Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Belarusian

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Belarusian Wikipedia[edit]

See also Wikipedia Belarusian normative (approved).
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 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 8 mln. (according to the latest cencus)
  • Locations spoken: Republic of Belarus
  • Related languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Siberian
500 articles in several days! It is possible that the unofficial belwiki soon will be smaller than new official one:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Mienski 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Member of the Commonwealth of East-Slavonic Test wikipedias

There has already been simmilar request in here. I put it here now again, because the the situation in Belarusian Wikipedia seems abnormal to me.

1.Every single page in 1959rev.pravapis is in category written in 2005rev.pravapis

2.More than the first, some pages have mixed orthographies ex. Бразілія, Балівія, Чылі, 1580 (there are some more of them actually) that is absolutely inadmisible.

3.1959rev. and 2005rev. do differ much more that just of "soft signs", "soft letters" (hard l - soft l). 2005rev. which pretends to be called "classical Belarusian" has different from 1959rev. phrase building (synthax) - while 1959rev. synthax has very few differents from Russian (when I was writing it I remembered only transition of the preposition "к" (in Russian) to preposition "да" (in Belarusian), 2005rev. has (or must have (there are still many syntax mistakes in 2005rev.orthography - contributors just put 1959rev.text with soft signs - this belarusan language phenomenon is called "tarakamauka" ("tarashkevitsa" (unofficial name of 2005rev.) + "narkamauka" (unofficial name of 1959rev.) which is not codified and saying honestly is ungrammar)) so, 2005rev. has much more differents from Russian (see. Некаторыя ўвагі да беларускае літаратурнае мовы), some examples of them are (

  • 1.use of verb infinitive - "вада піць" vs. "вада для піцця" in 1959rev.;
  • 2.use of expression of belonging - "пункт у гледжаньні" in 2005rev. vs. "пункт гледжання" in 1959rev.;
  • 3. use of expression of purpose of thing - "хустачка да носу" vs. "хустачка для носу" in 1959rev. and some more rules signed in the work on

4. For me, as for abiturient (i gonna enter unversity next year), and for all the abiturients who will have Belarusian exam it is terrible to read such a mixture of orthographies in an encyclopedia. After reading words "Галандыя" (1959rev.) and "сьмерці" (2005rev) in one article and then in other articles I have more possibilities to make mistake in school work and, what is horrible, in exam! And I can tell you I've made some already when I instictively wrote "зьмяшчае" (instead of right variant "змяшчае" - w/o soft sign) in school dictation. As a man who contributes to wikipedia and wants belarusian language to become the leading slavic language I can't stop contributing but, as I said, after contributing to such a I get mess in my head! Surelly, split will help with Belarussian knowledge systematization.

(I'm a contributor in 2005rev., but i will surelly help new wikipedia in 1959rev. for some time for it to develop)

Thanks for attention ppl! - Анто́сь Казьмярчу́к

PS. I haven't voted for previous propose (Present Belarusian) because facts in there were not true. I would like 2 BELARUSIAN WIKIS TO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Surely if one of WIKIS will be filial to another no one will contribute.

PPS Few words about the size, yes is small to split, but we in prefer quality over quantity (look, there are no empty articles about a year - all of them have some information)

Important: There is already failed request for the SAME language revision here: Requests for new languages/Denied. So this poll should be cancelled, or at least votes from the previous poll should be transferred here. --Monk.

Таксама важна: калі ласка, прачытайце гэты артыкул, незалежна ад таго, якім правапісам карыстаецеся: Леанід Лыч. Рэформа беларускага правапісу 1933 года: ідэалагічны аспект

Another important: please read this article, regardless of orthography revision you use: Leanid Lyč. Reform of Belarusian orthography-1933: ideological aspect (in Belarusian)

