Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Russian-speaking Ukrainians are named "Russoukrainians".

No they are not. There is not such term (except for this page) --Compay 12:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between Romanian minority and Moldovan minority ? They are separated in the statistics, why ?

They're in fact all Moldovan (Ukraine got some teritories that were part of medieval Moldova) and they're all Romanians (a separated ethnicity for Moldovans is absurd). Bogdan | Talk 17:11, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's like Ruthenes and Ukrainians, or any number of other such major+minor ethnic/national groups. If the country collecting the statistics records them as two entities, leave it be. If there's something to be explained (like, that you believe that the distinction is artificial), explain it on the relevant linked pages. --Shallot 14:16, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The distinction may be in:
  • self-identification of a person counted. By the rules of the latest Ukrainian census, if you claim yourself "Moldovan" you must be considered as so (some jokers named themselves "Elfs" or "Slavs" and it was stated in statistic reports);
  • religion: people coming from Soviet Moldova usually do not belong to the traditional Romanian churches;
  • just a matter of age, exact birthplace, political attitudes so forth. --AlexPU 18:39, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
IIRC, on the last visit of the Romanian president to the Ukraine, he 'negotiated' with the Ukrainian side and the result was to put them both Romanian and Ukrainian in a single ethnic group. :-) Bogdan | Talk 12:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Romanians and Ukrainians placed, by politicians, into a single ethnic group just doesn't hold. Could it be that they were placed into one "nationality" group?

moldovans are romanians

This text as it is now [[1]] contains some misleading errors. This must be corrected. Moldovans are romanians and this must be stated as it is. Here is too much politics involved. -- Bonaparte talk 12:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovans moldovans are the same with romanians. -- Bonaparte talk 12:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, only because YOU ADDED IT THERE! lol. --Node 22:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics are quoted from the CIA World Factbook, cited in the article. It's wrong to start adding and subtracting figures from such statistics without taking into account the methodology by which they were derived, and even if we tried, that would be unacceptable original research. Potential problems, for the quoted statistics "Moldovan 0.5%, Romanian 0.3%":

  1. We might introduce rounding errors if, for example 0.5 and 0.3 were rounded from 0.540% and 0.340%, then the correct total would be 0.880%→0.9% and not 0.8%. Likewise 0.450%+0.250%=0.700%→0.7%.
  2. Often a census only counts how people report themselves. If 0.5% consider themselves Moldovan and 0.3% consider themselves Romanian, we have no right to reclassify them as something else, regardless of what we consider the "correct" national designations to be. Likewise, if we don't like the categories established by census researchers, we can't start rewriting their work, we can only quote its published results.
  3. Some censuses accept multiple responses, with a total >100%, and so adding the figures would count people several times. For example, if a respondent considered themselves both Moldovan and Romanian, they may already be counted once in each category. Changing one of these responses to Romanian will then count a single person twice in the same category, creating a skewed picture.

The bottom line is that if you don't like the CIA factbook figures, that's just too bad. The only recourse is to replace the figures with some that are more authoritative. Good luck. —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 20:50 Z

PS: it's rude to accuse an editor of vandalism or being anti-Romanian just because they insist on quoting reported figures correctly. Please be WP:CIVIL. —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 20:53 Z


Lingusitic demographics by oblast

Do we have such information? If not, how can we find it? Kevlar67 05:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koreans in Ukraine

According to this article there are only 12711 people of Korean ethnicity in Ukraine. In the Koryo-saram article about Koreans in post-Soviet states, it lists 198,000 Korean residents in Ukraine. From what I know of the Korean diaspora and from other sources, I would trust this second figure more. Any thoughts? 71.58.71.191 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to believe the second figure - something like three times as many Koreans live in Ukraine than Australia. Better to go for official statistics of the country where the people are Kransky (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

