Open main menu

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia current Belarusian

Current Belarusian WikipediaEdit

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia current Belarusian)
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Current Belarusian (Сучасная беларуская мова, bel ISO 639-3)
  • Editing community: Sidorsky (NP), Semashko (N), trasianka editor, Alexander Gouk (N)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 8 million (at least)
  • Locations spoken: Official language of the Republic of Belarus
  • Present-day Belarusian, the official language of the Republic of Belarus is significantly different from that archaic form of language that is used by administrators of Belarusian Wikipedia. These distinctions concern the basic sections of philology: orphoepics, graphemics, spelling, grammar, morphology, lexicology and others. The Grammar of the archaic (or classic, as they say) Belarusian is developed in 1920s in Northwest areas of Belarus (now it is the Republic of Lithuania) and is based on regional phonetic, grammatic and lexic features of character. However it considerably differs now from the language which is used by the slavic population of that region. Thus, this variant of the Belarus language is not a dialect. Since it is poorly unified we may compare it more likely to a slang, than to a modern national language. It stopped its development due to cession of Vilnius region and WWII emmigration.

    The roots of the Present Belarusian literary language are in the most populated Central Belarus. It is a state language of Belarus, a language of official documents, sciences, education, culture, media. The language used in Belarusian Wikipedia today is a language of amateurs of olden time, and their work is a form of escapism. This prevent educated men and women of Belarus from participation in Wikipedia. We ask you to support the creation of Present Belarusian Wikipedia.


