Talk:2020–2021 Belarusian protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Crimes against humanity single source and npov

I tagged this wall of text. If you want to call these actions "crimes against humanity" you're going to need numerous reliable sources using that description. As for the content, each event has a single source. Basically local press is republishing eyewitness accounts which is border line WP:RS, probably gives WP:UNDUE weight to the claims and, well, is one source. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed title of section. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Claims of Human Rights issues"? Or similar? It won't be but a week before HRW or the UN comes out and condemns these abuses but until then it's a loaded term. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The "single-sourced" and "disputed neutrality" badges are misplaced here, because, well, it's clearly not single-sourced (and many more sources are going to be referenced in coming days), and it's absolutely impossible to make it "more neutral", because there is no material out there which would allow us to do that. Currently I am working on translating even more articles with witness' and victims' reports, and the amount of horrible details in the section is only going to grow, which at some point may require a separate article dedicated to the government crimes during this protests suppression. So, the "neutrality" you're asking for is unachievable here. This is already as neutral as it's ever going be. PS. Each article speaks about different witnesses and victims, there's no republishing. I've no idea what made you think that. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Each long paragraph is a single source, and there are only 3 publications used for the entire section. I'm looking for neutrality in the title, and better sourcing in the section. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Added reference to, and description of, the Zvyano report: http://zvyano.by/доклад-о-нарушении-прав-участников-пр/ Buxareu (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it's an interview of a particular news agency with a number victims, how are you expecting it to be backed up by many sources? It is done by a particular news agency as a separate piece and it is presented as such in the section. I fail to see a problem here. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and as to the "neutrality in the title" - what you read there is a definition of crimes against humanity, since it is a deliberate and systematic repression of opposition (which is a social group) by means of torture. Another classification simply would not suffice, because, this is not a simple disorganized "violence" or "police brutality", or a measly "human rights issue". This is a borderline concentration camp stuff we're dealing with here. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you add sources that label these events 'crimes against humanity' before labelling them as such here. Mellk (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can call those "events" whichever way you like, but it's quite obvious that the info on tortures comes from many different sources. A lot of info can be found here as well, in English: https://en.currenttime.tv/ I've been watching their TV in Russian since the protests started, and they showed many former detainees speaking about tortures. P.S. Here's a video from their site: https://en.currenttime.tv/a/released-belarusian-detainees-allege-vicious-police-abuse-they-treated-me-like-an-animal-/30785727.html Buxareu (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Torture, yes. Crimes against humanity, no. Mellk (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the title has to be sourced, because the term "crime against humanity" is not really a judicial category in terms of the international law. So, we could just use it as a part of a natural language with its own clear definition without alluding to a 3-rd party analysis or a court decision. As a reference point, we could use the corresponding Wikipedia article, which would also be right from the standpoint of Wikipedia internal consistency. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, if we really want it to be sourced, we could use a World Organisation Against Torture report: https://www.omct.org/statements/belarus/2020/08/d26028/ There, it's director underlines the large scale of the suppression and suggests there are grounds to call these events crimes against humanity. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe write "Allegations of crimes against humanity"? This wording is more neutral. We'll leave it to everyone to decide for himself or herself what it is. Buxareu (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Allegations by whom? What reliable source has claimed "crimes against humanity" in Belarus? Lets have it. Another "activist"? An innkeeper in Minsk? Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Have you actually read the section? At the very beginning, more than a "reliable" source is mentioned and quoted: On 14 August, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) issued a statement entitled "Belarus: Widespread torture of protesters suggests crimes against humanity", which condemned "the widespread ill-treatment, often amounting to torture, of hundreds if not thousands of protesters, who were arbitrarily detained in Minsk and other cities across Belarus", and called for "an independent international investigation into the systematic and extremely violent repression of peaceful protests after the August 9th presidential poll": https://www.omct.org/statements/belarus/2020/08/d26028/
• Your attempts to mock and ridicule the numerous and widely recognized cases of torture of hundreds if not thousands of peaceful protesters (recognized by most of the Belarusian and international society, including some of the police officers, the only notable exception being Lukashenko and his camarilla) are outrageous. You're obviously incapable of holding a constructive discussion, and your behavior borders on trollism. I suggest you to stop, or I'll have to report you. Buxareu (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• They're not "widely recognized" that's the whole point. Painstakingly detailed eyewitness accounts by anonymous individuals published in an online source is about as far from a verifiable reliable source as it gets. Now that whole gigantic mess of a section is tagged for Copyvio. All I care about is keeping garbage articles off the main page of Wikipedia (or if they're going to be there, clean up the most egregious content). If that's a problem for you, WP:AN/I is that way. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you don't stop and continue making "smug" comments for which you had been warned in the past (you just wrote "garbage articles"), I ask @Bzweebl and Floquenbeam: to intervene. Buxareu (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Added info on the World Organisation Against Torture statement. Buxareu (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's more neutral, because in this case it would look like we, as editors, try to downplay the significance of these events. On the other hand, if what we leave is a plain title and a wiki-link to its definition, which is probably the most important part, then the readers could truly be considered in position to decide for themselves whether to agree with this categorization or not. That is what we have right now. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fair. One way or another, the section's name has to contain the words "crimes against humanity" as this is obviously what these actions are. Absolutely awful, in true tradition of the NKVD. Buxareu (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Well that can definitely be used, it only says the widespread torture "suggests" crimes against humanity. For now, only something like "widespread torture" or "widespread human rights abuses" can be used as these are concrete and well documented. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Added accounts of two police officers confirming and condemning the human rights violations, in the same section. Buxareu (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess, it solves the "neutrality" issue. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It definitely does. Added an interview with a Russian activist, to Radio Free Europe . Buxareu (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

To simplify and speed-up the process, I suggest we vote for the appropriate section title: 1 - "Crimes against humanity", 2 - "Torture and violence", 3 - "Human rights issues". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1 -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1 -- Buxareu (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1 -- Natanieluz (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

3 -- Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC) (I would prefer "Reports of crimes against humanity" or "Claims of crimes against humanity" as no charges have been laid yet, if not then 3)

Other -- Mellk (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC) I think something like "widespread torture" or "widespread human rights abuses" is more suitable as these are well documented while "crimes against humanity" is not concrete with no RS yet actually labelling it as such.