As for me, I've read it about a year ago. Anyway, I don't think any argument in this science work that could change my mind about the bad influence of existance of 2 normas in 1 wiki or of the "aparteid" that is in the be-wiki. Mienski 23:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the person somewhat familiar with sources of this text, I dare say that the text leaves important facts and aspects out. This ain't the place for this discussion though. Yury Tarasievich 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty sums it: Like was already suggested before, opposers of this request mostly oppose it out of their ideological POV. And that's the gist of the matter -- there is pretty lot of people interested in Belarusian language WP and uninterested in ideology. Live and let everybody live? Yury Tarasievich 05:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Support --Mihas Skrypka 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support --Agree with Cazimearciuc. --Node ue 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support --Bunker 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support --A. Yurkevich 10:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support --Mienski 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support --218 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support --Dmitry Nikitin 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support --Yury Tarasievich 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support --Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support --User:boox 02:13, 14 Aug 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support --Steel archer 19:17, 16 Aug 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support --Red Winged Duck 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support --MaximLitvin 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#Support --Kojpiš Anton 22:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)--Kojpiš Anton 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Support --Antares 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support -- MarkFoldman 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support -- User:Rusalka 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 14:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    hey, man! You are definitely wrong. I'm here! And I will work in our Belarusian Wiki. Wanna questions? Rusalka 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please make some edits in our incubator wiki in order that he shut up)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] 08:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support -- User:Vanoleo 14:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No such user User:Vanoleo. --Bełamp 14:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support --Alexander Amelchenko 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support --Ottorahn 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support -- Mikkalai 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support -- Siarhei Liantsevich 02:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 14:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm here, man. -- Siarhei Liantsevich 01:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support -- 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC) // Please, authorize!.. Mienski 10:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) //This is an anonymous IP and he/she hasn't approved or explained his/her voice. --Bełamp 12:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support per Mikka and Yury Tarasievich. --Irpen 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support --Khoikhoi 03:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support per Mikka and Yury Tarasievich. (Created account, last vote was by me.) -- Mno 06:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support --Jose77 09:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support - Wikipedia has already two Norway (bokmal and nynorsk) projects and two english (english and simple englis) projects. There is no matter to refuse those belorussians, who use grammar-1959, in much the same way there was no matter to refuse nynorsk-Norwegians --A1 10:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support -- 13:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC) forgot to authorize --Redline 13:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC) /i mean its my vote 13:09, 26 August 2006/ --Redline 13:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support -- Grafikm fr 22:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support per Tarasevich Alex Bakharev 11:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support for the reason that there are two Norwegian Wikipedias as pointed out above.--Fox Mccloud 14:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support I can't imagine any harm in having a new belarusian wiki. I believe any diversity should be welcome. --Mahadeo 22:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support --Morpheios Melas 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #Support -- Okerb Traehf. My Solidarity To Belarus!
    vote from public proxy see Special:Contributions/ Also vote from this IP [1] (Rafael, Long Live Belarus!)--Yakudza 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support -- User:Akeeri 16:13, 28 August 2006 (EEST)
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support I wanted to vote oppose initially, beacause I'm against different Wikipedias for different ortographies. But after reading discussion, I now realise that not only ortography is different, but grammar is also quite different as well. Also, it seems that language of current Belarusian wiki is not the modern official language of the country, wich seems not normal to me. So I support this request, but please note that my vote is not really strong since I don't know this languge, and I'm not really familiar with the situation. Kneiphof 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are wrong, grammar is almost the same. Differencies mostly are only in the way of writing some words' endings. (па сьлядох or па слядах) --Bełamp 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then why do you, people opposing creation, call this version of language "russified to the extreme" and "communist monstrosity"? Almost the same, eh? :) Yury Tarasievich 14:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Orthography is "russified", and it is result of 1933 reform, isn't it, eh? --Bełamp 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you ever read this: [2]? It would be more right to say: "Alternative revision is polonised", rather then start talking of russification. Don't forget, we are NOT proposing Orthography revision of 1933, we propose rev1959 which is now offical in Belarus, these two are quite diff thingies. -- 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not the time and place. The important thing is there are two language versions and two speaking communities (represented here) not touching other one's version with a long stick. I may be wrong, but that means two wikis should exist. Yury Tarasievich 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support -- -LchZHou-. long live Belarus!
    false vote, see zh:Special:Contributions/L-CHzhou - puppet. --Yakudza 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    puppet? -- 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #Support -- ja:User:M1kosu Belarus & Japan are friends forever!
    vote from public proxy, pupped - see ja:Special:Contributions/M1kosu --Yakudza 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support -- Pe7er 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support -- iLjAVA It was easier for me to edit English Wikipedia, because Belarusian language I studied, heard and used is not the one from current! While I highly respect people maintaining version in "Tarashkevitsa", the use of rules that stuck in the 30's of previous century is a definite step back or dead weight in development of Belarusian wikipedia. The number of people familiar with officially used language of Republic of Belarus (it is called in this request as "Belarusian (Orthography Revision of 1959)") is much much higher than number of people that use currently adopted version for It is very strange that current Belarusian wikipedia uses some other kind of language, not the one taught is schools. I think everybody hoped that co-existence of both versions within one wikipedia was possible but time shows that it is not true.
    So my vote is in support for creation of new wikipedia with commonly used Belarusian language. And my key points are:
    - Proposed Belarusian is studied by all Belarusians in schools
    - Proposed Belarusian is used by all official state institutions (parlament, courts, municipalities etc). The constitution of the Republic of Belarus is written in proposed language (all variants starting from creation of modern Republic of Belarus in 1991).
    - Number of people familiar with proposed version is much higher than people using language of Wikipedia with proposed language will be more understandable for them and they could make contributions easier.
    - Co-existance of two variants of Belarusian language in the limits of single wikipedia proved itself unviable (proponents, including administrators of are too hostile to other variant articles, spelling or words). Check 5.14.6, that hostility is true
    - The variant of language mostly used in doesn't have solid scientific base. Some words and spelling for proper nouns are "invented" by article writers or borrowed from Polish. At the same time proposed variant is much more academic and supported by multiple vocabularies and science works.
  24. Support --The age of love 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #Support --Rafael, Long Live Belarus!
    vote from public proxy see Special:Contributions/ Also vote from this IP [3] ([hr:User:Okerb Traehf|Okerb Traehf]]. My Solidarity To Belarus!)--Yakudza 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #Support -- nl:user:Ik dZ Long Live Belarus !
    vote from public proxy see [[4]] and nl:Speciaal:Contributions/Ik_dZ, pupped. --Yakudza 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. Support -- Ihec. God, bless Belarus! God, please, make guys opposing listen to reasons!
    vote from public proxy [5], pupped.--Yakudza 19:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support -- Astap 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What it's mean? My English not so good:) Astap 09:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Хто небудзь мне можа патлумачыць, чаму я "The only edit from this user" і што мне зрабіць, каб гэтага пазбавіцца? Astap 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Не хвалюйцеся, гэта, бадай што, ужо і не важна. Цікавей, каб вы актыўна працавалі ў новай вікіпедыі. :) Yury Tarasievich 17:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support -- pax217 1:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support--Inconnu 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lie--Inconnu 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support--Lenev 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support--User:vanoleo.Sorry for haven't been registered duaring first vote ;)
  30. Support -- Сяржук Серабро 08:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support -- supp 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Bełamp 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support -- Mikrofed 03:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #Support -- urizz . >>
    no such user --Yakudza 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support Pietras1988 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support PenJou 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support --Bertodsera 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support -- nl:Gebruiker:Boudewijn Idema 14:20 , 1 september 2006
  37. Support --Reo On|+|+ 23:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC) I hope, both of them will be vitalReply[reply]
  38. Support -- Tobias Conradi 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support --Kaganer 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support -- Momisan 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC) From a MontenegrinReply[reply]
  41. Support --Vladyslav Savelo 23:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Good luck guys! Успіхів!Reply[reply]
  42. Support per Yury Tarasievich. —dima/s-ko/ 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  1. Oppose --Taichi
  2. Oppose --Partei
  3. Oppose --FrancisTyers // could you explain your motivation in Comments, please? Yury Tarasievich 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See below. - FrancisTyers 10:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC) // See my reply to it (I promise this is my last addressing you on the issue) Yury Tarasievich 13:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose --Voevoda // could you explain your motivation in Comments, please? Yury Tarasievich 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose --Yakudza
  6. Oppose --NMToken
  7. Oppose --Monk
  8. Супраць (Oppose) --Bełamp
    Oppose --Improv
  9. Oppose --W.V.-S..
    User does not exist at meta. This invalid vote from IP that has no other edits. --Irpen 03:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User DOES exist: W.V.-S.. And these are his contributions. --Bełamp 01:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whether he exists there or not, the vote is cast by an invalid IP as shown above. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am real oppose and I real man. — W.V.-S.
  10. Oppose --Gdarin // could you explain your motivation in Comments, please? Yury Tarasievich 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose --Czalex 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC) The desicion on this topic has already been made and is NOReply[reply]
    Oppose --Morpheios Melas 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Move my vote to Support --Morpheios Melas 06:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose --Slaver 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from the user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // He is Slaverits contribution. --MaximLitvin 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose --Vovansystems 10:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from the user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // He is Vovansystemsits contribution. --MaximLitvin 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose -- //This is an anonymous IP and he/she hasn't approved or explained his/her voice. Mienski 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose --Awsiannikaw Mikalaj No such user. Mikkalai 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose --Aliaks 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your position. -- 16:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only one edit by the user prior to the date. Obviously, meatpuppetry at LJ is ongoing. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only one? See:Спэцыяльныя:Contributions/Aliaks --Aliaks 06:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose -- Aldente 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC) There is only *one* Belarusian language.Reply[reply]
    No edits from the user prior to the voting. --Irpen 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose --Bacian 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // He is Bacianits contribution. --MaximLitvin 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Супраць (Oppose) -- Ergil 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose --Oldmah 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose --Балахонаў 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // He is Балахонаўits contribution. --MaximLitvin 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose --Bielarusaczka 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 01:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // He is Bielarusackathe user be: from 18.12.2005. --MaximLitvin 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // User Bielarusacka has no contribs to -- 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Супраць (Oppose) --- kacjam
  22. Oppose --pryvid
    The only edit from the user. --Irpen 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // He is Pryvidthe user be: from 29.05.2006/ --MaximLitvin 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // User Pryvid has no contribs to -- 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose Please, don't splinter the sole unified Belarusian wiki. It's just orthography, not separate language. --Zlobny 06:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose --Ratking 08:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your position Mienski 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Da blin, dzielać vam sztol necza? Pamahli b bratanam bielarusam. Vot ja szcza kak vaźmu da papraszu vikipedziu vot ecim svaim sobstvienym pravapisam - Amirkoj! Razgildziai. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now seriously - if you've got any serious work to show, just put it in the existing Belarusian wiki in whatever pravapis you think is good. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seriously then, would you mind not ordering people around? The request is here exactly because "putting in whatever pravapis" is not possible and isn't going to be. Yury Tarasievich 11:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Супраць (Oppose) --Kauka 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // please, explain your positionReply[reply]
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Супраць (Oppose) --Tutejszy // please, explain your position
    The only edit from this user. --Irpen 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose-- Altavetra treba usiu moc paklasc' na budaunictva adnoj Wikipedyi, a jakuju movu hto budze uzyvac' - geta sprava pryvatnaja, a rabic' druguju wikipedyju - geta razmjazhouvac' movu i ljudzej jasche bol'sh. Zaraz chas abjadnoucca hacja b u move.
    user does not exist. The vote was cast by this anon IP that made no other edits. --Irpen 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Oppose-- praunik21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC) // It doesn't make any sense to support the communist russified version of the Belarusian language. Those guys lie explicitly when put it in a way there are 8 million speakers of the "new purified Belarusian" (after 1959). Nowadays practically 90% of the real Belarusian speakers follow the rules of the "taraszkevica" (the language free of the Communist russified amendments) either in pronounciation, lexic or grammar. Long live Belarus and our mother tongue! Do not leave them a chance to rift Belarusian wikipedia. Say NO to the KGB & BRSM provocations!!!Reply[reply]
    User does not exist. The vote was cast by this anon ip and it is its only edit. --Irpen 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And this is direct lie. No members of BRSM in current BEwiki-2 team. And KGB does not exist for 15 years, so all the accusations are not true. In opposite, new Belwiki, though small in size, has articles about Pahonia (coat of arms of belarusian opposition), and the white-red-white flag. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are wrong. KGB DOES exist in Belarus. --Bełamp 09:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you the fan of the "world conspiracy"?:-) Вы прыхільнік тэорыі сусветнай змовы?:) Mienski 09:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is very silly motivation. I do not want to WP:BEAN but if any of those organisations wanted to do anything, they'd be much more direct and successful in their approach. Just think your own thoughts, not recycled newspaper slogans. Yury Tarasievich 05:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All I am saying that the above edit signed as "user:Praunik" in in fact made by an anon IP which pasted a signature and there are no contributions in Meta under the Praunik name. --Irpen 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, this is not to you, but to this Praunik. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose per Yakutza --KPbIC 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose --Phoebus // it is a nonsense to split one language into two independent languages according to the rules only; we have a great trouble with spreading of it at all, so such strifes will only aggravate the situation: why shouldn't we be as a one and support the existent project? Mistery.
    Language won't be "split" over one website, as you perfectly understand.
    And those really wanting "to be one" do not introduce artificial distinctions for #themselves, like all this alternative orthography business. Those wanting to be one won't go foul mouthing their supposed compatriots.
    If you personally are happy to work in the environment conditioned for the "alternative" -- fine, you can spend your time at Just do not get too righteous over this and do not deny other people their right of choice. Yury Tarasievich 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose --nomad_by 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only edit of this user. Mienski 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose --Alex Bortnik It is pity to see how few members use dubious arguments and misguide others. From my personal experience (I was born in Russia and learned Belarusian by reading books and listening to radio) this is not a problem to understand the articles in existing Belarusian Wikipedia. And I can good imagine coexistence of both syntaxis in one already existing version.

