Talk:Belarus Voyage Tips and guide

I removed the warning box warning people not to support organizations trying to overthrow the government. It's two years out of date, and was a pretty obvious warning anyway. --(WT-en) Serotrance

Factbook removed. --(WT-en) Professorbiscuit

Please find the answers to your questions below:

The article says that a letter of invitation is no longer required to get a visa, as long as one has the name and address of a citizen. Is that true for all visitors? I have read news items in the last couple of years about invitation letters not being required for visitors from some countries, but does this apply to all visitors from all countries now?

A: The official word from the Belarus Embassy in the UK is:

Effective 1 October 2004 citizens of all the 25 European Union states, as well as of Andorra, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Iceland, Japan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Norway, Oman, Qatar, South African Republic, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates and Uruguay, applying for Belarusian visitor’s or business visas who want to stay in the Republic of Belarus for the period less than 30 days do not any longer need formal letters of invitation from Belarusian citizens or organizations. This can be found at: http://uk.belembassy.org/visainfo.html

Note: It says "Belarusian visitor’s or business visas", it does not say "tourist visas" and recently we have heard that UK citizens are being told that they still need an invitation. I can send you a link to this discussion if you want. So this point is still not clear.

The last time that I travelled between Warsaw and Minsk by train was in 2003. Passport control took place at the border on board the train in both directions. The article says that when going from Minsk to Warsaw by train, in addition to passport control in the train, travellers must go to the customs office in the train station before getting on the train, even if they have nothing to declare. I have travelled from Minsk to Warsaw by train a few times and I never did this. If this is now required for all travellers, where is the customs office?

A; I have also traveled back and forth from Minsk to Warsaw several times. Customs inspection were always done after the wheels are changed at the boarder (in Brest I believe). I have also traveled by train from Vilnius to Minsk and again the customs check took place on the train. I am sure that this is not correct.

The article says that visitors must buy insurance and suggests buying this insurance at Kalinka in Warsaw. The last time I bought this insurance, I had to do it in Belarus after I arrived. Does one have to buy this insurance before going to Belarus now? Is Kalinka the only place to get it?

A: Usually you can only by the insurance at the Minsk airport or at an insurance office in Belarus. Here is a link to ONE insurance company that has a website in English. We usually buy health insurance from their office on 16 Rakovskaya st. in Minsk: http://www.belgosstrakh.by/eng/branches

All of this and much more can be found on our Travel Guide to Belarus, a collaborative effort by a citizen of Belarus and a native English speaker: http://www.travelswise.com/belarus.htm . If you have other questions about travel to Belarus, write to us at Emmergene AT Yahoo DOT com

DRAW ATTENTION that from the 1st of October 2004 Belarus set up a simplified visa-issuing procedure. Citizens of European Union (including Estonian citizens and stateless persons residing permanently in Estonia) who are going to Belarus with private or business purposes for the terms less than 30 days do not need an invitation. Such persons have to apply for a visa personally. Their completed visa application forms should contain detailed information about a purpose of their visit as well as a complete data of an inviting party. [1]

I'd like to bring up the visa section yet again (January 2009). The section looks nice and informative, but I'm not sure of the accuracy of the information. It seems to contradict itself when the steps on the side list that you need an invitation yet the section text claims that visas are not needed. I have removed the US from countries which do not need a visa and removed the all-caps message that invitations are not needed as Belarus embassy to the US lists otherwise. I hestitate to mess with the info for other nations, so someone knowledgeable about this should try to fix it. (WT-en) AHeneen 09:54, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I am planning a visit to Belarus (I'm writing in August 2010) and have discovered that visa modalities at the Minsk Airport have changed since the last time I was there in 2008. As of January 2010, the price of a visa at the Minsk Airport, for Europeans whose country has a Belarussian embassy, is 180 Euros (three times the normal price of 60 Euros); for Europeans whose country does not have a Belarussian embassy, 90 Euros (50% above the normal price of 60 Euros); for American citizens, 275 Euros. (I imagine one of the most expensive visas in the world!) Could someone please update the incorrect information on the Wikivoyage page?

In page http://www.sweden.belembassy.org/eng/legislation/ is a valid list of the countries that do not need the invitation for SORT TERM Visa.

