Talk:Michael Marks

Was Marks a refugee?

The article doesn't say that he fled persecution. Was he an economic migrant? Obviously, all M&S customers will be grateful that he came, whatever the reason! But Wikipedia needs to be accurate. 81.148.12.80 12:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This may help you understand what was going on in eastern Europe at about the time many Jews started moving westward in the mid and late 19th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

When was he born?

Alot of people need to know but the article doesnt say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.142.90 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows. As the article says. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the following Censuses, the year of his birth was -

5th April 1891 - 1861 Poland, Russian Empire 31st March 1901 - 1863 Poland, Russian Empire

I got these from Ancestry. I would take an educated guess and say that he was born possibly in 1862, but again I don't think we'll ever know for sure unless there are birth records still around in contemporary Belarus. 194.221.74.7 (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

Regarding his nationality, there is unclarity across different sources. The sources currently used in the article suggest that Marks was either Russian or Belarusian Jew. However, considering he came from a part of today's Belarus, then being part of the partitioned Poland and also refferred to as Belaya Rus (White Rus), where historically Belarusian and Polish Jews had lived (see Schagal and others for an example of reference ), the article uses dual nationality to address both of the unproved, but most possible options. As such, either 'Russian' must be used to refer to the independent state of birth, or 'Belarusian' and 'Polish' to refer to the dependencies of that time, unless a reliable source with more details on Mark's biography is provided. Please provide further evidence, if found (please note that even though the sources from published books are preferred, alternative resources from established and historical organisations are accepted if they add to a point). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katlianik (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, before publishing content please reach a Wikipedia:Consensus on here; it needs to be discussed. The sources you have added are either broken or have no page numbers so I can't check and verify the content. If it really is difficult to determine I'd just leave the Polish and British part out and purely say that he was a businessman with no nationality in the lead. Chagal was born in eastern Belarus, Słonim is in the west; that complicates the dispute. Nationality is not citizenship, hence his nationality was not Russian. Jewish identity under Wikipedia rules is not classified as a nationality either, unless it was important to the man's work eg. religious leaders. Certain sources claim "Belarusian-Jewish" looking solely at the geographical placement of Slonim at present, which is in Belarus. It's like saying that Germans born in Breslau (since 1945 Wrocław) are not Germans only Poles. The source which states "Russian-Jewish" is based on the register from the country he came from at the time, the Russian Empire. These sources for example claim he was a Polish Jew: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Oliszydlowski (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Please see through all the references provided carefully. They all state a variety of possible national origins, namely Belarusian Jew, Polish Jew, Russian Jew. Hence there is no sole citation nor approach that could be solely used as a valid. You point on the approaches taken by different sources to determining nationality is invalid as there is no sole scientific way of doing so (unless a person explicitly uses or used one specific nationality in their life or official documents), hence all logical approaches and reliable sources must be taken into account. Here is some of the sources you removed that support the duality of Marks' nationality (they exclude the ones that you mention above. Please also note, that you refer to a Russian source as biased, however yourself provide a source by Polish authors which can be regarded biased on the same grounds; regardless, I do not referr to it here.): [1] [2]

2. The region of Slonim of the 19th century cannot be solely addressed to as Polish. There is lots of historical evidence that is was then referred to both as Poland and Belaya Rus (Belarus) within Russia [3][4]. Besides, should a historical approach be taken, it was a Slavic Ruthenian region within the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, so we cannot know for sure self-identification of the locals unless proven vividly. Reasonably, in similar cases, it is customary to mention all possible nationalities in Wiki articles (see Schagal, Kalinowski, etc), in cases when there is no clear evidence of how a person referred to themselves in any of the sources (same evidence is found in other nationalities).

3. Other arguments can only be treated as personal opinions as they are based only on assumptions.

4. Therefore. All reliable sources must be taken into account. Existing Wiki practices should be looked at. Personal opinions outside of existing sources must be views only as opinions to exclude bias. Any resources cannot be weighted against each other based on personal opinions. Quantity of resources is not a valid reason of choosing a dominant (e.g. Marks is mentioned more often as Russian Jew in the internet, however it may well be due to the number of Russian publications, not their importance). Hence all reliable sources must be equally taken into account and not selectively excluded.

5. In light of this, to avoid bias and provide full information on the issue dual Belarusian-Polish nationality must be used in the article, unless new sources which disapprove existing opinions are discovered in future.

5B. Alternatively, removing Polish/Belarusian from the article and only leaving the city of origin can also work as a compromise, up to a point when another consensus achieved.

