Talk:1931 Polish census

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" [1], [2]), [3], [4], [5]) . As, for instance, here [6] : "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 "[[Polish language|Poles]]" or all who took part in it as "[[Polish citizen|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)

File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nalot niemczyzny 1910 1931.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2011 (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 [7]. So 67/32,000 = (approx) .2% (as in about a fifth of one percent). This is of course going by the "mother tongue" definition.VolunteerMarek 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.VolunteerMarek 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)

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| 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 [8] 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)

85.154.245.172 / 37.200.224.204 (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)

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)

Click on it, and go to page 63: mother tongue in Lwów Voivodeship

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)

The reason why percentage points can be seen as riskey is because percentage points tend to hide the facts. – When five Polish Lithuanians responded to the census in Lwów Voivodeship (results pictured), they remained (and forever will be) five Lithuanians. This is not a representative category to dwell upon.
— User:Poeticbent

I have copied the above statement of mine from the relevant thread started at User talk:Piotrus#Map of languages in 2nd Polish republic 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)

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)

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)

Map of languages in 2nd Polish republic

Discussion moved out of User_talk:Piotrus, since it grew way beyond the original personal notice. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone [9] has a problem with a map you've uploaded.  Volunteer Marek  15:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek:. This is a content dispute going beyond behavioural guidelines. It seems to me that the US IP user (Pennsylvania) might have a valid point, because 63 percent of Polish inhabitants of Polesie are not acknowledged in this map ... 63 percent is a lot of people, and the maker of this map, User:Krzysztoflew~enwiki, is inactive since 13 February 2009. I don't know what to say. Poeticbent talk 17:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Click on it, and go to page 63: mother tongue in Lwów Voivodeship

Hmmm, ok. It's a nice map though, any chance someone could make a similar one but with all the info?  Volunteer Marek  19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The actual Polish census of 1931 is now available online, as published in Polish and also in French, available here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Polish_census_of_1931 It is best to use the original source, if it is to be cited as such, and avoid using other re-interpretations of that data. One curiosity is that the Poles identified two separate languages, as respondents self-identified, in what is now Western Ukraine, Ukrianians and Ruthenians:

