Talk:Demographics of Eritrea

Jebertis

Jebertis aren't an ethnic group, but simply muslim Tigrés or Tigrawot (who speak Tigrigna, not the ethnic group Tigre). For instance, there are muslim Tigrés in Ethiopia (though few in number), but they are still Tigrés. I'm reverting the Demographics of Eritrea back to the previous version. Yom

Also, the ethnic groups should probably separated. Tigrés/Tigrinyas and Tigres make up 80%+ of the population, but Kunamas are included with the Tigre group, while the Kunamas are only 100,000 strong, or about 2-3% of the population. Yom

yom if jeberti are part of tigrigna ethnic group because of the so called "biher" policy in eritrea which is based upon language spoken in eritrea then why the links states that all tigrigna speakers are christians???either you add that a % of the tigrigna ethnic group are muslims or you can create another article as how tigray from ethiopia and tigrigna in eritrea are the same ethnic group and SHOULD NOT BE SEPERATED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaya7 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic groups, by definition share a common history. Ethnicity is not equal to nationality. Jeberti are Muslim Tigrinya. They are not a separate ethnicity, they simple follow another religion. --Merhawie (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

if that's so then why is the official eritrean data shows that all tegrenya ethnic people are christians?make up your minds either include that 25% of eritrean tigrinya are muslims or you can claim that all tigrenya are christians by seperating the jebertis.

Censuses

What is curious about Eritrea's census position is that while an Itlaian colony, several censuses were carried out, & provide more accurate demographic information for that period than was available in Ethiopia; however, now the situation is reversed. (I don't know if this earlier material could be incorporated into Wikipedia -- or if it is easily accessible in the US.) -- llywrch 18:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I break up "Tigre & Kunama" using the approximation of ~100-120k for the Kunama, or do you think that would be Original research? — Yom 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to census data, unless you have a verifiable source, dont put it in.Merhawie 03:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I have a verifiable source that the censuses took place; both Trimingham & Ullendorff alude to them. However, beyond some summary statements by both of these authors, I have no idea what those censuses contain. I simply mention their existence in hope that someone with access to the proper resources now knows that they exist, will find them & make proper use of them. -- llywrch 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Need to separate out cushitic and semitic speakers

Need to separate them out in the tree since 1) semitic speakers make up the vast majority (over 90 percent) of eritrea's population so it is necessary to make that clear with the tree (2) semitic and cushitic speakers are culturally, linguistically, phenotypically, biologically, and most importantly politically distinct, so it is necessary to demonstrate that they do not make up one community--there is clearly the semitic community tigre-tigrinya and small politically influential rashaida speakers and a cushitic community, saho, bilen, afar that are sometimes at odds.

Please discuss here any attempt to change the tree, thanks :) Eritreanlove99 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added some quotes to back up the distinction between cushitic and semitic which is kind of obvious for anyone who knows the huge differences between semitic and cushitic speakers in eritrea and the horn of africa (like the huge differences between oromos and somalis on one hand and amhara, tigray and tigrinya on the other; historically, culturally, phenotypically, biologically, on top of linguistically) as a whole, but I know how people on wikipedia like to argue the obvious :( Eritreanlove99 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) here are the sources I put:

1.^ See http://www.chr.up.ac.za/chr_old/indigenous/country_reports/Country_reports_Eritrea.pdf, p. 3, separating the Cushitic and Semitic speakers into separate families and noting they are culturally and socially distinct groupings ("Even if the different communities in Eritrea are socially and culturally distinct..."). See p.4("These groups may be divided into three categories, according to their historical evolution from three ancient races: the Semitic; the Hamitic (Cushitic); and the Nilotic races. The Semitic group forms the majority of the population, and consists of the Tigrinya (48 per cent of the total population) and the Tigre (35 per cent). The Rashaida (1 per cent), a recently-established group of Arab origin, may also be included in the Semitic family. Four ethnic groups comprise the Cushitic category: the Afar (4 per cent of the total population); the Saho (3 per cent); the Bilen (2 per cent); and the Hedareb (2 per cent). The Nilotic groups are the Kunama (with 3 per cent of the total population) and the Nara (2 per cent).") 3.^ http://www.harep.org/ifaapr/298.pdf p. 307 ("Ethiopians are different from Eritreans. Eritreans are mixed between Yemeni,Zagwe, people from the north. The real, original Eritreans are the people around Barentu and then these other people came from the north and from Yemen and mixed with them. Our faces are lighter than the Ethiopians. The Eritreans have smaller bones. The Ethiopians come from the south, they come from Kenya, they're more like Africans. They're bigger and they have darker skin.") 4.^ http://www.harep.org/ifaapr/298.pdf p. 307 ("Ethiopians are different from Eritreans. Eritreans are mixed between Yemeni,Zagwe, people from the north. The real, original Eritreans are the people around Barentu and then these other people came from the north and from Yemen and mixed with them. Our faces are lighter than the Ethiopians. The Eritreans have smaller bones. The Ethiopians come from the south, they come from Kenya, they're more like Africans. They're bigger and they have darker skin.")