original research

The sentence "the seven western regions annexed to the USSR in 1939..." - What does that have to do with demographics? How is the fact that those 7 regions were annexed connect to population loss? Whatever is being implied is original research since the source doesn't say anything about this. LokiiT (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not saying anything but stating a fact. Those seven regions (plus Kiev) have lower population loss than do other regions in Ukraine.I wish I were more technoligically savvy and could make a map showing population changes based on this table.Faustian (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By stating this fact you're implying that there's some connection between demographics and being annexed by the USSR. This is dubious and original research. Unless you can find a credible source that makes this comparison and gives a connection, it should be removed. A map would be great. LokiiT (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pure description. Those regions were the ones annexed in 1939. No causal statement is included.Faustian (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's trivial and has nothing to do with demographics. Your pointing this out is synthesis of published material, ie. original research. There is no such official designation of these combined 7 regions in Ukraine like there is for regions (East, West etc.) There's nothing in the census about "the 7 regions annexed by the USSR". It just seems like nationalist tripe to me. LokiiT (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no synthesis as it uses one source (and if I found a source stating that Lviv, Volyn etc. oblasts joned the USSR and used it as a refrence, would that be synthesis?). Why are you bringing up nationalism here? Is it "nationalism" to describe that fact shown in the census that the 7 regions that joined the USSR in 1939 have a stable population while the other regions don't? If so, does that make Chernihiv oblast, whose population is overwhelmingly Ukrainian and which has the lowest birth rate in Ukraine,, not Ukrainian according to you? What's wrong with using desciption? The Census does not officially use geography, either. It just lists the regions and the declines or growth in each of them. Summarizing is not original research. So, according to you, would using geographic descriptions ("the 7 westernmost regions of Ukraine") also be original research?Faustian (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is synthesis because you imply something that the source doesn't. You're implying that the annexation somehow has something to do with their better demographic situation, which it doesn't. It has to do with the fact that they're the least industrially developed regions, and thus suffered less from the economic collapse. What reason do you have to bring up the annexation if you're not implying that it has something to do with demographics?
And no, using East/West/South-east etc. is not original research, because these are the officially designated regions of Ukraine. It's "Western Ukraine", not "those 7 regions annexed by the USSR" 75 years ago. Even in the link above it uses those descriptions: The least population density is in North-West and South of the country, where it makes up 60 persons per sq. km. This index is especially low in Chernihiv region – 39 persons per sq. km. The East industrial regions are the most densely populated, there this index makes up more than 90 persons per sq. km. and in Donets'k region it totales 183 persons per sq. km. LokiiT (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Chernihiv oblast is not industrialized and is as rural as the western provinces, yet it has the worst population decline in Ukraine - even worse than that of Donetsk - so your industrialization claim (original research?) is false. I repeat that the fact that demographic stability is found in those 7 regions annexed in 1939 is descriptive based on the census here. If you insist on rewording it to state "7 westernmost regions" that would be minimally acceptable, I suppose, although not quite as accurate because Khmelnytsky obalst, which as apart of the USSR porior to 1939, is as far west as much of Riven and Chernivtsi oblasts and has population declines similar to the other pre-1939 Soviet territories. I'm sorry, but I prefer accurate descriptions or summaries even if they might seem to offend pro-Soviet sentiments. The ideal solution would be to include a map comparable to HIV rate map (btw, nobody objected to this map alleging that it was "nationalistic" and meant to make Yanukovich-voting regions look bad?) using population decline figures based on this table but I don't know how to make maps. Until one is made it's best to have the most accurate description possible. Perhaps we can ask for outside advice if you disagree?Faustian (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chernihiv is the exception not the rule. It's clearly a basket case with by far the worst decline in the country. I have no idea the reasons for that, but it doesn't at all change the general correlation between demographic problems and industrially advanced regions, which is what I've read in various reports over the years. Anyways, you still haven't provided a reason to group those 7 specific regions together. As for making a map, I might try to work on something based on 2008 data if I can figure out how, but in the mean time, the most accurate description would be to use the officially designated regions, not randomly selected regions grouped together for who knows what reason.