In the Embassy page is written following: To get a short-term visa for private purposes (visiting Belarusian relatives, friends, other private matters) with the period of validation 30 days maximum for 1-, 2- or multiple entries for a citizen of EU as well as national of several other countries, such as Australia, Andorra, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Chili, Island, Israel, Norway, Swiss Confederation, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, USA, Uruguay, Republic of South Africa, Japan NO VISA SUPPORT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REQUIRED.

I have PERSONAL experience about the short term visa also-> I did not need Invitation. I just filled the paper that they told to fill. Really easy procedure.

Belarus needs to be broken down in to regions. If you are familiar with the country, please add to this discussion with any ideas! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:25, 13 February 2009 (EST)

I would suggest to use the official division into oblasty (Minsk, Brest, Gomel', Vitebsk, Mogilev, Grodno). This division is more or less consistent with cultural specifics, and I do not know any other accepted way for dividing this country. (WT-en) Atsirlin 17:55, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, I didn't realize there were so few oblasts—six is a good number, so lets do that. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:45, 13 February 2009 (EST)

Which language do we use for Belarus? English transcriptions for names in Russian and Belorusian are different (e.g., Grodno – Hrodna, Mogilev – Mahilyow). I would prefer the Russian version, since most people (including myself;) do not know Belorusian, and the transcription of Belorusian names looks by far ambiguous. Russian is the official language of Belarus, but most road signs are written in Belorusian. What is the proper choice then? (WT-en) Atsirlin 05:54, 15 February 2009 (EST)

The basic rule is that we use the most common English name, rather than a standard based on transliteration. The best way, I think, to determine which is the more common name in English is to do an advanced search on google [2] restricted to sites in the English language, and then see which term gets more page hits. Mogilev + Belarus gets about twice as many hits as Mahilyow + Belarus, so we should definitely use Mogilev. Grodno and Hrodna get nearly the exact same amount of hits (103,000 & 106,000), so I think it's fine to pick either one. In the individual city articles themselves, though, it would be nice to put both the Belorussian and Russian names in parentheses. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Or follow Wikipedia, not because it's authority, but because they are populated by an incredible number of pedantics who like to discuss things far beyond the grave - which comes in handy for us, since then we don't have too :) also, it might be handy to make redirects where in doubt, so we don't end up with serveral guides for the same cities, since it's not too obvious that e.g. Mogilev is the same city as Mahilyow.--(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 21:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Good point.

We also need to standardise on non US varieties of English - at least until the current long-lived dictatorship is overthrown or he dies since he doesn't like US spelling and English where it is taught in schools and universities is of the British variety. --W. Frank^email_talk 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Russian transliteration is not the most common anymore. In Minsk, the Belarusian strandard is used everywhere in the city centre on signs for tourists. On the Belarusian Railway website, searching for the Russian-langiage transliteration produces either nothing or suggestions for the standard Belarusian transliteration. It's time to move on.

Hello, why this text is not allowed to stay in the article? -> "" There is also Belarusian laguage available as online courses ""

Wikivoyage is a guide, not a link to other guides or references, or secondary sources. Travellers may be interested in doing a course while travelling, so the physical language courses are allowed. Online courses are not. as they are just guides for travellers rather than an activity for them at the destination. See Project:External links. Feel free to contribute language information to the Wikivoyage Phrasebook. --(WT-en) Inas 10:01, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

Hello,

Why someone deleted this writing from the article from headline"By river boat cruises"? --> ""In Belarus there is number of excisting river cruises and a lot of routes are under development."" Link to discussion http://forum.esmasoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=4806&sid=5386a79705d7bdb3aeb963eafbe393e5 have many further links about development planned river routes in Belarus.

I sort of can't believe I'm even posting this, but look at the recent history of edits and editing summaries. I don't think there's much question that it's eminently fair to call Belarus a "de facto dictatorship." If anything, it's generous to use the term "de facto." Shall we arrive at a consensus here and then drop the subject? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 18:31, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

Personally, I do not support this statement. Do you have any own experience with Belarus, or simply draw information from TV news? I have been to different parts of the country four times during the past 4-5 years, and I am quite sure that the traveler will never experience any "dictatorship" there. Foreigners are free to do whatever they want, as in Russia or Ukraine. Therefore, I consider this "de facto" remark as largely irrelevant for wikivoyage.