On the remaining points:

6. There is no clear view across various sources on whether Jews is a nationality or not. So I leave out this point for future discussions. My suggestion would be simply avoid using 'Jews' and nationality in one sentence where possible.

7. Russian citizenship is most likely to be correct. However, there is no evidence Marks actually had one. Hence, I would suggest using Russian as the most probable one, as there is no other options, and leave it for future discussions.

Katlianik (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Using Russian as what? Any notion of Russian as a nationality in such a vast multinational Empire which driven neighbouring states by force into it is unacceptable. Being born in the Russian Empire is equivalent to having Russian citizenship, which is already mentioned in the article. Moreover, the region was historically part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, hence one could even write Lithuanian. This could go on forever. I would remove all information in regards to nationality and just state "a businessman and founder of Marks&Spencer" in the introduction. In the upcoming week I will have a look into some records and see for any hints. It is rare that Jews from that region are assigned Polish nationality, but a lot of sources do claim and support that (Note that Marks was born in the early period [1859] before the January Uprising after which the policy of Russification strengthened). I guess I will have to do also some research. I am not even entirely certain if Jews were officially registered as nationals in the Empire of whether they were regarded as stateless in the Pale of Settlement. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Using Russian as citizenship, if you refer to my 7th point. I think we have no disagreement on this.

2. I would also not go into the historical naming. It was only given to refuse the approach when one or another nationality is assigned on the basis of a location only, while no strong single factual evidence is present. So I think we agree here that the article should focus on factual information and avoid historical assumptions.

3. I do accept the point that he could have considered himself Polish, there is both logical and factual evidence for that. My point is that considering that there are valid alternative versions on the point or unless we know for sure from official documents or statement he made himself, we can only be part sure on whatever point.

4. To sum up, I do agree that removal of information regarding nationality is a wise approach, given the lack of clear information and little evidence on the point in the existing sources. This would make the article purely factual, visually clearer and leave a reader with an unbiased starting point for any conclusions. You participation in the discussion and further corrections according to the consensus we have got to, is highly appreciated. My extra suggestion would be to give links to the sources both from the existing article and this discussion into the links section.

Katlianik (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To reference point 3, I had a look at the earliest available records. The earliest I found so far was from 1944 from the "Jews of Britain" by Paul Herman Emden which states "Michael Marks, who arrived in England from Poland in 1884 and had his first account with Isaac Dewhurst & Co, at Leeds, came in contact with their sales manager Thomas Spencer" on page 478 - 1 Similar claims are made in the reviews from 1950s and 1960s. I typed in "Russia" as a search word and nothing showed up for that time period. It is possible that he have moved from Slonim to Congress Poland or migrated from Congress Poland to England. Oliszydlowski (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I agree that this adds to the argument that Marks could have moved to Britain from a more western part of the territory than Slonim. Sadly it does not much clarify the question of his nationality or identification. By the way, an interesting fact is that the author's publication is dated 1944, so at that specific year Slonim actually had been on the territory of Poland for some years; this could have affected the terms that were then used. I will try to do some further research as well and will also try and search through publications in other languages. Will reply if I find any new relevant source.

Katlianik (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have watched into all references in the article, sources from German and Soviet authors and more recent publications. What seems clear is that none of them have a clear justification for the nationality they use. In fact, most do not focus on nationality and seem to use any version using their personal judgement. Unfortunately, I did not manage to find any source that would quote Marks himself or refer to an official document which could have taken the information on the issue from Marks or his relatives. I also contacted a couple of authors of more recent articles asking for references they rely on, however no reference has been provided at the moment.

In light of this, I agree with the consensus that we made earlier. Nationality of Marks is unclear due to lack of sources. We can make assumptions based on locations mentioned in different publications, but those would still be opinions. Hence, only two options remain feasible - either mentioning all possible nationalities or removing all nationalities from the article as you suggested.

Given that Wikipedia aims to rely on factual information, I would go with the latter. Removing nationality from the article would make it purely factual and clearer.

Should I receive any references from the authors I contacted, I'll update the Talk. Meanwhile, I wish to thank you for digging into the issue together, and ask you to take your time to make the corrections in the article.

Katlianik (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Katlianik: - Thank you for your insight. I was briefly unavailable. I will make changes or do some further research in the upcoming days. Oliszydlowski (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Marks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/facilitiesandresources/diversity/events/documents/multiculturalism_poster_m_s.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)