# Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya

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

Сьвятлана Ціханоўская(2020).png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Tihanovskaja2020.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is this transliteration being used? it would be more consistent with other articles if this was moved to Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example Lukashenko's article isnt named Alyaksander Lukashenka, its Alexander Lukashenko. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is also a requested move for Sergei Tikhanovsky (see Talk:Siarhei_Tsikhanouski#Requested_move_14_August_2020). If there is consensus, I think it makes sense to move both articles at the same time. Vpab15 (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you should make it clear that you're the requester of both moves - it isn't that this arose spontaneously Arianna the First (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we all agree that this Lady is now President Elect of The Republic of Belarus? --Samogitia (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A bit too early, I'd say. Let's wait. Buxareu (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
So what is Tsikhanouskaya's status in regards to the presidency? She has declared victory and is planning a transition of power, Lukashenko claims victory of his own, and international entities have refused to acknowledge Lukashenko's claims. The Lukashenko article describes in the infobox that his status as president is disputed with Tsikhanouskaya, shouldn't that be reciprocated here? If she was believed to have won the election, wouldn't she be the disputed president-elect? Jjj1238 22:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Are there any sources saying that she has international recognition as leader of Belarus? While that is the case for a similar situation in Venezuela (see Juan Guaidó), it doesn't seem like Belarus is at that stage yet, though that could change quickly in the next few days. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
She got the majority of the votes and one has to be delusional to believe in Lukashenka's official "results". Ausir (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose No. Having around 10% of the vote does not make a candidate President, unless the candidate is participating to the organisation of a Colour Revolution with foreign aid. At this time, the potential Colour Revolution is not achieved, and it will difficultly happen as the Russian Federation is offering military help to counter this Colour Revolution. So, the opponent is only one of the main spokespersons of this Colour Revolution among many lobbies and oligarchs within the European Economic Area, NATO, United States. Israeli historian J. L. Talmon used to refer this as the importation of totalitarian democracy. Totalitarian democracy and oligarchs benefit from societal collapse that is endangering the very foundation of the nation state. HLFH (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Support: The election results are clearly disputed. Both sides are claiming victory. That would essentially make her the disputed or contested President-elect. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Support: The position of Lukashenko as president of Belarus is no longer recognised by several countries. Several other countries have refused to recognise the results of the presidential election and have called for another election. Tsikhanouskaya herself has claimed to be the winner of the election and has therefore by implication claimed to be President Elect of Belarus. In the intrests of neutrality, we must now treat both claims to the presidency by Lukashenko and by Tsikhanouskaya as equally valid. This is the solution we use for Venezuela, for Yemen and for Libya where there are more than one person claiming to be the legitimate leader of those countries. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Cordyceps-Zombie and Jjj1238: Where exactly did Tikhanovskaya CLEARLY say she is the "winner" of the election? This is what the English-language sources say: "She virtually announced her election victory saying results from precincts where ballots were fairly counted show her winning 60 to 70 percent of the vote." Pretending that this is a "victory claim" is a bit of a stretch, I'd say. From what I gathered, the protesters demand Lukashenko to resign and ask for a new (fair) election. This is exactly what Kolesnikova has just announced: https://gordonua.com/news/worldnews/soratnica-tihanovskoy-kolesnikova-ozvuchila-trebovaniya-mitinguyushchih-k-vlastyam-belarusi-1513905.html/ ("И наше главное требование: бывший президент должен подать в отставку", – сказала она, добавив, что в стране должны пройти новые честные выборы".) Nothing more. Buxareu (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buxareu Actually, she announced that she won the election: "Считаю себя победителем на выборах. У нас есть данные альтернативного подсчета, и мы будем доказывать все нарушения" Sources (Russian and English): https://meduza.io/news/2020/08/10/tihanovskaya-ob-yavila-sebya-pobeditelem-prezidentskih-vyborov-i-predlozhila-peregovory-lukashenko, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53721410 YantarCoast (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks. But why, then, do they ask for a new election rather than for her to be declared the winner of this last election? A bit contradictory. They must have dropped the claim that she is the winner. The Russian link you gave me is six days old. Buxareu (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, the whole point of her presidency is to simply call new (free and fair) elections. That is her entire programme. I suppose Lukashenko retiring and agreeing to holding new elections would be the same outcome as a Tikhanovskaya victory. Yes, obviously  the links are six days old because she made this announcement straight after election day (and the publication of the exit poll which gave Lukashenko 80%), which is quite logical really. YantarCoast (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're right about the only goal of her program being to call a new election (https://tsikhanouskaya2020.by/moya_programma/). Anyway, this whole thing is weird. Had she really considered herself the president-elect, she (and the other opposition leaders and protesters) would have trumpeted about it everywhere. But nobody mentions it. You can see on the Belarusian protests page what the opposition demands, and the recognition of Tikhanovskaya as President is NOT among the demands. None of the foreign leaders recognized her as President either. P.S. What I meant when I said the links are old is that she seems to have dropped the statement that she won the election. Otherwise, she would have repeated it over and over again. I support Tikhanovskaya, of course, but considering her the president-elect is way too much. Nobody does de facto. Buxareu (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Ha, here's the latest news: https://gordonua.com/news/worldnews/tihanovskaya-gotovitsya-obyavit-sebya-pobeditelnicey-vyborov-v-belarusi-press-sekretar-1513911.html/ "Тихановская готовится объявить себя победительницей выборов в Беларуси – пресс-секретарь. В штабе кандидата в президенты Беларуси Светланы Тихановской ожидают, что страны Запада признают ее победу на президентских выборах, сказала ее пресс-секретарь Анна Красулина". /// She must have read our discussion here, ha-ha. Buxareu (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It's non sense and WP:recentism. Until event unravels to mantain neutrality, we should just write that she is trying to stage a coup Anglachel~itwiki (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel as if this article has a real problem with its lede. Every time I read it, I can't help but lose my place and get mixed up due to its organization. I propose a reorganization to something like the following. 

