Talk:1931 Polish census/Archive 1

Polonisation
How come "Belarusian Catholics were counted as Poles" even though there was no question of nationality? So, there was exception for Belarusian Catholics?  // Halibutt 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly the author is referring to some sort of official summation of the census results. I didn't find that anywhere, but apparently historians are still analyzing the results to come up with their own summaries of ethnic populations (aka "national composition", ), , ,  ) . As, for instance, here  : "Waldemar Michowicz's corrected figures (1988) approach those of Tomaszewki; Ukrainians, according to him, constituted 16.2% of the total population..." Novickas (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, it's a little imprecise, as it was not the census itself, but its' interpretations, be them scientific or not. The census itself said nothing of Belarusians or Poles (unless we count all Polish speakers as " Poles " or all who took part in it as " Poles ", but again, it's my interpretation, not the census itself).  // Halibutt 09:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'who counted as what' stuff should probably go into a separate section titled Public policy applications or something like that. The Minorities treaty was still in effect and it seems safe to say that allocation of Sejm seats, educational policy, etc. did not use all the permutations of language/religion but rather rolled them up into broader categories. I haven't found sources, but WP is a work in progress. Novickas (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to restructure the article a bit. I also removed the minority treaty mention, as it had little to do with the census. Finally, I expanded the lead to actually say more of the census itself. After all it was not all about what representatives of minorities thought.  // Halibutt 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have very big concerns about user Halibutt edits in this article, especially his claims that no election rights were violated by Poles in Western Belarus and his subsequent edit although this claim is supported by numerous sources Belarusian and non-Belarusian. It seems to me that he came to this page to learn a bit of what has happened really on elections and in order to support his dispute in Polonization article undertook deletion of reliable sources here. His edit here deleting sourced information, seems to be pursuing nothing but his own nationalist agenda. Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Polish election rights never came close to the democratic standards introduced by Stalin in Eastern Belarus. Dr. Loosmark  15:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Colleague, please avoid irony and other unclear speech in article talk pages, since it is mostly confusing, rather than helpful for article improvement. It took me some time to research in your edit style to understand what exactly you meant. (As you may know, some wikipedians do believe in Soviet democracy.) Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Vlad, in the other article I stated my problems with your edits at the talk page. Why not answer my doubts instead of insulting me? As to this article, the very diff you linked proves that I did not delete sources. I merely restructured the article, rewritten some parts of it and actually added more sources. Compare the revision from before and after my edits. If you're unhappy with my edit - feel free to state your problems here at the talk page, I'd be happy to explain or work with you on some compromise solution. Unexplained reverts is not the way to go.
 * BTW, if adding sources suggesting the census was not entirely reliable and its' interpretations often flawed proves my nationalist agenda, then what agenda is it? Belarusian? Lithuanian?  // Halibutt 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ruthenians"
Re this: what was the Polish word which you translated as "Ruthenians"? (I find in unusual to see Belarusians and Lemkos merged into one group.) Also, who are "some authors"? In other words, I would like to have an extra verification for what exactly Zielinski wrote (althouh I do believe in the general idea about Soviet scientists). Can you provide an exact quote (or a snippet view in google books)? Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, that's why it's so funny to see it in a history book. As to the word used it was Rusini (the very same word used in pre-war Polish language for Ukrainians, hence the double confusion). As to a snippet view, I couldn't find the book on the web and I don't have it at hand, but there's a map from Zielinski's book available at commons here, you can see a "Ruthenian" majority in all of SE Poland, including Pinsk Marshes. One can also wonder where did the Silesian Germans go on this map...
 * BTW, large part of the punchline is in the word used. As I noted before, up to WWII it was commonly used and correct name for Ukrainians in Polish, "Rusin" was pretty much a synonym to "Ukrainiec". However, after WWII the word was phased out as it turned out Ukrainians despised the name. And then all of a sudden in 1980s either Zieliński himself (or, more likely, the Censorship Office) recreated the "Rusini" :)
 * Anyway, this is yet another proof that statistics is handy regardless of what you want to prove. It's like the Bible or Collected Works by Karl Marx: you can use it to justify practically anything.  // Halibutt 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But I did give the link to the book: 1990 edition, 1983 edition. I tried to search for some words there, but could not hit the text you are talking about, in particular no word "rusini". Dzied Bulbash (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the Second Polish Republic did not recognize "Ukrainian" as a language. Therefore, it could not measure how many Ruthenians were Ukrainians or Rusyns/Ruthenes, Belarussian, or whatever else. Ukrainian nationalists claim that these groups were actually Ukrainians, but it is considered chauvinistic especially by the Rusyns/Ruthenes in particular. So labeling all of the Ruthenian language speakers Ukrainians is both in correct and violates the NPOV policy.
