Talk:Demographics of Poland

complete census results 2002[edit]

(nationality) Polska 36983720

 Niepolska 471475
   afganska 111
   algierska 273
   amerykanska 1541
   angielska 800
   arabska 459
   australijska 224
   austriacka 346
   belgijska 245
   bialoruska 48737
   bulgarska 1112
   chinska 212
   chorwacka 336
   czeska 831
   dunska 154
   egipska 132
   francuska 1633
   fryzyjska 109
   grecka 1404
   gruzinska 141
   hinduska 234
   hiszpanska 242
   iranska 186
   japonska 149
   kanadyjska 513
   karaimska 45
   kaszubska 5062
   libanska 174
   litewska 5846
   lemkowska 5863
   lotewska 151
   macedonska 286
   marokanska 113
   mongolska 176
   niderlandzka 540
   niemiecka 152897
   norweska 166
   ormianska 1082
   palestynska 229
   romska 12855
   rosyjska 6103
   rumunska 328
   serbska 442
   slowacka 2001
   syryjska 312
   szwedzka 258
   slaska 173153
   tatarska 495
   tunezyjska 102
   turecka 232
   ukrainska 30957
   wegierska 579
   wietnamska 1808
   wloska 1367
   zydowska 1133
   inna niepolska 2369
   niepolska - nieustalona 4227
 Nieustalona 774885

(languages)

     albanski 96
     angielski 89874
     arabski 1835
     bialoruski 40650
     bulgarski 1076
     chinski 309
     chorwacki 414
     czeski 1482
     dunski 759
     finski 169
     flamandzki 488
     francuski 15282
     grecki 3166
     gruzinski 90
     hebrajski 225
     hindi 160
     hiszpanski 4154
     islandzki 86
     japonski 371
     kaszubski 52665
     litewski 5838
     lemkowski 5627
     macedonski 169
     mongolski 145
     niderlandzki 2768
     niemiecki 204573
     norweski 733
     ormianski 872
     perski 108
     portugalski 299
     romski 15788
     rosyjski 15299
     rumunski 308
     serbski 570
     serbskochorwacki 217
     slowacki 921
     szwedzki 1842
     slaski 56643
     turecki 390
     ukrainski 22698
     wegierski 908
     wietnamski 1883
     wloski 12001
     zulu 128
     niepolski - nieustalony 15834
 Nieustalony 772223

To Kpjas

The major but not well organised part, that mostly concerns past, also very biased and including irrelevant information was moved to Historical Demographics of Poland. Please give me reasons why you want to try to revert those changes AM

I don't get why someone wrote that Ukranians is the largest minority group while a couple of pages below we have CIA info: "Ethnic groups: Polish 97.6%, German 1.3%, Ukrainian 0.6%, Byelorussian 0.5% (1990 est.)" Or have they expelled Germans since 1990?

-- Methyl

As a matter of fact, in that sense also Great Poland (Wielkopolska), the region when Poland originated, was also taken from German Reich and given to Poland. In WWII this region became Warthengau. Germans expulsed thousands of Poles from that area.

szopen

...when land was "taken" from the German Reich and "given" to Poland. That stretch of land then became known as "Polish Corridor".

Either the land was taken and given or it wasn't. The apostrophes are in general a bad idea, since they only come up when you are disagreeing with someone's theory. We're not doing so here, we're simply stating what actually happened.

Well, it would also be good to include the taker and giver - obviously it wasn't conquest, because it was in a war settlement. Actually, 'assigned' is also a useful word in these contexts, given that we're talking about a treaty that was negotiated and signed by both parties. --MichaelTinkler

I thought the Poles were also a specific slavic people?? Also, despite the fact that I am one of the more serious American Germanophiles I know, I am having a very hard time with the constant implication (in this series of Poland or Communists vs. Germany articles, that is) that the re-assignment of disputed territories to Poland was somehow unfair to Germany. Yes, Versailles screwed Germany -- it was deliberately punitive, and I do believe it helped to foment the resentment that allowed Hitler's rise to power -- but it's not like the German Empire wasn't trying to take over most of western Europe! And few people would argue that Germany was an innocent bystander in WWII -- remember, that's the war where the Allies and Communists won -- those territories would probably not have been assigned to the Eastern bloc without a war...JHK

As a consequence the population of Poland became one of the most ethnically homogeneous in the world.

