Talk:Yauheni Preiherman

Deletion of well-sourced information

For the record: deletion of properly sourced critical information is being carried our by an anonymous editor. The information that is being deleted refers to authoritative sources (independent Belarusian media such as Nasha Niva, European Radio for Belarus, Radio Svaboda) and statements by authoritative public persons such as Franak Viacorka and Mikola Dziadok. I call the anonymous editor to stop doing that. Czalex 19:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Avowed rival of the subject continuously reinserts defamatory material in violation of BLPs rules

The “Criticism, accusations of propaganda” section of the page, which Czalex keeps reinserting over and over again, is a meant exclusively as a personal attack to damage the reputation and only fakes a well-sourced material. Here is a brief account of how the section violates Wikipedia’s rules on biographies of living persons:

1. Writing style – Attack pages:

Originally, this page was created by Czalex purely as a smear page. Czalex is the nickname of Aleś Čajčyc, who originally wrote this attack page on 6 October 2021. A day later, on 7 October 2021, he made a public post in Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/czalex/posts/pfbid032yeoA96kMMVR3Bih37TYTz1PoF5oVssxdvb5zGVG5EdMryGwdkA1oryXwi2osksUl) announcing that he had created the Wikipedia page with the purpose of disparaging the subject, with whose expert commentary Czalex disagrees (see below).

According to Wikipedia’s rules on biographies of living persons (in particular, Wikipedia: Criteria for speedy deletion § G10), attack pages should be deleted at once. Since editors other than Czalex later offered a neutral version of the page, only the “Criticism, accusations of propaganda” section of the page needs to be deleted, as well as the entire Belarusian language page, which Czalex also created on 6 October 2021 with the same purpose of attacking and disparaging the subject.

2. Writing style – Balance:

-       The negative stance taken by Czalex’s version of the challenged section represents the view of a small political minority. Czalex (Aleś Čajčyc) himself is a representative of such a small minority. He is the Information Secretary at the Presidium of the Rada BNR – a political organisation, which was established in 1917 and has been irrelevant to the actual political and societal life in Belarus since the 1920s, as it moved abroad. Not a single acting member of the Rada BNR even lives in Belarus, including Czalex (Aleś Čajčyc). Rada BNR’s representatives have traditionally held radical views about developments in Belarus and uncompromising stances towards their political opponents. Not surprisingly, therefore, Czalex (Aleś Čajčyc) is attacking the article’s subject who tends to hold moderate views and promotes the idea of dialogue between political forces in Belarus as the only possible way forward for the entire country.

-       The section is based on claims that rely on guilt by association, which Wikipedia rules clearly warn against. In other words, if the subject’s opinion on a specific matter looks similar to another view (e.g., representatives of a government), attacking the person on that ground amounts to guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy. The subject, like anyone else, has the right to freely express his views and expert opinions (given he holds a relative PhD and directs a think tank) in a civilised debate without being attacked with defamatory Wikipedia articles for that.

-       The entire section is extremely negative towards the subject and makes no attempt at all to present a balanced picture. It only refers to few sources that take a clearly negative stance towards the subject’s views while ignoring multiple other sources that prove the subject’s international recognition as a respected expert. Moreover, several sources are simply manipulated (see the next topic on this Talk page).

3. Using BLPs to continue disputes and conflict of interest

The fact that Czalex made a separate Facebook post to publicly announce the creation of this attack page and using even more defamatory language there means that, if anything, he is involved in a significant controversy vis-à-vis the subject of the article. Moreover, Czalex (Aleś Čajčyc) publicly attacked Yauheni Preiherman on other occasions. For example: two. On these grounds, the following Wikipedia rule appears necessary to apply:

“[…] an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest.” Kharuzh (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Avowed rival of the subject fakes a well-sourced material

Below is a line-by-line breakdown of the defamatory section that Czalex keeps reinserting, which shows how he fakes a well-sourced material: he either uses a few existing online publications, mainly from tabloids and individuals’ blogs by the subject’s avowed rivals, or manipulates otherwise reliable sources by taking things out of context.

Yauheni Preiherman has been repeatedly accused of working for the regime of Alexander Lukashenko as propagandist and lobbyist. [ONE REFERENCE - TO A BLOG WITH DEFAMATORY CLAIMS BY THE SUBJECT’S AVOWED RIVAL; THE OTHER – TO A LONG VIDEO REPORT ON AN UNRELATED SUBJECT].

In particular, the politician Franak Viačorka called Preiherman a member of the "Lukashenko support group" and a "protege" of Lukashenko’s Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei. [REFERENCE TO AN UNSUBSTANTIATED SMEAR BY THE SUBJECT’S AVOWED RIVAL, INCLUDING TO HIS PERSONAL BLOG].

Referring to Preiherman’s classmates, Viačorka claimed that Makei had personally signed recommendations letters for Western scholarships for Preiherman. Preiherman denied this. [BESIDES THE SAME POOR SOURCE, IT IS AN EVIDENT LIE: IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH-BASED PROGRAMMES AT WESTERN UNIVERSITIES REQUIRE REFERENCES FROM PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH A CANDIDATE’S ACADEMIC ABILITIES, NOT FROM POLITICIANS OR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS! THEREFORE, IT WAS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COULD PROVIDE SUCH A RECOMMENDATION].