 * Actually the Second Polish Republic did recognize Ukrainian as a language (Ukrainski). It also recognized Ruthenian as a separate language, (Ruski) (As does Dr. Paul Robert Magocsi Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto.  He currently acts as Honorary Chairman of the World Congress of Rusyns, and has authored many books on Rusyn history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robert_Magocsi) The confusion is that some here wish to relabel census data to promote a particular POV and thus conflate the Ruthenians and the Ukrainians.  This census also distinguished Belarusians (Bialoruski).  Rusians are listed as "Rosyjski". The confusion comes from those who wanted to challenge the legitimacy of the prewar Polish state by conflating all Ruthenians as one category during Communist times, and the aftermath.37.200.224.205 (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding manipulation
I see that the claim is made that the numbers were manipulated to minimize non-Polish populations, as compared with the 1921 Census. But the 1921 Census gave almost identical figures for the total ethnic Polish population. I suppose that that excludes Wilno and Upper Silesia, which had extensive non-Polish populations, so we'd expect the Polish percentage to go down somewhat rather than going slightly up, but it hardly seems dramatic enough to warrant so much concern. What's the deal, exactly? john k (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only say that we could use an explanation and clarification of the section. A section comparing the 1931 census to 1921 would be useful, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be accused of giving OR. I think the numbers speak for themselves.  The important fact of the census that has gotten obscured during the communist period and its aftermath is that the census counted Ukrainains and Ruthenians separately.  By the math, 27.5% of the combined total of Ukrainians and Ruthenians (the old Ruthenian category from the 1921 Census and during Hapsburg times) did not claim to be speaking the Ukrainian language, and likely had not accepted the Ukrainian national identity.  This fact also disproves that Poland had attempted to erase the Ukrainian identity, as some have claimed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.200.224.204 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP engages in OR using primary sources. Secondary sources include this as one number. For an explicit description, here it is: pg. 353.  One table with official Polish government results, a second one with adjusted numbers:Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and ...By Tadeusz Piotrowski  Piotrowski notes (pg. 294) that the official Polish census used "questionable methodology" and uses adjusted figures.  This IP, a Polish nationalist, naturally uses the primary source (original official Polish census) when making edits.Faustian (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This page is about the census itself. Sources which have not accurately reported the data from the census itself are not RS on what the Republic of Poland's Main Statistics Office actually asked Polish citizens, and what they responded.  According to WP:Attribute "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."  Anyone can check and see the accuracy of the reporting on what the Census actually reported.  Discussion on what others think about it is another matter.  The information age and Internet lets us share the raw data without the filters to make our own judgments about the experts interpretations.  Faustian, above, is pushing a Ukrainian Nationalist chauvinist POV that attempts to claim that all Ruthenians were actually Ukrainians, whether they wanted to have been or not.  The census answers speak for themselves about what language these people claimed to have spoken before Stalin and Hitler, with the allied Ukrainian Nationalists, began transferring and liquidating undesired civilian populations, and punishing them for not conforming to the state's wishes.  Piotrowski is a Sociologist and not a historian.  A sovereign state can count whatever it wants in its census.  There is no credible evidence that the census answers were somehow compelled.37.200.224.204 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed original research
The chart which had been used did not comport with the actual categories used to report mother tongue. What was here was some OR on how that data had been interpreted, or someone's interpretation of the raw data. No source was given, and it did not comport with the Census itself as listed on Table 10 (pg. 30 of the PDF) Reference to the US Census has no relevance to the 1931 Polish Census, nor could it be a RS of the same. The document speaks for itself, although one must be able to read Polish or French to understand it.85.154.245.172 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * / (as you are one and the same person), I will repeat what I have said on the issue already, being that what you are "engaging in is WP:SYNTH. The publication referred to above, was published in 1938 with French translations. The IP draws on the French translation of 'la Ruthene', rather than the actual Polish 'Ruski' which could just as easily be construed to be 'Rusyns' as in Lemkos... but drawing any conclusions from that source is speculative (i.e., OR)." In and of itself, this is a WP:PRIMARY source. Any conclusions you draw from it would have to be supported by reliable secondary sources. Where, precisely, are the secondary sources analysing the perceived difference between 'ukraiński' and 'ruski'? There is nothing self-explanatory about them except from your own WP:POV, and the difference between the previous version and your version after 19 edits is notably extreme (after deleting sources on a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT basis). Your 'contributions' to content have all been POV, and your attitude to Wikipedia is irrefutably WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Second General Census in Poland was an official document of the Second Polish Republic which was published both in Polish, (the national language), and also French, (the international language of the day). The government of Poland chose to measure those who spoke "Ruski" which translates in English as Ruthanian and in French as Ruthene.  The French translation provided by the Polish government's Main Bureau of Statistics should remove any doubt for a reasonable person what it was that they had intended to measure, i.e., those people who spoke an Eastern Slavic language which they had declared to be a Ruthenian language, and which they had chosen not to declare to have been the Ukrainian language.  It is comical for someone who does not speak or understand the Polish language to attempt to translate it.  Also note that Ruski in polish is also used to refer to Russians, but not Ukrainians.  (Anyone who doubts this should give it a try in a translator!)  The Polish Census of 1931 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of what questions were asked of those surveyed and what they responded.  It is quite self-explanatory for those who can read Polish or French.
 * Citation to the U.S. Census office's reference to assigning ethnicity (which the Census of 1931 had not attempted to measure) has been added in the appropriate place.
