Talk:Belarusization

Belarusization

Belarusization was forced, people were required to learn and use Belarusian language by Soviet government, or lose their jobs. Introduction of Belarusian language into official use was not "reversal" of previous policies, because Belarusian was never previously in official use. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Belarusian was previously in official use in the Belarusian part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. You are pushing a Russian bias. Belarusian language was the native language of the Belarusian population. Russian was an imperial language forced upon the population from the outside. Russian language was required to get any job in the Russian Empire, to get education, etc. In addition to this, minority languages like Belarusian and Ukrainian were discouraged socially and prohibited politically and driven out of public use by force.--Sanya3 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of image in lead

Hi Lembit Staan

You removed the photograph of a painting of Francysk Skaryna with the comment: "Skaryna printed in early East Slavic which he called "Russian". Belarusian nationalists call it "Belarusian", but there was no such distinction at these times". I think it misses the point. If I understand correctly, Skaryna is considered an early pioneer of the Belarusian language in popular history in Belarus. The article is about Belarusization so that is a fitting lead image if I understand correctly. Could you not rather have changed the caption from "A painting of Francysk Skaryna who is considered to have pioneered the use of Belarusian language by printing religious texts in the early 16th century." to "A painting of Francysk Skaryna who is erroneously considered to have pioneered the use of Belarusian language by printing religious texts in the early 16th century." ? --Jabbi (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. A wikipedian cannot insert the judgements. After the collapse of the Soviet Union some nationaalists, roghtly or wrongly, staarted promoting early roots of Belarusian language. For example they claimed that in early Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the bureaucracy was written in Latin and Belarusian language, when in fact, just as in case of Skaryna it was written in early East Slavic language called Russian. Regardless their position, Skaryna has no relation to the subject of this article, which is Belarusization, which is the 20th century issue. One may want to squeeze some of 19th centtury here, but this would be a better subject for Belarusian national revival, which is in a sorry state as well. It looks like Belarusian en-wikipedians do not have enough hand. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

So you consider the lead paragraph on the article Francysk Skaryna, " He is known to be one of the first book printers in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in all of Eastern Europe, laying the groundwork for the development of the Belarusian izvod of the Church Slavonic language." to be factually incorrect? And later, the statement: "On 6 August 1517, his first edition, "The Psalter", was released in the Old Belarusian izvod of Church Slavonic. " is also incorrect. In my view, if they are not, then Francysk Skaryna is clearly relevant to the issue of Belarusization. --Jabbi (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying they are incorrect, they are questionable. And unreferenced. Whether Skaryna relevant or not, you will have support it with relevant reliable sources, i.e., the ones which contain the words "Skaryna" and "Belarusization" in the same text, so that there would be no original research of WP:SYNTH type. No offense, but I am starting wondering whether you are fluent in Wikipedia rules about article content. YOu are editing since 2005, right? Lembit Staan (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself Lembit Staan. The use of a historic icon in the history of a language can hardly be seen as original research for an article about the public promotion of the use of said language. I think it would rather be appropriate for yourself to show sources that would distance Skaryna from Belarusization. --Jabbi (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not how wikipedia works. Please do refresh you knowledge of our policy about WP:NOR. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

No thanks. I don't really care if there's an image of Skaryna accompanying this article. I do however find your attitude to be rather strangely opportunistic, quick to denounce any historical roots of Belarusisation with Skaryna and then back-tracking when provided with factual statements about his contributions to (a precursor?) of the language. You might yourself be well served to read up on Wp:Manual of Style/Images where it says: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." I think clearly, if Skaryna is a pioneer in the spreading of Belarusian, then the historical connection is rather obvious. --Jabbi (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You are right in the "decorative" part. Also, they must illustrate the article content. Now, which content is illustrated? It is not "opportunistic"; I do respect Skaryna; I find it worth of respect that the main hero of Belarusians is not a murddered-warrior-conquerer, but a man of culture.. Still, I merely require references which connect Skaryna with the current subject. I do not accept "obvious" as an argument. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, which content is illustrated?, the Belarusian language part obviously. I maintain it is obvious. But in case you need references still: "In the 16th century Francisk Skorina of Polatsk translated the Bible into Belarusian and wrote extensive explanatory introductions to each book. " [1] and then "A more consistent Belarusification of Skaryna was first attempted in the 1920s, then thwarted in the 1930s with Skaryna being labeled 'a member of Polotsk bourgeoisie'." [2] --Jabbi (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, Britannica contradicts modern research. There was no Belarusian language then. "Belarusification of Skaryna" means making Skaryna a cultural element of Belarus: in the Soviet times "Frantsisk Skorina" was "Russian pervopechatnik". Repeating: Now, which content is illustrated? There is no Skaryna in the article and there is no Belarusian language on the picture. Reminding: the article subject is a Soviet policy. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you are right. But you asked for a source linking Skaryna to Belarusisation and I provided it. The article by Ioffe states that Belarusisation in the 1920s was, among other things, an attempt to appropriate Skaryna. So there is a link between Skaryna and Belarusisation as a Soviet policy, which should justify using a photo of Skaryna to illustrate the article? But like I say, it's not a matter of importance in my view. --Jabbi (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately my free jstor account (granted for wikipedians) does not allow me to read this particular article. If what you say is a correct interpretation of the article, then, combined with other things, this will be a good expansion of this sorry article, and it may be illustrated by the portrait. I am aware that Skaryna's commemoration was part of the post-Soviet Belarusian culture. But am not that familiar with early Soviet Belarus. I hope we made a good progress in mutual understanding here, thank you. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)