    But even more pity is to see how much “Potemkin villages” in “Support” voting were generated by new “users”, who surprisingly have all different native languages in (“their profiles”) but not Belarusian.

    It's not the Potemkin villages, it's the people we spoke with and explained them our position. The Potemkin villages are opposes of "meat puppets" from LJ. Mienski 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Oppose --Frizz 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Strong oppose. It only differs from official belarusian by some orphography issues. Moldovan Wikipedia was closed but it's write system is much more different from latin version. Edward Chernenko
  36. Oppose. Find a way to accommodate different linguistic preferences at be:. If en: can handle British, American, Australian, and Canadian English in one encyclopedia, be: can certainly handle these minor differences. Angr 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Oppose --Trinya I agree there is some difference, e.g. in spelling, between 2 variants of our language, but it is still one language, Belarusian, and I would like to see it prosper and develop, not split, and people having this language in their minds united. I am for free usage of both variants of language but within one wiki. Maybe it is possible, that time will show, what variant is closer to the hearts of native speakers.
  38. Oppose --Kojpiš Anton 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. This vote recalled by voter ---Yury Tarasievich 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...(and see comments, too) ---Yury Tarasievich 13:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So what's the matter about not opening new Academic-language Belarusian Wikipedia? User:Mienski 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, after the experiences of last 2 months, I feel I could, possibly, re-consider changing my vote to support. I'd like to see the intentions of the proposers stated more clearly, however.
    - I understand the supposed name would be ISO639, -- and that's the only acceptable name in the situation.
    - What about that "100% normative orthography, syntax and everything"? While I consider the alternative orthography quite a un-needed and even harmful exercise, and while the wantonly introduction of the Polish words (like "выспа" for geogr. "island") is simply an abomination, I'd like to see some leeway on the syntax and morphology here, as some of the 1933-1959 changes in those had been objectively, un-Belarusian.
    So, what do you think? ---Yury Tarasievich 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Іншымі словамі, калі кіраўніцтва новай ВП абяцае даваць пэўную ступень свабоды на сінтаксіс-марфалогію (невялікія вольнасці ў кіраваннях, у канчатках склонаў) і лексіку (сістэмна беларускія дадаткі да існуючай), то можна за яе стварэнне галасаваць. Таму што ўжо відаць, што з ВП пад назвай толку не будзе, бо створана, каб рухаць "справу клясычнага правапісу". ---Yury Tarasievich 19:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I'm transferring my vote to support (although somewhat against my best judgement...) ---Yury Tarasievich 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support Changed my vote after looking into what's going on and listening to arguments. AFAIK each wiki is a self-governed entity, and if it is started by a certain clique, there is no way to overcome it without invoking Jimbo Wales. BTW I am curious, were there any formal steps to remedy this situation? Mikkalai 22:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Oppose I disagree that this suffering Belarusian language must be split in two. I see no problems in co-existing synonyms from two sources. English has both "trunk" and "proboscis" and other 5-cent and 20-dollar synonyms coming from German and Romance origins respectively. The only requirement would be consistency of orthography (and optionally vocabulary) in a single article, something like British/American English in en:wikipedia. Otherwise it is pointless dispersion of efforts of so scarse Belarusophone contributors. Mikkalai 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the "formal steps" (sorry, haven't seen it before): there were, and not at once, such steps, but they were just ignored (you can see logs of the proposals in the discussion of the Main_Page, but you'll never see here the proposals or reaction "from the other side" (the one man that reacted was E.Zelenko, admin of - thanks to him). Mienski 08:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. It's terrible, but this condition (about consistence of orthography) isn't met in Be-Wikipedia. User:Mienski 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, do you think that the differences of official Belarusian language and "neoclassical" are just a few words? No, it's a spelling of lots of words (about 30-40% of lexics), it's also differences in syntax, morphology, normalization of foreign words and so on, a lot more and more. The problem is not about few words, it's about inconsistency of Be-Wiki as an ENCYCLOPEDIA.
  2. Oppose No different ortographical Wikipedias please. --Taichi - (あ!) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not just orthography, but also morphology, lexics and a lot more differences. User:Mienski 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose The difference between orthographies can probably be handled by computer, e.g. extend the software to allow display (first) then contributions (second) in both orthographies. - FrancisTyers 11:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Err, this is one of admin EugeneZelenko "arguments". So far, no such a script has been created (for about a year already). And, saying fairly, it cannot be done because of different transliteration of foreign words. No program imo can convert "філязофія" to "філасофія" using NO databases of words. But this example is not the only one, examples include practicaly any adoptedd words. Surely, no one can create such a database. And more than that, the database that keeps 2 variants of ANY SINGLE NAME of well-known people from EU, US, Africa etc. cannot be ever made.
    • Good news: Such a database is being made. Of course, it needs contributors of scripts for those cases that can be handled along some general rules, and educated typists entering the rest. For the time being, if you have not more than a few thousand articles/names in the Беларуси Wikipedia, typing their Lemmata twice manually would not be too hard or time consuming a job. Refer to Category:Ultimate Wiktionary for history, and WiktionaryZ for current reality, @ pre alpha state. If you have data bases of words of both orthograpies available, imho importing them would be a not too complicated task. If you have not, you might ask for a script that can convert semi-automatically, suggesting spellings, and a human says yes/no/which one, respectively, with a mouse click, allowing speedy conversions. -- Purodha Blissenbach 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's impossible to write software to translate neoclassic Belarusian variant into official: they are too different.
  4. Голос снят проголосовавшим --Dmitry Nikitin 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Дело в том, что именно тот вариант орфографии беларусского языка, который на данный момент используется в, и является таким вот "дореволюционным" вариантом. Эта орфография поддердживалась в основном только эмигрантскими кругами, которые оказались за пределами Беларуси в связи с гонениями советской власти. Представьте себе ситуацию, когда бы русские эмигранты не приняли реформу русского языка начала 20го века ("т.к. она была проведена после революции при большевиках") и затем, после развала СССР, начали бы активно продвигать написание "ятей" и других архаичных значков. К сожалению, так и произошло у нас, в Беларуси. Вы спросите, почему тут написано 1957rev и 2005rev? Т.к. основы первого, официального, современного написания были приняты и внедрялись ещё с 1957 г., т.о. имея богатый культурный языковой материал. Та же орфография, которую некоторые пробуют представить как "класическую", была кодифицирована (причём ужасным образом - много ляпов, недоработок, отдалённость от живой беларуской традиции перенимания иностранных слов, употребление диалектизмов, полонизмов и т.д.; без широкого общественного обсуждения, опираясь на речь людей, которые даже не живут в Беларуси (старые эмиграционные издания, радио "Свабода" (которое вещает с территории Чехии и сотрудниками которого являются те же эмигрантские круги) только в 2005г.