 * Truthful reporting of this official government publication matters. Although we have some here who wish to engage in using this census not as a reliable source, but who attempt to cite it for their own interpretations for what it didn't ask or measure, or to recycle discredited post-war communist era anti-polonist arguments to justify involuntary "population transfers".  (Such ethnic cleansing is what is now known as a crime against humanity.)  In doing so, they demonstrate their own POV and agenda, which is particularly noticeable in the disappearance of the non-Ukrainian Ruthenians.  Where did they go?  Siberia?  Kazakhstan?  Former German territory in post war Poland?  Executed?  Emigrated to the West?  These questions need answers, and not the typical nationalist Ukrainian white-washing of history.37.200.224.204 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Distinction between Yiddish and Hebrew speaking Jews
Can anyone add an explanation for why some Jews speak Yiddish and others speak Hebrew as a first language? From what I can read, it may depend on either what branch of Judaism they follow, or their ethnic roots, i.e. Sephardic,or non-Sephardic. The distinction is worthy of further analysis from RS.37.200.224.204 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Lithuanians?
There were no Lithuanians in Poland in 1931? That seems unlikely. john k (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There were in the Wilno Voyvodeship but as % of total population in 1931 Poland the number was small. In the city itself, according to the census there were 1,579, while in the Voyvodeship as a whole, about 65,000 . So 67/32,000 = (approx) .2% (as in about a fifth of one percent). This is of course going by the "mother tongue" definition. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be listed? That's a lot more for the Wilno Voivodeship than the number of Germans and Ukrainians, and about 5% of the total population of the Voivodeship.  john k (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm guessing that the total is skipping this because outside of Wilno Voivodeship the population was 0, and hence as a % was very very small overall. Volunteer Marek 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an "Other" column would be in order, with a note for Wilno Voivodeship noting how many of the others are Lithuanians? I'd also suggest that the article should make some effort to clarify that those who self-identify as "Local," are, in fact, basically Belorussians. john k (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Józef Piłsudski was the Minister of Military Affairs in 1931 and quite powerful. He was very proud that he was a Lithuanian, but the 1931 census did not ask him his ethnicity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.245.171 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Objections to the fidelity of this page reporting the results of the Polish Census of 1931
It is standard practice here on a page about a national census to cite directly from that census to relay what it reported. (See 2010 United States Census) This is not considered a violation of OR, since the Wiki author did not conduct the census survey. There may be criticisms of a particular census's methodology, etc. but it is not possible to discuss the criticism if the results of the census itself is not accurately reported. However, people who make no objection to reporting directly from a census in their home country are objecting to reporting directly from this census and claiming simply citing to the census itself, when it was published and available online, is OR. No claim has been made that the particular page in this census with the population data was not reported accurately. This appears very much like anti-polonist discrimination since it is being directed solely against the Polish state, or its Ruthenian minority, which disappeared from Soviet statistics after the war. Such discrimination is unacceptable and will be addressed appropriately.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The United States Census is written in English. The Polish Census being used here is a WP:PRIMARY source being translated from the Polish and French language entries according to Wikipedians. This flouts WP:NOR. It is not up to any of us to interpret an original document from 1931 in a language other than English by substituting nomenclature for Ruski, Ruthenes, or any other elements in the nomenclature according to WP:PPOV notions of their meaning in a primary document for the purposes of WP:SYNTH. In fact, the existing breakdown/breakup of the census ("Population by first language" and "Population by faith") should probably not have been allowed into the content due to OR translations, but was left in place because it doesn't make any attempts to extrapolate more information from the stats. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant and incorrect: Translations and transcriptions: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions  I have given you the rule and the link.  If you continue this course of behavior, I will conclude that you are being disruptive, contentious, and demonstrating ethnic animus.Doctor Franklin Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)(talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding a percentage to the numbers published by the census itself is not OR: Routine calculations-Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.  WP:CALC  No objection has been made to the arithmetic calculating the percentages.  This is nonsense.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For anyone too lazy to look up what the French word "Ruthene" translates into English, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is the same in English: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have copied the above statement of mine from the relevant thread started at User talk:Piotrus because User:Piotrus was erroneously assumed to be the author of an image map with the bad language breakdown for eastern Poland ... which is not being used in this article.  Poeticbent  talk 14:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That goes to "a meaningful reflection of the sources". The results are rounded off to the nearest 0.00%.  Below that most reasonable people would assume is statistically irrelevant. Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. There's no such thing as the "meaningful reflection of the sources" when the quote-unquote "sources" are contested by everyone, including Polish, Ukrainian and the English speaking historians. The only things worth noting are in the actual census results, for example that the Lithuanian was spoken by the inhabitants of Lwów. By how many, is anyone's guess. The same goes for other minorities,  Poeticbent  talk 18:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. There's no such thing as the "meaningful reflection of the sources" when the quote-unquote "sources" are contested by everyone, including Polish, Ukrainian and the English speaking historians. The only things worth noting are in the actual census results, for example that the Lithuanian was spoken by the inhabitants of Lwów. By how many, is anyone's guess. The same goes for other minorities,  Poeticbent  talk 18:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Tadeusz Piotrowski's quote that the census was "unrelaible" for counting ethnic groups.
