Talk:Alexander Lukashenko/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Last dictatorship

Comment from intro:

  • Belarus has been called "the last true remaining dictatorship in the heart of Europe" by the former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Is this encyclopaedic? A lot of people say a lot of things about Condoleezza Rice, very little of it favourable. We don't publish it though do we? She isn't a philosopher, commentator, academic or anything whose comments count. That remark is worthy of an internet forum. Does anyone else feel it needs to stay? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The quote is very well-known and quoted very frequently (by the British media at least) whenever Belarus crops up. I'd say it's definitely encyclopaedic (it's attributed to Rice, so is hardly thrown in as an anonymous comment) and succinctly sums up the world's overall view of Belarus and its politics. And of course Lukashenko's leadership. Malick78 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's surely not only Rice who has this view, and she is surely not just a woman on the street. I can also recommend you to read the British historian Andrew Wilson's new book "Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship" [http://www.amazon.com/Belarus-The-Last-European-Dictatorship/dp/0300134355]. Närking (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The point is that lots of people say lots of things about others. Ahmadinejad has made scornful remarks about the U.S. leader (whichever at the time). Publications all over the world agree with him; do we operate a principle whereby sources close to the U.S. achieve encyclopaedic status whilst others against them are dismissed as unessential? I'm no apologist for Lukashenka and I would be far happier to keep the comment but state that it is widely believed, or mention a handful of people such as Wilson who I accept has academic value. Rice alone? Merely words from an agent of one regime opposed to another. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree: the Rice phrase has been repeated in very many articles, which then go on to endorse the view. Any repetition of an Ahmadinejad phrase usually then goes on to mock it. This is not about being pro-US, it's just the US has spoken out quite a lot against Belarus and Rice's words have risen above those of other people from other nations. It is, of course, handy to have an English quote for English WP, rather than a Polish quote for example... Malick78 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Lukashenka was referred to as a dictator, his country a dictatorship long before people had heard of her. That section serves to promote her importance on the world scale and I'd have been shocked to discover that any rhetoric from her was original. usually the nonsense that comes out of her and Bush's mouth (needless to say Obama) is not so much oratory but regurgitated nonsense that people who follow world affairs have heard from others millions of times before. This source [1] for instance dates back to 2002, three years before Rice's pronouncement; I've found others from 2004, people began to say it the very time Milošević was ousted in Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), "one more down, only Belarus left". Tudjman of Croatia was dead, and Izetbegović of Bosnia and Herzegovina only attracted negative reviews after his death in 2003. Suffice it to say that Rice neither introduced Lukashenka to the international scene nor were her remarks a seminal verdict that taught us what we didn't already know. All that happened was that media for the next few years began to quote her 2005 statement. Be that as it may, even if the comment is fine for the article, I don't see it as essential for the intro. These days, the MOS even instructs not to use birthplace details in the opening lines. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Your source from 2002 is by JACOB RESNECK, never heard of him. Is he notable at all? I'm pretty sure Rice is more notable and therefore trumps him. All I can see here from you is an attempt to avoid quoting an American. There's no policy that says a non-notable European (Resneck, probably) is better than a notable American (Rice). Sorry.Malick78 (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, I don't know Resneck myself. You obviously do since you have surmised that he is not American; for all I know he may be. The American nation is multi-ethnic so U.S. identity and citizenship produces persons of every kind of colour, origin and surname. You may not know Resneck but the work was published, at the world's disposal and this was three years before she made her speech. I know the way Wikipedia works (have edited since 2005) and I accept that the source I have provided lacks notability but if I were to search deeply, I'd probably find something higher profile. For me it was way back in June 2001 when Slobodan Milošević was handed over by Yugoslav authorities to UN staff in Bosnia for transfer to the Hague that I (living in Britian) was day and night listening to BBC Radio 4 (and World Service which covers the 0100-0520 hours). At the time there was a lot of news and comment and Belarus came up quite a lot, and it was the familiar theme, "Europe's last dictatorship". By the time Rice produced the speech, it was enough to put people familiar with Belarus into a deep coma - same old song. I am not anti-American simply because I do not swear by the wisdom of their government officials, or because I do vehemently oppose their foreign policies. It seems that too often people jump ship wherever possible to uphold the principle that a U.S. spokesperson's comments is encyclopaedic. Rice throughout her time stopped short of declaring Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain as "dictatorships" or "non-democratic", neither did she impugn their human rights records. If she did, we could all have tons of fun discredting those regimes on their articles, instead editors have to be ultra-cautious. We are presenting the word of Rice as gospel when Lukashenka himself has refuted the allegations time and time again. Other sources will then reveal that there is indeed an authoritarian structure in Belarus but by this time, Rice's 2005 plagiarism is irrelevant to both the republic of Belarus and Lukashenka. It's one woman's remark towards an administration unfavourable to her government. Still encylopaedic? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jacob Resneck here! It's true, I'm not terribly notable, though I have been a professional journalist since 2003. I wrote that article as a student at the University of Leeds after traveling to Belarus in during the spring break in 2002. The dictatorship moniker was fairly common in eastern and central Europe at the time but less so in the English-speaking world. The context was the fall of Milošević in Yugoslavia. And I hardly think a person's nationality matters much. But in case you're curious, I was born and raised in the United States. 72.135.200.15 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest edits

The latest edits on this page should be checked by the editors of this page, as the whole statement made by the Wu Bangguo is really important. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


Stewart Parker

I think references to Stewart Parkers "The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko's Belarus" should be removed. The author is obviously fake, there are no records about who he is anywhere to be found on the internet, the book is published by Trafford Publishing, a self publish website. The book itself is more like a copy of Lukashenkos opinions than a history book. The reasons are discussed more thoroughly here: http://allbranwen.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/lukashenko-on-my-desk/#comment-742 178.23.6.97 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I found another reference with the election results so I will replace it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is he a communist or a socialist?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.56.50 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All Communists are Socialists, not all Socialists are Communists.
All juiceheads are gorillas, but you can be a gorilla without being a juicehead. Familiar? --88.89.69.104 (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.207 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He is above that, he's a lukashist. Speaking about the economy of the country, so they are sort of moving to the Chinese model now, liberalisation of markets without democratization. Mcleinn (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he is asking in the terms of what party he belongs to. Constitutionally, the President is not a member of any political faction and does not run on any political party tickets. He can be supported by party members, but not elected as a Communist or Democrat or Socialist or anything like that. I would leave it as none. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A Lukashenkoist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.251.71 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lukashenko's ethnicity

He has Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish roots? It's slightly confusing, because a while ago there was the following sentence in the article: "It has been alleged by the media that Lukashenko is of Ukrainian descent". Is there any proof regarding his Polish and Ukrainian ancestry, does he acknowledge it? Not that I doubt it, but it would be nice to have one or two additional sources focusing on this aspect. 19 November 2012

It seems to have been removed due to the lack of sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander Lukashenko/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zscout, I'll be glad to take this review. I just posted a note about this one at WT:GAN that this article appears to have be delisted by an IP acting on her own accord, not by our usual process (see [2]). So I'm going to give it a quick look and probably a quick pass later today, though if I see any remaining issues we can discuss them. Thanks for nominating this one, and for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, I do see at least two issues here to work on:

  • The lead should be expanded a bit per WP:LEAD; for such a major figure, a one-paragraph lead is a bit thin.
  • The word "claim" should be revised in most or all instances per WP:WTA. I note that it's particularly used for arguments by Lukashenko and his supporters, which is problematic. "Stating" or "arguing" or other words would be better in most/all of these occurrences.