    Вы меня убедили. Отзываю свой голос и иду ставить его выше - ЗА. Кстати, простите, что не подписался. И ещё, я сейчас сотру свой голос, но мне ведь могут сказать, что я вандалил, стирая чужие голоса так что поправьте там как нужно, если что --Dmitry Nikitin 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Снова страшилки рассказывают... В используются и нормативный и классический вариант. Единственная пока не разрешимая техническая проблема - категории. --EugeneZelenko 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Вторая единственная неразрешимая проблема - оболочка на старом варианте (главная страница и т.д.). Третья единственная неразрешимая проблема - совершенная неразбериха с орфографией. Четвёртая единственная неразрешимая проблема - излишняя прямая и косвенная (дом. страницы участников, статьи, дискуссии) политизированность нынешней версии, что для многих потенциально новых участников является достаточной преградой для регистрации и редактирования статей, равно как и существующая оболочка в ее ненормативном варианте. Пятая единственная неразрешимая проблема - просто отсутствие желания перепрыгивать с одной орфографии на другую, спотыкаться о слова и буквы, написанные в ином варианте, считаться с нововведениями: написал в два раза больше, взвесил, измерил и только тогда осмелился изменить правописание. Сторонники одного из вариантов написания практически никогда не вносят каких-либо значительных изменений в статьи, написанные в ином правописании. Наличие чёткого единого стандарта - неотъемлемая часть любой энциклопедии. Нынешний "однобокий плюрализм" уже не раз приводил к спорам и перепалкам и, как мне кажется, вряд ли они когда-нибудь прекратятся. Так что пора посадить ещё одно "деревце" и вселить жизнь в новый проект... И при всём при этом добавлю, что многие из небольшой горсточки нынешних участников нынешней версии пишут замечательные статьи, а некоторые :) очень добросовестно выполняют свои административные обязательства... --Alexander Gouk 23:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Что за дореволюционная грамматика? Товарищ сам понимает, что он написал? Суржик и трасянку поддерживаю, и донскую балачку, если только она не совпадает с суржиком. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Имеется ввиду русская орфография до 1918 года. Согласен, лучше было бы написать "до реформы русской орфографии". Правда там были некоторые грамматические изменения. Но не суть. Мы сейчас про белорусский.-- 06:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose -- 15:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you explain or, maybe, authorize? Boox 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose -- Voevoda 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you explain your position of denying the Wikipedia for the state language of Belarus, country with 10 mln people?
  7. Oppose. Per Mikkalai. --Yakudza 11:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please, understand: problem could be handled ONLY by separation. This simple operation will do no harm for Belarusian Wikis: both would be written with its codified grammar, lexics, syntax and so on! Boox 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could be handled not only by separation, but by developing special software. Yes, it will be difficult, but it will not split Be.Wikipedia. -- Bełamp 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Проблему, как мне кажется, надо решать выработкой единого стандарта для языка, а не разделением на несколько. --Yakudza 07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    По сути вы правы, но ребята не могут выработать его в википедии, поскольку у каждой группы за плечами свой стандарт, выработанный не здесь, в этом-то все и дело, по-моему --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    В том и проблема, что 1. варианты сильно отличаются; 2. а) "тарашкевичи" (неоклассический вариант) никогда не сделают шаг в сторону официального варианта (в основном, по идеологическим причинам); б) официальный вариант беларусского языка имеет право на создание пространства для свободной работы над статьями. Более подробно на этот счёт посмотрите выше, в ответе Alexandra Gouka. Там определено множество неразрешимых противоречий, которые делают невозможным работу как на "неоклассической" норме, так и на официальной и нормативной.
  8. Oppose. I don't see any point in making two wikipedias for the same language - these two will be definitely worse than one common. Why not contributing to existing one? --Monk 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Possibly, because people want just to write in Belarusian without additional ideology attached, as is the case with the 2005rev. People don't like to be hated on basis of their choice, too. ---~
    There is no any ideology with 2005rev. More, no one prevents you to use 1957rev, just don't begin "holy wars". -- Bełamp 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pah. The 2005rev is all about ideology, from head to toes. If group of people discards normative rules of writing in favour of some garage-invented set and forces other people to regard this on equal footing with normative -- what it's about if not about ideology?
    "No one prevents", my foot. There are screwy rules in belwiki forcing me to count chars before each commit -- I perceive this to be an obstruction. You want to play that particular ball -- suit yourself, just don't overstretch yourself. ---Yury Tarasievich 20:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Супраць (Oppose) Чым займацца пустымі спрэчкамі й расколваць Вікіпэдыю, лепш бы прыхільнікі афіцыйнага правапісу (дарэчы, а чаму гэта толькі яны патрабуюць стварэньня асобнае Вікіпэдыі?) заняліся напісаньнем падтрымкі ўжытку абодвух правапісаў у межах адное Вікіпэдыі. Лічыце, гэта немагчыма? Паглядзіце на Элемэнтарную падтрымку канвертаваньня клясычнага правапісу ў афіцыйны зрабіць можна (я маю на ўвазе мяккія знакі), правапіс асобных словаў можна захоўваць у спэцыяльнай вікі-базе дадзеных, каб кожны вікіпэдыст мог дадаваць у яе словы. Нават на найпрасцейшым узроўні гэта можна зрабіць зараз - выкарыстоўваючы шаблёны (пры ўмове аўтаматычнага даданьня мяккіх знакаў і іншых адрозьненьняў такога пляну. -- Bełamp 14:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Нельга не пагадзіцца. Літаральна мае думкі. --MaximLitvin 15:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Схамяніцеся. І падумайце, хто захоча супрацоўнічаць з людзьмі у якіх такія думкі.
    Па-першае, не "прыхільнікі", а проста вучылі мову ў школе. Дадатковы фактар падзелу і выніковы раскол зрабілі не "нарматыўнікі".
    Што гэта за роздум: "...чаму гэта толькі яны патрабуюць стварэньня асобнае Вікіпэдыі"? А што, "яны" не людзі? Ці вінаваты перад вамі самім фактам існавання? Сваю вікіпедыю маюць і жук і жаба, дык чаму не быць такой відавочнай?
    Што гэта за жлобства: "лепш бы прыхільнікі афіцыйнага правапісу... заняліся напісаньнем падтрымкі..." Ну-ну. Мо і вам падкінуць параду, чым вам бы лепш заняцца? Скажам, пачытаць даклад камісіі Некрашэвіча? І наогул -- хто прыдумаў дадатковыя праблемы -- той і піша модулі.
    Ну і той допіс, што ніжэй, таксама дарэчны, з п. гл. чалавечых адносінаў.
    Урэшце рэшт, што за бяда -- ну, будуць дзве. Ну, будуць перакладаць адна з адной -- каму горш? А працаваць прасцей абодвум бакам. Бо зараз мне прасцей плюнуць на пісанне беларускіх артыкулаў, чым увесь час спрачацца з кожнай пустой нагоды (вось як днямі пра "дайджэст" нн) з заідэалагізаванымі людзьмі. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Полностью согласен, я с самого начала так в ЖЖ и говорил - ничего плохого для беларуской культуры не будет. Конечно, обе вики будут обмениваться материалами и людьми, а раз свободы будет больше, то и людей, и статей будет больше. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ужо схамянуўся. Мае думкі датычацца толькі таго... а-а-а, што аб гэтым пісаць - марная справа, бо ўсё адно зразумееце адпаведна сваім уяўленням... Увогуле сам прыхільнік выкарыстання афіцыйнага
  1. Дык як вас наогул зразумець, калі па закранутай тэме не кажаце, а нешта зусім у іншы бок? І нашто за мяне дадумваць? --Ю.Т.
  1. правапісу, але я супраць сепаратызму, бо гэта блага скончыцца. Па-першая, як толькі з'явіцца асобная Вікі
  1. Сепаратызму? Каго ад каго? Хто пачаў? --Ю.Т.
  1. на афіцыйным правапісе адразу ўздымецца хваля па зачыненні Вікі на "неправільным" правапісе - у выніку не будзе ні воднай беларускай Вікі, а будзе адзін "афіцыйны" недагрызак. Па-другое, зноў уздымецца
  1. Глабальныя высновы, але сцверджанне не роўнае даказу. А мне дык думаецца, што цікавасць да "альтэрнатыўнай" мовы значна меншая, чым вам здаецца. --Ю.Т.
  1. хваля стварэння розных Вікі-трасянак/суржыкаў, бо дзе две беларускіх Вікі, то там і тры, чатыры, пяць
  1. Тры, чатыры і пяць? Ну, дапусцім на хвілінку, што яны будуць. А хто тут палітычны камісар, казаць ім не быць? Ну, будуць -- хлеб адыймуць ці што? Мне дык няма ніякай цікавасці (і часу) ані да трасянкаў, ані да альтэрнатыўных правапісаў, ані ў тым, каб іх знішчаць (і рабіць з іх ахвяраў). А вось пісаць па-беларуску без лішніх абструкцый -- хочацца, але існуючы парадак гэтага не дазваляе. Думаю, і ў бальшыні ахвотных такая самая пазіцыя. --Ю.Т.
  1. "беларускіх" Вікі, ці не так кажу. Да і дзе ж былі мы - "нарматыўнікі", калі гэтыя "нацыяналісты" стваралі "сабе" "сваю" Вікі на "сваім" правапісе? Га? Была б смешна, калі б не была так сумна бачыць гэтыя свары і
  1. Якая розніца, хто дзе быў? Я да ~чвэрці 2005 дык і не звяртаў дужа ўвагі на ВП --па маёй спецыяльнасці там слабыя матэрыялы. Большая актыўнасць, галасістасць, нават агрэсіўнасць меншасцяў, якія б ні былі -- наогул звычайная рэч. А вось што важней было тым альтэрнатыўнікам -- дабро агульнай справы ці уласная ідэалогія? Цяжка было зрабіць, каб усім беларусамоўным даць магчымасць?
    Урэшце, пытанні пра палітыку белвікі пачаліся праз пару тыдняў пасля адкрыця. Калі "тройка" не сцерла, то хто мае вочы, той пабачыць. --Ю.Т.
  1. хворыя "прынцыпы"... --MaximLitvin 07:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Пра хворыя прынцыпы не зразумеў. А свары -- узгадайма, ці былі яны да ~1989-1990, калі і пачалася гэта кампанія? --Ю.Т.
  1. А і не трэба, разбірацца і разумець - хто пачаў, ад каго і як, бо дзіцячы сад нейкі. Увогуле, як Вы бачыце магчымыя будучыя стасункі паміж двумя беларускімі Вікіпедыямі (ці магчыма на Ваш погляд зрабіць сувязь паміж імі)? Гледзячы па Вашых настроях, баюся яны будуць варожымі. --MaximLitvin 09:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Мае настроі тут абсалютна ні да чаго, бо я не цікаўлюся пытаннем гэтых стасункаў. Прапанаваны варыянт, па-першае, дае мне магчымасць без лішніх канфліктаў працаваць у ВП па-беларуску, без ідэалагічнай ношы, па-другое, не пагражае агульнай справе, наколькі я яе разумею. Захачу -- вазьму тэкст з якой захачу ВП, абы я ведаў мову. І ўсе стасункі, вельмі проста. :) --Ю.Т.

