Talk:1995 Belarusian referendum

message: in  you add the following paragraph to the lead: "According to Mikhail Pastukhov, the former judge of the Constitutional Court of Belarus, the referendum was for the most part valid, except on the matter on the Russian language status.". I find it to be a bold edit that is problematic in several respects which I will outline below:
* "the former judge" should be "a former judge" as there are 12 judges in the CCB
* the source for the paragraph is Euradio, a media outlet that appears to be based in Minsk , there isn't freedom of expression in Belarus and this raises doubts, although the article is in many ways critical
* Mikhail Pastukhov, was dismissed by Lukashenko in 1997 , and the interview is conducted in 2016, if Mr. Pastukhov still lives in Belarus, should he be considered a reliable source? again, there isn't freedom of expression in Belarus and incidentally the state radio Belteleradio was recently expelled from the European Broadcasting Union for the broadcast of interviews apparently obtained under duress
* as a general rule, elections/referendum either are legitimate/valid or not. Stating that a referendum is "for the most part valid" makes limited sense to me, especially putting it in the lead.
* the part you quote is clearly selective, almost to the point of being a POV edit, if I may quote the paragraph in whole
:Now, Pastukhov's assertion that there are no grounds to treat the referendum as invalid is immediately qualified by "Pastukhov reckons there were no serious violations in the course of the vote". Reckons? Serious? This is not very authorative. In the next paragraph two different sources are quoted as saying there were violations at the polls, directly contradicting Pastudkhov?
* Finally, and this is the most important point in my view, if you read the OSCE report on the elections/referendum they find several issues with them, let me quote a few:
:* The government also attempted to influence the outcome of the elections and the referendum. This was seen, in particular, in the government's use of its influence on the media.
:*Lack of experience could also be seen in the polling stations where the authorities allowed extensive multiple voting, and did not promote secret balloting procedures.
:*Most official information appeared to encourage the electorate to vote in favor of all referendum questions: Official posters were displayed at nearly all polling sites, instructing voters to vote in the referendum, stating the referendum questions, and listing the choices ("for" printed in the only red letters on the poster, and "against" in black letters). Sample referendum ballots were also distributed to voters in advance of the elections and at many polling sites on the day of the elections, illustrating votes in favor of each of the questions.
:* Interference from the authorities regarding the referendum was apparent through the distribution of biased sample ballots and other information displayed at polling sites. At numerous polling stations, members of the delegation observed examples of the sample-ballot leaflets available to voters, along with the ballots. The leaflets advised "Milions of Belorussian citizens who want to live in peace and harmony" on which choices they should choose in the referendum (Annex 4). These leaflets were distributed by the authorities not only at many polling stations, but also by mail to some voters. The delegation finds this to be a highly inappropriate attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum. The authorities also intervened in the referendum by placing black-and-white posters in virtually all polling stations. They had the "yes" choice printed in bright red and "no" in black.
:I could include more quotes from the report but I think this is enough. Pastukhov is therefore in direct contradiction with the OSCE report.
: In light of the above points, I think the statement you've inserted requires modification, the Euroradio source is not reliable enough, and that it should not be in the lead. --Jabbi (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , I think you are entering WP:OR territory. In my view your edit should be changed substantially to qualify that it is possible that Pastukhov is not speaking freely, if he is living in Belarus, which is not clear. His statement is contradictory, asserting that the referendum is valid but then saying he "reckons there were no serious violations", he is immediately contradicting himself. What is more, this is an informal interview, not a legal opinion. Your assumption seems to be that before Lukashenko the Belarusian judicial system respected the rule of law and had judicial independence. That is not the case. I think that your edit should be considerably qualified because of the issues I have raised and moved from the lead, not least because stating that a "referendum was for the most part valid" makes limited sense. I do not have any interest in proposing an alternative. I see no other way than reverting your edit if you do not propose an alternative. --Jabbi (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I honestly do not know how to modify it according to your statements. If you see what modifications should be made, then perform it freely. I will not oppose that. If your decision is to revert it, then do it freely as well. I inserted this information because I felt it is reliable and an interesting opinion, analyzing black and white aspects, not only black, presented in a website run by the opposition. -- Pofka (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of former CC judge