"Two police officers" do not solve anything. The UN commission on human rights does, HRW does, two random police officers? And a "Russian activist"? LMFAO nope. This place is an echo chamber same as the Hong Kong protests or the Venezuelan crisis fake crisis and honestly I don't care you can pile this mess to the brim with your POV so long as it expires off the main page in a day or two and is never seen again. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just answered to you above and quoted the World Organisation Against Torture, which is more than a reliable source and which is quoted at the very beginning of the section (have you actually read it?). I also suggested you to stop your highly unconstructive behaviour. Otherwise, I or someone else would have to report you. Buxareu (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had read it when I started this discussion, and read this discussion when I responded. That statement from the 14th was added just 4 hours before I raised the above concern. If you want to run over to WP:AN/I and report me for trying to do something about this atrocious WP:POV WP:COATRACK of an article then please do so, otherwise you ought refrain from making threats towards me in the future. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't threat you, just asked you to stop. Will take actions against you, no problem. Buxareu (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The specific details of crimes or alleged crimes against humanity, which may become a long list, should not be in such detail in this article. If there are sufficient sources available, create a new page, Such as "2020 Belarus crimes against humanity" and abbreviate each case there. Leave just some general condemnations and one or two short summary examples on this page.Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 12:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you do it? Buxareu (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about it from the beginning, but, in my opinion, a little bit more material has to be available for a separate page. From now, I am just not going to add anything to the section, because all the main methods of suppression are already portrayed there. If new important material arises, I am going to create a separate page. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I will do it, but need 2 extra sources, providing specific confirmation or covering new events. How about moving the bulk of the section here to the talk page to avoid it being erased suddenly? It is easier to play with the wording outside the main article. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 16:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

What are we talking about, a separate page? Trimming? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Anes, take a better look: the section lists at least six different sources, not counting tut.by and those from the very first para. omct.org, Zvyano.by and babariko.vision in the beginning, and svoboda.org, kp.by and currenttime.tv near the end. P.S. Not sure what you mean by "new events". The beatings had apparently stopped several days ago and almost all the detainees have been released by now. I'll leave the technical and formatting issues up to you. Buxareu (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Another source (quoted near the end) is onliner.by. (My name has just been changed from Buxareu.) Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will give it a go in the morning. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 17:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Anes, cool. You can also quote the open letter signed by over 200 Belarusian sportsmen; it's posted in the "Second week" section, August 19. It mentions "the beatings and 'bestial abuses' of the detainees". See below.

• Over 200 Belarusian sportsmen and sportswomen, sport journalists and employees of the sport sphere (Yelena Leuchanka, Nikolai Kozeko, Volha Mazuronak, Maryna Arzamasova, Aliaksandra Ramanouskaya, Stepan Popov, and many others) signed an open letter to Alexander Lukashenko, where, among other things, they demanded that the last presidential election be invalidated, all the persons detained during the protests be released, all the political prisoners be released and rehabilitated, and those responsible of the beatings and "bestial abuses" of the detainees be identified and punished. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to prevent possible misunderstandings in the future: if we are to move this material to a separate page, the section in this article would have to be trimmed one way or another, and, usually, such process is accompanied with heated debates about what to be left in the article and what isn't. So, I propose we agree on a certain general rule for trimming, which would allow us to avoid the described situation. So, what exactly are you planning to trim in the section? What kind of excess detail? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I say, let's make sure the info comes from as many different sources as possible. One source - one short paragraph (100-150 words at most). Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A better solution would probably be a generalization of the methods of repression (a couple of paragraphs long) accompanied by a short preamble with links to the reports of the mentioned international organizations, with the rest of the information, including the detailed reports of victims and witnesses, put in a separate article. We should also work on a proper title for the new article, which is kind of tricky in this case. Something like the previously proposed "2020 Belarus crimes against humanity" doesn't specify the circumstances of these crimes, and, on the other hand, mentioning the circumstances probably makes the title too long, e.g. "Crimes against humanity during crackdown of the 2020 Belarusian protests". Maybe somebody can come up with a better one. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I am still working on it and have a first draft, the number of new reported cases seems to have dropped but the 21 August statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is very useful. The section in the main article will need to be reduced by 80% and become a summary, again I am working on a draft of that. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 06:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ânes-pur-sàng: Well, @Nicholas Velasquez: has prepared a draft already (see "A proper title for the section..." below). I guess the two of you could coordinate your activities. Taurus Littrow (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

223.204.224.168 (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Diplomatic support infobox