Lwow: 57.67% Polish, 18.53% Ukrainian, 15.59% Ruthenian

Stanislaw: 22.44% Polish, 46.87% Ukrainian, 21.96% Ruthenian

Ternopol: 49.31% Polish, 25.12% Ukrainian,, 20.38% Ruthenian

Wolyn: 16.62% Polish, 68.01% Ukrainian, 0.41% Ruthenian

It will be a big job to get all of the data accurate to the original. However, this should be accurate if it cites to the original. What happened to the Ruthenians during the war remains somewhat of a mystery. Perhaps there have been some Polish historians who have written about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: I did some preliminary studies. Redoing the entire map would take me several days. The new pie-chart for every Voivodeship can be created online with all decimal points (exactly) and downloaded to your computer from https://www.meta-chart.com/pie. Please take a look at my thumbnail insert (above, right); on page 65 you can find the following data. The Lwów Voivodeship (zoom in, total population 2815178): Jezyk ojczysty: polski - 1606823, ukrainski - 555230, ruski - 476743, bialoruski - 188, rosyjski - 291, czeski - 340, litewski - 5, niemiecki - 9601, zydowski - 143482, hebrajski - 14140, inny - 451, nie podany - 7884. This means that for the purpose of our Wikipedia discourse with involves a number of controversies, no map with data other than all of the above, is going to cut the mustard. Poeticbent talk 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Poeticbent: I believe the cities have separate census surveys from the rest of their voivods. The numbers need to be totaled. If I have time, I could help you collect the population reports from each voivod. Be prepared for someone to claim that accurately reporting published census data is OR.Doctor Franklin (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We do have relevant PDF files in Commons which are self-explanatory, providing that we do not "interpret" what's in them (which can be seen as OR). This is why originally I was against calculating percentages, which led to an unsightly edit war at 1931 census again. The data which I provided above is for the total of the Lwów Voivodeship only (!), excluding the city of Lwów. The census results for the city of Lwów can be added using plain maths. A pie chart could be generated automatically for the total number, using https://www.meta-chart.com/pie - nobody could question such method as being original research. Poeticbent talk 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. The reason why percentage points can be seen as riskey is because percentage points tend to hide the facts. – When five Polish Lithuanians responded to the census, they remained (and forever will be) five Lithuanians. This is not a representative category to dwell upon. Poeticbent talk 14:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The user here seems to be a single-issue account pushing a particular POV described by Magocsi (A History of Ukriane, pg. 638, University of Toronto Press): "The Polish government adopted a policy of tribalization, which gave support to the idea that various ethnographic groups (Lemkos, Boykos, Hutsuls) aa well as the Old Ruthenians and Russophiles were somehow distinct from the Ukrainian nationality as a whole." Reliable sources almost always combine "Ruthenian" and "Ukrainian" into one number when they summarize the census data, as is done here: [[10]] by noted Polish academic Piotr Eberhardt. Thus, the map in its current form is fine and corresponds to summaries such as Eberhardt's. The single-user account is simply trying to push his POV that there was a huge "Ruthenian" nationality in Galicia and that something "happened" to it. Faustian (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Magosci's quote possibly explains who the self-declared Ruski were in the second Polish republic. The fact remains, that given the choice, they chose not to call themselves Ukrainians. Since you consider Magosci to be RS on the point, note that the Encyclopedia Britannica does as well. " Ruthenian (German: Ruthenisch; Hungarian: rutén) was also the official designation for the spoken and written language of the East Slavs (present-day Ukrainians and Carpatho-Rusyns) living in the Habsburg-ruled Austrian Empire." http://www.britannica.com/topic/Ruthenian The FACT is that the term did refer to more than one ethnic group in the past, but refers to one ethnic group today who don't consider themselves Ukrainians. How that term evolved over time, and who the Polish Ruski were in the census is a matter for academic debate, upon which not all historians agree. Finding one token Pole to "validate" your usage of the term proves nothing considering that Eberhart holds a doctorate in "geographical sciences, focusing in economic geography". The man is not a historian, ethnologist, sociologist, or even a political scientist. His usage of the term holds no academic weight.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your claims show us your POV but the work of reliable sources such as Eberhardt (a specialist in demography and human geography)is the basis of Wikipedia, not primary sources or your personal claims. If you find a reliable source showing that for example 20% of the people or Ternopil belonged to a non-Ukrainian ethnic group "Ruthenians" then include it. Otherwise, we follow reliable sources that refer to Ukrainans/Ruthenians as Ukrainians when describing the census results. This is what Eberhardt does, as well as others do. For example, Jerzy Kochanowski: [11] Faustian (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My POV is that when a national census of a nation is the subject of a WP page, the results of that census will be translated and reported accurately on that WP page. Your POV is to censor reporting what you don't like by finding alternative second hand interpretation and synthesis of the same. If you don't make the same objections to other national censuses, I will conclude that your behavior is discriminatory and motivated by some kind of ethnic animus. Fair enough? I have read other Polish historians who used the "Rusni" to describe the inhabitants of Galicia and Wolyn without distinction from the census. This may get translated by some English editors as "Ukrainains" as in the work you cited. (Jerzy_Kochanowski BTW is a communist era historian who is published mostly on German issues. He wrote in Polish.) Regardless of how it gets interpreted of synthesized, the census asked what it asked, reported what it reported, and published what it published. No secondary source is needed to re-report what it published.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What you call "finding alternative second hand interpretation and synthesis of the same" iws actually using secondary rather than primary sources. I suggest you review Wikipedia policy about that [12]: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.".Faustian (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not how WP reports from a national census on it WP page. Secondary commentary, criticisms, and interpretations only come after the original is cited from the primary source. You are rationalizing your behavior here.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Faustian: Times have changed dramatically since 1931. Ukraine is a sovereign state, with its own problems ... and so is Poland. I repeat, all "interpretations" of original historical data (any way you cut it), including Eberhardt's summary, can be perceived as original research for our purposes. Poeticbent talk 15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eberhadt's work is not original research. Original research is when Wikipedia editors use primary sources to make claims or assumptions, such as there being a separate "Ruthenian" nation that almost equaled "Ukrainians" in Ternopil.Faustian (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but when you begin to add concrete interpretations by historians from any one particular national group (or any linguistic group for that matter), you begin to introduce bias against the individuals who weren't given a voice. This is what I was trying to avoid. Poeticbent talk 15:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Concrete interpretations by historians, rather than primary sources, is what Wikipedia is based on. The census itself was conducted in a biased way, which is why historians' summaries are so useful.Faustian (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All censuses in the world are primary sources; six one way, half-dozen the other.Poeticbent talk 01:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, back in 2011 I added the table with the figures breaking out the 1931 Polish population by language and religion. The source of the previous table is a reliable secondary source The population of Poland by the U.S. Census Bureau, 1954. The Census Bureau authors combined the Ukrainians and Ruthenians in their table which I posted to Wikipedia. This table illustrates the disputed nature of the 1931 census, some historians claim that 69% of the population were Poles. That figure included 1.0 million Greek Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and 372,000 Jews who were classified as Poles by language. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The secondary source in a foreign country did not accurately report the data from the 1931 Census of Poland. Occurring in the middle of the second Red Scare in the U.S., it can be seen as a political document, not academic, which attempted to gloss over the post WWII population transfers and Western abandonment of Central and Eastern Europe by synthesizing different ethnic groups together to obscure the ethnic diversity of the region, and the betrayal of self-determination of the local peoples. Since it did not accurately report the various ethnic groups, its interpretation of that census is a poor substitution for the accurately translating the original. "Ruthene" does not need to be translated from French to English since it is the same.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"synthesizing different ethnic groups " So here we have your personal fringe belief: that "Ruthenians" and "Ukrainians" as listed on the Polish census are different ethnic groups. That there were almost as many "Ruthenians" as "Ukrainians" in Tarnopol and Lwow. On the talk page you make your POV even more clear and bizarre: "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." This is the POV you push, but multiple reliable sources - indeed, every reliable source found so far - don't agree and when summarizing the census they place them together as "Ukrainians."Faustian (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