Eritreanlove99 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Very strange edits. First, neither Somalis nor Oromos nor Amhara nor Ethiopians in general traditionally inhabit Eritrea, so mentioning them is WP:OFFTOPIC. Second, there are no such races as "Semitic" or "Hamitic" like your quote above alludes to. The first is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family and the second is a former branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family (see the Afro-Asiatic languages article). Third, the modern Ethio-Semitic speakers are culturally most closely related with each other, not with the Rashaida (actual Arabs), who live separately and lead very distinct nomadic lives. Fourth, most of the Semitic speakers in Eritrea, as in Ethiopia, are actually of Agaw origin; they just adopted the Semitic languages (c.f. [1]). That's why genetically they most closely group with other Afro-Asiatic speakers from the Horn and physically resemble them too (see, for example, this genetic study [2]). That said, I have removed the off-topic and inaccurate racial stuff, and replaced the original research stats with figures from the CIA. Middayexpress (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is silly to group ethnic groups by deep linguistic phyla such as Afro-Asiatic. Surely, culture and religious adherence is at least as important in ethnic division as a linguistic split some 5,000 years ago. Does a Swedish speaker feel a closer ethnic relation to a Tajik than to a Finn because the former is a "fellow Indo-European"? I thought not. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not silly in this instance since, unlike Tajiks and Finns, the Cushitic and Ethiosemitic speakers have inhabited the same territory since time immemorial, share recent ancestry, and most of the Ethiosemitic speakers originally spoke Cushitic languages before adopting Semitic languages. Please see Donald N. Levine's Greater Ethiopia and the Ethiopian language area. Middayexpress (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still pointless. It is pointless to group Italian and English via their "Italic" and "West Germanic" heritage, etc.

You also restored the claim that there are "nine official groups". Which are they and how are they "offical"? The constitution doesn't even name national languages, let alone ethnic groups, and the constitution has never come into effect. The country is de facto ruled by thugs, so I doubt there is any sense in which anything can be "official" to begin with.

Look, I found a broken article and started improving it. I forgot for a moment these topics are broken because people keep actively breaking them rather than from negligence. I have been playing these games on Wikipedia for ten years, and I have no taste for them now.

It is perfectly fair to group the "Ethiosemitic" (or "Habesha") peoples. You did this yourself in your post. So I suggest we can say there is an 80% Ethiosemitic majority, and Cushitic, Arab and Nilotic minorities. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand and your good faith efforts are appreciated. Grouping the Ethiosemitic/Habesha populations is not a problem, since they are a unit and also form a numerical majority. However, Habesha are also closely related to the the other major Afro-Asiatic speakers in the country, Cushitic speakers. So it makes sense to group them too, as Minahan does ("The majority of the Eritreans speak Semitic or Cushitic languages of the Afro-Asiatic language group[...] The Kunama, Baria, and other smaller groups in the north and northwest speak Nilotic languages" [3]). Unlike the Cushitic and Ethiosemitic speaking groups in Eritrea, Italians and Germans a) don't live in the same country nor have they since time immemorial, b) neither of them originally spoke languages from the other subfamily, and c) Italy and Germany are also together not part of any "Greater Germany"/"Greater Italy" or "German language area"/"Italian language area". Habesha also do not constitute a majority of Ethiopia's population, nor are there many of Ethiopia's Ethiosemitic-speaking groups in Eritrea. The 2003 BBC link was about native Eritreans who spoke Amharic, not Amhara people (a distinct population, who in any event aren't one of Eritrea's nine recognized ethnic groups). Additionally, the Jeberti people trace descent separately from the Tigrinya, though they speak the language. That said, the religious dichotomy in Eritrea is mainly between Christian and Muslim adherents. Some authorities estimate it at or near 50%/50%. So it's more neutral to say that "a majority of Eritrea's population adheres to Abrahamic religions" and then give the respective percentages for Christianity and Islam, rather than to describe the division as between Christians and non-Christians. The Muslims don't have any particular religious ties with followers of traditional faiths that would warrant such a grouping, and many of the Ethiosemitic speakers are themselves Muslim. Also, it's the CIA that indicates that Eritrea has nine recognized ethnic groups, including the Rashaida [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources and encyclopedicity