Shouldn't we exclude diplomatic support, from the infobox if they are just statements of support. Only Lithuania deserves a place in the infobox for actually giving concrete support (housing the opposition leader, allowing potential Belarusian refugees despite the pandemic) and rename "Diplomatic support" to something else.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Hariboneagle927 Poland also has granted visas to Belarusian political refugees and also has housed quite a lot of opposition members and organisations such as radio and TV stations, and has done for some time, as has the Czech Rep. I think the point here was no-one has given military support. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx:, I don't dispute that there is no military support given by foreign powers to either side as of the moment. China's "support" to Belarus is just congratulatory message of Xi to Lukashenko.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Hariboneagle927 which is widely accepted as an endorsement. I know what you are saying but I think the issue is how much support is considered "enough"? For example, Lithuania is clearly the front-runner of the opposition side, closely followed by Poland and the Czech Rep. EU has imposed sanctions. But what about for example Latvia, who made a joint statements with Poland and Lithuania and support them in their actions and is part of the EU and was one of the voices in support of the sanctions? Slovakia and the UK made much more stronger worded statements and letters of intent than lets say France or Germany. Where would you draw the line? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I also think that adding every single country that simply congratulated Lukashenko into the infobox for "diplomatic support" is getting ridiculous now... Mellk (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@SpaceLeninist... Mellk (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@SpaceLeninist you're being very unhelpful, I've mentioned you here and asked you again to go to the talk page to discuss your addition to the article, but instead you've decided to ignore the talk page completely and simply revert and revert, while you're telling ME to refer to the talk page. Unbelievable, your behaviour is not acceptable. Mellk (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Since that user has chosen to completely ignore me on the talk page and edit-war instead, adding countries that gave congratulations to Lukashenko in the election into the infobox as "diplomatic support" for his side in the protests is inaccurate, as well as treating Lukashenko's claim of "security assistance" by Russia as fact when it has not been confirmed. The addition of Ukraine also just doesn't work when you actually read the source there. Mellk (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Until some country actually makes a statement saying they support the government of Lukashenko against the opposition, or multiple reliable sources state that, we should not be adding anyone to the infobox on the Lukashenko side as "diplomatic support". Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well, But we should include Russia in the support column. Jkd4855 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Russia has not, so far, condemned the opposition or stated they prefer Lukashenko over the opposition. There is a guarantee to assist Belarus in case of an external threat to Belarus, which is based on prior agreements. We cannot make the conclusion that this or other statements or actions by RUssia mean the Russian government supports Lukashenko over the opposition, unless reliable sources explicitly state that's what is going on. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the standard for inclusion should be not recognizing the results and taking concrete action such as sanctions, visas for political prisoners, not recognizing Lukashenko, ect. Jkd4855 (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the standards are too low, statement of non-recognition /recognition of Lukashenko's government shouldn't be included in my opinion since it bloats the infobox. Not all diplomatic support are made "equal". Maybe we could add a note saying that the countries listed includes those who "imposed sanctions, etc. and may not include all countries that had issued statements in support or opposition towards a particular side". This could lessen any potential escalation of an edit war.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not just link the infobox in some way to International reactions to the 2020 Belarusian presidential election and protests, and then the reader can judge for themselves who is supporting who and to what extent. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, I'm sure that's been done before somewhere. Mellk (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I also think that for now, the countries should be kept collapsed until a better solution is found. It's misleading to have these countries so prominently displayed in the infobox because they have only expressed non-recognition of the elections results/verbal or diplomatic support/desire for sanctions, it's not like they have directly intervened and involved themselves in the protests. Mellk (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the syntax error by SpaceLeninist that made the whole page look a complete mess, without making any judgment about whether including Venezuela there made any sense. However, now that I've had time to check, the reference for justifying Venezuelan support is by Belarusian official news agency Belta, giving the source a strong conflict of interest, and it does not even state any support for Lukashenko by Venezuelan authorities; it only says that Belarus wishes well for Venezuela.

On the broader topic, most of the Western governments are supporting OSCE mediation rather than directly "supporting" the protestors, and they are aware that democracy in Belarus will not necessarily favour Western corporate interests and is reasonably likely to strengthen the Russian linguistic/cultural sphere; Western governmental support is as much for the propaganda purpose of pretending to support freedom as long as oppression is hot in the news rather than supporting true self-determination. Given the difficulty getting consensus on keeping the section, it could at least be trimmed by removing all the unsourced claims (or wrongly sourced claims, such as the Venezuela one right now). Boud (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A proper title for the section with reports of witnesses and victims of the suppression.

This topic has been discussed previously, but those discussion threads have become way to messy and filled with pointless arguing, so I guess, it's time for us to start over.
So, currently the section is named "Human rights issues", and previously it was named "Crimes against humanity", which was considered by many editors to be inappropriately straight-forward and unneutral. Such versions as "Widespread torture", "Widespread human rights abuses", "Reports of crimes against humanity", "Claims of crimes against humanity" were also suggested. Does anyone object to the current title? Does anyone have a better one in mind? Would you agree there's an element of downplaying in the current title? If so, what title could be considered a middle ground, in your opinion?
I think we all should understand that this is a very sensitive topic and it's crucial to come up with consensual title which, at the same time, would do the justice to the graveness of these events. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: after looking at a few other ongoing protests, I think the best header would be "Violence and controversies" which was also used in the George Floyd Protests article. Dan the Animator 20:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it would be incorrect to label the section's material as a "controversy", because the evaluations these events are given in various media are quite definite. I would also restrain from drawing parallels between these two protests. Also, judging by the lack of responses, "Human rights issues" is what everyone is okay with, so, I guess, the debate is dead. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Dantheanimator:, Violence and Controversies sounds like a fair compromise that stands in line with Wikipedia's policies, though I think that the current "Human rights issues" could be acceptible, too. Goodposts (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Violence and controversies" is way too ambiguous and can mean a lot of things. Here, however, we've had thousands of peaceful protesters detained and then beaten, tortured and humiliated in detention centers. This is a clear violation of human rights on a large scale. So the current title, "Human rights issues", looks pretty fair to me. P.S. We toned down the title already. If we continue, things can become ridiculous. That's enough. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Taurus Littrow: which protest's section title do you prefer. I linked a list of protests above for you and others to look at so if you don't like this title, choose one for yourself. There's plenty. Dan the Animator 19:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: As I said, the current title, "Human rights issues", looks fine to me. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just created a draft for a separate page for the section's material, so, if anyone here is a draft reviewer or knows someone who is, I'd like to request an urgent review. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Human_rights_issues_related_to_the_suppression_of_the_2020_Belarusian_protests Taurus Littrow (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really, it's just a base for what it's going to be with all the additional material added. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

