Talk:Alexander Lukashenko

Archive 1
Archive 2

Discussion of the February 2 version

---

JG

Since when does "Czechia [sic]" feature as one of the neighbouring countries of Belarus? Where did Poland go in the meantime?

In the mean time, I agreed to let Adam's version be posted as a temporary measure. 172

I consequently reverted to the last Adam version. Do you agree on unprotection ? fr0069

Please don't unprotect it just yet: I have a strong feeling that we will simply see a resumption of the edit war. Could you please leave it protected a few more days to give 172 a chance to work through the factual issues on the Talk page? -- ChrisO 00:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course Chris. fr0069

172 is not an idiot or a vandal, he obviously does know a lot about Belarus and problems of post-Soviet economic development. The problem is the he insists on using a biographical article about Lukashenko as a vehicle for setting out these issues, and his opinions about them. If he could be persuaded to transfer his attention to History of Belarus or Economic problems of the former Soviet Union or somewhere similar, he would be much happier and so would we. Adam 01:24, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

ChrisO:

I am an administrator. Theoretically, I could have reverted the page the whole time if I were as desperate if you made me out to be. If you don't tone down your condescension and arrogance, we will not have an atmosphere conducive to working out our differences.

Theoretically you could have. But we all know that withing the next hours you would have been listed for desysoping 172. This would not be the good way. Fortunately, you would not do this :-) You three people opinion holds the same weight, and being sysop or not sysop is irrelevant here. fr0069

Once again, there is no need for us to go through each of our revisions point by point. I already confirmed ChrisO's facts. I will, however, respond to some of ChrisO's charges with respect to the content that he removed in my comments below. 172 03:29, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172, the more conciliatory we try to be here, the more aggressive is the tone you adopt. We do not need you to (again) "respond to Chris's charges." We are not conducting an inquest here, we are writing an encyclopaedia article. I suggest you either make some constructive suggestions about the article as it now stands, or go and do something else. Adam 04:04, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

ChrisO:

You stated that I did not explain "what kind of facts should be included and what kinds of facts should be excluded." Apparently, you ignored much of what I was saying on this talk page.

To make things easier for you, I'm providing you with a summary. BTW, before you take these suggestions out of context and attack my motives, please reread my detailed postings from the past two days explaining my rationale with respect to every suggestion listed below.

• Greater attention to his domestic base of support
• More attention to his populist persona
• Who are the opposition and why
• The role of his base of support in the slow pace of reforms
• Balanced origins of tensions with the West
• Greater attention to Belarus-Russia relations relative to the amount of attention given to tensions with the West. I'm sure that ChrisO would agree that Russia is a more important actor in Belarus politics and economics.
• Keeping the article focused on how he has consolidated power and reacted to challenges to his rule. This is more biographical. ChrisO and Adam's versions, in contrast, emphasize Western objections rather than look at him at the center of a historical account.
• Trim down the number of Lukashenko intrigues and misstatements being presented. This serves to cast him as a capricious autocrat, which he is. But keep them at a minimum if they don't have much of an effect on his grip on power domestically.

172 05:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

that sounds reasonable :-)

I hate to harp on this, but these points of 172's:

1. Who are the opposition and why
2. The role of his base of support in the slow pace of reforms
3. Balanced origins of tensions with the West
4. Greater attention to Belarus-Russia relations relative to the amount of attention given to tensions with the West.

are not biographical. While they can be mentioned, detailed discussions of them belong in another article, such as History of Belarus. I will oppose efforts to re-introduce large amounts of this kind of material into the article. Adam 08:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that items 1 and 2 in Adam's shortlist would be better placed in an article on Politics of Belarus and 3 and 4 in Foreign relations of Belarus. 172, you do evidently have some detailed knowledge of the post-Soviet situation, and I hope that you will continue to contribute it in the relevant articles. But I have to agree with Adam that the biography should be essentially factual - analysis is useful but it shouldn't override a straightforward historical account of events. I think that some of my material (such as the more detailed info on the human rights problem) should probably also be decanted into Politics of Belarus. 172, will you go along with this? -- ChrisO 10:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Very good. I think that we are making progress.

