![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 November 2021. | ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2021â2022 BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis to BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Does anybody have any ideas where to obtain free photos which could be used in the article? There are a lot in the Lithuanian media, but they are copyrighted. -- Mindaur ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we make the title of this article less broad? Calling it a "European Union migrant crisis" makes it sound like it's on the same level as the European migrant crisis, when of course it doesn't even come close (without wanting to minimize the very real difficulties Poland, Lithuania and Latvia are experiencing as a result of it). Very few sources are calling it a migrant crisis at this point. It also doesn't reflect the bigger picture - this is Lukashenko instrumentalizing refugees as weapons. How about "2015 migrant surge from Belarus", or "Organized illegal immigration from Belarus to the EU", or "Belarusian retaliation against 2021 sanctions"? -- Tserton ( talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Why did thousands of people from Iraq etc. illegally enter Belarus? The Belarusian government has a very bad reputation, so what made the migrants or the gangs smuggling them choose Belarus? Jim Michael ( talk) 08:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
As has been noticed over at plwiki, the following fragment of the lead:
lacks any quotation. I can find the following fragment:
Which roughly translates to
Now with no sympathy toward Lukashenko whatsoever, the topmost fragment feels like an overinterpretation of his words. He didn't threaten to send drug smugglers and armed migrants to the bordering countries here, and he did not mention human traffickers at all. If there's any other quotations that prove his supposed threats, I'd like to ask for them to be added. Hythonia ( talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This article, while relatively short, is already somewhat bloated with undue information and excessive detail, especially in the "Other responses" section. There's no need for everything any EU, national or NATO official has ever said on the topic to appear in the article, especially things as mundane as "a Catholic priest urged talks on allowing MSF access to the border" or "NATO accused Belarus of using migrants to put pressure on the EU." Also, the sections are far too short to justify organizing them under discrete subheadings â at this point it would make more sense, and be more readable, to group related information into paragraphs. Aside from that, having individual sections for many different countries and entities in event articles is often inadvisable, because they become places for people to put disjointed information and quotes with little regard to how (or whether) they fit into the article. I'm going to make a few bold edits; if anyone feels strongly about them please feel free to revert â but don't forget that a poorly structured article, or one filled with questionably relevant information, just hinders readability. -- Tserton ( talk) 21:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
They need some cleanup. Poland had unsectioned content, then incidents with a random subsection for the current month (November). Lithuania has a shorter unnamed section, then Events, Incidents (in a bullet format) and Responses. Latvia has a short section with no subections. This is a mess that needs organization - each country's section should be in a similar format. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add any countries to the infobox that simply pledged to contribute something and did not actually contribute anything. Sending barbed wire - good; some small group of soldiers - fair enough; saying that sending migrants is unacceptable is not enough. Simply suspending flights for citizens of country X does not make that country an ally, either. Thanks Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Who keeps including Turkey to supporters of Belarus section within infobox? They have clearly stated they are not party to this problem, however, they are still supporting their allies Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Turkey also restricted certain nationalities from flying to Belarus to support the European Union, and then the EU have thanked Turkey for their action which shows the EU also do not accuse Turkey about these migrants. The accusations have already been mentioned in a neutral section thanks to Szmenderowiecki, where seems an appropriate section for such allegations as these are not proven and there are more developments which objecting these allegations. I am going to remove Turkey from infobox but keep the mentioning in relevant section. Thanks. An ip user who contributes to Wiki voluntarily to have non-biased informative pages. [1] [2] [3] â Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.12.161 ( talk) 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a constructive discussion. I am starting to smell a biased page here. Somehow Belarus gets out of this clean handed and the countries that are aggressed by Belarus are the ones accused of human rights violations in this article. Also, there are pictures of protesters holding "Refugees Welcome" signs, but the article completely ignores the anti immigration majority view present in EU and their protests. I guess we all can objectively agree this is a hybrid act of agression on EU borders from Belarus side. The article breaks the neutrality of view on the issue and is against WP:NPOV. I hope this review will be helpful in maintaining neutrality on this sensitive subject. Cheers! -- Kotys ek Beos ( talk) 21:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Migrants stated that Belarus provided them with wire cutters and axes to cut through border fences and enter the European Union. However, those who did not manage to cross the border were often forced to stay there by Belarusian authorities, who were accused of assaulting some migrants who failed to get across. Belarus refused to allow Polish humanitarian aid for the migrants, which would have included tents and sleeping bags.in the lead I believe that's pretty much of an indictment of BY's behaviour towards migrants, and for me "accused of assaulting" seems kind of unnecessary attribution. No, we don't forget about Belarusians. That doesn't mean, however, that we don't mention faults on behalf of the countries against which the migrants are sent, which we also do. Legalising pushbacks and denial of the right to lodge an asylum claim is no less a violation of international law than is abetting migrants to illegally cross the border.