  • SUPPORT - Two (even three) different standards in one encyclopedia are very confusing. Many articles contain a mixture of both official and alternative languages, preventing the community of editors from growth. It is still a difficulty for many students to use current belarussian wikipedia for educational aims because of different standards. The present belarussian Wikipedia is dominated by users (and administrators) writing in alternative and not official version of Belarussian: a new article created in alternative language cannot be edited in the official language even it's a stub (a rule in Be-Wiki). The creation of a new project would also prevent many of local "wiki"-conflicts between users, still taking place there. And last but not least: belarussians grow up with literature - excellent prosa and poetry - written in official present-day belarussian language, also an official language of sciences in Belarus. Isn't it a reason enough to launch a new project? Alexander Gouk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time writing an article in the present Belarussian Wikipedia or editing an existing one I have a feeling that i put the text into the wrong place. It's not possible to get rid of it. There are articles written with latin characters, articles written with usage of ciryllic characters not listed in the alphabet, articles written in official language are linked to categories in alternative language... It' confusing... Every time... And there is no wish and sense to begin the discussion... It will lead to nothing. This words are not agains administrators and users promoting the alternative language, most of them are enthusiasts. But they startet at the very beginning, offen creating stubs in alternative language, which cannot be replaced with official language, even containing only some words. There should be a solution... Alexander Gouk 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment about changing spelling policy. There is simple policy to change spelling of article: to get permission form author(s) or (if not author available) administrators. As far as I remember, you did not try to ask such questions. So please don't claim that this is impossible. --EugeneZelenko 04:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - I support Present Belarusian Wikipedia user:Semashko (N) 11:39, 09 February 2006
  • Oppose - there is currently a request for a Trasianka Wikipedia; see elswhere on this page. Disputes about how to write Belarusian should be solved on the be: Wikipedia, not by splitting up a Wikipedia. It's essentially the same language we're talking about, and you and the be:-administrators should be a little more cooperative and tolerant towards each other's concept of what written Belarusian should be like. Caesarion 11:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Caesarion, can you say that Old English and English is essentially the same? In my opinion Belarusian ("Present Belarusian") and a complex of regional dialects plus strong Polish influence ("Belarusian") are different. You are right as for "Trasianka" - it's not the separate language. The relation between these three forms is the following: be.-Belarusian (archaic Northwestern dialects + Polish + US English americanisms) - Present Belarusian (the official language of Belarus) - Trasianka (Belarusian + Russian). If you think it's normal situation when Belarusian wiki is written not in Belarusian, so perhaps you can propose how to find a place for the real Belarusian language in Wikipedia? It's not so easy as splitting up a Wikipedia for hardly existing Germanic dialects but could you try, please? - Ivan Sidorsky 09:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the details of this situation, but a comparision with Modern English and Old English is certainly absurd. By the way, the English article about Belarusian already boasts a strong influence of Polish, and this article was edited several times by some of the most prominent be: users, including Rydel, just to name one. What they most likely do is keeping Russian influences out, but are they really reconstructing a language that was spoken some 1,200 years ago, as Old English was? Compare, for example, "Þā Geānlǣhtan Rīcu American is land in þǣm American. Sceortlīce wrīteþ man USA, and þis land hæfþ 297 millionen lēoda" and "The United States of America is a country in America. In short, it is written USA, and this country has 297 inhabitants." Are present day spoken Belarusian and Belarusian the way it is written really as dissimilar as old and modern English? I bet not. (Btw tell me why some German regional languages "hardly exit", according to you). Caesarion 12:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, that's not such differs as between old English, snd Present, cause we talk about the 1920's grammar + polonisms and hand-made "neologisms" (from, for example, Viačorka). trasianka editor 21:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What Wikipedia is being constructed for: languages, nations or cultures? If first, we have more strong position than those who promote dead language for cultural-ideological reasons. After all, I highly appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and it's a sad surprise for me, that you've decided to help people pursuing other aims. - Ivan Sidorsky 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly helping people who promote archaic, maybe unnatural forms of a language. As I said before, I am in favour of a more cooperative solution. Maybe the be: community should be more tolerant towards a form of Belarusian that is closer to the living, spoken language. If necessary, contact the Board of Trustees and make them resolve this dispute. They are very, very unlikely to allow two separate wikipedias in the same language. Moreover, it is a fact that they usually favour an official, standardised form of a language. You should absolutely try to come to terms with the be: community before you jump into steps like these. Caesarion 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Caesarion. Hope, your advice will work and the Board of Trustees will be able to make a wise and peaceful decision. - Ivan Sidorsky 12:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT I definitly support Ivan Sidorsky and willing to help. trasianka editor 18:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean, if somebody could tell, what would you recommend to do, where to write in such case, it would be reasonable to close the discussion here, because it makes no more sense now, after you've told, that it is not the way of solving such problems. Where is that Board of Trustees, how could it look, I mean what are we to write? trasianka editor 00:57, 07 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not able to answear you that question, but if you wan't make a deal with actual be-wiki admins I can support your effort to help large amounts of educated present Belarusan language speakers to contribute to Wikipedia. D_T_G 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, we really have to work it out. trasianka editor 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Support - An original, living language with nearly 8 Million native speakers - a good coause for an own Wikipedia. Kenwilliams 19:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT Ken, how long since you have been in Belarus'? some 200 years? Belarusian is a dying language, and it's really worth saving it because of this. But claiming an 8 million figure is at the very least ridicolous. Most people there speak russian, and the more evoluted (prodvinutye) drop in an english word each every two. Same applies to Ukraine, where I live. Languages must be judged as languages, not as political pawns. It's a BIG piece of Europe's culture we deal with, not just flags on some generals' strategical map. Breaking a small, weak and dying language into further bits just because admins do not like each other is a wonderful way to kill it once and for all. Think about it. Then maybe vote to remove the old admin, if he really is so uncapable to do a good job. I'll support you. bertodsera 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Also a good point. Belarusian is mother-tongue for 80% of Belarusians - the statistics say. It's 8 mln people. They know the language, they've learn at school, and heard from parents and grandparents - it's Present Belarusian. Now, in Internet the percentage of archaic form users, is bigger then in the real (not virtual) world, so often people have to, let me say, 'reload' their language-sense to the archaic form. But more often they just don't want to play those games - they just use Russian, not even trying to use the official, literary present form, cause mostly people are unpolitical, not interested in nationalist's games and plans. trasianka editor 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Statistics is great, bur real life is not... How much people in Minsk (1.7 mln) who speak (and potentially will contribute to any form of Belarusian Wikipedia) Belarusian? I fear that bigger part of them is opposition... --EugeneZelenko 14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's it. You make us involved in politics. I say Wikipedia must not be connected or depend on politics at all. I don't stay on neither the government position, nor the opposite views; I only can ascertain that there's a living language, and it has its own wide spread academic norms which we are to follow (and the Belarusian people does), especially on Wikipedia or other scientific sources. trasianka editor 19:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't talk about politics, and did not involve anybody in politics. I talked about Belarusian language situation. That millions of speakers is a little bit overestimated number... Belarusian language exists in forms of classic (łacinka included) and official spelling independently from what you think about classic spelling. And you could not do too much with this fact. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official (present days). It contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good. --EugeneZelenko 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It's absurd what you say. First, there's no right to call the archaic form "classic" as you all do. 