These eyewitness accounts are anonymous, unverified and honestly do not belong in an encyclopedia. I know y'all are going to keep hanging them on this WP:COATRACK but you really should just torch that content. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure whether you've checked the sources or even read the section, but they are clearly not anonymous, and even supported by photographic evidence. As to the "coatracking", avoiding that is one of the purposes of creating a separate article for the section. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"According to a 16-years-old former detainee, who had to be hospitalized in a state of induced coma after he was severely beaten and tortured by electrocution" anonymous, and unverified. The WP:CFORK doesn't solve the WP:COATRACK issue. I mean, it's going to happen anyway, like the Venezuelan and Hong Kong articles, it's just not of encyclopedic quality is all. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, you appear to be unfamiliar with the sources, because not only the detainee's name is there (though, it's given only partially, since he's 16-years-old), but there's also an interview with the detainee's mother and brother, and both have their names published. So, I fail to see a problem here, especially considering the fact that tut.by is not flagged as an unreliable source by Wikipedia, and is widely used in covering the internal Belarusian developments. So, there's simply no grounds to consider the source inappropriate. As to the "coatracking" issue, I fail to understand your logic here. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There are hundreds (if not thousands) of personal accounts from the victims of police brutality posted on the Net, with names, places and other very specific details. Ignoring them and pretending they're all "trash" is kind of ridiculous. Taurus Littrow (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't tell me to read the source, publish it in the article or it doesn't exist. Period. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a link aggregator and telling me that it's my responsibility to read the sources for crucial details like attribution is just lazy. Were the mother and brother there? They weren't? Great so they're not "eye witnesses" at all. Neat! --LaserLegs (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you read? There are more than enough sources in the text, and much more which are not mentioned. One can find hundreds of accounts without really trying hard. If we start to analyze each case, that would take an awful lot of time; besides, those stories are so gruesome I don't even want to dwell on them too much. Nicholas can do it if he wants. One way or another, your attempts to deny the facts of mass beatings and torture are ludicrous. Nobody in Belarus does. Here, even Lukashenko recognized today, during a rally, that those beatings were real: https://news.tut.by/society/697695.html "Lukashenko said that 60% of the brusies were fake", which means that 40% were real. "Even if the policemen made mistakes, please forgive them." Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you're resorting to personal attacks which may land you at WP:ANI. If some WP:RS had done the work to meet these people, examine their claims, weed out which are not credible and summarize them it would be fine, but what's been done here amounts to WP:OR. I'm not trying to deny "facts", I'm trying to clean up the most egregious content in an obviously anti-Lukashenko WP:POV WP:COATRACK which is currently linked from the wikipedia main page. Jayron32 told me if I had a problem with the article, then to come here, so here I am. So if only 40% of the beating are real, does that mean 60% of this section is fake news? It would be pretty sad if that were the case. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't victimize yourself, nobody attacked you as a person, I just said that your arguments are ludicrous, and I explained why. I won't argue with you anymore and won't even read you comments, since you refuse to acknowledge something which nobody else does. Dasvidanya. P.S. Looks to me, Lukashenko's "60% fake brusies" are just as real as the "80%" of the votes he obtained at the election. The man is not very trustworthy, to put it mildly. Taurus Littrow (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"Can you read?" is exactly you attacking me as a person. You seem to be emotionally invested in this story, I honestly don't care about it. The article is a one-sided POV disaster, that's all I care about. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020

2403:6200:8813:3EC8:40F2:C29D:2525:D3D5 (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 09:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is that the Philippines recognized the anti-Lukashenko things? Fake!

There is a edits made by Laemonly Paul Labrador, on September 2, 2020, meaning that the Philippines supported the anti-government council. That edits is unsourced and false. This user was recently blocked by Materialscientist because he was accused for abuse of editing privileges, forever. Rdp060707 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

pro-Lukashenko rallies

This "There's no need to mention every one of the hundreds of pro-Lukashenko rallies, all the more saw because this page is about anti-Lukashenko protests." is exactly what makes this article a POV mess. The article is about "protests", and POV warriors have gone out of their way to document every single slight against the anti-Lukashenko camp (including unverified claims of torture) while actively suppressing pro-Lukashenko rallies. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree the pro-government rallies should be mentioned in the article and wouldn't object to putting all the deleted stuff back. Maybe this even needs a separate section with a little more detail. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's standard practice to include counter-protests within an article about a protest movement, as an example check out the 2019 Bolivian protests page. Furthermore, if there really are "hundreds" of pro-Lukashenko rallies, that implies that the pro-Lukashenko movement is very large and powerful, which only makes it more relevant. They ought to be included in the page for these reasons. Goodposts (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

