This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demographics of Eritrea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Ethnic groups of Eritrea was copied or moved into Demographics of Eritrea with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the
Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Describing estimates of the Eritrean population is contentious. The most recent discussions include:
|
Proposal: restore this version of the article and add to the graph (and the text) the Ministry of Information (Eritrea) datum of 3.56 million for 2002, from this archived URL, in a properly formatted, dated, archived reference.
If anyone has an objection to this proposal, please clearly state why you oppose the proposal, preferably with specific references, and give your reasons for objections, based on Wikipedia policy. If you have a reason why either the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division or Statista, the two sources that give the low estimates, is an unreliable source, please state that reason. Boud ( talk) 17:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Government source (2020), 6M [https://shabait.com/amp/2020/11/page/9/]. So I will state it in bold: the 2020 Eritrea Min of Information estimate that you have provided before and repeated here is a URL that does not state any estimate of the population of Eritrea. It does not state that the population of Eritrea is 6M. If you still insist that it does, then please quote the relevant part of the page, or explain where on the page the information is located.
It is a[n] outlieris not an argument for why UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable.
The UN source make broad generalisation estimates, it lets user print estimates up the to year 2050The UN DESA Population Division is not just a website. It's an organisation of people that do demography research, and it provides a web interface and data files to the global community. You seem to be arguing that UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable because it extrapolates into the future. This is not an argument for why UN DESA is unreliable for 2020 or 2021. Demographers do their best to understand current data, and in some cases, such as this one, also predict future data, based on a series of hypothetical scenarios. So this is not an argument for UN DESA 2019 Revision to be unreliable for 2020 or 2021. Boud ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This user is heavily involved in pushing a TPLF POV by using multiple socks! There needs to be an investigation Clownshking ( talk) 23:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Evidence of Boud talking about another new user as if he knows him: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ATimeline_of_the_Tigray_War&type=revision&diff=1009921851&oldid=1004690756
Boud = The People’s Front of Judea user
Boud wrote this in the Plain English section of the Talkpage: Timeline of Tigray War “The source says nothing about a military threat by the TPLF against Eritrea in the recent (2020) epoch. The Peoples Front of Judea, who reverted your revert, might be able to explain this better if my explanation is unclear.“ Clownshking ( talk) 02:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The UN DESA Population Division 2019 Revision provides these population times series for Eritrea and elsewhere in this file, calculated by the demographers who work there. The last two decades of data for Eritrea are the following, for the total population in thousands:
2000 2292.413 2001 2374.721 2002 2481.059 2003 2600.972 2004 2719.809 2005 2826.653 2006 2918.209 2007 2996.54 2008 3062.782 2009 3119.92 2010 3170.437 2011 3213.969 2012 3250.104 2013 3281.453 2014 3311.444 2015 3342.818 2016 3376.558 2017 3412.894 2018 3452.797 2019 3497.117 2020 3546.427
According to the
Ministry of National Development (Eritrea), as quoted by the the Eritrean National Statistics Office (NSO), the 2010 population estimate for Eritrea
is given in this NSO pdf file, pdf page 31, numbered page 3. This official source from Eritrea states, No population census has ever been carried out in Eritrea. However, based on a population count by the Ministry of Local Government and NSO estimates, the total resident population of Eritrea was about 3.2 million as of 2010 (MND, 2010).
This is consistent with the UN DESA 2019 Revision, since 3170.437 rounds to 3200. This document from 2010 presents the results of the Population and Health Survey (EPHS2010) that is one of the documents used for Eritrea in the UN DESA 2019 Revision.
For the explanation of how Eritrea seemed to "lose 1.8 million people" in the UN DESA 2019 Revision, please go to:
The population of Eritrea in 2019 is 3.5 million, which is about 1.8 million (34.1 per cent) less than the previous estimate from the 2017 revision. The decrease is due to the availability of new official population estimates for several years (population count in 2000, official estimates up to 2018) that contribute to lower the size of the population in the recent years, as well as to revised past estimates since 1950.I put 2017 revision in bold because this means "the data and time series that were published by UN DESA in 2017". The 2019 revision is a new set of data, for all years from 1950 to 2020.
So now we have an official UN DESA 2019 Revision explanation for why many websites still have the higher estimates: they are quite likely still based on the UN DESA 2017 Revision and have not bothered to update to the latest data yet. Boud ( talk) 23:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with Boud using this one source to change the info in the article when there are multiple reliable credible and official sources which agree with the figure of 6 million. Clownshking ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
In Demographics of Eritrea, should the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate of 3.5 million for the current population of Eritrea (Option 0) be excluded completely; (Option 1) be the only estimate included; or (Option 2) included together (NPOVed) with the estimates of 6 million? RfC extended by Boud ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC), originally opened by Boud ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Overview with sources: Eritrea has never had a census (pdf page 31), but has had random population samples interviewed (same reference, 2010, Eritrea National Statistics Office + partners). In 2019, the UN DESA Population Division 2019 Revision made a major change to its time series of Eritrean population estimates, with an explanation in the Release Note v1 (p2) of why the 2019 estimate is 1.8 million lower than the value in the UN DESA 2017 Revision. The Release Note v1 also briefly explains why the whole time series, from 1950 to 2020, was revised in the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimates in this xlsx file.
UN DESA publishes not only estimates of past populations, but also projects to the future, through to 2100. So older publications of data by UN DESA (Revisions) can be used to "predict" today's Eritrean population count. Several websites seem to be using the UN DESA 2017 Revision or maybe much older projections when they state the "current" (2020 or 2021) Eritrean population, but generally give no details of where they get their data from. These websites state about 6 million for the 2020 or 2021 population of Eritrea. Other websites state the 3.5 million estimate, and mostly refer to UN DESA as a source.