'Classic' means literary, present, codified, fixed in literature, encyclopedias (not in nationalist's manifests) - that's the present Belarusian. Then 'does not favor' - what should it mean? It's all not about doing favors anybody, but to conform the existing spelling and orthoepic norms. How can 'two spellings coexist'? Especially when you have to mark they even do not obtain the same codified form of their 'classic' language, but as anyone wants - "taraškievica"/"viačorkavica"/"našanivaŭka"/"dziejasłovica" and so on. Plus "łacinka" - more one completly another project. It seems totally abnormal. The norm means the norm. A law is a law. It prevents any 'spelling dividing'. trasianka editor 21:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So oppose (s-tagged D_T_G 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)) - as I said previously (I also voted against sub-be-wiki projects like trasianka and west-palesian) that will only support if described by Trasianka editor struggle at be-wiki won't seem to stop, and according to EugeneZelenko it doesn't so I oppose present Belarusian proposal. Regards, D_T_G 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If it seems to him that there's no conflict - it's only because they don't give us the right of voice. He is be: admin and defends his own power. trasianka editor 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Please disclose your user name on Belarusian Wikipedia, just to verify facts that somebody didn't give you right to write articles on official spelling. --EugeneZelenko 20:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Absurd. There are 3 (at least) spelling systems on one Wikipedia. I'm not telling, you couldn't write on present Belarusian in be:Wiki, I'm saying, that's you, who have no right to write articles in some nationalistic half-archaic half-puristic language project spelling/orthoepics - as a main project or mixing it with normal. There's one normal codified form. Not 3 equal. trasianka editor 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So I assume, that your claims about right of voice just reflect your wish to make own POV official policy of Belarusian Wikipedia. As about codification of classic spelling, see [1]. --EugeneZelenko 14:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You overturn it all from legs up on a head. Modern literary Belarusian language with its owen grammatic norms is not my personal point of view, it is the fact fixed in millions of pages of scientific and fiction literature. At the same time the imaginations of mister Viačorka and its followers really is his personal sight and vision of the Belarusian language. Therefore I say that the official policy of Belarusian Wikipedia should follow the official rules and the norms existing at present in Belarusian. Do not confuse the NPOV policy to elementary following literacy in spelling and orthoepics - in fact it is impossible, that people write as they want within the limits of the same project. On the maintenance of articles - there can be different points of view; but on a writing of articles in any language there can be only one position: it's following the academic grammar as it is. As if to "codification of "classical" spelling" - the last creation of "філёляг" ("philologist") Viačorka - you know very well, that this edition has not brought any unity even to admirers of "reformers-classics" and a pair of newspapers and magazines have continued to write in their own ways. And the same: diffirent treatments (and sometimes just elementary illiteracy) - now in be:Wiki too. And it's all because of your "spelling democracy" (which de-facto is anarchy). trasianka editor 20:12, 3 April 2006
  • Already is be:! I Shall support if bel: will duplicate be: and that between them there was no struggle. But I think bel: provocation as you initiated also tra: & zpo:. --MaximLitvin 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it wasn't me who proposed zpo:Wiki and bel:Wiki, I've only supported them. The only problem of tra:Wiki is now lack of supporters but I'll try to manage it. It's neither provocation, nor fun. We are going to make an encyclopedia. Neither zpo:Wiki is a provocation. It's a language of ethnic minority as for example Ligurian (lij:) or Emilian-Romagnol. You call it provocations? Be:Wiki is not in Present normal Belarusian, in fact, there's language anarchy there - 'write as you want and don't oppose others in their own views on how should we write and tell it in "classic" Belarusian'. It's probably be: (archaic form) which could dublicate Present Belarusian Wiki as sub-project or some kind of interface for the amateurs of archaic while bel: should be official; not as you say. The struggle or discussions about probably reforming (as you propose) present Belarusian should not be held in Wiki (or any other encyclopedias or sources) but in Akademy of Sciences or among philologists. But there's official grammar and lexics and Belarusians use it. trasianka editor 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The Belarus language one. There is no archaic language - there are different norms of language. Distinctions in norms of language are caused by the political reasons - the antiBelarus policy of communists. I badly know classical norms. It is impossible to divide Byelorussians on the basis of "ь" (conditionally). Especially now, when the Belarus language can die. Why two do not suggest to make ru: - for those who uses the letter "ё" and for those who does not use the letter "ё"? I not against bel: as subproject. I against bel: as separate project. West-palesian not language of a national minority (there is no minority). It not established a dialect (there are no strict norms, literatures) the Belarus language (or a Ukranian language). It to you will tell in any Academy of sciences :) --MaximLitvin 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 1.There can be the only norm of language and it exists - the academic literary present Belarusian. 2.I'm not going to argue on any antiBelarus policy of communists - I'm not talking about any politics. 3.It's amatours of "classic norms" who divide people, not me: I say there's one language and one grammar/spelling/lexics norms. 4.Your comparison to Russian "ё" situation makes no sense: there they don't have any weird projects, but some people say they can use "ё" (or not), the others say they must. They are talking about only one letter, not the hole grammar system. And everybody in Russia knows the situation - it even can't be called serious problem, while in Belarus the majority of people just are not interested in any "classic"-projects. 5.As I've said before, it's any alternative systems are to be sub-projects - the official form is to be main project. 6. Let's discuss zpo:Wiki on its own part. trasianka editor 20:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I think (as person who lived in Minsk for 27 years POV and studied in school and university there) that majority of people in Belarus are not interested in any form of Belarusian language projects. Sorry for remind this fact, but sad truth is better then sweet self-deception. --EugeneZelenko 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. Long time all languages developed without norms. Developed on personal sensations of native speakers (separate people). More recently (to historical measures) there were strict language norms. Strict norms of the Belarus language have appeared only in the beginning of 20 centuries - "classical" norms. In 1930 years on political grounds "classical" norms have been replaced "academic". The Belarus language has not changed. The Belarus speech can be written down on "classical" or on the "academic" norms - to Byelorussians it will be well clear. Distinctions between norms are not significant. Who to you prevents to write on "academic" to norms in be:? 2. It is a political question. Initiating bel: you initiate discussion of a political question. 3. Norms do not differ with lexicon and a pronunciation. Norms slightly differ with rules of transfer to writings softness and hardness of sounds, and also rules of transfer of foreign words. The fact in that there are two norms, is people which consider correct first or second norm. Byelorussians perfectly will understand all written both on the first, and on the second norm. The majority of Byelorussians cannot distinguish the first norm from the second norm. 4. The situation with "ё" is similar to a situation with two norms of the Belarus language. One speak, that is necessary "ь", and others speak, that is not necessary "ь" - however "ь" nothing changes. One speak, that is necessary "е", and others speak, that is necessary "э" - however nothing changes it. The majority of Byelorussians does not know, that there are two norms and cannot distinguish the first norm from the second norm. 5. be: it is created by the first - it is necessary to respect with work of compatriots which two years work. I wish to explain. If bel: it has been created by the first I would express against creation be:. I against two separate Belarus projects. I for one general Belarus project (it is possible with two subprojects). 6. Well. --MaximLitvin 14:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Support nl:Boudewijn Idema, 13:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose - If the problem is the administrator of be:Wiki, then you should have the admin changed, instead of wasting common space and work. Both styles can coexist in a sigle language. Nobody speaks Chaucer's english anymore, but that does not keep people from publishing it in the en:Wikipedia. So it should be for the opposite situation. If not so, then you have a weird admin structure in be:wikipedia, not two different languages. I believe that there must be a way to obtain an indipendent Wiki authority to impose a minimal democracy in be:wiki, instead of starting up a confusing secession. bertodsera 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, we are not speaking about two different languages, but the archaic system with a lot of polonisms (as for example kelnerka, pastarunak), supported by nacionalists and rusofobes, with some weird orthography and orthoepics. Please, tell us where are we to write (where's that Board of Trustees?). trasianka editor 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the orthographical differences between the varied types of Belarussian can hardly be as big as those between Cotentinais and Jèrriais, and yet we all manage to get along and coexist (with currently two standards, and the potential for at least three) on the Norman Wikipedia. (Examples would be the words "clioche" and "clloque"; "itou" and "étout", "achteu" and "à chu jouo", etc. Cotentinais and Jèrriais even use two completely different standards of capitalization.) One possible solution for your differences may be to include two versions of every page, such as the Norman pages clloque and clioche. The Jade Knight 09:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    Seems wise ;) What do you think about it? D_T_G 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've s-tagged my opposition temporarily....