Regarding supposed "pro-Soviet" sentiments, that's ridiculous and unfounded. I couldn't care less about that, the Soviet Union is the cause of the decline all across Eastern Europe regardless of who got annexed when. Death rates and life expectancy started stagnating in the 60s. But I care about factual accuracy. What you're implying is not factually correct, and if it is, please provide a credible source to prove it. I've already requested a third opinion btw. LokiiT (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that the east is more industrialized, rural industrial eastern regions have population declines similar to those of industrialized ones. Rural Sumy oblast also posts declines comparable to those of the rest of pre-1939 Soviet Ukraine; its decline is not much different from that of industrialized Donetsk. Same goes for rural eastern Cherkassy oblast. I was just going with the simplest and most accurate decription/summary, which happens to be the 1939 border. "Western Ukraine" often includes the 7 oblasts plus Khmelytsky oblast and thus is not as accurate because, as I noted, Khmelytsky which had been part of the USSR pre-1939 has a higher decline in population than the other 7 and matches other central Ukrainian territories. Hopefully you'll be able to put together a map, it would be even more illutrative than my "controversial" words and eliminate the need for them.
As for "factual accuracy" - it is absolutely factual that the 7 regions annexed in 1939 have lower declines in population than do the other regions with the exception of Kiev and Crimea. That's what the census shows. And my statement is a summary of that, the clearest summary possible other than a map showing it. That is exactly why I included that statement - for maximum clarity (short of a map).
I apologize for implying your sentiments were "pro-Soviet." It was a reaction to your statement that what I included "seems like nationalist tripe." Faustian (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, that you're trying to demonstrate that these 7 Western regions have some of the lowest population declines in the country, and I apologize for assuming you were trying to politically charge your words, but it does still sound that way. Why not just say "Western Ukraine except Khmelytsky oblast"?
I just made a map and added it to the page. Let me know if you spot any mistakes. I kind of want to make one for Russia now. LokiiT (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accept youer apology and extend my gratitude for the map, which is wonderful. One sees patterns on the map that aren't clear from the table,a t least for me. In addtion to the stability in the western regions, there are two points of maximum negative growth, one centered in rural ethnic Ukrainian Chrenihiv in the northeast and the other in industrialized Donbas in the southeast, with low rates radiating from those two areas (Kiev is an exception, a sort of island of relative stability) until they hit the "wall" of the old 1939 border. The map also suggests that there might indeed be something to the 1939 border. Rivne Oblast and adjacent Zhitomir oblast are both part of the historical region of Volyn, both were part of the Russian Empire and in the same province of that empire until 1918, both are ethnic Ukrainian, rural and of the Orthodox religion. The only thing differnetiating the two oblasts is 20 years of history - betwen 1918 and 1939 Rivne was on the Polish side of the border while Zhitomir was on the Soviet side. Rivne has population growth while Zhitmoir's loss is the same as many of the other eastern areas. These are interesting facts. Any speculations about causality, on the other hand, are at this point original research and have no place in the article of course. I look forward to the Russian map. I've changed the wording a bit.Faustian (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing the wording. Indeed it does seem that there's an invisible "wall" around those 7 regions. Though I could point to the fact that Lviv and Ternopil have similar natural growth rates as the most heavily ethinic-Russian/orthodox regions of Odessa and the Crimea. Something interesting I noticed while looking at Russia's figures for January-October 2009[2] was that the same phenomenon occurs there, with the Western/European regions having much worse declines than the other regions. Ethnic makeup and culture do seem to play a role region by region, especially evident in the Caucuses, but even there the Russian/Orthodox regions have much better demographics than the rest of European Russia. The same goes for Siberia, the Urals, the Far East etc. It certainly warrants further research as to the causes for these disparities, but like you said, we should keep our speculation out of the article. LokiiT (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one for Russia. It might interest you, as it shows exactly what I was saying. There are certainly other factors than culture/ethnicity/religion at play here. LokiiT (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good work on both articles!Faustian (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

