Talk:Constitution of Belarus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleConstitution of Belarus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 26, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
March 30, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 27, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

older entries[edit]

When in 1994 was the Constitution of Belarus first adopted ? Constitution Day in Belarus is listed on Public holidays in Belarus as March 15. So I suspect that March 15 is the day the 1994 constitution was formally adopted. Can someone confirm this, please ? --PFHLai 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I mentioned about the holiday in the article too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

Failed due to lack of citations. Alientraveller 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then where should the citations be placed at then? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added few facts to history, but the starting from Section 1 to the last of the amendments there are no inline citations. If the entire para is from a single source, one citation per para should be enough, but each para needs to state what is its source.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, I suggest asking for one more GA review, this time citations are good.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added this page to the GA review. I am hoping this can get FA, hopefully. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

Saw you were putting this up for GAR, and so I thought I'd run it through this bot. The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 22, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lead could be expanded a bit per WP:LEAD. At least two paragraphs I think. I'm also not sure that we need information about each section, but that might be how things work on WP, I haven't read a constitution article before. Just don't let it get crufty!
2. Factually accurate?: Certainly improved since last review ;)
3. Broad in coverage?: Is there really that little history to it? I'd have thought there would be more. Conflicts, debates, arguments concerning its creation, should go there!
4. Neutral point of view?: "The Constitution of the Republic of Belarus...is the supreme law of Belarus" - could we cite this, otherwise it seems a bit bias. "The preamble of the Constitution is to have Belarus strive to be a part of the international community." - uncited, and not really backed up by the rest of the paragraph.
5. Article stability? Yep. Only really one active editor (kudos to him!)
6. Images?: Some more would be nice, if appropriate, but this is all good.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — G1ggy Talk/Contribs 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the lead. I tried to include as much history as I could understand, but more can be included. I either changed or cited everything. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine and one hundred forty-six articles?[edit]

This reads like archaic prose:

The contents of the Constitution include … nine articles … and one hundred and forty-six articles.

That makes little sense, but I am not sure how to correct that. —crism (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was corrected by another user. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing[edit]

This article is very poor quality for a featured article. It reads like a shopping list. Where are the materials on how the constitution operates? Where is the mention that Belarus is considered by many to be the least democratic state in Europe? Slac speak up! 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously think you could do better, then by all means improve this article as you see fit. --Chinese3126 (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a cop-out; the problem isn't so much the article itself (although it is bad), but that it was nominated and certified as featured despite its inadequacies. My inexpertise in Belarusian constitutional law is not a justification for others being similarly inexpert. Slac speak up! 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Items about the country as a whole are discussed at Belarus, another featured article. The goal about this article is about the creation of the document, the document itself and what changes happened to it since the adoption in 1994. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply not enough to shopping-list the provisions of a constitution, and mechanically recite the production process without any hint of analysis. United States Constitution doesn't do that, nor does Australian Constitution, or many other articles. This article is tone-deaf to political science. Slac speak up! 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help when asking other Belarusians for help on this article, all I got were "I am very sorry" or "there isn't much." Many of you fail to realize there ain't shit about Belarus online, especially on minor topics as this. The only books I know of about the Constitution are just the documents themselves. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to pass judgement on the hard work that you and others have undoubtably done, or to deny that an English-language, comprehensive article on the Belarusian Constitution is a difficult task. It's just that a featured article is meant to be of outstanding quality, and this just doesn't feel like it is. We have featured articles on all sorts of really obscure topics. Slac speak up! 07:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the FAC process failed here. No disrespect to the article or its contributors, but this article just does not meet the standards of a Featured Article. Evidence the numerous edits today for straight-forward copy editing to improve clarity and to conform to grammar requirements (punctuation, pronoun use, and subject-verb agreement, for example).
Jim Dunning | talk 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a copy edit before on this article, so not much what I can do about that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to be addressed[edit]