By comparison to the original census chart and numbers, two ethnic categories were conflated together under one category, while the other category is ignored. That is a synthesis which is not true to the original. For example, I can take four categories of protestant churches and put them in a catch-all category of called "protestants", but I cant move the Lutherans into the category of Reformed and delete the later. You want to do the latter, which is academically dishonest. I understand that this is what you want to believe, but it is certainly not neutral POV. Since your opinion has been formed as part of your ethnic identity, I doubt that you would accept any source to the contrary. I suspect that people who study the region are curious where 3.8% of the pre-war population went.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't know my ethnicity, and it is irrelevant here. I want nothing but to follow the consensus found in reliable sources. You should want this, too, rather than engaging in uncivil behavior.Faustian (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do.

Thank you for the description of common sense.Faustian (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin, the US census figures are in agreement with the Polish official data. However they combine the figures for the Ukrainians and Ruthenians as well as as the Tutejszy with the Belarusians for the sake of simplicity. The fate of the Ruthenians and Tutejszy was never ever an issue in the United States during the cold war. Your analysis of this topic is absurd OR and needs to be backed up with a reliable source --Woogie10w (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No the US census figures synthesized different ethnic groups into a single category, contrary to actual published Polish Census of 1931. See the Second Red Scare (1947–57) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Second_Red_Scare_.281947.E2.80.9357.29 for further reading on the topic to which I referred. Slavic Ethnic groups in the U.S. were not happy with Stalin's expansion of communism to their homelands. For what purpose was the U.S census office reinterpreting a foreign census?Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For what purpose was the U.S census office reinterpreting a foreign census? My hunch is that spoken Rusyn and western Ukrainian are closely related. For example my father learned Polish at home from his mother, he was a Pennsylvania coal miner and understood Rusyn after working 18 years underground. I remember him saying that the Rusyn's did not like to be referred to as Ukrainians. If he were alive today he would understand this discussion.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that good bit of caution is in order when one nation's government translates and re-publishes summaries from another government (In this case 23 years later). How credible would we find the Russian government republishing a Ukrainian or Belarussian census? I don't think it is that difficult for someone who spoke one Slavic language at home to understand or learn a second Slavic language. One Polish lady I know told me she was sitting in an airport and could understand every word from people from Yugoslavia. Historians like Kate Brown have noted that there wasn't a standard version of language spoken by the peasants in the region. There were different regional dialects that would blend together. Modern Europe recognizes this linguistic diversity, which is very much contrary to nationalists attempting to use language to "prove" ethnicity. Magosci is the recognized authority on the Carpo-Rusyns, and no they don't like being called Ukrainians.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin please cite a reliable source from the Cold War era on this Rusyn and Ukrainian dispute we are having. Here in New York the local Rusyns and Ukrainians are happy like peas in a pod see Ukrainian Americans in New York City. If you are in NY drop me a line and we can have lunch there. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rusynmedia.org/consortium/nov2011meeting.html Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the invitation. I have never meet anyone from WP, and judging from some of the characters that I have encountered, I don't know that I want to do that. I know of other communities in the U.S. where Poles and Ukrainians intermarried and got along famously as well. I think that you missed the point. During the Cold War there was little interest, and perhaps less ability, to look at the ethnic issues in the USSR. It is only recently, with the creation of the successor nations of the USSR and the fall of communism that academics have been able to access archive materials necessary to do this. Much of the funding, from what I can see, has gone to study Jewish issues. Ethnic studies in Galcia are difficult since the Soviets destroyed the archives of the region in Lwow. (Norman Davies reported this.) So, one is left drawing inferences from such actions. Khruschev is quoted as fearing historians.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit to ad that it is not clear that the "Ruthenains" in the census were all Carpo-Rusyns. (See the Magosci quote above.) Quite possibly, they were a group of Greek Catholics intermarried with Poles over 600 years who spoke a mixed Polish-Ukrainian dialect and preferred living in a Polish state, or possibly prosperous kulaks, who rejected the "Ukrainian" ethnic identity for political reasons. The topic is open for discussion by academics.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My hunch is that the Polish government in 1931 wanted to bump down the number of Ukrainians so they counted the Rusyns separately. Today they are considered considered Ukrainians in the post communist census. My dad said their language was akin to Slovak, he should have known since he drank with them. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