People working for government (teachers) are controlled by the government. Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Hundreds" was obviously a gross exaggeration on my part. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Simply because you work for the government (as a civillian) doesn't mean you're controlled by the government. Remember when some of the state-run tractor factory workers went on strike AGAINST Lukashenko? Were they also ordered to do that by the government? Public sector employees have long been some of Lukashenko's core supporters, and it isn't all that surprising that some of them are now coming to his defence. Goodposts (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

5 thousands of workers are different than 20 teachers, many of them female. Please consider what you write. Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So what if they are female? What is the insinuation here? That women are stupid and unable to think for themselves, instead just restricting themselves to blindly following their employers? Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Is such aggression accepted here?Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs this is a bit of a ridiculous suggestion. Firstly torture and beatings have been a widespread tactic in Belarus for years, and anyone who has grown up in a Eastern-bloc in the right era would remember these tactics well, as all it's a tool of all oppressive regimes, so to call this an effort to document every single slight is just ignorant if not downright offensive; to truly document every single slight it would have taken hundreds of pages to do. Secondly, the pro-Lukashenko rallies are absolutely miniscule and weak in comparison, and whilst they exist, it would be undue to give much attention to them. Belarus is a repressive police state; therefore the government will do everything to confuse, misinform, mislead and deny all its flaws. This is not POV pushing, it is a simple fact of life that that is how such states operate, Belarus is no different to many others. Many people have been blackmailed by threats of losing their jobs, it is not clear how many of the few pro-Lukashenko protesters are there of their own free will. The article is not a POV mess, in fact it is quite well sourced. The weight given to certain aspects is that what is due; to imply that somehow it is an anti-Lukashenko propaganda is just exactly the kind of misinformation and nonsense these protests are about in the first place. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I won't comment on allegations that I am not a party to, but I will comment on the second half of that argument. Treating any pro-Lukashenko demonstration as having been motivated by "blackmail" is a strong violation of neutrality. This is the same as claiming that all of the anti-Lukashenko protesters were sponsored to go out by foreign powers, oligarchs and the CIA - hence wishing to censor their appearance in articles. People can support a leader, even a controversial leader, by their own free will. There have been plenty of societal blocs and political parties that have benefitted from Lukashenko's rule. Take the parties which Lukashenko appointed to the country's legislative upper house. They have a vested interest in supporting the man that appointed them and as such, are likely to rally to his defence. Equally likely to rally around Lukashenko are factory workers in state-run factories which were protected from privatization by Lukashenko - and anyone that knows anything about Belarus knows this is one of Lukashenko's key support bases. The state sector in Belarus is very large and employs a large percentage of the population. Should Lukashenko be replaced with a pro-Western ruler, many of these state jobs are at direct risk of layoffs due to privatization and deregulation initiatives. It wouldn't be a stretch at all to think that people would go out in support of a ruler, whose policies provide for their continued employment. And we haven't even mentioned the people that might support Lukashenko for ideological reasons. So to say that every person that has went out to protest in favour of Lukashenko could have only done so under the threat of blackmail is quite absurd and ignores the reasons Lukashenko built a support base in the first place. In any case, it isn't for wikipedians to postulate the 'real' reasons for these rallies, as per WP:NOR. We are to report and record, nothing else. The readers can see the sources and decide for themselves. Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Goodposts Nowhere have I said claiming that ALL of the anti-Lukashenko protesters were SPONSORED at all and you have completely missed the point. Nowhere have I suggested that they did not exist either, nor that Lukashenko has no supporters at all. What I said is precisely the pro-Lukashenko rallies are absolutely miniscule and weak in comparison, and whilst they exist, it would be undue to give much attention to them. However, the government of an oppressive police state is known for manipulation, blackmail and coercion is hardly a credible source. We are to report and record, nothing else; I agree wholeheartedly, which is why the numerous and widespread human rights violations have been mentioned, and is therefore, not as suggested, a POV-push, which what I strongly objected to. The state sector in Belarus is very large and employs a large percentage of the population; yes it is, but for most not by choice though is it? People have to work to survive, and in an oppressive Soviet-style dictatorship there are few alternatives. I was merely pointing out the reality of how the system works in Belarus that we should be aware of when assigning weight to various things. Pro-Lukashenko rallies do happen, and a small percentage of people do wholeheartedly support him and probably even voted him. At this point in time, it is however a small minority by the standards of any credible source. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Abcmaxx While it would not be acceptible to imply that the pro-Lukashenko rallies form a majority of the protests in Belarus, they do deserve to be mentioned. If RS are reporting on them, then they have just as much of a right to be covered as the anti-Lukashenko rallies. What is usually done in this case, to avoid mixing the two is to create seperate headings for the counter-protests and they can be covered there. As for human rights issues - there really is no carte blanche either way. Each allegation should be reviewed seperately and the decision on wether it should be added or not should be made after an objective review of the sources that reported on it, as well as its relation to other wikipedia policies, such as BLP. What I find odd is that you find working for state-owned companies to be some kind of punishment or last resort. While there are negatives in the public sector, there are also significant benefits - namely job security, linear career progression and strictly defined labour relations. This leads a lot of people to choose to work in state-run companies by choice, not by coercion. Perhaps someone might live in some village with little prospects but to work in a local state-run farm, but most people could find work in the private sector of Belarus, if that was what they were specifically aiming for. As for what percentage of the population supports Lukashenko - the fact of the matter is that we don't know. If you ask the opposition - his approval is around 3%. Ask state-run media and they'll tell you its in the 80th percentile. A couple of months back some foreign sources estimated it to be right down the middle at 40-ish per cent. The fact of the matter is that most people publishing claims as to Lukashenko's popularity by this point definitely have a horse in the race and as such, their claims are to be taken with a pinch of salt. So that's why we avoid making claims and just stick to what we do best - report and record. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