Once you've addressed these, I'll do a close readthrough of the text. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, I will rework on it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention to the lead. I think the expansion looks good, but I'll look at this again after I've gone through the rest of the article in detail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Readthrough points

All points from initial readthrough addressed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article appears comprehensive in scope, and from what I've read about Lukashenko myself, gives an accurate picture of his rule. On a first pass, though, it appears to me need attention at a few points for neutrality, sourcing, and clarity. I realize these may involve substantial work, but Lukashenko is an important and controversial figure, and I want to make doubly sure this article is up to standards. I've listed these points in more detail below. Thanks for all your work on this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

  • "Under Lukashenko's rule, the government's conduct has been globally denounced for being out of line with international law and for alleged human rights violations." -- this sentence is a little strong for the sources that support it. "Globally" seems like an overstatement, given that most criticism comes from the US, EU, and NGOs, so you might make this more specific. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Other countries have come out against Lukashenko besides those areas, so I changed it to "Western" since that is where most of the governments are chiming in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "He and other Belarusian officials are also the subject of sanctions imposed by the European Union for human rights violations" -- are these sanctions still current? it would be helpful to add "as of 2006" here or similar language.
    • EU Sanctions began in 2006, but lifted in 2008 and re-added in 2011. US sanctions have been in place since 2006. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The charges were never fully proven against Shushkevich, who had become increasingly unpopular among the conservative parliamentary majority, yet they served as a pretext for his downfall." -- I'm not sure the sourcing here is strong enough to support this statement. It takes a strong position, but one source is a newsletter of a Ukrainian-American NGO, and the other is a dead link to another NGO (though a research institute). Is it possible to source this to a media article, or a scholarly book? This book, for example, doesn't appear to describe the corruption charges as clearly unfounded (though it leaves the question open). [3]
    • Removed dead cites, reworded the statement and added two new sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That rewrite looks much better--thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "defeat[ing] the mafia." -- this quotation needs a source--it doesn't appear to be from the book cited several sentences later.

*"with the latter regarded as the clear favourite" -- add a citation

  • "By most accounts, the new constitution turned his presidency into a legal dictatorship." -- this definitely needs a citation, and probably a rephrasing. Everything I've read about Lukashenko in the past agrees with this, but we'll need a source that clearly says that "most" people feel this way. Otherwise, perhaps use a phrasing like "Some historians" or "some NGOs" or "the US and EU" or whatever fits the sources best.
    • I went ahead and removed this state, as you have said with others, since it is almost like repeating a fact on repeat like a broken record. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The United States and European Union" -- consider abbreviating these to US and EU throughout.
  • "British Helsinki Human Rights Group, a 1997 report on Belarus" -- this isn't ideal for a source, and also not detailed enough of a citation to be verifiable. A new source should be found for the preceding sentences.
  • "During his fourth term, he still blamed the west (mostly America and the EU) through their organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), for extending the goal-line when it comes to Belarusian goals." -- this sentence doesn't appear to be fully supported by the given source-- can a clearer source be found, or this rephrased? It's also a little confusing to have this under the section "first term".
    • What I was meaning was that if Belarus completed these tasks for loan eligibility, the US would change the requirements to either sell more industries to private owners or devaluation their currency by a bigger amount (changing the goal posts, as what is used). What I did was I took this statement out and kept the source and put the source in the economy. I think I put the post there to show a pattern of Lukashenko railing against the Western powers for trying to undermine Belarus for one reason or another. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Following the Iraq war of 2003, United States intelligence agencies issued a report that announced aides of Saddam Hussein managed to acquire Belarusian passports while in Syria. The same report mentioned that it was unlikely that Belarus would offer a safe haven for Saddam and his two sons" -- this is also out of place in "first term"; in addition, the Iraq war went well beyond 2003. (Perhaps say "US Invasion of Iraq"?)

    • I changed the link to say 2003 invasion of Iraq. I also changed this and the bottom question to the second term. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

*"As of 2004, the EU and Belarus share a border over 1000 kilometers in length with the accession of Poland, Latvia and Lithuania." -- lots of jumping around in time here. I would suggest that the material on his presidency be re-ordered either by subject or by chronology, but not to mix the two approaches.

  • "Gerard Stoudmann of the ODIHR (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) of the OSCE that there was "no evidence of manipulation or fraud"" -- this sentence appears to contradict the previous one--the OSCE said the election was unfair, but their suboffice approved it? More clarification would be helpful here.

*"ahead of the presidential elections" -- another small moment where we move unexpectedly through time; I would suggest rewriting to first mention Russian support before the election, and then mention the congratulations after.

  • Don't forget to revise uses of the word "claim" in the article per WP:WTA, a GA criterion.
    • Done User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good. I found one more hiding down in "Domestic" and replaced it with argue. Is that rephrasing ok with you?[4] -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The election was predicted at the time by the UK Shadow Foreign Minister William Hague with an opinion that "Mr. Lukashenko orchestrated illegitimate and undemocratic parliamentary elections to extend his power and control over the people"." -- This sentence is a little unclear; unfortunately, I can't get into the original article without a subscription to help rephrase. Would it be a fair rephrasing to say, "UK Shadow Foreign Minister William Hague predicted a Lukashenko victory, stating, "Lukashenko [already] orchestrated illegitimate and undemocratic parliamentary elections to extend his power and control over the people"? I wonder if the best solution is simply to cut this sentence; we already have plenty of sources noting the Western outrage at Lukashenko's elections. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • " vowed to crush unrest in the event of large-scale protests" -- "vowed to crush" seems a little non-neutral. How about "banned large-scale protests"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

*" Indonesiakatakami.wordpress.com" -- currently n67-- doesn't seem likely to be a reliable source, and we shouldn't use another govt. minister as the main source for this claim either (at least not without attributing it in text). Can another source be found for this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • " while fellow CIS countries did send officials not higher than ambassadors." -- this phrase confused me. Does this mean they sent ambassadors? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Some sent ambassadors, some sent lower officials, but no head of state showed up either from those areas. I reworded to say the CIS neighbors sent either ambassadors or lower-ranked officials. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "During a televised address to the nation on 7 September 2004, Lukashenko announced plans for a referendum" -- the discussion of this refendum seems a little out of place in the "Domestic Policy" section. It's not really a domestic policy per se, and up until now these referenda were discussed in the article chronologically. I'd suggest moving it up in the article to the "second term" section.
  • "In addition, throughout the years of Lukashenko's rule, the average salary in Belarus is much lower than that of any neighboring country." -- citation needed
  • " In response to a question about Belarus's domestic policies, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela said "We see here a model social state like the one we are beginning to create." -- Coming in the middle of a paragraph, this is a bit of a nonsequitur. Perhaps praise from other governments could be separated into a new paragraph.
  • <ref>devaluation</ref> -- something's gone wrong with this ref. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "For a time it was pegged to major foreign currencies, such as the Euro, US Dollar and the Russian ruble in order to maintain the stability of the Belarusian ruble.[96] Yet, the currency has experienced free fall and also several rounds of devaluation." -- all this appears at first glance to need citation. I'm not strong on economics, though, so if the subsequent reference says this thing in a way I don't understand, you'll have to spell it out for me. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I found a reference at [5]. What a currency peg means that a country would pin (or peg) the value of their currency against a foreign currency in order to make the value of their own currency not fluctuate in a very bad way. It is almost like a fixed exchange rate (similar to what Argentina had with the US dollar). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The last major devaluation" -- avoid phrasings that could go out of date per WP:REALTIME. Maybe this could just be "A major devaluation took place in 2011..." -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "It is not known where the term was first used, though the earliest documented use was in 1998. The use was in the context of opening a museum to memorialize victims of Communism with a wing dedicated to Lukashism." -- This appears to be original research; the citation seems to go to a story on the museum opening using Lukashism, rather than a source discussing the history of the term itself.
  • " The term has been used mostly by groups who oppose Lukashenko, such as Zubr." -- this also appears to be original research (or at least uncited), though I suppose it would be fair to reword as, "The opposition group Zubr has used the term" based on that source.
  • "a coalition of opposition groups supported by the US and Europe" -- "supported by" makes it sound like these groups are indeed the pawns of foreign powers. Can secondary sources be found for the 2004 Belarus democracy act?
  • "Lukashenko continues" -- use an "as of" here to avoid this going out of date; "As of [date], Lukashenko continued..."
  • "We will wring their necks, as one might a duck"." -- this quotation appears twice in the article
  • "Europe's last dictator" -- this should be more clearly sourced in the "Foreign policy" section--does the book cited a sentence later contain this quotation?
  • "However, in a shift of policy in October 2008, the EU decided temporarily to lift visa sanctions, mainly to help persuade Belarus not to recognize the independence of Georgian breakaway regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which had been unilaterally recognized by Russia two months previous" -- I would suggest either moving this so it appears chronologically, or gathering all the travel ban info in one place; it's a bit confusing to have it scattered like this.

