet government' the first thing that crosses their mind, or are there other qualities equally or perhaps even more notable? CurryCity (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * My concern is that not clearly defining it as a puppet state would create a false impression that this state had a popular support or was actually functional. In reality it was neither: it was a mere device for Soviet expansion, abandoned as soon as the Red Army was defeated. Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia defines it as a "puppet state formation" (marionetinis valstybinis darinys; "formation" rather than "country" as it didn't meet the characteristics of a functioning state) and, as per WP:TERTIARY, it is a good source for summaries (e.g. lead). Mindaur (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The key problem with the history of Litbel is OBE, overcome by events, leaving a rather meagre body of literature at our disposal. It existed for a short period in a crucial stage of WWI, revolutions and dismemberment of empires. Today it doesn't fit in Lithuanian nationalist narratives (who rather want to stress the legitimacy of the Lithuanian state founded under German occupation) nor did it find a privileged role in Soviet histiography (as Stalin hated the idea of a multi-national republic - note that it appears that Soviet historical research on Litbel begins only after the death of Stalin). It's easy to fall into the trap to simply dismiss Litbel as a non-entity - many of the historians cited have only passing mentions on Litbel, but the scholarly research that goes deeper (like the work of Smith or Kapliyev) uncovers a more complex picture. The article extensively talks about the institutional weaknesses of SSR LiB and details the economic and military dependence of the RSFSR. I find the insistence of inserting 'puppet' in the lede as unconstructive and seeking to perpetuate a narrative of nationalist revisionism. --Soman (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You just said it yourself: The article extensively talks about the institutional weaknesses of SSR LiB and details the economic and military dependence of the RSFSR. (let alone other sources). The rant about the "nationalist revisionism" has nothing to do with WP:RS. I might as well rant how the Soviet apologetics and communist sympathizers try to justify and legitimize their brutal expansions. Mindaur (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: While certain terms may have a positive or negative connotation, that by itself does not override WP:DUE or WP:V. If there are reasons to make a special consideration in this case, please feel free to elaborate. CurryCity (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinion

Sorry for not getting back to this more quickly. I had some non-Wikipedia committments this week. So after going through the sources available to me,   here are the impressions I have. 1: Most agree that the Litbel government was a puppet regime, but whether Litbel always gets labeled as a "puppet state", either exclusively or in combination with any other characterization, is less clear. 2: Litbel seems to be equally well-known for being a buffer state, although that is part of Soviet Russia's designs (out of defense and pro-/anti-nationalism considerations) and is not mutually exclusive from being a puppet state. 3: It's somewhat debatable how much of an actual state Litbel was (puppet or not) due to its numerous dysfunctions, and Soviet Russia ultimately failed to bring its designs to fruition in part due to Litbel's remarkably short-lived/transient nature. I don't feel evidence is strong enough yet for equating it to a "puppet state" exclusively in the first sentence in wikivoice; perhaps this can be qualified by some variation of "often described as" or "often considered a puppet state". CurryCity (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Name?