  1. Я НЕ БАЧУ сэнсу ў стварэнні нейкага інтэрфэйсу ў афіцыйным правапісе ў вікіпедыі дзе большасць артыкулаў зроблена ў альтэрнатыўным правапісе, усе адміністратары - прыхільнікі альтэрнатыўнага правапіса, большасць удзельнікаў - людзі, што пішуць у альтэрнатыўным правапісе. Атрымаецца, што я буду падтрымліваць ці выцягваць з гаўна вікіпедыю, дзе большасць усіх не падзяляе адную з маіх найбольш фундаментальных пазіцый, дзе большасць удзельнікаў - упартыя як аслы, калі справа тычыцца правапіса, дзе за кожны накід павінна весціся барацьба за правапіс. Нашто? Хто вы такія? Я ведаю, што карыстаюся мовай, што ёсць афіцыйнай у дзяржаве, дзе ваша мова ёсць прызнанай ды афіцыйнай, га? Чаму я, прыхільнік стандарту, павінны ў вікіпедыі, зарэгістраванай на маю ж мову, цярпець прысутнасць нейкіх барацьбітаў, што чорт ведае за што змагаюцца. Каб ты, ды і іншыя адмоўнікі ведалі, пачаў я менавіта як ужывач "неа"-рэвізіі, аднак усё болей паглыбляючыся у рэсурсы у гэтым правпісе, я пабачыў, што ўяўляюць іншыя неа-ужыўцы. Вы ўсе ходзіце з сваім правпісам як з сцягам, ганарыцеся менавіта сваёй занятай пазіцыяй. Мне ж проста патрэбны правапіс, у якім я буду пісаць, які б не паказваў знарок маю пазіцыю, пісаць на роднай мове. Разам з тым я не магу памірыцца з пашырэннем гэтага правапіса, бо ён шкодзіць і маёй мове, адкідвае здабыткі ейныя на паўст. таму. І хопіць бараніцца ідэяй стварэння праграмаў канвертацыі - пакуль мне нехта не пакажа праграму якая паканвертуе мне любое існае прозвішча з аднаго правапіса ў іншы, гэты аргумент я не залічу. Гэта калі б пісалі таракамаўкай, была б такая магчымасць. І прытым надзвычай доўга васпаны "распрацоўваюць" гэты софт, звычайна марудзячы і нічога не робячы - ведама мне вашая пазіцыя "калі вам гэта патрэбна, дык рабіце". I wanna tell everybody this one is the most radical in wikipedia. His the only one to me in my mind from time to time starting orthography-wars in wikipedia and agitatin for 2005rev. to users, that use official standart. Sucha people are one of the reasons why i personally don't want to write to current This reason is not based on personal view to people like him (though it exists ofc), but they opress users that use 1959rev.. Once this man started a propaganda of 2005rev. to 1959rev.. Then i remember episod, when ADMINISTRATOR WAS TRYIN TO CANTRACT WITH 1959-USER FOR THIS USER TO CREATE templates ONLY IN 2005-REV. This user was blocked then for the reason that he creates MANY STUBS. Then, once when according to the rules of be-wiki this 1959-user added much context to 2 or 3 articles and got the right to change the orthography (what he ofc did) the administrator said THAT HE SHOULD HAVE CREATED A DISCUSSION WHERE OTHER USERS WILL ALLOW HIM TO CHANGE ORTH.-REVISION. From what time sucha situation is called equality in rights?? -- 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose - This can do nothing but harm the efforts to produce an encyclopedia for people who speak the language. It would be better to come up with traditions/style guides in the language to address this situation rather than split the language. If Traditional and Reformed Chinese can exist in the same wikipedia, which I believe is likely much more difficult than what is being attempted here, then I'm sure something can be worked out to prevent this division of community. If this is accepted, at best one of the wikis will become largely abandoned and the situation will be much as it is now. At worst, you'll end up with two separate communities, each with smaller, less impressive encyclopedias. Please don't go down that route. --Improv 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On further conversation via IM, I realise there's a significant issue here. I don't know if this is the right way to deal with it, but .. I'm less inclined to say no at this point. --Improv 07:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make a lots of assumptions, eh? "This can do nothing but...", ""-- lots of ppl beg to differ, in fact they expect quite opposite things to come. And who made the comparative analysis of this here situation and the Chinese deal? Finally, you ask for "please don't go" but wham it with a opposing vote. Oh joy. ---
  1. Oppose Narkamaŭka - it's a communistic distortion of the Belarus language. Наркамаўка - палітычны мёртвы вырадак. --Aliaks 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha, I really should help Aliaks with his English translation of his Belarusian phrase. He says, literally: "Narkamauka is a political dead monstrosity". That's about the language taught in school, about the language ~2.5 mln. of his compatriots speak in home (per 1999 census).
Aliaks, the attitude like that is precisely the reason to support the forming of separate wikipedia in Narkamauka, not oppose. Then those wanting the Narkamauka will have the wikipedia to work, and you'll have no more to contact with it. Oh, and Narkamauka is a derogatory term, thank you. Yury Tarasievich 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hа-ha! In census-1999 there was a question: "You use a classic language or narkamaŭka?" ;) Your applications about 2,5 million is the bald lie. The Belarus language is almost dead. And narkamaŭka is absolutely dead. It is only on the Belarus TV. And all normal people should destroy narkamaŭka - as Lithuanians have destroyed cyrillics! --Aliaks 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aliaks, you have shown again that you can't live without politics. Orevoir!.. Mienski 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mienski, narkamaŭka is real symbol of communistic politics (with Kurapary, Stalin etc.)! So, you can't live without politics :( --Aliaks 17:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12. Супраць (Oppose) --- kacjam Нельга падзяляць мову ва ўмовах падзеленай краіны.