*"and are due to expire at the end of 2009" -- needs updating

*"On 16 September 2009, Lukashenko entered the EU for the second time since the temporary suspension of sanctions, to visit a Belarusian trade fair in Vilnius, Lithuania" -- this seems trivial enough to cut (the first time, the Vatican, seems worth keeping.)

*"Since the EU adopted this policy of ‘change through engagement’, it has supported the provision of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and reforms to help stabilize the Belarusian economy." -- the given source doesn't appear to mention IMF loans or "change through engagement"-- can a second source be found?

*" Supporters of the policy of ‘change through engagement’ put forward a range of arguments ... " I think perhaps this paragraph should be cut. First, it's based on a single opinion column in a specialist publication (or at least that's the only source given). Second, it's giving a lot of weight to arguments in favor of a policy of the EU in dealing with AL, instead of AL dealing with others, which should be the focus here (it also omits arguments against this policy). What do you think? I'd still be amenable to some form of it staying if you feel it's important, particularly if additional sources can be found.

    • Removed; I think there is an article about Belarus-US relations and it best fits there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

*"Recently," -- use a date per WP:REALTIME

  • This isn't an action point, but I just wanted to say again, thanks so much for doing all this work on this one! I know it must be disappointing that we both hoped this would be a quick-pass, and instead some substantial revision needs to be done. You've been great about it, though, and I particularly appreciate the speed with which you've been working. Between the two of us, I think we ought to be able to knock this one into shape before too long. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I have been a student of Belarusian politics since 2000 so my goal was to help build an article about AL that not only applied within our policies, but also gave the English audience something to wonder about. If you look hard enough, there is a Flickr photo by me on the Commons with his photo and a Belarusian flag on a desk in my home. The way I see his rule and also his leadership is a way I could see and experience the Soviet Union that I wasn't able to. I am a political science major and the Soviet Union was my area of study for years and Belarus just fits perfectly. Also the way he did the national symbols is something that I am seeing copied all over not just the former SU but in other countries. (Symbols are my first passion). I am not worried about the quick pass or anything. If you seen how long it took me to get the main article (Belarus) as Featured (I think it took me about 3 to 4 years) or other articles (such as the Flag of Japan), I put in work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

*"In fact, two Belarus newspapers—Nasha Niva (Our Wheatfield) and Narodnaia Volia (People's Will)—were shut down in 2006, after ignoring several warnings, for publishing allegedly anti-Semitic and racist articles." -- this appears to be WP:SYNTH, unless that book was published late enough in the year to address the October 2007 comments; do we have any sources that directly connect these two events (the Israel comment, the newspapers shutting down)? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough

Looking good! I think that took care of any major issues in the article. Since we've done a fair amount of rearranging and rewriting in the course of this discussion, I want to give this one a second top-to-bottom copyedit today or tomorrow, and again I'll note any points I can't easily fix myself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I know there are still some dead links that I will try and fix and also just format some things around. I also may want to update the photo of Lukashenko from the kremlin.ru website from something very recent. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Dead links aren't a GA criterion, so don't worry that you need to get them all to pass this review, but still a good thing to fix for the long-run. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "These policies led Western governments to take a tougher position against Lukashenko" -- It's not clear here what "these policies" refers to. If Belarus was unlikely to offer Saddam asylum, why would the US be angry? Perhaps cut this sentence and rewrite the next to start something like "During Lukashenko's second term, the US government protested..."
  • " Despite that, the crowd of demonstrators rallying after the election was the biggest the opposition had mustered in years, with nightly protests and demonstrations in Minsk. The turnout at the biggest protest on election night was about 10,000 according to Associated Press reporters' estimates." -- this language is almost word-for-word from a source someone added [6]-- please rewrite this so it's paraphrased.
Yeah, it had that dumped-in by an IP feel. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "One opposition candidate and poet Uladzimir Niaklajeu (Vladimir Neklyaev), sustained a head injury during this beating and was abducted from intensive care by the Belarusian authorities" -- this still needs a reliable secondary source-- the current source doesn't mention the head injury, and is only sourced to a British politician.
  • "Lukashenko provoked diplomatic rebuke from Germany[119] and much controversy when he insulted the openly gay" -- the "much controversy" part doesn't appear to have a citation. More importantly, though, I'm not sure that it's needed; the fact that it provoked a rebuke from another government is probably mention enough.
  • "Though never confirmed officially," -- The Guardian story states that Lukashenko confirmed Nikolai's parentage, so this statement may need to be updated.
  • "There is no mention of Galina in the biography of Alexander Lukashenko published on the official presidential website" -- this doesn't appear to be in the source. Can a secondary source be found noting this absence as an important detail? Otherwise, it seems like a small bit of original research, and should probably be cut.
  • I'm sure this is true; I'm just not sure it's worth mentioning in the article if no secondary source emphasizes the fact. To put this another way, we could just as easily write that his official biography doesn't mention that he insulted a gay German minister, praised Hitler, or jailed political opponents. But this isn't a big deal either way--happy to leave this one up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's it for the second readthrough. I'll start the checklist in a moment.

Checklist

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. I'd suggest moving the picture of Lukashenko and Putin to the foreign policy section just to spread the pictures out a bit more. That's not necessary for this review, though, just a suggestion.
7. Overall assessment. Pass--terrific work.

Russia mafia reference

With regards to the following text

Lukashenko responds that his policies are the only alternative to instability, and have spared Belarus from the poverty seen elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and from powerful networks of organized crime known as the "Russian mafia.

