Talk:Poles in Belarus

Hmmm
Probably an isolated incident not worth including in the article but... "Neo-nazis in Belarus attack Poles".--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement that "The Polish minority in Belarus consists mainly of people settled to West Belarus in the period between the two World Wars". This is simply not true so I deleted it. There was no massive settlement of Poles to the current territory of Belarus in the interwar period (there were some former soldiers settled but it was a tiny minority compared to the number of Poles who had lived there even before the First World War). The Poles who live now in Belarus are in majority direct descendants of Catholic Lithuanian peasants (from Hrodna, Lida and Vilnius regions), who in the 18th and 19th centuries first adopted the Belorussian language and then the Polish identity and sometimes the Polish language. Some Poles in Belarus are descendants of polonized Ruthenian and Lithuanian nobility (polonized very long ago in past, in 16th and 17th centuries), but this group was severely persecuted in 1939-41 and most of them emigrated to Poland after 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.54.250 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic Demographics?
Based on the census data from Demographics Weekly, I get the following numbers:


 * 8,054,648 inhabitants of the BSSR in 1959
 * 538,881 Poles or 6.69 as a percentage


 * 9,002,338 inhabitants of the BSSR in 1970
 * 382,600 Poles or 4.25 as a percentage


 * 9,532,516 inhabitants of the BSSR in 1979
 * 403,169 Poles or 4.23 as a percentage

Prussia1231 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Prussia1231
 * 10,151,806 inhabitants of the BSSR in 1989
 * 417,720 Poles or 4.11 as a percentage

Map


The map is unsourced and badly formatted, would the authors please at least add the sources to it. --Czalex 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned?
I might be mistaken, but there doesn't seem to be any direct mentioning of the Polish-Soviet War/Polish-Belarussian Conflicts, outside of:

"Polish influence was restored over West Belarus in the interwar period. The Polish government continued the policy of active polonization of the local population, stimulating local people to take Polish identity."

It seems like this would be sort of an important issue to the history of Poles in Belarus (it is, after all, mentioned on the article for Belarussians in Poland). Even if there isn't much information available, it seems as though the war itself should be mentioned, instead of just "...in the interwar period", which seems somewhat vague in of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.87.73 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellman & Montefiore
I reverted the recent additions (diff) as they misrepresented two sources. The article had:

Ellman does not conclude this (pp 687-688). Likewise, Montefiore does not share Ellman's opinion, because Ellman's opinion has been misrepresented. This is OR and misuse of sources. I suggest checking sources before restoring obviously dubious material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed "genocide". My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to have restored the language I objected to; the article still reads: ... amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention, concluded historian Michael Ellman... diff
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He DOES conclude this. Please read the source again. Not whatever nonsense Icewhiz is claiming. The source itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed this per WP:HOAX, WP:BLPREMOVE. I will also note this was originally by a blocked sock - diff. What's attributed to Ellman is incorrect - he did not say that - he says "maybe", notes several objections, and concludes that " "there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38"). Furthermore, the restored passage as it reads states this resulted in "the virtual eradication of Polish minority along the border" - which is incorrect (nor is it supported by the cited source - a blog reporting on a letter it received from Snyder - the blog nor the quotes from Snyder say any such thing), it also attributes Soviet-Union wide numbers to Belarus, and furthermore incorrectly states that all victims of the "Polish operation" were Poles - in fact USSR-wide some 80% were Poles, while in Belarus the figure stands at approx. 43%. In Belarus there were a total of 17,772 killed - approx. 7,600 of which were Poles. There are also serious NPOV concerns in other aspects of text and use of non-reliable and very far off mainstream sources - e.g. the politician/editor of Najwyższy Czas! - a publication associated with a "fringe, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-property rights, anti-income tax group", that has frequently published antisemitic articles, including by a convicted Holocaust denier.. Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This was NOT a WP:HOAX or a BLP issue for that matter. You've been warned before about falsely accusing other editors of making "hoaxes", when it's clearly not the case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And we're NOT using NCzas as a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What Ellman said
Ellman summarises (p. 690) his discussion of the operation thus:

This is not the same as "[The operation] amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention, concluded historian Michael Ellman", no? Without Ellman, the rest of the paragraph does not make sense, because his "conclusion" is being misrepresented. I.e. Montefiore (in passing) mentions a "mini-genocide"; this is not a "similar conclusion" as the article claims:. What's a mini-genocide anyway? A genocide is a genocide. Tomasz Sommer is a journalist and author, not a scholar; his opinion is undue. Etc. I suggest reviewing sources and proposing something that is a. true to sources, and b. not a coatrack. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The part that you're omitting, is the part which follows that sentence, where he considers arguments against the notion that it was a genocide, and then proceeds to debunk them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In my edit, I introduced three in-depth academic works in English that each address Belarus specifically, and included in the article data on what happened in Belarus. - your edit is an improvement, however it still does not address Belarus, has several errors (e.g. not all of the dead (our article currently says "111,091 ethnic Poles") in "Polish operation" were Poles - some 80% were across the USSR, and less than 50% in Belarus), uses non-mainstream sources (e.g. Sommer), non-RS (e.g. Sommer's book description at a book store, polish club), and misrepresents others (e.g. McDermott). The content was added to this article by a blocked sock (and others socks from the some farm added this to other articles), and has stood unchallenged (in this little edited article up to now. Given this state of affairs - those reverting this content back in take responsibility for the sock's edits - and these count as newly introduced material to this article. I suggest you take a look at this mainstream English writing:  Icewhiz (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ellman again

 * Edellman mentions the "Polish operation" in two locations: pp. 686-687 and in "Conclusion" p. 690. Here's what he says:

And

In both cases, he uses the language of "might well qualify", "may qualify" and "there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation". This is not the same as "[The operation] amounted to an ethnic genocide as defined by the UN convention, concluded historian Michael Ellman", no?

Without Ellman, the rest of the paragraph does not make sense, because his "conclusion" is being misrepresented. I.e. Montefiore (in passing) mentions a "mini-genocide"; this is not a "similar conclusion" as the article claims:. What's a mini-genocide anyway? A genocide is a genocide. Tomasz Sommer is a journalist and author, not a scholar; his opinion is undue. Etc. I suggest reviewing sources and proposing something that is a. true to sources, and b. not a coatrack. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ellman concludes that it was a genocide but considers the possibility that others may disagree. That's all there is too it. If you want to reword Montefiore etc. that's fine, but please stop removing the material wholesale and blind reverting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite precious - given blind reverts such as this one. Ellman does not conclude anything. Please justify removal of Belarus specific information sourced to actual published academic works, in English, by - Morris, Marin, and Petrov&Roginsky. Please justify each of the sources you introduced (as you are responsible for this content, given article history that was pointed out to you) - including a book description at an on-line store and a politician/journlist (editor of Najwyższy Czas!) interviewed in a Polish language tabloid - Super Express. Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * VM, that's a misreading of the source, I'm afraid. The text is not "well sourced" when it's OR and misrepresentation of sources. Why do you assume that I'm blind reverting?  K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)