The 2010 Eritrea National Statistics Office (NSO) for 2010 is 3.2 million (pdf page 31), attributed to the Eritrean Ministry of Local Government and the NSO; the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate for 2010 is 3.170437 million. The Eritrean National Statistics Office and UN DESA 2019 Revision agree on the 2010 value.
In the article Demographics of Eritrea, should the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate of 3.5 million for 2020:
Please state the best option and justify it with reasons. Boud ( talk) 17:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Government source (2020), 6M [https://shabait.com/amp/2020/11/page/9/]. The 6 million quote is absent from the Ministry of Information URL provided (and archived). Boud ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I was appointed General Manager ... I recognise we will make ... I have been a powerful advocate ...The source URL (archived) is also Eritrean. The date is unclear, but it refers to the COVID-19 pandemic, so it's recent enough for our purposes. Since no senior management in Eritrea is going to dare say something that could land him or her in prison and the 'Jesus Christ', 'helicopter'
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
trying to impose this view". This part of the discussion is about Option 2b. Please avoid ambiguity in referring to the UN DESA Revisions. Do you have any argument against discussing and presenting the four new (in the Wikipedia discussion) sources: UN DESA Revision 2010, UN DESA Revision 2012, UN DESA Revision 2015, or UN DESA Revision 2017 in this Wikipedia article? You clearly wish to exclude UN DESA Revision 2019 (for no reason apart from "it's in the minority in my list"), and you appear to wish to exclude the Eritrean Population Health Survey 2010 (called EPHS2010 or PHS2010 in various places) made by the Eritrean National Statistics Office. (1) The 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 UN DESA Revisions are generally compatible with all the high projected estimates for 2020/2021; should they be excluded from the article according to you? (2) If yes, then why? (3) If no, then what source do you propose we use for the full history of the total Eritrean population from 1950 to 2020? Boud ( talk) 12:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
We have always focused on the specific, your phrase
the lack of support for the sourceis again vague and ignores the multiple sources that we have. There are now five different UN DESA Revisions that we have links for in this Wikipedia discussion, so we have five different UN DESA Revisions (demographic sources) and one NSO 2010 (PHS) demographic source. You cannot write "the source" for six demographic sources. You have not answered questions (1), (2) or (3). You seem to hint that your answer to (1) is "No". So in that case, please answer question (2). Why should we exclude the 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2017 UN DESA Revisions that are broadly consistent with the numbers on websites that are not demography research institutions (these are the ones that you consider "reliable")? Boud ( talk) 20:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This subsection is for wider discussion or questions that would make individual replies to the RfC too complicated; add Option 0 or Option 1 or Option 2 (or similar) and your reasoning in the above subsection, not here. Boud ( talk) 23:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
.xls
or .xlsx
files. So from the UN DESA Revisions 2010–2019, the 2020 projection varies in the range 3.5–7.7 M, starting high, getting higher, and then dropping.
Boud (
talk) 00:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC) (clarify
Boud (
talk) 01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC))Having to go through xls files to find what UN DESA source is stating the total population of Eritrea was in 2020 is requiring computation thus becomes original research. The other sources clearly state the total number for 2020. Projections that were made in the past should not be added, this page needs an estimate such as the CIA source shows. Facttell ( talk) 01:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Boud ( talk) 12:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any reason to believe that any of the other sources for the Eritrean population ..
... did their own research (surveys presumably) to obtain their estimate of Eritrea's population as the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) did?
Do we have any reason to believe that any other reputable NGO or any other body has done research to get a population estimate?
If not, it seems reasonable to conclude those sources are drawing from the earlier UN DESA estimate(s) (mostly or most likely 2017) that the UN DESA now believes is defective. Am I right?
If so it would seem option 1 is the best and at the very least option 2. (NOTE: Editor is a volunteer for the
WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to
WP:RfC) --
Louis P. Boog (
talk) 15:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Am I right?, my general impression is yes. Here is one example which is consistent with that: The current "WHO 2016" estimate says
Total population | 2016 | 4 955 000and the UN DESA 2017 Revision projection for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 says
4 847, 4 955, 5 069(in csv format) for the medium variant, in thousands. So in this case, WHO 2016 exactly matches the 2016 value of UN DESA 2017 Revision (medium variant). BubbaJoe123456 pointed out above (twice) that WHO does not state '5.2M'. Boud ( talk) 21:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
5 228, 5 352, 5 482thousand for 2015, 2016, 2017. So: WHO 2016 is consistent to 4 decimal places with the 2016 value of UN DESA 2017 Revision (medium variant projection); and ADB 2017 is consistent to both significant decimal places with the 2017 value of UN DESA 2015 Revision (medium variant projection). Boud ( talk) 22:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Source | In-depth demographic research report available [a] | Year in which Eritrea has this population [b] [c] | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
UN DESA 2010 | Yes | 5 253.676 | 6 077 | 6 236 | 6 391 | 6 544 | 6 696 | 6 848 | 7 001 |
COMESA 2018 2019 | No | 6 640 | 6 720 | ||||||
UN DESA 2012 | Yes | 5 741.159 | 6 738 | 6 937 | 7 135 | 7 331 | 7 529 | 7 727 | 7 927 |
UN DESA 2015 | Yes | 4 689.664 | 5 228 | 5 352 | 5 482 | 5 617 | 5 754 | 5 892 | 6 029 |
ADB 2017 | No | 5 500 | |||||||
Eritrean Insurance manager 2020 [d] | No | 5 800 | |||||||
CIA 2021 | No | 6 147.398 | |||||||
UN DESA 2017 | Yes | 4 390.84 | 4 847 | 4 955 | 5 069 | 5 188 | 5 310 | 5 432 | 5 555 |
WHO 2016 | No | 4 955 | |||||||
UN DESA 2019 | Yes | 3 170.437 | 3 342.818 | 3 376.558 | 3 412.894 | 3 452.797 | 3 497.117 [e] | 3 546.427 | 3 601 |
Eritrean Population and Health Survey 2010 [f] | Yes | 3 200 | |||||||
|
To clarify the relation between the sources, here's a table. Feel free to correct errors in the above table (add a signature below to help show that you modified it).