Objections:

  • No citation given.
  • Sounds conspiratorial.
  • Who knows them as the Russian mafia? WP:WEASEL

Thanks. KingHiggins (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Lukashenko: better dictator than gay

Lukashenko recently said: "It's better to be dictator than a gay man." http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,819206,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, one does not exlude another, so if Luka is a dictator it doesn't mean he's not a homo, dig?81.30.86.205 (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

human rights violations in lede

Mention of alleged human rights violations are given prominent mention in the lead. Unfortunately the article does not expand on this point. There are only a couple mentions of human rights violations in the article, and they are entirely tangential.Snarfblaat (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Belarusian atheists

I removed this category as searches for "atheism/atheist", "God" and "religion" had no relevant matches in the article, ergo it is unsourced. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody with such high regard of the Soviet Union were an atheist, but it needs a source. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

for alleged human rights violations

It happened on alleged Earth in alleged 21st century in alleged Wikipedia.Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Good article? Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Lukashenko opposed Western-backed "shock therapy" during the post-Soviet transition

Why does a 2011 article support the opinion? Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

despite objections from Western governments

Strange. There are certainly such opinions of internal/external experts and organisations but only Western governments are mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Life expectancy at birth

Quite good measure: country comparison to the world: 138 Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Lukashenko a world leader?

downhill skiing, which he often practices together with other world leaders, including Putin and Medvedev

  1. The news is 7 years old, does he practice still?
  2. Are Putin and Medvedev world leaders? Maybe Putin, but Medvedyev isn't visible.
  3. other suggests that Lukashenko is a world leader. What is a world leader?Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The quoted source wasn't serious so I have removed the phrase.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the lead use the word dictator?

The lead currently states "Belarus has been labeled "Europe's last dictatorship" by some Western journalists". It's a bit weird, IMHO, to discuss Belarus rather than Lukashenko; I'd suggest rewriting this so that the sentence reads something like "Lukashenko is often labeled a dictator". We can discuss what Belarus is called in Belarus article, or even here, but I'd suggest the lead should focus on the person, not the country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Requested move 10 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


Alexander Lukashenko → Alexander Lukashenka – More and more media outlets are using his Belarusian name rather than his Russian name. Taivo (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. I haven't seen "Lukashenko" in at least a year in the various media outlets that I follow for Eastern Europe. --Taivo (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment His Belarusian name is Алякса́ндр Рыго́равіч Лукашэ́нка and his Russian name is Алекса́ндр Григо́рьевич Лукаше́нко. Do you have any evidence to support your specific assertions that "Alexander Lukashenka" is the most common name in reliable sources? The most recent article from The Guardian uses "Alexander Lukashenko" as has the most recent article from France 24. Those are just two examples from reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    The most recent article from Radio Free Europe has "Lukashenka" and you can hear it on all their podcasts. Britannica's article is "Lukashenka". Forbes uses "Lukashenka". English language Ukrainian sources use "Lukashenka". It's being used in scholarly works. It's appearing in on-line news sources. Here's an older article from The Economist. Here's an article from the Jamestown Foundation. Belarus English language sources also use "Lukashenka". That's just from my usual sources plus a Google search. So there is evidence of a change in English language usage. --Taivo (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I would not consider many of those independent, reliable sources. Most of them, such as Radio Free Europe and euromaidanpress.com are established with the intention of pushing POV agendas. Britannica is interesting because it does not use the name you have proposed, instead using "Alyaksandr Hrygorevich Lukashenka" AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The majority of sources continue to use "Alexander" with "Lukashenka", so the Britannica's usage of the Belarusian first name is an outlier. The key is that it demonstrates "Lukashenka" in a reliable English source. Your definition of "reliable source" seems more personal than policy, but the point nonetheless is that English-language reliable sources are moving toward "Lukashenka". I was not systematic in my search for "Lukashenka", but even with a nonsystematic search there are equivalent reliable sources to those you cited above that are locatable without a lot of effort. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still by far his commonest name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is his most commonly used name that is found in reliable, english language sources and the article should reflect this fact. The evidence above presented by AusLondonder also casts doubt above the independence and reliability of these sources you have provided. As per Necrothesp and AusLondonder I strongly oppose this move. --Sau226 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
User:AusLondonder's objections only deal with two of the sources I presented. The definition of reliable sources clearly includes all the other sources I cited besides the two that AusLondonder objected to. He ignores the evidence of Britannica, Forbes, Springer, EUObserver, The Economist, Jamestown.org, and Belarus Digest, all of which are reliable sources, but that AusLondonder obscures with his overly-broad "propaganda" statement. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I objected to many of the sources on the basis of WP:SOURCES but dealt with only some specifically in my comments. The Jamestown Foundation is another example of a source which is not neutral or reliable in this context and has a specific agenda to push. It was established with the intention of "supporting Soviet defectors" and is actively hostile to Russia. It is using the less-common Lukashenka name for political purposes. Google ngram shows Lukashenko remains the name overwhelmingly used in book sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. And even though it isn't the most definitive evidence, a simple Google search for "Lukashenka" yields 496,000 results [7], while a simple search for "Lukashenko" yields 528,000 results [8]. That's hardly overwhelming usage of his Russian name instead of his name in his native language. --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    • But neither is it evidence that his common name in English-language sources has switched to his native language! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose cite a source or two proving your claim that "More and more media outlets are using..." plus, isn't he a Russian speaker himself? what does he prefer? --Երևանցի talk 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander Lukashenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Highly Problematic Article: Clarity issues, irrelevant information, mis-named sections, context issues

I rarely edit articles anymore, though that might start changing soon. In any case, this article was particularly problematic for me. It is long, yet doesn't actually provide much information about Lukashenko himself! Many parts of the article feel like they belong in the article for Belarus and/or its economy rather than in a biography.

Given the length of time Lukashenko has held power, it is appropriate to discuss his policies and policy views. However, this isn't what is actually in the article. I began to edit the 'domestic policy' section but quickly found myself overwhelmed by the problems with it. The issues is that the section doesn't explain anything about Lukashenko's actual policy positions and actions he's taken to implement them. It talks about his nickname. It provides some seemingly random information regarding monetary policy and discusses elections (which are already discussed, at length, elsewhere in the article). It includes a few references to foreign policy issues. It even references what appears to be a political-economic ideology which is what this section should actually be about, but it fails to elaborate on that ideology (Lukashism?). The economic information largely belongs in the Belarus article and instead needs to discuss Lukashenko's positions on fiscal and monetary policy. There is nothing here about social policy at all, nothing about views on development, education policy, healthcare policy. There is nothing here to explain Lukashenko's views which are what this section should only contain!

The problem isn't just the domestic policy section either, many statements are confusing or lack clarity due to contextual issues. (e.g. 'Salaries raised to $500USD' - relative to what? Whose salaries? Is this monthly, weekly, annually?).

Beyond that, the article is missing a lot of information that it should have despite its length. There is virtually nothing about his youth or time as a Soviet official. Nothing about how he managed to maneuver into power in 1994. Nothing about his upbringing, personal beliefs, relationships (personal and political). There is some information about his willingness to cooperate with international institutions, but doesn't explain why - especially given his anti-Western outlook (or, at least, that's how it comes across). There are multiple references to being friendlier to the EU, but not following through, following 2010 - but nothing about why Lukashenko did this, it isn't contextualized in regards to the man the article is about.

Other parts are repetitive; some are worded awkwardly; some seem to have an implicit POV; and some of the sources are questionable in terms of validity while others don't necessarily say what the article says they do. Again, using the domestic policy section as an example, there is mention of pegging the Byelorussian Ruble to the Russian Ruble, Euro and US dollar. It is clear that the writer of this particular bit of information isn't well versed in monetary policy, which is fine. However, it isn't fine to make statements about monetary policy based off of a short abstract that lacks specificity. It appears that the reference states the Ruble would be pegged to a basket of strong international currencies - and that those would not include the US dollar (given that the only statement answering 'why?' says that this was done to strengthen their ruble against the dollar.

