Talk:Demographics of Russia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

2002 census

Seeing that they counted groups down to 200 people, I cannot help but wonder who these 43,000 'other' people are. I assume, major world languages: English/Arabic/Chinese etc. are conspicuously absent, so it would seem that the census left out languages 'not native' to the Russian territory. 62.202.73.130 21:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/doc/TOM_04_01.xls does include 1275 Americans, 10630 Arabs, 34577 Chinese, among others, in addition to 43,000 "other". http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/doc/TOM_04_P1.doc is a little more detailed, e.g. it includes 295 Swedes & 334 Dutch, so it brings the total of "other" down to 40k. Some other groups, such as Australians, are still absent. Unaccounted 40 thousand are probably representatives of smaller non-native nationalities that census designers chose not to add to the lists.--Itinerant1 00:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
yes, but if they count nationalities with as little as 200 heads, we will need more than 200 different nations to account for the 40k 'other'. That seems rather incredible. Baad 09:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
the list of "official" nationalities was defined _prior_ to the census. It just so happened that some nationalities of as few as 200 people made it on the list. It does not mean that every single nationality that was left off the list is smaller than 200.
also, all fictional and exotic nationalities are included in "others". I read that some people stated their nationalities as "hobbits" and "elves." --Itinerant1 18:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I see -- if you have a reference for that, it would be nice to have it in the article. 81.63.58.220 21:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


--Itinerant1 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--- Have added updated birth and death rates in text - source US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html


Circassians

Aren't the Circassians a Caucasian ethnicity, not a Turkic one? john k 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Axxn 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for modifying the Median age table... But can anyone explain how to get the Children/woman figure? I think the TFR for ethnic Russians is in the range of 1.0-1.2. Then how it zoomed up to 1.446 ???? Can anyone quote the source? Also isn't it impossible for Chechens to have Children/woman ratio of 2.163, when the TFR of Chechenya is 3.0 Does that means that TFR of Chechenya is going up... rather than going down? We should also take notice (1) TFR of Chechen Urbandwellers is double that of their rural counterparts (2) Large incidence of polygamy (3) Slavic women marrying Chechen men (4) 10.89% of Chechens are in 0-4 age group compared to 4.18% for Northern Slavs.(260% more). That means that if Slavic TFR(Children born per women) is 1.20, then Chechen TFR will be 3.12 I think this is the best way to calculate Children/Women.... Look at that 3.12 figure... It exactly matches with TFR of Chechenya.... So Children/Women for Chechens is 3.12 not 2.163 .... See this Another way is to take the birth rate. Birth rate per year (Avg in 1997-2002 period, per 1000 people) for Northern Slavs it is at 8.571 (It was 9.8 for entire Russia). For Chechens it is 21.77

Birth Rate per 1000 = no: of births * 1000 / total population

TFR is a synthetic number, it is the number of children a woman would have if she was subject to currently prevailing fertility rates at all ages. It reflects current fertility situation, says how likely women are to have children now.
On the other hand, children/woman ratio is just counting how many number of Ukrainian women older than 15 there are in Russia, counting how many children they all have, and dividing one number by the other. For example, 2002 census found 1400547 Ukrainian women older than 15, and these women together had 2417427 children. Thus the children/woman ratio is 2417427/1400547 = 1.726. These children may have been born long time ago.
For example, current TFR for ethnic Russians is something like 1.2. It means that Russian women are not very likely to bear children now. But if you interview 50-year-old Russian women, you'll find out that they have 1.8 children on average. These children were born before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when birth rates were quite a bit higher than today.
On the other hand - for Chechens - notice that the number of children/women age 35+ is 3.46 - even higher than your TFR of 3.12. Chechens are very likely to have many children. Since they have many children, their population is "young". And the 2.163 figure is average number of children per woman aged 15 or older. It includes 16-18 year old girls who didn't have a chance to bear any children yet. And there are so many of them in Chechnya, that they push the children/woman ratio down from TFR. --Itinerant1 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for claring my doubts. --Axxn

Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the Nogai Population is very small?

The Nogais have been in Western Russia for hundreds of years. Why the Nogai population is very small compared to the ethnic Russian population which is over 100 million? Even if you add the Nogai population in Turkey with the Nogai population in Russia, it is still small. Sonic99 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Education

"About 3 million students attend Russia's 519 institutions of higher education and 48 universities. As a result of great emphasis on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is generally of a high order." I believe, russian aeroplanes falls every month. Russia have some good scientists, but in Russia enginier education have very low prestige and qualification. In USA is prefared chinese and indian specialist over russian specialists.