btw the Carpo-Rusyns were in Zakarpathia-Czechoslovakia in 1931. The Czech census puts them at 451,000 in 1930. Our crew was across the border in Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I din't notice this chat before. Now tl;dr, sorry. Whatever you discussed above is completely irrelevant for a single reason: it is not a job of wikipedians in interpret primary sources. Census is primary source. Either we report it as is or find secondary sources which interpret it in reliable way. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We have. Reliable secondary sources such as this one[13] by Piotr Eberhardt combine Ruthenian-speakers and Ukrainian-speakers into one entity: Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. But there are other modern reputable sources which claim that Lemkos, Boykos, Hutsuls are distinct enough to be treated separately, if only as a sub-ethnos. It is an easy thing to add a note about this combining, even an extra column. I see no compelling reason to doctor the original data. One may add all possible interpretations is the article text. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Staszek, what are your sources and how do they relate to the 1931 Polish census? In other words reliable source X tells us that there were Y number of Boykos in Poland in 1931.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you asking? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you dI'd not provide a reliable source that we can verify, that's why, do you have a problem with that?--Woogie10w (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please tone down, do you have problem with that? Verify what? I didn't add any text into the article, hence my question to you. (For example, I am not asking you for RS about "Our crew was across the border in Poland" and how is it related to 1931 census.) And I am not saying that 'Boykos' was a separate entry in the census. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I am here to discuss changes backed up by reliable sources not to blog --Woogie10w (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. You asked for it: if you are not to blog then please explain how your crew being across the board and your dad's drinking experience improves the article? And you still failed to answer my question. Your belligerent attitude is not helping. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

1931 population stats

In image file File:Mother_tongue_poland_1931_census.png you have population table. It seems that it does not match our wikipedia article Polish census of 1931. Most notable discrepancies are missing Rutenian language and difference in Yiddish. Please double-check. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Staszek Lem: I have moved your post up a notch, because the thread was already started. Please note, the image file was created by somebody else. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Somebody who else? File history has a single name, Piotrus. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Staszek Lem: Please see description on Commons - the author is User:Krzysztoflew. I just moved it from en wiki to Commons. I'd also suggest this entire discussion is copied and continued at the Image talk page, not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: I would suggest to move it into Talk:Polish census of 1931, since it is the page frequented by people who understand the topic. Who do you think will discuss it at Commons? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed with Staszek Lem that this should be moved to the article's talk page. There's been more discussion here than on that page. Not only will it serve to inform other editors of the discussion, but will serve to retain this information on the relevant talk in the archives. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

1. The article Polish census of 1931 must contain exact tabulation according to the original data. Image page is wrong location: content must be watched by people who are familiar with content.
2. The author of the image can present the data in any way xe sees fit (for all I can care, it may have pie charts for "Pole/Non-Pole" only, as long as it contains explanation how it was constructed, pe verifiablitity rules.
3. I trust the image creator duly took this discussion into the consideration, but the final decision is xis. Whatever xe does, it will be a useful graphics.
4. If someone dislikes it, they are very welcome to create their own version of the graphics, which may represent all 14 language groups distinguished in the census. (Xe even may merge German and Yiddish, as long as it is explained, but xe must look hard to find an article which will fit the image to host :-).