Anyways, I write too much - I don't think this should be a 'good article' anymore, but not personally ready to propose it having that status revoked. However, this isn't a biographical article when it should be. It's not chronological at all, it is more about elections and... the socioeconomic position of Belarus? I'm not even sure - but it isn't about Lukashenko specifically. RememberToForget (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to begin fixing the pro

Gypsy father

The article says " another version that's very widespread in Belarusian society said that his father was an unknown gypsy." This is almost certainly just a rumour. The source provided only says "по другой, очень популярной в белорусском обществе, — некий неизвестный цыган." The wording should be changed to reflect. Also, the word Romani is preferrable to Gypsy. --Greece666 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Greece666: I have removed the sentence. It looks like reliable sources support that his father is unknown. We could certainly cover rumors if they had important coverage in reliable sources. Since it is a living person biography, reliable sources that demonstrate the rumor is WP:DUE should be presented first. --MarioGom (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
It’s not necessary that his father was a gypsy, but certainly an eerie marginal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.60.229 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversial statements: COVID pandemic: encourages citizens to drink vodka and visit the sauna

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/coronavirus-belarus-urges-citizens-to-drink-vodka-visit-saunas.html

> Lukashenko encouraged citizens to drink vodka (unless working) and visit the sauna at least twice a week to stay healthy.

--Tuxayo (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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" (?). 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)
  • Hello! Just a quick point which I hope to come back and clarify, but the Poles are not the best source for any FACTUAL information on Belarus and Lukashenko. Hostility there goes back years, probably even centuries. I am currently writing a political biography of Lukashenko, with an involved history of the country, and they are absolutely inseperable, and the Polish issue is a significant one. It is no accident that the first inter-ethnic dispute within Belarus was with the 'League of Belarusian Poles'. As I said, just a brief point, I'll try and qualify it better soon! Like most of you, I'm a busy person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.86.51 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement from Gallup

http://www.charter97.org/eng/news/2006/03/20/gallup

Gallup/Baltic Surveys announces impossibility of independent and reliable exit polls under present conditions in Belarus 11:53, 20/03/2006

Independent and reliable exit polls would be impossible in Belarus, said Vilnius-based Baltijos Tyrimai (Baltic Surveys)/The Gallup Organization in a press statement. The group noted that owing to Belarusian authorities` measures, it had decided not to poll exiting voters in this presidential election in the country. Baltijos Tyrimai coordinated such polls during Belarus` parliamentary elections and referendum in 2004.

Director General Rasa Alisauskiene said that when the exit poll project was discussed a few months ago, it became clear that Belarus` security agencies were going to prevent any independent exit polls, harassing interviewers and coordinators, spreading slander about Baltijos Tyrimai/The Gallup Organization, and "trying to create an atmosphere of fear."

"Given the present situation in Belarus, it would be impossible to conduct an independent and reliable poll of voters, which would be free of pressure from authorities," Ms. Alisauskiene said. She noted that two Belarusian government-controlled pollsters, EcooM and the Belarusian Committee of Youth Organizations, announced the results of their exit polls before noon, although the polling stations closed at 8 p.m. "One of those pollsters says that it polled 6,638 voters at 2,800 polling stations, that is less than three voters per station," Ms. Alisauskiene said. This is evidence that those who had been officially allowed to poll exiting voters "did not have the slightest idea of how to conduct such polls," she added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avraamrii (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?

The page is unwieldy. 22:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no dispute in RS that he rules an authoritarian regime