In my view, writing "demographics" articles is more than a copy-paste dump from CIA factbook. In developed countries with their own statistics offices, it's a matter of giving a coherent and intelligent summary based on a wealth of data, and secondary sources discussing that data.

In the case of countries that don't have their own statistics, it's an even more difficult task of gathering whatever estimates there are and presenting them together with an intelligent assessment of their origin and reliability. In the case of Eritrea, it is supremely pointless just dumping figures found in an excel sheet hosted at esa.un.org. This data is published with lengthy explanations and caveats[5]. If we're going to produce something encyclopedic from that, there is no way around actually reading the stuff.

Eritrea is found in a very desparate place in the "high fertility" group of this report. They have an estimated population growth of >3% p.a.! This is going to have a radical impact on demographics and society, and it may be partly behind the "worsening conditions" that drives the current emigration wave with lots of people drowning in the Mediterranean. The job of an article such as this would be researching this stuff and presenting it in an easily accessible and well-referenced summary. Instead, this article as I found it seemed to be more preoccupied with ethnic bickering and the definition of Cushitic. This isn't the place. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Eritrea. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of Eritrea. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107191939/http://features.pewforum.org/global-christianity/total-population-percentage.php to http://features.pewforum.org/global-christianity/total-population-percentage.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Population update

@Dbachmann, Leechjoel9, and Tobby72: In relation to the Talk:Eritrea#Population uncertain by a factor of two? discussion, here, on this page, we have a lot more space for properly NPOVing and sourcing the issue of population. There is no justification to refuse WP:NPOVing the estimates of the total population of Eritrea. Leechjoel9: please remember the discretionary sanctions for Horn of Africa related articles. Scroll to the top of this page, or look through your talk page, if you are unfamiliar with those sanctions.

To minimise the chance of edit battles, I have started by only modifying the section in the body of the article, leaving the lead to be updated later, after edits to the updated section have stabilised.

I have included both the UN DESA full history from 1950, as well as the three high-value estimates, in both the text and the graph. I have attempted to preserve the older material, which claims to be based on UN DESA data, but since there is no archived version of the UN DESA files, it is not possible to verify if the original edits correctly used the outdated UN DESA data. (There might be some Wayback or other archived copies, by I didn't search for them.)

Hypothesis: This is a common sense hypothesis, which is not currently justified for the article, since it is just from me looking at the graph and trying to understand the big question: how is it possible for the population of a country in 2021 to be uncertain by a factor of two? Looking at the graph, the most obvious hypothesis is that people making the high value estimates failed to notice a major stagnation in the population during the first decade of independence - the 1990s. We would need demographers to discuss this if we want to make a comment in the article. But for discussion here, this explanation would at least help us make a reasonable guess as to why the factor of two difference exists in online sources. Boud (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a section on the UN DESA Population Division history of immigration into Eritrea and emigration out of Eritrea since 1950 (i.e. since before independence). This is the current version that includes a graph on the net immigration into Eritrea. By eye, this looks fully consistent with the UN DESA overall population growth graph for Eritrea.