I'm doing a project and I am reading an old NYT article on Ukraine from 1994 that says the number of ethnic Russians living in Crimea was 70%. How did it drop so drastically to being the minority? 65.32.206.250 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts taken out of context

Regarding this sentence: "Donetsk and Dniproptrovsk oblasts in eastern and central Ukraine have the country's highest rate of abortions." - I have to ask, what's the purpose of this sentence? What use is this fact on its own? I'm often finding that when someone adds something new to that particular section on regional differences, they're more concerned with abstract statistics merely showing the differences, rather than going into why these regional differences occur, which is, in my opinion, the only part that matters. It just seems like these entries only serve to prove that "western Ukraine is awesome and the Eastern regions suck, just look at these statistics!" --why not help expand the section, using your own sources, to explain the situation? For example, to the person who just added the above mentioned sentence back, why did you leave out this part from your source: "Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk Oblasts are located in the southeast, boasting the highest economic potential, high levels of economic activity, and high population density. They are highly industrialized and urbanized oblasts with environmental degradation." It goes on to explain the situation and why these demographic differences occur. Considering you took the abortion stats from the very same paragraph you obviously read this part as well. And this does seem relevant to the section, doesn't it? The same goes for the abortion info in general. Why did I have to go back add context to your arbitrary statistics? Okay, the western regions have lower abortion rates than the other regions. But do you suppose the why is important? Or are we to just assume that the people in the Western regions are inherently better and healthier human beings due to some genetic difference? LokiiT (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added that sentence without going back and reading the source because it had been removed when you made your edit (otherwise your edit was a good one). I think that listing the oblast with the highest abortion rate is relevent and notable. I didn't go back to read the original source now. The info about being highly industrialized and with environmental degradation might not be relevent to this demographics article, although population density and rate of urbanization would be and ought to be included. I appreciate your addition of context and would likely have eventually gotten around to adding more from that article. Thank you for doing so.Faustian (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics manipulation on emigration?

I suspect the official statistics about emigration could be significantly manipulated, so as to underestimate the emigration. If somebody wants to register that he/she moved out from Ukraine to a foreign country, there is a complex and costly procedure to go through. Most people probably won't bother to do this unless they need it for a good reason. So they remain registered as living in Ukraine.

I understand that this is not encyclopedic material, but I thought to write it up here on the talk page in case somebody is doing research into the topic, and will be interested to investigate further. --Ukram234 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are probably right. Do you have any example or studies of the fact you pointed out ? And it is also true that emigration from Ukraine are decreasing since the peak before the financial crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.196.13 (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic charts are not adding up

If you add up the charts of Ethnic Ukrainians and Ethnic Russians by oblast according to the 2001 census, several oblasts add up to more than 100%. At least one of them (or maybe both) must be inflated for several oblasts. 82.136.225.137 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use French academic sources

Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no text

This page contains mostly numbers. Shouldn't the numbers be explained? I know the context, but many readers don't.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

No explanation here since February 2014, so I'm removing the template.Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Demographics of Ukraine. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Net migration rate

I have copied value from the infobox to the subsection, I don't know the source of it.Xx236 (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Urban

Please explain.Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in the emigration data

