Talk:1931 Polish census/Archive 2

communist era propaganda per WP:EXCEPTIONAL
Franklin's edit summary: More editors needed to address undue weight to communist era propaganda per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE
 * Do you have sources which claim that the refs cited are communist propaganda? Or in any way discuss their bias? They are not some self-published pamphlets. They are in scientific circulation. Therefore surely peers would criticize them, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union Staszek Lem (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * More editors needed That's a help wanted ad for meatpuppets--Woogie10w (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we already know how to handle meatpuppets, right? We evaluate arguments, based on published sources, regardless the number of participants. Wikipedians' personal convictions do not count. Meatpuppets would mess things up in various votes and in underwatched articles, but hopefully not here, where quite a few participants know the ropes. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please make a point to read to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Meatpuppet and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry where editors are encouraged to seek input from other editors generally. It is only meatpuppetry to recruit editors favorable to a particular POV. Please see Template:POV which states, "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight."  Also note that it reads, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."  Since the dispute has not been resolved, why are people removing the tag?  There is no consensus needed to post the tag.  Report anything you want, to anyone you want.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere above Franklin wrote: "The problem is that Edward Szturm de Sztrem's biography is defective-", in other words, you are challenging that he is a reliable source, right? Who else in the academia questions his integrity? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Xanthomelanoussprog wrote that. Ask him that question OK?  I am not satisfied that he actually wrote was published under his name 11 years after he died by Communist historian Jerzy Tomaszewski in a communist publication, which is and was not RS.  I object to the credibility laundering by using tertiary sources to hide the skunk in the woodpile.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for challenging Jerzy Tomaszewski? Now, I am not above being very critical when it comes to certain historical sources, so I understand where you are coming from. Communist-era sources, including those from communist Poland, have been affected by propaganda. BUT we cannot discard them at will. First, 99% of what they say is correct; what is problematic is usually any Marxism-related discussion (eg. undue stress on suffering of lower classes, vilification of figures from upper classes and certain historical figures, whitewashing of Russia's historical role, conclusions suggesting superiority of communism over capitalism, etc.). What we discuss here is data from 1931, so not really affected by communist sources, through their interpretation might have been tweaked to promote "peaceful relations" between Soviet Lithuanian Republic and People's Republic of Poland. But unless we have a source that does analyze said source from that angle, speculating ourselves how it may be biased is OR. If you want a practical lessons on how can you get certain sources questioned and removed, see Mikhail_Meltyukhov and it's talk page - we did succeed in removing his Putin-propaganda "history", but only after we found reliable, academic sources which call his research unreliable propaganda. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My comments about Edward Szturm de Sztrem are "OR"- I find it curious that the pre-war director of the Central Statistical Office becomes the post-war rector of the Academy of Political Science, and then lectures at the Warsaw School of Economics from 1951. He also took his "Polish Statistical Atlas" with him when he moved to Britain in May 1941 (I'm taking all this from a machine translation of the Polish wiki article) and carried on working on it. Which is odd if he knew at the time that the data were falsified. And how the hell did he get himself and all his papers from Poland to Britain in May 1941? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those questions are not relevant here, but on his biography's talk page. I'll just note that his bio does not say he left Poland in 1941, only that he moved to UK. For all we know, he might have evacuated during the '39 Invasion, or have been abroad during it, and moved to UK from France, Romania or US. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Post communist Polish historians have returned to recognize pre-war commentary on the census, "Dość miarodajne są ustalenia przedwojennego badacza Alfonsa Krysińskiego, który określił liczbę Ukraińców w 1927 roku na 4 284 391.9 Według jego szacunków stanowili oni w przybliżeniu niecałe 15% obywateli II Rzeczypospolitej." Bogusław KUŹNIAR, "MNIEJSZOŚĆ UKRAIŃSKA MIĘDZYWOJENNEJ MAŁOPOLSKI WSCHODNIEJ W OKOWACH DOKTRYNY DMYTRA DONCOWA" PRZEGLĄD  GEOPOLITYCZNY  (2014), Vol. 7, pg. 152.  Alfonsa Krysińskiego is cited by many Polish academics addressing the fluid connection between the "Poles-Greek Catholic" population and the Greek-Catholic Ruthenians:
 * "resztą grupa Polaków grekokatolików jako grupa językowa często odznaczająca się wyraźnym polskim poczuciem narodowym [zauważa Alfons Krysiński] daje się z łatwością wykryć [...] Czyż nie są Polakami np. rzekomi „Rusini" w greckokatolickich parafiach na zachód od Sanu, skoro nawet duchowieństwo greckokatolickie zmuszone jest tam wygłaszać kazania w języku polskim? A czyż mowa potoczna bardzo wielu „Rusinów" w szerokim pasie mieszanym po obu stronach Sanu w powiecie jarosławskim, brzozowskim, przemyskim i sanockim jest inna niż polska? [..,] Być może, że wielu spośród opisowej grupy Polaków grekokatolików posiada dotąd z polskością związek tylko potencjalny, pozbawiony cech aktywności narodowej, czyż jednak w większym stopniu Ukraińcami są ci Rusini, którzy wszelkiej łączności z ukrainizmem stanowczo wypierają się? Narodowości na Ziemi Czerwieńskiej znajdują się w stanie płynnym i właśnie w takim stadium znajdują się w Małopolsce zarówno Polacy grekokatolicy, jak i grupy „ruskie", pomiędzy którymi odbywają się stałe fluktuacje, przeważnie jednak, i to ze zrozumiałych powodów, w kierunku stosunku do polskości dośrodkowym [A. Krysiński, Ludność ukraińska (ruska) w Polsce w świetle spisu 1931 r., Warszawa 1938]."