Considering that the Polish 1931 census, like the U.S. 1930 Census, never asked respondents to declare an ethnic identity, it clearly is dubious to rely upon the linguistic data to extrapolate an ethnicity since it never had been intended to count the number of ethnic Poles vs. non-Poles. As with in the U.S. census, anyone who could speak the national language as a mother tongue was counted equally. Was Piotrowski making this point, or was he noting something else? Also note that "[The Belarusians]" is in brackets in the footnote, which indicates it was not in the original text. Since others have recognized that the dominate ethnic group in Polesia were ethnic Polesians, and not Belarussians, this needs clarification so as not to be WP:SYNTH.71.225.161.246 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to the 1930 United States Census
This page looks nothing like the WP page for the 1930 United States Census. That U.S. Census didn't ask a question about ethnicity or nationality, and only asked immigrants their country of birth and mother tongue. This page should look like that page, and the criticisms of the census need to be balanced by noting that asking for a respondent's "mother tongue" was in line with international standards, as was done in the U.S.2601:44:500:3408:FCA4:ADFB:18BF:642B (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to add the list of question that respondents answered in the census, as was done with the 1930 United States Census for comparison.71.225.161.246 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * == Verifiability of claim that Edward Szturm de Sztrem was "reported to have admitted" to have tampered with the census results. ==

The exact quote from Marcus cited that Edward Szturm de Sztrem "is reported to have admitted" to tampering the census data is not being quoted properly from the source. The present page has been changed from the passive voice that someone reported this (who reported this?) to the active voice that Edward Szturm de Sztrem himself admitted this as a WikiFact. This misrepresents the source, which itself is not identified or verified and is so much hearsay. Unless we have a statement from the man himself, this is so much gossip. Unless this can be further verified, it needs to go. The circumstances of this "admission" need further commentary since he continued to work for the Polish statistical office after the war while Poland was under communist rule and occupied by Soviet troops. This lacks a NPOV.2601:44:500:3408:F808:DD0C:FA7F:515D (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote from Blanke is "…their doubts were subsequently confirmed when the chief of the Main Statistical Office, Edward Szturm de Sztrem, admitted after the war that officials had been directed to undercount minorities, especially those in the eastern provinces”. As you say the quote from Marcus adds "reported". Note that Marcus states that the tampering was done after the census reports were returned, whereas Blanke asserts that the under-reporting was done in the field . Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Blanke doesn't assert that, there's some ambiguity as to what "undercount" refers to- the actual count or the report. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL this requires much more support than what is here: "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;"  Is it not odd that a man "was reported" to have admitted to falsifying a national census which he supervised after a war when his nation is being occupied by foreign troops supporting a puppet government?  You are string citing Blanke when he notes his source in a footnote.  The source of that footnote is not provided.  More is needed for this exceptional claim.2601:44:500:3408:F808:DD0C:FA7F:515D (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marcus: Szturm de Sztrem is reported to have admitted that the census returns were tampered with "by the executive power". Blanke: Szturm de Sztrem admitted that officials had been directed to undercount. Whether Szturm de Sztrem said it or not, Marcus implies that the data were fiddled at head office, Blanke that the census process itself was corrupted. You're right that more support is needed. Where was Szturm de Sztrem between September 1939 and May 1941? Apparently in May 1941 he arrived in Britain. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting that Szturm de Sztrem "admitted" this while in exile in London with his country was at war and under occupation by Germany and the Soviets, this would be even more WP:EXCEPTIONAL since it would have been considered extremely unpatriotic, if not treasonous. This is looking like WP:FRINGE.  The footnote source cited by Blanke needs to be stated here.71.225.161.246 (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not asking the right questions. Instead you are stuck on the question of whether Szturm de Sztrem "admitted" something. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the bibliography for Blanke's source for the Polish census. He did not cite the census itself but a tertiary work.  His comments on the census are therefore of little value since he didn't read the census itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that Blanke is a quaternary source. How did Szturm de Sztrem get to Britain in May 1941? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources: Ending Misconceptions
On the OR forum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 another user, uninvolved in editing this page, has noted a misconception that some here have confused primary, secondary and tertiary sources with regard to a census. The census survey forms completed by the enumerator are the primary source. The published census is the secondary source, thus RS. Others citing from the census are tertiary. Thus, this page suffers from insufficient reporting from the published census, the secondary source, and overweights tertiary sources of dubious usefulness and veracity, e.g., no RS exists that the Polish government ever intended to measure "national minorities" or ethnicity through the census. The result is that this page lacks a NPOV. Regardless of whether this issue is presently being discussed, this is a major problem. Therefore, the NPOV tag needs to stay until the matter is actually resolved.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the other editor was simply wrong. WP:PRIMARY: "  a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. " Raw data used in the experiment or survey is not the primary source.  The paper itself is the primary source. Thus, the published census (with raw data being the census numbers) is the scientific paper documenting the census.  The census is a primary source.  The secondary source is the RS discussing the census.  A tertiary source would be something like Encyclopedia Britannica summarizing it.Faustian (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, a census is a census, not a scientific experiment. A census counts people, it does not test scientific theories.  