Interpretation (not for the article): It looks like the error made by the CIA and others giving the 6.1 million estimate for 2021 is that they didn't correctly take into account the big exodus, of about 0.450 million, during 1990 to 2000, and the 0.450 million outflow from 2010 to 2020. It also looks like, compared to the difficult-to-check tables in the article claimed to be from un-archived UN DESA data, UN DESA has lowered its general pre-1990 overall population estimates from 3.1 million to 2.2 million. Together these literally explain a 2 million difference; if we take into account the natural population growth (excess births over deaths) from the missing 2 million, then a difference of 2.6 million seems reasonable. So the differences between the estimates would seem to me to be from:

1. the lead-up to 1990 being lower by 1 million when comparing UN DESA 2019 to the un-archived earlier UN DESA estimates;
2. 0.45 million net emigration during 1990-2000; 0.45 million net emigration during 2010-2020; (and 160 million net immigration during 2000-2010);
3. natural growth of the slightly under 2 million difference.

If someone has a source to explain why UN DESA's highly detailed data for Eritrea from 2019 are wrong, or an explanation for why the 2019 UN DESA numbers are right, and preferably from a demographer and/or someone at UN DESA, then please add that. Boud (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the version which is NPOVed, with graphs from UN DESA. It was reverted, so I'm repeating the link here for convenience for interested editors. See the Population section and then scroll down to the Migration section below. Boud (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You are informed about the discretionary sanctions for Horn of Africa related articles, due to all edits and edits conflicts you are engaged in this should be a concern for you. The tagged users haven’t been engaged in the discussion of the population estimates. You are making a lot of assumptions about these sources, they are legitimate so don’t try twist and turn facts. You have also left out the two government sources which indicates that population in 2002 was 3,5M and around six million in 2020. All the other sources CIA, African development bank independently provides three different estimates close or over six million, also consistent with the government sources. The UN source is the only one estimating around 3,5M, therefore it should be the least credible. The main figures in lead and info box in Eritrea article should be those currently in the article, complimented with the mentioned sources and without the UN source in these sections, both here and in the Eritrea article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9: you wrote: don't try twist and turn facts. This is called a personal attack, which is not acceptable, because it distracts from editorial discussion.

Let us first see if we can finish the discussion for this article, where there is plenty of space to NPOV the article in line with Wikipedia policy.

• The 2002 Eritrea Ministry of Information estimate of 3.56 million is valid to add to the graph, along with the other data points on the graph; I agree.
• The 2020 Eritrea Min of Information estimate that you have provided before is a URL that does not provide an estimate, so it cannot be used.
• You wrote The UN source is the only one estimating around 3,5M. Please read the material and look at the references in the edit that you reverted. We have two low values. We have (1) the 2019 UN DESA estimate of about 3.5 million for 2020; and (2) the Statista estimate of 3.55 million for 2020, and 3.6 million for 2021. See the two references here.
• The UN source is the only one estimating around 3,5M, therefore it should be the least credible. This is not a valid argument: there are two sources giving around 3.5 million; and more importantly, validity of information is not decided by the number of sources alone. The quality of the sources, the detail they provide and their methods and sources, and the diversity of the sources, keeping in mind how they actually get their information, also count.

I will try to focus this discussion with a new section. Boud (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "The tagged users haven't been engaged":

Dbachmann expressed interest in the demography of Eritrea topic several times, above on this talk page, making quite strong statements: these three edits; these two edits.

Tobby72 recently made two well-sourced, on-topic edits on the main Eritrea article, which is where the population-of-Eritrea discussion started, and so is likely to be aware of the editorial debate: this edit and this edit.

Whether or not Dbachmann and/or Tobby72 wish to participate in this discussion is up to them. Boud (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Websites that judge the 2019 UN DESA data to be credible

The following is neither an argument for or against my proposal, since it is equivalent to the list of the 2021 CIA, 2019 COMESA, 2017 ADB and 2016 WHO estimates: those websites all are consistent with the high group of estimates (for a reasonable population growth); the ones below all make statements about sources, all to some degree say that they use UN DESA information.