Even with very conservative CIA estimates there is about one milion non-Polish people in Poland. With recent more liberal estimates it might be more like 2-3 milions. This sentence is highly exaggerated. --Taw

One of the great ironies of WWII is that it was started by the British and French supposedly to defend the territorial integrity of Poland, but at the war's end the eastern part of Poland was incorporated into the Soviet Union (which had seized it, in collaboration with the Nazis, in 1939). - HWR

If I read you right, you are saying the British and French started WWII. I thought Germany started WWII. -- a hapless amateur

Well, it were Soviets who started WWII. (Germans had also something to do with it, but much less than Soviets). --Taw

Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Had they not done so, a general war in Europe would not have begun at that time. So, in that sense, the European war was started by Britain and France. -HWR

Ah, depending on the meaning of "start" we could say that WWII was started either by

(A) the German invasion of Poland, or
(B) the British and French declaration of war in response to A.

I'll never be a diplomat. --Ed Poor

But the war didn't involve Southern Europe until Italy attacked Greece in 1940. So, following HWR's reasoning, the European war was started by Italy in 1940 (before, there was only Northern European war). And when did World War II start? The war didn't involve the Pacific region before Pearl Harbor. So maybe Japan started World War II? But wait, the war didn't involve South America before the Brazil-German conflict. So HWR's reasoning leads to the following conclusion: WORLD WAR II WAS STARTED BY BRAZIL IN 1942.

I think I've shown that this kind of reasoning is dubious. The war started on the 1st Sept 1939, when Germany attacked Poland. Two days later France and Great Britain declared war on Germany, because there was a defense treaty between them and Poland. But they didn't attack Germany, they waited for Germany to attack them. Later, other countries joined and the war spread all over the world. That war started when Germany attacked Poland, so Germany started the war. Let's not search for "other senses" of the word "start", because it doesn't make too much sense. Kind regards. Boraczek 11:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My point was not to begin an endless (and ultimately pointless, essentially semantic) discussion of who "started" WWII. Rather, I was making the point that while the western Allies entered the war (thus making it a multilateral conflict) in supposed defense of Polish territorial integrity, they collaborated in the violation of Polish territorial integrity by the Soviets at the war's end. But as to the question of who "started" the war, the alternatives you mention are not exhaustive. The German invasion was, after all, in response to Poland's refusal to accept Germany's territorial demands. And those German demands were in response to the loss of German territory imposed by the Allies after WWI. And WWI... etc., etc., ad infinitum. But the real question is not how far back one can trace causative factors, but rather at what point the multilateral conflict in Europe was actually initiated. Hitler did not invade Poland with the intention of initiating a general war, although he was willing to accept that consequence if the western Allies forced it upon him. The Allies need not have declared war to defend Poland, it was their choice to do so, and had they not so chosen, a general war would not have ensued. So I believe it is indeed correct to say that the Allies started WWII in Europe. That is not to say they were not justified in doing so, of course. Most people would agree that they were. - HWR

Thanks for your answer. That pretty much settles it for me. --Ed Poor

This isn't right answer, because allies have to declare war on Germany since they guaranteed Polish borders. They can't just say "oh, we didn't really mean we will help you" and break their own given words. French in addition were in military alliance with Poland. It seems that many people in west thinks that English and French just wake up 3 september and decided: "well, we will declare war on Germany". They didn't. They warned Germans about consequences of invading Poland earlier, and none have to be genius to guess that if state A is allied with state B, and both states A and C guaranteed borders and promise help to state B, then when state D invades state B, A and C declare war to B. In fact, declaration of war was quite a formality. szopen

To MichaelTinkler I just came across this statement of yours,above ( see copy):

"Well, it would also be good to include the taker and giver - obviously it wasn't conquest, because it was in a war settlement. Actually, 'assigned' is also a useful word in these contexts, given that we're talking about a treaty that was negotiated and signed by both parties. --MichaelTinkler "

In answer to this ,I have to tell you , that it is not correct. It was never negotiated. The government of Germany Deutsche Reichg) was not allowed to be present or negotiate anything. When confronted : "Here, sign this" , the government officials resigned. It was then said, we'll just continue bombing until you sign. Someone, anyone eventually signed. This was after Germany had Russia sign the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk and Austria and Germany had already agreed on Poland having a kingdom again, seperate from Russia. H.J.

"Sign this or we'll invade you" constitutes negotiations. The Germans didn't want to go on fighting. The Allies said "fine, we'll stop attacking you, but only if you agree to these demands". Eventually, the Germans agreed, and freely signed. (The threat of invasion did not constitute duress because it was justified -- Germany had invaded and occupied part of the territory of the Allies, the Allies were entitled to invade and occupy Germany in response.) -- SJK

Sorry to point this out (again), but I'm pretty sure that the reason representatives of the German Empire were not invited to negotiate at Versailles may have had something to do with Germany having started a war that cost most of the participant countries (some of whom were actively defending themselves and others against German aggression) close to a generation of their young men. Unfortunately for Germany, Germany lost the war. Losers don't normally get places at the negotiation tables. Winners are oftern punitive in their negotiations. Had this been a war at the height of Rome's power, the Kaiser would have been brought to Rome in chains, many of his people enslaved or turned tributaries under Roman rule. Germany's "agreeing on Poland having a kingdom again," by your own standards, was never within Germany's right to grant.