Sviatlana Heorhiyeuna Tsikhanouskaya (née Pilipchuk; Belarusian: Святла́на Гео́ргіеўна Ціхано́ўская (Піліпчук); born 11 September 1982), is a Belarusian human rights activist and politician who ran for the 2020 Belarusian presidential election as the main opposition candidate. She is the wife of activist Siarhei Tsikhanouski. Her husband was a candidate for the same election until his arrest on 29 May 2020, after which she announced her intention to run in his place.
The incumbent Alexander Lukashenko was officially declared the victor in a contest marred by widespread electoral fraud. Subsequently Tsikhanouskaya claimed to have won the presidential election with between 60 and 70% of the vote and has appealed to the international community to recognise her as the winner.
Obviously, if the article name is changed to the Russian transliteration, then the opposite order (Russian in lede, Belarusian in notes) could be used. Either way though, I think notes should be implemented in this lede, it is seriously hard to follow now, especially with it all condensed into one paragraph. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 

Support, yes! ^_^, indeed!, the article's is a nightmare to read! ^_^ --CoryGlee (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there an attempt to impose linguistic balkanization between Russia and Belarus by using exotic transliterations from a seldom-spoken language/dialect in Belarus? It seems that Wikipedia loves Belarusian language more than people in Belarus actually do, or even Russian-speaking Tikhanovskaya herself. Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