It is only a one more website. People want to work in normative Belarusian WP without additional difficulties. What's the matter with you denying them the possibility? Yury Tarasievich 16:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Мы ўвесь час змагаемся за адзіную мову, за адзіную краіну, за адзіны народ. Нам вядома кім наркамаўка стала нарматыўнай, а Вам? kacjam (Oppose)

You, kacjam, and you, Zlobny, speak about unified community, however, there is no such thing, not after introducing the dividing orthography factor in end 1980s perestroika times. The divide had grown since then even more. What's worse, when somebody both speaks Belarusian but not minding your orthography, there is instantly lots of hate flowing from your side.
So, guys, while I can relate to what you say, like the events here show, there is no such thing in the close future as the voluntary unified community, certainly not in WP. So would you please not hinder our right of choice, please? Yury Tarasievich 07:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your position, Yury. But I wouldn't recall my vote. My inner conviction is that Belarusian wiki should be unified, maybe in two or three pravapis-versions, but one project! --Zlobny 14:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's so magical about "one project"? You won't recall the vote, okay.
Just do me a favour and think over the following:
Weren't you and other people talking "unity" thinking an unspoken thought, to the general lines of "...and our "classical", "the only true Belarusian" faction is to do the ordering"? Yury Tarasievich 08:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not unified. You just want it to be like that. But your "pink eyeglasses" are too "pink". Where have YOU been when we, the supporters of this Wiki, asked for help and advices at the Main_Page of Where have you been when we tried to speak about the problem? You're definitely unconstructive. You always speek about the "union", so WHERE HAVE YOU ALL BEEN?.. Mienski 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (Comments Mienski are transferred to "Comments". --MaximLitvin 09:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

pax217 =)

Я за адну мову (калі ўнармаванай нямашака, дык навошта?), за адну Вікі. Калі прапануюць суіснаваньне/сяброўства - нянавісьці ня можа быць. Вось толькі далейшага развіцьця сітуацыі я не бачу. Будзеце чакаць пакуль адная з двух вэрсіяў лясьнецца, ну-ну? А для русіфікаванай беларускай будучыні ўсё адно няма. Да Менскага, прабачце, значыцца Вы пыталіся - а Вас ня чулі. Дзякую за не-канструктыўную размову, посьпехаў. kacjam