• 2021: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/eritrea-population = https://archive.today/46A2Z "The current population of Eritrea is 3,583,617, based on projections of the latest United Nations data. The UN estimates the July 1, 2021 population at 3,601,467."
• 2020: https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/eritrea-demographics = https://archive.today/hVgfF "Population of Eritrea (2020) ... Eritrea Population 3,546,421 "
• 2021: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ERI/eritrea/population = https://archive.today/UnfRH "The current population of Eritrea in 2021 is 3,601,467, a 1.55% increase from 202"

Boud (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The World Bank provides data only to 2011; the values are consistent with the UN DESA 2019 estimates, so it appears that the WB agrees with UN DESA 2019:

• 2011: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=ER = https://archive.today/x3zGo "Eritrea 2011 3,213,972" Boud (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for NPOVing a section in the body of the article

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)

Object, to your new edit proposal. If the second government source (2002 estimates) is included it should be as a compliment to highlight consistency with the more recent six million estimates. Otherwise it don’t serve a purpose to cite a 19 year old estimate. The statista source is most likely based on the UN figures which is the least credible one. The estimates in the lead, info box and body should be based on:

1. CIA (2021 estimates), 6,14M [6]
2. COMESA (2019 estimates), 6,75M [7]
3. African Development Bank (2017 estimates), 5,5M [8]
4. WHO (2016 estimates), 5,2M [9]
5. Government source (2020), 6M [10]
6. Government source (2002), 3,5M to show consistency with other sources. [11]

The five sources are all independent of each other and provides different estimates close to 6M and they are also consistent with the then 3,5 (2002) government estimates. The UN source should be excluded since there exist strong support (sources) for estimates of around 6M. I will make a new draft adding the references and sources that have yet been included (WHO, COMESA, AFDB and Government sources). Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for agreeing that the Statista source is a second source for the low estimate of about 3.5 million in or around 2020.
• You have raised a new issue about Statista: you hypothesise that Statista data is based on the 2019 UN DESA data. I agree that that is likely. However, the same hypothesis applies to the other group of sources.
• You have presented no evidence for your four sources (CIA 2021, COMESA 2019, ADB 2017, WHO 2016) being independent from one another. There are two sources for the low value and (now) four sources for the high value. See the next point for the Eritrean Ministry of Information value.
• I don't understand why you again state 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.
• You have not provided an argument for excluding the 2019 UN DESA estimate, nor for excluding the Statista estimate. We do not know why UN DESA has a highly detailed, highly falsifiable set of data that gives lower estimates over many decades than other estimates. Stating that it's in a numerical minority neither explains why it's right nor why it's wrong. Boud (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment See the section above (not in the proposal itself) for three websites that give 2021 estimates that show that the authors of these websites judge the UN DESA 2019 estimate to be accurate. This is only a weak argument in favour of the proposal, which is why I only give the details above. Boud (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources are independent of each other since they vary in terms of estimates figures. They also come from various organisation engaging with Eritrea in number of areas i.e African Development Bank (Finance), COMESA-Common market for East and South Africa (Trade), WHO (Health), CIA (Intelligence), and then the government sources which cites 6M, all consistent with each other. You have lacked to reach consensus on this matter.Leechjoel9 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's true that ADB, COMESA, WHO, and CIA are sufficiently independent organisations that the information they more or less agree on is likely to be a serious claim. But that doesn't answer the question. You have not given any reason why the UN DESA 2019 Revision is an unreliable source; you have only stated that in terms of websites of several major organisations, the UN DESA 2019 Revision estimate is in a minority. That's not an argument why UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable, it is only an argument that it's in a minority when we ignore the dates.

UN DESA has a research group that does demographic research based on sources, such as the Eritrea – Demographic and Health Survey 2002 (DHS 2002) of 8754 women in Eritrea. As far as I know, none of the other sources above (including Statista, Worldpopulationreview, Worldometers, Macrotrends) does their own demographic analyses. Some probably do some checking and some modelling, but it's quite likely the main influence on their data is the pre-2019-Revision UN DESA analyses. This would explain why they more or less agree with each other. (We have no evidence so far of why the UN DESA 2019 Revision drastically reduced its historical and current estimates of the Eritrean population compared to earlier estimates; but we know that that's what the UN DESA demographers have done.)