Rgds, Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, The first order of business is to upload the population total page for each city and voivod and make a link. That should make it harder for disrupters to make claims of OR, which has already happened. Charts need to show all language groups. Showing only Polish vs. non-Polish is synth, and it reinforces Soviet propaganda. The Poles were the plurality in the Kresy. All languages Merging German and Yiddish is not advisable.Doctor Franklin (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, we cannot use the raw data from the 1931 census to compute the number of Poles in the population of the so called "Kresy" region because the provinces of Białystok and Lwow were split between Poland and the USSR in 1945 (also there was a tiny sliver near Brest that went to the Soviets) Any attempt on our part to allocate the ethnic groups would be OR. The study by P. Eberhardt -Ethnic Groups & population changes on page 117 puts the "Poles" in the Kresy region at 29.3%, this is in close agreement with the U.S. Census study of 1954. I own hard copies of the Ethnic Groups & population changes and the US Census studies, if editors need of additional information feel free to contact me on my talk page--Woogie10w (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also it should be pointed out that that some sources put the population of this "Kresy" region at 13.199 million which is taken from the Maly Rocznik Statystyczny Polski published in London in 1941 by the Polish government in exile. This is not correct because the figure of 13.199 million includes (c. 1.4 million) in the sections of the provinces of Białystok and Lwow returned to Poland in 1945. P. Eberhardt -Ethnic Groups & population and the U.S. Census study provide a correct allocation by not including the regions returned to Poland in 1945.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We are accurately reporting the linguistic and religious data EXACTLY as reported in the census on this page. No, we aren't using the language data from the census to extrapolate ethnicity. That is an academic parlor game in which some engage. This page should make that clear as well that the criticisms of the census are based on that game. The Polish census followed the model of the U.S. census of not asking for a declaration of ethnicity. How is a U.S. census report 23 years later RS on the ethnic population of Poland when that census department did not judge ethnicity in its own country? For what political purpose was this done? See discussion above. Eberhardt holds degrees in geography from the communist era and made plain in the text that he was not studying ethnicity or ethnography. Eberhardt is not RS here. I am certain that there are better sources from Polish scholars in the social sciences on this point, but I expect that they were published in Polish. This is too important of a topic to rely on "easter eggs" found here and there as a tangential point in related works. Events in 1945 don't relate to the 1931 census.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add that the US Census's 1956 report on Poland is better classified as a tertiary source, rather than a secondary source. Its use should be limited, and is not a substitute for original documents from the Polish statistical office, or Polish government in exile.Doctor Franklin (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Polish government in exile data is from 1941, in 1945 sections of the provinces of Białystok and Lwow returned to Poland. You are spinning wheels trying to use the 1931 census to determine the population of the Kresy region. The 1954 US Census report does in fact have the detail of the total population for each gmina that went to the Soviets in 1945, you could go to the Polish Wikipedia 1931 census page to look up the ethnic allocation of each gimina in 1931, then you would have to gross up the population to 1939. This would involve serious number crunching Good luck. I am trying to help you!!--Woogie10w (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Eberhardt, he was an associate of the Polish Academy of Science in the post communist era, his study deals with ethnic changes in 20th cent E Europe and was published by Taylor & Francis. I have the book in front of me!!--Woogie10w (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. Turn to page 3 where 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.Doctor Franklin (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The US Census report on Poland is a a reliable source based on that fact that it received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . [14]-- I have the book in front of meWoogie10w (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the review notes that it is "a compilation and evaluation of population data and related information mainly from Polish official sources". Thus, tertiary source to be used sparingly if at all, and never as a substitution for the original. It also may be dated since the Polish archives are now open to historians. If it is used, conflations of the original census categories should be noted.Doctor Franklin (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Extrapolating ethnicity from a census which surveyed religion and mother tongue" by an editor is original research. A RS using census data is a secondary source. Ebehardt also co-wrote a book on ethnicity, "Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe" in which he explicitly categorizes Ukrainian-speakers and Ruthenian-speakers on the census as one ethnic group whom he describes as "Ukrainians." Here:[15]. You have failed to find any reliable sources that claim that the 1.2 million people categorized as Ruthenian speakers were a separate nationality than Ukrainians, which is the POV you are pushing and the purpose of your "work" on this article. Faustian (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Faustian, please continue talking, but refrain from wp:personal attacks, because you're not new to this game. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in pointing out that the editor and the IPs he uses holds a fringe belief, with no reliable sources supporting it, and is pushing it here on wikipedia.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Faustian is correct, lets talk about reliable sources that include the Ruthenians and Ukrainians: I have hard copies of these sources that combine the Ruthenians and Ukrainians. 1- N. Davies - Gods Playground, 2-T. Piotrowski Poland's Holocaust 3- P. Magocsi Historical Atlas of East Central Europe 4- The US Census study The Population of Poland. 5- Eberhardt , Ethnic Groups & Pop changes.6- Maly Roznik of Polish gov in London 1942. If push comes to shove I can provide jpg images of the pages. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I hear you loud and clear, but please explain why the census respondents themselves opted for a different answer, and replied in such great numbers against the single category proposed (in hindsight) by the above historians. Poeticbent talk 16:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As Magocsi stated, the Polish government was pursuing a strategy of tribalization with Old Ruthenians being categorized as a different group. Old Ruthenians are simply Ukrainians who had not yet adopted the Ukrainian self-identity (some ideologically, others because they lived in small villages and just called themselves Rusyns, comparable to people referring to themselves as "tuteszny" which also is not a separate nationality). If the census had been done in 1850 they would have all been Ruthenians. Multiple historians concur that self-identified Ruthenians and Ukrainians are the same people. Nobody has found a RS indicating that this was an entirely different nationality in this region, the fringe idea pushed by the other editor.Faustian (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be linked to the developments after Ruthenian ethnicity was banned. Another interesting feature in Ruthenian - Ukrainian relations is the proximity factor (1991 census): when the self-registered Ruthenians and Ukrainians are taken as one group (Ruthenian/Ukrainian), the Ruthenians are the majority within the Ruthenian/Ukrainian group in North-East Slovakia, and Ukrainians elsewhere. In other words, those living in or close to the traditional Ruthenian/Ukrainian villages (areas) were more likely to again register Ruthenian ethnicity than Ukrainian, once it was allowed.

— Christina Bratt Paulston, Donald Peckham, Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, page 263.

But this is about Slovakia, not Poland in 1931--Woogie10w (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You are correct; Slovakia was where this ethnic division first led to a surprising development. Poeticbent talk 16:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The rise of Nazi Germany first impacted the Ukrainian lands in Czechoslovakia. In 1938 Ruthenia, called Carpatho-Ukraine, was made an autonomous province with its own government within a federated republic. Amid the continuing Czech crisis, the government of the province declared Carphatho-Ukraine independent on 2 March 1939.