It appears that the name would have been "Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia" (with different sources using 'White Russia' or 'Byelorussia' in English). See for example https://o001oo.ru/index.php?showtopic=85654. Is there any indication that "Lithuanian–Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic" was ever used in correspondence etc at the time, or is that a historic post-construct to apply the "Foo SSR" naming scheme of the later USSR? --Soman (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For Belarusian name, see "СНК ЛітБел ССР афіцыйна зацверджаны імем рэспублікі Сацыялістычная Савецкая Рэспубліка Літвы і Беларусі, а таксама сцяг і герб рэспублікі (з надпісам "ССР лі Б" на пяці мовах)." --Soman (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So far I can't find any ref for the Yiddish name... It should be something like 'Sozialitische ratnrepublik Lite un Weissrussland', but haven't seen any good ref so far. Note, the People's Commissariat for Education was known as "פֿאָלקס ־ קאָמיסאַריאַט פֿאַר בילדונג אין ליטע און ווײַסרוסלאַנד", so the name of the republic should use similar name. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost identical wording, in Lithuanian: "Jungtinė valstybė buvo pavadinta Lietuvos ir Baltarusijos socialistine tarybų respublika . Vėliava — raudona, herbas – Tarybų Rusijos su užrašu „ L ir BSTR “ penkiomis kalbomis ( lietuvių , baltarusių , lenkų , žydų ir rusų )" --Soman (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I found the name סאָציאַליסטישער סאָוועטישער רעפובליק פון ליטע און ווײַסרוסלאַנד, in a 1922 source, bit surprised it doesn't use 'ratn-republik' but so far the only ref I can find. --Soman (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

disclaimer
Twice I've had some very weird outcomes when editing this article today. In this edit an older version of the article was restored, I have no idea why. Same thing happened here, although I had not gone back in the edit history. --Soman (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On fact and fiction
I can't access the Eidintas reference on google books. However, I find a text by same author at - there he used 'fiction' to characterize the methods to establish Soviet power in Lithuania, i.e. that it was the effort of local revolutionaries rather than the intervention of the Red Army that enabled the Litbel state. He's not saying that Litbel as such was a fictional entity, he's saying that the attempts to legitimize the regime was based on falsehoods. I presume he's making the same argument in "Lithuania in European Politics"? --Soman (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied to you above, so let's continue there. But just to comment on particular references from the book:
 * "The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (RSFSR) dictated everything to the Lithuanian Bolsheviks." -- this supports the view that LitBel was a puppet state;
 * "So the Bolsheviks created the fiction of the Soviet Lithuania statehood by exporting the Bolshevik order." -- this is a subject for interpretation, but note that it's about the "fiction of .. statehood". LitBel certainly lacked legitimacy, but if you read the chapter further, I think it becomes evident that it also lacked authority.
 * --Mindaur (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have access to Eidintas (1999) book. The relevant sentences from page 66 (-- it's my transcription, so please mind any typos):
 * "Almost at the same time that Voldemaras was trying to win international recognition in Paris, Vladimir Lenin's Belshevik Party, now in power in Moscow, directed two Lithuanian Bolsheviks — Vincas Kapsukas and Zigmas Angarietis — to create an alternative Soviet entity in Lithuania. The Lithuanian Soviet Republic that they created, soon reorganized as the Lithuanian-Belarusian ("Litbel") Republic, was only a fiction. Nonetheless, it did have an important strategic function — it was to be a bridge for exporting the Bolshevik revolution to Poland or, alternatively, a protective buffer for Soviet Russia. Litbel's tenuous authority extended only as far as the Red Army advanced. It was an artificial creation that had little to do with the new realities on the ground, and it was stillborn. In the summer of 1919, when the effort to sovietize Poland failed and Moscow opened talks with Warsaw, the Litbel Republic lost its significance and dissolved."
 * --Mindaur (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Miasnikov
Wiktor Sukiennicki states that Alexander Miasnikian was the deputy chairman of Litbel government. This ref says Miasnikian was named Chair of CEC on February 27. This seems to contradict with other refs, however. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note this passage from Sukiennicki: "This strange hybrid was a very ephemeral one . On April 19, 1919 , the Kapsukas - Miasnikov government left Wilno in a panic under the pressure of Polish troops and , intermittently , established themselves in Minsk . In a public polemic , Miasnikov affirmed later that one of the main causes of the Wilno defeat was the abolition there of the Cheka while , according to Kapsukas , it was too " naive ” to reduce everything to the absence in Wilno of the Cheka" --Soman (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2023

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

The result of the move request was: a trainwreck. No prejudice against seperate renomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

– Largely per WP:CONSISTENT. The name of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic was used as such at the United Nations, and is the closest thing to an official name we have for Belarus under the Soviet Union. The alternative spelling of "Byelorussian" is already noted on several of these pages, and it's generally just simpler to have one spelling used as the primary one for Byelorussia/Belorussia. There is a difference on Western and Eastern Belarus, as they continue to serve as a political and cultural distinction in Belarus to this day (see Grigory Ioffe's Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity, which discusses the split between the east and west in great detail). On the final article, I think would be acceptable to change to Soviet annexation of Western Byelorussia, as it was the common name for Belarus at the time. Mupper-san (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia → Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and Byelorussia
 * Young Communist League of Lithuania and Belorussia → Young Communist League of Lithuania and Byelorussia
 * Social Democratic Labour Party of Lithuania and Belorussia (internationalists) → Social Democratic Labour Party of Lithuania and Byelorussia (internationalists)
 * Communist Party of Western Belorussia → Communist Party of Western Byelorussia
 * Social Democratic Party of Lithuania and Belorussia → Social Democratic Party of Lithuania and Byelorussia
 * 1st Belorussian Front → 1st Byelorussian Front
 * 2nd Belorussian Front → 2nd Byelorussian Front
 * 3rd Belorussian Front → 3rd Byelorussian Front
 * Belorussian Communist Organization → Byelorussian Communist Organization
 * Belorussian Front → Byelorussian Front
 * Elections to the People's Assemblies of Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia → Elections to the People's Assemblies of Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia
 * Western Belorussia → Western Belarus
 * Eastern Belorussia → Eastern Belarus
 * Soviet annexation of Western Belorussia → Soviet annexation of Western Belarus


 * @Mupper-san, why just not be consisten and use "Belarus"/"Belarusian" everywhere? Marcelus (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I must first note that I would support this completely, as it's the modern and most correct term for Belarus.