It looks like COMESA is using very old (2010) projections; ADB, the insurance manager ("Government source 2020") and CIA are using fairly old (2015) projections; WHO is using a moderately old (2017) projection exactly; the 2019 projection matches the Eritrean Population and Health Survey 2010 exactly; and nobody is using the highest UN DESA projection (7.9 million for 2021 from the 2012 Revision). Boud ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any sources apart from WPP2019_MIGR_F02_NET_NUMBER_OF_MIGRANTS.xlsx (UN DESA Revision 2019) for the historical migration data for Eritrea? Here's the graph from the UN DESA Revision 2019 data.
This was already in the article, since there is no reason to censor migration information from Demographics of Eritrea, but the content was deleted by Leechjoel9. Boud ( talk) 23:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I've updated the graph with the 2010, 2012 and 2015 data. I haven't yet found the 2017 data. I have not added data from other sources, since nobody has proposed other sources.
The 2010 and 2012 are almost identical. The general changes are much less dramatic than the 2017 to 2019 overall population drop that matches the 2010 PHS. The biggest change I see is in the 2005-2010 net migration, which from 2012 to 2015 switched from net immigration to net emigration, and then in 2019 switched to a bit weaker net emigration. Anyway, it seems to me that the NPOV choice would be to show all the curves, especially in the context of the overall population drop.
@ BubbaJoe123456 and Leechjoel9: Are there any objections to adding a migration subsection, with this graph and some appropriate text? As in the COVID-19 pandemic articles, graphs are a very useful addition to increase article quality; raw tables of numbers are more difficult to make sense of intuitively.
Clarification: I do not propose modifying or removing the one-line CIA datum that unfortunately is ambiguous, because we don't know if net migration in that one-line subsection means net immigration or net emigration, and it's a normalised value, which makes it highly uncertain because of the uncertainty in the total population, so less useful for the reader than an estimate of the un-normalised number. (The word "normalised" in this context means "divided by the total population".) Boud ( talk) 23:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Done Boud ( talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Eritrea population is roughly 6 million as the official reliable sources state. 3.5 million is an outdated incorrectly calculated number. Clownshking ( talk) 18:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Current situation: In the current version of the article, we have several data tables (except for the first line of text about the total population) that give references without archived source files or html sources. The URLs are those of the UN DESA Revision 201x data releases (multiple files for each data release) listed above (where x is one of 0, 2, 5 or 7). They URLs mostly have the title "World Population Prospects 201x", and some have dates of access. The URLs clearly show that these are UN DESA Revisions.
Specifically (details below), we have these tables:
Question A: Since the UN DESA Revision 2019 is considered invalid by two users one non-topic-banned user above, which of the UN DESA 201x Revisions (we can call these "World Population Prospects 201x", with x = 0, 2, 5, 7 or 9; these are just different names for the same thing) should we use for each of these four tables?
Question B: By those people who oppose that person who opposes the 2019 Revision, how should we explain our reason for continuing with one of the old data sets (2010, 2012, 2015 or 2017) and refusing the 2019 Revision, e.g. "The UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable because it disagrees with the older Revisions." ?
Clarification: a specific year 201x of a Revision refers to the whole data set over many years that was released in year 201x.
Details:
Boud ( talk) 11:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC) (update to clarify that there is only one non-banned user who objects Boud ( talk) 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC))
@ BubbaJoe123456 and Leechjoel9: I see no answers to Question A and Question B. If there are no objections or serious proposals for which year's UN DESA Revision 201x data we should use (2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, or 2019), then I will update the tables and the text of these sections to the 2019 data. If there is an objection to the 2019 data, then we must have a proper sentence with a reference to justify to the reader why we reject the most recent data. We currently have a mix and match and the references are not archived, which forces any reader trying to see if the article matches the sources do an excessive amount of unnecessary work. Boud ( talk) 19:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
some of the data tables in the articles are based on CIA data. I do not see any tables in the current version that claim to be based on CIA data. Are you proposing that we delete all the tables in the article? Boud ( talk) 21:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
So in this section, we still have the unresolved question: should we remove the population table because Leechjoel9 objects to the UN DESA 2019 Revision based on a majority-of-websites argument for the projected current estimate of the total population? (This table includes the age distribution: children/mid-life/seniors: "Population aged 0–14 (%) Population aged 15–64 (%) Population aged 65+ (%)")
My answer to this question is 'no', we should not remove it, we should update it. I see no reason to hide the history of the population and age-distribution of Eritrea, both pre- and post-independence. The majority-of-websites argument does not apply in this case because we have old histories that are compatible with the majority-of-websites: the 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 histories are broadly compatible with the majority-of-websites-for-the-current-population (5 to 7 million for 2019/2021). So the majority-of-websites argument (using Leechjoel9's choice of which websites to include in the "vote") favours either the 2010, 2012, 2015 or 2017 UN DESA Revisions. However, BubbaJoe123456's opinion (with which I agree) is For any material that relies on DESA data, there's no good rationale for not using the most recent revision.
So if we don't have any alternative data sets that someone can claim are reliable, the UN DESA 2019 Revision is the one that makes sense. We can NPOV it including the majority-of-websites-depending-on-how-you-count-them argument, or using words similar to what BubbaJoe123456 proposed above.
