Talk:2020–2021 Belarusian protests/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Videos

These are on RU WP, maybe one would be suitable to illustrate clashes with the police?


Victor Grigas (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL s/regime/government/

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposal: use the word 'regime' for the Belarusian government. Boud (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fundraiser

A facebook fundraiser, with Facebook only as a source, keeps being inserted in the lede; I keep removing, but it keeps being reverted. I consider this trolling, so I don't think the 3rv rule applies. If it does, please let me know. complainer 07:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo of the protests in the infobox

The description of the photo states that it has been taken in Bangalore, India. It should be removed, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Belarus and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @79.100.143.101: The Bangalore square is named after Bangalore, which is the twin city of Minsk. It was a part of the Soviet-Indian cooperation. There are also some places in Minsk named after other twin cities. — Homoatrox (talk). 18:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for clarifying! Totally my mistake (probably wouldn't have made it if the picture was higher resolution, as Belarusians and Indians look quite different from each other. :) I never expected to see that many demonstrators in Belarus. I hope that everyone stays safe and healthy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

infobox

In the infobox opposition is now marked with 1991 variant of flag of Belarus.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.237.212 (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

'Recognized/Did not Recognize' Lukashenko sections

What does this mean? Recognize what? The election results? The legitimacy of the government and/or Lukashenko? It appears to mean Allies and Opponents of Lukashenko, or 'In support of' and 'Not in support of'. The labeling as it stands, is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add Template:Belarusian democracy movement

Can someone add {{Belarusian democracy movement}} in the bottom of the article? --Sjenger (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒍᐱᕬ (Talk) 10:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian support

Putin agreed to assist Lukashenko militarily against the protesters. I think this is enough to justify putting Russia as supporting Lukashenko on the sidebar. 31.0.121.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Putin government support is not so clearcut - A Kremlin statement made no mention of such assistance but said both sides expressed confidence that all problems in Belarus would be resolved soon. - looking at all the info in mainstream media sources on the conversation, and the official reports from the two sides (BY + RU), the promise of military support is more about the hypothetical (completely unrealistic) case of Belarus being attacked by NATO rather than direct support to crush the revolution. Boud (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Please add the United States and Canada into a diplomatic support in Opposition side because it was rumoured to side with opposition and condemn lukanshenko election. 114.125.232.18 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Visit the reference desk if you need help finding references. Seagull123 Φ 13:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Iceland MFA statement

Could someone add the icelandish MFA statement about the belarusian protests. [1] [2]

--Mr Fernium (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Fernium Done Abcmaxx (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/GudlaugurThor
  2. ^ https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/04-Raduneytin/Utanrikisraduneytid/PDF-skjol/NB8%20statement%20Belarus.pdf

Can anyone carefully proofread the text?

Sorry to say that, but the page is written in a very poor English and is full of all kinds of typos and sentences which just don't make sense. I'm not a native English speaker, and even I see it. I changed what I could, but there's still a lot of work to do. Please help. P.S. The Deaths section looks particularly awful. Buxareu (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably useful info, the protests are "not anti-Russia/pro-Europe - it is anti-Lukashenko"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53796436 220.255.241.228 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Resignation of the Prime Minister

The infobox on the right claims that as a result of the protests that the Prime Minister and the cabinet of Belarus resigned. However, the source that is cited (https://eng.belta.by/politics/view/belarusian-government-resigns-132612-2020/) says that the Prime Minister and cabinet resignation is a regular action that is done after every Presidential Election because the Constitution requires it. Omegastar (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree (https://www.en24news.com/2020/08/government-of-belarus-resigns.html) I have changed wording in main article but box needs changed. Ânes-pur-sàng wiki 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Buxareu (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Swedish Prime Minister Stefan

A new statement has been released by the Swedish Prime Minister: https://www.government.se/statements/2020/08/statement-by-prime-minister-stefan-lofven-on-developments-in-belarus. Could someone add it? Mr Fernium (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks. Buxareu (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Split the page?

