Talk:Russian Empire census

message: This sentence is really not very professional :
"Imperial officials classified the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages as belonging to Russian group and labeled those nationalities as Little Russian for Ukrainians and White Russian for Belarusians.[4]"
Well, today Belarussian and Ukrainian are classified as Eastern Slavic whose biggest member and only other member is... Russian. What's the difference ? Eastern Slavic a modern construct of Imperial officials? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Slavic_languages
"White Russian for Belarusians" is rather funny. White Russian is just a translation of Bela (white) Rusian...
Were those remarks made by (Western) Ukrainians who tend to exacerbate differences between Russian and Ukrainian (while there is actually a linguistic continuum between the two langiuages) ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.83 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not very neutral 

message: Census results http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php -- Kuban kazak 00:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great article. Could do some formatting, but the content is nice. How about adding some more info on the critisizm of the census by sociologists and historians? Halibutt 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what critisism? What are you on about?--Kuban kazak 02:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is your Polish-Russian Wars in further action. mikka (t) 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Enjoy Spain; however still the census was the first in Russia, so obviously mistakes were made...so that lessons could have been learned from. The data, nevertheless is genuine. --Kuban kazak 10:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Census results

message: Moved where it belongs: Northern indigenous peoples of Russia & Demographics of Russia. An interesting article, although with elements of bullshit. mikka (t) 18:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kommersant ext link

message: I only really know about the census in Central Asia, where the sometimes rather idiosyncratic ethnic categories which were used can sometimes pose problems for modern scholars. It is strange, for instance, to find that most of the population of the Ferghana Oblast are listed as Sarts, and most of those in the Samarkand Oblast as Uzbeks, when today Turkic-speakers in these neighbouring areas speak the same Qarluq language. The census is of particular importance in Central Asia because some of its findings were used when the new 'national' boundaries were drawn after 1924 (for instance, the census shows a concentration of Tajiks in the region around Khujand, which was duly made a part of Tajikistan). Any objections if I add a section on this? Or would it make the article unbalanced? Sikandarji 22:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's a fact that you can support with references, I don't see how it would make the article unbalanced.  I'll be looking forward to reading that material once you add it.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 22:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, this would count as original research (not the material itself, but my use of it). I'm convinced that the 1897 census was used extensively in determining Central Asian boundaries, but it's still very speculative. Sikandarji 07:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Census in Central Asia

message: Does someone know where are kept these 119 volumes of the results of this census ?
Bogatyr 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 119 volumes 

message: Surely the basic ethnic divisions are known ? I am fairly certain population count of Poles,Ukrainians,Russians exist.--Molobo (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there is an online version of the census, what exactly would you like? A basic ethnic summary?  --Kuban Cossack 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Russian Empire did not care for nationality at the time - it was still a mostly feudal establishment after all. Asking for a "Mother Tongue" instead of "Nationality" kind of makes that clear. Of course it does not prevent out politically active WP contributors to state "Ukrainian" instead of "Malorussian/Little Russian". No matter the name "Ukraine" had only a broad meaning of (western) "borderlands" at the time and had little to do a specific Language.83.240.117.207 (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too broad ?