Yes, I agree to your proposals in principle. However, each of these can be addressed, and have to be addressed, when they pertain to the biography. And they all do. Let me clarify how Adam's four points can be tied into the biographical article.

I do favor a "straightforward historical account of events." I favor an "essentially factual" biography. What I mean is that "analysis" underpins (not overrides) what facts are going to be presented. Implicitly, we are always analyzing data when we make judgments of relevance. Talk pages are there for users to discuss these things.

I was unclear with some of the four points Adam claimed were not biographical. I meant to say that we need to relate all those points to the consolidation of his rule and his attempts to exploit key events to his advantage.

So my points should have read as follows:

• Trace the conflicts between Lukashenko and the opposition
• Trace the relationship between Lukashenko and his supporters, and how his reliance on this base of support has constrained his room to maneuver in economic policy and foreign policy
• When tracing diplomatic spats with the West, link them to measures he has taken to tighten his grip of control on Belarus and maintain his base of support
• Trace his efforts to promote ties with Russia
• His recent setbacks under Putin.
• Perhaps the article can conclude with note on why recent development in Belarus-Russia relations could spell the beginning of the end (hopefully!) for Lukashenko.

To sum it all up briefly, I'm saying that we should be focused on his consolidation of power over the years, how he has exploited the challenges of postcommunism to his advantage, and his handling of key events. Just as novels have their settings, this biography – focused on his dictatorship – will have to be presented in a historical context. I agree that my past attempts may have gone overboard, but the degree of social and economic stability his rule has afforded - relative to Russia - is key to understanding how he has stayed in power for nearly a decade. I'm not saying that this needs to be explicitly started, but that we should provide the relevant data to illuminate this.

172 18:43, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am glad you three seem to be making progress toward a consensus :-) On top of it, I thought very constructive that Chris and Adam recognise the knowledge of 172 as regards post-Soviet situation, and are very willing to work on other articles on the topic. Very positive thought ! :-) fr0069

---

The discussion seems to have died down. Does this mean that there are no objections to my last set of comments? Is my approach clear? If this is the case, I'll eventually write a new version along the lines of the approach that I have just laid out, and link the article to the talk page as a proposal.

I will abandon the controversial old version. Now that I have addressed every confusion, I'm certain that I'll be able to draft a new version that will not be subject to the same misunderstandings. 172 07:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The discussion has died down because (a) I am more or less happy with the article as it stands and (b) neither you nor anyone else has yet suggested any amendments or additions to it. When and if you do so or someone else does so, battle can recommence. Adam 07:28, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps 172 can make a draft on a sub page of this talk page ? Potentially controversial points might appear more clearly perhaps ? Ant

I'm still inclined to think that the points suggested by 172 would be better placed in Politics of Belarus and Foreign relations of Belarus. For instance, "Trace his efforts to promote ties with Russia" and "His recent setbacks under Putin" are very obviously tied into the wider question of Belarus's relationship with Russia, a topic which is discussed (but not in much detail) in Foreign relations of Belarus. This is a bigger issue than just Lukashenko's activities (what happened between 1991 and 1994 and why did Russia initially support his rival, Kebich?) Similarly, "Trace the relationship between Lukashenko and his supporters, and how his reliance on this base of support has constrained his room to maneuver in economic policy and foreign policy" is bound up with the wider question of the development of civil society in Belarus (which goes back to before Lukashenko's election). This is a topic which should be dealt with in detail in Politics of Belarus, though the current version of the article appears to be culled entirely from the CIA World Factbook).