  • As for now we creates redirects in alternative spelling. Duplicating contents is possible, but some problems will arise: who will synchronize content and where interwiki should be placed. Redirects to categories is not working (see bug 3311, big Commons trouble). Templates could contain both spellings and right one could be chosen with conditional template (I did so in one of latest infoboxes). --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't speak Belarusian. However, two things are for sure: 1. we have a Wikipedia reserved for (modern, not some ancient form) Belarusian. 2. If some users there are using a different standard than the official one or - worse - are preventing other users from writing in that standard, creating a new Wikipedia is not an appropriate solution. Please try to solve this problem internally within the be-WP. I think Jade Knight's above suggestion is one worth being considered. 99% of all Wikipedians are intelligent, reasonable folks so I think it should be possible to bring about a sound solution. If everything should fail, however, please post a message to the Wikipedia-l mailing so that some neutral outsiders can assist in finding a compromise. Arbeo 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose of course no! I am belarusian and I want to speak real belarusian language, wich is not beaten by soviet ideologists..
Meaningless quasi-political discourse. We do not discuss politics here, we try to make useful wikipedia section for people. By the way, signature is always welcomed. - Ivan Sidorsky 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all, I do not think that the modern spelling, artificially created by communists for a single reason of brining Belarusian to Russian standards has the right to exist. Besides that, it's obvious that the "taraškievica" is the modern choice for those, for whom Belarusian is a live language (not those who only see it during Belarusian classes at school or univercity). The transition to the proper spelling is the question of time. Second, why should we split the effort? Our cooperation is required in order to revive Belarusian language, and the spelling conflict does not good. Juras14 13:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
How funny! So if something was "artificially created by communists" (say, an artificial satellite or a house, builded after the last horrible war) it can not be used by "modern men and women", right? All of your opposes are based on political connotations and misapprehensions like: "Beware of Red Communists!" and "Russians are coming!". The only way to merge our efforts is to split Belarusian section to allow us to contribute to wikipedia. It will help to revive Belaruisian language also. Or do you think we must revive your language version only? It hardly can be the basis for partnership. - Ivan Sidorsky 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of course, this idea is crap. First of all because be: is NOT "arhaic" and so on, it is updated in BOTH spellings! So you can always write in your preferred spelling into usual be: Wikipedia, and there is no reason to create any other wikipedia just because of writing system. --Monk 14:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (en:Monkbel, be:Monk)
  • Oppose.
    • 1) My personal impression is that Taraškievica is the very preferred writing system of active Belarusian speakers. It is the Narkamaŭka that tends to be the dying Belarusian language because it is used mostly by back-to-USSR-university theoreticals and school language teachers - the people who never actually speak Belarusian outside the classroom. People who speak Belarusian in every-day life definately prefer Taraškievica as the purer version of the language. Just check the Belarusian-speaking blogosphere to see that 90% use Taraškievica (with more or less Narkamaŭka elements).
    • 2) Narkamaŭka was created in 1933 under Soviet occupation - actually, it was nothing but russifying the Taraškievica, a language tradition formed in the 19th century. It wasn't a different version of the language basing on other dialects - it was simply cutting differences between Belarusian and Russian aiming to assimilate Belarusians. There were further russification steps planned (p.e. весна instead of вясна, цеатр instead of тэатр) that luckily were not realised by the Soviets
    • 3) Yes, Taraškievica is an unofficial writing system - but still, it has been codified in the Беларускі клясычны правапіс published last year. These rules are accepted by main Taraškievica-using media: Radio Free Europe Belarusian edition, Naša Niva, Radio Polonia Belarusian edition etc and by the regular users. By the time this standart will push aside various marginal language versions.
    • 4) The differences between T and N are, frankly speaking, not radical enough for creating a whole new Wiki. Main problems are writings of foreign words and the usage of ь. There is not even a huge diference in pronounciation. Come on, we do not have separate Wikis for British English and American English, do we?
    • 5) be: is the smallest Slavic Wikipedia except the tiny Kashub language version. Languages with much less "official" speakers (Slovene, Slovak etc) have much larger Wikis than we do. Shouldn't we better develop the one Belarusian language wiki we have (even though it is far from ideal in many aspects) instead of dividing our potential?
    • 6) be: is created for both Belarusian writing systems. The rules say, that both Taraškievica and Narkamaŭka are welcome there. I admit that maybe there should be more discipline and more attention and respect to Narkamaŭka users - and I really propose to discuss the topic "at home" and in our common Belarusian language :) --Czalex 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are you afraid of the plan to create a wikipedia in Present Belarusian language? We do not prevent you from developing your language section, so why do you reject this possibility for us? Perhaps, it will be obvious how weak Taraškievica's positions are. American radio, Polish radio, and tiny emigrant newspaper on the one hand, and whole Belarus on the other. I respect minorities but not aggressive ones. Make your archaic be.-section, and let us make our own. It will be democratically. - Ivan Sidorsky 13:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend, where did you see fear in my comment? Moreover, try to answer any of my arguments what you didn't do. Nasa Niva is not a "tiny emigrant newspaper", unless it will be closed down by the Lukašenka regime. Uchite matchast. Very few people who speak Belarusian at home use Narkamaŭka! And archaic is the exact word for it and not for Taraškievica.--Czalex 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not your friend. There is a great difference between us: my ancestors fought against Nazism, and I respect Soviet heritage, as well as the majority of Belarusians. We cannot be friends, we cannot have common things. End. -- Ivan Sidorsky 08:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to say that people who support Classical Belarusians are fascists or something along those lines, then do so. Here's something to think about: Janka Kupala has an awesome poem called "Zydy" ("Jews", not "Yids"). In modern Russian it is considered an offensive term. I bet you think that Kupala was an anti-Semit. Well, you are wrong. Kupala was a good friend of Zmitrok Biadulia whose real name was Samuil Plaunik. If you have not understood it from his real name he was far from being of any Slavic descent. Moreover, he was one of the biggest supporters of Belarusian statehood in 1918. So shut it, and don't accuse unless you know for sure. --Wolny 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me ignore your rudeness. As for Nazism, I surely say not about language, but about certain attempts to justify this criminal ideology made by your friends whom I regrettably know pretty well. Your precautious notice about Mr. Plaunik will not save you if things to bad. -- Ivan Sidorsky 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The only person in Belarus (besides neo-Nazis) who tried to justify Nazism was Lukashenka. I am a little on the lazy side to look for the exact quote, date, and the newspaper, but it was circa 1996 in an interview to a German newspaper where he stated that not everything was bad under Hitler in Germany. I am not even mentioning how they built a stadium on an old Jewish cemetery in Hrodna and tore down the oldest synagogue in Miensk (a registered historical architecture landmark) a few years ago. I am sorry to bring politics in here, but I was not the first one to do so. --Wolny 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your President is the consecutive anti-nazist. You just dislike him, it's obvious. -- Ivan Sidorsky 11:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, Nasa Niva may be a small newspaper comparing to Belarus Segodnya (former Soviet Byelorussia) just because nobody forces to subscribe to it, but it is definately not "emigrant newspaper", and that is not mentioning that it is the oldest newspaper in the country. By the way, you forgot to mention "a useless literary journal" that does not have an equivalent published in official Belarusian. Why don't you give examples of literary and academic use of official Belarusian beyond school and university curriculum, or any other application of the official spelling? Even Lukasenka's website does not bother having a Belarusian version! --Wolny 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As to my humble opinion, be: Wiki (as well as a number of contibutors in it) is not so big to split it between two separate projects. The splitting of existing be: Wiki community to two new parts can just kill them both. --Shao 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Just the contrary. Creating a new section will revitalize both (at least in a form of competition). But what is more important, today a very small sub-cultural group tries to speak in the name of the entire nation, and so the much bigger part of Belarusian people has no voice in wikipedia. It would be morally proper if you could change your opinion to support, please. Otherwise wikipedia will have only a small odd section in the language which is not Belarusian really. -- Ivan Sidorsky 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Did try you to contribute to be: at all (and where did you contribute at all)? I'll repeat my words again: nobody prevents you to write articles on official spelling on be: and nobody will change your spelling to classic without your approval.
If you prefer to play politics here, you are free to do so. But please don't use loud words like whole Belarus, entire nation and etc.
EugeneZelenko 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You know it is absolutely impossible for educated people to write into that section dirtied with ungrammatical experiments. Will you make interface grammatically correct to allow us participate? Please, do not show your unconvincing bureaucratic fears. People of Belarus are forced to contribute to Russian, English etc sections because of your determination to support helpless sectarian attitudes. Sorry. -- Ivan Sidorsky 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that the guys who propose a separate wiki based on a sovietized narkamauka spelling are not really interested in it and would not maintain it. They rather want to destroy the existing one, and that explains their tirades here, in the English part of Wikipedia.