In any case, in this subsection of the talk page, the question is about the full history of the Eritrean population and its age distribution (as in the out-of-date table we currently have), not just the current total value. Boud ( talk) 02:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC) (clarify Boud ( talk) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC))
The boundaries of the present-day Eritrea nation state were established during the Scramble for Africa. In 1869[50] or '70, the then ruling Sultan of Raheita sold lands surrounding the Bay of Assab to the Rubattino Shipping Company.[51]" Ideally we should present the population evolution since around 1870: if we had the data from a reliable source.The undue weight argument would imply that the main weight should be on UN DESA Revision 2019, as the best quality demographic source. None of the other sources discussed on this talk page, apart from 1995 DHS, 2002 DHS, and 2010 PHS, are by institutes that do demographic research.
consistent estimates of various sources,See the graphs above, and please try to understand them. The 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 UN DESA Revisions are broadly consistent with the 5–7 million estimate for 2020/2021. But they are now outdated, replaced by the 2019 Revision.
estimates from organisation engaging with Eritrea and Eritrea itself.The UN DESA 2019 Revision is consistent with the most recent estimate made by an Eritrean demographic institution (in cooperation with international partners): the 2010 Population Health Survey (2010 PHS). The 2010 PHS point appears precisely on the UN DESA 2019 Revision curve. Please look at the curve. Please look at COVID-19 pandemic articles if you are not familiar with graphs and their usage in Wikipedia.
we are not basing estimates on the UN DESA sourceNo, we do not currently have consensus among editors to exclude the most recent, most reliable demographic source: the UN DESA 2019 Revision together with (consistently) the 2010 PHS. I recommend that you avoid ambiguity by referring to the year of the UN DESA Revision in this discussion, because you are effectively arguing in favour of the 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 Revisions and against the 2019 Revision. Due weight does not mean excluding the highest quality, most recent demographic sources.You are correct that we do not have editorial consensus to exclude the population history table. Boud ( talk) 10:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
As other pointed out in discussions the UN DESA is not the census taker of any country,This is pedantically true but misleading: the UN DESA 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017 and 2019 Revisions are, for Eritrea, mainly based on interviews of randomly selected samples of people (what we could call "micro-censuses"); in particular, the 2019 Revision is based on: 1995 DHS: 5054 women + 1114 men; 2002 DHS: 8754 women; 2010 PHS: 34423 households;
it's clear that [the UN DESA is] the least credible, contested and disputed in the case of the Eritrea population estimates and a outlier estimate.An ambiguous argument is difficult to progress on. If we interpret this as UN DESA 2019 Revision, then we have no evidence for this being less credible than the earlier UN DESA Revisions. If we interpret it as the pre-2019 UN DESA Revisions, then the phrase is clearly wrong, because the 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2017 Revisions are fully compatible with the 6 million projections for 2020/2021;
The other sources are also of credible .. qualityThey are credible as being consistent with the old UN DESA Revisions and the 1995 DHS and the 2020 DHS, but they are not demographic research sources.
and of high quality. They come from well-known major organisations, but those organisations are not demographic research institutes, which is why detailed presentations of methods and sources are not provided. So no, we cannot say that these are high-quality sources in comparison to the demographic research institute sources.
I suggest you read WP:RSUW.Done. So I suggest you look, at, for example, this part:
Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.We have no evidence at all that ADB, COMESA, or the CIA have done demographically valid interviews with big population samples in Eritrea without cooperating with the Eritrean National Statistics Office, and without publishing the results. We have no evidence that they are independent from 1995 DHS, 2002 DHS and the UN DESA 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 Revisions. So we have no evidence that they are independent from one another for the purposes under discussion. Boud ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Any objections to removing the NPOV tag? While there is still quite a bit of tidying that could (should) be done, I think the issue now is of quality problems, not NPOV. Boud ( talk) 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm OK with it. Agreed that the article still needs work, but the issues aren't NPOV issues. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 01:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I swapped out the infobox (which was for an ethnic group, not a country), for the country demographic infobox. A lot of fields are still to be populated, although most of the data is in the article. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 11:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Eritrean Tigrinya are not 25% Muslim.
Eritrean Tigrinyas to 90% Christian. The highlands of Eritrea where the Tigrinya tribe are a majority a predominantly Christian.
Tigrinya people have been Christians for almost 1700-1800 years and survived the ottman and Arab invasions in east Africa because of geographical situation in the Eritrean highlands making it impossible for the jihadist to enter invade and control the highlands
Eritrean Tigrinya are predominantly Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:4F07:7800:A89E:B8F2:9E8F:8C5D ( talk) 06:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Template:Largest cities of Eritrea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 10:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Eritrean Christian and Eritrean Tigrinya population is undercounted on the Wikipedia page of Eritrea.
Eritrean Tigrinyas are 55%-60% of the population of Eritrea. And the Eritrean diaspora is predominantly Eritrean Tigrinya as well.
Eritrean Tigrinyas are over 90% Christian and up to 10% Muslim. Towns of the highlands like Asmara Mendefera Adu Qwala Seneafe Adi keyih Dekemhare Are majority Christian city. There even more churches than mosques in this areas.
The places in the highlands were named ether by Etnic tiginyas or Christians like Zaada Christian/ white Christian a suburb of asmara which is Tigrinya village. The people of the area of Asmara are called as Hamasien who ethnic tigrinyas and of Christian faith.
The highlands of Eritrea is the most populous region of Eritrea.
And Wikipedia claims that there 1.8 million Eritrean tigres desite the Tigre tribe is only 30% of the population of Eritrea
Besides that Christian people also exist in the other Eritrean tribes like in the kunama tribe Bilen tribe and Tigre tribe who originally were Christians as well but were converted to Islam by Arab and ottman invasions in Eritrea and East Africa 2003:CB:4F07:7800:A89E:B8F2:9E8F:8C5D ( talk) 06:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demographics of Eritrea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Ethnic groups of Eritrea was copied or moved into Demographics of Eritrea with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the
Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Describing estimates of the Eritrean population is contentious. The most recent discussions include:
|
Proposal: restore this version of the article and add to the graph (and the text) the Ministry of Information (Eritrea) datum of 3.56 million for 2002, from this archived URL, in a properly formatted, dated, archived reference.