There is no mention of the obvious fact that the official figures of the population of Ukraine is overestimated by... a lot (something like 1 million people or maybe even 2 millions). The mechanism is extremely simple : there has been no census since 2001, and after that there has been a massive emigration. The official figures count the immigration, but instead of estimating emigration like others people do (it's people who leave the country and don't come back), they only count a fraction of the immigration (maybe counting only people who declare their emigration at the consulate, or something like that). There are a few articles out there mentioning this falsification. For example this post in Nate Silver's blog mentions the work of Björn Schwentker [1]. It seems quite laughable to publish without any comment those figures claiming that there is no mass emigration from Ukraine when everybody can see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian newcomers in Poland and in Russia. Also, Russian statistics give the details of the country of origin for the main countries with population exchange, and, well, it doesn't match with the official net Ukrainian immigration : Between 1997 and 2015, the total net movement between Russia and Ukraine was 1,227,134 people moving from Ukraine to Russia according to Russian statistics. Hundreds of thousands more moved to Poland, Canada, USA, and many other countries. The official figures claiming a net immigration simply don't make any sense. Н Француз (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Precision: The figures of vitals statistics given in the table are based on the official figures. From this one can find the net immigration. For example the net immigration of 2016 should be the population at the end of 2016 minus the population at the end of 2015 and minus the natural change of 2016. This operation gives a net immigration of +11000 (official is precisely +10620). Likewise the official net immigration for 2015 is +16233... But the article mentions a net migration rate of -0,54, meaning a net emigration of -230,000 people for 2015 alone: There is an obvious contradiction within the article.Н Француз (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOR. Yes, there are anomalies in the article, but you are suggesting developing the content by creating our own WP:SYNTH according to calculations taken from primary sources, dubious sources, and content by someone who is, essentially, a blogger. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I'm pointing out the elephant in the room and suggesting something should be done about it. The -0.54% figure contradicts the rest of the data. If the biography of someone mentions he was born in the year 1800 in the intro and then the rest of the text mentioned his year of birth as 1880, obviously it wouldn't be left with that obvious contradiction because of WP:SYNTH. Also, the source I was pointing to is some Max Planck institute research, which you are calling dubious. Obvious falsification is obvious, but whatever. Н Француз (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found two sources explicitely stating that real figures of emigration are much higher than the official figures : "По информации Государственной службы занятости в прошлом году через посредников выехали на работу за границу 76 884 украинцев, из них в Польшу — 3 075 человек. В реальности эти цифры выше в сотни раз" (РИА Новости Украина) [2] and " Сопоставление этих данных с данными по эмиграции из Украины показывает, что реальные цифры депопуляции гораздо выше официальных [...]При этом к официальной статистике возникает множество вопросов..." [3]. Many articles in English do mention the huge emigration figures (to Poland, Czech republic, Italy...), but I didn't find one which pointed out the obvious contradiction (apart from the Max Planck Institute journalist), so those 2 are the best sources so far. The author of the latter article is a journalist and analyst from Kaliningrad, he mentions UN figures of Ukraine refugees to Russia and Belarus. The former is from a very famous news agency. Н Француз (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you Iryna Harpy for your message on your discussion page, let's discuss this article here. I hope you can use the sources I mentioned to improve the article. It may be useful to add the net emigration figures (both the official immigration of ~10,000 per year and the estimated ~200,000 emigrants per year, to confront them). I don't know where the -.54% estimate is from (UN documents and CIA factbook only quote the official figures, see [4]), it would be nice to find out. If you're up to it, you could show the official figures of migrations between Ukraine and Russia from Rosstat (110105 from Ukraine to Russia for January-November 2016, 146131 for 2015, 94370 for 2014, then much less, 28,012 per year on average for the 16 previous years, making a total of 1.34 M people in total for 1997-2016...). Also, the Migration Services of Russia point to 1 Million people who moved from Ukraine to Russia in 2014-2015, I'm not sure how this difference is possible. Maybe it's because they were officially just "visiting", not immigrants. Maybe Xx236, who also showed an interest in improving this article, could find the equivalent for Poland? Now emigration from Ukraine to Poland is more than to Russia. Those huge emigration figures (and maybe the UN figures about refugees, about 1 million) confronted to the official figures claiming net immigration (from where ???) could illustrate the falsification and give at least a rough understanding of the real situation, which is the best we can aim for as nobody really knows for sure what is the current population of Ukraine. There's also this IOM document which gives figures of EU residence permit of Ukrainians [5].Н Француз (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.newsweek.pl/biznes/firma/ilu-ukraincow-pracuje-w-polsce-i-jak-duzo-zarabiaja-,artykuly,403027,1.html says 1 000 000 Ukrainians visited Poland in 2015 (mostly worked), they exchanged so at one moment about 500 000 were in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/tylko-w-onecie/ukraincy-w-polsce-raport-jak-wyglada-ich-sytuacja-na-rynku-pracy/x754s3x detailed report for any województwo.Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ukraines-other-big-challenge-is-a-demographic-one/
  2. ^ http://rian.com.ua/analytics/20161215/1019665062.html
  3. ^ http://www.rubaltic.ru/article/politika-i-obshchestvo/050816-ukraina/
  4. ^ https://esa.un.org/miggmgprofiles/indicators/files/Ukraine.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.iom.org.ua/sites/default/files/ff_eng_10_10_press.pdf

leaving aside Poland, for which there is conflicting data

Which one?Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of Ukraine. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Koreans

The article mentions twice that there are 49,817 Koreans in Ukraine but they are suspiciously missing from the table of ethnic groups, which lists all groups numbering 30,000 and more. There are supposedly three sources for the number of Koreans, but they don't really confirm it – quite on the contrary. First source is simply the main page of the Ukrainian Statistical Office website, which obviously doesn't contain any relevant information. Second is an article which mentions estimate of "about 30,000" – a different number than the specific one used. Third, in "Languages" section doesn't work anymore, but it was based on census results – the same ones used in the "Ethnic Groups" table, which are confirmed by sources like this one that clearly show that the number of Koreans is smaller than what the page currently claims. In earlier versions of this page the number of Koreans, sourced by my "third" link, was different (12,711 total with 700 using Ukrainian as first language, with other numbers the same as in current version of "Languages" table). It seems that at some point someone changed numbers to ones contradicted by sources. They should be reverted to an earlier version. Barcival (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "anti-terrorist operation zone" included in the Demographics of Russia?