To clarify my own position: I am also concerned about the present political and especially economical situation in Belarus, but let's leave this matter to politicians. It has nothing to do with traveling. (WT-en) Atsirlin 19:13, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

What does it mean to say that "foreigners are free to do whatever they want" as a standard for whether a country is under a dictatorship? Let's suppose that tourists can do whatever they want (presumably not including seeking out members of the opposition and sharing notes with them?) and aren't followed or spied on. Does that mean the country is a democracy or something? I have traveled to various countries that were dictatorships at the time, including China, Indonesia, Thailand, and South Korea, and in none of those countries was I subjected to any persecution. Is that the standard we are supposed to use? I would add that even as a traveler, I did see, perceive, or/and hear from people about ways in which the heavy hand of the corrupt dictatorial government oppressed or/and extorted income from them in a couple of the countries I mention. But it would have been pretty easy in any of them for tourists to take package tours that didn't expose them to army roadblocks imposed to extort money from moped drivers, complaints from individuals about corruption, or remarks from individuals on previous instances of persecution from the governments still in power. If you think it's fair to say that, though Belarus is a dictatorship, this infrequently directly affects travelers, fine, but it's not a good argument against calling Belarus a dictatorship. And such basic information is relevant to travelers because it helps them understand what the situation is. If you think the current situation is irrelevant, then surely past history is completely irrelevant, too, and I would find that a very weak argument, too. So instead of asking whether I've personally visited Belarus, how about if you make the argument that Belarus is not a dictatorship because of x, y, and z? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 20:38, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

I have actually thought that "democracies" are strictly following the presumption of innocence principle. Therefore, one should rather ask why Belarus is a dictatorship, since officially it is still a republic-)

Otherwise, I think that the answer strongly depends on what you call a dictatorship. I've asked of your personal experience, since people inside Belarus do not consider their country in this way even if they oppose the government. The same holds for people in Russia when asked about Belarus or about Russia that has somewhat similar political issues. I think, it's a very bad idea if a foreigner reads wikivoyage, comes to Belarus, and tells locals: "Oh, you are living under a dictatorship. How do you survive?" At best, this won't be appreciated. The current situation in Belarus is very controversial, and it has to be described like that. It is indeed a poor country, but it is rather developed and super neat, so that you never deem it poor unless you start comparing GDP's. The real political system is quite authoritarian, but personal rights conform to western standards. That's what the traveler should know about the current situation in the country. Not the vague wording like "dictatorship".

And the last thing: I looked through some other post-Soviet states. Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan are just republics (funny, isn't it?), while Uzbekistan is "Republic, authoritarian presidential rule". This might be the compromise wording. (WT-en) Atsirlin 10:23, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

I definitely take your point on inconsistencies in descriptions and have no problem with the wording you suggest. Side point: Of course, any foreigner who would be tactless and stupid enough to tell locals they are living in a dictatorship - _especially_ if it is one - probably has no business traveling to any country under anything vaguely resembling authoritarian rule. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 15:35, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Perfect! In the next few days, I will make some changes to the Understand section. It is also lacking the historical part. (WT-en) Atsirlin 17:09, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

Is that almost five year old warning box still valid and necessary? Jjtkk (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. I've removed it. --118.93nzp (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

So according to this and this part of our article is outdated on the issue. Any takers for sorting through the whole mess? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is a compulsory state medical insurance for visitors to Belarus if you do have a policy valid in Belarus.

I take it this should read "do not"? Danielt998 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, it looked strange: I have quickly fixed it, too. Zezen (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have touched up a few sentences, but an English native speaker should find and fix:

Drivers attack their art with an equal mix of aggressiveness and incompetence. Guidelines tend to be lax and rarely followed.

and the like. Zezen (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Airports and borders, see: Talk:Poland#Migrants flying over to Belarus and crossing borders to Poland illegally if somebody deems it important here.