 * Also note that Wincenty Lutoslawski, et. al, The Ruthenian question in Galicia, (1919) had noted an intermarriage rate between 15-38% between Poles and Ruthenians. (pg. 7). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The quote above refers explicitly to territories west of the San river, a small population of a few 10,000 people, and not to 95% of the area we are discussing and the over 1.2 million people identified as Ruthenian-speakers on the census. Citing this looks like another example of OR.Faustian (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Lutoslawski was referring to all of Galicia. Krysiński referred to both sides of the San, and also noted that the Ruthenians strongly denied "Ukrainism".  He refferred to Malopolska which included all of Galicia.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Lacks NPOV: Conspiracy Theories per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE
Please note related discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931 Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's the theory? You seem to have inflated the two mentions of a reported admission by Edward Szturm de Sztrem into some kind of conspiracy theory. That's all there is. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From Economic Change and the National Question in Twentieth-Century Europe edited by Alice Teichova, Herbert Matis, Jaroslav Pátek, pp 354-355 "Official data about the population according to mother tongue were not always in accordance with the reality. This was particularly true in the provinces of Lwów, Stanisławów and Tarnopol. See Edward Szturm de Sztrem, "Prawdziwa statystyka", Kwartalnik Historyczny 3 (1973) pp 664-7". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * …and don't say he'd been dead for eleven years. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So this is all based on recycled communist propaganda. Jerzy Tomaszewski cited here was a Communist Party historian.  We can just call this Commipedia.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a paper published. It bore Szturm de Sztrem's name as author, and Tomaszewski as editor. It has been cited in an RS as quoted above. It doesn't matter whether it's "recycled communist propaganda". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Un, no...the paper did not publish itself. The communists published the paper 11 years after the man died.  The editor who published it, Tomaszewski, was a member of the Polish Communist Party.  Tomaszewski would become the recognized "authority" on interpolating ethnicity from the census's enumeration of mother tongue and religion without taking into account that, in territories lost to the Soviet Union, at least one highly relevant archive had been destroyed in Lwow/Lvov/Lviv deliberately by the Soviets. (Norman Davies, God's Playground, a History of Poland, Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 0231053525, p.558.)  So in this case, working back to the original source, we have an alleged statement by Edward Szturm de Sztrem (primary source), reported posthumously by Communist Party historian Tomaszewski as editor in "Kwartalnik Historyczny" ("Historical Quarterly"), a communist academic publication, (the secondary source), being reported yet again by other alleged academic publications (tertiary sources or beyond).  Are you disputing these facts?  It may be notable that the communists attempted to discredit Edward Szturm de Sztrem posthumously, but communist era publications did not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy to be considered RS.  No serious person would dispute this.In addition to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE, we may also be getting into WP:BATTLEGROUND here.  Caution is in order.   Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A "tertiary source" is an encyclopedia or something similar; it is not an academic work that is three steps removed from the primary source. An academic source describing Tomaszewski's works is a RS. You can "work back to the original source" on your own all you like, but that's OR and has no place here.Faustian (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, by definition a tertiary source is two steps removed from the original source. Thus an encyclopedia might be an secondary source if it accurately reports the primary source, and an academic publication can be a tertiary source if it reports from a secondary source.  This isn't as difficult as you are making it.  Your judgment appears to be clouded by some emotional issues on this topic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Review wikipedia policy: .  "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event."  At least, not exactly. Furthermore, per policy: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources."  The key is that secondary sources are analyses by a (peer reviewed) academic, of other sources.  It doesn't matter whether it is one or three steps removed form the original events. A tertiary source is a summary, like an encyclopedia.  Do you understand now?Faustian (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the index of the publication (unfortunately the article is not available) the article was written by Szturm de Sztrem. An article in Wiadomoṡci Statystyczne No. 8 of 2009 states "W efekcie, ze względu na badanie w obu spisach problematyki wyznaniowo-narodowościowej i językowej, a więc zagadnień niezwykle istotnych dla ówczesnej polityki, także i dane w tym zakresie z Drugiego Spisu uznaje się za nieobiektywne, a wręcz, jak stwierdzają Edward i Tadeusz Szturm de Sztremowie, dane dotyczące używanego języka były sfałszowane przez MSW." So the brothers blamed the Interior Ministry. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And according to that communist publication and its Communist Party historians like Tomaszewski, there had been no Polish-Russian War in 1920-21, and no Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland September 17, 1939. Polish historian, Henryk Zieliński, was bludgeoned to death while walking his dog in 1981 when attempting to publish a history that included discussion of the 1939 Soviet invasion.  Did Edward Szturm de Sztrem estate authorize the sale of this work posthumously, or did the communists just publish this under his name?  What credibility did Communist historians have on a political issue regarding the justification for border change that they had refused to recognize as resulting from a Soviet invasion September 17, 1939?