Just wondering if it is now time to move the "International reaction" section to a separate page. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Support - Way too large. Buxareu (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Pinging: @Buxareu: + @Cordyceps-Zombie: - a new page should probably be merged with the reaction on the presidential election page, as there is huge overlap between the two subjects and content Abcmaxx (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Buxareu (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to merge both Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Done - see Reactions to the 2020 Belarusian presidential election and protests Abcmaxx (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Useful source?

This page might be of use in following events http://www.iswresearch.org/2020/08/warning-kremlin-begins-security-forces.html --Boreas74 You'll catch more flies with honey 20:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

please Add diplomatic support from Turkey to Opposition and Russia Supporting the because Turkey support Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and Turkey support like Venezuela Nicolas Maduro in the 2019 I know because why is like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.37.199 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No. You "knowing" is not a Reliable Source.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

remove america from diplomatic support, they are barely even involved with these protests Greatgaming23 (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Greatgaming23. Seagull123 Φ 12:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

Add diplomatic support from Germany to Opposition and USA too TheUnholyII (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @TheUnholyII. Seagull123 Φ 13:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification

In this article, in the section "Deaths" there is statement "The Ministry of Internal Affairs denied the authenticity of the frame, claiming that the original version was truthful." with reference to the source. But there is not such information in the source. The source has information in Russian about "failed to obtain comment from Ministry of Internal Affairs" ("Комментарий в МВД TUT.BY получить не удалось.")

It is necessary to remove the statement or at least put a template "Failed verification".

The article page is protected and I can't fix. Please help.--37.212.96.18 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for edit, but still the problem persists:
Now in article, in the section "Deaths" there is statement "The Belarusian Investigative Committee denied the authenticity of the frame, claiming that the original version was truthful." with reference to the source. But there is not such information in the source. The source has information in Russian only about "The Investigative Committee confirmed the information that Investigative Committee gave earlier. Earlier, Investigative Committee stated that in order to establish the exact cause of death will be conducted expert study." ("В Следственном комитете заявили, что актуальной является та информация, которая давалась от управления СК по городу Минску. «Во всем разбираются следователи», — сказал официальный представитель ведомства Сергей Кабакович. Ранее СК заявлял, что для установления точной причины смерти мужчины назначена экспертиза.")
It is necessary to remove the statement or at least put a template "Failed verification".
Please help. The article page is protected and I can't fix.--37.212.96.18 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was a mistake on my part. I think, now it's corrected. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Now it's corrected. Thank you very much!--37.212.96.18 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The "opposition" flag

Seems like many still don't understand. The flag of the opposition has to be used by all parties for it to be put in the infobox as "representing the opposition". Obviously, not all individuals or groups within the opposition use the flag, or officially state it as their representative symbol. The sources has nothing to do with this.14.177.70.199 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@14.177.70.199 Do you have any evidence to back this up? Because if not it is WP:OR, whereas the use of the flag has been WP:RS. Wikipedia operates on WP:VNT. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we semi-protect this page to prevent constant edit-waring by an unregistered user who keeps removing this code Belarus from the infobox - Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Abcmaxx, I'm not required to have a source, because my edit is not putting in a new entity. On the other hand, only your edit have to provide sources, and you do have sources, yes, but not sufficient. Are you sure that all individuals/parties within the opposition recognize the flag as representing the opposition? Well, I'm pretty sure not all. This is not about WP:OR and WP:RS, this is about semantics and common rules on Wikipedia regarding "providing a symbol that represent something". Put it simply, you can only apply a symbol/ in this case a flag to an organization that is clearly defined, not to a general entity as in this case, the opposition, which represent various groups that may/may not recognize the flag as their symbol. No matter how popular the flag is being used, you cannot put a single symbol like that to represent a vague, borderless entity like the "opposition".14.177.70.199 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


