Talk:Ekpeye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Population
On 11 January 2007 a user with IP: 12.4.214.146 changed the population of the Ekpeye from 80,000 to 150,000 in their traditional area, Ahoada and Ogba-Egbema areas of Rivers State. I don't disagree that the 150,000 is a likely number for the current population, but I haven't found any citation. Ethnologue cites a 1973 value of 30,000 native speakers of the Ekpeye language, which may be less than the ethnic population especially given the regional preference for the Igbo language. --Bejnar 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- da Costa, Gilbert (30 December 2006) "Nigerian Census Result Avoids Controversy" Voice of America indicates that the details of the 2006 Nigerian census will not be released until after April 2007. The 2006 census excluded faith and ethnic background from the census questionnaire, so estimates will have to be by region. The previous census was in 1991 and did list ethnicity, which was the 80,000 figure. Reuters notes that "Three previous censuses in 1963, 1973 and 1991 ended in fiasco after wrangling among the three main ethnic groups. The results were either discredited or cancelled altogether." Onuah, Felix (29 December 2006) "Nigeria gives census result, avoids risky details" Reuters AlertNet. --Bejnar 10:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Nigerian National Population Commission said there was an overall increase of 63% since 1991. "The provisional results of Nigeria's first census in 15 years show that Africa's most populous nation has a population of more than 140 million" Modern Tribalist quoting BBC news. If that was a uniform increase that would have taken the Ekpeye population from 80 to 130 thousand, not to 150 thousand. --Bejnar 10:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. What do you think we should do? Go back to the sourced 80 thousand, or use your reasoning here and list 130 thousand? The 150 needs to go in any case. — mark ✎ 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Let's go with 80,000 (1991 census) 130,000 (est. 2006 census) and then correct it in May when the 2006 figures have been released, assuming that the ethnic data can somehow be extracted. I am not hopeful. --Bejnar 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