I doubt that you should listen to that guy, considering the fact that his ip is from Latvia, and we know how balts feel about Russians. The Russian education system is considered one of the most rigorous and in depth in the world, especially in the fields of science and technology. The common perception is that a physics student in a United States university couldn't pass a high school physics program in Russia. Similarly, Russia's engineers are considered some of the best in the world. Here is the reference http://www.eubusiness.com/Russia/russia-country-guide/ - "Because great emphasis is placed on science and technology in education, Russian medical, mathematical, scientific, and space and aviation research is still generally of a high order."--Ilya1166 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

I've removed this because it's way too inaccurate imho. The immigration from villages to cities wasn't easy when peasants didn't have passports (that is, before mid-50s, iirc) but, nevertheless, during this period Russia's urban population rose greatly and the country turned from mostly rural to mostly urban actually. The passage makes wrong impression that the most important period of village-to-city migration was post-Soviet time. Alæxis¿question? 09:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Russian Cross

I started a stub on the Russian Cross, the point where the Russian death rate exceeded the birth rate in the early 90s. I request that knowledgeable contributors come and help flesh it out. Thanks! The Sanity Inspector (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese immigration

There were an estimated 3.26 million Chinese in Russia in 2003, making them the fourth largest ethnic group, and also (one of) the fastest growing. See among other news articles: [ http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1651.cfm]. Can anyone confirm the validity of these data? Sijo Ripa 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No official Russian source could be found confirming the 3.26 million figure. Unless one exists, this should be seen as a rough-estimate at best, and at worst, an inflated figure possibly by one of the many Russian groups with nationalistic, anti-immigration agenda. It should be worth noting that most of the Chinese currently in Russia are workers or students on temporary visas with no intention of giving up their Chinese citizenship or residing in Russia long-term.

--

The Chinese immigration data is out-of-date and needs some updating. I don't have a source ready but read there from 30 to 100 thousand Chinese legally residing in Russia.
This link is about 3 years old: http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/11/916.html Atitarev (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Detailed Birth Rate and Natural Growth Rate for 1990-2007.

Can be accessed at [1] Axxn (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm going to try and turn that into something visual, though I'm not promising anything. LokiiT (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Graph contradicts article

The article says "2007 marked the highest birth rate growth the country has seen in 25 years", yet the graph right next to it shows the 2007 birth rate being significantly lower than in 1990. Esn (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I was confused by the wording. I changed it a little to make it clearer. Esn (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Population graph source?

Does anyone know what source the population graph in this article uses? It only references data from 1992 onward. I was thinking of replacing it with this one I made a while ago because it's updated for 2008, and it's properly sourced. LokiiT (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How come there's such a big discrepancy between the CIA current population estimate (140 M) and that shown in the graph (142 M)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.58.206 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The CIA factbook takes their estimates from other organizations like the World Bank. In this cases, I suspect they're still using that old population growth model the World Bank came up with in 2006, that predicted Russia's population would decline by 300-400 thousand per year (which didn't happen). All of their demographic data should be taken with a grain of salt, they don't seem to use official government figures for some reason. You can see their growth rates, life expectancy, birth rates etc.. are all very different from the official figures that I've put in this article. LokiiT (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

This:

Lower birth rates and higher death rates reduced Russia's population at a 0.5% annual rate during the 1990s. This rate however is accelerating.

Seems to contradict this, further down:

Russia's birth rate has climbed from a low of 1.2 to 1.39 in 2006. While still far below the 2.1 replacement rate, it continues to show signs of growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.231.106 (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If life expectancy shows signs of settling, then such a small increase in the birthrate is not going to stop the population from shrinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Immigration rate

This article claims that the net immigration rate of Russia is 1.7 per thousand people, but the CIA World Factbook claims it is 0.28. I have no idea whether or not the 1.7 per thousand rate was correct in the context of 2008, but since that year has come and gone I'm replacing this figure with the new one.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html --Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That figure is not cited to the CIA factbook, it's cited to Russia's state statistics service[2], which is a much more accurate source. LokiiT (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright --Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Section on declining population - The Lancet versus The Economist

I understand the need to put the Eonomist's rebuttal to the Lancet article in this section. However, I assume the article in The Lancet was peer-reviewed; meanwhile, the Economist has a very obvious free-market agenda. I am wondering how to put their rebuttal in its proper light, giving proper weight (i.e. less weight) to the Economist's rebuttal. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could just shorten the sentence to note that The Economist criticized the results, but not actually go into depth with their rebuttal? It does seem a little undue given that it's The Economist, and the topic is negative effects of the free market. I think the criticism given by Demoscope is sufficient, and without an obvious conflict of interest. LokiiT (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm almost tempted to say that the Economist is punching way above their weight when they're criticizing something published in the Lancet. What next, a criticism from Time Magazine? A criticism in The Economist of some politician, or some economic policy, or some other generally-held opinion, is perhaps valid. But the proper way to respond to a peer-reviewed study is with a peer-reviewed study. If there are some of those criticizing the Lancet article, that's swell, they could be included. But I don't get how an author in The Economist can be a valid alternate opinion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Total Fertility Rate

Can anyone update the TFR for 2009 when it become updated here?