  • Belarus adopted its first constitution in 1919 when the country was a Soviet Republic. The use of this constitution continued until Belarus, along with Russia, Ukraine and the Transcaucasus signed a treaty to form the Soviet Union. After the implementation of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, Belarus, now the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, adopted a constitution in 1927. After a re-adoption in 1937, the last Byelorussia SSR Constitution was adopted in 1978, mostly to reflect changes made in the 1977 Soviet Constitution.
How does the constitution of 1927 differ from the one in 1919? And what is the significance of the "re-adoption" in 1937? What was it a "re-adoption" of? And the significance of the 1978 constitution? This entire paragraph is confusing and lean on meaningful content.
Not sure on the first part nor second. The last part mentions that the Constitution was changed so they can add the modifications of the 1977 Soviet Constitution in. I have neither documents on hand to compare. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Belarus became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ultimate Soviet of Belarus passed the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic, giving powers to alter the 1978 constitution of the Byelorussian SSR.
To whom or what were the powers given?
Themselves. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The the Belarusian people?
Jim Dunning | talk 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Supreme Soviet of Belarus. The only factor that the Belarusian citizens had in the document is the referendum to support it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section headings have all initial caps. Should reference to the Sections of the constitution also be similarly capitalized (e.g. "Section one" --> "Section One")?
Capitalize everything, I don't care. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this is difficult because of the time and excellent effort you put into this, so please do not take this activity personally, or our concerns about the FAC process as criticisms about your efforts.
  • Out of the fifteen former Soviet republics, Belarus was the last one to pass an initial constitution and to allow for the creation of the presidency. The latency occurred due to debates among members of the Supreme Soviet, who were also trying to stave off the opposition and democratic forces who wanted to close the organ down for good.
What is an "initial constitution"? Wouldn't the initial constitution be the one of 1919? Does this also mean Belarus was the last of the former Soviet republics to allow for the creation of a presidency? And did it actually create the presidency, or just allow for it? And who was the "opposition" and what "organ" was being closed down?
Just at least one constitution and a framework of government after the fall of the Soviet Union. The document created the office and duties of the president and how to elect one. Opposition means opposition parties and the organ affected is the Supreme Soviet of Belarus. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The land area of Belarus is divided into discrete regions, called oblasts. The oblasts are further divided into districts which are in turn subdivided into cities. The Constitution also allows for special regions to be created, which are to be controlled by legislation. Citizens of Belarus are also promised protection and sponsorship, regardless of whether they are inside Belarusian borders or in a foreign country. With special exceptions, those who do not have a nationality and foreigners are granted equal status as citizens of Belarus. Belarus also has the power to grant asylum to those who have been subject to persecution due to their ethnic background, political ideology or religious affiliation.
This is in Section One. Does Section One of the constitution establish the political divisions of Belarus? If so, then the paragraph needs to be put into this context. Otherwise, inclusion of the political division description needs to be better explained.
I had to put something. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section two deals with rights that are granted to the citizens by the government. These basic rights, which include the "right to a dignified standard of living, including appropriate food, clothing, housing and likewise a continuous improvement of necessary living conditions", and protecting them will be the top goal of the government. These rights are granted to all citizens of Belarus, regardless of any factor, and everyone will be treated the same under Belarusian law.

Should "will be" be "is"? "Factor" is vague: should these factors be defined or explained?
This is a direct quote from the document. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two methods that will prevent a citizen from voting that are described in the Constitution. The first method is a court issues an order stating that the citizen does not have the mental capacity to understand and to cast a ballot. The second method is that a person being held in detention or confined in a prison during an election cannot cast a ballot. The Constitution does not state about the voting rights of those who have served their prison terms or how to gain the rights back.

Should "methods" be "procedures", or is this a word used in the constitution? Should "The first method is a court issues an order" be "The first method is when a court issues an order"? also, "The Constitution does not state about the voting rights of those who have served their prison terms or how to gain the rights back" is very unclear.
Your choice on the word, but I chose method because of it being used in the document. The second bit means that the Constitution doesn't mention how convicted felons are able to start the process to earn their right to vote back. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • National referendums, also called the plebiscite, are elections that citizens can determine if a specific legal text can become official law or not. In order for this to take place,
This needs to be clarified, but I'm unfamiliar with Belarusian law, so I hesitate to try. The rest of the paragraph suffers the same language gymnastics.
There are votes that take place that allows citizens to agree to a change in a law or not. They also can agree if a law can be passed or not. Like the proposition votes in the United States. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "chapter" (sections of the constitution) are inconsistently capitalized.
  • While he is elected by the Belarusian people, the president must not be partisan when he or she assumes office.
Clarify "partisan". Does this mean that the president must quit his or her party, or must be objective? Also, his, her and they are interchangeably and inconsistently used.
Go ahead and capitalize the section headings. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the non-partisan bit, they cannot belong to a political party when they assume office. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we need to know, are the sections in the constitution entitled "Section One" or Section 1" or "Section I" or "I" or something like that. As for partisan, is there a process we can expand on? For example, is the candidate allowed to (or typically) runs as a party member and then, once elected, resigned party membership?
Jim Dunning | talk 11:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the official book I have, roman numerals were used. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up with Section Six later.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA review[edit]

I agree, there are too many issues with this article for a GA, let alone an FA. I have therefore nominated it for FA review (see the tag at the top of the page). ProhibitOnions (T) 12:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the issues above have been handled, and the copyedit people asked for below has been on the docket for a while now. Others say it is just POV, without giving me specifics or tagging sections with either citation needed or NPOV checks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections names[edit]

How about Naming the sections rather than calling them Section one, Section two ....etc ?  A M M A R  16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The law has them named as sections, then a subtitle. Maybe add the subtitle? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , or a quick discribtion on the header of each section.  A M M A R  06:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current option being used now is fine. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks , it seems much better now and easier to read.  A M M A R  07:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False statistics abound in this article regarding the referendum[edit]

The referendums and political transparency of the political system in Belarus has been called into question by numerous independent bodies.