If you have a reason why the UN DESA 2019 Revision analysis is unreliable as demographic information, not why it is in a minority compared to non-demography-research organisations, then please state that reason. Boud (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have given you explanations per above along with the sources provided. It is a outlier, practically the only source showing this figure. The sources above provides great variations of estimates, are consistent with each other and are based on actors engaging with Eritrea & the country itself. As stated before it seems it’s possibly based on old estimate (~2002 as government source above). Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a[n] outlier is 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 2050 The 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)

In this case it becomes unreliable since practically everyone report other figures. You haven’t reached consensus for your proposition per WP:CON. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have an argument for why the UN DESA 2019 Revision is unreliable, then please present that argument, base on the fact that this type of knowledge is part of demography. Reliability is not a popularity contest. Boud (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Object to Boyd’s Original Research. The consensus of sources agrees with a population in the 6 million. Many TPLF media outlets and blogs have been presenting a false narrative of Eritrea’s population. The agenda is to claim that Eritrea has less people than in 2002 therefore the Tigrinya population of Eritrea needs to be replaced by Tigrayans. This is a known part of the Abay Tigray Manifesto to invade and annex Eritrea as part of Tigrayan only Nation called GreatyTigray. Political agendas like these should not be allowed to confuse and try to spread Fake News via Wikipedia. The credible sources that state in 6 million should stay, anything that is clearly pushing some obscure agenda should be disregarded.Clownshking (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clownshking: Do you have an argument why the UN DESA 2019 Revision is wrong? I am not the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. The TPLF does not control UN DESA. The TPLF does not control the Eritrean National Statistics Office. Please read the section below to understand why Eritrea "lost 1.8 million people" in terms of revisions of knowledge about the past. Boud (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User Boud is using other Accounts to push his TPLF agenda

This user is heavily involved in pushing a TPLF POV by using multiple socks! There needs to be an investigationClownshking (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of Boud talking about another new user as if he knows him: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 above comment is a personal attack to which I have responded here. This is not the page to continue this discussion. Boud (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

UN DESA: why Eritrea seemed to drop in population by 1.8 million

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:

• https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ ;
• at the words "release note" in "On 28 August 2019 a minor technical correction ... see release note for further details" you will see this release-note-v1 pdf file with release notes for the 2019 Revision;
• on page 2 there is the Eritrea update explanation: 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)

You haven’t gained consensus for your proposal. This is trying impose your views on this article. It has been addressed to you above. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:14, 4 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)

See below for the issue of consensus. Boud (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on UN DESA 2019 Eritrea population estimate

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? 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:

• Option 0: be excluded completely?
• Option 1: be included, with no mention of the roughly 6 million estimates?
• Option 2: be included together with the estimates of 6 million under WP:NPOV in both the lead and body, and with a brief discussion of Release Note v1 of UN DESA 2019 Revision?

Please state the best option and justify it with reasons. Boud (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Object to it being included in the lead, info box and in body. This has been explained to Boud several times in all of the users proposals, in all the discussion above and in Eritrea talk page. The consensus has for several years been 5-6 million. The estimates in the lead, info box and body should be based on:

1. CIA (2021 estimates), 6,14M [12]
2. COMESA (2019 estimates), 6,75M [13]
3. African Development Bank (2017 estimates), 5,5M [14]
4. WHO (2016 estimates), 5,2M [15]
5. Government source (2020), 6M [16]
6. Government source (2002), 3,5M to show consistency with other sources. [17]

The five sources are all independent of each other and they vary in terms of estimate figures in the 6M and they are also consistent with the then 3,5M (2002) government estimates.

They also come from various organisation engaging with Eritrea in number of areas i.e African Development Bank (Finance), COMESA-Common market for East and South Africa (Trade), WHO (Health), CIA (Intelligence), and then country itself (Ministry of Information) cites 6M (2020), all the sources figures are also consistent with each other. The UN source is the outlier in this case and the only one that shows estimates in the 3,5M region and as heavily outnumbered it’s considered least credible, as pointed out numerous times. Leechjoel9 (talk)