She literally uses this transliteration herself as the URL of her website, but nice strawman. And what do you mean by "balkanization"? Last I checked, Russia and Belarus did not actually comprise one country. Ausir (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
BBC, Xinhua, RT, France 24, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, The New York Times all have the woman's name as Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, I think that's a pretty clear consensus.
That same web site you just cited is entirely in Russia and she literally has a video on Youtube titled in English: "I am ready to become a national leader. Svetlana Tihanovskaya" - and I assume that the h is intended to be kh because the Russian language has no "h" like in "hot".Shemakesmynosebleed (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
A bunch of other major reliable sources use the transcription "Tikhanouskaya". Including some of the ones you mentioned too (some of them use both interchangeably). And yeah, she herself uses both spellings in English at various times as well, how is that "balkanization"? Ausir (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to see a real disruption, it is here: {{Minsk Metro navbox}}. What we can observe above is just a mild one.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox mentions that she is contested president-elect with sources reporting that she declared herself winner of the election, while there is no information in the entire article that she is recognised as such by the international community. This is a pure case of POV.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At the moment most sources suggest that Tsikhanouskaya disputes the results of the election and believes that she is the winner but has not yet claimed to be a president elect. I would suggest we remove that statement from the infobox until a, Tsikhanouskaya herself explicitly states that she is the president elect and b, that position is regoginsed by at least one other state. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
She may declare herself "Queen of Earth" but we can't accept such claims without any international recognition, so it's no-brainer that it should be removed until the position is recognised by any other independent country. Importantly, one of the protesters' main goals that is also echoed by the international community is calling a new free and fair election but not to automatically install her as country's president, which casts doubt that she might have an agenda to ride on the wave of protests across the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
There appear to be three comments, all of which are in favour of removing the information from the infobox. If this is the consensus, then an administrator can remove the position from the infobox. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it state she is president. It states she is the contested president-elect, which is simply the truth. She alleges she won the election, which would make her the president-elect; her claim has been supported by several other Belarusian figures, there's an entire council formed on the basis that she did win, but the claim is disputed, which is why that distinction is made in the article. There is nothing non-neutral about calling her the disputed president-elect. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jjj1238: Self-declared victory with limited internal recognition is far from enough to consider someone contested president-elect and this is incorrect for multiple reasons. Firstly, no other independent country in the world has recognised the validity of her claim and the international community is calling for a new free and fair election. Secondly, new election is one of the goals of the council that you're referring to and the protesters across the country as well. Thirdly, there are also no reliable sources where she's described as "president-elect", which means that the article contains original research apart from POV.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
One might replace "disputed" by "self-declared" if needed I think. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
As already stated above, there's not even a single country in the world that recognises her self-declared victory. We might re-consider adding it if that changes one day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Remove: not covered as such in sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep because the election was described as disputed in practically all RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: A vast majority of the international community doesn't recognise the results of the election and has called for a new free and fair election. This doesn't mean that the results are invalid because Lukashenko was proclaimed winner and they would have been valid had anyone else won but because there was very little transparency in the electoral process and international observers were not even present at the polling stations. That said, it's completely meaningless to mention someone's self-declared victory in a fraudulent election whose results are widely seen as invalid.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am not sure how exactly this should be framed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya in the European Parliament on September 21.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie can you please tell my why do you revert my last edit? Link to 2020 elections in Belarus should be in a section about it, and the photos were relevant - one it a stang with agitation before the elections, another - a ballot with her name on it. Why shouldn't it be in the article?Artem.G (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mainly the link you posted was the issue; it didn't seem to resolve anywhere. Regarding links to the elections, that shouldn't be linked from a section heading, but should rather use the {{Main|Article}} template.  The photos are of questionable value; I restored one, but I don't think of photo of a ballot is useful for an article about this subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie: ok, thanks for clarification! I'll bring them back, and will check the link. It was her official page during the campaign, that's why I put it there.Artem.G (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