  • Another thing I've noticed is that in 2006, the Goskomstat predicted a TFR of 1.360 for the year 2008 here. But the actual TFR turned out to be 1.494, which is almost 10% higher than the predicted one.
  • There is a concern that the low birth rate in Russia is a result of trafficking of large number of young women to Western Europe and Middle East. But from the Goskomstat site, I couldn't find enough evidence for that. Actually the sex ratio improved in 2002 and 2009, compared to 1989. For example in 1989, there were 1,033 males for 1,000 females in 20-24 age group. Compare this to 1,018 in 2002 and 1,024 in 2009. Can these figures be trusted? Also I find it difficult to believe that even after the influx of millions of immigrants, especially in the 20-24 age group, the sex ratio remains constant. So what does this mean? The trafficking/ mass immigration theory is flawed or are the stat figures wrong? Axxn (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • TFR is basically impossible to predict. Too many variables go into it. Not much else to be said really, take predictions with a grain of salt.
  • Trafficking in Russia as with many other former Soviet nations is a very serious problem. However the scale of this problem is nowhere near big enough that it would actually affect the demographics in a noticeable way. Regarding immigration, unless you have yearly raw statistics of that age group's demographic shifts including both natives and immigrants, I'm not sure why you would think something is wrong with the stats. The problem with fudging demographic statistics is that once you fudge one single number, it becomes damn near impossible to keep everything consistent. Demographic figures take on a sort of butterfly effect. Even the Soviet Union couldn't fudge their numbers; when infant and adult mortality rates started to rise in the 60s they simply stopped reporting figures for ten years. LokiiT (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The improvement in the sex ratio is probably a result of higher male mortality after the collapse of the USSR. The life expectancy for women has remained relatively constant, while that for men has decreased significantly, due in particular to higher mortality among middle aged men, although this has recovered somewhat in the last couple of years. Elostirion (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated & Balanced Demographic Forecasts

Mentioning only the UN forecast of a population decline of one third by 2050 is unbalanced, and is besides looking increasingly unrealistic considering that Russia's population returned to growth in 2009. So I added - "However, the Russian state statistics service Rosstat had more optimistic forecasts in 2009, whose Medium variant predicted that Russia's population would only fall to 139 million by 2030 [9] (Low: 127 million; High: 147 million). Furthermore, in 2008 one demographic analyst (correctly) predicted a resumption in population growth by 2010 [10]." SublimeWik (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll say that russian population most likely to rise after the financial crisis. Russia is poor in western standard but is unbelievable rich among Uzbeks and Tajiks or Turkmens. And consider the huge incentives lifted by the rus government for children, which is higher than any western europe contry and japan. Its extremely hard to collect the data for religion in former communism contries as the government promote athiesm and materialisms. The serious umemployment problem in central aisa countries also provide 10-20 million potential immigrants for russia. unsigned comment added by 221.220.20.167 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help

I am having a few problems here. I cannot find WP:RSs that assert that Balkars and Karachays are of Turkic ethnicity, not Caucasian. I clearly understand that the language they speak is Turkic but the ethnic belonging seems problematic to be asserted for 100%. Can anybody help with RSs? Aregakn (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How is "very little known" about origin of Eastern Slavic peoples?

Can somebody explain what the following sentence means in the Ethnic groups section: "Most Russians derive from the Eastern Slavic family of peoples, the origins of which very little is known"? This is ridiculous, they are one of the most studied groups of peoples, there are numerous works and all flavours of detailed theories.

And how can some Russians be not of the "Eastern Slavic family"?

And is this sentence written in English or in some mix of broken languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.38.254 (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

TFR above 2.1 in rural areas

I removed the paragraph with detailed figures for regions in which the TFR was above replacement level in rural areas but not urban because it seems kind of meaningless. How is it important? Also it's really tedious trying to update it. If anyone else wants to re-add it and update it for 2009 go ahead, but I think it's pointless and I don't want to waste my time on it, nor do I think new figures should be mixed with old. LokiiT (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Showing them on a map will be better. I will add the three maps within a few days time (One each for total population, urban and rural : federal subject-wise). Axxn (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth rate for different ethnic groups from 2002 Census

It can be observed from the 2002 Census data, that ethnic Russians compose 79.83% of the total population (83.56% for urban areas and 69.59% for rural areas). But, for the population aged 0-4, their share is 77.61% (84.05% for urban areas and 63.47% for rural areas). Since the average of Russia's birth rate for 1999-02 was 8.9, can't we calculate the birth rate for ethnic Russians by this formula: BR = 8.9 * (77.61% / 79.83%).

Also, why the ethnic Russian proportion in urban areas are increasing (greater share of U-5 population), while it is declining in rural areas? Commonsense tells me that ethnic Russian birth rate is slightly lower than the national birth rate. Axxn (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

my opinion is the rural population of Russia is fallen in the major agriculture area, probably a result of improved productivity or people go to the city looking for better life. Caucasus people have higher birth rate and the majority of them are traditional farmers residing in the foothills of Caucasus mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.49.9.186 (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Islam in Russia

The Author in this section claimed only 4-6% of Russians were Muslims, but this is incorrect. I was unable to verify his source because it was in Russian, but the CIA Factbook estimates Russia's muslim population to be at about 15-20%, which is what I changed it to Mohua (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's count. Practically no Indo-European or Finno-Ugric individuals are Muslim. That alone lowers the percentage to roughly 14%. A few major Turkic and minor Caucasian ethnicities are Christian, which would further lower that to around 12%. I can't imagine where could they get the figure of 15-20%, unless that includes illegal immigrants. --Humanophage (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The CIA factbook estimates 10%-15%, not 15%-20%.[3] Krawndawg (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The real figure is in between 4% and 7% according to Interfax Religion. The ethnic Muslims in Russia number close to 10%. But these people include subgroups like Kryashen, who are Christian. 86% of Russia's population is White and somewhere between one-third and half of the remaining is made up of Christian or other non-Islamic minorities such as Chuvash and Armenian. In addition to this figure, there are significant number of conversions to Orthodoxy and Protestantism among traditionally Muslim ethnic groups. So my estimate is 4% (min.) to 7% (max.)Since there are very few Muslims among the non-Muslim ethnic groups, I'll break down the 10% who is ethnic Muslim as follows: 7% Muslim, 2% Atheist, 1% Christian/Budhist/Others. Axxn (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
According to Armed Forces Sociological Center, 9% of the soldiers in the Russian Army are Muslim. (56% Orthodox, 2% Budhist, 3% Others & 30% Atheist). Axxn (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Armed force recruit more people from Caucasus region for some reasons. Indigenous people of north Caucasus are more willing to join the army because there are high unemployment rate in the region, very hard for young people to find a job. And their traditional ideology actually encourage them to become army men. While people from the more developed area tend to avoid military service if its possible. So its not surprise to see more muslim in the army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the family support