People who protest invest their money, health, sometimes lives. People who support, do not. They work for money, like billions of people around the world. We do not describe here shoemakers in Kenya, who do their jobs, like government workers in Belarus.Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Goodposts I agree with the crux of what you said however, Belarus ranks very low on the economic freedom according to any index applied, which means that the reality of the job market and state run institutions is very different to what you or I are used to. Unemployment in Belarus is high, wages are low; it is arguable how much choice we have in choosing jobs even in the most developed nations, Belarus is a whole new level. Balance is difficult to achieve on topics such as these, not dissimilar to North Korean or Iranian topics where the truth is hard to decipher and the information given rarely reflects the on the ground reality. I was merely pointing this out. I was not objecting to putting information about pro-Lukashenko rallies or supporters, I was objecting to the amount of weighting given to these that the original poster was inferring. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Abcmaxx Yeah, I think we're more or less on the same page on most issues - reliable information is tough to come by, especially in times of crisis. The reality of Belarus' economic sitution is far different than that of the west, Belarus has a much more statised economy reminiscent of the economic structure of the Soviet Union during its final year or two of existance. What I was merely getting at is that some of the people working for these state-owned corporations are Lukashenko's core supporters and that many such workers have a vested interest in supporting him - consequently giving them a genuine reason to rally around him, other than just "they were told to". I still think that the best way to avoid the due weight argument is to simply separate them into their own heading, so then readers can understand the two camps clearly and without confusion. Goodposts (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: "it is a simple fact of life that that is how such states operate, Belarus is no different to many others." Can you PLEASE name some others (and it would be great if there NOT Eurasian)? Here's a list of current protests: tell me which ones fit the description you're saying. Dan the Animator 21:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Dantheanimator 2011–2012 Iranian protests, 2016 Kazakh protests, 2017–2018 Russian protests, 2005 Andijan unrest... that's just off the top of my head. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Depending on which regime was in power: Egypt, Somalia, Chad, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Burma .... 50.111.54.42 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Belarus is situated in Europe and is a member of several European organisations, Chad is not one.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Garsh, really?!?!?! And here I was thinking it was in Antarctica. Don't teach your grandmother how to boil an egg, Junior. We answered the question, without any pre-supposed restrictions on our answers.50.111.54.42 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Supporting Countries

May I edit this article, I add some specific countries on Belarusan Protests. Aldrin0000 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Devastating economic effects of state repression

https://emerging-europe.com/news/belarus-business-sector-sounds-alarm-over-devastating-economic-effects-of-state-repression/ Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Belarus High Technologies Park Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/05/pandadoc-employees-arrested-in-belarus-after-founders-protest-against-lukashenko-regime/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEDd_vogJvdzf0ETLnMOMSUaAbvASZVSgYOnr8vQfPveHkPvjMk6W_m9kEZ2VK9V_89Mxh1VTzy0h10sx442QMhZFkwgNnzOMVKFOWEYes8ZOmiKWE3x0AE2FwgVTD9b_z1Rk57AniT0syJ3dRyk9A6Xgu1ElwFYdzMkn2kTx9XH Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Persons falsely accused of torture

One person, not persons. The story does not seem notable.Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - I removed it altogether. It's just an isolated incident, an honest mistake. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No mention of social distancing

I think it is highly irresponsible not to warn readers that these protesters have been protesting DURING A PANDEMIC even wilfully attempting to break the social distance barriers.

Wikipedia shouldn't be issuing health warnings, but it can report on what reliable sources have said about the incidents. Bear in mind that Belarus did not shut down due to COVID, due to Lukashenko's beliefs [1] Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The pandemic and its effects on the spread of the virus should definitely be mentioned, as they are relevant. Not in a way that advocates anything to the reader, but in a purely informative way, as is done in the Bulgarian protest article and other recent protest-related pages. Goodposts (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Lukashenko or a Russian marionette?

https://www.ardmediathek.de/daserste/video/presseclub/skrupelloser-nachbar-der-schwierige-umgang-mit-putins-russland/das-erste/Y3JpZDovL3dkci5kZS9CZWl0cmFnLTg4NTQ1M2I5LTkwYmUtNGY1Mi1iMzM0LTRiM2YyODQ5ZWJiYw/ Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No an American puppet!--92.74.235.54 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? "No, an American puppet!" ? Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

My text has been removed by a user, who does not edit pages about Eastern Europe. Please explain me what is a linkspam? ARD is German public TV. If you are able to prove that the ARD is unreliable, please do it. BTW the opinion is obvious, repaeted by thousands. Russia controls Belarus militarly, economically, politically, culturally. [2] [3] [4] [5]Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Your text is nothing to add to the article, merely dumping a URL link with no context to how it will improve the article. As you said, you have hardly discovered the Watergate scandal here, the article already has 18 mentions of the word "Putin" and 183 of the word "Russia" so I don't know what exactly you're trying to prove apart from using this talk page as a Twitter feed to share links you like. WP:NOTFORUM But whatever, keep it, life's too short. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If life is too short, why do you discsuss about Belarus? It is not your life. Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean life's too short for me to argue about whether you're using this page as a forum, something that's not novel for you. Your source was reliable, but you didn't give any indication you were sharing it to improve the article, especially as the links between Lukashenko and Russia are already rightly mentioned numerous times in far better context than dumping a link on its own. I request an admin to close this section before it derails any further. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Weeks

