Talk:Western Belorussia

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Western Belorussia → Western BelarusWestern Belarus
• Eastern Belorussia → Eastern BelarusEastern Belarus
• Soviet annexation of Western Belorussia → Soviet annexation of Western Belarus

– Per WP:CONSISTENT with Belarus, as well as the fact that Western Belarus and Eastern Belarus are still-existing geographical, political, and cultural areas not limited exclusively to the interwar Polish-Soviet separation of Belarus (see Grigory Ioffe's Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity). Therefore, using a term like "Belorussia" is inappropriate, even if the current text of the article relates primarily to the interwar period. Additionally, Google Scholar states that there are more results for Western Belarus than Western Belorussia by a margin of 2.5:1. Mupper-san (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This area was known as Belorussia or Byelorussia in the Soviet era, not Belarus. These are historical not modern place names. So, the WP:CONSISTENT argument runs the other direction. Similarly, we are not going to rename Soviet Union to something like "Russian Union" just because the modern state is named Russia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish The existence of western Belarus as a cultural region is, as I stated, not limited to the Soviet era. The fact that the article currently limits itself to the Belarusian portion of the Kresy does not make this fact less true, so I don't see why it being called as such historically is relevant.

  Mupper-san (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  We don't name articles for what they might someday scope-change into. The article we have is about a historical region, and I can't see any reason that an article about the modern western part of Belarus (if such coverage is actually warranted – I'm just taking your word for it that "Western Belarus" is treated that way, like "the American South" or "the North of England" are well-defined cultural subnational regions that are articleworthy) would have to be shoehorned into the same article as the historic Soviet-era coverage. It might actually be better to keep them separate, and use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to briefly summarize the one in the other. By way of similar reasoning, many traditional counties of the UK have merged into (or even been split across) modern administrative areas of various sorts, and we have separate articles for each of them; we do not try to force all the historical coverage of an area into the article on the modern geographical unit that contains it. E.g. Argyll AKA Argyllshire, the trad. county, is a separate article from Argyll and Bute, the current "council area"; even Argyllshire (UK Parliament constituency) is a separate article, because the context and boundaries were a bit different from traditional Argyll[shire].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish Conversely, the Western Belarus/Belorussia article as it is now does not refer specifically to the western half of the Byelorussian SSR or "Belorussia", which, as you state, is a Soviet term, but rather parts of the Kresy in which the Belarusian cultural and political movement was active. Therefore, I would argue that it isn't particularly appropriate to use "Belorussia", a Russian-language term used largely in reference to the Byelorussian SSR, given the content of the article is more focused around the Belarusian minority in the Second Polish Republic than the portion of the BSSR from 1939 to 1945. Another instance of this is the article for the Belarusian Democratic Republic using "Belarusian" in the title, rather than "Belorussian", as well as the Belarusian Peasants' and Workers' Union.

  Likewise, Eastern Belarus/Belorussia referring to the portion of Belarus which was not under Poland during the interwar period is already covered at the BSSR's page, and as such, simply covering it as such is redundant. I have expanded the article to include sources and further information in order to differentiate it from the BSSR's page, though please let me know if such a thing is not ideal given that it significantly changes one of the articles requested to be moved.

  Mupper-san (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not persuaded. Any tidbits of stuff that is not from the interwar era can be moved to a more general article on the region.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  But why, again, should an article on the history of the Byelorussian SSR between 1920 and 1939, or the Belarusian minority within some voivodeships of the Second Polish Republic, use the terms Western/Eastern Belarus/Belorussia, when such a term is used to refer to a region in eastern Belarus in general? If we truly want to make an article about the history of Belarus during the interwar era, east or west, it should not use a broad-reaching term which refers to an existing Belarusian region. To use your own example of other historical regions within the Anglosphere, the page for the American South does not exclusively discuss the history of the Confederacy, nor does the page for Scotland purely discuss the Kingdom of Scotland nor Scottish devolution.