@14.177.70.199 That is not how Wikipedia works. And you are going against reliably sourced information, therefore are required to provide a source to show otherwise. Besides, please explain how multiple reliable sources stating that the flag is a universal symbol, not the only one, but the universally accepted widely used symbol of the opposition movement, is not sufficient. It is irrelevant what you think, the sources clearly state the flags use as an unambiguous opposition symbol; your personal opinion (or anyone else's) is completely irrelevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx This is not personal opinion. I have seen this arguement "this is not how Wikipedia works" countlessly that it becomes a boring way to evade committed discussion. The sourced information you provide only put some group or some individuals that recognize this flag, on the other words, your sources are not relevant nor valid. Actually, not all individuals/groups within the opposition use that flag, therefore, you cannot put that flag to represent the opposition as a whole, because this insult the minorities within the opposition who don't use that flag. "Widely" or "universally" used is not a valid arguement, as long as the flag you are putting here represent a vague entity ("opposition") and not a clearly defined organization (a party or something like that).14.177.70.199 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a list of the organisations within the opposition movement to which this statement applies "insult the minorities within the opposition who don't use that flag" and also provide reliable and verifiable sources that they don't use or are insulted by its use. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Cordyceps-Zombie. Well, can you also provide every sources to every single one of those parties that are being listed on the Opposition side of the infobox that they all used this flag? If you can, I gladly surrender.14.177.70.199 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't need to do any such thing. Established practice on Wikipedia allows for the use of a commonly used symbol without a need for every single group or person to use it. Look at the example for Libyan Civil War (2011) where the the former (now current) flag of Libya was used to represent a leaderless opposition movement. You on the other hand do need to provide sources to back up your claim that certain opposition groups will be "insulted" by this flag. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Cordyceps-Zombie, in the Libya article, the flag is used to represent a clearly defined structure, the National Transitional Council, and they have a leader, who officially stated that flag to be their official symbol. The flag is not used to represent the Libyan opposition as a whole, don't be mistaken. The opposition is a rather vague entity.14.177.70.199 (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Click on the link (Libyan rebals) on the article about Libya, it leads to the page Anti-Gaddafi forces not to the NTC. The NTC is listed below with its own symbol together with other oposition groups. The target page also says the flag was used by "some protesters as an opposition symbol" but that was sufficient for the use of the image in the infobox, something that has not been challenged in 9 years since the infobox was created. Stop clutching at straws, it is getting embarassing now. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@14.177.70.199 There are multiple sources listed that the flag is a opposition symbol, which you have removed multiple times. You claim that This is not personal opinion but whose opinion is it? Please provide proof. I have seen this argument "this is not how Wikipedia works" countlessly that it becomes a boring way to evade committed discussion. - I strongly refute this, we are discussing it now, also if you keep hearing the same arguments over and over again maybe you should reconsider your position. Also "Widely" or "universally" used is not a valid argument, as long as the flag you are putting here represent a vague entity ("opposition") and not a clearly defined organization - well why not? Many opposition movements aren't a clearly structured, plus the sources that are provided do exactly this; state that the flag is a symbol of the big tent anti-government movement. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx. That's the problem with users on Wikipedia who think that source is the god of everthing...They are not. What the sources said, is their subjective evaluation, they don't quote it from the official statement made by the Opposition. If the opposition themselves don't say the flag is their official symbol, then the flag isn't their symbol. The action of displaying the flag by some individuals within the Opposition doesn't count, neither an evaluation coming from some sources. 14.177.70.199 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@14.177.70.199 What the sources said, is their subjective evaluation; do you have any evidence of this or is this just another one of your un-evidenced opinions? If the sources specialise in certain subject or the news then they are better placed to evaluate various topics than random Wikipedia contributors. If the opposition themselves don't say the flag is their official symbol, then the flag isn't their symbol; again you have not stated why? So far the only subjective evaluation is your own claims to which not a single one has been evidenced so far, and you still have not shown anything to prove to the contrary. Wikipedia has functioned in this way since its inception, it is not perfect but it would not have lasted if we just put things upon the assertions of random users, especially when your only argument so far is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