For some reason the parts of the article split by weeks are counted from Sunday not Monday. In Belarus, the first day of the week is Monday, so this needs to be changed. CrasherX (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The protests began on Sunday. Taurus Littrow (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Supporting Countries

May I add another country relate to this article? Aldrin0000 (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Legendary photo rally Belarus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

“largest protests since Lukashenko became President”

Just like I stated on the German talk page (without responses): The introduction claims that the lemma was “the largest series of anti-government protests in Belarus since Alexander Lukashenko became President of the Republic of Belarus in 1994”. That is certainly true, but why the limitation? During Soviet times, were there ever as many people on the streets as today? Since there is no citation for the current claim anyway, isn’t it just as safe to say that these are the largest [anti-government] protests in the history of Belarus? -- Gohnarch^░ 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not as safe. A weaker claim has more chance of being true than a stronger claim. There's also the fuzzy question of how you define Belarus over the past few centuries, assuming that the claim is about a proportion of the population rather than absolute numbers. Boud (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, look what happened. 🙂 -- Gohnarch^░ 18:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Split?

This article is currently about 330 kb in its source (including references), so it's time to start preparing for a WP:SPLIT. The article is reasonably structured, and the overall balance between sections seems reasonable, so it may not be easy to split without disrupting the overall balance. Some possibilities that I see include the following:

• Wait a bit longer: If Lukashenko would be so kind as to resign within the remaining 10 days remaining to the 25 Oct ultimatum, then starting the transitionary epoch as a followup article would be one way of not (for the moment) splitting this article. For precedents on possible names, see Category:Democratization, of which a recent, ongoing example is 2019–2022 Sudanese transition to democracy. So 2020 Belarusian transition to democracy might be a good name by late October.

• Split out the post-election timeline: The post-election timeline section is about half the scroll-length of the article for me. Shifting it to a separate article and just putting a brief summary here would easily be justified. Some of the more qualitatively "notable" events in the timeline that are not already in the "thematic" parts of this article could be restored in summary form here, in the thematic sections, possibly adding another thematic section if that makes sense based on the sourced info that we have. A possible name: 2020 Belarusian post-election protests.

Remember the {{copied}} template after doing a WP:SPLIT, to give proper attribution to the authors.

I'm not volunteering to do the split, but people interested should probably comment on any split strategies (or give arguments for/against the above two suggestions), because pressure to split is going to keep increasing. Boud (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a little early to talk about the large-scale splitting. In my opinion, a better solution would be to proceed with filling the post-election timeline in the current manner, and, when the events reach some definitive endpoint, do a generalization with a major rephrasing/trimming of the corresponding section, which would shorten the article to an appropriate length without all the hurdles associated with splitting and with minimal risk to the content's integrity, since, by then, it would be possible to see these events as a whole. Also, a pretty big chunk of the article has recently been moved to a separate page (the majority of the "Human rights issues" section), so some splitting has already been done. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There's significant overlap with the subject on 2020 Belarusian presidential election with regards to the build-up and campaigns, and the arrest of candidates. Also in the protests there are almost clear three phases: pre-election, election night and immediate post-election, and now the current state of affairs. I suggest any split be along the lines of pre- and post- election. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal 1

Split discussion for 2020 Belarusian presidential election & 2020 Belarusian protests sections to be split as per WP:FORK due to significant overlap between the two and the large size of both articles. The proposal is to migrate the content into two forks, thus merging some of the content. Proposal is as follows:

• 2020 Belarusian presidential election#Campaign → History of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election build-up and Belarus protests pre-election
• 2020 Belarusian presidential election#Timeline → History of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election build-up and Belarus protests pre-election
• 2020 Belarusian protests#Before the election → History of the 2020 Belarusian presidential election build-up and Belarus protests pre-election
• 2020 Belarusian protests#Post-election → History of the 2020 Belarus protests post-Belarusian presidential election

Abcmaxx (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The "election" article might leave the impression of disproportionate size due to the references section taking around 40% of the page and the widespread use of tables/newlines and fancy indentation. As I see it, there's not that much pointless overlapping between the two, it's just that the "election" article goes deeper into the details of the campaign, just as it should be. As to the proposed split scheme, it's a little confusing and likely impossible to implement without those monstrous article titles. Probably it's just better to insert a "{{main|2020 Belarusian presidential election}}" template into the "Presidential campaign" sub-section and solve the rest of the problems with simple rephrasing/trimming. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: - I think your proposal is motivated by the idea that the presidential election build-up and the pre-election protests were so tightly interconnected that trying to keep them separate is artificial. I think that's already the de facto division of topics, with an unstated but de facto consensus. The protests article only has a brief summary (compared to the overall length) of the presidential election campaign and protests prior to the election. You could probably try trimming any excessive details of that epoch from the protests article and shifting them to the election article, though I tend to agree with @Nicholas Velasquez: that not much remains to be done. The Aftermath in the election article looks like it goes a bit too much into a few events, so a minor rewording of the lead of the protests article could be placed there instead, and any non-redundant, notable info placed into the protests article.

I think you can go ahead with these type of edits quite uncontroversially - but at least put live cross links in your main edit summaries to help with attribution. These wouldn't count as a fork or split to me.