 * At the same time, however, I think we need to take into consideration that the term "Byelorussia" historically did exist and was used in English, reflecting Russian terminology (which I feel is colonial, but this is somewhat straying from the point). So, to a certain extent, I think that usage of the term "Belarus" is to an extent anachronistic given the BSSR did have an official name using Russian, rather than Belarusian terminology. Additionally, certain items like the "Belorussian Fronts" and the Belorussian Military District (which I neglected to include in this requested move) are more often written using outdated terminology, rather than the modern forms.
 * I think a comparison can be made to the case of the term "Rhodesia". While beyond the name they're two completely different things, of course, the difference between ethnic Belarusians/independent Belarus and the historical, Soviet incarnation of Belarus as it existed is something which is important to note, and both entities had different official names in English.
 * That being said, however, I can also see the justifications for, and to an extent support using "Belarusian": this would bring about complete consistency, using modern and up-to-date terminology, and abandoning terminology which is colonial and demeaning. But seeing as the Byelorussian SSR was the official English name, it seems most appropriate to standardise every other page relating to Soviet Byelorussia with usage of the same, official, term (while at the same time not using outdated terminology for the language, people, or so on).
 * Mupper-san (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re. “the BSSR did have an official name using Russian, rather than Belarusian terminology.” Skeptical. Is this true?
 * Anyway, see WP:OFFICIAL. To ultra-simplify: that is not a criterion in naming. Even if it were true.
 * Anyway anyway, Belorussia(n) is a standard romanization from Russian Белоруссия, while Byelorussia(n) is not (see Romanization of Russian). It is also more common in reliable sources.
 * I am opposed to an effort to formalize the Russification of names of Belarus, including historical ones, without any firm basis. Belarusian was the native language in these places and they had names in Belarusian then and do now. As you may know, English-language terminology on post-Russian empire, post-Soviet subjects is taking a new shape in the last three decades and especially right now. If we are to do this in an organized fashion, it would be best to survey what terminology and proper names are used in current sources. —Michael Z. 15:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, the lead of Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic and its Terminology section don’t even discuss Belarusian names or Belarusian language outside of the initial parentheses, so they can’t possibly be adequate on the topic of the BSSR’s name.)  —Michael Z. 15:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, a standard romanization of Russian Белоруссия would be Belorussiia or Belorussiya. A non-standard but consistent one (where е = ye, я = ya) would be Byelorussiya.
 * Belorussia represents the widely used modified Library of Congress romanization where –ий endings become -y and -ия becomes -іа. This is codified as “System I” in J. Thomas shaw (1979), “The Transliteration of Modern Russian for English-Language Publications,” New York: MLAA. —Michael Z. 16:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On your first point, that about the BSSR translating its "official" (read: United Nations name) from Russian rather than Belarusian, B(y)elorussia is (as you note) the Russian, rather than Belarusian term, while Belarus has been consistently used in the Belarusian language since prior to the establishment of the BSSR.
 * On the BSSR Wikipedia article, I would agree with you that it's inadequate to rely on the Wikipedia article.
