Talk:Constitution of Belarus

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. I mentioned about the holiday in the article too. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: Failed due to lack of citations. Alientraveller 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where should the citations be placed at then? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: 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.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Malkinann 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated peer review

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: The lead was corrected by another user. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine and one hundred forty-six articles? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: FA review

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  False statistics abound in this article regarding the referendum 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Poor quality in sourcing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FAC process needs this participation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: HRW's position on the 1994 constitution

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critical material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Modern constitution 

message: 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  and there have been constitutional law cases also cases Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FA concerns