Czalex is right – the real archaic language is narkamauka. Modern-day Belarusian speakers rarely use it, and moreover, it does not develop. Narkamauka petrified with the collapse of the USSR, and the new wave of Belarusian literature, Belarusian-language publications prefer taraskievica as an authentic Belarusian norm reflecting our phonetics. Taraskievica is vibrant. Last year’s codification of it reflects its development and growth. It is widely used by the youth and intellectuals, whereas some old school language teachers resort to narkamauka, as they have to teach it to students who either choose to speak Russian or adopt taraskievica – the speak of modern Belarus. Narkamauka is not natural and russified, and this evokes repugnance. I can call many brilliant modern-day literati using taraskievica. And can you recall any worthy ones adhering to narkamauka. I doubt it. So again, I assert that the discourse is inane. Ok, you create your own soviet-style wiki. For how long will you run it? I bet it’ll die in about a month.

  • Oppose - First, stop interchanging terms and mixing up the facts! Narkamauka & Tarashkevica as well as Lacinka are simply three codified spelling systems. The grammar is the same for all of them. Yes, Taraskievic wrote a book called "Taraskievic's Grammar", but it was the first grammar book of Belarusian ever published. There were no substantial changes to grammar rules after that. The Soviet reform changed spelling and allowed to use words borrowed from Russian. Nevertheless, the "polonized" equivalents were still in dictionaries and/or used by the general public. Give me an example of a "polonism" that exists in Classical Belarusian, but does not exist in the official one. Rovar (bicycle) is an English word (rover).
Second, most of those who do use Belarusian in everyday life use the classical language with few variations of pronounciation and spelling. This concerns only words borrowed from Germanic languages, Latin, and Greek. Viacorka's last year's publication mainly concerned spelling of those words. It did not change the grammar. The percentage of everyday Belarusian speakers who use the official version is small. It is even smaller given the total number of people who know the language.
Third, Classical Belarusian is the accepted language of modern Belarusian literature and music. A major literary journal ARCHE uses both spellings for texts published, but the staff uses Classical Belarusian. Official Belarusian is rarely used in music for the simple reason that "official musicians" prefer Russian over native Belarusian, and only rock-musicians who miraculously happen to be in the "nationalistic" opposition use Classical Belarusian.
Fourth, a person who uses official Belarusian can perfectly understand a person using Classical Belarusian and vice versa. The differences concern spelling, but reading rules are the same. It does not take a lot of time neither it is hard to get accustomed to reading Classical Belarusian for a person who has always used the official version.
Fifth, there are handmade neologisms in every language. That is the whole concept of neologisms - creation of new words that describe new concepts. It is a usual practice for languages to borrow words from other languages and adapt them grammatically. Unfortunately, Slavic languages have rules of creation of words that significantly differ from Germanic and Romance languages, thus making it easier to borrow a word than to create a new one. If one looks at Russian technical jargon one will find tons of borrowed words. However, being a purist, I prefer creating words with Slavic roots for Belarusian where possible.
A little note on Trasianka. It is a non-codified mixture of Russian and Belarusian, which appeared when native Belarusian speakers got exposed to Russian-speaking environment. Given the similarity of languages it came to be Russian with heavy Belarusian language unlike Spanglish where both English and Spanish words are used equally, but with Spanish grammar. Having Wiki in Trasianka has no sense for it would be a waste of time for pure entertainment of readers. If one is so desperate to read Wiki in Trasianka, open a Russian article, copy it, and paste it into this form.
P.S. If anyone desires to get personal on the issue, I dare you! Just do not forget to strap on before being blown out of water. --Wolny 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