 * What documents from the Polish Interior Ministry supports this claim?


 * What statistical analysis supports this conclusion? In comparison with the 1921 Census of Poland, [using language as the implied indicator of ethnicity] in 1931 the Poles slightly decreased as a percentage of the population, as did Ukrainiains/Ruthenians, and the Jews [by religion] increased:
 * group             1921                 1931              +/- %
 * Poles     17.789.287 (69.23%)    21,993,444 (68.91%)    -0.32%
 * Ukrainians 0 (0.00%)              3,221,975 (10.10%)    +10.10%
 * Ruthenians 3.898.428 (15.17%)     1,219,647 (03.82%)    -11.35%
 * U + R =    3.898.428 (15.17%)     4,444,622 (13.92%)    -01.25%
 * Jews       2.048.878 (07.97%)      3,113,933 (09.76%)   +01.79%
 * (See diff here for chart calculating %, POV blanked by Iryna Harpy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish_census_of_1931&oldid=684704520#Results )
 * So, if we were to believe that the results had been rigged by the Polish Interior Ministry, by the numbers, the results were intended to decrease the number of Poles and Ukrainians/Ruthenians and others by increasing the number of Jews. [Edit to note that I did not subtract the number of Jews by religion who spoke Polish, Ukrainian, or Ruthenian as a declared mother tongue.  Had I done so the numbers would have illustrated this point more strongly.]  Is this the conspiracy that you are selling us here?


 * How does the data from this Census contradict the diverse ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity of the region noted by Kate Brown in "A Biograph of No Place"? http://www.amazon.com/Biography-No-Place-Borderland-Heartland/dp/0674019490 Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's two established facts; Edward Szturm de Sztrem was director of the Central Statistical Office at the time of the census. The same Edward Szturm de Sztrem was listed as the author of True Statistics, published posthumously in 1973. The rest is OR. If you like conspiracy theories, how did Edward Szturm de Sztrem survive the Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939–46)? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How can we be sure that it was the same Edward Szturm de Sztrem? The commies were very slick with the propaganda.  [Edit to add, they were also quite anti-Semitic at this time having expelled most of the remaining Jews in 1968-69.] Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Edward Szturm de Sztrem's biography is defective- his relationship to the government in exile, and the communist regime, is not clear. He doesn't seem to have suffered as a result of his brother's incarceration. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Poland people here are WP:CHERRYPICKING communist publications and historians. Poland is exiting the post-communism "hang-over" period, where the old communists no longer hold much power in academia.  There are better Polish sources than the commies.  If his brother had been incarcerated, it certainly would have been a lever to keep him quiet about Soviet propaganda about the census.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The POV that I hear loud and clear here is that that there was a conspiracy against Poland by the Jew Hartglas who was a Nazi-collaborator and the communists that is promoted by Commipedia. Ale kanał--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a conspiracy against Poland, and its people, to be a sovereign nation which was manifested September 1, 1939 and continued until Lech Wałęsa assumed the presidency on December 22, 1990. The Zionist Hartglas, appears to have been a tertiary source for this alleged communist era confession.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "zionist Hartglas" - and that's what our article says (of course without political rubberstamps). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr. Franklin because you are a new guy on the block I would like to advise of the Wikipedia policy on disruptive editing. At this point folks are beginning to loose patience with the monologues that promote your original research.  My advice is go to the library, do some research and come back here with reliable sources that we can discuss. Regards, --Woogie10w (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kate Brown's book is not even about the areas covered by the Polish census. It is about the western part of the 1920s and 1930s USSR.  He is taking OR to a whole new level.Faustian (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Try reading the book. Of course, she couldn't research the archive in Lwow that the Soviets destroyed.  She also interviewed people from the region as part of her methodology.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is not neutral here?