2020 Belarusian presidential election street information stand.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This article appears written to convey a particular narrative about the subject. That is not to say that it is a bad article, simply that it needs improving. I do not doubt that editors who have contributed are acting in good faith, but some of the reasoning seems to me to reflect a closeness to the subject matter which may be impairing the structure and content. I should say that I am not at all close to the subject matter and have no opinions on the content per se; sometimes it can be strength to an article to have a more distanced and perhaps more impartial perspective reflected in the content. I would like to make some improvements but do not wish to do so without sharing my thoughts with editors first. 
I mention some salient points here. The subject is one of a series of people who have stood in electons against President Lukashenka. She certainly had far more success than the others, but it not consistent to note that the election was conducted fraudulently then assert that the subject was somehow the real winner; by definition, she could only have been the 'true' winner of a fraudulent election and that would in no sense make her the legitimate leader of Belarus; nor would it make her government in exile and more legitimate than other opposition figures still inside Belarus. There is also the problem that what is described as a government in exile appears to have no influence whatever inside Belarus (for example, see https://www.politico.eu/article/brothers-at-arms-why-ukraine-and-the-belarusian-opposition-are-fighting-each-other/. In other words, it is not really a government in exile at all. I do not say this in any sense to deprecate the people concerned, but to reflect the fact that the notion that the subject of this article is a true leader of a nation and that she runs a government in exile appears to a media and politial construct of the West rather that a reasonable accont of the present state of opposition politics in Belarus. The subject, it can reasonably be said, played an important role at the last election but is not rooted in Belarus politics; this has greatly malaffected her ability to serve as a political actor within Belarus. This article is weakened by its over-simplification of Belarus politics and political actors; this includes other political leaders with more layered and substative recent political recrods than the subject of this article. 
I therefore propose that the lead be altered accordingly in the first instance. Followiong this, the main body can be adjusted to fit the lead. Articles are often written the other way around, with the lead serving as a summary, but in this case the scope of the article would be best set by the lead with the later details edited to conform to the lead. 
Do other editors have any thoughts before I edit the lead? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
There has been quite a bit of editing of this page by other editors today, although none have left comments here at the talk page. I have therefore decided to go ahead and tidy up the lead by removing poorly sourced and phrased sentences and replacing them with neutral POV terms.Emmentalist (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed this reference as it is not supported by a citation. Notably, although the Nobel Prize awarding authority makes the total number of such nominantions each year (several hundred) it has a policy of not providing information on who the nominees themselves are (see https://www.nobelpeaceprize.org/nobel-peace-prize/nomination/). Not all nominations are considered 'valid' nominations by the authority. It is therefore not possible to claim authoratively that anyone who has not actually won a nobel prize has in fact been a nominee. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the section naming every claimed member of the office in exile of the subject; the section was wholly irrelevant to this article. Emmentalist (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits in the first half of the article. I have altered tenses for consistency and meaning and made some other relatively minor edits. The second half of the article is messier and i will edit that shortly. I can see that editors have competing views and it would be best if these were discussed here in order to avoid edit wars (I am not suggesting anyone is engaging in this but that this is sometimes a consquencer of not discussing at the Talk page). In general, I do not think it is correct for this article to assume that the subject can be regarded today (early 2023) as the leader of the Belarusian opposition - in exile or within Belarus. The subject remains an important figure but some degree of nuance is required now. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But she is a leader of opposition - everyone who's in Belarus are jailed now (Babaryko, Kolesnikova, Statkevich, Tikhanovsky), and among opposition in exile she's the only one who's recognised as a leader and got invited to meetings with European leaders / forums / etc. Pazniak can say whatever he wants, but there is no chance he'll be invited into the White House to represent Belarus there. Artem.G (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I understand your points and the frustrations of describing politics in Belarus. Here are some thoughts which seem to me to call for caution in describing any single person as the leader of Belarus opposition. I exclude citations here for simplicity but will include in edits where relevant. First, the opposition is fractured. It is convenient for foreign states to meet someone outside Belarus who symbolically represents the opposition, but it would be entirely inappropriate for those states to decide who should occupy the status of leader. That is a matter for opponents themselves, who clearly at present have no single leader. I appreciate that Lithuania has claimed the subject won the election but that is an outlier since everyone  - including Lithuania - agrees the election was fraudulent (which counts both ways). Second, standing as the main opposition candidate does not confer later status as opposition leader (see predecessors such as Milinkevich). Third, it is clear (and has been widely reported) that the subject has little or no influence within Belarus; this mitigates against considering her the opposition leader. Fourth, being imprisoned like, say, Babaryka, does not preclude being opposition leader (see Nelson Mandela). Taking all of this, and some other points, into account I think it is best to avoid taking a position in this Wikipedia article which seems to support a subjective framing advanced, with however good intent, by the subject's supporters. At present, it is safer and more accurate to describe the subject as an an important political activist; along with the obvious fact that she is regarded as such by many people outside Belarus. In time the Belarus opposition (notably within Belarus) may decide to confer upon her the status of leader, although other sources suggest this is unlikely, and until such a time Wikipedia should not be a device used to bolster any particular perspective.
I should also say that much of the tit for tat claims about the subject working for the KGB et al look like poorly sourced nonsense and my intention at the moment is to edit much of it out. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Several sections with poor sources were added by a new editor, I tried to remove most blatant garbage but left the KGB section. And though Pazniak is important figure, I agree that his personal opinion of someone being a kgb agent is not a reason to include it. And I mostly agree with your reasoning above, though I think that it's impossible to be an acknowledged opposition leader in any dictatorship as it's not a governmental position and thus can be debated by anyone (and Belarusian opposition struggles to unite for many years, in no point there was one real leader, Milinkevich definitely wasn't the one.) Artem.G (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we're on the same page. I see your point, too. I must say, it's nice to have an intelligent exchange about Belarus. It's a lot more nuanced and interesting than people elsewhere might imagine from most of the media coverage. The politics of opposition has always been as complex as anywhere else in the former USSR, although it's understandable that the social media phenomenon of the last election made people sit up and take notice. My own instinct, no more than that, is that the post-Lukashenka (senior) period is not that far away and that opposition players now need to both create clear differences between each other and also, near paradoxically, forge new alliances. That will need to be done inside Belarus; not to take anything away from the worth of T's work in Lithuania and elsewhere. Emmentalist (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I've made my own final edits for now. I've tried to make the sub-headline fonts more consistent, removed some of the wilder stuff about the KGB (I don't think Pazniak's stuff from the US is worthy of being in this Wikipedia article - he has made many similar allegations about other people over the years), and a few other things which I think help improve the article. I also took out detailed references to other people - e.g. in T appointments list. It probably has too many updates and announcments made by the subject but it's not bad now, I think. I'm sure it can be better..... Good luck with it all. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ach, me again. I see the point some folks have made about the box. It should be changed to reflect T's status as a political activist rather than the head of something lacking in substance. It looks rather faux-grand, lillipution even, at the moment. Imho. I'm going to leave that to see what other editors think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my comment above, I've gone ahead on the basis of WP:BRD and removed the lillipution stuff (prime minister, etc) from the box. It was aggrandising, not real and  risked inviting ridicule. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, the articles linked are clear this is a government in exile and she is recognized as the rightful leader by a UN member state, which is no easy feat. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @25stargeneral1. The Belarus opposition does not have a formal leader. 2. If they one day agree to have one then it would be fair to describe that person as leader of the opposition. 3. It is not the job of any other state to confer on anyone the status of the leader of the Belarus opposition; that is why all but one EU state, including the EU as an entity, and in spite of being sympathetic, do not recognise the subject as formal leader of the opposition in Belarus. 4. Lithuania has made a political calculation to confer such a status on person resident in Lithuania. It is reasonable that we should not over rate the importance of this. 5. A box conferring any individual's status as prime minister and president of Belarus in exile seems literally nonsensical at present. Emmentalist (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see what this has to do with her being leader of the opposition. That's not what it says. She is indisputably the president of the Coordination Council. It does not call her president or prime minister of Belarus, that's a straw man. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no position as "opposition leader", but for the world and for journalists she is the Belarusian opposition leader. See [6] [7] [8] - all call her 'opposition leader'. Artem.G (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you. However the person above appears to be conflating that with the infobox, which has never referred to her as the opposition leader. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
It would be accurate to reflect in the text the fact that many people and nations outside Belarus consider T to be representative of the opposition inside Belarus. (the words chosen carefully by the EU, see my references above, which do not suggest that she is THE representative) It is not correct to say that this is true for 'the world' or 'for journalists'. Emmentalist (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The box describes the subject as "prime minister" and "president". It's quite obviously a claim to be prime minister and president of Belarus in exile. There is no other possible meaning. It is an aggrandisement of a body  created by the subject which has no influence whatever inside Belarus.There are many examples of such bodies created by former candidates all over the world in various jurisdictions. There are other opposition figures who energetically point out that the subject has no influence on the population of Belarus, and that the co-ordination council is limited to the subject and those close to her. I have provided links to references in my extensive comments above. I have no axe to grind and I do not suggest that you are acting in bad faith but it does seem to me that your edit might not be politically impartial. Emmentalist (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