Does that money goes to every one? or only gives to ethnic russians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

BS given in CIA World Fact Book

I request all editors to remove references from politically motivated and biased sources such as CIA World Fact Book, at least in Russia related articles. It seems that for the CIA, the cold war is not yet over. These are the blunders given in CIA World Fact Book for Russia:

  • Birth Rate: 11.11 per 1,000 (Actual BR - 12.6 per 1000)
  • Death Rate: 16.04 per 1,000 (Actual DR - 14.3 per 1000)
  • Population: 139,390,205 (Actual Pop - 142,000,000)
  • TFR: 1.41 (Actual TFR - 1.57)
  • Religion: Russian Orthodox 15-20% & Muslim 10-15% (Actual: Russian Orthodox 60-80% & Muslim 6-7%)

Rather than copy-pasting blatant lies from propaganda machines like the CIA World Fact Book, it will be much better to give the numbers as given in the Goskomstat website.

Therefore I have removed the 10% to 15% figure given for Muslims. Ethnic Muslim population is 9.96% according to Russian Census of 2002 (Including 1 million migrants without Russian citizenship). So it is impossible to reach the 15% mark. (86% of the population is White, 1% is Armene, 1% is Chuvash, how it is possible?). Maximim possible amount is 10% (if 100% of Tatars, Bashkirs.etc are Muslims). Axxn (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see that CIA factbook demographic data you quoted being used? I replaced all data from that site (except the religion figures) a couple years ago because of their inaccuracy. I wouldn't call them politically motivated though. Their estimates are equally poor for all countries. However I would say 10-15% is an accurate estimate, considering in the past 9 years the number of Muslims has obviously grown past 9.96%. LokiiT (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Number of ethnic Muslims might have grown to 10.5% or 11%. But according to surveys, less than 60% of them calls themselves as Muslims. Also the Muslim birth rate (especially the Tatar and Bashkir ones) are exaggerated. According to the 2002 Census, 86% of the population belongs to White ethnic groups. In the 0-4 age group 81% of the population was white. So I think it will take 34.5 years (half of the current life expectancy) for Whites to get reduced from 86% to 81% mark. Interpolating for the 2010 figure, we reach 84.85%. So here the theoretical maximum becomes 11%, not 15% (a part of the decrease might be neutralized by Armenians and Ossets).
And now the number of Orthodox. The 15-20% figure given is the number who attend the church regularly. But I think, when 73% to 75% of the total population calls themselves as Orthodox in the surveys, we should give that figure instead of the church attendance figures.
Let me compare the figures in CIA Factbook for Netherlands. According to surveys, only around 25% calls themselves X'ian. At the same time according to the Factbook, 50% is Christian. The CIA Factbook is trying to paint Russia as a Muslim country, with steeply declining population. Axxn (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Death Rates

The article gives a feeling that low birth rate is the primary reason for Russia's depopulation. But actually, Russia's TFR (1.57 in 2010) is much higher than that in nations like Germany and Japan. The real problem is the high death rate (14.3 per 1,000 in 2010).

This article states that if per capita health expenditure is increased from the current rates (Rubles 4,000 per person per year) by 2.5 times (Rub. 10,000 per person), then the death rate can be reduced to 11.0 per 1,000.

Moscow City, which is having a per capita health expenditure around Rub. 10,000 is having similar mortality rates. Since Russia's birth rate stood at 12.6 per 1,000 in 2010, this plan will give a natural population growth of +0.16% per year. Axxn (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the article implies low birth rates is the primary reason for the demographic crisis. The declining population section focuses on both declining birth rates and increased death rates, both of which are significant factors, neither being more significant than the other. Yes, Russia's TFR is a bit higher today - which is why the population has stopped shrinking. Did you look at fertility rates during the 90s and early 2000s? LokiiT (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Fertility rates during the demographic transition might not have been calculated properly. In East Germany also TFR was given as 0.81 in 1993. Axxn (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

real russian number

you see in this page the truth:http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8 so Please write the TRUTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepny (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost 6 million people (4% of the population.) were not home when the census was taken. Their details were taken from current administrative databases (school logs, hospital data, tax data, passport bases, etc.)
The 78% for Russians is incorrect (as well as the other numbers listed for other groups), as it involves taking the absolute number of Russians that did respond vs. the total population (including those who didn't/couldn't).
Out of the people that did respond, Russians constitute 80.9% which is an increase over the 80.3% from 2002.
Out of the 6 million people that were not present, the official government and other sources estimate that the proportion of ethnic groups is the same as in the ones that did respond.
I linked to about 3 of those official sources, which should be enough but there are tens of them, especially on the 2010 Census Official website.
This means that inclusive of everyone, the proportions/percentages remain the same.