Also in July, the Lithuanian... and
In general, Poles are somewhat... which outline the support for the government policies (the polls are summarised in the lead in one sentence). Sadly folks did not add polls for LT and LV (I don't know either of the languages). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if my comment belongs here, but is it possible or advisable to translate this article about ongoing event into e.g. Turkish, Farsi (Parsi? Persian), Arabic? (I attempted to ask this on Arabic wiki but I could not find place to do so bc I barely know letters but cannot understand anything.) BirgittaMTh ( talk) 09:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article about events in 2022 and no mention of the months of January and February. The article needs an update if this event is still going on or it should have a firm end-date in the infobox and a title change. -- Veggies ( talk) 04:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I reverted [9] as half of the section, with long and excessive quotes (hardly WP:NPOV), is backed by a single source which totally fails WP:RS (it's basically somebody's personal website/blog). It is perfectly fine to cover mistreatment at the border, but it has to be backed by reliable references. Please revert this immediately. -- Mindaur ( talk) 19:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you mind fixing all the illegal migrant terms to irregular migrants? Seeking asylum is a right. Access to rights is also a right. So, crossing borders is not illegal and migrants are not illegal. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.188.178 ( talk) 12:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
As a new reader of this article I don't immediately see where it explains why the refugees or migrants are buying flights from the Middle East (especially Turkey) to Belarus - instead of to Germany - which repeatedly appears to be their most common intended destination according to this article. Do we have an explanation for this in the reliable sources, which we can cite and add content on? - Chumchum7 ( talk) 06:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk ⢠contribs) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
2021â2022 BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis â BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis â Itâs the only border crisis they have with the EU. 89.122.39.11 ( talk) 06:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Info from these sourcee [10], [11] should be added to the article. This also further answers the previously posted question by Chumchum7. Respublik ( talk) 01:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff. I'd be in favor of president. Thoughts? â Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss defining an end date to the event this article describes. Yes, I know the humanitarian consequences of it are still ongoing and there are still trafficking victims trapped on the Belarusian border (and I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate article on the humanitarian crisis, if editors feel it would be useful and we can find enough sources on it post-2022). I'm also aware that the level of border crossings from Belarus is still well above the baseline from before 2021, and a few scattered sources still refer to it as a "crisis". But the geopolitical event that constituted the crisis described by this article is clearly over. Most reliable sources bear this out, describing the event in the past tense:
Not many describe a specific end date; many just say it occured in late 2021. I see two decent options for an "end date" to the crisis (although I'm of course totally open to other ideas). The first is defining it by when border crossing attempts dropped off to the "new baseline (roughly 1000-2000 per month). That would be the end of 2021 ( Statista - unfortunately, I couldn't find any corresponding figures for Lithuania or Latvia.) The second possibility might be to use the end of Poland's state of emergency on July 1, 2022 [16]. I personally favor option 1, because I don't think Wikipedia should take its cues from national governments.