In exile, yes. You say the council has "no influence whatever inside Belarus". That's a defining feature of a government in exile. You're not making any sense. Governments in exile are only legitimized by international recognition, which she has. Not sure what politically impartical is supposed to mean, it sounds like you've mashed the words "impartial" and "impractical" together. And you don't seem to be editing based on any real assessment of the sources; they do call her the leader of the opposition, contrary to what you're claiming (thanks to Artem.G for backing it up). 25stargeneral (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll make my final comment here for now. The box describes Tsikhanouskaya as 'president' and 'prime minister'. This appears to be a claim that she holds such offices in respect of Belarus (in exile or otherwise). Such claims appear nonsensical and should not be included in this article. Moreover, T is not recognised as leading a government in exile, nor as being the leader of the Belarus opposition, by any state other than Lithuania (where she now lives). The EU parliament statement, quoted above, is carefully phrased to avoid such a claim and is in any case not representative of the EU as a whole. Finally, there are statements by other prominent Belarus opposition figures that T is not their leader. This draws into question any claims that T should be described as the opposiiton leader in this Wikipedia article. My view is that the box in its present form is misleading and should not include words such as 'prime minister'. Wikipedia articles should be carefully edited to ensure they do not in effect act to support political campaigns, regardless of whether or not such campaigns have moral merit. All the best to all editors contributing here. Emmentalist (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Consistent with my comments, but also aware of other editors' wish that the box should include details of the council created by the subject, I have edited the box to reflect her claimed status as president of the council and to remove 'prime minister' since the latter has no meaning and instead appears designed to be read across as a status in respect of Belarus itself: Only countries have prime ministers. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It refers to the United Transitional Cabinet, a separate body she is the head of. Your insistence that it appears designed to be read across as a status in respect of Belarus itself is without merit; nowhere does it say that she is in charge of Belarus. Please stop removing the offices from the infobox without getting consensus here. I have, however, changed "Prime Minister" to "Cabinet Head" to reflect her actual title. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
As you appear to agree, the description of 'prime minister' can only be understood in relation to a claim about Belarus. I am content with the new format of the box which does not include the term 'prime minister'. My edits, as I have explained them in detail above, are fully rationalised, usually discussed extensively in advance (see multiple dissussions above) and where WP:BRD is appropriate WP policy has been applied consistently. I sense that many of the edits on this page are politically motivated one way or the other. I have no axe to grind re: the subject whatever and have put some effort into improving this page for general use by readers of Wikipedia. I would ask you to please engage with respect and assume good faith: I am finding some of your comments (see various examples above) and allegations quite personalised and unnecessary. I am really not at all interested in personalised exchanges. With good wishes, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hearing rumors this article might be going way up in popularity later in the week; can we get a recording of her name being spoken? Not an easy one for many of us English speakers. Thanks. Abeg92contribs 20:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one on! I was a keen follower of the 2020 events in Belarus, so I'm very interested to learn more about Tsikhanouskaya. As per my usual method of reviewing, I'll give my section-by-section comments, followed by a check against the GA criteria.