RUSSIANS ARE %77.71 TURKIC PEOPLE %8.41 12 MILLION WRITE THE TRUTH AND %3,941 UNKNOWN

This is the policy used for all other nations (incl. the USA) and their census results, as well as the ones on the Russian Wiki: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8
It was not relevant for Russia before, because due to Soviet policies, everyone had to be present and answer all questions.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

resource

The Dying Bear; Russia's Demographic Disaster by Nicholas Eberstadt November/December 2011 99.19.44.155 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Life Expectancy

The claim that Soviet life expectancy was higher than the US in the late 1950s is unbelievable. This was after the turmoil of collectivisation and industrialisation and the devastation of WW2 and when the grinding generational poverty under the Tsars was still a living memory. While the statistic is often quoted it seems more likely to reflect Stalinist propaganda and an semi-literate population than a real achievement.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back your scepticism? If not I don't see how your comment is relevant. LokiiT (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

White and European

These images are debatable, the caucasus region, tatarstan and Kalmykia are all located in europe, and saying caucasian (which the name says it all) and tartars arent white is idiotic, just look at the average people you will realize they probably look even more european than southern europeans. The president of the chechen republic is the perfect example, he could be someone of sweden if you wouldnt know. Its always funny how different Russia is always scaled on. While in the US everything is counted as white in the pot nowday even latinos , Russia is getting measured with standards that reminds me of nazi germany when people talk about these kind of topics.--Shokioto22 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Eh while I agree totally that calling peoples who are from the Caucasus (its called the Caucasian race for a reason you know) and the Turks who intermarried with their European subjects for thousands of years and had little to no contact with their east Asian relatives to "replenish" their blood I would remind you that "Latinos" does not only apply to the indigenous brown peoples of Latin America, but to all Latin Americans, including the whites who are disproportionately represented in the Hispanic population of the USA (33% of Latin America is white compared to 53% of Hispanic Americans). There is probably also an undercount in the USA of whites because of the one drop rule crap where people think even if they look like a Swede they need to call themselves black or asian or native american if they have even one known ancestor from those groups.64.189.66.203 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Census of 2010
Census of 2002
Decrease in the European population of Russia between 2002 and 2010. Especially noticeable in the region around Moscow, Leningrad, Khabarovsk, HMAO, and Samara.

There is no "White" or "non white" classification in Russia. Ironically, groups dubbed "non white" in this map such as Tatars and Chechens are actually much more "whiter looking" than many of the ones dubbed "white" such as Greeks and Spaniards. This map is simply original research and should be deleted IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.108.105 (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This map is not correct. Kazan Tatars are very White European-looking (Marat Safin, Marat Basharov, Dina Garipova are pure Tatars), live in Europe, and only a little number of them (10-20%) have some Mongoloid features (unlike Bashkirs and Kalmyks, who also live in the European part but majority of them are Mongoloids). Yes, they are Muslims, but religion and race are not the same. I deleted this map from the article. 27.04.2013

Numbering Convention

The conflicting numbering conventions in this article bother me. If no one objects, I will change the numeric scheme to match US standard (i.e. 1.7 instead of 1,7). J.Dong820 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Life expectancy for men - 64 or 65.2

Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Add population of Crimea

The peninsula of Crimea had ascended to the Russian Federation in 18th of March 2014, this should add about 2 million people to the total count of the population of Russia.

Reliable sources?Xx236 (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Life Span

I have to revert changes to the average lifespan again. Reference http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/rosstat/pok-monitor/pok-1199_2010-2014.rar provides results of 2010 census. Firstly, it is obviously cannot give 2014 average life span results, secondly, there is no expected life span results in this archive (to get the expected life span you need death rates by age groups that census results by itself does not provide) Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Population decline

Something doesn't add up in this sentence: A new study published in 2007 shows that, on the whole, the rate of population decrease has slowed: if the net decrease in January-August 2006 was 408,200 people, this year in the same period it was 196,600.

According to official statistics, the population as of January 1 2007 was 142.20 million[4], and now according to new official statistics, the population as of January 1 2008 is 142.0 million[5]. The overall yearly decrease was about 200k according to official released figures, confirmed in that novosti article, but the above sentence says that it was 200K between January-August, which implies the yearly decrease would be almost twice as large. Krawndawg (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the detailed birth rates and natural growth to Rapidshare. Can be downloaded at this link. Don't know how to upload to Wikipedia. It is quite interesting, especially the change during 2005-07. Most of the recent jump in birth rate occured in the least developed regions in Far East (Zabaykalski, Amur, Jewish Autonomous, Altay Rep.etc) and Caucasus (Daghestan, Chechenya and Ingushetia). I heard that birth rate increased by 7% during the first half of 2008, but there was no data for 2008 on Goskomstat. Axxn (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there some independent investigation of the quality of that data? I mean the latter Russian government is known to have rather relaxed relationship with truth and some taste for propaganda, so I would not be surprised if the data were made to accommodate the need to avoid the rather embarrassing fact that the Orthodox and traditional nation is dying out because of the low birth rate and high death and suicide rates. Ceplm (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not dts

brits french yanks etc , (they are) not Germanik :/ --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC) r&s

What does it mean?