 * You're indeed correct that Belorussia/Byelorussia is a colonial and Russian name, and the difference between colonial past and independent present is something which I think is important to note. This being said, however, I again note that I'm not at all opposed to using Belarusian, which has been the dominant term since the early 1990s; see here.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so Byelorussia was the spelling used in official correspondence at the United Nations by Soviet diplomats. Misunderstood: I thought you meant that Russian Белоруссия was the only official name of the republic. Thanks.
 * I believe many of the proposed moves are subtopics of Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, and should follow its name per WP:CONPRIME and WP:CONSUB.
 * Just a quick gauge of current usage: on Google Scholar, since 2019:
 * "Soviet Belarus" “about 746 results” [minus "post-Soviet Belarus" 252 = 494]
 * "Byelorussian SSR" “about 463 results”
 * "Belarusian SSR" “about 347 results”
 * "Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic" “about 220 results”
 * "Belorussian SSR" “about 219 results”
 * "Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic" “about 197 results”
 * "Belarusian republic" “about 129 results”
 * "Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic" “about 94 results”
 * "Soviet Belorussia" “about 56 results”
 * "Belorussian republic" “about 41 results”
 * "Soviet Byelorussia" “about 28 results”
 * "Byelorussian republic" “about 14 results”
 * I would say we should determine whether the current title of that article is the unique and single most WP:COMMONNAME before renaming a bunch of related articles. I think it is not. —Michael Z. 18:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You're indeed correct that there is quite a bit of ambiguity about which name is most unique and common. However, I would say that the U.N.'s historical usage of the word "Byelorussia", in addition to the fact that, as you demonstrate, "Byelorussian SSR" is more prominent than "Belarusian SSR" (both of which are more commonly-used than "Belorussian SSR") together make a case to continue using Byelorussia as the SSR's name, particularly rather than Belorussia.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the UN’s usage is not really a criterion per WP:OFFICIAL. How does it relate to some of the articles in the proposal about events before the UN existed (that is, most of them I think)?
 * Strictly speaking, per CONPRIME/CONSUB means subtopics should normally use the main article title. So if Western Belarus, then Communist Party of Western Belarus. If Belarus, then Belarusian Communist Organization, unless there’s a more-specific relevant state article relating to it.
 * IMO a disambiguation page is not an article with a historical context, and should always remain at the non-specific main-article title, so Belarusian Front. (From memory, I believe there have been RMs that went with this and others that went against it.)
 * As to the individual articles on military fronts, I’m not sure, because they are about Soviet Union organizations and their names relate to the geographical country but not specifically to the Soviet Republic or a Belarusian state. Perhaps they need a separate RM.
 * Anyway, these arguments don’t have that much weight until it is determined if any of these subjects have a WP:COMMONNAME, as that rule is primary. —Michael Z. 20:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I haven’t had to the opportunity to examine this diverse group of articles in any detail. I’m just spitballing issues that arise superficially mainly from the proposal, and not declaring my serious opposition to the proposal. —Michael Z. 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, for LitBel and related subtopics, here's a look at Google Scholar since 2019:
 * "LitBel" - 42 results (for comparison)
 * "Republic of Lithuania and Belarus" - 6 results
 * "Republic of Lithuania and Belorussia" - 1 result
 * "Republic of Lithuania and Byelorussia" - 0 results
 * Ngram similarly says that "Lithuania and Belarus" dominates over both Belorussia and Byelorussia - see here. This all indicates that perhaps using "Belarus" is the best choice for LitBel-related articles, and I would not be opposed to this.
 * On Western Belarus, I think this is absolutely acceptable for two reasons: Firstly, as you mentioned, for consistency with "Western Belarus". Secondly, a quick search with Google Scholar demonstrates "Communist Party of Western Belarus" (35) is clearly dominant over "Communist Party of Western Belorussia" (3) and "Communist Party of Western Byelorussia" (1).
 * On the fronts, Google Scholar since 2019 says as follows:
 * "Belorussian Front" - 189 results
 * "Byelorussian Front" - 29 results
 * "Belarusian Front" - 76 results
 * Google Ngram Viewer similarly places "Belorussian Front" at the top.
 * As you note, the fronts are indeed a topic which is more oriented towards the Soviet Union as a whole than particularly Belarus or the BSSR.