in the Libya article, the flag is used to represent a clearly defined structure - absolutely false, the civil war had a whole host of disorganised chaotic groups such as the National Liberation Army, Islamic Fighting Group, Anti-Gaddafi tribes and potentially foreign mercenaries, all fighting against Gaddafi. The National Transitional Council adopted the flag after the war officially. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Abcmaxx, why does it need evidences? It's a fact, an objective analysis, not an "opinion", stop using the wrong word.14.177.70.199 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
No, the NTC adopted the flag during the war, research again.14.177.70.199 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Flag of Libya Abcmaxx (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@14.177.70.199 why does it need evidences? ; because it's the only way to prove what you are saying. It's a fact - well then prove it. So far the flag is an opposition symbol with multiple sources to back this claim up. You have not provided anything to the contrary. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Abcmaxx, there are some pictures showing protesters flying the two Belarussian flags side by side, are you going to put both of them as Opposition symbols, too? Why can't you just understand what the sources say doesn't matter under this circumstance, "the flag is an opposition symbol" provided by sources are the sources' personal evaluation, it is not a fact, because the Opposition don't state that themselves, ok? The sources are not coming from the Opposition themselves.14.177.70.199 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, there should be no flag for the opposition just like we see none in pretty much every other protest (US, Hong Kong etc.). Its unorganized and not everyone protests under the White flag, or agrees that the flag is a universal symbol.--Crossswords (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also I want to point out that this has been going on for a while now with Belarus on English Wikipedia how constantly the none official flag and symbols are shoe-horned in for everything Belarus related, we cant for example have the normal Belarus emblem on the history template like with every other country like Ukraine or Russia (multiple symbols) for example, but its the land map of Belarus instead on its template, example 1 2 3. --Crossswords (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Crossswords The issue here is you have not provided any sources to back up what you are saying. The sources so far provided show that it is a widely accepted universal opposition symbol.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the white flag is universally used by the opposition, even if it may not be official. It would be preposterous to deny this fact. One only has to watch the protests for 10 minutes to get evidence of that. Thousands of people wave it. Buxareu (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
but thats not the whole point why people are arguing against you, the point is you have no sources to back anything up for the flag to be universally used as a symbol for the opposition, instead of having no symbol like for every other protests that happened this year for example. You fail to come with a valid argument why that should be better than having no flag like we have seen for Hong Kong Protests or US protests.--Crossswords (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The white-red-white flag as been used as an icon in the infobox for the 2017 Belarusian protests article for two years without objection so there is precedent on Wikipedia for using it as a universal symbol for Belarusian opposition groups. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Crossswords the point is you have no sources to back anything up for the flag to be universally used as a symbol for the opposition - actually that is exactly what those sources DO say, have you actually read the sources? Still no sources to the contrary either Abcmaxx (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No White-red-white in the text. I do not know if anyone accpts it, but it is popular.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The white-red-white flag is widely used by the opposition, but it is not universal. The main issue of that controversy is the flag's historical usage by the Nazi Byelorussian Central Rada. The Rada did not design the flag, but their adoption of it led to an association between the flag and nazism in the eyes of many Belarussians that fought in WW2 and was subsequently rejected by those citizens of Belarus that identify with the Great Patriotic War (WW2 from a Soviet perspective), the BSSR or with the left-wing in general, in addition to the obvious group of Lukashenko sympathizers. This led to the 1995 referendum in which about 78% of voters supported abolishing the white-red-flag and pahonia coat of arms and instead replacing them with the ones Belarus current uses. The referendum itself was disputed by the opposition, which especially decried the government media campaign against the symbols, but nevertheless showed that the symbols had remained controversial. Since then, the white-red-flag is mostly associated with the more (centre-)rightist opposion, such as the BPF and UCP. In the current protests we do find that the white-red-flag is considerably more popular and widely used by the demonstrators than the current flag of Belarus, but it is still not universal. Alternative versions, based around the superimposition of the Pahonia on various other flags and symbols are also used in addition to the debate I described above. Goodposts (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity

The "crimes against humanity" section is becoming extremely long, and while I have no desire to censor any of the graphic details being reported, I think it would be more readable and make its point more effectively if it were more concise, with just the most important details left in this article while the rest could perhaps be spun-off into a subarticle. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lukashenka ... [rm soapboxing, Drmies (talk)] --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment but don't understand how it relates to my suggestion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a place for political agitation, regardless of cause or merit. It might sound harsh, but it's the only way to make sure it remains a repository of knowledges and not a soapbox for political ideas. As for the section itself - it is overly long and many serious allegations only cite a single source, which is concerning. Furthermore, crimes against humanity are determined by international tribunals, such as the ICC. The use of that term without a verdict from such an institution is hence also problematic. The section should be rewritten, though not censored. Goodposts (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bzweebl: I wouldn't mind, especially if that could also help solve the copyright issue. Buxareu (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
What copyright issues are we talking about exactly? I've just seen the badge and kind of confused now. The text there is not even a direct translation of the articles, it's more like a retelling, so there shouldn't be any issues. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"Crimes against humanity" is extremely biased against the government and authorities.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It just states facts; I wouldn't call that "bias". Buxareu (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
None of the reporting about Belarus such as Reuters, Associated Press and others describes the unrest as involving "crimes against humanity"Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
None? That's not true. The World Organization Against Torture said those actions can be considered "crimes against humanity". Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I specified Reuters and Associated Press.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just reverted your edit because the official statement is duplicated (you're trying to add something that is already in the article: "According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the protester tried to throw an explosive device at the government troopers and it exploded in his arms") and the addition of the "no photo or video evidence" is bias. At least, I consider it as such, since what we have is a massive amount of first-hand victims' and witnesses' reports. Moreover, most of the cited articles do have photos and/or videos. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Shemakesmynosebleed, please do not engage in edit warring, especially with the established users. Discuss your changes here first. This is not a pro-Putin or pro-Lukashenko propaganda site. Even the police officers recognized the mass beatings in the detention centers. No serious person or source disputes them. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Nicholas - that's not true because the cited source is in Russian, while the text in this article is in English, so the text is not duplicated in this article. The cited source specifically caught instances of footage from other countries being used to represent events in Belarus, and also the fact that there are reports not authenticated with photo and video evidence.
Taurus Littrow, this is not an anti-Putin or anti-Lukashenko propaganda site. And please don't go around accusing people you don't know of supporting Putin and Lukashenko.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I never claimed it's an anti-Putin or anti-Lukashenko site. All we need is facts, not propaganda. It's obvious from your posts and comments that you support Putin and Lukashenko; this is not necessarily bad, and I don't accuse you; I just said you should stick to facts rather than propaganda. Again, the FACTS of the mass beatings and torture in detention centers are confirmed by numerous sources, so it would be preposterous to deny them. Taurus Littrow (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Knock it off. I don't support Putin and Lukashenko. And it's obvious based on your comments that you harbor some kind of hostility towards them, which you are perfectly entitled to do, but I'm not interested in arguing over why I should support this or that political faction.
Nobody actually denied that violence has occurred. Again, read the cited source: activists have hurled Molotov cocktails and it's a fact that some reports are not authenticated by photo and video evidence. The instances of using footage from Israel to represent events Belarus and the claims of "Russian special forces" attacking activists are fakes. It is humanly possible for both a Belarusian police officer to punch an activist in the nose and for activists to make false allegations of another police officer engaging in torture.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't use abusive language ("knock it off"). Like it has been mentioned by Nicholas, there is more than enough evidence of all kinds supporting the allegations of mass torture. P.S. It's just that I don't like dictators, especially those who mass torture their own people. It's not exactly what I expect from the head of a state, sorry. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Despite what is happening in Belarus, using term "Crimes against humanity" is strongly offending and debasing in comparison to Holocaust, Armenian Genocide, Guatemala Genocide etc. Also "Lukashenko is tyrant and must go" is not wikipedia style, no matter how much we can consent on it.--89.176.195.5 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