### Comments
#### Early life
"Among her books were those from the United States" "those" is an odd choice of word here. Maybe "some"?
Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
Per the source, it seems to be these American textbooks specifically about the outside world. Maybe it's worth merging this with the previous sentence, so it would read something like "which she read to learn English and about the world outside of Belarus".
Spotcheck: [1] Source doesn't say anything about them meeting in Mazyr. Is this confirmed somewhere else? It also doesn't say that Tsikhanouski was a night club owner, only a "businessman-turned-popular video blogger". Given that this was before his vlogging days, maybe just calling him a "businessman" would be better?
The main article on Tsikhanouski is still using the Russian transliteration of his name, but this article uses a mix of the Russian and Belarusian transliterations of his name, without much explanation. It might be worth either: a) adding a wee explanatory footnote on the different transliterations of his name; or b) standardising his name in this article to either the Russian or Belarusian transliteration. As this article uses the Belarusian transliteration of Tsikhanouskaya's name, I would lean towards using the Belarusian transliteration of Tsikhanouski's as well.
"in which he interviewed the people" Think "the people" is a bit dramatic. Just "people" is probably fine.
AP News citation is missing its author: Yuras Karmanau
Radio Free Europe citation needs proper citation formatting, for consistency.
Spotcheck: [3] "despite a lack of government interest in addressing the pandemic" Per the source, it seems her decision to pull her children out of school was because of the government's inaction, not "despite" it. This should be rewritten.