Why are the referendum results by this dictatorship allowed to stand when their efficacy and truth has been questioned.

This article smacks of the wikipedia being used for dictatorial government propoganda.

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.29.108 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality in sourcing[edit]

I am quite disappointed in the poor quality of sources and original research in this article. One example:

  • The use of this constitution continued until Belarus — along with Russia, Ukraine, and the Transcaucasus — signed a treaty to form the Soviet Union. but the source actually says 1922 - Union treaty formally joins Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasus - which were divided in 1936 into Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan - into the Soviet Union. How can this be used as reference for what constitution was being used without synthesis?

Also references numbered 1, 8, 13-17, 19-22, 26, 29, 30, and 31, which are used 27 times (49% of all footnotes), are either the constitution itself or a related law. This is far to large of a portion of the sourcing. Quality sources that actually interpret the document rather than simply present it are badly needed in this article.--BirgitteSB 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a choice of the copyeditor. Plus, I been asked to use English sources for this article, so that is why most of it is just the document. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC process needs this participation[edit]

The opinions and critiques offered here pointing out weaknesses in the article and suggestions for improvement are excellent — and would have been even more valuable during the FAC process. This should be a wake-up call to us all that we need to volunteer our time on important processes like the Featured article candidates review.

I am guilty as well.

Take a look at the comments for this article at Featured article candidates/Constitution of Belarus. How much better the article would have been if we had made the suggestions and critiques of the last 12 hours back in July.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laws[edit]

We don't study laws because of the way they are written, they aren't fiction books. Laws are to be applied. There are many proves that this constitution is at least partially a fiction. So the article misinforms. The quality of this article is low, the article shouldn't be featured. Xx236 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An example - rights of the Polish minority aren't respected. "The Economist" informed about it already in 2005 [1], see also [2], [3], [4]. The US administration condemned Belarus Action Against Union of Belarusian Poles [5], [6]. Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Censorship in Belarus quotes a number of sources.Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A featured article should be neutral and complete - this one isn't. It presents POV of the Belarusian government. Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding the Belarusian Union of Poles by my government should be placed at the article of the group. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comnment is about the low level of this article, it's only an example of the differences between the fiction of the Constitution and reality. See Politics of Belarus: "illegal and does not respect minimum democratic standards". Who is right? Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion about if this constitution is right or not should be placed there, and it already has. This article is about the document itself and whats in it; discussion about its violations can be at other articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's not at all a sound jurisprudential position. This article needs to have the context of actual operation. All the good articles on constitutions have analyis. Slac speak up! 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where exatly is the article about Judicial interpretation of this constitution?13:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx236 (talk • contribs)

None, because there is nothing regarding judicial interpretation that I can find. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HRW's position on the 1994 constitution[edit]

This article by Human Rights Watch provides examples of Lukashenko's attitude towards constitutionalism and standard criticisms of the operations of democracy in Belarus. Slac speak up! 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The "External links" needs to be trimmed. Nine is too many for even a C-class article per link farming. Otr500 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critical material[edit]

As has previously been discussed, this article "is tone-deaf to political science." The bulk of the content is "shopping list" like, a neutral recital of the constitution's content. There are some sources from Dato Param Cumaraswamy who in his capacity as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers wrote reports on Belarus. There is also coverage in books on the history of Belarus.

I'm posting here to give anyone who might be opposed to such a section, giving actual analysis as opposed to factual recounting, of the application of the Constitution of Belarus.

The article already has a section called Criticism of constitutional changes which is very deserved as constitutional changes have been highly controversial in Belarusian history. The Constitution of the United States has a Judicial review in which it is contextualised and explained how the constitution is applied, there is also a Criticisms section. The Constitution of Australia has an Interpretation section.

This article has no information about the application of the constitution. The reason I mention this in relation to critical material is that public information from Belarus often times has to be counterbalanced with more reliable sources. --Jabbi (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern constitution[edit]

When Belarus became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, the Supreme Council of Belarus passed the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic, proclaiming Byelorussian SSR acts legal priority over USSR ones (per article 7 of the Declaration, but this provision was inserted into 1978 Constitution only in August 1991) and formally starting a constitutional process in Republic.

Leading paragraph is unintelligible to me. I can haphazard a guess as to its intending meaning but I am not sure which would be riskier, proceeding to do so or just deleting it. --Jabbi (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns[edit]

This article just states/summarises the terms of the constitution without any legal analysis on case law etc. It is therefore not comprehensive under the requirements of a featured article. There are textbooks out there [7] and there have been constitutional law cases also cases Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above concerns plus the article could be improved by citing scholarly sources and eliminating the long, irrelevant section about the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which is even more irrelevant to the Belarus constitution as the UK constitution is to the US constitution. (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constitution_of_Belarus&oldid=1206779353"