Even if you assume they are no longer part of Ukraine, then they are part of the newly founded Republics, not of Russia itself. Chaptagai (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaptagai To my understanding the population of the DNR and LNR are not included in the Demographics of Russia page as their populations are not collected by the Russian census authority so I don't know why it says that. Crimea however is because that was formally annexed into Russia so maybe that sentence meant that? Feel free to remove that part. Tweedle (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I removed it. --Chaptagai (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird "Emigration" edit

The older versions of this article, namely the older versions of subsection "Migration" (for example, this one:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Ukraine&oldid=931430763) make mention of the fact that many Ukrainians have emigrated to Russia among other destinations since independence. The later versions of this article (including the present version, available on 10/12/22) have seen this mention erased. I wonder why is it so and shouldn't it be restored? After all, this migration is a well-established well-known fact. Or is there someone uncomfortable with it being mentioned publicly?

Non-inclusion of Crimea

I think it's correct not to count Crimea after 2014, but could we make a note that says it was militarily occupied and annexed by Russia and that the annexation is internationally recognized only by a handful of countries?

I think we should also make a note that regions partly occupied and annexed by Russia in 2022 are still included. Chaptagai (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I included a note on Crimea to avoid the impression that the inclusion in Russia's data is arbitrary or an endorsement of the annexation. With respect to the newly annexed territories of 2022, I made no note as the data stop in January 2022 anyway, so this question is moot for the time being. Chaptagai (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Population pyramid

Ukraine's population pyramid from 2015 to 2030, showing the effects of the Russo-Ukraine War.

...doesn't look right. There were fewer births in the late 90s and early 00s, but the graph is exaggerating it. Chaptagai (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is from the UN which is their estimations for population drop due to the war (see here then start the graph at 2021 to 2023 to see what I mean), I can revert to the 2021 chart if people want to but that is from the same source as the current one.
It might be worth additionally using the UN figure for Ukraine's population, as 1; more up to date and 2; takes into account the pop drop from the war. Tweedle (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it...the war of course. This makes sense. Maybe we could make a note that the effects of the war are reflected in the pyramid, but that this is an estimation only? --Chaptagai (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the stuff on here is pretty much estimations considering Ukraine has not conducted a census since 2001 so the figures for the population drop would be estimates yes, mind you this is not necessarily a bad thing, the UN World Population Prospect is still a high quality source so I trust their figures (they may update such stuff later in the year).
Feel free to make create a footnote for the population pyramid if you want to, I can create a small gif also from 2018 to 2028 (or further) showing the estimations of the effects of the war on Ukraine's population pyramid as well if wanted. Tweedle (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Created this on the right, should be good for use if needed :). Tweedle (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added a note below the pyramid. Good gif. Interesting that it assumes significant re-migration in the next few years. --Chaptagai (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tweedle UN did update their figures and the ones you used were very innacurate. I updated population pyramid on the page, you can create a new graphic if you want. JorisLTU (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JorisLTU Excuse me? This discussion was ages ago, yeah no way man they have updated their figures again nearly a year and a half on from when this occured. Tweedle (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you claimed them to be accurate back then while I correctly saw them as completely false based on hard data of refugee statistics. Anyone should have seen something is completely wrong with the pyramid you produced, using that as a fact was irresponsible. JorisLTU (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JorisLTU When did I claim they were perfectly accurate? The figures were from the best avaliable source at the time, 'Irresponsible' then blame the UN? Again, the figures were already noted at the time to be rough, they have also barely changed their figures in terms of gender structure and the only significant adjustment is within the 20s to late 30s ages being as extreme as a drop as shown, still shows the same derth of the male population compared to pre-2022 war. Tweedle (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you can quite literally just look back at the previous edit history, if had any issue of claiming they were 100% accurate I would have disapproved of said note below the pyramid but I did not. Ridiculous user Tweedle (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you claimed it to be perfectly accurate, you're making things up. They weren't accurate at aļl and absolutely not the best available source at the time. The figures also didn't "barely change" as per your claim either. Your chart using VERY innacurate data became a tool for russian propagandists, that's how I found the page and that's why your sourcing was irresponsible. Wikipedia is not for obviously wildly innacurate estimates. Cheers. JorisLTU (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then if they were not remotely accurate at all then they would not be used by the UN, again this is just circular. More stupid complaints by people on here. Who certain stuff is used by is not an issue of this website, these people could have found the population pyramid charts websites which cited again the same as me and claimed whatever, but alas I am the enemy for... making a chart from the UN's own population statistics department.. Tweedle (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not the best available source at the time" who were? Tell us please? And why did you not add them in given your first edit on here was in April? Tweedle (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That population pyramid graph is absolutely bogus and not sourced properly. Vast majority of refugees were women, children and elderly, young adults made up for the smallest part of refugees and young men made a small part of those young adults. The graph reflects the opposite and isn't based on any census or verifiable data, the UN estimations don't support the pyramid change either. JorisLTU (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sur number? you do not tell yourself that there is a problem such as the fact that the number of children is hardly decreasing, or the fact that there is still the same male/female ratio whereas the elderly men, whereas men aged 18 to 60 are prohibited from leaving the territory?Respublica1810 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Respublica1810 It's not going to be entirely precise as again it is estimates, I cannot change what the UN has provided. If you have better sources of estimations for the population pyramid by all means you can post here and I can create something but I seriously doubt there is anything better. Tweedle (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tweedle There is an argument for using the official Ukranian estimates instead of the UN ones: http://www.lv.ukrstat.gov.ua/dem/piramid/all_e.php
The problem is that it's not updated to january 2023. Pre war figures are the last reliable numbers availible though. Maybe a combination of the two pyramids would be most informative. Tallungs (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I believe the UN uses official Ukranian estimates anyway in general, they just project said estimates given to them by a countries official statistics department forward by a time period; for instance in this case calculating the decline due to emigration from the war. I am not really that fussed about using either however to be fair and I am not opposed if people want to show both in this particular case (considering it is a unique one). Tweedle (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove obviously false numbers

