Comment by crazygringo

> Everything I've said is backed up by sources.

I've already pointed out a bunch of claims you made that are directly contradicted by sources.

> They updated it prior to publication in July 2023.

That Lowry Institute link is unclear. It says it "revised down", but the first link says the original report was leaked, and many other sources say it was leaked as well. I can't find anything saying it was ever officially released. If it was officially published as you claim, then please link to it.

> and an entire new census in 2024, all of which are nowhere near the 17 million estimate.

Right, the whole point is that the census methodology is potentially massively undercounting the rural population, for the entirely plausible reasons given. Flawed results that are more recent aren't less flawed just because they're more recent.

> How is every other independent estimate disagreeing with the 17 million figure not a clear contradiction of the article's implicit claim that the 17 million estimate is more accurate?

Because they're all implicitly based on the official census numbers and they can't even read the report, since it was buried. If they can't even read it because the report was suppressed, then they're going to have a hard time incorporating its estimates, aren't they?

> I'm going to go with all of them over a random article which makes incredible claims with no evidence.

The article is repeating the same claims based on this academic study/report that have been reported extensively elsewhere. You can trust whichever you want, but the claim that PNG is faking their population data seems entirely plausible from current reporting. The author isn't making it up out of thin air. It's been extensively reported. It's in Wikipedia. They don't seem to be "incredible claims", just repeating mostly well-known information.