 * The main problem here, at least speaking from my own point of view, is that using three different spellings, two of which being outdated varients of the current one, could very much confuse users and in some ways end up potentially encouraging the usage of outdated terms by "muddying the water", so to speak. That being said, however, I could see a potential resolution to this with the usage of a note explaining that B(y)elorussia is an archaicism for Belarus commonly used in English until 1991.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I neglected to mention: using Belarus and Belarusian for any of this would be acceptable to me personally. Certainly makes sense to use the chosen self-appellation of a people and nation. And we’ve already done that by titling Belarusians since 2004 and Belarus since 2001, but for some reason we excuse ourselves from showing basic respect “in historical contexts,” for which I have not seen any valid rationale. —Michael Z. 02:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose a mass move I think there are few different issues here. First of all, let's be clear that 'Belorussia' and 'Belarus' are two different names (albeit the two often gets conflated among present-day writers). Entities like the Litbel SSR and the related organizations in the communist movement used 'Belorussia' and not Belarus. In fact in English-language material of the Communist International one finds 'Socialist Soviet Republic of Lithuania and White Russia' and the 'Communist Party of Lithuania and White Russia'. These were organizations clearly opposed to Belarusian nationalism, so applying 'Belarus' to them retroactively is just simply wrong.
 * Now for the 'Belorussia' vs 'Byelorussia', ok its the same name but 'Byelorussia' is as if it is written down by an Anglophone listing to someone speaking a heavy Russian accent. 'Byelorussia' is to me not helpful in this context, and it seems that in the Communist International 'Belorussia' was the contemporary term used along with 'White Russia'.
 * Cases like Belorussian Communist Organization, as well as for movements like the BPSR (which I don't think have an English wiki article yet), as their positions on national question would have been somewhat different, and different usages might be found in comtemporary sources. Nevertheless most of the material available to us is later Soviet histiography, which might tilt to 'Belorussian'.
 * For Western Belorussia/Western Belarus/Eastern Poland etc, that's a whole other ball game of nationalist mine fields, and I think deserves a separate discussion. --Soman (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On your first point I generally agree, as I mentioned bringing up the more extreme example of Rhodesia versus Zimbabwe. And I do agree with you that the split between anti-nationalist and nationalist perspectives is important. But the main issue, I feel, is that the inconsistent spelling of what is, as you say, the same name.
 * On "Byelorussia" being Russian-accented: I don't believe that's true, given "е" is not pronounced with a "ye" sound in standard Russian. I'm not particularly sure of where exactly it originates (though I suspect it's due to the pronunciation of "е" in Belarusian, where it is always pronounced with a "ye" sound). I would argue that the spelling used by the United Nations is more important than that used by the Comintern, as it's relatively more recent, being used up until 1991, rather than 1943, and most of these articles are, as mentioned, subtopics of the BSSR. I must say that I don't particularly understand how "Byelorussia" is not helpful, given it provides a (relatively) modern basis for the main topic.
 * On the BKA, I could only find two works in English: Biographical Dictionary of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century (2016) and Becoming Soviet Jews: The Bolshevik Experiment in Minsk (2013). This in contrast with "Belarusian Communist Organization", used by the Belarusian State University, National Library of Belarus, and the books The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015) and Belarus: A Perpetual Borderland. This indicates that "Belarusian" is more commonly-used than "Belorussian" in this case.
 * On your final point: I don't see how it's a particularly controversial thing; what was "eastern Poland" under the Second Polish Republic is already covered at the Kresy page, as such a term includes much of western Ukraine. There is no active border dispute, and "western Belarus" is a geographical term applying to what is almost entirely within the borders of a recognised state. Per WP:NDESC, WP:PLACE, and WP:MPN, this is entirely appropriate, and by contrast, using "Western Belorussia" or "Western Byelorussia" fails all three.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not really true. They are different names: but for the same thing. Exact synonyms. Sometimes used in different contexts, but mostly dated, archaic, or obsolete, and will only confuse readers. We don’t use such weird language for Western and Central European states in the 20th century or earlier, not even before they were actually established.
 * Exact synonyms: not that it matters that much which now-completely-obsolete English terminology the “entities” used in their foreign-language materials in 1919 (see WP:OFFICIAL), but when they spoke Belarusian they used Belarus.