Oh yes. I see this is a "one land one folk one wiki" kind of mantra. And oh so righteous are those repeating it.
Wake up to the real world -- the divide is real, and the two versions of language right now aren't compatible. Anyway, with all the ideological hate talk of your "pals" -- how do you imagine us participating in "one wiki"??
Why has any of the sides to submit to the other? Just think about it on your own and accurately. Yury Tarasievich 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support IMHO, you should imediately move it to the approved section, because the volumes are already there and this request page has no decisional value whatsoever. Historically speaking, this page was mainly provided to show if there is any interest for a proposal as such. Since the incubator came, interest is proven by facts (written articles, users, etc) and thuis page is just a step in the procedure. It never was intended (although many used it as such) as a place in which to decide whether a language is a language, or a dialect, or a slang. Neither was it intended to be a forum on the "political" opportunity to have or not to have a wiki. It was simply a place to show up how much practical support a project could have. One last thing. There is no point in talking about a previous vote made under different conditions, either (no incubator to prove the real strenght of a project). Much in the same logics one could say that since I once was too young to vote and got refused I cannot vote for elections even today. But then, nobody could vote at all. We all were too young, at a certain point. So there is no point in having this thing here anymore, move it on to the approved section and let's be over with sterile POV disputes that simply waste disk space. I wish the new wiki good luck :) --Bertodsera 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for support! We didn't know exactly how many votes we should have to register our Bel-Wiki. We've been told about 75% of supporters so we decided not to be so agressive and not to start the POV-flood that (I think) will begin after our moving to the Aproval section (you know: the LJ-puppets will be even more agressive after the action). And if we will collect the increddible number of votes noone will have the moral right to oppose our registration. But, if you say so... We'll think about it:-) Thanks for support and info. It's just a bit confusing that there's no new-wiki guide that could tell the people about the process of aproval. And - the next one:) - thank you! Mienski 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Oppose --Nezałeżny 22:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Если будете делать тестовую в инкубаторе, буду пытаться участвовать, кроме того из нашей тусовки четверо знают язык. Нам там все равно скучно среди курдов:-) По сути же дела я разрываюсь между двумя мотивами 1) я вообще за увеличение лингвистического разнообразия восточнославянских вик, так что не только за наркомовку и полесский, но и за поморский и казацкий; 2) с другой стороны, употребление наркомовки политически окрашено, и я в это ввязываться не хочу, не гражданин Беларуси. Поэтому пока не определился, зато точно буду это читать и пытаться контрибутить. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Я меняю свою позицию, наблюдая то, что творят представители авторитарного мышления на сибирском голосовании. Почему у французов, итальянцев, немцев есть вики на тех языках, которые не укладываются в национальный стандарт, а у восточных славян нет? На самом деле славяне сейчас в худшем положении, чем французы, у которых норманскую википедию открыли буквально два норманна. Единственный путь разрушать авторитарное сталинистское представление о том, что восточнославянских языков якобы только три, это открывать все новые и новые вики, на всех разновидностях, пока восточнославянских вик не будет как итальянских. Поэтому я поддерживаю любую новую восточнославянскую википедию. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Зачем такие сложности? Писать официальным правописанием (наркамаўкай) можно и в белорусской Википедии. --EugeneZelenko 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Исхожу из того, что демократия - это многообразие. Но вы правы, если суппортер только один, значит это просто никому не нужно. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Наркомовка / наркамаўка" -- умышленно оскорбительный термин ("Narkamauka" is a deliberately derisive term). Thank you. ---Yury Tarasievich 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. My opinion on the matter is that belwiki should take drastic steps to upgrade its archaic version to the contemprory official standard. Менск and Ворша have to go permanentely. I mean if someone started writing in ru-wiki with yats and hard signs everywhere, I doubt it will be accepted warmly. --Kuban Cossack. 12:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(the opinion is changed---A1 10:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)) - по-моему беларусская небогата, так зачем же усилия рассеивать? --A1 23:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Таму і небагатая, што немагчыма пісаць на роднай мове :( Mienski 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Іскуственно введённые ограніченія -- да, мешают. Еслі іх вот так обойті, не внося в решеніе псіхолог. фактор победы/пораженія і значіт обіды -- наоборот, обоім сторонам будет лучше в ітоге. Yury Tarasievich 05:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
То калі ласка, еси считаете, что лучше--A1 10:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Дзякуй за разуменне! Mienski 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • This proposal isn't well prepared, technically:
  1. You can't go around inventing the language codes (and Byel... was far more fair in rendering of the Belarusian diphtong, anyway :)).
  2. You can't push to the alternative namespace the literary and normative branch of the language (the only one taught in schools for 70+ years).
  3. References to unverifiables pushed forward ("...spoken in real life..."), references to verifiables dismissed (data of the polls of 1959, 1979, 1989, 1999, data on schooling etc.).
  4. There are much worse misuses of the Belarusian language now in (alternative-pushers-ridden) BE:WP, like using the Polish-influenced barbarisms instead of either the normative word or even the "pre-armageddon" (1933) word. The immediately known example is use of "выспа"/"паўвыспа" for "island"/"peninsula" instead of normative "востраў"/"паўвостраў" or "атока,абток"/"паўатока,паўабток" (as used by Lastowski, Akula).
  5. The "negative influence" of the "mix" is completely to blaim of the promoters of the alternative version of the orthography, insisting on everything in Belarusian to be done alternatively, not in the normative --- and on their terms, too.
  6. References to the dubious sources ( is a politically dedicated site) are used, with tells immediately:
    1. For "drinking water" there exists an expression "пітная вада" in Belarusian, not bizarre "вада піць" or secondary "вада для піцця"
    2. For "handkerchief" there exists an expression "насоўка" in Belarusian, not the Polish-influenced barbarisms "хустачка да носу" and "хустачка для носу"
    3. For "point of view" there exists an equivalent "пункт гледжання" or somewhat not-mainstream "гледзішча". The conflict of "пункт у гледжаньні" vs. "пункт гледжання" is either invented or something else is mistakenly perceived as such.
I think is a fine domain for Belarusian language.
Though my examples appeared bad enough, this tutorial by Losik exists and it's not "politicaly dedicated document) and it seems like it's to be used for writing in 2005rev.
  • # You can't go around inventing the language codes (and Byel... was far more fair in rendering of the Belarusian diphtong, anyway :)).
  1. You can't push to the alternative namespace the literary and normative branch of the language (the only one taught in schools for 70+ years).
Let it be, there mustn't be much of discussion.
# There are much worse misuses of the Belarusian language now in (alternative-pushers-ridden) BE:WP, like using the Polish-influenced barbarisms instead of either the normative word or even the "pre-armageddon" (1933) word. The immediately known example is use of "выспа"/"паўвыспа" for "island"/"peninsula" instead of normative "востраў"/"паўвостраў" or "атока,абток"/"паўатока,паўабток" (as used by Lastowski, Akula).
2. Show me where i have said 2005rev. contributors are exellently literate? Same things happen to 1959rev. users when they push russian words into articles. Personally i dislike this layer of polonismes, which appeared in the times of reincarnating of the classic spelling.
# The "negative influence" of the "mix" is completely to blaim of the promoters of the alternative version of the orthography, insisting on everything in Belarusian to be done alternatively, not in the normative --- and on their terms, too.
Yes, til all of admins use it. But, as it has been already discussed naming categories in 1959rev. style will cause bigger mess. And naming all the cathegories in 1959rev. is POV, as it's POV to name all the cathegories in 2005rev. The only right decision is to split as it seems to me.
So I personally miss your point, you dislike 2005rev, but you denie new wiki too. What's the matter then? 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you open new request instead of reopen old one? --EugeneZelenko 13:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know it may be reopened/Facts were totally untrue in there. 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which facts exactly? At least list of opposers/supporters and their arguments could be definitely shared.
Please register on meta.
EugeneZelenko 14:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Statements that 2005rev. is a couple of archaic dialects and 1959rev. is "a present-day belarusian". And i thought there was a proposal to keep 2005rev. as a filial of 1959rev, but not as separate project. It's a bit confusing for me, I'vent found that in the previous request, maybe i've read of it somewhere else. 15:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And i thought there was a proposal to keep 2005rev. as a filial of 1959rev, but not as separate project. - it was condition for support from MaximLitvin. These words was not in request itself. --EugeneZelenko 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've read a terrible article about Homel recently. This is what i've noticed:
  1. Introduction is written in 2005rev.
  2. Part about name of the city is written in 1959rev.
  3. Part about history is written in 2005rev.
  4. Part about population is written in 1959rev. (тысяч instead of тысячаў)
  5. Part about education in Homel is mixed: subsection about univercities is written in 1959rev., subsection about institutes is written 2005rev. (word Мінистэрства uses both belarusian і and russian и for some reason)
  6. Parts about industry, sport and comments to external links are written in 2005rev.

And this is only 1 example of what this "encyclopaedia" contains. What do you think, is such a situation normal for Wikipedia?

Could you please take a look into be:Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс and be:Абмеркаваньне Вікіпэдыя:Правапіс#Галасаваньне па новай рэдакцыі правіл? Rules are exists, but does anybody following them? If you have time, please fix article. --EugeneZelenko 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The use of the ISO 639 codes for Belarusian language belongs to the normative, literary, academic branch of the Belarusian language, which millions of people are at least familiar with (1999 poll), which is taught in shool on mandatory basis, etc. etc. ad nauseaum.
  • Consequently, the normative branch of language in Wikipedia declaring it's in "Belarusian language", must primarily provide the possibility for the use of the normative variant. Everything else, be it a dialect, an alternative orthography or anything, either co-exists non-disruptingly, or goes out into separate sub-spaces. It's not the business of the normal Belarusian language speaker that somebody wants everybody to use the brilliant new invented orthography and it can't be considered a POV that the un-curtailed use of the normative version of language is primarily expected in the wikipedia decalring itself Belarusian.
  • However, what we have now in BE:WP is:
  1. The (3) admins and their pals pushing the use of the alternative orthography and inventing the "righteous" lexicon.
  2. The admins are backed by the rules which weren't voted on when introduced, and those rules are curtailing the use of the normative branch of the language.
  3. The currently on-going vote on so called "co-existence of orthographies" is conducted with all imaginable violations of procedure -- e.g., admin EugeneZelenko who opened the voting didn't put all of the proposals on vote, and refused to do so, when reminded, retorting that the proposals not put on vote were "not quite good". AFAIU, the right to vote is determined by the previous participation in BE:WP (subjected to the mentioned rules).
Only anonimous user are not allowed in this voting. I think this is common practice in WP. --EugeneZelenko 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh well, somebody (was it you, admin EugeneZelenko?) had "cleverly" removed all the discussion on the proposals on the rules prior to June 25, 2006, complete with my proposal (which is not on voting) which initiated the discussion , on the prior to 25.06.2006, so now EugeneZelenko feels free to claim that "all is well" with the BE:WP procedure. What a "fearless fighters with regime" those persons are. What a petty falsificators. Have decency to stand by to your own actions, "admin" EugeneZelenko! ---Yury Tarasievich 06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you would agree if the current stays for 1959rev. and 2005rev. articles are moved to, for ex., Btw, i've now read one more article in even more odd orthography - about Joseph Yuho (Язэп Юхо), it's written in 1959rev. with the use of "soft signs" and 2005rev. Менск and Полацак words, i will try to correct that one but i doubt i'll have success; and while two orthographies so-exist, i think such "hybrid" articles will stay and the number of them will grow. 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, I would much rather if the admins and their pals quit their agit-propping and just do their service to the Belarusian people meaning serving technical side of the BE:WP and not dabbing in the politics, which they handle shoddily, anyway. :)
Just think -- two WPs means doubled effort on maintenance, two versions of everything... To what purpose? As if we have all of our problems solved... Personally, I'm not at all interested in technicalities, only in writing on certain tematics... However, the un-avoidable necessity for some kind of separation -- which you describe -- may yet arise, as the current crew still understand their mission here as some kind of "struggle with regime". ---Yury Tarasievich 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that separation will solve such problems. In real life correctors work during book preparation. I don't think that people exist who never made spelling mistakes or used incorrect words :-) Think about corrector job as part of maintenance such as interwikis, categorization, formatting and so on. It's mainly technical, but necessary for improving quality of articles. Volunteer's positions are always opened :-) --EugeneZelenko 14:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Separation would hopefully solve the issue of petty falsificators and crooked "admins", though. Then all of your bunch will happily sit in your ivory tower, feeling smug and superiour to the other Belarusian folks. ---Yury Tarasievich 06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ?
I think would be great. User:Mienski 12:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official State language, not the archaic form, should have Wiki! User:boox

Yes, you are definitely right, it has!! Official? Yes. Non-archaic? Yes. What else? ;) -- Bełamp 21:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This" is not an Official language! 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


  1. Is there mutual intelligibility between the two orthographies. That is, can a person writing in one, understand the other and vice versa.
  2. I have been told (without any evidence) that there is no possibility of any automated conversion. I'd like to see some evidence.
  3. Which orthography is in most widespread use? This is the one that should be the "Belarusian Wikipedia".
  4. I'm getting that crazy feeling that this is more a political issue rather than a linguistic or technical issue. I'm not interested in playing politics in the assignment of new Wikipedia's.