I don't see much point in providing overlapping content in the Lukashenko biographical article. Doing that would have three disadvantages: it would divorce the content from the wider context in the Foreign relations and Politics articles; it would probably necessitate the content being duplicated in those articles; and it would make the biographical article much longer. I think we should keep the biography concise and factual - as a summary of the man's life and work - and present the detailed contexts in the related background articles. I'd be happy to work with 172 on improving both Politics and Foreign relations, which clearly do need some work. 172's wider perspective would be very valuable there. -- ChrisO 10:13, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is all understandable. In time, I will link my proposed new version to this talk page. For now, Adam's version is fine, and it is certainly the best version drafted so far. The content of my proposal will not be radically different from the current article.

I will keep it concise and biographical. You may find that it is even more "biographical" and more of a "career overview" than the current article, which is already heavy on foreign relations (especially tensions with the West) and controversies that received a great deal of attention in the Western media and among policy circles, but were not defining moments in his career in Belarus.

I look forward to input for you both once I get the proposal linked to the talk page. 172 17:40, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You guys better be careful, Lukashenka might fine you if he does not like your article. See: http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2004/02/05/koliada and http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2004/02/02/pravda . — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 00:13, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind once I'm free from my current distractions and able to get back to working on this article. BTW, could you add content in the mean time. You might be the most qualified, given your familiarity with the country and Russian language sources. 172 18:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IMO it is high time to remove content. At the moment the size of the article exceeds that of Lenin, Stalin and Churchill summed together. Mikkalai 20:51, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And that is a bad thing because ... ? Is there an optimum length for a biographical article? -- ChrisO 23:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

... because in this particular case the inverted pyramid principle is forgotten. In this long read there is no track of relative importance. For all I care, you may include Luka's penis length, but the structure of the article is poor. Upon the first read I liked it. It is a good narrative, with some minor errors I will fix when the smoke settles down. But I'd suggest to look at articles about American presidents for structure and content of presentation. So far, it looks like the one about Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mikkalai 00:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has no overall editor, and no overall editorial policy, there is no rule about writing articles to a length which corresponds to the objective importance of the topic. If you want to write 100,000 words on Butterflies of the upper Orinoco, no-one will stop you. So if the article on Lenin is shorter than this one, the solution is to write more on Lenin, not cut this one - which has already been cut fairly radically by me. I think this article is a reasonable length for one on a controversial current head of state. Adam 04:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What has happened to 172 and his proposed alternative to this text which he hated so much? Adam 07:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Still distracted. But I'll break free of the distractions some day and get it posted. BTW, I don't "hate it." It's a better-than-average article. It's probably better than most Reuters, New York Times, CNN, etc. profiles available online, and certainly better than the stumps found in the other online encyclopedias. My concerns, however, are essentially the same as Alex576's. He briefly alluded to them on the February mailing list. (Ironically, you, ChrisO, and I had nothing to do with the concurrent discussion on the mailing list while we were bickering over content on the talk page). 172 07:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Lukashenko vs. Lukashenka