If anyone has an objection to this proposal, please clearly state why you oppose the proposal, preferably with specific references, and give your reasons for objections, based on Wikipedia policy. If you have a reason why either the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division or Statista, the two sources that give the low estimates, is an unreliable source, please state that reason. Boud ( talk) 17:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Government source (2020), 6M [https://shabait.com/amp/2020/11/page/9/]. So I will state it in bold: the 2020 Eritrea Min of Information estimate that you have provided before and repeated here is a URL that does not state any estimate of the population of Eritrea. It does not state that the population of Eritrea is 6M. If you still insist that it does, then please quote the relevant part of the page, or explain where on the page the information is located.
It is a[n] outlieris not an argument for why UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable.
The UN source make broad generalisation estimates, it lets user print estimates up the to year 2050The UN DESA Population Division is not just a website. It's an organisation of people that do demography research, and it provides a web interface and data files to the global community. You seem to be arguing that UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable because it extrapolates into the future. This is not an argument for why UN DESA is unreliable for 2020 or 2021. Demographers do their best to understand current data, and in some cases, such as this one, also predict future data, based on a series of hypothetical scenarios. So this is not an argument for UN DESA 2019 Revision to be unreliable for 2020 or 2021. Boud ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This user is heavily involved in pushing a TPLF POV by using multiple socks! There needs to be an investigation Clownshking ( talk) 23:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Evidence of Boud talking about another new user as if he knows him: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ATimeline_of_the_Tigray_War&type=revision&diff=1009921851&oldid=1004690756
Boud = The People’s Front of Judea user
Boud wrote this in the Plain English section of the Talkpage: Timeline of Tigray War “The source says nothing about a military threat by the TPLF against Eritrea in the recent (2020) epoch. The Peoples Front of Judea, who reverted your revert, might be able to explain this better if my explanation is unclear.“ Clownshking ( talk) 02:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The UN DESA Population Division 2019 Revision provides these population times series for Eritrea and elsewhere in this file, calculated by the demographers who work there. The last two decades of data for Eritrea are the following, for the total population in thousands:
2000 2292.413 2001 2374.721 2002 2481.059 2003 2600.972 2004 2719.809 2005 2826.653 2006 2918.209 2007 2996.54 2008 3062.782 2009 3119.92 2010 3170.437 2011 3213.969 2012 3250.104 2013 3281.453 2014 3311.444 2015 3342.818 2016 3376.558 2017 3412.894 2018 3452.797 2019 3497.117 2020 3546.427
According to the
Ministry of National Development (Eritrea), as quoted by the the Eritrean National Statistics Office (NSO), the 2010 population estimate for Eritrea
is given in this NSO pdf file, pdf page 31, numbered page 3. This official source from Eritrea states, No population census has ever been carried out in Eritrea. However, based on a population count by the Ministry of Local Government and NSO estimates, the total resident population of Eritrea was about 3.2 million as of 2010 (MND, 2010).
This is consistent with the UN DESA 2019 Revision, since 3170.437 rounds to 3200. This document from 2010 presents the results of the Population and Health Survey (EPHS2010) that is one of the documents used for Eritrea in the UN DESA 2019 Revision.
For the explanation of how Eritrea seemed to "lose 1.8 million people" in the UN DESA 2019 Revision, please go to:
The population of Eritrea in 2019 is 3.5 million, which is about 1.8 million (34.1 per cent) less than the previous estimate from the 2017 revision. The decrease is due to the availability of new official population estimates for several years (population count in 2000, official estimates up to 2018) that contribute to lower the size of the population in the recent years, as well as to revised past estimates since 1950.I put 2017 revision in bold because this means "the data and time series that were published by UN DESA in 2017". The 2019 revision is a new set of data, for all years from 1950 to 2020.
So now we have an official UN DESA 2019 Revision explanation for why many websites still have the higher estimates: they are quite likely still based on the UN DESA 2017 Revision and have not bothered to update to the latest data yet. Boud ( talk) 23:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with Boud using this one source to change the info in the article when there are multiple reliable credible and official sources which agree with the figure of 6 million. Clownshking ( talk) 21:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
In Demographics of Eritrea, should the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate of 3.5 million for the current population of Eritrea (Option 0) be excluded completely; (Option 1) be the only estimate included; or (Option 2) included together (NPOVed) with the estimates of 6 million? RfC extended by Boud ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC), originally opened by Boud ( talk) 17:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Overview with sources: Eritrea has never had a census (pdf page 31), but has had random population samples interviewed (same reference, 2010, Eritrea National Statistics Office + partners). In 2019, the UN DESA Population Division 2019 Revision made a major change to its time series of Eritrean population estimates, with an explanation in the Release Note v1 (p2) of why the 2019 estimate is 1.8 million lower than the value in the UN DESA 2017 Revision. The Release Note v1 also briefly explains why the whole time series, from 1950 to 2020, was revised in the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimates in this xlsx file.
UN DESA publishes not only estimates of past populations, but also projects to the future, through to 2100. So older publications of data by UN DESA (Revisions) can be used to "predict" today's Eritrean population count. Several websites seem to be using the UN DESA 2017 Revision or maybe much older projections when they state the "current" (2020 or 2021) Eritrean population, but generally give no details of where they get their data from. These websites state about 6 million for the 2020 or 2021 population of Eritrea. Other websites state the 3.5 million estimate, and mostly refer to UN DESA as a source.