 * What matters most is what reliable sources use (WP:COMMONNAME), especially what they use after Belarus started calling itself Belarus in 1991 (WP:NAMECHANGE). It also matters to us what sources call the main topics that these are subtopics of (WP:CONSUB).
 * This whole idea that some 1919 commies or 1980s Moscow academics should dictate how Wikipedia refers to Belarus in 2023 has nothing to do with our guidelines. We no longer call the country “White Ruthenia,” “White Russia,” or “Belorussia.” We’re very used to hearing certain interpretations of the guidelines that have no basis in them, and amount to a non-neutral POV (e.g., why would we give any weight to ideological “later Soviet historiography,” which we would never cite in articles?). Let’s stop taking them for granted. —Michael Z. 19:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, on the balance of things: this nomination encompass several different issues, so it's difficult to support / oppose as a whole.
 * More specifically: oppose changes to the WWII Soviet army groups: 1st Belorussian Front, etc. These appear to have common names with "Belorussian" in them; see nGram: . I would support moves to "Western Belarus" & "Eastern Belarus" but that would probably need a separate RM, as it is unrelated to the spelling variant. The rest seems unnecessary; just keep them as is -- both spelling are acceptable, so I don't see much point in moving these under WP:CONSISTENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree that "Belorussian" is generally more acceptable for the fronts, but on your final point: both spellings are indeed accepted, but I would argue having two separate spellings used by Wikipedia for things which fall under the same topic (specifically, LitBel and more particularly Western Belorussia under the Second Polish Republic) fails to meet WP:CONSUB, even if it is a difference of one letter.
 * Mupper-san (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support only parts of the proposal that use Belarus or Belarusian, after having given it some thought. Belarus/Belorussia/Byelorussia/White Russia, etcetera, are names of a nation. They are exact synonyms. They refer to the identity of a people and its native land. The people collectively self-identifies as Belarusians, not “Belorussians,” however you spell it, or “White Russians.” It is incumbent on us to respect Belarusians’ self-identification, and disrespectful to use any obsolete Soviet-empire, Russian-empire, or imperial-era English exonym for the people and nation over their chosen one, including for names of their historical states or regions representing their national territory. We don’t refer to Roma as “Gypsies,” Inuit as “Eskimoes,” Ukrainians as “Little Russians,” Russians as “Moskals,” etcetera, except to explain historical context. If some sources still do this, we should see it as an example of WP:BIAS and there’s no reason to ape those sources when we can follow ones that use their words responsibly. —Michael Z. 04:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - it think the notion of hierarchies of respect is misleading here. The notion of a monocultural monopoly completely fails to capture the historical moment. The project of 'Lithuania and White Russia' that the proponents of Litbel (as well as some other reformist socialists and non-socialists that where thinking along these lines at end of WWI, not completely disconnected from the ideas of Intermarium) was not intended as an exclusively Belarusian nation-state project but rather a multinational state that would resolve the national question without having to resort to massive population exchanges. Litbel put Russian and Belorussian languages to same status (albeit in reality Russian was the de facto working language of the state), the Russian-speaking population in Litbel cannot be construed as 'foreigners'. There were hundreds of thousands of native Yiddish speakers, out of whom the majority perished in the Holocaust, that called their homeland as Vaysrusland. The usage of 'White Russia' and its derivates in its historical contexts should not be framed as exonym. --Soman (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If the aim was “capturing moments” then we would be writing about Chaucer in Middle English and referring to nineteenth-century American slavery and Indigenous peoples with terminology I’d rather not repeat. But we use current English to clearly convey information about the present and the past to current English-language readers. Not sure what you mean by “monocultural monopoly,” but Belarusians are referred to as Belarusians, and their country as Belarus, and conveying encyclopedic knowledge doesn’t benefit from adding a bit of colonial flavour to put us in the mood to experience colonial culture of the present or past. —Michael Z. 14:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * An article can let the reader know that in Yiddish Belarus was known as Vaysrusland, if that is relevant and notable. But there is no reason to use “Vaysrusland,” “White Russia,” or “Byelorussia,” to refer to Belarus in article text or titles. —Michael Z. 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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