— James Minahan, Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States p. 283.

re " Old Ruthenians are simply Ukrainians who had not yet adopted the Ukrainian self-identity" It is exactly the point of objection: at the moment of the census Ruthenians were not Ukrainians yet (it is commonly agreed (and I believe written in wikipedia) that ethnicity is primarily self-identification). And declaring them otherwise would be an anachronism. Not to say there is nothing unusual for an ethnicity to have sub-ethnicities. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We are drifting off-topic into OR here, but Ethnic group is broadly defined " socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.[1][2] Unlike most other social groups, ethnicity is primarily an inherited status. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance." "Ukrainians" and "Ruthenians" in Galicia shared the same language, history, religion (Greek Catholic), ancestry, art, homeland, etc. Being the same people but with a different label means that almost all of these criteria are met. Since "Ukrainian" became the dominant label only at the end of the 19th century (when most Ruthenes renamed themselves Ukrainians) the idea that a different label equals a different ethnicity suggests no such thing as "Ukrainians" or "Ukrainian history" prior to about 1870. Which is absurd. If, say, the Russian government decided to use terms Pole and Mazovian on the census separately, to make the number of Poles smaller, is the guy self-declaring "Mazovian" a different ethnicity than his neighbor (who uses the same language, goes to the same church, and is maybe related) writing Pole? Anyways, it is best to just stick to what reliable secondary sources say, which is to state that Ruthenians and Ukrianians on that census were the same people.Faustian (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

re "policy of tribalization" - this is a scientific opinion, not a physical fact, and must be described as such. If anything, the strongest Polish policy was that of assimilation (Polonization) from the early days of PLC and on up to Second Polish Republic: from Lithuanian nobility "adopted" into szlachta down to Belarusian peasants of Catholic faith written as Poles. (And there is nothing inherently wrong with that). (And now pot-kettle-black: Ukrainians are to assimilate Ruthenians. Again, nothing wrong with that, but we should not confuse the final result with the whole history). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Piotrowski "Poland's Holocaust" p.180 The Ruthenian groups did not consider themselves Ukrainians and opposed the Ukrainian separatist groups, they were loyal to Poland. IMO -now this is just my opinion,-the Polish census takers may have intimidated local people who may have been afraid to identify with opposition Ukrainian groups. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The simplest answers to this quandary are in the census results, and need to be accepted for what they are. The 1931 census categorized Poland's population by the first language as well as by religion (not politics), and that's how the distinctiveness of Poland's Ruthenians versus Poland's Ukrainians has been recognized by it. The Ruthenians were Greco Catholics who spoke Slaveno-Rusyn language known as Ruthenian. The Ukrainians were Orthodox Christians who spoke Ukrainian (decidedly different from Russian). Magocsi – who's a historian – recognized that fact:

The most obvious distinctive traits, that Old Ruthenians could propose in juxtaposition to Slavs living in the Russian Empire, were that they were Greek Catholics and subjects of Austria's Habsburg monarchy. Not surprisingly, the Greek Catholic hierarchy, from which many Old Ruthenians derived, was anxious to justify its middle-of-the-road distinctiveness vis-a-vis both the Orthodox, with whom they shared a common liturgy, and the Roman Catholics, with whom they shared a common hierarchical structure and papal authority. Thus, being a Greek Catholic Galician meant that one was by definition different from both the Roman Catholic Poles to the west and the Orthodox Dnieper Ukrainians and Russians to the east.

— Paul R. Magocsi, The Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism: Galicia as Ukraine's Piedmont, pp. 108, 110.

Good point, I checked the census schedule, most Ruthenian's were Greek or Roman Catholics. So it seems that Ruthenian was a political label that indicated loyalty to Poland rather than a separate language.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Woogie10w. Please take a look at that "jpg" once again. There were 1,219,647 Ruthenians in Poland based on language. – Definition of Ruthenian language (i.e. Slaveno-Rusyn) is in Magosci, p. 110 (above). Some 1,163,749 of them were Greek Catholics, almost all ... no conspiracy there, and (like I said) no "political " label either. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

When Magocsi was referring to the separate Rusyn language he was talking about Capratho-Rusyn, in Czechoslovakia. We are discussing census results in Poland. There was some overlap (maybe 20,000 people) along the Slovak border but in general Mogosci's Rusyn language isn't applicable to the areas that were part of Poland. The Orthodox Ukrainians lived in Volyn. Greek-Catholic Ukrainians lived in Galicia. Thus, the "Ukrainians" and "Ruthenians" in Galicia were both Greek Catholics. Indeed, they belonged to the exact same Church.Faustian (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Piotrowski mentions the political aspect--Woogie10w (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Piotrowski the Orthodox in Poland had a beef with the Polish government because they closed some Orthodox churches. The wound was reopened in 1991 when the communist system collapsed, the Greek Catholics tried to reclaim their churches turned over to the Orthodox in the communist era--Woogie10w (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

S. Lem's suggestion above seems good. Honestly, skimming through this discussion I don't see what the problem is. Can somebody summarize the reason for the NPOV tag? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

One editor didn't achieve consensus, so he put it there.Faustian (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no liberum veto here; if several editors are seeing this article as neutral and only disagrees, the template can be removed - through I'd suggest RfC first (but I believe it already took place here, didn't it?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 19 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: [16] " 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: [17] " 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 . [18]---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)

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 Wikipedia: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: [19] "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: [20]: "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: [21]. 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: [22] [23] 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)

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)

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 [24]--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)

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: [25]. "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/enwiki/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)

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)

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#Criticism 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| 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| 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)

What exactly is not neutral here?