The 2010 Eritrea National Statistics Office (NSO) for 2010 is 3.2 million (pdf page 31), attributed to the Eritrean Ministry of Local Government and the NSO; the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate for 2010 is 3.170437 million. The Eritrean National Statistics Office and UN DESA 2019 Revision agree on the 2010 value.
In the article Demographics of Eritrea, should the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate of 3.5 million for 2020:
Please state the best option and justify it with reasons. Boud ( talk) 17:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
5. Government source (2020), 6M [https://shabait.com/amp/2020/11/page/9/]. The 6 million quote is absent from the Ministry of Information URL provided (and archived). Boud ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I was appointed General Manager ... I recognise we will make ... I have been a powerful advocate ...The source URL (archived) is also Eritrean. The date is unclear, but it refers to the COVID-19 pandemic, so it's recent enough for our purposes. Since no senior management in Eritrea is going to dare say something that could land him or her in prison and the 'Jesus Christ', 'helicopter'
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
trying to impose this view". This part of the discussion is about Option 2b. Please avoid ambiguity in referring to the UN DESA Revisions. Do you have any argument against discussing and presenting the four new (in the Wikipedia discussion) sources: UN DESA Revision 2010, UN DESA Revision 2012, UN DESA Revision 2015, or UN DESA Revision 2017 in this Wikipedia article? You clearly wish to exclude UN DESA Revision 2019 (for no reason apart from "it's in the minority in my list"), and you appear to wish to exclude the Eritrean Population Health Survey 2010 (called EPHS2010 or PHS2010 in various places) made by the Eritrean National Statistics Office. (1) The 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 UN DESA Revisions are generally compatible with all the high projected estimates for 2020/2021; should they be excluded from the article according to you? (2) If yes, then why? (3) If no, then what source do you propose we use for the full history of the total Eritrean population from 1950 to 2020? Boud ( talk) 12:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
We have always focused on the specific, your phrase
the lack of support for the sourceis again vague and ignores the multiple sources that we have. There are now five different UN DESA Revisions that we have links for in this Wikipedia discussion, so we have five different UN DESA Revisions (demographic sources) and one NSO 2010 (PHS) demographic source. You cannot write "the source" for six demographic sources. You have not answered questions (1), (2) or (3). You seem to hint that your answer to (1) is "No". So in that case, please answer question (2). Why should we exclude the 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2017 UN DESA Revisions that are broadly consistent with the numbers on websites that are not demography research institutions (these are the ones that you consider "reliable")? Boud ( talk) 20:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This subsection is for wider discussion or questions that would make individual replies to the RfC too complicated; add Option 0 or Option 1 or Option 2 (or similar) and your reasoning in the above subsection, not here. Boud ( talk) 23:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
.xls
or .xlsx
files. So from the UN DESA Revisions 2010–2019, the 2020 projection varies in the range 3.5–7.7 M, starting high, getting higher, and then dropping.
Boud (
talk) 00:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC) (clarify
Boud (
talk) 01:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC))Having to go through xls files to find what UN DESA source is stating the total population of Eritrea was in 2020 is requiring computation thus becomes original research. The other sources clearly state the total number for 2020. Projections that were made in the past should not be added, this page needs an estimate such as the CIA source shows. Facttell ( talk) 01:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Boud ( talk) 12:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any reason to believe that any of the other sources for the Eritrean population ..
... did their own research (surveys presumably) to obtain their estimate of Eritrea's population as the
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) did?
Do we have any reason to believe that any other reputable NGO or any other body has done research to get a population estimate?
If not, it seems reasonable to conclude those sources are drawing from the earlier UN DESA estimate(s) (mostly or most likely 2017) that the UN DESA now believes is defective. Am I right?
If so it would seem option 1 is the best and at the very least option 2. (NOTE: Editor is a volunteer for the
WP:Feedback Request Service which randomly selects volunteers to give feedback to
WP:RfC) --
Louis P. Boog (
talk) 15:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Am I right?, my general impression is yes. Here is one example which is consistent with that: The current "WHO 2016" estimate says
Total population | 2016 | 4 955 000and the UN DESA 2017 Revision projection for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 says
4 847, 4 955, 5 069(in csv format) for the medium variant, in thousands. So in this case, WHO 2016 exactly matches the 2016 value of UN DESA 2017 Revision (medium variant). BubbaJoe123456 pointed out above (twice) that WHO does not state '5.2M'. Boud ( talk) 21:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
5 228, 5 352, 5 482thousand for 2015, 2016, 2017. So: WHO 2016 is consistent to 4 decimal places with the 2016 value of UN DESA 2017 Revision (medium variant projection); and ADB 2017 is consistent to both significant decimal places with the 2017 value of UN DESA 2015 Revision (medium variant projection). Boud ( talk) 22:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Source | In-depth demographic research report available [a] | Year in which Eritrea has this population [b] [c] | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | ||
UN DESA 2010 | Yes | 5 253.676 | 6 077 | 6 236 | 6 391 | 6 544 | 6 696 | 6 848 | 7 001 |
COMESA 2018 2019 | No | 6 640 | 6 720 | ||||||
UN DESA 2012 | Yes | 5 741.159 | 6 738 | 6 937 | 7 135 | 7 331 | 7 529 | 7 727 | 7 927 |
UN DESA 2015 | Yes | 4 689.664 | 5 228 | 5 352 | 5 482 | 5 617 | 5 754 | 5 892 | 6 029 |
ADB 2017 | No | 5 500 | |||||||
Eritrean Insurance manager 2020 [d] | No | 5 800 | |||||||
CIA 2021 | No | 6 147.398 | |||||||
UN DESA 2017 | Yes | 4 390.84 | 4 847 | 4 955 | 5 069 | 5 188 | 5 310 | 5 432 | 5 555 |
WHO 2016 | No | 4 955 | |||||||
UN DESA 2019 | Yes | 3 170.437 | 3 342.818 | 3 376.558 | 3 412.894 | 3 452.797 | 3 497.117 [e] | 3 546.427 | 3 601 |
Eritrean Population and Health Survey 2010 [f] | Yes | 3 200 | |||||||
|
To clarify the relation between the sources, here's a table. Feel free to correct errors in the above table (add a signature below to help show that you modified it).