Any thoughts? Tserton ( talk) 11:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
put pressure on the EU to recognize Lukashenko as the rightful leader of Belarus and more broadly, part of joint Russian-Belarusian actions aimed at destabilizing the EU, are we talking about the same version of the article? This one? The previous version of the first paragraph didn't cover any of those things. I'm totally open to including them. I'm also open to modifying my drafted paragraph, but I wouldn't want to simply restore the the previous version of the paragraph; I think that could have used re-wording one way or another. Tserton ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The infobox is way too long. Infoboxes are meant to provide an at a glance overview of a topic, not a comprehensive list of every one and everything involved in it. I think it would make sense to trim the list of lead figures and units involved to only those people and organizations for which it is firmly established by reliable sources that they were key to the event. The only people I would "automatically" include are the heads of government of Belarus, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. Others should only be listed if there are third-party sources describing their roles - for example, a military leader stationed at the site of a major border crossing. Tserton ( talk) 11:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 November 2021. | ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 6 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2021â2022 BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis to BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Does anybody have any ideas where to obtain free photos which could be used in the article? There are a lot in the Lithuanian media, but they are copyrighted. -- Mindaur ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we make the title of this article less broad? Calling it a "European Union migrant crisis" makes it sound like it's on the same level as the European migrant crisis, when of course it doesn't even come close (without wanting to minimize the very real difficulties Poland, Lithuania and Latvia are experiencing as a result of it). Very few sources are calling it a migrant crisis at this point. It also doesn't reflect the bigger picture - this is Lukashenko instrumentalizing refugees as weapons. How about "2015 migrant surge from Belarus", or "Organized illegal immigration from Belarus to the EU", or "Belarusian retaliation against 2021 sanctions"? -- Tserton ( talk) 13:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Why did thousands of people from Iraq etc. illegally enter Belarus? The Belarusian government has a very bad reputation, so what made the migrants or the gangs smuggling them choose Belarus? Jim Michael ( talk) 08:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
As has been noticed over at plwiki, the following fragment of the lead:
lacks any quotation. I can find the following fragment:
Which roughly translates to
Now with no sympathy toward Lukashenko whatsoever, the topmost fragment feels like an overinterpretation of his words. He didn't threaten to send drug smugglers and armed migrants to the bordering countries here, and he did not mention human traffickers at all. If there's any other quotations that prove his supposed threats, I'd like to ask for them to be added. Hythonia ( talk) 16:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
This article, while relatively short, is already somewhat bloated with undue information and excessive detail, especially in the "Other responses" section. There's no need for everything any EU, national or NATO official has ever said on the topic to appear in the article, especially things as mundane as "a Catholic priest urged talks on allowing MSF access to the border" or "NATO accused Belarus of using migrants to put pressure on the EU." Also, the sections are far too short to justify organizing them under discrete subheadings â at this point it would make more sense, and be more readable, to group related information into paragraphs. Aside from that, having individual sections for many different countries and entities in event articles is often inadvisable, because they become places for people to put disjointed information and quotes with little regard to how (or whether) they fit into the article. I'm going to make a few bold edits; if anyone feels strongly about them please feel free to revert â but don't forget that a poorly structured article, or one filled with questionably relevant information, just hinders readability. -- Tserton ( talk) 21:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
They need some cleanup. Poland had unsectioned content, then incidents with a random subsection for the current month (November). Lithuania has a shorter unnamed section, then Events, Incidents (in a bullet format) and Responses. Latvia has a short section with no subections. This is a mess that needs organization - each country's section should be in a similar format. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Please do not add any countries to the infobox that simply pledged to contribute something and did not actually contribute anything. Sending barbed wire - good; some small group of soldiers - fair enough; saying that sending migrants is unacceptable is not enough. Simply suspending flights for citizens of country X does not make that country an ally, either. Thanks Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Who keeps including Turkey to supporters of Belarus section within infobox? They have clearly stated they are not party to this problem, however, they are still supporting their allies Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Turkey also restricted certain nationalities from flying to Belarus to support the European Union, and then the EU have thanked Turkey for their action which shows the EU also do not accuse Turkey about these migrants. The accusations have already been mentioned in a neutral section thanks to Szmenderowiecki, where seems an appropriate section for such allegations as these are not proven and there are more developments which objecting these allegations. I am going to remove Turkey from infobox but keep the mentioning in relevant section. Thanks. An ip user who contributes to Wiki voluntarily to have non-biased informative pages. [1] [2] [3] â Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.12.161 ( talk) 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a constructive discussion. I am starting to smell a biased page here. Somehow Belarus gets out of this clean handed and the countries that are aggressed by Belarus are the ones accused of human rights violations in this article. Also, there are pictures of protesters holding "Refugees Welcome" signs, but the article completely ignores the anti immigration majority view present in EU and their protests. I guess we all can objectively agree this is a hybrid act of agression on EU borders from Belarus side. The article breaks the neutrality of view on the issue and is against WP:NPOV. I hope this review will be helpful in maintaining neutrality on this sensitive subject. Cheers! -- Kotys ek Beos ( talk) 21:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Migrants stated that Belarus provided them with wire cutters and axes to cut through border fences and enter the European Union. However, those who did not manage to cross the border were often forced to stay there by Belarusian authorities, who were accused of assaulting some migrants who failed to get across. Belarus refused to allow Polish humanitarian aid for the migrants, which would have included tents and sleeping bags.in the lead I believe that's pretty much of an indictment of BY's behaviour towards migrants, and for me "accused of assaulting" seems kind of unnecessary attribution. No, we don't forget about Belarusians. That doesn't mean, however, that we don't mention faults on behalf of the countries against which the migrants are sent, which we also do. Legalising pushbacks and denial of the right to lodge an asylum claim is no less a violation of international law than is abetting migrants to illegally cross the border.