WEAK OPPOSE. I don’t have anything against Soviet spelling (narkamauka) per se, as long as we keep the politics out of it. And I don’t see a need for another Wikipedia version, because (1) the two spelling systems are very-very close. It's the same language, just the spelling rules are a little bit different; (2) Probably 99% of differences between the Classical and Soviet orthography can be automatically converted by a simple programming script (replacing soft signs, soft/hard l’s, e vs ie, etc.).

But even if the community decides to have a separate version for the Soviet spelling (which I find bizarre). I don't really oppose it that strongly, because it's still our language, it's just spelled a little bit differently in some cases. Let them spell that way, if they want, though I find it a bit destructive that they want to do it in a separate Wikipedia (political, not linguistic decision?)

P.S. Frankly speaking, I'm much more concerned about the fact that certain Russian contributors on the English Wikipedia have been butchering Belarus-related articles on WP in the last year, deleting factual information and inserting pro-imperial, pro-Russian, pro-Soviet POV. See discussion here, for example: http://www.br23.net/en/2006/04/29/english-wikipedia-belarus/ --Br23net 14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for understanding. I share your views that Belarus-related articles must be more factual and unbiased. Having two diffirent Belarus Wikipedias and so - more possibilities (more people, views etc) to write - we'll be able to make sure that Belarus topics are described correcttly. -- Ivan Sidorsky 09:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that 2 Belarusian Wikipedias will help to create more NPOV articles on Belarusian language. It'll be 2 different "NPOV" based on views of users. It easily to predict which side will be taken by official spelling Belarusian Wikipedia :-). Definitely not neutral. --EugeneZelenko 14:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You are prejudiced towards future official spelling Belarusian Wikipedia :). Everything will be good for both sides, I promise. -- Ivan Sidorsky 11:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not the problem of spelling difference between (so called) «soviet» and (so called) «classical» versions of the Belarusian. It’s the problem of abidance by grammatical rules. There’s (and there could be) only one official (academic) grammatical rules of the Belarusian. You say that’s rules of dead language. You say nobody uses one. So let you apply for grammar reform. Because no revival for language outside education system, and only official grammar could be used in schools and universities (do you like it or not).
P.S. As soon as grammar reform is officially adopted, I start keeping new rules. Until this there’s no other written Belarusian except present (soviet, narkomauka … as you like). -- Semashko (N) 11:32:, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between "grammar" and "spelling" (orthography)? Once again, there is only one set of grammar rules in Belarusian. Meanwhile, there are three ways of writing the language down (2 based on Cyrillic alphabet, and one based on Latin alphabet). That is all. Please do not argue about something you apparently are not qualified to argue. --Wolny 04:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I mean “spelling” as partition of “grammar”. Probably that’s mistake, but not only my one. Anyway thank you for your elaboration. And I repeat again: that’s not spelling difference between s.c. classical and s.c. soviet spelling. That’s difference between literate language and something else. Semashko (N) 12:04:, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WEAK OPPOSE. Bad idea. The issue is valid, but such cure would be worse than disease.

I think it's the Be: Wiki core team who's in wrong here, and it's there where changes are to be made principally, if at all.

The very purpose of native language Wikipedias is availability to the «speakers» of native languages – that is, people capable of reading text in native language.

To comprehend situation with Belarusian language, some background info is necessary:

For 70+ years there exist standard rules of Belarusian orthography (1933/1959). Since end of 1980-s there exists group of people promoting reverting some of the standard orthography rules to their pre-1933 counterparts. The very same people insist on naming the resulting set of rules «classic orthography» or «tarashk`ievitsa» (from name of Tarashkievich, author of 1918 grammar) while referring to the standard grammar «nark`amauka» (pejorative from «nark`am», abbreviated Belarusian for «peoples commissariat»).

Essentially, text in alternative orthography contains an extra number of «soft signs», serving as pronounciation hint, and borrowed words are written down in manner more resembling Polish language.

Obviously, lexics of Belarusian language doesn't depend per se on orthography used. However, proponents of alternative generally show greater inclination to borrow lacking words and grammar concepts from Polish (rarer, Czech or Ukrainian).

Using this alternative orthography is fashionable (and, sometimes, mandatory) in certain social groups and political organisations. However, besides those social structures, this orthography is unpopular, if at all known.

Now, for the problem proper:

Person coming to Be: Wikipedia is greeted by pages done completely in alternative orthography. All rules and servicing pages are in alternative orthography. Rules in Be: counterpart of How_to_edit say: «Orthography – classical is preferred (although narkamauka is too allowed)». Then, while initially Be: rules for orthography (Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс) say that «any orthography is allowed [here]: classical, «narkomauka», latin», further clause forbids «change of orthography without permit of original author of article or administration» and strongly recommends «keeping one [initially encountered] version of orthography both in article and in its links».

Considering that administrator and (majority of?) core team are vocal evangelists of alternative orthography, and that there is already significant number of pages and stubs done in alternative orthography, users of standard Belarusian orthography are put in very peculiar position. Not only do they have to accept the role of «lesser Belarusians» from beginning (see formulating of rules, biased names for orthographies, see also samples of rhetoric in this very discussion), but they are also required to jump much higher than «good Belarusians» before they could even start to participate.

What would be the possible solutions?

It's common knowledge that Belarusian is very unwell. While about 8 million claim it's their native language, this doesn't translate to equivalent number of people actually speaking Belarusian.

However, Belarusian is (and was) mandatory subject in state schooling with est. 75 to 100 thousand students graduating yearly. Virtually anybody is able to hold simple conversation in Belarusian or understand more complicated subject if written. But what overwhelming majority of people readily knows is standard Belarusian orthography, and requiring knowledge of additional orthography of them meets with incomprehension, at best.