Zezen (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

In this edit it is said that "Belarusian is generally only spoken in rural villages". The following sentence says that 54.1% of Belarusian residents consider it their native language. So do more than half the population live in rural villages or do people not speak their native language? The sentence also says that 26% normally speak it at home, so apparently people in cities mostly use Russian even at home, but I think one should elaborate. I'll make a try at consolidating the sentences, but I know nothing about the real situation, so checking and improving my version is needed. –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've never been to Belarus, but from videos made by Belarusian YouTubers, most Belarusian people speak Russian in daily life, even though they may consider Belarusian to be their national language. People may consider one language to be their native language, but in practice speak another language in their daily lives. My understanding is that Belarusian has been compulsory in school since independence, but you'll hardly hear it in the streets unless you go into the rural villages and listen to conversations among the elderly. My hunch is that the situations of the Belarusian language in Belarus is similar to that of the Irish language in Ireland. The dog2 (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Belarus is not a war zone. Why do we have a warning box? What is the danger to life and limb here? Brycehughes (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

While the risk of Belarus becoming a war zone is lower than 2022 or 2023, oppression remains severe, and warrants the warning box in its own right. /Yvwv (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although I agree with @Brycehughes view here that Belerus doesn't feel like a warzone in any way, the advice from multiple governments appears consistent and emphatic around not travelling there. I would say keep it as a Warning. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The advice comes from governments that are geopolitically aligned against Belarus. Regardless, I'm sincerely curious – what is the danger to life and limb? Brycehughes (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think 'life & limb' is the criteria here. Ever since they used fighter jets to force a RyanAir flight to land on their territory just so that they could arrest a dissident it is probably fair to say that there are significant 'rule of law' challenges. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Life and limb is the criteria for the warning box. Being a travel website, it's not really our role to warn people about illiberalism. Brycehughes (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The same criteria on that page says: "If a government agency has listed a travel warning for an area (see #Travel advisories), a warning box is appropriate." - it could be argued that the governments in question are biased against Russia and Belarus and that their travel advisories are politically motivated (not my view btw), although revising the warning box criteria to this extent should be discussed at a site level. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just out of curiosity, I do note that more 'neutral' countries (wrt to the current situation Ukraine) do not seem to issue travel advisories to Belarus. Wikivoyage doesn't have a long list of 'global south' countries, but Hong Kong, India, Singapore and Brazil don't seem to mention Belarus. This links to China and South Africa advisories are generally broken. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The template mentions that a WarningBox is also warranted when travel advisories exist. Given that you are intent on removing WarningBoxes across the site, it would be warranted to revisit the ambiguous language on when WarningBox is used first. I'm a little hesitant to conclude "Western governments are politically biased". Western governments issue travel advisories because they have concerns about their ability to ensure that citizens can make informed decisions about their risk of harm - and those citizens are a not insignificant portion of WV's readers. Cyali (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Governments with robust foreign affairs ministries also use travel warnings as a subtle form of economic sanction. These warnings are often copied by other countries either due to alliances or simply not having robust foreign ministries themselves to do their own work. If only the world were so neat and tidy that travel warnings were not politicized. We're going to have to think for ourselves here. Brycehughes (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Including warnings does not preclude individuals from thinking for themselves. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I meant think for ourselves as editors. Brycehughes (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

As opposed to coming to a consensus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for being unclear. I meant think for ourselves as editors instead of reflexively parroting government travel advisories. Brycehughes (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me, but I have a hard time taking the second-hand accounts of WV editors over the robust infrastructure that foreign ministries have in place to develop travel advisories. Travel advisories are typically developed by that country's consular research and its on the ground presence in nearby or in-country missions of that country. Countries do not parrot eachother's travel advisories to avoid having to do the legwork themselves. I would encourage you to think objectively with Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first in mind. Cyali (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not making this up. Brycehughes (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm agreeing with this. Every WV contributor 'might' be less objectively biased than the US State department or the UK Foreign Office, but we also have nowhere near the level of resources and responsibilities in making those judgements. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict:]So, I agree that travel advisories are often given or not given for political reasons, and that we probably shouldn't assume they are always accurate, but at the same time, what makes us as individuals better judges of a country's safety? What had happened before you decided to get rid of a bunch of warnings or move them always seemed to be people deleting them for nationalistic reasons or because they sought personal gain from tourism to their countries, rather than that they provided credible expert reasons for doing so. I think we should have strong reasons not to include the key points of official travel advisories. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