Having read parts of the discussion here and at the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, I would like to ask what exactly is disputed? The article seems neutral to me. There are concerns about the reliability of the census, and they are reliably sourced. I don't see how we can label them conspiracy theories, through some tweaking of the wording may help. I'd like to hear if any parties have suggestions for how to change the article to achieve consensus? But do keep in mind that there is no liberum veto here: consensus does not imply unanimity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article seems neutral and is supported by reliable sources. A few minor tweaks would improve this article. This dispute has been in progress for over a week with no end in sight because one editor has engaged in a campaign of disruptive editing to promote his OR and gain control of the article. Unfortunately a consensus does not seem likely at this point, It may be the time to escalate this dispute to a higher level on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read all of the discussion above and explain how the census was rigged to under count minorities when the percentage of Poles had decreased, and the number of Jews had increased from the previous census. Where is the statistical proof of this claim?  Where are the documents from the archives?  Claims that a census had been rigged requires exceptional proof per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and should not be given WP:UNDUE weight.  Assuming for the sake of argument that Tomaszewski and his communist history journal can be considered RS, it is clearly biased.  Why is it not identified as such, and himself identified as a Communist Party member?  They did refuse to acknowledge the Soviet invasion in 1939, etc.Doctor Franklin (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The paper was cited in Państwo i Społeczeństwo (State and Society) No. 2 of 2010, page 77, by Grzegorz Pawlikowski from Krakow University - "W przypadku spisow z okresu miedzywojennego wladze podejmowaly dzialania majace na celu zawyzanie narodowosci polskiej kosztem innych liczebnosci." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Only one editor disputes the neutrality. Numerous others do not.Faustian (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there general agreement that this tag does not belong anywhere on the article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  reply here, you moved it from the top of the article to this section but stated that the article seems neutral.Faustian (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest removing the template, but I think User:Doctor Franklin has done a good job finding recent, reliable sources which do cite the original census results without observations, and while I wonder to what degree they do so simply out of lack of familiarity with the criticism of its methodology, I think it would be fair to modify the criticism section to say something like "The data has been used in a number of recent studies, ex. [cite, with quote]." I'd leave it to User:Doctor Franklin to draft a first version with wording that he thinks would address his concerns. In the end, my preferred solution has always been to add more information, rather than remove it. Shining more light, as we can poetically call it, is better than censorship. Plus, adding more content addresses any concerns related to WP:UNDUE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He cited Bogusław KUŹNIAR, "MNIEJSZOŚĆ UKRAIŃSKA MIĘDZYWOJENNEJ MAŁOPOLSKI WSCHODNIEJ W OKOWACH DOKTRYNY DMYTRA DONCOWA" PRZEGLĄD GEOPOLITYCZNY (2014), Vol. 7, pg. 152.  I couldn't find much info about Boguslaw Kuzniar (he doesn't seem to be a professor anywhere, otherwise his bio would be online) nor much information about PRZEGLĄD GEOPOLITYCZNY (the Polish wiki page is vague).  Are these legitimate academic peer-reviewed sources?Faustian (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To a degree you'd call a third-tier (non-English, low visibility) academic journals reliable... (pl:Przegląd Geopolityczny (czasopismo naukowe)). Through the publisher is new, too (2007): pl:Instytut Geopolityki. According to its own page, the journal is recorded in the list of Polish Ministry of Science and Education index, so it's not likely to be a spam, and my opinion of it rose somewhat after seeing it is OA. I can't find nothing about the author outside that he has a master degree in law and administration from a Polish university, so he seems more like an amateur historian, but that shouldn't matter - Przegląd Geopolityczny is, in the end, reliable (if low impact), as far as academic journals go.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I note that this source is written by an amateur, and that the article's subject (based on the title) does not even appear to be demography, but historical issues involving the right-wing wing thinker Dmytro Dontsov.  It doesn't seem like an ideal source for this.  Other people are using academic works actually devoted to demography written by academics who specialize in this stuff.Faustian (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What it does is show a much more neutral analysis of the census than what I see here. The author notes contemporary analysis of the population and commentary at the time the census was published by a Pole and a Ukrainian.  He also clearly noted that Tomaszewski was the author of the conspiracy theory that the census was fixed.  It also proves that Alfonsa Krysińskiego's opinions in pre-communist Poland have retained weight in academic publications.  There may be better sources.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO the solution to this dilemma is to cite secondary sources such as Norman Davies and Magocsi who list the 1931 census figures. Also there are contemporary Polish sources such as Andrzej Gawryszewski's  LUDNOŚĆ POLSKI W XX WIEKU,  which list the figures with a descriptive analysis. Then we could say that "some historians" dispute the census figures for language and cite Piotrowski and Eberhardt as the sources. It seems to me that would present the issue from a NPOV--Woogie10w (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An academic work that focused on the census itself would be ideal. However, I think that this page suffers from an Anglophone bias that needs to be balanced by adding sources closer to the region.  (This is perhaps to be expected when commenting on a non-Anglophone region.)  In addition to Polish sources, I think the modern Russian POV that Catholic Galicia was different from Orthodox Volnia, and the Rusyns were also distinct needs to be given more weight.  Piotrowski didn't dispute the census's figures, he called them unreliable for purposes of interpolating ethnicity.  He cited Tomaszewski for the anlaysis.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So here is a recent analysis of this Census from Sergey Lebedev, the Executive Secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States. He has quite impressive Soviet academic credentials and notes no controversy over the census's methodology:
 * "It turns out that a lot remained Russian Rusyn identity despite full patronage of "Ukrainians" by official authorities and the Uniate Church...Alas, the Ukrainians identified themselves as more than half of the Galician Rusyns, so ukrainianizers could assume that Ukrainians constrict the Russian identity." Russian Folk Line (January, 18, 2014) http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/01/18/galiciya_etnicheskaya_istoriya/ Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon? You're quoting an article by this guy (who's a no-name brand), written for this online "publication", and run by this guy? Let's just take a look at their contributors here. Now isn't that interesting that these are its top ranked contributors: Rostislav Ishchenko (who is responsible for gems like Nationalism Ruined Ukraine's Future - Other USSR States Avoided This. Ukraine used nationalism as the foundation for state building, while Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan built the states for all citizens); quality 'thinker', Konstantin Dushenov, widely admired for his humanism (see Russian newspaper editor jailed for anti-Semitic incitement); Father Alexander Shumsky, notable for his unhinged er, 'wacky' views on homosexuality; ad nauseam. Can you please stop with the WP:BOLLOCKS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In simple terms, his Russian POV conflicts with your Ukrainian nationalist POV, so he can't be cited here for an opinion that you abhor.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr. Franklin please, lets discuss reliable sources and work toward improving this article. ruskline.ru spouts absolute drivel, you are dragging this discussion into the gutter. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that, in his haste to make a WP:POINT, Doctor Franklin got the wrong Sergey Lebedev... Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev is most definitely not Sergei Nikolaevich Lebedev. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev has a Ph.D. from Leningrad State University in Political Science, so he has better academic qualifications than who I thought he was: www.obeschania.ru/persons/lebedev-sergej What he writes is mainstream academic political thought in Russia regarding Ukraine and its Catholic Galicians. You want to censor that POV, but that wouldn't be NPOV if we did that here.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In plain English, the guy does not know what he is talking about. Poor Sergei Nikolaevich was dragged into this argument.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't you going to say this is all OR again?Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we're saying that you're using a trashy sources. There are hundreds of thousands of people with doctorates in the world, including the lunatic fringe. I've checked for this guy's credentials: he's not cited by anyone; he has no profile except in linked-in; he writes articles for an 'encyclopaedia' whose experts are fascists, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and all-round Russian nationalist reactionaries. This is the calibre of 'scholar' you wish to introduce because it suits you POV? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether Lebedev fairly represents the modern Russian POV on this census. His conclusions are consistent with Russian President Putin's comments that the Ukrainian State is an accidental nation, etc. You can throw as many politically correct smears around, but at the core you, a Ukrainian nationalist, object to him because you consider him one of a group of "all-round Russian nationalist reactionaries" whose opinion you wish to suppress.  That isn't NPOV. Lastly, it isn't relevant if he has been cited in Anglophone publications since this was a census from a non-Anglophone region.Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You have cited Lebedev on the Russian nationalist website ruskline.ru, I found him at another fringe website WhiteWorld.ru that promotes racist propaganda   ,Lebedev teaches political science at the Baltic State Technical University   Читать далее-Lebedev is the author of four works published by the Institute for the History of Russian Civilization, a think tank based in Moscow. Lebedev co-authored works with he head of this think tank Oleg Platonov who has been described  as an ultranationalist, anti-Semitic,and a Holocaust denier.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have cited W. Parker Mauldin and still haven't provided us with his academic qualifications, which for all we know, came from a box of corn flakes. Lebedev has a Ph.D., teaches political science at a univeristy, and works for a think tank in Moscow. This is more than we know about Mauldin, and he is cited on the page.  A white supremacist group might republish an editorial from George Will about affirmative action.  It doesn't make Will a white supremacist. Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * George Will and corn flakes sounds like sour grapes too me--Woogie10w (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been requested here and on the RSNB to provide Mauldin's academic credentials. You have refused, and make comments like above.  Clearly this is now simply contentious editing.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To ice the cake, Lebedev claims that Poland was the aggressor and intended to partition and eliminate the USSR in 1939. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nu, there you go. I didn't delve as far into Lebedev's credentials as to get the Platonov connection simply because the calibre of a couple of pieces written by him which I skimmed through, and the company he keeps, smacked of WP:FRINGE. Doctor Franklin, it appears that not only are you to be prepared to WP:CHERRY pick from sources, he's willing to cherry pick sources and try to present the most dubious academics as being 'representative' of general Russian academic thought on subject matter. What is to be concluded from this? If you can find Aleksandr Dugin's opinions, by your estimate they should be included as fact. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel of WP:GEVAL. The WP:TITLE of this article is "Polish census of 1931", not 'anything I can dig up to prove my WP:POINT'. I wonder whether there's a limit as to how far you're willing to go in order to WP:WIN. I suspect not in light of the fact that every time you get cornered you try to squirm out of it with 'NOT CENSORED', 'Ukrainian nationalists' and anything else you can throw at anyone who disagrees with you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You comments have no relevance to the Census and the Russians' acceptance of its results, and rejection of claims that Ruthenians had all been ethnic Ukriainians.Doctor Franklin (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Iryna, Lebedev teaches political science at the Baltic State Technical University. The guy is mainstream, this drives home the point that Putin's Russia is a scary place. The  Völkisch movement was the precursor to National Socialism in Germany.  --Woogie10w (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The thesis dissertation of W. Parker Mauldin, Rural vs. urban individualism. M.S. University of Virginia 1936  --Woogie10w (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Submitting a dissertation and having a degree awarded for it are two very different things. What are his academic credentials?  Social scientists don't usually get M.S. degrees, and nothing here indicates that he has the credentials to distinguish Polesians from Belarusians, or a Polish speaking Lithuanian like Pilsudski from other Poles, or analyze the internal politics of the Second Polish Republic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd started on an aside regarding the use of the Third Reich's 'research' on anthropology and the history of civilisation as if it were in the running for articles not about the perversion of the human sciences but thought I'd stop short on that analogy. It seems we're both thinking along the lines of the same tangent. There is ample evidence that mainstream scholarship that the rest of the academic world does not agree with the new directions the Kremlin is taking all forms of political scientific scholarship, historical scholarship, or any of the propagandist 'scholarship' being sponsored by the state... therefore I see no qualitative arguments for the introduction of propaganda into this article. Let's compare what the Russian state media have to say Putin's Black Sea archaeological shenanigans as opposed to the rest of the world's opinion on reality vs. propaganda. If it weren't so serious, I'd have to laugh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC
 * More emotional arguments about Nazis which have little relevance here unless you are referring to Ukrainian nationalist fascists who aligned with them to force the Ruthenians to accept their ethnicity.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As regards W. Parker Mauldin, I'd say that this and his works in collaboration with other non-FRINGE experts puts him in good standing on a global level. At least we can vouch for the fact that his works have been peer reviewed by experts who are not in the pockets of politicians and state agendas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you don't care what his academic credentials are because he supports your POV and categorizes Polesian language speakers as ethnic Belarussians, etc.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You wrote experts who are not in the pockets of politicians and state agendas Iryna, Mauldin was an associate of the Population Council which is funded by the Rockefeller family. His research had to be blessed (peer reviewed) by the board of directors. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Au contraire! Your source, W. Parker Mauldin, whose academic credentials you still have not supplied, was exactly in the pocket of the state when he published the political opinion in 1954 that you are pushing here.  His work on contraception and family planning does not affirm his work as a government employee. It has no relevance to ethnography or ethnology in pre-war Poland.Doctor Franklin (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The World Cat record shows us that he had a MS from the Univ. of Virginia and that he published numerous works on demography. The man worked as a professional demographer. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An M.S. in what, physical education? If he thought Polesian speakers were ethnic Belorussians that would explain things.  [Edit to note that World Cat only shows that he wrote a dissertation.  It does not confirm that a degree was conferred, or what that degree might have been.  Someone is still hiding the ball here.]Doctor Franklin (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Eberhardt and Mauldin are reliable sources, both men published works as professional demographers. Lebedev works as a political science instructor at a military university in Putin's Russia. He has co-authored works with Oleg Platonov who has been described as an ultra-nationalist, anti-Semitic,and a Holocaust denier.  How did you find Lebedev? Who told you about the guy?--Woogie10w (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eberhadt is a doctor of geography and has no academic credentials in ethnography, ethnology, demography, or the social sciences. Mauldin writes about contraption, and population growth. All I had to do to find Lebedev was to Google the census in Russian.  It is consistent with what I have read in other sources on contemporary Russian academic discussion, and also freely available on the Internet to counter your constant, repeated contentions of OR.  Citing other Russian sources would likely meet the same attempts to deny the obvious:  Contemporary Russian academics accept this census as completely valid, unlike in the communist era.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is clear from the above exchange is that Doctor Franklin's views lack consensus here, and he has not gained consensus despite posting on various forums. His resorting to citing people who co-publish works with antisemitic fringe theorists is just icing on the cake.  Unbelievable. Faustian (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is clear from the recent discussion on the RSNB is that geographer Eberhardt is not RS for use here. More than the above three editors have been active here.  They do not speak for all of the others, although they are the most persistent.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Doctor Franklin you are arguing alone against reliable sources in an effort to censor this article. The only support you have dredged up to support your POV is Lebedev. If this issue goes to arbitration you are bound to lose. You don't have a leg to stand on.--Woogie10w (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Piotrus above concurred to use Bogusław KUŹNIAR and (I believe) the other sources noted therein. Stop claiming to speak for all editors on the page.  You don't.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eberhardt publishes about borders and population of Poland. Are there any serious critics of his works?Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of anyone criticizing his work in his field of geography, but who in the field of linguistics (what the census measured), ethnography or ethnology has recognized this geographer as competent in their fields? He appears to be popular for those looking for a token Pole to discuss this census among Anglophones here, but who cites him as RS in Poland or Russia?Doctor Franklin (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gawryszewski quotes a number of both pre- and post-wwii critics.Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent, on what pages does Gawryszewski discuss the census?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Page 67.Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So where does this page note those who support the enumeration of the census? How is this NPOV?Doctor Franklin (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Doctor Franklin give us a source that supports the enumeration of the census, Lebedev is unreliable, nie tego--Woogie10w (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another one. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Lange_mitteleuropa_1930.jpg You want to call this OR too?Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you xx236 w odniesieniu do statystyki narodowościowej na terenach wschodnich była kwestionowana przez polskich statystyków i historyków już przed wojną (Krzywicki, 1922; Nadobnik, 1922; Krysiński,1932, 1937), a taże po wojnie (Szturm de Sztrem, 1946; Landau i Tomaszewski, 1971; Żarnowski, 1973; Michowicz, 1982). Andrzej Gawryszewski.LUDNOŚĆ POLSKI W XX WIEKU. WARSZAWA 2005 Page 67--Woogie10w (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Go to Pages 263-264 of LUDNOŚĆ POLSKI W XX WIEKU. Open in PDF. I used Google translate. Gawryszewski details the arguments that maintain the 1931 census was manipulated. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WOW! No criticisms of the census from post-communist Polish academics! From what I can read above, Krysiński was supporting the census, not criticizing it pre-war.  Did any of the criticisms of the 1921 census include categorizing the Polesians as Belarussians?  The language is clearly closer to Ukrainian than Belarussian, and some pre-WWI maps had considered it Ukraine.Doctor Franklin (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * These comments are your own opinions unsupported by reliable sources, OR. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I cited above, Krysiński supported the enumeration of the census. Anything that you disagree with is OR.Doctor Franklin (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Krysiński Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Go to Pages 263-264 of LUDNOŚĆ POLSKI W XX WIEKU.Open in PDF.  Krysiński did not support the enumeration of the census--Woogie10w (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Read Krysiński himself, here:
 * "resztą grupa Polaków grekokatolików jako grupa językowa często odznaczająca się wyraźnym polskim poczuciem narodowym [zauważa Alfons Krysiński] daje się z łatwością wykryć [...] Czyż nie są Polakami np. rzekomi „Rusini" w greckokatolickich parafiach na zachód od Sanu, skoro nawet duchowieństwo greckokatolickie zmuszone jest tam wygłaszać kazania w języku polskim? A czyż mowa potoczna bardzo wielu „Rusinów" w szerokim pasie mieszanym po obu stronach Sanu w powiecie jarosławskim, brzozowskim, przemyskim i sanockim jest inna niż polska? [..,] Być może, że wielu spośród opisowej grupy Polaków grekokatolików posiada dotąd z polskością związek tylko potencjalny, pozbawiony cech aktywności narodowej, czyż jednak w większym stopniu Ukraińcami są ci Rusini, którzy wszelkiej łączności z ukrainizmem stanowczo wypierają się? Narodowości na Ziemi Czerwieńskiej znajdują się w stanie płynnym i właśnie w takim stadium znajdują się w Małopolsce zarówno Polacy grekokatolicy, jak i grupy „ruskie", pomiędzy którymi odbywają się stałe fluktuacje, przeważnie jednak, i to ze zrozumiałych powodów, w kierunku stosunku do polskości dośrodkowym [A. Krysiński, Ludność ukraińska (ruska) w Polsce w świetle spisu 1931 r., Warszawa 1938]."Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This German map from 1930 clearly shows that the Polesians were not Belarussians as critics like Mauldin contended: The Germans would know better than an American siting at a desk across the ocean 23 years later? The Germans had occupied the region in WW1. Perhaps this map should be on the page? The census got this part right. Mauldin and Tomaszewski did not.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian language this map may help clarify the issue. Polesians are considered Belarussians.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ROTFLAO! User created Wikicommons maps aren't RS, (but historic maps could be).  I won't call it your OR, but it may be another users.Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doctor Franklin, stop breaking up the thread on every section in order to add your own commentary on every comment posted by other editors. You are destroying the flow of the discussion per WP:TPYES: "Keep the layout clear". Also, "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." per WP:THREAD. Just trying to get a grasp of the discussions is virtually impossible for any new editors wanting to involve themselves simply because you've broken up every other editor's comments and responses to each other with your own comments... constantly and consistently. Finally, per WP:EXHAUST, "Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion." You are flouting good practice in order to disrupt the building of consensus because the consensus is not the outcome you desire: see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Doctor Franklin your disruptive editing on the talk page 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 your OR and fringe theories. It cannot go on forever. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry at Reliable sources/Noticeboard
I have made inquiries at the RSN regarding the use of US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland and Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe  Interested editors can post their  comments there.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the doctor of geography, Eberhardt, received no support on the RSN for use here, and therefore should be removed here. The discussion there has now been archived.Doctor Franklin (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Here was the discussion: . It was you and you alone who disputed that Eberhardt was a reliable source.  Is this your new strategy?  Hope that people stop responding to your nonsense claims, them disrupt the article by claiming "no support"?  Faustian (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I nearly had an ec with you in reverting the removed content, Faustian. The discussion has been archived, indeed: but not bearing any resemblance to the outcome you claim, Doctor Franklin. Your efforts are WP:BATTLEGROUND all the way. You've worn out any right to assumption of good faith by consistently, tenaciously, and obsessively trying to wear down the opposition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From that discussion, "The issue is plain and simple. We are talking about known scholars, not some weekend geographer. Unless you have other scholars which criticize the scholars in question, there is nothing to discuss here. Staszek Lem" Staszek Lem has also been editing here, although you two claim to speak for him.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Staszek Lem was obviously mocking your dismissal of Eberhardt. Eberhardt is not some weekend geographer, but a known scholar, as is evident on his Polish wiki page.Faustian (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He can speak for himself here, but I did not see, "I support using geographers to determine issues of ethnicity."Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr Franklin, please do some research about geographers in question before posting stupid sentences. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to know why any geographer should be RS on issues of linguistics and ethnicity. It looks very much like biased cherrypicking.  It appears that RS here depends on supporting a particular POV, not academic qualifications.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr Franklin, please do some research about geographers in question before posting ignorant opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 *  This geographer 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.Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This article, "Polish census", is about demography, not ethnography. Therefore first of all, I fail to understand your objection in general. On the second hand, the fact that the focus of the book is one, does not mean that the rest is bullshit. Once again, please provide evidence that "this geographer" was criticized for errors or bias. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The core problem is that the census enumerated a population without intent to enumerate ethnicity. Yet, many commentators interpolated ethnicity, claiming to be experts on ethnology. So while the census didn't enumerate that topic, this page is dominated by that analysis. Thus the author's caveat is most appropriate, but it is ignored.  No one can fairly criticize him for what you infer, but he declaimed.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doctor Franklin has created a WP:BATTLEGROUND here in order to censor the page to exclude reliable sources that do not agree with his POV. The only source he has presented is Lebedev who claims that Poland was the aggressor and intended to partition and eliminate the USSR in 1939.  Польша планировала расчленение и уничтожение Советского Союза.  --Woogie10w (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever Lebedev was, Pilsudski did have an idea to dismantle Russia into constituent nation states, so that in the future it will not present a threat to smaller nations around. Well, his wishes partially came true and at the same time his worries turned out to be justified, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Soviets loved to demonize Pilsudski as a fascist. The Germans were making offers for a joint Polish-Nazi effort against the Soviets which Pilsudski and Beck declined.  Kate Brown noted that the Soviets were paranoid about Ukrainians rebelling with Polish assistance.  There is a lot of smoke here, which someone could easily infer something more.  (Not that I agree with it.)Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You want to recognize a geographer as RS in the field of linguistics (what the census measured), ethnography or ethnology, but refuse to recognize a Ph.D. in political science. The only criterion is what supports your POV.Doctor Franklin (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you claim that Poles aren't able to understand their history, they need Lebedev's explanation? Lebedev is a Russian propaganda activist.Xx236 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, do you? Sorry, but "propaganda activist" is not NPOV.  It is remarkable that in the present, contemporary Russian social scientists consider the distinction between Ruthenians and Ukrainians to have been correct.  That should be reported here.  The Russians categorize the Catholic Galicians as distinct from the Orthodox "Little Russians" in Wolyn.  There are other sources for this, but clearly not my OR.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * re "That should be reported here." - Yes, if they specifically discuss Polish 1931 census. Otherwise this would be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is will any Russian academic be accepted here, or are they all "propaganda activists" according to the governing cabal here.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is not the question. The question is, I am repeating, whether we are discussing P1931C or incoherently rambling about everything and a partridge in pear tree. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the above comments implying a link between Nazi anthropology and modern Russian social sciences, it is a fair question.Doctor Franklin (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It is a strawman question. In wikipedia we consider sources by their merits, not by country of origin or epoch. And these merits are judged not by wikipedians' opinions, but the opinion of scientific peers. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In your romantic opinion. I see far too much that sources are considered based upon whether it advances or retards an editors POV. How the census has been judged in different time periods and nations is notable in itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a romantic opinion, this is policy. As for the last sentence, I am at a complete loss. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I agree that how the census was judged at different times is encyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that 2 years later, there is no notation that this work by geographer Eberhardt was cited by Gawryszewski.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus
This page keeps coming up on the top of my watchlist, and I don't have time to reread the ciruclar arguments here. We had RfCs and such. I tried to suggest a compromise at 10:22 am, 20 October 2015, but it was mostly ignored. In that case, I have an important question: is there anyone else supporting .User:Doctor Franklin's position? Because I'll remind people: consensus =/= liberum veto. If majority is in consensus, this is the consensus (and dissenting parties are welcome to file a request to ArbCom). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers for your (customary) sensible call on the matter. Doctor Franklin has already been advised by other uninvolved editors and two admins that ArbCom is the next step if he feels that consensus here is wrong. I think we're all weary of going over and over the same ground, and our energies could certainly be better directed across the project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The present consensus appears to be ensure that only the politically correct POV is projected, without allowance for forking that POV, or reporting non-Anglophone POV. As such, ArbCom may be needed.Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please take this there. Remember, Wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOTFORUM for endless discussion (see also WP:DEADHORSE). If we have a deadlock, seeking higher instance of WP:DR is recommended. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Deadlock consists of that one account arguing with numerous other editors.Faustian (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ... meaning that it is not a case for dispute resolution, but a case for ArbCom as the single editor has now been notified that this article falls under ARBEE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)