I suggest discussing following initial course of action:

- replace all biased references to orthographies («classic», «narkamauka», etc.) with neutral terms (e.g., «standard» and «alternative»);

- cancel rules preferring non-standard rules over standard;

- cancel rules mandating permission acquiring in order to make changes

- enter clause giving text in standard orthography absolute right of precedence over non-standard orthographies

- official framework (rules, service pages etc.) ought to be rewritten in standard orthography

--Yury Tarasievich 194.158.202.141 16:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree some of these suggestions (but discussion will be useful in be:):
  • There should not be a mentioning of favorable spelling in rules.
  • Rules to change spelling of stubs could be weakened: like if humans didn't touch stub during month, but if good article will be created in different spelling. For big articles permission still should be granted to avoid "spelling wars".
EugeneZelenko 14:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You miss my point completely.
Using standard orthography over non-standard isn't matter of somebody's charity or adequate timing.
The implied right of contributor is to write in standard orthography as soon as one pleases, as far as public service Wikipedia is concerned. And if that isn't clear enough to Be: rulemakers yet, then it should be explicitly mentioned.
Truely wishing to «avoid «spelling wars», one just shouldn't introduce extra spellings. It's that simple! Now, current Be: rules were obviously crafted so, as to discourage writing in standard orthography, as much as possible, which not only invites «spelling wars» as such, but breaks Wikipedia rules, too.
As for «discussion will be useful in be:» -- too late for that. I guess it was tried before – and to what end? But issue is out of closet now, and ought to be resolved here -- in reasonable timeframe.
As a side note: separate mentioning «lacinka» in rules isn't correct, as L. is only a table (several different tables, in fact) for transcribing Belarusian text.
Yury Tarasievich 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
You can see now, Mr. Tarasievich, why we decided to make a separate Belarusian Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a bitter cure but it's the only possible.
Your support (even weak) would be much more suitable.
Anyway, we appreciate your effort to explain Be.-administrators' mistake to them and their followers. -- Ivan Sidorsky 12:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The only possible cure, really? Study the Wikipedia rules (original English, of course). Cure the real cause of your problem (discriminating rules of Be:). Then, contribute! That is, if it's indeed contributing in Belarusian you are interested in :). Yury Tarasievich 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is more realistic. :) -- Ivan Sidorsky 12:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion means to make official spelling a favorable spelling in be:. I don't think that this is completely neutral solution to current problem which will satisfy both sides.
As for łacinka - there was proposal to implement automatic translation in MediaWiki software, unfortunately not implemented yet.
EugeneZelenko 14:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my suggestion means precisely that. What's your idea of «neutral solution», then? Current rules, perhaps? Discriminating against orthography everybody knows in favour of some «God's gift», which nobody, besides interest group, knows, recognizes or uses, more has no obligation to do so?
This set-up, obviously, was created deliberately, it's a clear breach of the general rules on neutrality, and it's time to stop that. Yury Tarasievich 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The framework for current Belarussian Wikipedia is created in alternate spelling. Every new unit placed is embedded into this framework through categories in alternate spelling. As soon as you create a new category in official language, - it is deleted (!) and some minutes later replaced by the same category in alternate version by Administrator (in my cases -> EugeneZelenko). How many active users are involved into the project? 5-15. The quality of information leaves much to be desired. Most of the articles are stubs about a year. Exception - articles from Belarussian Encyclopedia copied & pasted into the project with the permission of the author (and written in official language) plus a small amount of some other articles. There is a feeling that the current Be-Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for masses, a less useful project for educational aims, partly due to spelling anarchy and partly due to the current quality of knowledge collected. The current plattform is the marginalized project of a very small community. Still waiting for solution... Alexander Gouk 19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not blame other for your own sins (stubs and quality). Nobody prevent you from writing full-scale articles and checking fact/spelling/terminology with external sources. --EugeneZelenko 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that at the beginning of the project you were given the rights to maintain Belarussian Wikipedia primary and mainly in alternate spelling and to embed official language just as a marginal and discriminated part of it. But you did... Were you as administrator authorized to do that? There were lots of opposers who raised the objection, but brushed off after futile discussions and left the project forever. The community (only 5-15 active users) doesn't grow, mainly because of the currently maintained policy... Alexander Gouk 21:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You may also blame administrators of be: in overall situation with Belarusian language in Belarus (not primary language in education, mass media), Internet access in Belarus and, of course, creating classic spelling at first, and so on and so on... What is be: now is reflection of contributions: on both official and classic spelling. Just accept this fact. --EugeneZelenko 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. You, as Be: administrator, are endorsing Be: rules which clearly discriminate users on ground of compliance with your minority interest group POV (writing in alternative Belarusian orthography). These rules were introduced with precisely same discriminating clauses when Be: was created, so contributions aren't the issue here. And that's all there's to it.
So, are you, as Be: administrator, going to do something about this? Yury Tarasievich 09:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I invite you and other participants of this discussion to discuss be: rules on be: to find solution which will satisfy both sides (supporters of official and classic spellings), since all rules must be accepted by all members of be: community. But please do not propose to replace one discrimination with another. --EugeneZelenko 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Nonsence again. Rules do not have to «satisfy» «both sides». However, rules have to comply with general rules.
It's good you admit you have discrimination embedded in current Be: rules. Now, if you'd just explain in tangible terms why do you call «replacing with another discrimination» my request to give absolute priority to standard orthography, which is the literary norm of Belarusian language, considering that:
* standard orthography is what everybody knows from school, so we talk 8 millions of consumers;
* alternative orthography is a private project of Mr.Viachorka and reflects private views of interest group he leads; this group is small;
* nobody elected neither you nor Mr.Viachorka nor members of his interest group to «represent» Belarusian speaking community;
* nobody gave you nor Mr.Viachorka nor members of his interest group the right to decide who is «better» Belarusian and who's not;
There are some norms complying with which is rather mandatory, like, for example, obeying literary norm of language. Perhaps, you and your crowd would be more happy with separate community just for yourselves? Something like «The Very and Only True Belarusian»? For in your replies here and in Be: talk pages you give every impression you and your crowd just aren't interested in presence of anybody not sharing your private point of view.
And please keep in mind this isn't private site of you and your pals or pocket newspaper of some party or charity to the world, but service operated under certain conditions of use, which you, as you just admitted yourself, are breaking.
Yury Tarasievich 17:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't write nonsense too. Nobody in be: decide who is True Belarusian. Everybody have right to choose their favorite spelling.
Try to remember own i18n at mova dot org experience as reminder of popularity of official spelling in people who would like to contribute into open source projects like Wikipedia.
EugeneZelenko 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not possible to "choose the favourite spelling" everywhere. Wikipedia is not such place, for example.
My «experience in i18n» isn't grim, and is irrelevant here anyway.
Now, could you please shuffling words and relevantly answer claims I'm making about your rules? Yury Tarasievich 18:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Rules of be: are discussed on be: by community. If you want to change them - discuss them there.
I can't add anything to my words. Your claims reflects your own (I could say "religious") point of view about "single right" spelling. Other people may have opposite POV (like official spelling is communists-rusificators project and so on). In any case steps toward each other are necessary to improve situation.
EugeneZelenko 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you try to hide something?
I'm presenting you with reasons why the issue of «Present Belarusian» per se (which I'm opposing) emerged here in the first place.
I pin-point several clauses in Be: rules which I see as breaching WP policy and giving the issue of «Present Belarusian» (which I'm opposing) the validity in the first place. I present the concise factual background and do not touch any irrelevant matters.
But you are answering with virtually nothing, not denying and not admitting. You just invite me to Be: pages to «talk». Of course, Belarusian can't be read by everyone and there are several hush-ups of discussion on precisely same issue there, made by you and your pals.
However, to be on the correct side, I will, of course, present my changes to the rules there. All in good time. Be sure to solicite more «support» for the «right cause» at each and every unrelated location, you may get unexpected results. How do you think I knew about this discussion in the first place? :)
And be so kind to abstain from making pejorative orations on «religiousness», «communists-russificators» and alike. 'Enlightemed' freedom fighters, you aren't. Yury Tarasievich 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to hide anything (just compare with this request - it was not even announced on be: by originator).
My position about rules of be: is simple. Meta users will not write too much on Belarusian language, contributors of be: will. So spelling rules of be: wiki depends only on its contributors.
I didn't make any religious claims so far (read all my posts here), and will not make them. I accept both spellings and respect their supporters (but not extremists with single right one idea).
EugeneZelenko 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Study the guidelines. Take action. Be constructive. :) Yury Tarasievich 20:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - I studied Belarussian in school and university, some of my relatives are speaking it. First tried to participate in be: wiki in middle-2005 i found it quite irritating for me to read through lots of ь-s and soft letters (Нідэрлянды - бр-р-р-р-р), and what is even more dissapointing - vagueness with categories and articles names with some named one way, orhers the other, constant debates with other users on the "right" way of spelling and so on. So currently i choose to spend my time in more productive way contributing to ru/en wiki's. If there'd be an automatic translation tool or seperate wiki for the Belarussian language that i know - i'd be eager to participate --Redline 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The real problem is incompatibility of the current Be: rules with general WP policy, and not amount of anybody's participation, and not anybody's likes or dislikes, and not anybody being "good Belarusian" or not. I'm continuing the discussion of the issue in Talk of Be: frontpage. Speak out. Yury Tarasievich 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You participated in be:? You have left two brief messages at a forum. These messages were in Russian language. Very not clearly "бр-р-р-р-р". You do not like the Belarus language or the letter "я"? For example, "Інфлянты" it is written with "я" in "standard" spelling. Too "бр-р-р-р-р"? --MaximLitvin 06:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
As i said earlier i started participating in be\ru\en wikies in middle-2005, i wasnt registred at that time so my two messages in the forum at the end of 2005 is is definitely not all my contributions there. I'm not a linguist nor a historian and clearly dont want to start the debates with you here all over again about like or dislike of using Я. My point is that i would like to participate in be wiki as well as in ru using in language that i've known all my life and that my grandparents were talking when they were with me (it is a normal Bel. language for me and everybody i know). I think for most users the main reason for staying with wikipedia is a fun of sharing their knowledge and learning something new and not continious battles, debates and disputes. Thats why i have ~1500 edits and dosens of articles created in ruwiki and two posts in forum in bewiki. --Redline 13:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm wonder how are you participating in ru: now if you dislike continious battles, debates and disputes? There are many of them last time and most of them are far away from knowledge.
Again, nobody prevents you to participating in be: using spelling which you know.
EugeneZelenko 15:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
At us in be: there are no battles. Everyone can write such spelling as which it considers correct. I assure you, the Belarus language of your grandmother does not depend on spelling. To more constructive will write some clauses for be:, than to write "бр-р-р-р-р" without the reason. --MaximLitvin 17:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