What makes us better judges is that we as a team of editors at least theoretically represent a broader range of countries than only those that can afford to issue travel advisories and are who are often allied geopolitically. No one's saying to dismiss government warnings, rather we should consider them in context. In the case of Belarus, there is no war there, no one is talking about war breaking out there (except these travel advisories hmm), no tourists are losing their lives there, and it is no more dangerous than Moldova. Brycehughes (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned this on Talk:Socotra but at this point @Brycehughes, I feel you have a bigger grievance with the ambiguous wording of Template:Warningbox which explicitly indicates that it should be used for government travel advisories and non-immediate dangers like the death penalty for drug possession. Throughout these discussions, your focus has been on whether or not there is immediate harm to visitors - but travel advisories and warning boxes are meant to address risks and to warn readers of things they should consider, not to tell travellers that they will die within 30 seconds of exiting their plane or to forbid them from traveling. Cyali (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the best place to have this conversation is as a proposal to reword Template:Warningbox's doc, which I think the community would benefit from since the ambiguity doesn't meaningfully favour reaching a consensus that we can appreciate. Cyali (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, go for it, but let's keep the Belarus discussion here. Brycehughes (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the evidence that Moldova is just as dangerous as Belarus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that it's more dangerous. Kremlin has stationed troops in Belarus, that's about the extent of it. Other than that, the country is stable (perhaps unfortunately). Meanwhile, Russia is actively seeking to destablise Moldova, and from the enclave of Transnistria has the ability to launch proxy attacks. That said, Moldova is still stable for the time being. Brycehughes (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd counter that there have been Ukrainian attacks on targets in Belarus and that when there have been demonstrations, they have been attacked violently, in addition to the truly unusual incident of hijacking noted above. I'd provide warnings for both countries, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd argue that we'd be getting the proportionality of risk all wrong if we warning boxed over those things, much like we don't warning box over terrorism in France or mass shootings in the United States. That said, yes I'd be happier if we warning boxed Belarus then we also warning boxed Moldova and potentially other countries in the region – at least then we're maintaining a semblance of fairness. Brycehughes (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think visitors to the U.S. do need to be warned about the proliferation of guns here, though the point needs to be kept in mind that there is much more danger from road accidents than anything else. And maybe that should be our starting point in a discussion of warningboxes - is anything else a greater danger, or if not, is it a surprising one? Though places with particularly dangerous road conditions should be called out for that, too. It's all a matter of pros and cons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The potential risk of war (which has been ongoing for 3 years) is not valid reasoning for a warning box (I find many of the warnings by Western governments a bit politically motivated which is something to consider); if anything, it should be a caution box as it does not cause danger to life and limb. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, a cautionbox seems sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree a warningbox doesn't seem merited. A cautionbox is probably reasonable, either in the lede or in "Stay safe". —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd be cool with a cautionbox in the Stay Safe section, as it highlights the Western warnings for those that are interested. Brycehughes (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The dog2 if you don't mind me asking, where did you learn this? And do you think it's realistic that a traveller would know that a someone was a political dissident but not know what language they spoke? Brycehughes (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've seen Twitter posts by Belarusian political dissidents living in the West like Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya decrying the widespread use of Russian in Belarus, and calling for Belarusian to be the sole official language of Belarus. From what I gather, they see the use of Russian in Belarus as a symbol of Russian domination, and feel that a truly free and independent Belarus would have Belarusian as its main language. If you see someone waving the old Belarusian flag (the white flag with a red strip in the middle), chances are is that person is a political dissident and might be offended if you speak to them in Russian. If you watch YouTube, Western channels always use the old flag and not the current official Belarusian flag to represent Belarus as a sign of solidarity with the opposition. The dog2 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

yeah, day by day, little by little, Wikivoyage is turning to TheDog2's Fabulous Encyclopaedia Of Mirabolant Factoids Totally Ignorant Of WV:Tone and WV:Goals and non-goals, with emphasis on political dissidence, wherever, whenever. Ibaman (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed; X is terribly biased source for such information. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted the comment. This is not worth wasting time on. We are trying to build a travel guide, and don't need to be constantly removing your personal political commentary. Please start a blog where you can post this sort of stuff instead of wasting our time. Ground Zero (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) You think it's not important, but do you want to risk offending a Belarusian opposition supporter? As a travel guide, our job is to tell people how to RESPECT THE LOCAL CULTURE and AVOID OFFENDING LOCALS. If you meet a Lukashenko supporter, then sure, speak Russian all you want, but if you meet an opposition supporter, speaking Russian could be offensive. Unless you are telling me that we should disregard local sensitivities and do whatever we want. The dog2 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