Total natural increase during January–November 2015 has decreased to 0.1 per thousand in 2014 and increase to 0.2 per thousand in 2014. Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Total natural increase during January–April has decreased to -0.8 per thousand in 2016 and increase to -1.3 per thousand in 2015.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian exodus to Russia section

Not only is the title POV (and who has being referring to it as an 'exodus': WP:RS?), there are absolutely no sources backing up the statistics, where they are being employed, unofficial figures, or anything else the section discusses. Where has all of this come from... or is it simply WP:OR? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a significant number of refugees from DPR and LPR, rather than Ukraine. Russian media claim a million (appear here), but these numbers are probably not so reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've encountered the CS article before. While that could be used as a source for estimates, all it would be is an exercise in propping up an OR section. It doesn't back up the majority of the content. The section header, in itself, doesn't make sense without context, and it's contingent on the reader being aware of recent events in Ukraine. Give it a few years and will readers know what this 'exodus' was related to? Either sources and context are provided, or it needs to go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this should be much better sourced or it can be removed or shortened and moved elsewhere on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
If anything, perhaps a section on the effects of the Ukrainian crisis may be due here (especially as the lead includes the population with Crimea), but most of the details as to 'Ukrainian' (implying ethnicity rather than citizenship) and where they've gone is OR, or some form of bizarre SYNTH. If anything, the section should probably be named something along the lines of 'Refugees from the Ukrainian crisis'.
I'm aware of the Green Triangle settlement issues, but there's a conflation of RF policy to move immigrants and non-Russian ethnics into out of the way places where ethnic Russians don't want to live, and take on jobs they don't necessarily want regardless of their qualifications. This has all been mixed into a hodgepodge using primary sources from the FSSS for the agricultural sector. It's a mess and, I'd suggest that it would be better to remove the section and paste it here, to the talk page, until some sense can be made of the content, what parts of it are relevant, and where they belong in the article (if at all: where are the stats for predominant immigrants from Ukraine being female?). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Future migration

The chapter "future migration" bombastically states what will happen in the future, without any sources. This is very bad practice, not in line with Wikipedia ideals. For example, there is no source for the claim that in the future "There will be no difference in emigration demographics." This chapter should be rewritten or deleted. Joreberg (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographics of Russia. 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) 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Population of Crimea

The article in its current format misrepresents and cherry picks the sources with the specific purpose of including the population of Crimea in the population of Russia. I am proposing some corrections to this. It has to be crystal clear to our Russian fellow editors that this English Wikipedia, hence English sources should be used (and however prevail in case of dispute). English sources do not consider population of Crimea as part of Russian. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

And BTW I can't reconcile on English sources the 144,2M population on the 1st January 2016 claimed by the Russian source.
[[6]] : 143,5M
[[7]] : 143,4M
[[8]] : 143,4M

