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)

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)