Hi! Yes, although I am not too sure about the causes. .... We have lots of similar cases in the west, with no need of help from russians, soviets and Lukashenko. Even if and when you succeed in making a political regime that you will like (no matter which one) you might find out that this linguistic "corrosion" will keep up and possibly even get worse. Be prepared for that. Do not ask too much from "demicracy" because you might change a president, but you will not change the people just as quick. And once you'll start to do it, you might want to use the very same pressure means that were used to impose russian. So you will eventually end up in discriminating russian speaking minorities (which will be many more people that actual minorities), as it happens in the baltic region and (to a lesser extent) in Ukraine. Not saying that you should sit down and let your language die. Just pointing out that these are long and complicated games, in which you cannot succeed unless you are extremely realistic and prepared to make a long series of comprimises. Which is NOT the current atmosphere inside the belorussian language community (as I'd say from the ongoing discussion). I am also saying that a language is made of people, NOT of governments. Governments cannot do anything, if and when the people are not ready to obey. Catalans got their language against the government, the irish government could do (so far) very little to revive gaelic, which is really close to the bielorussian situation. If I was you, I'd read less about governments, and more about the available success (and failure) stories in language management. It's many of them, most with a mixed result, and almost none of them is connected with a change in power. Real changes are usually much more closely connected with issues like mass media, what people considers "круто" (nice, good) and the availability of financially interesting jobs in the language. Just one popular TV serial in belorussian could make a lot of difference. But it will not happen, even after the change of president. You know why? Because you'll kill each other trying to decide what ortography should be used for the titles... and in the meantime your youth clubs will speak russian and english. Be really careful with this stuff. It's easy to have your dreams vanish into nothing, unless you realise that only the people can choose what is their language. And that they will always choose according to "market economy". They will want a language that promises money, career, a good marriage, fashion things and so on... Having a belorussian wiki IS a small step in that direction, but it's just one of them. And it's definitely not the decisive move. But if you cannot even make such a small step withouth breaking your forces into a set of opposite small armies, then you are sadly not going to go anywhere, no matter how many presidents and constitutions you change. Bèrto

The evidence presented at RFNL seems to indicate otherwise. The rules explicitly state that Classical is favoured. All official WIkipedia pages are written in classical Belarusan. Hmm... The fact that it contains articles in both spellings is irrelevant. That would be like if we wrote the English Wikipedia in IPA mostly, but accepted some articles in official English orthography. Also, several users have reported that their articles are deleted, only to be rewritten minutes later by the admin in Classical spelling. If they coexist peacefully without major problems, why do so many users want a change? They have been accused of being Russians, or Rusophiles, or anti-Belarusan, but the truth is these people just want a Wikipedia in their language, which you are trying to keep from them. One could say the same thing of many communities. But when there is a part that wants to break off, it's not your responsibility to stop it. Mark On 21/05/06, Kiryl Nieviarouski <k.nieviarouski(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Berto, > > my point is: Don't spitting Belarusian Wikipedia. > > We need one Belarusian grammar and we will reach it in effect. Time will > juge which one is better or worse. But splitting wikipedia is not good. > Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official. It > > > Regards, > > Kiryl > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > -- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

Hi! Why do you think that your opinion is only neutral one? There are other alternative suggestion was made. So it's still subject for discussion. I think, nobody disagree that preference to any spelling should be removed from rules. What is wrong with voting? Rules of the voting is not set yet finally and still discussable. What is wrong with single spelling in article? Sorry, but I think discussion was in good faith. May be result are not are same as you wanted, but it's how compromise could be reached. We are still open for discussion. With best regards, Eugene.

Hi! I think one person could not speak for all community. You have valid points, but why do you dismiss the same right for other people? Rules should be acceptable for all contributors, this is reason, why all opinion should be accepted, not only yours. As far as I remember, Kiryl and you had a conflict in the past. This explains a lot. I think good idea to discuss this first on be:, not behind the backs of be: contributors. With best regards, Eugene.

On 5/22/06, Eugene Zelenko <eugene.zelenko(a)gmail.com> wrote: You can belive whatever you want. We are all free people. What exactly am I writing here? What's the problem? Definitly I am not pleased with any kind of demise or something like that. My only point is that belarusian community should be united. Period. The issue which we discuss here has nothing to our personal relationship with my friend Tarasievich. -- Regards, Kiryl mobile +375 29 374-82-79 Jabber ID: k.nieviarouski(a)gmail.com Belarusian Linux Team