Talk:Belarus: Difference between revisions

	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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed September 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 26, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 13, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted July 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 27, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted January 16, 2021 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 3, 2007, July 3, 2008, July 3, 2009, July 3, 2010, July 3, 2011, July 3, 2012, July 3, 2013, July 3, 2014, and July 3, 2015. Current status: Former featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Belarus C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Eastern Europe (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Politics and law C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Template:Vital article This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saraherixson, Bruton-Sarah, Kvesquer24 (article contribs).

	Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: August 9 to 15, 2020 August 16 to 22, 2020 May 23 to 29, 2021 Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There should be a reference to military sites such as Vyaleyka (Signal Centre); Baranvichy, Babruysk (Aircraft); Hantsavichy (Radar) - possibly info also in Russian/Belarusian wiki pages? src: Neil Kent Lawrence18uk (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawrence18uk, can you elaborate, why should there be such a reference? --Jabbi (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ref group "mfa" has been defined twice causing a cite error, see the reference section. The first reference is in the info box, while the second is in the "Religion and languages" section. I suggest the second reference is renamed to resolve the issue, I would do so but the article is locked. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the issue. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace the citation http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081858,00.htm with the updated link http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081858,00.html as the old link is now dead. Chanbakjsd (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the only reference to the actual state of human rights in Belarus in the lead is the following

Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian and human rights groups consider human rights in the country to be poor.

Although this is factually correct it could be more accurate. The current wording suggests that only "human rights groups", view the human rights to be poor when in fact there has been a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus link appointed by the UN's Human Rights Council since 2012, with a renewed mandate every year. The Human Rights Council is probably the world's supreme authority on the state of human rights in a particular place and a continuous need for a special rapporteur dedicated to the cause whose most recent report reads: "The Special Rapporteur regrets the lack of meaningful progress towards the protection of human rights in Belarus." and "Most of the recommendations made in the previous reports of the Special Rapporteur remain valid." should be confirmation enough that human rights ARE poor in Belarus in an objective sense. Contrast for instance with Zimbabwe where the assertion is unequivocal.

So I propose to change the above sentence into the following:

Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian, judicial independence weak and human rights poor.

--Jabbi (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I changed it to: "Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record". So it shows that human rights being described as poor, along with the description of an authoritarian regime, are widely considered as such. Do you consider this to be an improvement? I did not include judicial independence as this seems random to choose this aspect out of several possible options, such as press freedom, corruption, religious freedom, electoral process etc. Mellk (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, thank you. This is definitely an improvement. I am posting here to gauge consensus so your input is very helpful. I added judicial independence because, arguably, it is the most important aspect of the infrastructure necessary to support human rights that is clearly lacking in Belarus. The other aspects you mention are important too. I think this merits inclusion and therefore we should seek to expand on what you've inserted:

"Lukashenko's rule is widely considered to be authoritarian, where judicial independence is weak and human rights such as freedom of expression, are curtailed"

--Jabbi (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I would keep it simple. Perhaps if a (small) expansion was needed, I would just mention unfree/unfair elections, repression and unfree media (such as in Lukashenko's article), though in the previous sentence it already states there was only one free and fair election, and these all, along with lack of freedom of expression and judicial independence, would fall under "authoritarian government" anyway. Mellk (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, the lead is 449 words, most of it is dedicated to a historical summary. Like you point out, the sentence before the one we are discussing establishes that elections haven't been free. This one would establish the state of human rights in Belarus in a simple and precise and well balanced sentence in my opinion. Would you be opposed to it? --Jabbi (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I would not be opposed to briefly mentioning a couple of these, as long as it does not sound like it is repeating itself and does not fall under WP:RECENTISM. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I think your edit here actually makes it a bit "softer". From mentioning a "poor" human rights record (overall) to instead saying that certain rights such as freedom of expression are "curtailed". I also wonder if it is even necessary to mention non-independent judiciary and curtailment of freedom of expression, since this is characteristic of any authoritarian regime, and this description is used immediately before. If a sentence described a subject as a democracy, for example, would it be necessary to state immediately what this means (free and fair elections, independent judiciary, freedom of the press etc.)? Mellk (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a mention of accusations of violent repression as an example of human rights issues (which isn't necessarily a characteristic of an authoritarian regime). I am not sure if it does belong in the lead, maybe some thoughts by other editors. Mellk (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to see what other editors thinnk. @Mellk:, thanks for your input, the sentence now reads: "Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record, being accused of violent repression.".

Although it is a marked improvement from it's earlier form I still think it could still be improved.

1) the word government could be understood to mean a specific cabinet whereas Lukashenko's authoritarian rule has been consolidated over 28 years, I think therefore the word "rule" is more fitting than "government"

2) "widely considered" ?, it is authoritarian, what is an acceptable source to confirm objectively what form of governance there is ? UN reports confirm weak rule of law, no judicial independence, there's no freedom of expression, violent repressions are used, NGOs will tell you the same and more. Which sources could possibly make arguments that it isn't authoritarian? Regimes that strategically support Lukashenko, Russia, China....

3) "being accused of violent repression", it's more than accusations, violent repression or threat of violence is daily occurrence in Belarus. Most egregious new example is Protasevich.

