Talk:1931 census of Palestine

Addition to this article

Here is why the addition is not acceptable.

1. The article is about the census, not about the population of Palestine. For the latter there are articles like Demographics of Palestine.
2. The information is clearly copied either from Joan Peters directly, or from one of the many web sites that copied it from Joan Peters. Neither option is allowed. Joan Peters is a highly controversial author whose book was damned by many experts. Clearly she does not satisfy the rules about Reliable Sources. Also, silently copying from an intermediate source (Joan Peters or elsewhere) is a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The only way this material is admissible is to copy it from the census report itself, or to cite a reliable secondary source for it.
3. The material fails WP:NPOV. Why are the birthplaces of Jews not listed as well as Moslems and Christians? (The answer is that Joan Peters propagandistically made this list as an anti-Arab gesture and did not want to spoil the image by admitting that there is also a long list for Jews.)
4. The material is useless due to lack of detail. Some of the categories represent a large fraction of the population, and others are only a handful of people. Obviously that information is necessary if the data is to be understood.

Zero^talk 12:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Response:

1. The Census dealt with the demographics of Palestine, therefore it had information such as I mentioned.
2. I took it from the Census itself as being reported by E. Mills and if you have a reliable or "more" reliable report of the same census that contradicts E.Mills you're more than welcome to show and quote, others sites or books can use the same sources, it has nothing to do with this.
3. The Jews are added as well. Joan peters by the way have the jews information on her book. so clearly you have not even read it.
4. The information is as it was at the census and saying its useless is ur opinion only.

Solico (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Are you saying that it was only lists of places/languages without numbers for each place/language? Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

first of all, Thank you Dzied for the edit (I just fixed the mispell of "populaition"), you're an honest man. The census report gives s summarized information as for the population which its figures were mentioned by you. I didnt see specific number of people who spoke a certain language or mentioned a specific birth place. Furthermore in terms of immigration the census mostly talk of Jewish immigration and deals with Arab one only indirectly so it's hard to get accurate figuers. I'll look for numbers (of each sub category) and update you if I find any.Solico (talk)

I agree with Zero on this issue; the article is about the census, and should at best only summarize the information presented. I don't have From Time Immemorial and cannot comment on whether it was taken from there, but isn't the point. Even if it was relevant to the article however, the information is also presented incoherently, and is impossible to read. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have to disagree. Wikipedia is not paper and can contain any relevant information in any reasonable, verifiable and notable detail. Please look into e.g., 2000 United States Census or [[1]]. I fail to see why the info is not a summary. Heck, the census itself is summary. Information is interesting: it shows great diversity of palestinian population. Please also explain why information is incoherent and impossible to read: I read it easily, despite I am not an English speaker. (By the way incoherence is not the reason for deletion, it is reason for rearranging into a more coherent form). Dzied Bulbash (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Of course, the article lacks analytical secondary sourced description. But this is a different issue, hopefully correctable with time, when interested people come. For a similar example, after I stared Polish census of 1931, it was a stub for almost a year. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I misremembered about Joan Peters; she did indeed give a list for Jews (though it doesn't include countries non-existent in 1931 like "Czech Republic"). However, Solico has a case to answer here. He/she wrote "I took it from the Census itself" and "I didnt see specific number of people who spoke a certain language or mentioned a specific birth place". Perhaps it was just coincidence that Solico made the same typos (Transiordan, Palesfine) that occur on certain Peters-derived web pages, and maybe there is a kind explanation for that fact that all these sources and Solico copied Peters' incorrect citation (it is volume II, not volume I; actually p147 of vol I is on a different topic). However, the part I can't understand is how Solico could look at a table of numbers and not see any numbers. In fact, both lists are presented in the census report as tables full of numbers. Languages habitually spoken are at Table X on p147, vol II (note the matching page number); while places of birth (sublist for Jerusalem district) are part of Table XI, pp170-171, vol II. Solico, you had better explain this or I am going to get you blocked for dishonesty. Zero^talk 07:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To emphasise how useless a list of languages is without statistics, of the "languages habitually spoken by Muslims", 4 of them were spoken by exactly 1 person and another 4 were spoken by exactly 2 persons. But they are listed alongside Arabic spoken by 691879 persons. Similarly for the other lists. Zero^talk 07:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You presednted reasonable arguments to make an exclusion to WP:AGF, and now I agree with the deletion of incomplete and thus misrepresenting info. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I found different numbers of both the 1922 and the 1931 numbers in the book A history of Palestine by Gudrun krämer p.183, here's a link: http://books.google.co.il/books?id=bWjwcoSdoiAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false can you please explain to me these differences? Berlioz (talk) 12:35 , 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.22.100 (talk)

I found different numbers of both the 1922 and the 1931 numbers in the book A history of Palestine by Gudrun krämer p.183, here's a link: http://books.google.co.il/books?id=bWjwcoSdoiAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false can you please explain to me these differences? Talgrunberg (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Either I'm seeing double, or someone needs to read WP:SOCK. The explanation is two-fold. Kramer quotes McCarthy's adjusted figures for the end of the year. The censuses were not at the end of the year, but earlier, which is one reason for the discrepancy. The other reason is that McCarthy adjusted the census counts to correct for inaccuracies he believed to be present. For example, he says that the 1931 census undercounted young women. Zero^talk 12:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks a lot, is there a reference or a link to the numbers that are presented in these censuses? Talgrunberg (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

: You can see a summary table from a 1945-6 British document reproduced here. I have the original census publications but they are on microfilm and unpleasant to use. Zero^talk 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

I have made a proposal to move the name of this article to Census of Palestine, 1931, to discuss this please go to Talk:2001 Bangladesh census#Requested move where a full debate is taking place. Any comments or discussion on this page about the proposed move will not be counted. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mills

About:

• Mills, E., ed. (1932). Census of Palestine 1931. Population of Villages, Towns and Administrative Areas (PDF). Jerusalem: Government of Palestine.

...we have a problem. I have normally given the ref as say, Mills, 1932, p. 108. However, (I´m not sure if it is a printing error, or what: I would have to have a look at the "real thing"): there are more than one p. 108! We have both page 108 for Safad, and p. 108 for Acre. Possibly the same for more pages (I haven´t looked). Is anyone familiar with this problem? Huldra (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: There is only one page 108, part of the Safad section. The page number 103 in the Acre section is poorly printed and looks like "108". Will that explain it? Zero^talk 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000: ah, yes, I went back and checked: you are absolutely right. Btw: your @Huldra: did not "ping" me, (I had that page "watched"), I don´t know why it didn´t work, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1879 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)