"Crimes against humanity" have a precise definition, and the events described in the section perfectly fall under it. For example, as a reference point, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court could be used, in particular, the "Article 7". Of course, using this alone as a justification would be considered an original research, but such classification is currently supported by at least one international organization (OMCT), so the ground for the title is definitely there, and it's only going to expand in the coming weeks as more witness' and victims' reports are published. UPD.: Now the classification is supported by two international organizations (see the latest edits). -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Now the classification is supported by two international organizations (see the latest edits). More to come in the nearest future, I'm sure. Lukashescu won't get off that easy this time. He really crossed the line. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, the World Organization Against Torture obviously doesn't think so, since it clearly said that those actions can be considered crimes against humanity. As to "Lukashescu is a tyrant", this phrase doesn't not appear in the article as such, it was just a comment (perfectly correct and justified) on the talk page. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of "tyrant"; it was a comment from a user on the talk page. Two prestigious organizations now say that those actions fall into the category "crimes against humanity": World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and Human Rights Foundation (HRF). That's more that enough. Taurus Littrow (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Not really, it should be something like "Accusations of crimes against humanity" instead. Mellk (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, the two organizations (OMCT and HRF) are convinced those are "crimes against humanity". I guess we can trust them. Taurus Littrow (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
If a couple of organisations make accusations, they should be referred to as accusations. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a misunderstanding here: I've never argued for calling Lukashenko a "tyrant", or whatever. I am primarily focused on the "Crimes against humanity" section. As to the Bzweebl's suggestion, currently (in a thread above this one) we've agreed to move most of the section's content to a separate page and trim it in this article in a way that only the general information about the suppression is mentioned. As I understand, the process is to be started tomorrow. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Taurus Littrow, please avoid using polemical, derogatory slurs, by calling Lukashenko "Lukashescu". You also removed reliable sources documenting how the white and red flag was sported by Nazi German collaborators in German-occupied Belarus during 1941-44.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Admins, can anyone block this troll? He/she keeps making highly disruptive edits (going as far as changing names of sections) even if he/she was warned by @Destroyeraa: not to do it. Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I support the request for blocking. The person is clearly not there for constructive editing. UPD: The editing history suggests constant attempt at undermining the Belarusian opposition and promoting the image of a non-peaceful protest using primarily pro-Russian sources. It's hard to consider it a pursue of neutrality. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Taurus Littrow, you literally associated me with "pro-Putin or pro-Lukashenko propaganda" and then doubled down, accusing me, "you support Putin and Lukashenko". You also attached a Romanian suffix for Lukashenko's name, and turned it into "Lukashescu", which is extremely inflammatory and incendiary. Now, you're tattling on me and trying to goad administrators into banning me. This behavior is kind of reprehensible. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I see, you're proceeding with your agenda, despite having been explicitly told not to do so before discussing it on the talk page. So, from now, I am going to consider your edits as vandalism. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Collaborating on an encyclopedia does not mean that people whose edits you dislike have to bow down and submit to the agenda you're pushing.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The guy is a typical "worker" of the Olgino troll factory. I forgot how bad they are. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Taurus Littrow, please refrain from personal attacks otherwise it could lead to a block (WP:PA). Mellk (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mellk That's not a "personal attack", just an informed opinion based on his edits. If anyone must be blocked, it's him. So please refrain from threatening me. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Taurus Littrow, if you have evidence that his account is a sockpuppet or used for vandalism purposes, report him in a noticeboard for investigation rather than personally attacking him. I am reminding you of Wikipedia's policies because using personal attacks can lead to a block. Mellk (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mellk I and others reported him several times. He has been warned twice already. Please stop threatening and harassing me, or that could lead to a block, too. