Talk:1931 Polish census

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)

The proper translation of the Polish phrase "native language" in English is "native language", not "mother tongue". The respondents were not surveyed in French.ORPBłyskawica (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Enough of your nitpicking and creating accounts for your WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. How many times are you going to go on conducting a discussion with yourself? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Please discus the instructions on page 10 above and explain the justification for refusing to accept Ilya Prizel's, cited here as RS, conclusion that the term should be interpreted as "native language".ORPBłyskawica (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If the source was considered RS, which it was, then the alternative interpretation, which is quite correct, needs to be noted on the page, otherwise the author is not RS, the criticisms need to be removed, and the page is not NPV.ORPBłyskawica (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

See this source, this source, and this source. The use of 'native language' by Prizel is the exception to the rule, not the standard. The use of terminology reflects both the mainstream and the secondary source mainstream view as to how the census was formulated and why it was critiqued. Stop your POV pushing. In fact, the clearest translation is "tongue of forebears (of your fathers/of your parents)": this isn't about mowa. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The consensus here is that Ilya Prizel is RS, therefore "mainstream". If this author is not mainstream, then the criticism's originating from this source needs to be removed. Ah, but you want to keep the criticism without noting the difference in interpretation. Thus POV pushing. And no, "native language" is the best translation, and we are still waiting for you to make reference to page 10 in the pdf above in this discussion.ORPBłyskawica (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This violates NPOV so please stop your POV pushing. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by identified sock of Doctor Franklin struck through. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 16 July 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)

A source can be cited all day. When the source does not support the citation, it needs to go without delay, especially when the editor who cited the source for a point, notes that he/she was mistaken. (What happened here.) At that point the people edit warring to restore the erroneous citation are responsible for what they are doing. It's not about what edit warriors want to believe, but what the source actually said. This was extremely disruptive, and quite unnecessayr.87.101.129.75 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Enough of the sock puppetry. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Enough of the falsification of a source.87.101.134.197 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Editors who have not read the sources ought not to be correcting those who have. That results other issues contrary to WP:Verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.30.88 (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if Dr. Franklin is right that Hartglass did not write that, we have a source which refer to him. We have no idea how it happened that Marcus cited Hartglass. May be he did it out of his head, may be the footnote was typographically confused, etc.. However it it not the job of wikipedian to fix these kinds of errors. We have to find sources which say that the text by Marcus was in error. While it is easy to verify whether someone did write something, it is close to impossible to verify that he did not write something. Marcus cites a 1950 Tel Aviv edition. It is quite possible later editions were truncated and that's why Dr Franklin did not find what we are discussing. Therefore I edited the phrase in question to state exactly who said what. If you find sources which say otherwise, by all means add them. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Right Staszek Lem has no idea how Marcus happened to cite Hartglass because he did not actually read the book and therefore has no idea what is actually in the printed book. Marcus cited his unpublished 1950 memoir in the introduction, and thanked his daughter for allowing him to read it. Marcus certainly did not cite Hartglass for the proposition that census returns had been altered, since two chapters later, he cited the communist academics for that point. Staszek doesn't know this because he never read the book. He is simply WP:cherrypicking from an online source that doesn't reference footnotes to corresponding pages in the text However, since this point is quite extraordinary, even if Hartglass had claimed that he had received a confession that the returns had been altered, which he plainly did not, you need to cite that source, not so much hearsay down the line. Essentially, this claim is so much hearsay with the source misidentified. Since only one version of this book was ever published according to verifiable library sources, and no such mention of the census nor Mr. Edward Szturm de Sztrem, exists in it, citing Hartglass as the source of the claim is undeniable WP:BULLSHIT . 89.19.105.64 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Staszek Lem didn't read the book and claims he wants a discussion of the topic here. Iryna Harpy is deleting the discussion because she didn't read either book as well. I can only call this vandalism on her part.89.19.105.64 (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Eventually, someone else will actually read the books, and the non-sense here will be exposed. 195.49.150.66 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Marcus uses the phrase "tampered with", which does not indicate but may include "altered"- it could also mean that forms were deliberately mislaid. Marcus' term "faked figures" refers to this report (which he derives from a 1950 Tel Aviv edition of Hartglas' memoirs). Marcus asserts that the number of Jews should be "adjusted upwards by about four per cent" (this is separate to his remarks regarding tampering- his estimate derives from his understanding that there was a practice of the Jewish population concealing the true number of small children. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2017 (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)

I have edited the article accordingly

I have edited the "Mother tongue controversy section" based on Mendelsohn's book.
I have added: "Moreover, many Jews by religion - almost 12% - considered Polish to be their mother tongue in 1931.[8][3] However, an even higher percent of Jews by religion - over 25% - considered themselves to be ethnically (or in terms of national identity) Poles, according to the previous census of 1921.[9] This indicates that replacing "national identity" by "mother tongue" in the census, actually led to reduction - not increase - of the percent of Jews identifying as Poles in 1931, compared to 1921."
See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy
Peter558 (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And this is original research (WP:SYNTH) inadmissible in wikipedia, and I am inclined to revert it. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Saszek-Woogie10w

I 'third' that. WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The previous claim that "Jews opposed the change of question from 'nationality' to 'mother tongue'" was unreliable (why would they?). And the previous statement that the change in question somewhow increased the number of "Poles on paper", compared to previous censuses, was also unsupported by facts. So why do you want to revert my edit? However, of course feel free to somehow modify my entry, if you want, but keep the data from and reference to Mendelsohn's book included, please.
Peter558 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If anything there is original research, then only this last statement (perhaps): "This indicates that replacing "national identity" by "mother tongue" in the census, actually led to reduction - not increase - of the percent of Jews identifying as Poles in 1931, compared to 1921." If you want, modify or remove this last statement.
Peter558 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The 1931 census didn't ask anyone to identify ethnicity. According to Yale's Timothy Snyder, Pilsudski and his government weren't interested in ethnicity, only loyalty to the state. Many in the East didn't identify as anything other than "local". What was surveyed was language, and religion. The criticism is that it didn't attempt to survey ethnicity, but that it should have. So then academic types claim they know what ethnicity these people were based on the data, which is all opinion. We can compare the percentages from the 1921 and 1931 censuses, and do the math to see that Jews by religion increased as a percentage of the population. That's just the math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.168.22.150 (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)