  I fail to see how "Eastern Belorussia" or "Eastern Belarus" serves as an unambiguous primary topic for the Byelorussian SSR as it existed during the interwar period, or how "Western Belorussia" or "Western Belarus" serves as such for ethnically-Belarusian parts of the Kresy. Such an article for the former would be better covered at something like history of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (1920–1939), as there is no evidence (and, in fact, evidence to the contrary, as shown in the current Eastern Belorussia article) that "Eastern Belorussia" unambiguously refers to the Byelorussian SSR during the interwar period, or that "Western Belorussia" unambiguously refers to parts of the Kresy which were annexed into the Byelorussian SSR during the Soviet invasion of Poland.

  Mupper-san (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I've already made my argument and am not inclined to repeat it. These articles are not about the east and west of the current nation-state, but about the historical B[y]elorussia. If you don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish I again repeat that eastern and western Belarus are existing cultural and historical regions of Belarus, which both predate and succeed historical "Belorussia" as it existed from 1920 to 1991. The BSSR from 1920 to 1939 or the Soviet period of western Belarusian history are not definitive geographic or purely historical terms which are uniquely, definitively, or commonly referred to with the term "Eastern/Western Belorussia" - and there is evidence against this, which can be seen in the current form of the "Eastern Belorussia" page. Furthermore, the article for "Western Belorussia" does not refer specifically to the western part of the BSSR, but rather to, again, a geographic area formerly part of the Belarusian Democratic Republic which had significant Belarusian political activity during its existence. Articles specifically referring to the history of the BSSR between 1920 and 1939, or the history of Belarusians under the Second Polish Republic, should go under articles which are named as such, not articles under the broad names of "Western Belarus"/"Belorussia".

  Of additional note, only two of five sections in the "Western Belorussia" page discuss the area within the Soviet Union. The remaining portion, making up ~63% of total text in the article, discusses the region either under the Belarusian Democratic Republic, the Second Polish Republic, or present-day Belarus. It is therefore incorrect to place the article's scope as being exclusively or primarily part of Soviet history. As I originally stated, "western Belarus" also dominates over "western Belorussia" on Google Scholar, and in both cases, there is no evidence that the term refers exclusively or even primarily to the region of the Second Polish Republic annexed into the BSSR. Together, these facts illustrate the claim that using "Belorussia" is ideal, so as to be WP:CONSISTENT with the BSSR article, is not a strong argument.

  Mupper-san (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:BLUDGEON. I'm not sure how to be clearer that I decline to argue circularly with you to the death. You've made your point, I've made mine, it's time to be quiet and let others participate now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: the nation is currently known as Belarus; the usage shifted accordingly as shown in the nomination. The entities existed in the interwar period and are not necessarily related to the Soviet period. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Um, the interwar period was a subset of the Soviet period.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Western Belarus was part of the Second Polish Republic at that time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  And was not generally called "Belarus" then; "Belarus" (in English, anyway) almost entirely post-dates 1991.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  The concept the cultural and geographical region is not limited to the period between the two wars. The name of the nation continued to be Belarus; compare Second Polish Republic and Poland; Russian SSR and Russia, etc; also see: Western Ukraine. The change from "Belorussia" to "Belarus" in English-language sources post 1991 is the result of Belarus becoming an independent state, with the new official name being the "(Republic of) Belarus". Hence the shift in English transliteration from the Russian-derived "Belorussia" to Belarusian-derived "Belarus"; see Belarus#Etymology. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The Western Belorussia and Eastern Belorussia articles refer to the territories that were under Polish and Soviet rule in the interwar period, this is the current scope and it seems this is used in historical contexts. The article for this period is Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic so the consistency argument is weak. Mellk (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support: WP:CONSISTENT with Belarus. Western and Eastern Belarus were not official names like Byelorussian SSR. They are terms naming the West and East of the country, currently known as Belarus. Lucjim (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per scope of the article, which is not about the western part of the contemporary state of Belarus, but a region known as Western Belorussia between the two World Wars. If anyone wants to move it to Western ByelorussiaWestern Byelorussia for consistency, that's fine with me. —  AjaxSmack  04:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • NB that "Western B(y)elorussia" is still more common than "Western Belarus" per this Google ngram. —  AjaxSmack  14:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  What about the possibility of moving the current Western Belorussia article to a different name (something like "Western Belorussia (Interwar period)", perhaps), so as to separate it from Western Belarus as a whole? The Google Scholar search, at least, indicates that the term isn't used by any means exclusively or dominantly to apply to Western Belarus/Belorussia (at least one article on the first page for Western Belorussia refers to the environment of the region as the western area of the BSSR, rather than the region as it was under the Second Polish Republic).