The editor "Goodposts" has removed RS characterizations of his regime as "authoritarian" and included ludicrous labels to academic research saying that these are "Western" analysts. The editor also laughably characterized in Wikipedia's voice Lukashenko's rule as having become more democratic and adding unsourced gibberish about how Lukashenko "spared Belarus from the poverty and oligarchy seen elsewhere in the former Soviet republics." It's very troubling to see a long-time Wikipedia editor demonstrate such incredibly bad judgment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have restored the stable version. The language "spared Belarus from the poverty and oligarchy" is neither cited, nor accurate, nor neutral. Describing the near unanimous-consensus of political scientists and observers as "Western analysts" is also improper. Neutralitytalk 22:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Neutrality and Snooganssnoogans: First off, if you're going to discuss me, it's common courtesy to at least tag me. I have not removed the characterization of his 'regime' - quote from my edit "Lukanshenko's rule over the country has been described as authoritarian..." and I further elaborate who made these statements in regards to him. This is common practice, especially as this is WP:BLP, which these new edits violate. The lead reads like an anti-Lukashenko essay. I recommend you read WP:BLPSTYLE. If the adjective of "Western" appears to be problematic - fine, remove it, as I had done in my most recent diff. I really don't see what the issue is, considering that it is descriptive of the sources used, but whatever, leave it out. Let it just be 'analysts', that's fine by me.
You quote "spared Belarus from poverty and oligarchy" completely out of context. Let me repost what I wrote, as you appear to be leaving it out "...his supporters nevertheless have pointed to his high approval ratings, claiming that his policies ... have spared Belarus from the poverty and oligarchy". That little quote mine completely takes what I wrote out of context - in reality it was just offering the point of view and claims of his supporters. This is done in order to provide a neutral tone. Do you believe it is neutral to have a paragraph deriding him and then completely leave out the points of view of the sizable portion of the population that supports him?
Imagine an article on Donald Trump that reads "Donald Trump is the current President of the United States. He has made racist and sexist remarks, has been criticised for a lack of political experience, aggravated speech, ignorance, lack of tact and authoritarian tendencies. Trump routinely gives the majority of his interviews to fringe far-right channel OAN, has advocated for a military invasion of Venezuela and supported the shooting of protesters in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd". Then you leave nothing else in the lead, as RS have all stated the above at one point or another. Would that fly? Absolutely not. Wikipedia articles are not exposes, they are supposed to be encyclopedic. Especially in regards to living persons, especially currently ruling heads of state, especially those up for re-election this year, it is a gross violation of policy to have a lead that features nothing but unattributed negative characterisations, then delete anything else that provides the other side of the argument, even when cited by the same publications.
Furthermore, how come you appear to have no issues deleting other RS, sometimes even the same RS you use, when they're not used to prove the point that you appear to be pushing? You deleted Reuters, DW, NYP and even official OSCE statements. Those weren't added there to absolve him, they were added to let the reader know that this is a dynamic situation and his governance has swung the pendulum in both directions at times, rather than being some comic super villain.
Your accusations of edit warring are also fallacious. Yes, I changed your edits, but each edit I made was different. Concessions were made to accomodate for your criticisms and to address your concerns. Working on wikipedia articles is a labour of compromise and numerous iterations.
Lastly - this version is anything but "stable". The old style of the lead was stable for years and this new edit is very recent, while the old style was even listed as a good article a few years back. If you want to rollback to a pre-dispute diff, then revert to the diff before these edits, as I dispute this lead just as much as you dispute mine. BLP articles in particular require a very heavy focus on attribution and with good reason. This doesn't dampen the criticism - it only clarifies it. I look forward to hearing back from you. Have a nice day. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The key point is this: RS (in particular peer-reviewed research and academic assessments) characterize his regime as authoritarian and cite examples of how it's authoritarian. We do not attribute these RS descriptions as if they were opinions and as if this was an active dispute among different RS and research. You have not presented any RS that dispute the authoritarian characterization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've stated, the lead I put in already stated that Lukanshenko's rule over the country has been described as authoritarian. Then I go on to describe on what basis and by whom that description was made. What's wrong with stating that Oxford Press, or this or that analyst made the statement? If it's a reputable institution, as is the case with Oxford, that only increases, not deminishes the value of the description. Goodposts (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
By claiming this is an opinion held by one scholar or one book, you're giving readers the false impression that there is an active dispute about whether his regime is authoritarian. Again, there is no dispute in RS that the regime is authoritarian. Stating that in anything except Wiki voice would be a npov violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Nowhere did I ever claim that, and in fact I attributed pretty much every single source you used.... Goodposts (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have to say, it takes chutzpah here to complain about "not being pinged" - you had notes from two users on your user talk page. Those posts plus the edit summaries made it plain your edit was being challenged. So obviously looking at the article talk page should have been your first port of call, especially before proceeding to revert. On the content:
  • When the set of relevant experts is unanimous or near-unanimous on a point, it's improper (or at best terrible writing style) to attribute, especially in a way that implies that it is, as Snooganssnoogans said, an "opinion held by one scholar or one book." In such circumstances, we don't distance ourselves from the source material with weasel, passive-voice constructions like "has been described as..." For example, you use the phrase "Oxford University Press dubbed his 2015 reelections having taken place in an 'authoritarian context...'" But that's a very strange way to distance ourselves from the source material, which actually says there is "unanimous agreement among serious scholars that... Lukashenko's 2015 election occurred within an authoritarian context." Describing what virtually every serious political science book says as just the opinions of "analysts" or "Western analysts" is also terrible.
  • It is not proper to credit Lukashenko in the lead with "sparing Belarus from ...poverty and oligarchy seen elsewhere in the former Soviet republics" (even if we attribute that to amorphous "supporters"), given that few high-quality sources actually support this proposition (Also what's up with using a 1994 Reuters article as a source in the lead, too? Strange). For example, the Encyclopedia of World Poverty (2006) describes Belarus as a country where "poverty is endemic" and official statistics "are unreliable owing to political influences and questionable methodology." (The same work calls Belarus "the only remaining dictatorship in Europe" under "its authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenka, [who] has imposed various restrictions on economic and political freedoms"). This economic working paper says that poverty increases during repeated economic crises "casts doubt on Belarus's record in poverty reduction"). So to put in unchallenged praise in the lead section about the Belarusian economic record seems very odd to me, to say the least.
--Neutralitytalk 15:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
He had only pasted a fallacious template on my page that never mentioned any discussion, this was started before your message on it. Checking the talk page was how I found this. I'm merely saying it's courtesy to tag people when discussing them.
At no point was it ever implied, expressly or otherwise, that that constituted the opinion of one author or book. The consensus was written in pain text (and quoting for the third time here) "Lukanshenko's rule over the country has been described as authoritarian ". That's a full sentence. Following the end of that sentence, exerpts are taken from different sources to explain the reasoning. Multiple sources are used in that regard, and none of them are used in such a way as to frame the conclusion as merely an opinion. The word "opinion" or any of it's synonyms or degoratives - such as "opined", "claimed", "asserted" or even the more neutral "said/stated" are all completely absent from my proposal.
As for your second point - very well, how about "Oxford University Press publications peg scholarly consensus as unanimous in condemning the 2015 elections as having taken place in an authoritarian context". Does that address your concern?
Lukashenko isn't credited with anything. Again, that's a claim made by his supporters. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. Its purpose there is not to credit him with anything, but to explain the reasoning behind those that support him and why he was even elected in the first place. Something completely and utterly lacking from the current lead. What's wrong witn a 1994 article? It's used specifically to prove why it is that people voted him into office in the first place. How is it not relevant? The discussion on poverty has nothing to do with this article. It's the rationale behind his supporters, not an assertion of its own right. They believe that Lukashenko "saved the country from poverty". So how about this - we put that back in, but add it in quotation marks, to make it absolutely clear that it's a statement attributed to his supporters, not an encyclopedic assertation? Goodposts (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but "Oxford University Press publications peg scholarly consensus" is just terrible. We report the scholarly consensus. We don't hedge in the manner you describe. There's no serious dispute that he's an authoritarian leader. As for the poverty stuff, you need much better, and much more recent sources before we could even think about inclusion - and then in the body of the article, not the lead section. Neutralitytalk 15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
No part of that is "hedging", it's called attribution, as is proper in a BLP article. What is wrong with the sources? You appear to be applying an insane double standard here. In the body, not the lead? Very well then, do that for all of the text in question, not just the part that doesn't fit the POV that is pushed with the current lead. Goodposts (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. - let me give an example of what I'm talking about. The Wikipedia entry for none other than Adolf Hitler, perhaps humankind's worst dictator, has phrases such as " Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. According to Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination – physical and moral – been associated with the name of one man."[4] "
Notice how the descriptive statement is made and then examples are made with attribution. That doesn't degrade the statement made, nor the criticism. It lets the reader see examples of who is making these statements and why they are making them. In this case, it only furthers the reader's understanding that Hitler was perhaps the most dangerous psychopath and despicable human being to ever have lived, let alone held power. Yet it is done in such a way as to allow the reader to come to this conclusion by themselves, rather than appearing as an argumentative essay on the matter. The article is made better, not worse, due to this attribution. Goodposts (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hitler's lead literally in Wikipedia's voice refers to "his dictatorship", "he attempted to seize power in a failed coup", says he engaged in "anti-semitism", and says he did "propaganda". The lead does not say that "Hitler's critics accuse him of governing a dictatorship" or "this book says he was a dictator". The lines you're cherrypicking are placed towards the end of his lead in order to emphasize the utter depravity and evilness of his rule. It has no relevance to this discussion (has anyone been trying to add content calling Lukashenko "immoral"?) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Do I really need to quote that first sentence I wronte again again for the fourth time? The point was to write exactly what somebody did, rather than just stating "this person was a dictator" and deleting all context. In Hitler's case, it only proves to show how sick he was and the evil and misery he unleashed upon the world. Goodposts (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
More than a week and no reply. What about the other issues I addressed in my statement? Any dispute? Goodposts (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I've made my position plain. You don't have consensus for your edit. If you want to move to an RfC, you can do so. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a position that is thoroughly intellectually flawed and that refuses to address, let alone accept any crticisim, even when the opposing side has taken yours into account. You similarly do not have consensus for what was done to the lead. It's a shame that you're unwilling to provide even the slightest bit of good faith assumption, and instead turned this into some kind of ego trip. It appears as though RfC is the only option, as your username betrays you heavily - you are anything but neutral. Goodposts (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Popular Opinion

The section of this article labeled "Popular Opinion" is at best poorly sourced and at worst reads like it was added by the Belarusian Government's press office. Further, I think the legitimacy of a poll of an approval rating for an authoritarian dictator conducted by that same dictator's regime should be considered dubious. It also seems like a weird item to include more generally, as it something you wouldn't find on an article for a Western leader, since it's constantly changing. I recommend deletion of the entire section.