So the population has doped by 2% but the births by 95% and the deaths deaths by 90%. For sure. I mean that birth drop while war. OK. But a mortality drop by 90% in the middle of a war? I do not try to do own research and add things that everybody who travels near the border (west or east) can see but no "reliable source" would ever dare to write. But at least removing the years after 2019 of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine should be a beginning its WP:PRIMARY, when numbers do not add up any more would be really good. I'm not a big fan of WP:PRIMARY because sometimes they are the best sources available and there is often no reason for doubts. This is clearly not the case here. --2001:9E8:2DD3:2600:DA5E:D3FF:FE0E:3424 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Data excludes Crimea starting in 2014.[41]

I would suggest adding here for explanation that Crimea was annexed by Russia and that this is not widely internationally recognized and that Crimeas Population is not counted because the Ukrainian Census has no way of making a count in Russian-controlled territory. Chaptagai (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a more up to date population estimate

This article is titled 'Ukrainian Population Estimated Between 28 to 34 million' and dates from this year.

[3]https://www.kyivpost.com/post/15533

45.74.78.11 (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers for 2023 reversed

Demographics of Ukraine#After WWII year 2023 Crude migration rate/Fertility rate have reversed numbers:CMR number should be FR number and vice versa.--Bornsommer (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems likely that you are correct - the numbers are misplaced - you could just make the change yourself. It would be best if we had a reliable source for these numbers. Since I don't see one, I'm not going to make the change based simply on the optics. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add ping Bornsommer. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should seem obvious that it is physically impossible to give birth to a negative number of children, as it now states, and the number of children born has fallen from 1.16 children 2 years earlier to 1.00 child in 2023. I tried to make the change, but my edit didn't work (see View history (of the article). As I don't seem to be able to edit this obvious typo/error I ask for other persons who can edit to do it. I might add that I follow European demographics articles regularly.--Bornsommer (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just reverted the edit in question (See View history). It seems this editor has wrecked havoc not only on this page but also other pages. Should be blocked.--Bornsommer (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Ukraine&oldid=1244734080"