It looks like COMESA is using very old (2010) projections; ADB, the insurance manager ("Government source 2020") and CIA are using fairly old (2015) projections; WHO is using a moderately old (2017) projection exactly; the 2019 projection matches the Eritrean Population and Health Survey 2010 exactly; and nobody is using the highest UN DESA projection (7.9 million for 2021 from the 2012 Revision). Boud ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any sources apart from WPP2019_MIGR_F02_NET_NUMBER_OF_MIGRANTS.xlsx (UN DESA Revision 2019) for the historical migration data for Eritrea? Here's the graph from the UN DESA Revision 2019 data.
This was already in the article, since there is no reason to censor migration information from Demographics of Eritrea, but the content was deleted by Leechjoel9. Boud ( talk) 23:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I've updated the graph with the 2010, 2012 and 2015 data. I haven't yet found the 2017 data. I have not added data from other sources, since nobody has proposed other sources.
The 2010 and 2012 are almost identical. The general changes are much less dramatic than the 2017 to 2019 overall population drop that matches the 2010 PHS. The biggest change I see is in the 2005-2010 net migration, which from 2012 to 2015 switched from net immigration to net emigration, and then in 2019 switched to a bit weaker net emigration. Anyway, it seems to me that the NPOV choice would be to show all the curves, especially in the context of the overall population drop.
@ BubbaJoe123456 and Leechjoel9: Are there any objections to adding a migration subsection, with this graph and some appropriate text? As in the COVID-19 pandemic articles, graphs are a very useful addition to increase article quality; raw tables of numbers are more difficult to make sense of intuitively.
Clarification: I do not propose modifying or removing the one-line CIA datum that unfortunately is ambiguous, because we don't know if net migration in that one-line subsection means net immigration or net emigration, and it's a normalised value, which makes it highly uncertain because of the uncertainty in the total population, so less useful for the reader than an estimate of the un-normalised number. (The word "normalised" in this context means "divided by the total population".) Boud ( talk) 23:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Done Boud ( talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Eritrea population is roughly 6 million as the official reliable sources state. 3.5 million is an outdated incorrectly calculated number. Clownshking ( talk) 18:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Current situation: In the current version of the article, we have several data tables (except for the first line of text about the total population) that give references without archived source files or html sources. The URLs are those of the UN DESA Revision 201x data releases (multiple files for each data release) listed above (where x is one of 0, 2, 5 or 7). They URLs mostly have the title "World Population Prospects 201x", and some have dates of access. The URLs clearly show that these are UN DESA Revisions.
Specifically (details below), we have these tables:
Question A: Since the UN DESA Revision 2019 is considered invalid by two users one non-topic-banned user above, which of the UN DESA 201x Revisions (we can call these "World Population Prospects 201x", with x = 0, 2, 5, 7 or 9; these are just different names for the same thing) should we use for each of these four tables?
Question B: By those people who oppose that person who opposes the 2019 Revision, how should we explain our reason for continuing with one of the old data sets (2010, 2012, 2015 or 2017) and refusing the 2019 Revision, e.g. "The UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable because it disagrees with the older Revisions." ?
Clarification: a specific year 201x of a Revision refers to the whole data set over many years that was released in year 201x.
Details:
Boud ( talk) 11:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC) (update to clarify that there is only one non-banned user who objects Boud ( talk) 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC))
@ BubbaJoe123456 and Leechjoel9: I see no answers to Question A and Question B. If there are no objections or serious proposals for which year's UN DESA Revision 201x data we should use (2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, or 2019), then I will update the tables and the text of these sections to the 2019 data. If there is an objection to the 2019 data, then we must have a proper sentence with a reference to justify to the reader why we reject the most recent data. We currently have a mix and match and the references are not archived, which forces any reader trying to see if the article matches the sources do an excessive amount of unnecessary work. Boud ( talk) 19:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
some of the data tables in the articles are based on CIA data. I do not see any tables in the current version that claim to be based on CIA data. Are you proposing that we delete all the tables in the article? Boud ( talk) 21:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
So in this section, we still have the unresolved question: should we remove the population table because Leechjoel9 objects to the UN DESA 2019 Revision based on a majority-of-websites argument for the projected current estimate of the total population? (This table includes the age distribution: children/mid-life/seniors: "Population aged 0–14 (%) Population aged 15–64 (%) Population aged 65+ (%)")
My answer to this question is 'no', we should not remove it, we should update it. I see no reason to hide the history of the population and age-distribution of Eritrea, both pre- and post-independence. The majority-of-websites argument does not apply in this case because we have old histories that are compatible with the majority-of-websites: the 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 histories are broadly compatible with the majority-of-websites-for-the-current-population (5 to 7 million for 2019/2021). So the majority-of-websites argument (using Leechjoel9's choice of which websites to include in the "vote") favours either the 2010, 2012, 2015 or 2017 UN DESA Revisions. However, BubbaJoe123456's opinion (with which I agree) is For any material that relies on DESA data, there's no good rationale for not using the most recent revision.
So if we don't have any alternative data sets that someone can claim are reliable, the UN DESA 2019 Revision is the one that makes sense. We can NPOV it including the majority-of-websites-depending-on-how-you-count-them argument, or using words similar to what BubbaJoe123456 proposed above.