#### Background and building a campaign
Might be worth moving the sentence about the start of Tsikhanouski's YouTube career down from the Early life section into this one. That would read a bit nicer than having a random sentence about his videos sandwiched between details about Tsikhanouskaya's life.
Jalalzai & Jurek 2023 citation has page numbers outside the footnotes, but there's no page range in the citation itself. This should probably be included.
Moscow Times citation needs proper citation formatting. It's also missing its author, Tatiana Kalinovskaya.
Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
Spotcheck: [8]:120 Verified.
"Working with the other campaigns that had ended," Reads a bit odd. I think I understand what it's saying, but it might need rephrasing.
"He had grown more unpopular among the people" Again, think "the people" is a bit dramatic. Could just be "He had grown more unpopular"
Spotcheck: [1][8]:119 Verified, although only [8] is explicit about calling Lukashenka's rhetoric "sexism".
Spotcheck: [1][8]:124 Verified.
Spotcheck: [4] "Her role has frequently been compared to Joan of Arc" Source says Belarusian news outlets compared her to Joan of Arc, so I think we should be more explicit with the source of this comparison than just "frequently".


#### Campaigning
Radio Svaboda citations need proper citation formatting. Title translations should also be provided, the language being Belarusian should be indicated, and the author(s) should be credited.
Cut the space between "Mikola Statkevich," and the footnote.
"Rada of the Belarusian People's Republic" Main article calls it the "Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic", as does the cited source here.
Per MOS:IMAGELOC, this image should be aligned to the right.
Amnesty International, Financial Times and BBC World Service citations need proper citation formatting.
Title translation for first Radio Svaboda source incorrectly labels Tsikhaouskaya "Tikhonov". This needs correcting. "Радыё Свабода" ("Radio Svaboda") and "Дашчынскі, Алесь" (Dashchynski, Ales) should also be Romanised.
Title translation needed for second Radio Svaboda source. "Радыё Свабода" ("Radio Svaboda") should also be Romanised, and I'm not sure "Svaboda, Radio" is needed as the author.
Bel.biz source should list Russian as its language used.


#### Election day and departure from Belarus
I recall there being a means through which Belarusian voters independently verified their votes for Tsikhanouskaya in the election. Maybe a wee detail about this should be included?
Spotcheck: [8]:125 Verified.
Link to State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus for "Belarusian KGB".


#### Establishing a government in exile
Original Reuters article should probably be linked to, rather than the Yahoo mirror.
"She felt that she had betrayed her supporters by leaving the country" We should probably include quotation marks, just to make this clear that she said this directly.
"the State Security Committee of Belarus announced that an attempt was being made on Tsikhanouskaya's life, saying that the protesters needed a "sacred sacrifice"" Was there any truth to this? We should probably be a bit clearer that this is something that they alleged. "announced" and "saying" might be a bit too passive.
NHK World-Japan citation should probably use the name of the publication, rather than the web address.
Authors should be credited for the Reuters and DW citations.
No need to list Radio Free Europe as the publisher of Radio Free Europe.
Link to 2020–2021 Belarusian protests for "a period of protest".
"de facto" should probably be italicised.
"Tsikhanouskaya has denied that she leads a government in exile." The source gives more context for the denial, so we probably should too. Also, if she denies that she's formed a government in exile, should we really be declaring that in wikivoice in the section header? That reads very poorly. I'd advise giving more detail on her denial and rewriting the section header to something else.
I don't think we should be citing a Facebook post if we have alternatives. We should probably cut this.
Regarding the translation of the Seimas source's title: It appears as though "Rezoliucija" was dropped from the beginning of the title. So the title should read "Rezoliucija dėl neteisėtos ir Baltarusijai Rusijos primetamos sąjungos" ["Resolution on the illegal union imposed on Belarus by Russia"]
Authors of the Seimas resolution were Seimo Pirmininkas and Viktoras Pranckietis, they should be credited.
Actually, do we have any secondary sources for Lithuania's recognition of Tsikhanouskaya that we can use, instead of a primary source from the Seimas itself?
Translation of the title for the Voice of America and RBK citations should be provided.
Author should be credited for the RBK citation.


#### 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Author should be credited and publication date provided for the Miami Herald citation.
"a strategy of underground dissidents in Belarus" Should this say "a strategy for underground dissidents"?
No access date for CBC citation?