>> I found it quite irritating for me to read through lots of ь-s and soft letters (Нідэрлянды - бр-р-р-р-р) --Redline

  • піць “ФінлАндыю”
  • падымаць лАмант
  • глядзець у калАндар
  • упрыгожваць елку гірлАндай
  • і пеністая марская хвалА
  • на глАнцавай паперы
  • рэжа цыркулАрная піла
  • ідзе кампілАцыя праграмы
  • пасьля транслАцыі матчу
  • стымулАцыя клітора і сімулАцыя эякулАцыі.

Адсюль:

--193.111.128.222 12:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official (present days). It contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good. Kiryl Nieviarouski
  • Conditional Oppose That the existing be-wiki modernises itself to the present spellings thus blending the two systems. Its like having a separate Ru-wiki with yat, izhetska and hard signs. That is more than rediculous. What is really apalling is that these Belarusian Nationalists are trying to pollute en-wiki with translits of titles that are not known ANYWHERE outside Belarus. Kuban Cossack

support if even a linguist will attest to its existance, even if he thinks it doesnt have a written form, but by all means lets alfabetize it and stop its illiteracy i mean cherokee had no written form before sequoyah made one up by analogy with english from the colonizers and i highly doubt anyone here will claim that cherokee isnt a language, what if it had no written form today? would you deny it, i think not and the same thing goes for this langauge even if the 10 pages dont exist lets make a home page and nine articles for it in its own wikipedia i say !!! Qrc2006 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)