Also in July, the Lithuanian... and
In general, Poles are somewhat... which outline the support for the government policies (the polls are summarised in the lead in one sentence). Sadly folks did not add polls for LT and LV (I don't know either of the languages). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if my comment belongs here, but is it possible or advisable to translate this article about ongoing event into e.g. Turkish, Farsi (Parsi? Persian), Arabic? (I attempted to ask this on Arabic wiki but I could not find place to do so bc I barely know letters but cannot understand anything.) BirgittaMTh ( talk) 09:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article about events in 2022 and no mention of the months of January and February. The article needs an update if this event is still going on or it should have a firm end-date in the infobox and a title change. -- Veggies ( talk) 04:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I reverted [9] as half of the section, with long and excessive quotes (hardly WP:NPOV), is backed by a single source which totally fails WP:RS (it's basically somebody's personal website/blog). It is perfectly fine to cover mistreatment at the border, but it has to be backed by reliable references. Please revert this immediately. -- Mindaur ( talk) 19:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you mind fixing all the illegal migrant terms to irregular migrants? Seeking asylum is a right. Access to rights is also a right. So, crossing borders is not illegal and migrants are not illegal. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.188.178 ( talk) 12:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
As a new reader of this article I don't immediately see where it explains why the refugees or migrants are buying flights from the Middle East (especially Turkey) to Belarus - instead of to Germany - which repeatedly appears to be their most common intended destination according to this article. Do we have an explanation for this in the reliable sources, which we can cite and add content on? - Chumchum7 ( talk) 06:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk ⢠contribs) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
2021â2022 BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis â BelarusâEuropean Union border crisis â Itâs the only border crisis they have with the EU. 89.122.39.11 ( talk) 06:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Info from these sourcee [10], [11] should be added to the article. This also further answers the previously posted question by Chumchum7. Respublik ( talk) 01:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Diff. I'd be in favor of president. Thoughts? â Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss defining an end date to the event this article describes. Yes, I know the humanitarian consequences of it are still ongoing and there are still trafficking victims trapped on the Belarusian border (and I wouldn't be opposed to having a separate article on the humanitarian crisis, if editors feel it would be useful and we can find enough sources on it post-2022). I'm also aware that the level of border crossings from Belarus is still well above the baseline from before 2021, and a few scattered sources still refer to it as a "crisis". But the geopolitical event that constituted the crisis described by this article is clearly over. Most reliable sources bear this out, describing the event in the past tense:
Not many describe a specific end date; many just say it occured in late 2021. I see two decent options for an "end date" to the crisis (although I'm of course totally open to other ideas). The first is defining it by when border crossing attempts dropped off to the "new baseline (roughly 1000-2000 per month). That would be the end of 2021 ( Statista - unfortunately, I couldn't find any corresponding figures for Lithuania or Latvia.) The second possibility might be to use the end of Poland's state of emergency on July 1, 2022 [16]. I personally favor option 1, because I don't think Wikipedia should take its cues from national governments.
Any thoughts? Tserton ( talk) 11:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
put pressure on the EU to recognize Lukashenko as the rightful leader of Belarus and more broadly, part of joint Russian-Belarusian actions aimed at destabilizing the EU, are we talking about the same version of the article? This one? The previous version of the first paragraph didn't cover any of those things. I'm totally open to including them. I'm also open to modifying my drafted paragraph, but I wouldn't want to simply restore the the previous version of the paragraph; I think that could have used re-wording one way or another. Tserton ( talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The infobox is way too long. Infoboxes are meant to provide an at a glance overview of a topic, not a comprehensive list of every one and everything involved in it. I think it would make sense to trim the list of lead figures and units involved to only those people and organizations for which it is firmly established by reliable sources that they were key to the event. The only people I would "automatically" include are the heads of government of Belarus, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia. Others should only be listed if there are third-party sources describing their roles - for example, a military leader stationed at the site of a major border crossing. Tserton ( talk) 11:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)