#### Awards
"other Belarusian leaders of the country's democratic opposition" Reads odd. Maybe "other leaders of the Belarusian democratic opposition"?
"in a ceremony on December 16" Rest of the article uses DMY formatting, so this should too.
Norwegian citations should be tagged as using the Norwegian language.
Authors should be credited for Dagsavisen and LRT citations.
"other Belarusian leaders of the country's democratic opposition" Again, reads odd. Rewrite per above.


#### External links
It seems odd to have this citation to The Atlantic unused in the external links at the bottom of the article. Is there anything from this that we could add into the article, so that we could cite this inline?


#### Lead
Maybe move "authoritarian" from before "president" to before "rule"?
"she has led the political opposition to his rule through a government in exile operating from Lithuania" But she denied it was a government in exile. This reads quite badly, considering. This should be rewritten in order to bring it in line with the body.
Might be worth including a sentence on her proposals for her presidency.
"has established an alternate Belarusian government-in-exile" There it is again. This should be cut.


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Very well-written without any obvious grammatical or spelling mistakes. I've suggested a couple rewrites/rephrasings, but nothing major.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
For the most part. There's only one case of a word to watch, with "despite". I have recommended that be rephrased, per the cited source.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
The formatting is a bit all over the place. Some citations don't use proper formatting, others don't include author credits, dates of publication, or other key details. This is the main thing that I think needs fixing before I can pass this.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Every statement has at least one inline citation.
C. It contains no original research: 
Spotchecks mostly verify what is said, with one or two minor exceptions. The lead and a section header's assertion that Tsikhanouskaya formed a government in exile, despite apparently not being sourced, reads like possible OR.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig mostly flags direct and properly-attributed quotes. One case of a direct copy-paste of text, in the awards section.[9] I have already suggested a rewrite on this sentence.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
For the most parts. Descriptions of Lukashanko's "dictatorship" have basis in the sources. But the assertion that Tsikhanouskaya formed a "government-in-exile", despite mentioning her denial of such and not mentioning anything to the contrary, reads as non-neutral.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
There have been some reversions over the past few months, but nothing major that has approached an edit war or that has drastically affected the article. Article has been largely stable since the beginning of October.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Images are all in the public domain or licensed under creative commons. Most of the images provided are from state sources, with one being an original work.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
All images are relevant and captioned. Although alt text should really be provided for them.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
When it comes to prose and broadness, this article is all good, with only minor notes. The issues are mostly with incomplete and unformatted citations and a couple cases of OR/NPOV. I'll put the review on hold for now, until these issues are addressed. Ping me once they've been seen to and I'll give the article another look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Concerns addressed, passing now. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Grnrchst

I wasn't able to find anything about independent verification of votes.
It does feel like a slight POV problem to remove a fact about the subject (that she leads a government in exile) simply because she denies it, but I've switched it to opposition government.
The Atlantic link under external links is an interview, so it's not an ideal source. I just left it there when I began editing the article.
I've left some of the foreign language references untouched, and there were a few references where no author was listed in the source. For what it's worth, reference formatting is one of the things that reviewers are explicitly not expected to look for.
I've made all of the other changes.
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Thank you for addressing all of my concerns :) Regarding the POV problem, I would agree, except we don't have any sourced text in the article that does describe it as a government in exile. If we had, I would feel differently. And apologies if I went a bit overboard with reference formatting suggestions, it was just an issue I was coming up against when trying to verify stuff. Anyway, I'll go ahead and pass this now. Thanks again and excellent work on this article, as always. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

May I ask which kind of romanization method is used for romanizing her name, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya? СлаваУкраїні 19:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead is disorganised and too long. Much of the latter two very long paragraphs should be/is in the main body. I will edit down depending on comments received here. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to include content from the body, per MOS:LEAD. It can be trimmed a little, but it should still cover every part of the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @Thebiguglyalien Very much so. I think the weakness here is that the second two paragraphs simply provide far too much detail. For example, at para 2; "He was arrested, along with most other opposition leaders, and, as she was unable to file for the presidency on his behalf, Tsikhanouskaya entered herself into the race as a candidate". I think there should be two paragraphs in all, and the second should be as tight as the first one presently is. Emmentalist (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)