Talk:Soft Belarusization
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Reversion of Belarusization[edit]
The paragraph about reversion of belarusization during 2020 protests is reverted, because it is wikipedian's conclusion based on news reports and not directly stated in sources cited. Therefor it constitutes original researc not admissible in WIkipedia. Please see our policies WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.
In fact, the mentioned belarusian symbols were used by police for profiling the opposition among the population during protests, similarly to "driving while black".
Please cite the sources that state the politics of belarusization as described in the article was reverted.Lembit Staan (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There were no official documents that said that this politics exist at all! It was just few events like Lukashenko's speech in Belarusian and few signs appear in Belarusian, and it's almost all. And almost all the sources in the article are news, like bbc one. And if you think that arresting people basing on their usage of Belarusian language in public or wearing red-and-white clothes can be simultaneously while government tries to conduct a 'soft belarusization', then sure, it's not a reversion at all. Besides, it is stated in the article that this 'soft belarusization' was an attempt to take distance from Russia, and now all the speeches by Lukashenko and Putin are about 'great union country of brother nations'.Artem.G (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- We are not talking about "official documents" . The article is about thinng called "sogt belarusization" in reliable sources. Did you get yourself familiar with our policies I cited? Lembit Staan (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Attempt of distancing from Russia" is an interpretation of observers. They were trying to read lukashenkos' mind, not necessarily correctly. Maybe Luka was genuinely trying to reappropriate historical belarusian sybols, to remove some foothold off opposition, we dont' know (or we are lazy to figure this out; this idea may be seen, e.g., in [ukraina.ru/exclusive/20200129/1026499633.html]). bbs one is not only news, but also analysis. "Great union" does not exclude belarusization. After all, there are national republics in Russia, which have their own shares of both russification and "deruccification". Lembit Staan (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
"arresting people basing on their usage of Belarusian language in public or wearing red-and-white clothes"
- I gave you my reasonable explanation. Of course, during the wave of protests "bel-czyrwona-bely" flag for OMON is like a red muleta for a bull, and people who were brandishing it knew what they were doing, and OMON knew this as well. Did you read the article "driving while black"? It is not illegal to be black in the United states, but still, blacks are arrested mode frequently. The same is with belarus opposition. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)- It any case, this is but an idle chat. Just search for recent articles about the fate of "мягкая белорусизация" and use them in the article and don't add your own interpretations. This is how English wikipedia works. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Merge suggestion[edit]
I'm thinking about suggesting that this article be merged with Belarusization. There is only one academic article about "Soft Belarusization" and the other sources are references to news articles. I think it might be clearer to bring together in one place Belarusization rather than having it split like this. What do you think Lembit Staan? --Jabbi (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- "Soft Belarusization" is a political issue, actually an attack on the Belarusian dictator, effectively saying that even if he did something good, it must be his sinister motives. Well, of course he did this in his favor. That said, per WP:NOTPAPER: this a separate subject, I say well separated from the Soviet Belarusization, which was also a political issue, with a different purpose. Therefore I think keeping them in separate pages is OK.
- P.S. I took a quick look at Belarusization, and the text is of low quality. I fixed a couple obviously wrong places, but it needs much more work. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Lembit Staan, I disagree with your analysis. I think that this is not in any serious sense a formal policy of Lukashenko, certainly not today, and probably never was. This article is very light on content. The main points of it is a speech Lukashenko gave in 2014, some heads were turned certainly but this seems to have petered out rather quickly. A reference to a primary source, is on information security, that is information technology, the reference to Belarusian language is a sidenote, in article 48. This article rather posits the idea of Soft Belarusisation as an ongoing policy of Lukashenko. There is only one academic reference, and analysis is very light. --Jabbi (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Where do you see I wrote that it was a formal policy of Lukashenko? The article is based on the observations of politologists who invented the term. That the article is "very light on content" is merely because I (the author) am lazy and Belarusians DGAF. That is posits as an ongoing, may be you are right; just change the tense of some verbs and update it with present time: google is your best friend. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would correct the article but I don't think it was a part of Lukashenko's domestic policy in any serious sense. So I would have to improvise, and also, I do think this should be merged with Belarusization as it can be viewed as a historical process if you will. --Jabbi (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I would tend to agree with the observers that it was a deliberate attempt to win some nationalistic youth. It sizzled for a number of reasons, and I dont see as a historical process. A compromise solution would be to follow WP:SUMMARY style and add two sections: "Background", about 19th century and "21st century" about "soft Belarussization". This would provide an overall perspective. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have accidentally breached my recently imposed topic ban with regards to living persons in a couple of statements above. If possible consider them null and void. I will abstain from further participating here. --Jabbi (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear about that. It was a pleasure talking to you. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have accidentally breached my recently imposed topic ban with regards to living persons in a couple of statements above. If possible consider them null and void. I will abstain from further participating here. --Jabbi (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I would tend to agree with the observers that it was a deliberate attempt to win some nationalistic youth. It sizzled for a number of reasons, and I dont see as a historical process. A compromise solution would be to follow WP:SUMMARY style and add two sections: "Background", about 19th century and "21st century" about "soft Belarussization". This would provide an overall perspective. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would correct the article but I don't think it was a part of Lukashenko's domestic policy in any serious sense. So I would have to improvise, and also, I do think this should be merged with Belarusization as it can be viewed as a historical process if you will. --Jabbi (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Where do you see I wrote that it was a formal policy of Lukashenko? The article is based on the observations of politologists who invented the term. That the article is "very light on content" is merely because I (the author) am lazy and Belarusians DGAF. That is posits as an ongoing, may be you are right; just change the tense of some verbs and update it with present time: google is your best friend. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Lembit Staan, I disagree with your analysis. I think that this is not in any serious sense a formal policy of Lukashenko, certainly not today, and probably never was. This article is very light on content. The main points of it is a speech Lukashenko gave in 2014, some heads were turned certainly but this seems to have petered out rather quickly. A reference to a primary source, is on information security, that is information technology, the reference to Belarusian language is a sidenote, in article 48. This article rather posits the idea of Soft Belarusisation as an ongoing policy of Lukashenko. There is only one academic reference, and analysis is very light. --Jabbi (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)