According to Nasha Niva, the creation of the Minsk Dialogue by Yauheni Preiherman coincided with Lukashenko's attempts to become a negotiating platform for Russia and Ukraine against the backdrop of the Russian-Ukrainian war and to expand channels dialogue with Europe. The forum was sponsored by the Belarusian authorities, while the initiative led by Preiherman, was allegedly only a formal organiser. [ANOTHER UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, AS ALL THE FORUM’S SPONSORS AND CO-ORGANISERS ARE LISTED AT THE FORUM’S WEBPAGE, WHICH INCLUDES A LONG LIST OF EUROPEAN, AMERICAN AND RUSSIAN ORGANIZATIONS, NOT THE BELARUSIAN GOVERNMENT - https://minskdialogue.by/en/forum?year=2019].

Belarusian media accused Preiherman of calling on the international community to ignore human rights violations in Belarus. [REFERENCE TO JUST ONE PUBLICATION BY A TABLOID, WHICH MANIPULATES THE ORIGINAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECT’S COMMENTARY. THE ORIGINAL IS HERE - https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68495]

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Preiherman issued an article urging those who disagreed with Lukashenko's regime to refrain from confronting the authorities. [THE ANALYSIS IN THE ARTICLE IS MUCH MORE NUANCED THAN WHAT THESE LINES SAY; ITS KEY MESSAGE WAS THAT BELARUSIAN SOCIETY SHOULD FIND A WAY TO UNITE, RATHER THAN AGGRAVATE THE INFIGHTING, IN THE FACE OF GROWING GEOPOLITICAL CHALLENGES TO BELARUS’S SOVEREIGNTY; TIME HAS NOW PROVED THAT THE SUBJECT’S ANALAYSIS WAS 100% RIGHT].

The article provoked an active negative reaction in the independent media  [BESIDES THE REFERENCED THREE CRITICS, THERE WERE MANY POSITIVE REACTIONS TO THE ARTICLE, INCLUDING IN THE VERY SAME MEDIA, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SUBJECT’S ARGUMENTS WERE PART OF AN IMPORTANT SOCIETAL DISCUSSION. FOR EXAMPLE: https://www.svaboda.org/a/30559747.html?fbclid=IwAR0I_nmupbwO1ypazKfRcmelAs4BLBThZBxddYsUq23pgwKmLJ4kHrsvseI;

https://euroradio.fm/covid-19-yak-pagroza-belaruskay-dzyarzhaunasci-usyo-tak-strashna-efir-u-1500;

https://euroradio.fm/dyyalog-ulady-i-apazicyi-ci-padshturhne-da-yago-pagroza-suverenitetu-efir-u-1500 ]

After the election and the wave of mass terror that accompanied it, Preiherman justified the actions of the authorities and criticised the actions of those who disagreed with the Lukashenko regime. [THE REFERENCED INTERVIEW WAS PUBLISHED A MONTH BEFORE (!!!) THE ELECTION, SO IT SIMPLY COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE WAVE OF MASS TERROR, NOT TO MENTION THAT IN THE INTERVIEW THE SUBJECT CALLS ON ALL SIDES TO REFRAIN FROM VIOLENCE]

Yauheni Preiherman actively criticised the imposition of sanctions against the Lukashenko regime, promoted the involvement of Western countries in a dialogue with the regime and the inclination to make concessions to the regime under various disguises including the threat from Russia.[THE SUBJECT MADE A WELL-ARGUED CASE WHY SANCTIONS WERE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. THE FACT THAT HIS ANALYSIS WAS PUBLISHED BY LEADING AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN THINK TANKS JUST ATTESTS TO ITS ANALYTICAL QUALITY. ALSO, TIME HAS PROVEN THAT THE SUBJECT’S ARGUMENT WAS CORRECT, SO HE CANNOT BE ACCUSED OF PROPAGANDA BASED ON THE HIGH-QUALITY AND CORRECT ANALYSIS HE MADE]

Preiherman regularly appears in the heavily censored Belarusian state media such as Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya to justify the international policy of the Lukashenko regime. [THE PROVIDED SOURCES HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH JUSTIFYING ANYONE’S INTERNATIONAL POLICY. THE SUBJECT IS QUOTED THERE AS EXPLAINING BASIC THEORETICAL IDEAS, SUCH AS THE IMPORTANCE OF ARMS CONTROL FOR EUROPEAN SECURITY AND OF SOCIETAL UNITY FOR A SMALL STATE’S FOREIGN POLICY. ALSO, THE SUBJECT HAS NOT BEEN QUOTED IN BELARUSIAN STATE MEDIA SINCE 2020, WHICH ADDITIONALLY MAKES THE CLAIM UNGROUNDED]

Together with other participants in the Minsk Dialogue project (in particular, Dzianis Melyantsou), Preiherman positioned Lukashenko’s Belarus as a supposedly neutral platform for negotiations in the face of deteriorating relations between Russia and the West. [IT’S JUST A FACT THAT IN 2015-2020 BELARUS WAS A NEUTRAL PLATFORM FOR TALKS, AS IT HOSTED REGULAR TALKS IN THE NORMANDY AND OSCE FORMATS.] Kharuzh (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)