In short, there should be one Wikipedia for Belarusian, which orthography it uses, or if it uses both (ideally) I don't care. - FrancisTyers 10:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you don't care, why ask for explanation? :)
1. Yes for "understanding", at least with alternative person looking at normative orthography and words. Not sure about reverse way. Write? Same. (I can do both, but I just "do not care" about alternatiove orthographies at the moment etc. See Mikka's reasoning, he puts it down better)
2. There is lots more to the issue than "just" xlatting the letters. After all, the burden of proof is primarily on suggesting the feasibility auto-conversion. Nothing is done and nothing is being done, AFAIK, but suddenly this "auto-conversion" thing is a valid argument?
3. Normative, 1959 (which's proposed). Schooling etc. etc. books, press, ~75 (to 100, possibly) thousand school graduates each year knowing it.
4. And you'd be right. E.g., see the section just between the request template and support votes. So? :) Yury Tarasievich 13:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Looks like there should be one Wikipedia
  2. Well, I can see that no-one from the other side seems to want to work on this, it will be to their downfall I think.
  3. Then pages should be added to the Belarusian Wikipedia reflecting this.
  4. Yes.
It seems there is a problem with intransigent admins, basically admins supporting the "new" revision, and using their authority/power to push it. I would encourage adopting a policy similar to the English Wikipedia whereby a page written for the first time in English stays in English, and in American, stays in American. So someone who starts a page in 1959 rev. can be sure that someone will not come along and either delete their page, or change it to the new rev. Maybe I'm missing something (If I am, please tell me), but this does not seem to be a problem to require a new Wikipedia -- even if all the admins on the project need to be replaced. It would be a mistake to start up a new Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers 11:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely you are missing something. There is lot more to it than difference of British/American which, in its turn, seems quite irrelevant, if looking from here.
There's lots of bad feeling between the promoters of alternative and those not interested, speaking not only in terms of WP communities, but in terms of society in general.
Openly despising the "normative" people for their supposed "un-Belarusian-ness" is sort of ethos of the "alternative", and some of them don't hesitate to stoop to dubious behaviour, like, e.g., falsifying the other people's words (see [6]) or even to express their hate (like, in e-mail) -- which is perfectly understandable because "normative" Belarusian happens to occupy the areal they'd like for their exclusive control.
There's more difference in strictly language terms than just algorithmic change of orthography, there're morphology and syntax and lexics differences, the conflict is named "orthographical" just as a "short-hand".
So, I, for example, don't feel like any real re-conciling comes in close future. And meanwhile, why should people who studied Belarusian at school and would like to have some fun in Wikipedia, be denied the fair chance to do so, un-obstructed by additional ideology? The creation of this additional wiki would circumvent all this trouble without ruffling any side's feathers anymore. And, Francis, why this talk about "mistake" -- you may like not the solution, I don't know, aesthetically, or have some personal feelings -- but I don't feel there can be a mistake here, not a fatal one, anyway.
In your hands now, then. Yury Tarasievich 12:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia isn't about having fun "unobstructed by ideology". I repeat what I said above, the current Belarusian Wikipedia should reflect common usage. Any other usage wanting its own Wikipedia should apply here. If you are having trouble with administrators hassling people who just want to reflect common usage, then we should deal with that, and definitely not fork the Wikipedia. - FrancisTyers 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do they say, "should" and "if" are the biggest words in English? What's proposed is realistic solution, with two versions of language, both pretending to be called the only true Belarusian, having their respective wikis. Yury Tarasievich 04:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't a realistic solution. - FrancisTyers 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pity it comes to that[edit]

Well, it seems we have here the following:

1. Two versions of the Belarusian language exist (for the sake of brevity they are further called "normative" and "alternative").

1.1. The normative version uses grammar, officially issued in 1959 (amended in 1985), which is the grammar issued in 1918, and reformed in 1933.

1.2. The alternative version uses grammar, prepared by promoters group in 2005, which is, basically, the grammar issued in 1918, taking features from the normative grammar and retro-introducing some of the pre-reform 1933 features. The promoters themselves call it "classical".

1.3. While the most prominent difference is in the orthography, there are differences in morphology and syntax, and diverted vocabulary, too.

2. Two respective and distinct communities in society, are represented here. Both communities claim the name "Belarusian language" (for the sake of brevity they are further called "normative" and "alternative" communities).

2.1. The study of "normative" version is mandatory in schools for 50+ years, each year about 75 to 100 thousand students graduate from schools.

2.2. The study of "alternative" is, understandably, voluntary act. There's no schooling whatsoever. The popularity and awareness of it is almost completely confined to the specific, small in numbers, social groups.

2.2.1. The only major (opposition) newspaper in alternative orthography is Nasha Niva (pre-closure circulation ~3 thousand). Other opposition newspapers are (and were) in the normative ( comeos to mind).

3. There is lot of non-integrity between the communities, surely so in the Internet-represented fractions.

3.1. Especially prominent is the collective hate feeling, motivated by ideology, which is expressed by the "alternative" fraction towards the "normative" fraction.

3.1.1. There is specially coined word, used in derogatory manner by the "alternative" community when referring to the "normative" community -- "narkamauka".

3.1.2. In the recent writeup, prompted by the current request [7], which seems to be the LJ of User:Slaver, for all the world to see, the seed entry says (translated verbatim):

--- [headline] I'm against the communist orthography in Wikipedia
--- ...All wikipedians and everybody who's interested in this project, who cares about the classical Belarusian language — register and vote against the "narcomans"! (another derogatory word, sounding like the "narkamauka"). In comments (translated verbatim):

Supposedly User:Pryvid [8]:

--- [in LJ slang] "...go to hell, you red animal"

Supposedly User:Pryvid [9]:

--- [to Slaver] "just voted... You are right, commies should have no place in wiki..."

Supposedly User:Aliaks [10]:

--- [the way to go is] "liquidation of the narkamauka as the anti-national phenomenon..."

Supposedly User:Aliaks [11]:

--- "...I will obstruct the soviet-fascist wikipedias as much as I'll be able..."

Mind you, that's just one "discussion".

4. Meatpuppetry is going on:

Somebody asks [12]:

--- I can't understand how to vote there

Answer of supposedly User:Vovansystems [13]:

--- well, you register [link to is provided -- ed.], and then you press EDIT and add as a last line: #{{oppose}} --~~~~

So what's exactly the kind of opposing we are getting here? Yury Tarasievich 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trading votes[edit]

I really do not understand why do you believe that this is bad thing. They want to organize alliance with our Pfalz brothers, which maybe are suppressed by Germans and have no chance to develop their language. So why do you suppose that this is bad, that Belorussians want to cooperate with people who have similiar situation? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You must have misread my note. I did not write or suppose anything like 'bad'. That is possibly how you think about it, not me. -- Purodha Blissenbach 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I beg your pardon, maybe it was misunderstanding, we are so involved in this discussion, that sometimes we see everybody through this glass --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]