So something like: "Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression." --Jabbi (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: "Government" does not refer to a specific cabinet, since it refers to those who govern a state, so a government can be dictatorial or democratic. Current sourcing throughout the article is probably enough to outright state that the government is "authoritarian", though this is not the case for "violent repression", since this from the two sources I added which only quotes the EU. Mellk (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, The thirty-sixth government of Israel, or the Bennett–Lapid government, is the cabinet of Israel formed on 13 June 2021 after the 2021 Israeli legislative election. This is a random example of how governments is used to describe a specific cabinet, see another example under List of British governments (although the British use "ministry"). Clearly, saying "Lukashenko's government" can therefore be ambiguous. Under the section Human rights and corruption there is a paragraph about violent repression. So, the sentence I suggested earlier still seems legitimate to me: Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression." --Jabbi (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: As I said, "government" can be dictatorial (see: Government of Nazi Germany, Government of North Korea, for example) or democratic (which includes parliamentary systems). This is just a standard term. North Korea article may also give idea about how to mention human rights abuses. But for now I think "widely" can be dropped. Perhaps something such as: "Lukashenko's government is considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record due to large-scale human rights abuses". Mellk (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, thank you. I know "government" in an non-specific context is a valid use like you say. When the sentence starts with "Lukashenko's government", it might raise the question for some readers, which government. Using the term "rule" would prevent such a possibility, and it is also more in style with authoritarian governance, authoritarians rule but democracies elect governments.

Why do you want to keep "considered". That implies that it is a subjective matter, or to some degree open to debate whether or not it is authoritarian. He fulfills all the criteria listen under authoritarianism and the only sources likely to disagree would probably be published by authoritarian regimes.

Lastly, "large-scale human rights abuses" sounds a bit much. I know that over a long period there has been violent repression every time there were elections, with the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests being especially popular, political opponents have disappeared, human rights defenders intimidated, assaulted, Protasevich is an example but only on Western radars because Lukashenko violated international law and effectively hijacked a civilian aircraft. Using the wording "large-scale" invites- proportional comparisons and is problematic in my view. I still think my earlier suggestion is the most succinct one: "Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression." --Jabbi (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Politics of Belarus: "Lukashenko heads an authoritarian government". --Jabbi (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement: "Belarus is an authoritarian state." [1] --Jabbi (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I just gave an example. The meaning is the same. "Large-scale" can be replaced with something like "widespread". Mellk (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the U.S. State Department is not an authoritative source on human rights to be used without attribution. Mellk (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to bear in mind from the authoritarianism article: "There is no one consensus definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report" and the examples it lists are those "which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian". Mellk (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, Can you explain to me what you disapprove of in the following statement: "Lukashenko's rule is authoritarian, has a poor human rights record and uses violent repression.". In Britannica it states that Lukashenko is "[a]n authoritarian and unpredictable leader, " [2]. These sources can of course be cited. Do I understand your argument correctly that it is not clear that Lukashenko is authoritarian? --Jabbi (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I said: Current sourcing throughout the article is probably enough to outright state that the government is 'authoritarian'. I already explained about the phrase "violent repression" which is from a quote. Moreover, I do not think your suggested sentence is as fluid. Also I really do not think there is any confusion about what "Lukashenko's government" means (clearly this is not a problem for RS [3][4][5]), and "considered" can be replaced with "characterised", it does not suggest a debate. Or whatever doesn't sound so simple. I think what you suggested is too simple. Mellk (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, yes you did, but then you suggested this version: "Lukashenko's government is considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record due to large-scale human rights abuses" which is weasel wording. I am surprised that you do not seem to understand my point about how the word "government" can have subtle different meanings in different contexts. What's more, you do not explain what's wrong with using "rule". Anyway, using government is fine. I explained how you inadvertently introduced a valid description of Lukashenko's rule with the phrase "violent repression" because it is consistently used over his presidency, the fact that you got the idea from a quote in a specific source does not matter, in the subsection about Human rights there are accounts of violent repression. Replacing "considered" with "characterised" is just one weasel word for another. It makes the statement more ambiguous. This should be avoided unless there is a specific reason to have it. We've established that his government is authoritarian. The current sentence reads:

Lukashenko's government is widely considered to be authoritarian with a poor human rights record, being accused of violent repression.

which is anything but fluent, how about:

Lukashenko's government is authoritarian and has a poor human rights record. --Jabbi (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: What about it is weasel wording? Saying his government is considered/characterised as authoritarian is well-supported. Also I preferred government because if we are stating regime type (authoritarian regime), then we should be referring to government. Anyway what you suggested now I think is good. Perhaps maybe worth adding "due to widespread human rights abuses" at the end? So: "Lukashenko's government is authoritarian with a poor human rights record due to widespread human rights abuses." Mellk (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk:, saying that the United States government is considered/characterised as democratic is also well supported but most would simply state that it is democratic. That's great, I'll add in the sentence you've suggested. Thanks --Jabbi (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jabbi: I would say it's a bit different because on paper (as its constitution states), Belarus is a democracy, and it retains the facade of democratic governance, but fair enough. Mellk (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus has a long history of being a Russian satellite. It was a Belarusian Governorate in the 18th century. The Belarusian People's Republic was probably the shortest lived attempt at independence before Soviet Russia created the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia (twice?) as a buffer state. Fast forward to modern times with actual independence coming in the 1990s, the Russification of Belarus is a sensitive issue (here is a current court case where a defendant refuses to speak Russian in the court but demands to use Belarusian). Putin and maybe Orban are Lukashenko's only friends in Europe, Lukashenko is very isolated (unless you look further east to; Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). Belarus has been economically dependent on the rents from re-exporting Russian oil/gas imports for years. This is a very considerable part of Belarusian GDP. Add Russian loans and Belarus is starting to look like it's heavily dependant on Russia. This is not reflected properly in the article and should be. --Jabbi (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Government of BNR.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article Belarusian Orthodox Church. This link should be used first time is mentioned. I guess article is locked and cannot to edit myself. --142.163.195.114 (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]