| ▲ | jjk166 an hour ago | |
> It's an article, not a 20 page research analysis. It provides detail aappropriate to its scope. And if it merely cited the 20 page research analysis someone else did, that would be fine, but it doesn't. The article also is rather disingenuous, leaving out a lot of context. Looking closer, this was not some isolated UN estimate. Instead the UN was generating estimates every year, and the 2022 study was conducted differently because of covid. Subsequent UN estimates also went back to the original numbers. Also it wasn't a report that was buried, the numbers were released in 2022, they were revised down in 2023 after the UN conducted its next study. Seems like quite the omission. > If you disagree, it's up to you to provide additional evidence to the contrary, not just arguments. While arguments presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, sure here's the CIA estimate for the population which is in close agreement with both PNG's internal estimate and the actually adopted UN estimate. While the CIA is hardly the ultimate source of truth, the arguments that PNG pressured the UN to change its estimates for its own internal political reasons can't possibly explain the CIA coming to the same conclusion. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/about/archives/2023/c... > The article devotes a paragraph on why the UN didn't release the report. The article spends a paragraph insinuating an ulterior motive while giving no evidence it is anything other than pure speculation. > But the article is going into depth to defend its reporting, and you're not. The article throws claims against the wall. It is obliged to defend them and it fails. That I can find contradictory evidence with a 30 second google search is convenient but irrelevant. Even if would take a year of extensive research to refute the claim, it does not change the fact the claim was never supported to begin with. | ||
| ▲ | crazygringo 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | |
I mean, I'm not an expert on any of this, but I'm looking it up and you seem to be quite wrong: > Looking closer, this was not some isolated UN estimate. Instead the UN was generating estimates every year, and the 2022 study was conducted differently because of covid. It seems it was indeed an isolated UN estimate, done in conjunction with the University of Southampton, conducted because the country's census was cancelled, supposedly due to COVID. Yes the UN provides yearly estimates, but this was a separate research project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Papua_New_Guin... > Subsequent UN estimates also went back to the original numbers. Also it wasn't a report that was buried, the numbers were released in 2022, they were revised down in 2023 after the UN conducted its next study. Seems like quite the omission. As far as I can tell, all reporting states that the report remains publicly unavailable. The numbers weren't "released", they were leaked. > While arguments presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, sure here's the CIA estimate for the population which is in close agreement with both PNG's internal estimate and the actually adopted UN estimate. The CIA World Factbook isn't trying to maximize accuracy using new techniques. They're mainly relying on official data provided by the countries themselves. > Estimates and projections start with the same basic data from censuses, surveys, and registration systems, but final estimates and projections can differ as a result of factors such as data availability, assessment, and methods and protocols. | ||