If Faustian is right, then every other census page on WP is wrong, because they cite extensively from the original census, and therefore must be OR according to Faustian.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Same principal applies, as the census is also a scientific work. Scientific papers and experiments in social sciences such as psychology typically use survey packets as their raw data. In these types of experiments or papers, the primary source is not the raw data - the survey used by the participants in the study or experiment - but rather the published paper itself.  Since per wikipedia policy the raw data in an experiment is not the primary source but rather the published paper is, neither is the raw data in the census the primary source, rather the published census is the primary source.Faustian (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why am I even arguing this? Wikipedia policy is very clear:  " Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires..." Furthermore: reports of government commissions  Is this clear enough now?Faustian (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not on a census's WP page, per WP practice. If Faustian is right, then every other census page is non-conforming, but I don't see Faustian and friends editing there.  Why are you here, and not there?Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not obligated to edit every article, or to check to even see if what you write about those articles is accurate. I edit the articles  I am interested in.  Policy is above is quite clear and spelled out:  " Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country (including material — which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial — published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial), editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires..." Furthermore: "reports of government commissions".  Per wikipedia policy, census is a primary source.  Period.Faustian (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The results of the 1931 Polish census results are disputed by historians. If we post the summary figures we also need to provide analysis by historians. The summary results of a census are a secondary source, the primary documents are the forms that are filled out at a local level. It goes without saying that if we post numerical data to Wikipedia that it should be backed up by reliable sources that give readers an analysis of the figures. We cannot post the summary figures of the 1931 Polish census and then post our own OR to explain them. Since the 1931 Polish census is disputed we need to make sure that the our sources analyze the data from a NPOV. I suspect that the other editor wants to use the summary figures and then post his own OR. We must have analysis by historians of the summary figures   --Woogie10w (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If they haven't read the census itself, and rely instead on tertiary documents, their opinions are not RS as secondary sources. (And why this kind of methodology has been permitted might be relevant if someone prominent labeled it as anti-polonism or discriminatory in a separate section.)  The dispute appears to be less the accuracy of the survey of what was asked, but that the Poles had some obligation to ask a ethnicity/nationality question.  (It is a fair point that many people were bi-lingual, etc.)  Analysis by other social scientists needs to be neutral, fair and balanced.  Why only historians?  Some RS from published work of ethnologists and ethnographers might be better at addressing the ethnic extrapolations from the language and religion surveys.  That means giving equal weight to the modern Russian POV that there were three subdivisions of what Westerners have labeled "Ukrainians":  Rusyns, Catholic Galicians in the former Austrian Galicia, and the Orthodox "Little Russians" in Wolyn.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What did the U.S. Census Bureau have to say on the controversy? On p. 74-75 of The Population of Poland " in presenting the results, the Central Statistical office emphasized the central role played by the Polish ethnic group by increasing the number of minority groups, and thus reducing the size of a given group, shown in the results, Ukrainian and Ruthenian were tabulated as separate langauges, although Ukrainian was simply the newer name for Ruthenian used by the more politically conscious and nationalistic elements. In the Province of Polesie, the census authorities returned most of the Belorussians there as speaking "local languages"  The US Census report on Poland is a  reliable source based on that fact that it received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . ---Woogie10w (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is a political document which was released during the Second Red Scare. To the extent that it attempts to analyze the survey results, it is a tertiary source.  How could the U.S. Census Office hear the language the Polish census enumerator judged in 1931?  Did they read all of the census forms? (Like the Soviet government would have permitted this in what became Soviet Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine.)  Sure by the mid 1950's, the Ruthenian languages had been mostly homogenized into standard Ukrainian, and the Podlesian "Tutajs" homogenized into standard Belarussian, but that is not how is was in the 1930's.  This work is dated.  Kate Brown got access to the Soviet archives and noted the homogenization of these languages in a Biography Of No Place.  She noted a group of Catholics in the region who spoke a transitional Polish-Ukrainian language.  The Soviets first labeled them Poles and educated them in standard Polish.  Then, they declared them Ukrainians, and educated them in standard Ukrainian.  She noted that the people were difficult to classify in the region, but the various governing groups were constantly trying to place them in categories that didn't quite fit.  It is an extraordinary thing for one government to question the primary data of another nation's census.  Again, this was political.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)  Edit to note that the Soviets destroyed an archive in Lwow of periodicals for the region so that no one could question their official history.  (Norman Davies, God's Playground, a History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525, p.558)  As they say in the region, "Our future is certain, but our past is full of surprises."Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Verification of sources