As for a real split, so far there's no clear turning point. Lukashenko resigning or being removed from power would clearly be a turning point - waiting a few more weeks to see if this happens and makes Wikipedians' task easier is probably reasonable. Some text compression (summarising) can probably be done without waiting. Boud (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Boud and Nicholas Velasquez: Firstly I split out the international reactions fork and that seemed to work well with merging from both articles into a fork. I am against the idea of cutting referenced material, as being detailed should be encouraged, rather than undoing all that work to summarise once again. That is exactly what forks are for. I would say that the election night definitely marked a clear escalation in the protests. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I don't want to encourage the removal of sourced material. I won't propose specific examples of compression here, because it would be faster to do them myself (if I get around to that) and then discuss them if there are complaints or reverts. Removing or compressing details that are of low relevance is a matter of judgment, and requires quite a bit of work to do carefully. In many cases here the sources are in Russian, which makes editing in reference to the sources more difficult for non-Russian-speakers. But if I do much editing, I should really rather contribute to the ongoing furious, massive, nationwide demonstrations against the pseudo-constitutional-court abortion-law-tightening west of the Curzon Line.

On the election night marking a clear change: yes, I think we have consensus on that, and I think we already have a split on that between the two articles. The election article is primarily for the time up to and including the election; the protests article is primarily for the time following the election. But there has to remain some summary material in each to make each article make sense on its own. The open question is when Lukashenko finally decides to (or is forced to) quit so that we can have a symbolic division for the post-Lukashenko era - for a third article. Boud (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal 2

2020 Belarusian protests#Post-election → History of 2020 Belarusian post-election protests as per WP:FORK due to size and taking above discussions into account. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection for this article

As this article is of major importance in contemporary politics, it should be granted protection to prevent pro-Lukashenko or pro-Tsikhanouskaya trolls from damaging the article. 86.11.167.79 (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Name Change

Should we title the article "2020–21 Belarusian protests" because the protests are still going on or just leave it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoftPillow503 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title

I see that this article was just moved from 2020-21 Belarusian protests to 2020–21 Belarusian protests per MOS:RANGE. However, per MOS:DATERANGE, shouldn't the title actually be 2020–2021 Belarusian protests? Armadillopteryx 03:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems that's settled now. Thanks, Matthiaspaul! Armadillopteryx 06:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does the flags section have an undue weight tag?

This tag has been there since October, and I never understood why. I boldly removed it many months ago, and it was reinstated without any reason mentioned. Does anyone know why, or is it okay to remove it?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I have boldly removed this tag as this doesn't seem to be controversial to do so.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Removals from "Parties to the civil conflict" section of the infobox

I notice that there has been a lot of removals from the opposition side of the "parties to the civil conflict" section of the infobox. These seem to have come from two bold removals:

1. At 06:29, 24 February 2021, User:Artem.G removed a number of opposition parties that support the protests (Social Democratic Party (People's Assembly), Christian Democrats, Green Party, Left Party, Party of Freedom and Progress, Popular Front Party, Social Democratic Assembly, Social Democratic Party (Assembly), United Civic Party, Women's Party and Young Front) and other organizations that have supported the protests (Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic and Tell the Truth) with the given reason of "Remove unimportant names and organizations, that definitey are NOT a leading forces from any side."
2. At 06:32, 18 April 2021, User:Ya hemos pasao removed a number of anarchist groups that support the protests (Revolutionary Action, Anarchist Black Cross, Pramen) with the given reason of "boldly removing the anarchist groups listed in the sidebar since all citations appear to be self-published sources, and overall seem intended to give undue attention to a fringe extremist faction".

The issue here is that these seem to have happened without any prior discussion on the talk page, and has had the effect of diluting one side of the civil conflict, with the implication being that the protests are entirely the product of the Coordination Council. It's also worth noting that this level of scrutiny has not been applied to the Pro-Government side, so the infobox is now largely weighted to one side, for reasons that may amount to double standards.

So I just wanted to open up a discussion on the possibility of reverting these removals and creating a clearer criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Thanks.--Grnrchst (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of the previous removals, and I agree that the infobox does look unbalanced as things stand. When I came to the article it looked as though the only other groups supporting the protest movement were anarchists, which I knew wasn't the case. I would provisionally support restoring the groups I removed (at least the ones that are notable enough to have wiki articles/be mentioned in news) if those removed by Artem were restored as well. But of course, really we should be looking for RSs. However, I'm not sure if there's English-language sources that list the various parties to the conflict. And without that, we just don't know if these listings are even correct. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the timely response! I've provisionally reverted the removals and gone through the effort of finding additional sources (mostly in the Russian language). It may still need to be tidied up a bit, but at least it now offers a more complete view of the opposition groups involved.--Grnrchst (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• • • To be honest, all these parties really has nothing to do with protests. There were no candidates from any party on the elections, and besides Statkevich there are no notable figures there. And including those parties in infobox makes people think that Belarus has real democracy with multiple real parties, and the protests were coordinated and supported by 'legal' opposition. But in fact, no Belarusian except for journalists now anybody from those parties.

And yes, all the sources are in Belarusian and in Russian.Artem.G (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks also for your response. Would it then be more accurate to add them to the "supported by" section? Having gone through the sources, it seems like the only groups that have been reported as having a presence in the protests were the Association of Belarusian Students and the Young Front. The sources cited for the remainder seem to indicate that they support the protests and do not recognize the election of Lukashenko. I disagree that their presence in the infobox necessarily implies what you say, but I do want to make sure they are accurately represented as either supporters or participants respectively.--Grnrchst (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Dont call the protest civil disobedience!

Simple as that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simbanono (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

|}