Silvio1973 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be due to much of the sourcing being WP:PRIMARY. At a quick check, at least half of the sourced content is based on directly sourced statical queries from the RF bureau of statistics. There is no analysis of the statistics, even by the government sources, themselves (outside of a brief statement about what is or isn't included, or something of that nature) making it WP:OR. The article is desperately in need of secondary sources providing the analysis, not editors going NOR. I'm finding it difficult to reconcile even a tiny population with a reliably sourced a spike in emigration not seeming to be covered by immigration to Russia. The primary sources (that is, unanalysed data) suggests one thing, whereas secondary sources suggest another. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Just checked, yes you are right. And the whole article has been written with primary sources... Silvio1973 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Я устал, чтобы исправить количество русского населения. Можем ли мы защитить статью? I am really tired to death! Silvio1973 (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: Я тоже устала. Unfortunately, I don't see a legitimate rationale for permanent page protection... not even semi-protection unless the regularity of disruptive IP changes escalates. I'm afraid we're stuck with reverting. You might want to put together a case for WP:PCPP but, in my experience, there are numerous reviewers who don't pay attention to what they're authorising (pending changes permissions seem to be handed out like lollies by inexperienced editors who have had their right to authorise handed to them by someone equally inexperienced), so it still means having to go through every approved change with care. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The Russian state statistics service is the primary authority on Russian demographics from which all other English sources obtain their information, as is the case with every other country's respective state statistics service. Removing charts and figures on the basis that Rosstat is not an English source is nonsensical, especially considering that they do have an English translation of their website. As the territory of Crimea is contested, both figures should be cited alongside each other. However it would make no sense to have two population charts, or to list two figures for every demographic figure, so it makes the most sense to use the country's own government figures as the primary authority, with attention brought to the fact that these are the state's own figures via a citation. LokiiT (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what your point is, LokiiT. This discussion revolves around the depiction of the population both with and without the population of Crimea/Sevastopol, not other figures as derived from the verifiable about the statistics including Crimea/Sevastopol is that the RF is their de facto umbrella government. What is also verifiable is that the majority of the world's sovereign states still recognise Ukraine as their de jure umbrella government. What that means for Wikipedia is that we present with and without figures. Check the Ukrainian stats: the population given stipulates that the population estimate is without Crimea. What does that tell you? I've yet to see stats from Australia, for example, presented with a note that they do not include Belgium. Per WP:TITLE, the article is not called the "Demographics of Russia according to rosstat exclusively". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
My point is that we should not be removing charts that are based on Rosstat figures using the excuse that Rosstat is not an English source, as was the case here[9]. The rest of your comment appears to be agreeing with what I said. LokiiT (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, yes we should for the reasons I've given above. Most importantly, it is misleading due to the fact that you have not distinguished anything on the chart by colour to indicate the spike for 2015+ as including Crimea/Sevastapol, nor is it convenient to add a lengthy description as to what changes have occurred in the Rosstat statistics. There population statistics have not incremented as a matter of RF's statistical services. NPOV is based on what RS say about statistics, and other articles certainly do dispute census and other statistical data where they are called into question. The only thing unrecognised circumstances: the greater global view is that the RF has annexed the territory illegally, therefore per WP:BRD, I've removed the chart you have updated using a matter-of-fact transcription of Rosstat figures to include the annexed territory as if it were normal. No, you have not made any effort to modify the chart for 2015+ stats in order to make it clear what Rosstat is and isn't including... making the chart a breach of WP:NOR for the purposes of the infobox at the very least. If it is to be used anywhere in the body per WP:PERTINENCE, the caption will have to carry a full description as to how the latest figure was arrived at WP:INTEXT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@LokiiT, it is already very generous to admit in this article such extensive use of primary sources. A fortiori, it is out of discussion to admit user-made charts (which are by definition prone to OR) built from primary sources whose neutrality is contested. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy, I think we should put a banner on the article to alert the reader that the article is based mainly on primary sources. What do you think? Alternatively the entire article should be sourced using English secondary uncontested sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to modify the chart with an explanation for the population spike then feel free to do so. Outright removing content is not conducive to informing readers. Most demographics articles are based on primary sources, and this one is no exception. LokiiT (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@LokiiT: I hadn't noticed that you'd restored the chart despite its being a breach of WP:NOR. If you are willing to make a chart branching off in two colours from 2015+ depicting with and without the Crimean population, and stating which is which in the legend, then the use of such a chart would be acceptable dependent on whether WP:CON is met here, on the talk page. I have no objections to such a chart. In its current state it is deceptive as it suggests that there's been a population spike when the RS reasons for the spike is an internationally unrecognised military takeover/annexation of a territory recognised as being the territory of another sovereign state. Please stop playing at WP:ICANTHEARYOU because the rationale for rejecting your chart is clearly outlined above. Continuing to insert it is intentional slow edit warring on your behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@LokiiT:, perhaps we have not been sufficiently clear. You are pushing an edit against consensus. You have now four possibilities:
  1. Continue to push you edit, I will report you and you will be blocked. No doubt about this. Just to make you clear that I am not kidding please note that the ANI report is ready in my sandbox [[10]]. The next time you revert I will post it immediately.
  2. Discuss here about a format of the graph aggregating consensus. However, I need to warn you that it will not make its room to the lead, but if it properly formatted it can stay in the body of the article. Unless of course, you do not find such a graph published in a mainstream secondary source edited in English.
  3. Post on RfC to see if you can have things your way (I doubt but you can still try).
  4. Keep off from this article. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Iryna, you have contributed nothing to this article. You have come here for no other purpose than to remove content that you don't like on political grounds, turning a demographics article into a political battleground. Your warnings and comments about "consensus" are disingenuous; wikipedia is not a democracy, and you are not an established editor of this article. I have been providing content to this article for years on the other hand. If you feel that the chart is somehow "biased" or "POV" then you are free make improvements to the chart so that it shows all viewpoints. Removing a population chart from a demographics article without proposing a replacement is unnecessary and disruptive. LokiiT (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If you care to check, LokiiT, I've been editing this article since May of 2015. You've actually done little towards the article, and that is not the WP:POINT: this does not give you WP:OWNership rights to insert your own graph based entirely on the WP:PRIMARY information you have gleaned from Rosstat. WP:RS are clear on the fact that the majority of the world does not recognise the RF as having legal status in Crimea, hence people on that territory cannot be included as being part of the RF population. The WP:CON on articles dealing with the territory is that both sets of figures be depicted. As already discussed with you, the RF can include the territory and population of Belgium if they've decided that it's theirs, but such figures would not be included without making it clear to the reader why this is the case according to WP:RS, therefore the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce a consensus graph and an appropriate caption meeting with consensus as an NPOV depiction of the situation. It is you who is POV-pushing a graph without any context other than raw data. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have right now reported LokiiT to ANI for his/her endless disruptive behaviour. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Main trends - obsolete

Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Increasing emigration

Rosstat now has numbers available on increasing emigration from the country in light of the current political and economic instability. 122,000 left in 2012, and 186,000 in 2013, about five times the rate of 2011 (33,000). These numbers are sufficient to completely wipe out the natural increases of the same period. Additionally, there is the possibility that these numbers underestimate the true emigration numbers. I didn't see anything on the page mentioning an uptick in emigration, so I thought I should at least suggest that it be inserted somewhere.