• Comment on the current version of Leechjoel's statement: 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)
• Comment the WHO estimate is 5.0M (4.955M), not 5.2M. So, it's actually closer to the new DESA estimate than the COMESA estimate, for example. Also, in the "Government source (2020)" link, I can't find any reference to population. Is it in one of the articles on that page? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• OBJECT to inclusion of Bouds estimate of 3.5 million in 2021,Eritrea’s population count in 2002 was 3.5 million but now according to the reliable official sources as mentioned by Leech, the population is roughly 6 million. Bouds estimate is original research that is incorrect and not based in facts provided by the current sources.Clownshking (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Given the underlying uncertainty in the number (lack of quality statistics), the existence of the DESA figure should be acknowledged in the article. We've got five relatively current sources: CIA (6.14), COMESA (6.72M), ADB (5.5M), WHO (4.96M), and DESA (3.55), and two historical gov't figures: 3.56M in 2002, and 3.2M in 2010). As noted above, I can't find the current gov't source in that link. The average of the relative current sources is 5.4M, with a range from 3.5-6.75M. If the population was 3.2M in 2010 (per the gov't stat), then most of those figures would imply growth rates of 6-8% annually, which seems really high. I'd propose text along on the lines of "The lack of a formal census creates challenges for estimating Eritrea's population; estimates range from 3.5M to 6.75M, with most clustering around 5-6M."BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456 here is a new link [18] to the government 2020 6M citing. Also put in mind the WHO figures of 5M is five years ago, so in 2021 it would be more consistent with 6M and not the UN DESA figures. Here is a reference to 5,2M from the country department at WHO [19], from 2015. This seems to have been adjusted in the 2016 data set of WHO Global health observatory [20]. Leechjoel9 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not quite "the government", it is "Zeru Woldemichael Tesfazghi Chartered insurer, Chief Executive, National Insurance Corporation of Eritrea", and it's more of a personal essay than a government statistical office statement. He states 5.8 M, and he says, 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' or 'number eight' position for a few weeks, it's quite likely that in some sense, this is an "official" value circulating in Eritrea right now, even if the National Statistical Office is not involved. Boud (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (minor fix Boud (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

Boud your last part of this post is quite telling about your antiEritrea POV. I say that because I assumed you were discussing this with an open mind. However the accusation you made mentioning alleged torture titles attributed to the Eritrean military. I can tell you are from the region specifically Tigray. Now the question is why is a Tigrayan like yourself so interested in changing the population of Eritrea from 6 million to 3.5 million in this article?Clownshking (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The DESA number is completely wrong for the simple fact that Eritrea’s population since 1995 would’ve stayed at 3.5 million until 2021. The other sources are more accurate and based on factual data unless there is a bias against using government sources? If so, then the US census data should be disqualified? If not, then there is a bias against African governments.Clownshking (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We have a government source (National Statistics Office, cited in the UNICEF report, saying the population was 3.2M in 2010, and another saying it was 3.5M in 2002. So, the gov't itself is saying that the population didn't grow at all, and maybe even shrank, from 1995 to 2010.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The UN DESA Revision 2019 data says 2204.227 thousand for 1995 and 3546.427 thousand in 2020. That's exp(log(3546.427/2204.227)/25) = 1.0192, i.e. about 1.9% growth per year on average from 1995 to 2020. That may sound low, but a significant effect in the Eritrean population is massive emigration, and we don't have numbers on the mortality from crimes against humanity that the Universal Periodic Review reports take place in Eritrea itself. If you look at pdf page 41 of the 2010 NSO report, you'll see that the population pyramid is severely distorted: there's a huge lack of men in the 20-50 age range. Biologically, the reproduction rate is constrained by the number of women, but sociologically, that would require polygamy, with men having children with at least 2-3 women partners each, around 2010-ish. If social preferences are against de facto polygamy or against single women raising children and keeping the sperm donors anonymous, then the lack of men will constrain population growth.

Keep in mind that according to UN DESA Revision 2019, there was a slight drop in the population from 1990 to 2000. See the graph of the UN DESA 2019 Revision data. This decade was just after the TPLF + EPLF overthrew the Ethiopian government; and Eritrea became independent in 1993. A big historical event can quite reasonably explain an unusual demographic event. Boud (talk)

After the declared independence (1991-1993) population was ~3,1M. After this the population grew coming years, and during 2002 the population was 3,5M which the Ministry of Information source above state, not a local office. The population growth rate might also followed the economic growth rate of the country which has increased these years and GDP more than doubled between 1995-2020. Some years the pop. growth rate has been more significant than other years, so even if we entertain the idea of population of lower estimate in 2010 this could have increased due to other factors to reach figures near those of WHO and the other estimates presented above. The best in this case is not to speculate but rely on the sources which all besides UN DESA support a population in the 6M. To push for the single UN DESA source that is a outlier and is outnumbered should not even be considered as an option. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)