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Taurus Littrow, even if you have reported him, you shouldn't use personal attacks. Don't falsely accuse me of "threatening and harassing" you for simply reminding you about WP:PA. Mellk (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mellk Please don't tell me what to do. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to risk getting blocked, then sure, do whatever you want on Wikipedia with total disregard for its policies. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of what I'm not doing. I'm not disregarding the wiki policies, let alone totally. Dasvidanya. Taurus Littrow (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Baselessly calling someone a "'worker' of the Olgino troll factory" is a clear personal attack. It's easier to just acknowledge your mistake and not do it again. Mellk (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, since my opinion is based on his edits, that's clearly not the case. You're continuing falsely accusing me of all kinds of wrongdoings. I suggest to end this conversation. Already said goodbye to you. If I'll need your advice, I'll let you know. That's highly improbable, though. Thanks. Taurus Littrow (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You didn't simply state your 'opinion', you called him a troll factory worker. Even if you suspected that, your behaviour is inappropriate. There was no need to bicker about this and make false accusations against me, simply refrain from this kind of behaviour, which was the first thing I said. The end. Mellk (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
"AnYOnE whOSe wOrDs i DiSlIkE iZ a tRoLL durrrr"Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Nicholas - what the heck are "pro-Russian sources" in the context of this article and subject? Every piece of information about Belarus literally originates from sources within Belarus using the Russian language. I cited numerous sources, including those in the Russian language originating from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Taurus Littrow cited Radio Free Europe, which is linked to the CIA, but it seems like you're fine with that source, because you're not attacking him for using that source.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
No one is "disliking" your edits, it's just that you're not willing to have a civilized discussion before bringing changes to the article and instantly jumping to an edit war. Moreover, as I said previously, your editing history suggests a pro-Russian agenda push, so I've contacted an admin to look into that. Also, one of the paragraphs in your reverted edit had been put by you in a wrong section, which you were told about, but didn't react to in any way, and the name of the section you had proposed did not correspond to the content of the section, since what is described there happened after the clashes. All in all, you've clearly been disruptive. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Simply because he stated an opposing opinion does not make him a part of the Olgino troll factory. Changing the names of sections is usually okay, while using terms such as "Lukashescu" instead of "Lukashenko" is not only inaccurate, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Please understand that Wikipedia is neutral repository of knowledge. Wikipedia's purpose is to observe and document events, not to support the protest movement against Lukashenko or any other national leader, regardless of the merits of the protest movement itself. Please see WP:SOAP. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Changing the names of sections is usually okay. - He was specifically warned by an admin not to do it. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
If it was me who you were answering to, I do not support the use of the mentioned terms. All my complaints about the guy's editing are listed above. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Simply because he stated an opposing opinion does not make him a part of the Olgino troll factory. Changing the names of sections is usually okay, while using terms such as "Lukashescu" instead of "Lukashenko" is not only inaccurate, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Please understand that Wikipedia is neutral repository of knowledge. Wikipedia's purpose is to observe and document events, not to support the protest movement against Lukashenko or any other national leader, regardless of the merits of the protest movement itself. Please see WP:SOAP. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing the names of sections is usually okay. - He was specifically warned by an admin not to do it.
  • Simply because he stated an opposing opinion - The situation with him is much worse than that. I wouldn't downplay it. All his comments and edits suggest he is an Olgino troll. Taurus Littrow (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if a troll would involve himself in lenghty discussions with other wikipedians. A trolling operation would probably be more likely to attempt to create swathes of socks in an attempt to fabricate consensus. Of course, my view does is based fair bit of good faith assumption, but I believe we should give new users a chance before labling them as trolls. Goodposts (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if a troll would involve himself in lenghty discussions... Believe me, they would. You can read here how Olgino trolls work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Nicholas Velasquez - you didn't answer my question about what "pro-Russia" means in the context of Belarus, when many governments around the world, from China to Vietnam, enjoy normal relations with Belarus' government. This is about a political development in the city of Minsk, not located in Russia, so characterizing my edits as "pro-Russian" is simply baffling. I could just as easily accuse characterize your reverts and deletion of content added by me as part of an anti-Russian agenda. Tattling and goading an administrator into banning me, again, is pretty sickening stuff, yet you expect a "civilized discussion".