I don't have access to Rosstat at the moment, but discussion can be found here: http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/russian-emigration-spikes-in-2013-2014/

Schnabeltiere (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This information is misleading. Most emigration is dual citizens leaving for neighboring countries and is offset increased by increased immigration. The Diplomat distorts this. For example for 2014 Rosstat has 308,475 emigrants. Out of those 257,324 emigrated to other CIS countries, while 4780 left for Germany and 1937 left for USA. At the same time 578,000 immigrated with net migration from both CIS and non-CIS countries. Citation for 2014 http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b15_107/Main.htm 100.1.227.84 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographics of Russia. 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) 14:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Demographics of Russia. 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) 18:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Russia. 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) 01:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Peoples of X

I am not sure the divisions here are based on anything that's a consensus view. The "European" peoples section excludes some regions that are part of Europe (the entire "North Caucasus"). The "Caucasus" has most of its included territory not in the Caucasus, apparently including a lot of the steppe up north even to Kalmykia, which is geographically, culturally, historically, and so forth so emphatically not the Caucasus. Then somehow Iran (??) got included, as well as Iraq judging from Assyrians and Yazidis being there, and I suppose Anatolia as well since Turks are included. If there's no objections I will be back to merge all of these entirely, so as to avoid OR/POV groupings.--Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How does this work?

2016 146,674,541 1,888,729 1,891,015 -2,286 2017 146,842,402

The figure for 2017 is higher than the one for 2016 though there was a minus in natural change. --134.176.64.128 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Broken refs

@Danloud: could you please fix the 5 references that ended up broken after your February changes? Thank you! -- Fyrael (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: Thank you for the reminder! I fixed the problem. Danloud (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Birth Rates vs Death Rates 2021

https://knoema.com/atlas/Russian-Federation/Death-rate https://knoema.com/atlas/Russian-Federation/Population

Death Rate = 12.7

Birth Rate = 12.1

Change Rate = -0.6

According to recent studies, Russia's population has shrank by a small fraction not counting the covid deaths. I'm currently investigating and I feel like I should ask serious questions before committing this edit and getting in trouble. Russia's decline was larger than in recent years and even more so, the pandemic obviously played 2/3's of the entire factor, proving that Russia has halted much of it's decline and natural growth has seen further and slow recovery. If there are any other questions or replies to this, please keep me informed as to how recent trends this year are effecting the outcome for later this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@SCPdude629: I would be extremely careful about using these data from Knoema. They seem to differ more and more from the official statistics for every year that passes. Note that their numbers are not real statistics, but estimates and projections based on models that may or may not be an adequate description of reality. Most such models will have had problems coping with the effect of the pandemic, illustrated by the fact that the Knoema data do not show any of the irregularities one would expect in the numbers for 2020.
In general, using numbers from sources that profess to give demographic data for all countries in the world, like Knoema, Worldometers, indexmundi and many others, is risky, since it is very difficult to evaluate the quality of their data. --T*U (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that is true but how can I truly determine what the birth-death rate is for 2021? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It is anyway far too early to say anything about birth rate and death rate for 2021, but if you mean 2020, the main source would be the official numbers from the national statistics agency. The only reason for not using their numbers would be if there are reliable sources explicitly stating that their numbers are unreliable. --T*U (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point but 2020 was last year and things can change in that given time. Plus how do I truly know how reliable it is and what is this neutral source business? If these play a role it will be 3 times harder to find something useful. There has to be factual numbers and analysis on 2021's projected rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You kan read about how to evaluate sources at Help:Referencing for beginners and more comprehensively at WP:Reliable sources. If you find a source that you are unsure about, you can ask at the RS noticeboard.
If I were you, I would not waste much time at trying to find factual numbers for 2021 in the form of projections or estimates. We have just finished April, and two thirds of the year remains. The world is in the middle of a pandemic, and all projections made before the pandemic will have zero worth, while more recent projections at best will be quilified guesswork. In any case, the tables containing birth and death rates should always only contain real statistics and not predictions of any kind, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Content about projections and estimates may be suitable to include in text form, such as discussions about the reliability of official data or for that matter discussions about the effect of the pandemic, provided such discussions are supported by reliable sources. But numbers from such discussions should never be used in the tables or the infobox or anywhere else where it could be mistaken for real statistics. --T*U (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I see, I will cease this whole charade but I need to keep updated on recent trends and activities and hopefully when the time comes, we could calculate way better than before--SCPdude629 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Birth Rates vs Death Rates 2021 – again

@SCPdude629: Just three weeks ago, I tried to explain to you why it is not constructive to waste time hunting for birth rate and death rate numbers for 2021. We are still not half way into the year, so any numbers for 2021 will be predictions, not statistics. Tables containing birth and death rates should always only contain real statistics and not predictions of any kind, unless it is clearly stated that it is just predictions. This is even more important in the infobox, which is the very first point of information for many readers. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Last time I warned against using numbers from Knoema, now I have to do the same regarding PopulationStat. In general, using data from companies that profess to give demographic data for all countries in the world, is risky. Their numbers are based on undisclosed models, and we have no ways to check whether the models give a good description of reality. And with the exceptional covid19-situation running for its second year, there are in reality no trustworthy predictions. But even in a more normal situation, it would be wrong to use those predictions. If you compare the numbers from Knoema and from PopulationStat with the Russian statistics from rosstat.gov.ru, you will see that they differ more and more from the official statistics for every year that passes. --T*U (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Russia/Archive_1&oldid=1154364731"