The following source is listed in the Conspiracy Theories section, Apolinary Hartglas, Na pograniczu dwoch swiatow (Tel Aviv, 1950). I checked in World Cat and found the title listed as published in Warsaw in 1996. I assume that this is a reprint. The citation here lacks a page number, we should have the page number listed so that we can verify the posting. I can request this book through inter-library loan--Woogie10w (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It lacks a page number because none was given in the footnote in the reference that cited him. I used what was given in the footnote rather than blanking the claim.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to know this reference that cited Hartglas, you should have cited this reference in the first place. If we can't verify your posting it should be deleted--Woogie10w (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I reverted it, but I think the ref should note the source of the primary source as best practice, and for verification of the secondary source's reliability. I don't know how to edit this in.  Maybe someone can fix this?Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I verified your source Marcus on Amazon. BTW the 1954 U.S. Census Bureau report discusses the problems with the 1931 census.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Marcus isn't my source. I restored the ref from Xanthomelanoussprog.  I am not a censorship advocate, but these things need to be accurate.  Whet did the U.S. Census Bureau have to say on the controversy?  Understand that one government's interpretation of another government's census may have a political bias.  The 1930 U.S. Census did not survey ethnicity or religion.  It also only surveyed mother tongue for immigrants.  There could also be some hypocrisy here as well.  If you use this source as a criticism, these facts should be noted.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I intend to take a look at the Marcus book, stay tuned.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Significant excerpts of the book are available online: https://books.google.com/books?id=82ncGA4GuN4C&pg=PA17&dq=polish+census+1931&lr=&as_brr=3&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=polish%20census%201931&f=false  Of greater concern is checking how faithfully Marcus reports the claims of his cited source, Apolinary Hartglas.  It may well be that the decision not to count minorities by the "executive power" got distorted into tampering with census forms by the secondary source Marcus.  That needs to be checked to determine if Marcus is RS on this point or just demonstrating his own bias, anti-polonism, or poor academic or linguistic skills.  (Apolinary Hartglas published his work, "Na pograniczu dwoch swiatow", in  Polish so something may have been lost in translation.)  In any event, he notes "although to what extent is not known", which means no further proof of the rumor.  Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL such a claim should be backed by some demographer finding statistical irregularities with the census, perhaps by comparison with the 1921 Census of Poland, etc.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of WP:WORDS
The criticisms, etc., have now been refactored contravening virtually everything noted as unacceptable according to WP:WORDS. WP:ALLEGED is always used with great care, WP:CLAIM and WP:WEASEL proliferate the content. I would ask that Doctor Franklin self revert the latest series of changes.

I would also suggest that two galleries of the census - page by page - are WP:UNDUE... most particularly as they've now been lined up above all of the highly relevant criticisms, usurping them. Added to that, we've now suddenly had a "Conspiracy theories" section added. This isn't an article on the census, it's a fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has spun out of control, sanity needs to be restored. The "Conspiracy theories" section speaks for itself--Woogie10w (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We are permitting those conspiracy claims to be here based upon a mere contention reported without a direct quote from the original source. We are allowing the claims to be reported here and not censoring them as WP:FRINGE.  Can you imagine anyone saying these kinds of things about a French census without statistical proof from a recognized demographer?Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The description by Doctor Franklin "Apolinary Hartglas, a Polish Jew " smacks of antisemitism. We need to watch our choice of words.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the Judenrat link; that clearly was an attempt to smear. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A criticism by a member of an ethnic minority that a national census was somehow biased against his/her ethnic group needs to note that person's ethnicity, such that others might judge the POV or bias of the claimant. I am not the RS for Hartglas serving on the Judenrat, which collaborated with the Nazis.  You want to post these conspiracy theories about a national census, which is WP:EXCEPTIONAL.  If they stay here, then we need to have the names of the people making the claims, which have not been supported by any third parties.I edited this with care, because the claims are "out there" and some people or ethnic groups want to believe that they, (or their ethnic group) were victims of some great conspiracy.  This could be, however, WP:FRINGE.  If there is an attempt to sanitize these claims, then this may well go up on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard which may be warranted already since there hasn't been a shred of evidence to support the allegation.  The issue was that the Poles, like the Americans in the U.S. 1930 Census, chose not to survey ethnicity, and therefore could not falsify the data of what they had not surveyed.  I don't appreciate the personal attacks.  Much of this would be avoided if you would check your references better, both for the factual accuracy of how you use them, and for their sources and research methodology.  Someone criticizing a national census should have read the published census itself.  Somehow this has been acceptable when writing about Poland in some academic circles.  So we need to check this carefully.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you're not the RS for "Hartglas serving on the Judenrat, which collaborated with the Nazis", but you somehow managed to select that short period of his life to add to this article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What he did in "that short period of his life" affected thousands, if not millions of people. It also quite possibly made him a war criminal in Poland when he leveled the allegation against Edward Szturm de Sztrem.  I thought it was fair and relevant for the reader to consider when considering his claim.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt he did that much in three months (October-December). We could also consider that it's fair and relevant to mention that the Russian-speaking Edward Szturm de Sztrem had a postwar academic career as the rector of the Academy of Political Science, and as a lecturer at the Warsaw School of Economics. He seems to have accommodated himself rather well to communism. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt Marek Edelman had a high opinion of his participation in that organ.  Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL such a claim of tampering should be backed by some demographer finding statistical irregularities with the census, perhaps by comparison with the 1921 Census of Poland, etc.  From the discussion below, it appears to be WP:SYNTH to mention more about Edward Szturm de Sztrem.  Possibly he only had that career because he didn't contest the official Communist Party POV that the census was somehow biased.  It proves nothing.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that wikipedia disallows any characterization of authors which hint at their alleged NPOV. This in fact amounts to WP:SYNTH. If nationality or political affiliation of an author is relevant, this must come from secondary sources which indicate this relevance to the subject in question. Once again, this is wikipedia's policy, so please resist the urge to add an extra spin. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This would call for removal of "communist-era" descriptor. The implication being Doctor Franklin's POV that Ukrainian majority-status was a communist invention. Is there consensus to leave in place all of those tables?  They seem to clutter the article, though they are not grossly inappropriate.Faustian (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kate Brown got access to the Soviet archives and noted the homogenization of these languages in a Biography Of No Place. She noted a group of Catholics in the region who spoke a transitional Polish-Ukrainian language. The Soviets first labeled them Poles and educated them in standard Polish. Then, they declared them Ukrainians, and educated them in standard Ukrainian. She noted that the people were difficult to classify in the region, but the various governing groups were constantly trying to place them in categories that didn't quite fit. You appear to be pushing a nationalist POV here that fails to appreciate the ethnic diversity of the region, and misstates the ethnic situation in the Second Polish Repubic:  "Thus, Ukrainains in Poland had representation at the higest levels of government.  (The vice-marshal of the Polish Sejm, Vasyl Mudryi, was Ukrainian.)  That they did not hold more seats was due in part to the fact that a good number of the Ukrainian people voted for Polish lists, especially in the 1930 parliamentary elections.  In addition, about 10 percent of the Ruthenian population tended to vote for lists put forth by Ruthenian groups, who did not consider themselves Ukrainian and were opposed to the Ukrainian separtist movement.  These groups were always loyal to Poland."  Tadeusz Piotrowski, "Polands Holocaust" (1998) https://books.google.com/books?id=hC0-dk7vpM8C&pg=PR14&dq=Polish+census+ukrainians+1931&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyEoVKP9GpD4yQSAHw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ruthenian&f=false  The census gives further evidence of the linguistic division between Ukrainians and Ruthenians.  The actual extent of that difference is difficult to study due to the Soviet destruction of the periodicals archive noted by Norman Davies, (Norman Davies, God's Playground, a History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525, p.558.  That would have included the Polonophile "Daily Ruthenian", published in the Latin alphabet with "Polish phonics" cited by Miller and Ostapchuk in "Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography", P. Ther (2008).  As they say in the region, "Our future is certain, but our past is full of surprises.") Thus, scholars who study the archives are using a biased source because it was sanitized by the Soviets.  Scholars who interview people who were deported from the region can and do disagree with those who do not.  Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of "Ruthenians" in Kate brown's book. And the passage you mentions in her book about the Polish-Ukrainian mixed speech refers to the Polish Autonomous District. not the areas that were even part of Poland.  It had nothing to do with the Polish census.  You are just engaging in epic OR as usual when mentioning that book.  Piotrowski was writing of political loyalty, not ethnic status.  The paragraph you cite from was about Ukrainians, and he stated that a certain % of them considered themselves to be "Ruthenians" and were loyal to Poland, not to Ukrainian political parties.  Furthermore the percentage he provided, 10%, doesn't match the "Ruthenian" portion of Eastern Slavs in Galicia on the census.  Interesting that you ignore the fact that Piotrowski actually comments on censuses, he combined Ruthenian and Ukrainian language speakers into one group.  Page 3 of that book: Ukrainians/Ruthenians.  Here:  "Ruthenians" aren't mentioned, only "Ukrainians" is used. On page 353 he includes tables with official results and with adjusted results that combine Ukrainian and Ruthenian into one group.  Why did you ignore those parts of what Piotrowski wrote, Doctor Franklin?Faustian (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrowski is a sociologist, and he clearly recognizes two separate ethnic groups, and that is not my OR. The census data speaks for itself recognizing two different languages.  Piotrowski recognizes two different ethnic groups.  [Edit to note that 10% of the combined Ukrainian and Ruthenian populations would be a higher polonphile percentage than if he intended to only refer to the ethnic Ruthenians.]  Tell us what was in the archive that the Soviets destroyed!Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrowski: : "In Eastern Poland, the overlords happened to be Polish, or rather, Polonized Ruthenians; the peasants Ukrainian (Ruthenian) and Polish." Piotrowski just reflects the consensus of all but you that in the context of eastern Polish areas Ruthenians was just an older or alternative label for Ukrainians.  Here's a chart frm Piotrowski's book: .  Note how there are categiroes: Polish; Yiddish and Hebrew' Ukrainian and Ruthenian.  BTW, do you believe that Yiddish and Hebrew are two different ethnic groups?Faustian (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I posted this at the No OR noticeboard to address the OR of Dr. Franklin:   The sources speak for themselves we do not need to blog about this all day--Woogie10w (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On the second look, I remove the section title :"conspicary theories". It is another spin. Here as well, such characterization of cited opinion must come from secondary sources, not from a wikipedian. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And such theories of a national census having been altered at the executive level needs more evidence to support it than hearsay from unknown sources, or distorted quotes from the original source. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL there should be some statistical proof from a qualified demographer.  None has been given, and this is getting sanitized to the point of WP:FRINGE, and it new belongs on that noticeboard for comment.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Tables of census summary