In any case, in this subsection of the talk page, the question is about the full history of the Eritrean population and its age distribution (as in the out-of-date table we currently have), not just the current total value. Boud ( talk) 02:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC) (clarify Boud ( talk) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC))
The boundaries of the present-day Eritrea nation state were established during the Scramble for Africa. In 1869[50] or '70, the then ruling Sultan of Raheita sold lands surrounding the Bay of Assab to the Rubattino Shipping Company.[51]" Ideally we should present the population evolution since around 1870: if we had the data from a reliable source.The undue weight argument would imply that the main weight should be on UN DESA Revision 2019, as the best quality demographic source. None of the other sources discussed on this talk page, apart from 1995 DHS, 2002 DHS, and 2010 PHS, are by institutes that do demographic research.
consistent estimates of various sources,See the graphs above, and please try to understand them. The 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 UN DESA Revisions are broadly consistent with the 5–7 million estimate for 2020/2021. But they are now outdated, replaced by the 2019 Revision.
estimates from organisation engaging with Eritrea and Eritrea itself.The UN DESA 2019 Revision is consistent with the most recent estimate made by an Eritrean demographic institution (in cooperation with international partners): the 2010 Population Health Survey (2010 PHS). The 2010 PHS point appears precisely on the UN DESA 2019 Revision curve. Please look at the curve. Please look at COVID-19 pandemic articles if you are not familiar with graphs and their usage in Wikipedia.
we are not basing estimates on the UN DESA sourceNo, we do not currently have consensus among editors to exclude the most recent, most reliable demographic source: the UN DESA 2019 Revision together with (consistently) the 2010 PHS. I recommend that you avoid ambiguity by referring to the year of the UN DESA Revision in this discussion, because you are effectively arguing in favour of the 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 Revisions and against the 2019 Revision. Due weight does not mean excluding the highest quality, most recent demographic sources.You are correct that we do not have editorial consensus to exclude the population history table. Boud ( talk) 10:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
As other pointed out in discussions the UN DESA is not the census taker of any country,This is pedantically true but misleading: the UN DESA 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017 and 2019 Revisions are, for Eritrea, mainly based on interviews of randomly selected samples of people (what we could call "micro-censuses"); in particular, the 2019 Revision is based on: 1995 DHS: 5054 women + 1114 men; 2002 DHS: 8754 women; 2010 PHS: 34423 households;
it's clear that [the UN DESA is] the least credible, contested and disputed in the case of the Eritrea population estimates and a outlier estimate.An ambiguous argument is difficult to progress on. If we interpret this as UN DESA 2019 Revision, then we have no evidence for this being less credible than the earlier UN DESA Revisions. If we interpret it as the pre-2019 UN DESA Revisions, then the phrase is clearly wrong, because the 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2017 Revisions are fully compatible with the 6 million projections for 2020/2021;
The other sources are also of credible .. qualityThey are credible as being consistent with the old UN DESA Revisions and the 1995 DHS and the 2020 DHS, but they are not demographic research sources.
and of high quality. They come from well-known major organisations, but those organisations are not demographic research institutes, which is why detailed presentations of methods and sources are not provided. So no, we cannot say that these are high-quality sources in comparison to the demographic research institute sources.
I suggest you read WP:RSUW.Done. So I suggest you look, at, for example, this part:
Care must be taken to establish that corroboration is indeed independent, to avoid an invalid conclusion based on uncredited origination.We have no evidence at all that ADB, COMESA, or the CIA have done demographically valid interviews with big population samples in Eritrea without cooperating with the Eritrean National Statistics Office, and without publishing the results. We have no evidence that they are independent from 1995 DHS, 2002 DHS and the UN DESA 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2017 Revisions. So we have no evidence that they are independent from one another for the purposes under discussion. Boud ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Any objections to removing the NPOV tag? While there is still quite a bit of tidying that could (should) be done, I think the issue now is of quality problems, not NPOV. Boud ( talk) 22:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm OK with it. Agreed that the article still needs work, but the issues aren't NPOV issues. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 01:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I swapped out the infobox (which was for an ethnic group, not a country), for the country demographic infobox. A lot of fields are still to be populated, although most of the data is in the article. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 11:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Eritrean Tigrinya are not 25% Muslim.
Eritrean Tigrinyas to 90% Christian. The highlands of Eritrea where the Tigrinya tribe are a majority a predominantly Christian.
Tigrinya people have been Christians for almost 1700-1800 years and survived the ottman and Arab invasions in east Africa because of geographical situation in the Eritrean highlands making it impossible for the jihadist to enter invade and control the highlands
Eritrean Tigrinya are predominantly Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:4F07:7800:A89E:B8F2:9E8F:8C5D ( talk) 06:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Template:Largest cities of Eritrea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 10:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Eritrean Christian and Eritrean Tigrinya population is undercounted on the Wikipedia page of Eritrea.
Eritrean Tigrinyas are 55%-60% of the population of Eritrea. And the Eritrean diaspora is predominantly Eritrean Tigrinya as well.
Eritrean Tigrinyas are over 90% Christian and up to 10% Muslim. Towns of the highlands like Asmara Mendefera Adu Qwala Seneafe Adi keyih Dekemhare Are majority Christian city. There even more churches than mosques in this areas.
The places in the highlands were named ether by Etnic tiginyas or Christians like Zaada Christian/ white Christian a suburb of asmara which is Tigrinya village. The people of the area of Asmara are called as Hamasien who ethnic tigrinyas and of Christian faith.
The highlands of Eritrea is the most populous region of Eritrea.
And Wikipedia claims that there 1.8 million Eritrean tigres desite the Tigre tribe is only 30% of the population of Eritrea
Besides that Christian people also exist in the other Eritrean tribes like in the kunama tribe Bilen tribe and Tigre tribe who originally were Christians as well but were converted to Islam by Arab and ottman invasions in Eritrea and East Africa 2003:CB:4F07:7800:A89E:B8F2:9E8F:8C5D ( talk) 06:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)