  Mupper-san (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's not really a need. "Western Belorussia/Belarus" is not all that encyclopedically significant except during the interwar period. Glance at the texts of the Russian, Belarusian and Polish Wikipedia articles, and note that all three, while having undisambiguated titles, only deal with the interwar period. —  AjaxSmack  15:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the WP:RS are certainly there to at least justify inclusion on the Western Belorussia beyond 1921–1941. I'll list some here for purposes of clarity, though I do apologise in advance if this comes off as bludgeoning.

  • Ioffe's Understanding Belarus: Belarussian [sic] Identity, mentioned above.
  • Chernyshova, Natalya (March 2021). De-Stalinisation and Insubordination in the Soviet Borderlands: Beria's Attempted National Reform in Soviet Belarus. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 73, No. 2 (pages 392–394, detailing a 1953 report by Zimyanin on the economy and social conditions of western and eastern Belarus; however, given the content of Zimyanin's report are primarily concerned with then-ongoing Sovietisation, I could understand viewing this as part of .
  • Sabaleuskaya, Volha (December 2006) Changing Conceptions of Leisure Among the Jews of Western Belarus at the End of the 19th Century. East European Jewish Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 2.
  • Sapiets, Marite (1982) The situation of the Roman Catholic Church in Belorussia. Religion in Communist Lands, Vol. 10.

  Additionally, this source discusses the east/west cultural and economic divide (again, apologies if this comes across as bludgeoning):

  • ed. Léo-Paul Dana et. al. Handbook of Research on European Business and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Theory of Internationalization (pages 54–60, discussing how Western Belarus is culturally closer to Poland and Lithuania than eastern Belarus is, noting religious similarities, a comparably-agrarian economy, and the large size of the Polish minority).

  Sources on Eastern Belorussia outside 1921–1945 can also be found on the respective page.

  Finally, while I do know it's not really a point, I will note that both the Russian and Ukrainian versions of the Western Ukraine page also discuss the region primarily in the historical sense, relegating information about the region post-1945 to single paragraphs. This contrasts with the English version of the page, which includes much further information about the region since 1945. So, I wouldn't say that the Russian and Belarusian-language pages for Western Belarus should be necessarily taken as ideal references of what the page's contents should look like.

  Mupper-san (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  As an addendum, I would like to state that this list exclusively includes English-language sources which discuss it as the main topic (save for the final one), so as to demonstrate that there would be room for Western Belorussia/Belarus outside of the interwar era to theoretically pass the GNG in absence of any existing article on the area. To summarise, because I feel that I may not have clearly enough stated this, I would say that this supports the argument that Western Belorussia/Belarus has significance outside of the area of the Second Polish Republic that became part of the BSSR.

  Mupper-san (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Belorussia redirects to Belarus. If these are in fact just in the scope of the older regions, I don't think they're the primary topic for Western Belorussia/Eastern Belorussia (though the Soviet annexation one is probably fine). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It's a little like a less extreme version of "East Germany", which refers to a specific historical period. "Western Belorussia" doesn't have much application outside of the interwar period. —  AjaxSmack  14:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with the main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as inaccurate. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, anachronism. 162 etc. (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)