While I agree that the gallery looks kind kinda ugly, IMO it is no harm to keep it until that time some not very lazy Wikipedian copies the relevant info into our wikitable. Of course the tables should not be copied completely; only language totals be enough, so everything fits into a single table: Languages per voivodships. A similar one may be for "Religions per voivodships" Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That will result in more disruption with claims of OR, etc., that are contrary to the consensus. The problem with the disruptions needs to be addressed.Doctor Franklin (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What consensus are you talking about? Do you understand what consensus means? Read the policy carefully. You seem to be continuously confusing consensus with WP:OWN and, no, you do not own this article. There hasn't been any consensus on the use of galleries or anything else that you've introduced. In fact, the end product will not be a consensus version until there is consensus that it is satisfactory, doesn't violate OR, POV, UNDUE, or any other policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The very clear consensus here is to report the population data from the Census itself, as is done as standard practice on other census pages. You want to censor reporting the published census.  What WP is not is WP:CENSORED.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you're making no sense and invoking policy without actually comprehending it. As an observation (and stating the obvious not an attack), your ongoing arguments here and on various noticeboards, as well as your presence on Wikipedia is counterproductive. I seriously think your WP:COMPENTENCE is questionable. While I know that it is viewed as improper to suggest this to an editor directly, it's not something I have ever invoked without serious thought as to the issues. There's something beyond POV issues going on here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A week ago I gave Dr. Franklin the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his edits were made in good faith. During the past week we have seen a pattern of disruptive editing that is obviously aimed at wearing down the patience of other editors in an attempt to gain control of this article and turn it into a soapbox for his OR and fringe theories. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia has a better one line format, I have used it in the past to do research on the census. In fact their top line groups together all the voidships--Woogie10w (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are talking about totals for the whole country. I am talking about having similar lines per voivodsip in lieu of the gallery. And all lines collected into a 2-dimensional table. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Here --Woogie10w (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Everything is there all the Vovidships, the other multi line format on Polski Wiki sometimes does not work! --Woogie10w (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The leed reads, A list of all settlements in Poland was also prepared, but only a part related to Wilno Voivodeship was published. The article is in error, follow the link above, Wilno miasto and Wilno bez miasto(the surrounding Powiaty) were both published. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise
A possible solution to this dispute would be to maintain a NPOV by pointing out that the census figures are disputed. We would list the 1938 Polish report as well as recent sources that cite the census figures, for example Magocsi and Norman Davies. Recent Polish official sources also treat the census figures as being correct. We would then present reliable sources that dispute the census, Piotrowski, Eberhardt and the 1954 US census report. The bottom line here is that as Wikipedia editors we must maintain a NPOV and present readers with both sides of this argument. I really hope that reason prevails and that this mess does not wind up at ANI.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eberhardt, the doctor of geography, wrote, "The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography." Thus not RS for purposes of ethnology or ethnography, what extrapolating ethnicity from a census which surveyed religion and mother tongue is. Also note pg. 499 which shows Polish Communist Party Historian Jerzy Tomaszewski interpolations of the census in the bibliography as the source for the numbers used in his charts. Jerzy Tomaszewski's contributions need to be identified as coming from him, and include the fact that he was a Communist Party member. Communist Party controlled history publications also need to note that relationship since they are RS of nothing.  Without labeling the Communist Party POV as such, and we thus go from Wikipedia to Commipedia. Credibility laundering by using tertiary sources is completely unacceptable.
 * Piotrowski reported both the official returns and Tomaszewski's interpolation of them. While most would agree with him that interpolating census of surveys of mother tongue and religion is an unreliable way to estimate ethnicity, that remains his opinion. The implied criticism of the census methodology, also his opinion, assumes that the Polish government had intended to measure ethnicity. (The U.S. 1930 Census did not ask an ethnicity question either, but only asked a mother tongue question to immigrants while the Poles surveyed mother tongue and religion of all its citizens.) Yale's Timothy Snyder noted in "The Reconstruction Of Nations" that after Pilsudski returned to power in 1926, '"state assimilation" rather than "national assimilation" was Polish policy: citizens were to be judged by their loyalty to the state, and not nationality'. The census reflects that policy, and it should be mentioned.
 * If the 1954 US census report is mentioned, the methodology of its review needs to be stated clearly, i.e., that it did not review original census returns or interview Polish census enumerators, and its interpretations are opinion, not fact. It also needs to be noted that the U.S. Census Office did not survey ethnicity in the U.S. census from 1930-1950, had no survey for religion, and only surveyed mother tongue for immigrants.  If found, relevant academic discussion of why the U.S. Census Office had revisited a foreign census from 23 years previous, which I believe is unprecedented, should be included.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)