It's in need of attribution, not deletion. I've reworded it to attribute the claims made and hyperlinked to the article on BelITA, so the reader can decide for himself wether or not to trust the agency. PS. Please sign your posts with four tides, so we can easily tell who is writing what. Goodposts (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed the government poll, and added RS content on his public support. The Carnegie report contains more history on Lukashenko's public opinion. Someone interested in expanding the article can find more about his historical public support in that report (which summarizes polling in Belarus). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Leaked polls? On what Earth are you living on? This is BLP. "Leaked polls" are miles bellow state-run ones in credibility (and that's not a high bar to clear!). "Leaked polls" are entirely unacceptible for use in BLP articles. Goodposts (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Per RS, there are no recent independent surveys in Belarus. But an internal government survey was leaked, and reported on in RS, so the page covers that one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Leaked surveys are not credible enough to be included on a BLP page, even if RS mentioned them - the RS doesn't clear them of their origin. Goodposts (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Source of allegations

It seems fair to state that Lukashenko's government is "authoritarian". But some of the quotes attributed to him are poorly sourced. For example, in the section "Third Term (2006-2011)" we read:

'Lukashenko reacted by saying that anyone going to opposition protests would have their necks wrung "as one might a duck"'

and the citation is to an article in the British newspaper Daily Telegraph, which doesn't give any source for the quote. Essentially, it's an unsupported allegation by one Daily Telegraph journalist that Lukashenko said that. There also isn't any context. I don't think that's good enough for a firm statement in a Wikipedia article. Longitude2 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 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) 07:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Is including close to 10 citations really necessary for the line in the introduction: "Elections are not free and fair, opponents of the regime are repressed, and the media is not free."? Looks like a case of WP:OVERCITE. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Health issues

The corresponding Russian article has a section about health issues, including the claim that Lukashenko suffers from "mosaic psychopathy". Why doesn't this article have that information? Debresser (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably because nobody has translated this section. - Ace111 (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

former president* 85.145.106.119 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 12:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, it is very clear what they want. They want to update that he is not president any more. However, that is not really true. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

He atleast was a communist/socialist

@Zloyvolsheb:, While as you may say that Lukashenko isn't a communist, I am not able to comment on that. However he was, undeniably, a communist. He may or may not still be a communist, but he was a communist. Would you not call Otto Skorzeny a Nazi? Supposedly he worked for Mossad after WW2, but I don't think anyone is going to argue he isn't a nazi. He was and as such that title shall follow him into the history books (or online encyclopaedias as it is). As such, I'm not saying he is or is not still a communist. I'm saying he was a communist. As such like Skorzeny, the politics that Lukashenko at least did follow should be kept in history. NearMiddayNight Come chat 05:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 election fraud-better citations needed

Right now there are two sources supporting the claim that the 2020 election was fraudulent. The first is a large Oxford handbook of democracy which makes passing reference to the 2015 elections, clearly not useful. The second is an Atlantic council piece which offers the oft-written line about "widespread allegations of fraud," and provides this additional claim: "These suspicions appeared to be confirmed by data from a limited number of polling stations that broke ranks with the government and identified opposition candidate Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya as the clear winner."

Nearly all the press sources make the same comments about widespread fraud. But can we find a source which provides harder evidence of fraud on the ground? Is there something more concrete than allegations?

This OSCE statement is a start, but it can only cover abuse of electoral process before the election, not during or after, since they did not send a monitoring mission. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/457309

Toadchavay (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

However, relations with Russia have not always ran too smoothly under his tenure either (such as during the Milk Wars) with Lukashenko occasionally having claimed that Moscow wanted to annex Belarus, as late as January 2020.

There is tense issues here. Suggest change ran to run. Frankly the entire sentence should probably be rewritten. 2001:4898:80E8:0:615C:D55C:1198:4E90 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done, rewritten. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 22:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus to delist, following the identification of specific issues that remain unresolved. CMD (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Article has been flagged as needing GAR for over a year. There are outstanding cleanup tags and banners on the article. It may also need updating in light of 2020 Belarusian protests. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


Going by the Wikipedia:Good article criteria this article fails on more than one point:

  1. Well written: It is not well written. A caption with a photograph reads "Demonstration in Warsaw, reminding about the disappearances of opposition activists in Belarus". This is partly because there is not enough oversight and broad coverage of his life and career.
  2. Verifiable: For the most part at least, it seems verifiable. I am going through the article chronologically and having encountered some minor issues with the pre-presidential part of Lukashenko's life, coverage of the first term of his presidency seems woefully bad. For example, a source on the 2004 presidential election was referenced under coverage about the 1995 referendum. see here
  3. Broad in its coverage: I have not evaluated more than up to the first presidential term but from casual reading I feel that a balanced view of his policies is missing. Under Policy the subsections veer into a jumble of; Domestic policy, Accusation of forced disappearances, Economic policies and Coronavirus with little coherence. A more focused approach is needed. Basic facts were wrong such as date of birth, which changed from being August 30 to 31 sometime around 2009.
  4. Neutrality: Unsure about neutrality. Coverage of first presidential term is very forgiving to say the least. It is easy to find critical secondary sources that describe how Lukashenko consolidated power by forcing through the referendum in November 1996 using what were widely described as undemocratic methods by various Western institutions. There is not even mention of Viktar Hanchar there although he was Lukashenko's main adversery in the Supreme Soviet (if I understand correctly) who was the head of the Central Election Commission of Belarus. Who Lukashenko replaced with Lidia Yermoshina.
  5. Stable: Stable from disinterest it seems.
  6. Illustrated: Illustrated, yes.

In short, serious issues with regards to quality of article. Should be delisted. --Jabbi (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So, can we remove the good article sign then? --Kimjongundprk4life

  • Kimjongundprk4life It can only be delisted after an uninvolved editor closes the review. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I do that for instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongundprk4life (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This re-assessment seems to be quite stale. I would like to raise a couple of points in addition to the points made by buidhe and me above in the hope that this process can be expedited.

  • Originally it was given GA back in 2013, a lot has happened since then and one of the current problems of the page is lack of overview of the subject
  • when I started editing this page there were about four Citation needed tags, I have commented them out along with their respective statements as it does not impact their context but this just shows that the page needs more editing
  • analysis is very light, as I have talked about in his first term, I am about to research his second term further but note that I have just finished covering the turbulent events of 1995 and am about to look into 1996, currently the coverage just starts with "In the summer of 1996, deputies of the 199-member Belarusian parliament signed a petition to impeach Lukashenko on charges of violating the Constitution" - no context.
  • there is an undue weight tag and a stray from the topic tag

It seems to me rather obvious that it should be stripped of a GA.

--Jabbi (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree completely but as stated above, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to close it according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Aircorn often does closes at GAR but IDK if they're currently active. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging subject experts, if you could kindly participate: @Zscout370:, @Reidgreg:, @Nice4What:. --Jabbi (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'd say delist. There is an undue weight tag, and several issues. SecretName101 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

According to Russian media reports, Nikolai in September 2020 begins to study at one of the Russian gymnasiums.[1] Ghjcnj;jgf (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the source that would be a Gymnasium in Moscow.
Where precisely would you like to see that information added? After all, this article is not about him, rather about his father. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk) Thank. This information is for the Family section (Personal life) Ghjcnj;jgf (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. Let's see what other editors say, because I feel a bit uncomfortable with this proposed edit. For the reason I stated above, that this article is not about the son but about the father.
 Not done In addition to Debresser's concerns, I'm not convinced "belaruspartisan.by" is a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://belaruspartisan.by/life/511143/

Last dictator

Should the lead mention that many news organizations have been calling him Europe's last dictator -> The Atlantic Council, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, BBC, Business Insider? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: is the Atlantic Council the same as the Atlantic Journal? Thank your for your time. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Lotje: Ah yes, sorry for the silly typo. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You are most welcome, :-) Lotje (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is absolutely appropriate to include mention of it in the lede. Its notability is well-established by many global news organizations including CBS News, Fox News, The New York Times, BBC News, etc. I will adjust the lede and reference this talk page in the editing comment upon publishingWritethisway (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I too agree. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ice hockey

Lukashenka has been said to have more than a passing interest in ice hockey. It seems it was a personal goal to get the 2014 IIHF World Championship and so this year's 2021 IIHF World Championship.