I already told you that "crimes against humanity" is completely inappropriate and does not correspond to the normally dispassionate reporting coming from outlets like Associated Press and Reuters, which would never go so far as to use such colorful propagandistic language like "Belarusian government commits crimes against humanity" Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
As to the "CIA" argument, I do not intend to waste my time discussing conspiracy theories. As to the section title, by now, the legitimacy of it is backed up by reports of at least two international organizations, and it was discussed previously in the talk section. Not going to repeat it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You cited the the observations of a group called World Organization Against Torture, which I had not even heard of till now, as though it supersedes the normally dispassionate reporting from Associated Press and Reuters that would never go as far as to characterize political clashes between activists and riot police as involving "crimes against humanity.". They did not actually definitively conclude that "crimes against humanity" occurred, and also called for investigations. It seems that some Wikipedians wish to simply regurgitate whatever established media companies publish ("We only report what others say, we don't do original research or form opinions."), while at the same time disregarding what established media companies report and choosing to cling on to insinuations and innuendos coming from an NGO World Organization Against Torture.
A conspiracy theory is about how a development in politics or society came about by deep organizational planning, and is now weaponized by some people to dismiss content that they don't like: "anything I don't like is a conspiracy theory!" What conspiracy theory did I cite? It's your pal Taurus Littrow who accused me of being part of a conspiracy operated by a troll factory in Russia.
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty began life during the early years of the Cold War as products of "psychological warfare" projects run by the CIA, which provided their funding and even senior staff into the 1970s. - which doesn't mean that anything Radio Liberty publishes must be dismissed. Though, it's shady how you target content that you deem "pro-Russia" for deletions and attacks, while leaving literally CIA-connected outlets untouched.Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to underline that I do not support the allusions to "fabrics of trolls" and "trolling" in general, because it's simply impossible to consistently edit on Wikipedia with such a mindset. In this regard, assuming good faith is, indeed, important. However, as I described it above, through analyzing of your editorial habits, I came to the conclusion that there is a high probability you're acting as an agenda pusher. And I, of course, may be wrong, which is precisely why I decided to contact an admin so that this conflict could be decided through arbitration. And the result of that can be seen on your talk page. If you are willing to contribute to Wikipedia, you must learn to detach from politics and conspiracy theories, learn to check whether a content you're adding to a section actually belongs to that section, learn to check whether a new section title you're proposing corresponds with the actual contents of this section and, ideally, learn to use the talk page prior to doing any of these things. Until then, what you're doing here is never going to be considered constructive. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I have to say, it's quite sad as to where this discussion has led. Everyone appears to be accusing eachother of working either for the Russian government or the CIA. Can we please drop the rhethoric and discuss the topic at hand in a more detatched manner? Goodposts (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I've specifically accused him of "working on Russian government", but whatever. This pointless arguing surely should not continue. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I already stopped discussing this subject. Anyway, the fact is that the Olgino troll factory does exist, and the number of its employees is quite large ("More than 1,000 employees reportedly worked in a single building of the agency in 2015."), so there is nothing preposterous about my claim that a certain user can be one of such employees (when I said he is a "typical" worker, I meant he looks like one; I obviously can't prove he actually is). Here, there's even a page on wiki which speaks about this factory in very great detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency P.S. Oh well, let's just close this subject. Taurus Littrow (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think they mean the other user who called him a "typical 'worker' of the Olgino troll factory". Mellk (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh good, you're not calling the section "crimes against humanity" anymore, have broken out and reduced the unverified "eyewitness accounts" so that's progress. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020–2021_Belarusian_protests/Archive_1&oldid=1136476386"