The man himself uses Lukashenko - see his official website at http://www.president.gov.by/eng/ . -- ChrisO 10:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is part of that debate about the translation from Belarusian or Russian. Lukashenko is a pro-Russian language dictator as were the Soviets (Stalin had a specific policy of russifying B.S.S.R.). Most Belarusian nationalists and Belarusian language scholars use the transliteration that is more commonly recognized as being reflective of the different pronounciation of Belarusian phonemes from those of Russian that currently use a similar (but not identical) cyrillic character based alphabet. Even if you look at recent Belarusian passports they have the Belarusian to English transliterations, not the Russian-English transliterations. I would think that Lukashenka uses the Russian transliteration because he wants good press in Russia; many of his cronies are Russian. Many Russians see Belarusian as a language that is mostly perpetuated by peasants and countryfolk. A good example of this is the Hazeta Slonimskaja (Газета Слонімская) (the "Г" is pronounced more like an H than a G as in high Russian for example) which is published in the small city of Slonim was mostly in Belarusian, but more recently more and more articles are written in Russian such as news relating to Soviet military rememberances in Russian which is still the language used by the military [1] (http://gs.promedia.by/arhiv/2004/351/1.htm) or the Smorgon "Regional Newspaper" «Рэгіянальная газета» [2] (http://regionnews.promedia.by/) (see the local history stories [3] (http://regionnews.promedia.by/stary.htm) that is still only written in Belarusian in contrast with the majority of Belarusian newpapers that are published in Russian only such as the official government "Respublica" [4] (http://www.respublika.info/), though oddly the name is written in Belarusian cyrillic characters. Clearly Lukashenka wants his name translated from the Russian for a ideological reason. Should we side with him? Clearly both transliterations are proper. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 19:25, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The problem is aggravated by the fact that Belarussian language didn't settle itself yet, not to say about its transliteration. Google poll shows ka:ko=1:2.5, i.e., no absolute preference IMO. So let's pay some respect to a sovereign leader, regardless our dislikes/likes, and write him as he does (and 80% of Belarus population). Mikkalai 21:26, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Continuation moved to Talk:Belarusian language, since the issue is broader than "Lukashenko vs. Lukashenka" Mikkalai 00:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we should use "Lukashenka" still. In my opinion, it's more appropriate in this case. He is a president of Belarus, not a prince of Muscovy. Btw, Google currently gives about 60,000 pages for "Lukashenko" and about 20,000 for "Lukashenka". So it's three times more for "Lukashenko", but I think the trend is to use more "Lukashenka", because previously it was 10:1. rydel 13:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Current BBC News articles have uniformly started using "Lukashenka" as well. --Delirium 05:03, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

In Belarus most of the population talk Russian, even if there is a Belarusian language (used mostly by nationalists), and Wikipedia must respect that. You may be able to notice that the BBC is subject to political manipulation.

Forged referendum

It should be mentioned, that the results of the referendum were known before referendum actually started. There was a lot of talk about it in Polish press Szopen 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Various people have come forward with proof for forgeries being ready few days before the election and were ingored (in Belarusia). Also, Lukashenko 'predicted' the outcome (75%). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bullshit. The results of this referendum were known half a year ago, when he first announced that "If people ask me to run for the office once more, how can I go against their will?". Whatever "proof" these people have, they cannot disprove that Luka is supported by the majority of Belarusian electorate, if even for the sole reason only: there is no serious alternative (I am not discussing why it is so). Mikkalai 08:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure whether we understand each other here. We are talking about actual documents with "results" for counties like Minsk etc, which were posted to Polish press by Belarussian opposition, not about some people's predictions. Szopen 12:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are not sure correctly. Please re-read your first phrase. Now that you clarified, I say, why not, if you can provide exact references. (My personal opinion, though, after my last visit to Minsk this summer is that Belarusian Popular Front (BPF) started using of dirty and disgusting methods). Mikkalai 19:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having only just found this page, I'll refrain from making edits yet, but would like to raise the issue of whether we have any reason to suggest that the Gallup poll would have been skewed/failed to survey voters in the countryside. I'm not blind to the difficulties of carrying out representative exit polls in Belarus - I'm only questioning the second sentence here:

"An exit poll survey performed by the Gallup Institute showed that only 48% of people voted "yes" on Lukashenko's referendum, with a margin of error of 1%. On the other hand, this poll is probably skewed, since the majority of Lukashenko supporters are in the countryside." Valerie, 17.06, 22 Oct 2004

An expected exit poll from the independent Gallup Organization/Baltic Surveys was in doubt after more than half of its 200 poll-takers were detained, opposition leaders said.

Do you really expect 100 persons can conduct a non-skewed all-country poll? Mikkalai 17:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Valerie, I understand your concern about the disbelief expressed towards the results supposedly from the respectable "Gallup Institute" (?) (http://www.gallup.com/). What worries me much more is that the information is added to wikipedia articles by random copying of pieces from various websites who copy it from somewhere else, without minimal verification, readily available in the very same internet. I am glad you had common sense to refrain from immediate editing (I hope because you wanted to check the facts yourself first). Welcome to wikipedia. Mikkalai 17:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)