There is only a single reference to ice hockey under hobbies, noting that he played exhibition games. There is no reference to the more political aspects of his hobby sport. The money involved and international recognition. The decisions to hold the IIHF Championships in Belarus have been controversial, most recently the 2021 Championship has been moved from Belarus.

This EUobserver article states says Lukashenko "has built 25 so-called ice palaces throughout the country with another 27 planned. Each ice-palace costs around €22.7 million, according to Fedynitch Gennadi, chairman of a Minsk-based trade union" [9]

A Fair Observer article reads: "As an avid ice hockey fan, President Lukashenko was determined to shape the championships into a success and a tool to legitimize his governing methods. He diverted public funds to beautify Minsk and make it more cosmopolitan for Western fans coming to root for their national teams. A visa-free entry regime was established for the duration of the competition. It was an excellent opportunity to present Belarus to those who barely gave the country any consideration as a viable host and to present a carefully constructed positive image." [10]

This Index on Censorship article: "Hockey is the favourite sporting activity of the Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko. Every year he organises hockey tournaments in which he himself participates and wins. " [11]

This Current history article: "But there was talk of one day banning Belarus from prestige projects like Eurovision or denying it the world ice hockey championship finals, which Belarus's number one hockey fan, Lukashenko, hopes to stage in 2014. [12]

This Belarus Digest story: "It is difficult to overestimate the importance of ice hockey in Belarussian politics. The officials heading the Belarusian Ice Hockey Association belong to the inner circle of the president. For a long period of time (from 2001-2009) the Minister of Internal affairs Uladzimir Navumau headed the association. The ex-minister of sports and the deputy secretary general of the Eurasian Economic Community Yaugeni Vorsin stepped in to fill his shoes back in 2010." [13]

This EUObserver article: "Lukashenko’s love for ice hockey has resulted in dozens of so-called ice palaces. Every evening he strolls across the grounds of his palatial home in the city outskirts to one such ice palace he uses for his own personal amusement." [14]

I just wonder if Hobbies is the proper place for this. Jabbi (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Heavy introduction

I feel that the introduction to the article is too heavy. It's 421 words and the second paragraph starts with asserting what his policies were back in the mid 90s. I feel that the balance between giving a good overview is a bit too detailed here. I think ~200 words should be cut of and transferred to main content. --Jabbi (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hijacker?

According to Aircraft hijacking hijacking is "the unlawful seizure of an aircraft by an individual or a group." If he gave the order to force Ryanair Flight 4978 to land in Belarus then I think he is a hijacker according to that definition. The article does not use that word and he is not in Category:Hijackers? In Osama bin Laden the word hijack is used in the article but he is not in the category of hijackers. Does that mean that hijackers are only used for the persons doing the actual hijacking? --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021

Should be changed from “president” to “authoritarian dictator” 2600:8801:C303:7000:D85C:E5DC:ADAB:B821 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: he is still the president, which is generally something that should be included per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, and I don't think calling him an dictator in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence would be very neutral. Besides, the whole third paragraph of the lead is about that topic anyway. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

About photo

Tartan357, I would like to say that the lead photo, on the contrary, is in poor quality, it was heavily processed, if it wasn't processed, it would be somewhere 200x200px. And in the new June photo, the color is more pleasant (the president in the September version has an orange nose at all). In this version, imo he looks more natural, there are no sharp transitions of colors. Maybe we should open a consensus so that people choose an illustration? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Roman Kubanskiy, yes, I'm fine with inviting further comments here. I probably won't have much more to say on the matter myself. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Name

Right now the article writes "Lukashenko" or "Lukashenka". This is confusing. Would it not be simpler to refer to the pronounced name, and then skip the other one? There is a big difference between "o" and "a". It's even worse when you keep in mind that different websites, such as the german wikipedia, doesn't mention the same name-issue. For example: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljaksandr_Lukaschenka - this is all quite inconsistent. The english wikipedia is this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko - it may seem insignificant but when you speak german, and someone else uses the alternative end, then it's confusing. So how is his name pronounced in his native language? That should be the number one criterium really. See other german-pronounciations such as "Peking" versus "Beijing" (for the city in China); we tend to say Beijing these days, but back in 1980s, "Peking" was often used, which IMO was just always wrong and catered to the local population in europe, rather than the natives in China, who used Beijing all the time. Note: I wrote this here, because the german editors on wikipedia are sometimes weird, so I hope that someone who actually KNOWS the pronounciation can clear this up here. I don't speak any of these languages, be it russian or whatever any similar dialects in ~eastern europe nor can I read the cyrilic alphabet. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

see section Notes in the article, explains this confusion. in correct belorussian, his name is Lukashenka. russian version is Lukashenko. as he seems to be pro-russification, and a person's preference is relevant, how his name should be written, then it makes sense that wikip article is named as his russian name. BirgittaMTh (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

Please changed back his birthday to 30 August 1954. The archive source indicated "30 августа 1954" 219.78.190.67 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Orchestrated Migrant Humanitarian Crisis, Other Minor Amendments

This was a major internation event in his presidency which, arguably, he orchestrated, shouldn't it be mentioned. Minor Issues: His mother (and potentially his father) was an ethnic Ukrainian so shouldn't Ukrainian be provided as a third option of his name. As used in other pages (Yemen President) for example, I think the non-diplomatic recognition of the A. G. Lukashenko should be a footnote not a long message due to the fact it is not traditional on Wikipedia and that more countries recognise him than not (and Western Countries non-recognition doesn't stop him from being President in his own country). Second of all the evidence for disputed is about the protests which is irrelevant rather it should be about dipolmatic non-recognition by certain countries.

-Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.123.17 (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Diminutives

Because of the lock can someone with the right add that both Sascha and Kolya are common diminutives of their respected names (Alexander and Nikolai). I feel like for those who don't know it, it sounds like somebody made up completely new, unrelated names. Thanks. 2604:3D08:7386:200:6C82:D7D5:A278:6466 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Farmer, Farm Manager

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/belarusian-president-alexander-lukashenko-fires-governor-cow-welfare-5645984/ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/25/belarus-leaders-trajectory-from-communist-farmer-to-paranoid MMQ735 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing Awards

Why aren't the "Ig Nobel Prices" in the list of awards? He is one of the few people who managed to recieve 2 of them in his lifetime. 46.114.151.9 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

In the middle of the paragraph about his 6th term a link is improperly inputted in the middle of a word (Both are critics of LukashMeeting of Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko 02 (22-02-2021).jpgenko, with the latter) I believe this should link should be removed or properly formatted. MilkWithPulp (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done EnIRtpf09bchat with me 11:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"Dictator of Belarus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dictator of Belarus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Dictator of Belarus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Lukashenko/Archive_4&oldid=1222068249"