Having read parts of the discussion here and at the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Polish_census_of_1931, 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| 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| 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 ([26]), 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| 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 [27] ,Lebedev teaches political science at the Baltic State Technical University [28] Читать далее-Lebedev is the author of four works [29]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. [30] --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 [31] --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 [32] 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:/upwiki/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). [33] 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. [34] 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. [35] 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#Dialects 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 [36] 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: [37]. 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)

<sigh> 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)

<sigh sigh> Dr Franklin, please do some research about geographers in question before posting ignorant opinions. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

<See pg.3> 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. [38] --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| 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| 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)

Translations of "język ojczysty"

The census surveyed a question of "język ojczysty". That can be either translated as native language/tongue or mother tongue. Apparently different authors have translated it differently. Native language clearly means people who spoke Polish with native speaker proficiency. (See the cited Ilya Prizel (1998). National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine.) This page has given undue weight to those who chose to interpret the survey to be asking about the respondent's mother's language as an implied indicator of ethnicity. This is comical because at this time in Europe, ethnicity and citizenship had been conferred by the father, not the mother. This page needs to cease the comedic Polish interpretations and at least give equal weight to the correct interpretation of "język ojczysty". This page is a farce and lacks NPOV.75.137.139.185 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC) It also must be note that the Statistical office made a decision to survey linguistic ability. It is not NPOV to allege that it "created a situation". NPOV requires "just the facts, ma'am" without editorials from those using this page to push an agenda.75.137.139.185 (talk) 05:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring your original research into the content of the article. The article carries a criticism section supported by academic research as to the intent or non intent of the Polish government. It is POV to rework "This situation created a difficulty in establishing the true number of ethnic non-Polish citizens of Poland." to "This decision created a problem for those attempting to divide Poland into ethnic categories of ethnic Poles vs. non-Polish citizens of Poland." as it infers something entirely different to how scholars at the time, and later scholars, perceived the structure of the census. Your version suggests that it was an error in judgement by those who constructed the census, therefore you're reading in some form of intent that may or may not be true. What the intent was, and any errors in judgement are are not for you to evaluate... that's what reliable secondary sources are for. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue here, my dear, is that 1) The census itself is RS of itself. Criticisms of a census are UNVERIFIABLE opinions, not Wiki-facts, and 2) You and your friend are WP:Cherrypicking since Ilya Prize very plainly translated this as "native language" and not "mother tongue". Therefore you are giving undue weight to one possible translation at the expense of the better interpretation. Thus, this is not NPOV89.176.142.100 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If she could read Polish herself, she would not be asking for another opinion as to what "język ojczysty" means in English or ignore its definition in the census itself.83.0.226.214 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I can read Polish. It would be appreciated if the both of you got accounts and desisted from WP:MEAT/WP:TAGTEAM editing. You are both running the WP:OR and WP:POV pushing gauntlet. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you cannot read Polish, but please turn to page 10 of the .pdf of the main census

https://web.archive.org/web/20140317212240/http://statlibr.stat.gov.pl/exlibris/aleph/a18_1/apache_media/VUNVGMLANSCQQFGYHCN3VDLK12A9U5.pdf

were further instructions for "język ojczysty" survey were given and explain referring to the Polish text how the question related to the respondents family or mother in support of your continued censorship of Ilya Prizel's interpretation of the term as "native language" and instead insist that the question wasn the tongue of the respondent's mother. All of Poland is waiting for you, Kochanu.81.219.204.90 (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We can assume that either she does not comprehend the Polish language, and therefore is incompetent to judge those who have made a very large assumption of its intent, or this is simply contentious editing. Since she refuses to answer the question, bad faith can now be assumed. Clearly "native language" is the proper translation and needs to be given at least equal weight as the twice translated "mother tongue" interpretation.Doctor Franklin (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Apolinary Hartglas

I have just consulted a copy of Apolinary Hartglas, Na pograniczu dwóch światów, Warszawa Oficyna Wydawn and his memoirs made no reference to Edward Szturm de Sztrem or any alleged confession from him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.0.226.214 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to forward that copy to me so as I can verify this... and read WP:ALLEGED (a word you are extremely fond of throwing in on a regular basis). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you have not bothered to read the book, why should someone violate copyright to send you a copy of the entire book? This is disruptive editing. Since you have not read the book you are required to assume good faith from someone who has, and who is able to read it in its language of publication. See WP:GOODFAITH 81.219.204.90 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

She cannot read the book because it is in Polish and she cannot read Polish. She wants a communist historian to translate it into English with his own footnotes so she can confuse the editorial comments for what Hartglas wrote.217.153.136.0 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To make verification easy, which pages are said to make such claims? It's easy nowadays to scan (even with a phone camera) few pages and share them online. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, but this alleged claim of Hartglas is referenced to Joseph Marcus (1983). Social and Political History of the Jews in Poland, 1919-1939. Walter de Gruyter. p. 17 (footnote 3) ISBN 978-90-279-3239-6. Retrieved 17 October 201: https://books.google.pl/books?id=82ncGA4GuN4C&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false The page with the allegation against Edward Szturm de Sztrem is available online, but the page with the footnote for the claim is not. So, per WP:VERIFY those favoring this attribution to Hartglas should scan the footnote and share it online. It is not readily available in Poland. Hartglas' memoirs were published and republished in Polish along with added relevant footnotes to academic works published subsequently. It is possible that some republished version has an editorial footnote about Tomaszewski's posthumous claim about Edward Szturm de Sztrem, but it does not appear in the original memoir from Hartglas, and should not be attributed to him here.81.219.204.90 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The reference was added during the fast and furious development of this article in October. While I have scans the relevant pages for the majority of the references added, this is one I don't have... but I have no reason to believe that any one of the several editors who were developing the content would be lying. Considering that I know each of them as good, collaborative editors who are WP:HERE, I have no reason to doubt that citation is correct. I've been reticent to have to muddle through the history log of the article during that period, but I'm going to have to make time to see whether I can pinpoint who added it and ask them to provide a scan of the relevant page. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if these IP editors could stop the WP:PERSONAL attacks on me and barraging my talk page with template warnings, as well as keeping the tone down. Comments such as "She wants a communist historian to translate it into English with his own footnotes..." are hysterical and uncivil. I don't believe it's been understood that such conduct and accusations levelled at me undermines their own credibility as being WP:NPOV contributors. (Noting, also, that I let these templates and WP:ASPERSIONS stand until about an hour ago when yet another 'warning' was added.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that search! This is an utterly ludicrous exercise in WP:CRUSH which has left me confounded as to what it is that I am supposed to prove. The WP:RS, being Richard Blanke's "Orphans of Versailles", has stated that this is the case. The fact that the IPs can't access the footnote in the online copy in order to find out what Blanke's source is is their problem. Blanke is a reliable source, therefore WP:BURDEN has been met. If they have an argument with the source, the onus shifts to them to find RS to the contrary. I'm sorry, but I am not going to indulge advocacy ducks any longer. I am now going to restore the content of the article to the consensus version prior this ridiculous WP:OR rewriting using WP:WEASEL language to shift the neutral language being used in the article to POV interpretations of intent. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither Blanke nor Marcus has been demonstrated to have named Hartglas as the source for what Tomaszewski published for the Polish Communist Party in the 1970's. Therefore, this is UNVERIFIED. It is the problem of those wishing to assert this to provide these footnotes to prove the allegations, per WP:VERIFY AND WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is very plainly THEIR PROBLEM. The allegation does not appear in what was published as Hartglas' memoirs. Someone is misrepresenting the source here. It is simply a question of who.94.40.194.130 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you self-revert, get an account, stop IP hopping, and stop pettifogging. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you learn to read Polish and read the books mentioned before further editing the page. Since you haven't read, and apparently can't comprehend, what Hartglas wrote, your edits assume bad faith of others, and thus others can assume bad faith on your part as well.Doctor Franklin (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I very seriously suggest that you stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, Doctor Franklin. You're at it again... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If you spent as much time doing reading as you do making accusations against other editors who do not support your nationalist POV, WP would be a much better place. Please advise on what page Hartglas made this allegation in his published memoir, and address the question above supporting your decision to censor the competing translation of "native language", etc. Doctor Franklin (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither Richard Blanke nor Joseph Marcus cited Hartglas as the source for this claim. It also does not appear in Hartglas' published memoirs. Therefore, it has been removed as erroneous.Doctor Franklin (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The source has been cited, so stop trying to impose your 'Soviet propaganda' WP:OR onto the subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither Richard Blanke nor Joseph Marcus cited Hartglas as the source for this claim. It also does not appear in Hartglas' published memoirs. Therefore, it has been removed as erroneous.Doctor Franklin (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

1921 census Jews with Polish national identity vs. 1931 census Jews with Polish mother tongue

In the census of 1921, some 685,000 Jews by religion declared themselves to be Poles by national identity - this is much more than the number of Jews by religion declaring Polish as their mother tongue in 1931 (the census of 1931 did not have question about national identity):

https://books.google.pl/books?id=5_OXOwvjqjwC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=1921+census+Jewish+nationality+Polish+nationality&source=bl&ots=Iic-ZJ0glg&sig=TFf3n3emYqyzTjkT7NFrebVPY5M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBmoVChMInuy6pITnxwIVBs9yCh1YBQdj#v=onepage&q&f=false

So why does the article claim that the census of 1931 caused more Jews to be classified as Poles than that of 1921? This is false - the opposite was the case, in 1921 even higher percent of Jews declared themselves to be ethnic Poles, than in 1931 claimed speaking Polish.
Peter558 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)