The main reason that German Empire officials weren't at Versailles is that Germany had a revolution near the end of WW1 that destroyed the Empire and rendered most of the people who could represent it either dead or irrelevant. It is difficult to argue that Germany started WW1. The start of WW1 was very complicated, but most of the Allies (Belgium and USA are the obvious exceptions) declared war on Germany before Germany declared war on anyone, and before Germany started fighting. WW2 is a different story. Germany takes a large part of the blame for starting that one, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi revisionist fuckwit. -- Geronimo Jones

Germany told Russian to stay out,but was attacked in the east in East -Prussia ,then beat the Russians and said we accept Wilson's proposals. But instead they got attacked heavily in the west. And if you want to be specific, it was not Germany that declared the war, but Austria, because the legal government of Austria (Crownprince and wife) were assassinated. H.J.

Statistical data[edit]

What is the source of the statistical data? Polish Central Statistical Office publishes different figures. For example population 38,191,000 (2003 est.), population growth -0.04% (2003), infant mortality rate 7 deaths/1000 births (2003), life expectancy: male 70.67, female 79.23 (2004 est.), total fertility rate 1.222 chidren/woman (2003). Population growth is negative since 2002. Infant mortality is below quoted 8.7 since 2000. Population from 2002 census is 38,230,080. It looks like the data in the present article are quite old. Poszwa 02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"pre-Holocaust"[edit]

"*7,000-15,000 Jews. Its representatives live mainly in large cities like Warsaw, Wrocław and Kraków. They avoid often to consider themselves as "national minority", since they are a religious and cultural minority, not an ethnic one. The pre-Holocaust Jewish population was about 3,474,000."

This is kind of misleading, since this number is not only pre-Holocaust, but also pre-emigration, pre-Kielce_pogrom, etc.-AchtungAchtung 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename from demographics to demography[edit]

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent sockpuppetry[edit]

User account Vfeibhhwf huvfbhi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might not be the sockmaster but it is the latest throwaway account (among about half a dozen other accounts and God-knows-how-many IPs) which I spotted in the revision history of Demographics of Poland article, constantly revising and than changing again (and again) the actual numbers and data categories. WP:Sock puppetry has been going on here for months (if not years), and the situation is out of control. No new references are being added since a long time ago despite a flurry of activity. However, nobody seems to be interested in overlooking these constant changes as if the actual article was a piece of garbage not worth putting effort into maintaining its encyclopedic value. For once, I have no time to waste on yet another Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation either. Nice talking to you: User:Kicper2016, User:Frankand9140, User:Krugolsky, User:Mddemofreak, and User:Otvis. Please find out what WP:SOCKING is, Poeticbent talk 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Demographics of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue[edit]

"The population of Poland decreased by about six million due to the losses sustained during the Holocaust and brutal occupation during World War II, and became one of the most ethnically homogeneous in Europe (next to populations of Slovakia and the Czech Republic)..."

I don't think Slovakia can be viewed as homogenous. Even today, around 10% of it's population is not Slovak. Right after ww2, this percentage was even higher. I suggest taking Slovakia out of the sentence.

Immigration[edit]

Shouldn't immigration post-2014 be a lot higher than a few 10,000 per year because of refugees/immigrants from Ukraine? Chaptagai (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are guest workers featured in this article?[edit]

The Polish immigration site shows that a large percentage of these workers are temporary. There's already a section covering foreign residents so I see no reason why there should be one which combines permanent settlers and temporary guest workers. Wroclaw2468 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there is a misinformation on the immigrant groups Damaris101 (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian refugees[edit]

The 2022 population number in the vital statistics section says the population declined in 2022. But didn't they admit hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians? Are they somehow not counted? If so, that should be stated, right? Chaptagai (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaptagai I would assume they are probably not? Statistics Poland is probably only counting the 'usual resident population' for the vital statistics each year so I would assume that Ukranian refugees may not fall into this category as they are a 'temporary' population. Feel free as always to make a note. Tweedle (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks you for your reply. I think so, too, but to have a note, I think we would have to know if that assumption is correct. I would rather not make a speculative note. Unfortunately, I can't dig into the sources right now, but maybe if someone can find out, that would be great. --Chaptagai (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ay no problem, That is true I agree, I had a brief look on Statistics Poland's website but could not find anything personally (unless I am missing something glaringly obvious). I know such statistics on refugees are covered by the UN, perhaps we could make a section outlining how many have arrived? Source for such things is here (Seems to be 1.5 mil recorded refugees). Tweedle (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]