what we are telling you: STOP ENCYCLOPEDIZING, READ WV:TONE, READ WV:Goals and non-goals AND PROVE US BY YOUR WRITING THAT YOU HAVE INDEED READ AND UNDERSTOOD WIKIVOYAGE POLICY. Ibaman (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nowhere does it say that we should tell people to speak whatever language they want and completely disregard local political sensitivities. We don't take sides on political disputes, but if language choice at a place has political connotations, that is usually not obvious to a foreigner, and we need to inform people about that. The dog2 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

can you tell Russian and Belarusian languages apart in any way whatsoever? where did you get the notion that Walt Disney is a Jew? As GZ said, your edits are always messy, inaccurate, digressional, and we lose valuable time cleaning them up. Ibaman (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, all those dissidents waving the dissident flag one bumps into while travelling in Belarus. Brycehughes (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many basic expressions are very different between Russian and Belarusian, such as "goodbye", "thank you" and "yes". Someone with zero knowledge of both will probably not be able to tell them apart, but if you learn even just a few simple basic greetings, the differences between the two languages are very obvious. Belarusian and Ukrainian are very similar, but a Russia speaker is going to find it a little tricky to understand Belarusian, though they will likely be able to recognise cognates here and there. Those expressions I mentioned will be understood by a Ukrainian speaker when said in Belarusian, but will not be understood by a Russian speaker. The dog2 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

"will be understood by a Ukrainian speaker when said in Belarusian, but will not be understood by a Russian speaker." wishful speculation, again, as always. This is so tiresome. Ibaman (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Go and look at the phrasebooks. It will become obvious to you how different those expressions are between Russian and Belarusian. The dog2 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

the problem here is your condescending generalizing attitude about the linguistic ability of every Russian citizen, if you care to focus your vision. Tell us about your deep and reliable research about Walt Disney's ancestry, don't forget this either. Ibaman (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The one on Walt Disney was my mistake and I apologise. But I said nothing about the linguistic ability of Russians. Of course a Russian could learn Belarusian as a foreign language and understand Belarusian that way. What I mean is a Russian who had zero previous exposure to Belarusian and suddenly tries to listen in on a Belarusian conversation one day. The reason why a Ukrainian will understand a lot more Belarusian than a Russian (presuming both of them are monolingual and only speak their national language) is because Ukrainian and Belarusian are very similar to each other, while Russian has diverged from them more significantly. This has nothing to do with linguistic ability. Ukrainian-Americans who don't speak Russian have told me that they can understand Belarusian for the most part, but find it trickier to understand Russian. The dog2 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• If I recall rightly, there's consensus already, that TheDog2's edits about this part of the world are consistently unreliable. @Ground Zero: @Ikan Kekek: am I right or am I being too harsh here? Ibaman (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • There have been many instances where The dog2's edits have been just plain wrong. They regularly post things that they've "heard", or have "read on Twitter" or on Reddit, as is evidenced by this discussion. Despute several of us pleading with The dog2 not to use Wikivoyage as as soapbox for their personal observations about politics and sensitivities of people in other countries, they continue to do so. I am fed up cleaning up after them. Given their history, we should assume that they are wrong unless they provide links to reliable sources. Ground Zero (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's plenty of articles about Belarusian political dissidents accusing Lukashenko of suppressing the Belarusian language in favour of Russian: [3], [4], [5], [6]. w:Belarusian language has a whole section about that. The dog2 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Take it to your blog. This isn't a travel guide for people who travel to talk to political dissidents in countries with oppressive language policies. Ground Zero (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I'm sorry, The dog2, but you waste way too much time with this stuff. You got better about this for a while, but you now seem worse than ever. The chances that you'll run into a dissident by accident and offend them because you can speak Russian but not Belarusian? Really, come on! Should we impose a topic ban on you, or would you stop making edits about politics? If you think something should be added or changed, you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page and not act if people prefer not to talk about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ibaman: Yeah, I believe so (regretfully). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

We do have text about political implications of language use, e.g. at Tibet#Talk, but I'm not convinced we need any here. Pashley (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply