Talk:Jewish population by country/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jewish population by metropolitan area

We cannot have a list of metropolitan areas that appears to be a rank-ordering of metropolitan areas, yet includes areas with such a low population that there are so obviously many cities missing. It is misleading (or simply inaccurate) to present a table claiming that Dublin is the metropolitan area with the 126th most Jews. 75.162.114.141 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

According to the article title this is supposed to be a country list so why all the stuff about towns and cities? Change the title or do a separate article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

With there being no suggestions to fix the content, I have simply removed it. 75.162.114.141 (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Table pmp vs pnp column

The pmp hover label 'per million people' doesn't identify which people, and for the casual reader it's not obvious that it means 'per million (country) people'.

The pmp large numbers are hard to see in perspective. pnp: percent national population would be more intuitive. It's the same value except for the decimal: 731,xxx becomes 73% pnp.

We'll need to distinguish that the pnp denominator is the national population, unrelated to the last (right) column National (Jewish) population. LarryLACa (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Table Eligible population source?

The source of the Eligible population column is not easily identifiable LarryLACa (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

definitions of pct and pmp in Table Legend.

the meaning of the abbreviations pct and pmp in the Table is not specified. It should be specifically detailed in related captions included in the Table Legend. For example, assuming that pct stands for percentage, the related caption would read: pct= percentage of such and such population... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malanzirotti (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hovering over them gives their definitions, but I've added them to a legend beneath the table, for the benefit of touchscreen users. — Guarapiranga ☎ 23:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Definition of Jewish or Jew.

This article is lacking a cohesiveness and coherence.

This article needs a "refers to" first sentence that explains what Jewish means. Is it defined by religion? By nationality? By territory? Then it needs the commensurate redirections and rectifications to correct the lack of cohesiveness and coherence.

Such as

This article refers to people who consider themselves to be Jewish (nation or religion?) or This article refers to people who are considered Jewish by Israel or This article refers to people that are considered Jewish by varying sources.

Absolutely Certainly (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you read it, though?

• Core Jewish population refers to those who consider themselves Jews to the exclusion of all else.
• Connected Jewish population includes the core Jewish population and additionally those who say they are partly Jewish or that have Jewish background from at least one Jewish parent.
• Enlarged Jewish population includes the Jewish connected population and those who say they have Jewish background but not a Jewish parent, and all non-Jews living in households with Jews.
• Eligible Jewish population includes all those eligible for immigration to Israel under its Law of Return.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 23:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Correctness of dataset for the table

First, I think the table provides a nice overview. However had, while I have no other data, the content seems a bit strange to me. For instance, it is listing many more jews in France than in Germany (almost 3x as many), but Germany is quite a bit larger than France (+18 million people or so, give or take).

Now, that may be accurate, but that's not the only confusing part I saw in the table. Would it be possible to accurately describe from WHERE that information was obtained, and when it was last updated? I guess the most accurate number we have is from Israel, but do all in Israel identify themselves as jews? And, conversely, outside of Israel, do all identify themselves as jews? That kind of is a problem with the definition. Is a "jew" someone with a specific religion? The number of people without religion is increasing in general, though. So the definition should be as objective as possible. The other entries here in the discussion page also query that, and I think wikipedia should try to be as correct as possible. There are tons of websites that are already inaccurate - let's try to make wikipedia as correct as possible. It does not need to be 100% correct, but it should explain the dataset and allow others to verify it and come to similar or the same conclusions as well. 2A02:8388:1641:4980:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

2 entries for israel and west bank

as israeli settlers in settlements in the west bank are defined by the state of israel as part of israel and see themselves as such, moreover, as there are no political barriers, pass controls etc. - politics nothwithstanding- - it makes little sense to separate them. they do not live in a country "west bank" after all... 77.125.160.37 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

16 M Jews at May 2023

Please stop to write there is 15 M in May 2023, we are 16 M. (0.2 % of World population) Alex Si1000 (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

yes 0.2 % is correct

but the entry says 0.002%

and this is a 100 to 1 error 2601:646:C500:2280:C1C0:67C5:25EB:C4B6 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pie Chart shows different percentages from Text

The pie chart suggests Russia has 20-30% Jews. The red below says 3% though. I suspect other numbers also don’t match up, but Russia is the obvious one here. 2003:CA:C703:F700:B91A:8DAA:A8C4:2CE6 (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the pie chart is wrong as compared with the percentages. The wedge representing Israel is too small and France is too large. According to the listed percentages, France Canada and Russia should appear about the same size and they do not. Hfcamp (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are many issues with this pie chart. Can it be revised or removed? Khane Rokhl Barazani (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The ambiguity of "pct" and the numbers below it, in the table.

The meaning of "pct" in the table is unclear, in some cases. And thus the meaning of the numbers in the columns labelled "pct". Mouse hovering reveals "percent of the total" which is ambiguous. I for one was sure it meant percentage of the (total) national population that are Jews. It was only after looking at the oldest "revision", the original version of the article that I realized that it might not mean what I thought it did.

One quick and easy fix, that should be implemented as soon as possible, although not a complete one, in my view, would be to change mouse over text so that it says clearly what the "pct" means. Or perhaps some text could be added to the table, or in the space above it. How about an asterisk or note explaining what "pct" means? Again, this might not be a complete fix, but something like this should, IMHO, be implemented immediately. I don't have a clue how to do these types of technically advanced type of editing, and it could take me days or weeks to master them, so, could someone else, if there's no objection, please do this? Polar Apposite (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A quick fix for now might be to add something to the title "Table" that either clarifies the meaning of "pct" (and "percentage of the total"?) or warns the reader to read the guide to the table before trying to use it. Polar Apposite (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people will just look at the table without reading any text before hand. Polar Apposite (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it becomes clear that pct means percentage of the worldwide Jewish population when you look at the last row of the chart. That said, it could possibly be improved by changing the hover to say "percent of worldwide population", or something similar. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point @FormalDude. I scrolled down to the last row just now, and saw it for the first time. It does become clear what pct means in this table when you see it, assuming that the reader is numerate and in possession of common sense. And if it were the first row instead of the last, nearly everyone would see it because you have to pass it as you scroll down to whatever nation they were interested in. Also, you kind of have to look at the header to even form any idea what the numbers in each column mean, and if that last row were the top row, you kind of couldn't miss it, right?

If that last row of the chart were moved to the top, it would be a big help to readers such as myself who didn't and wouldn't think to scroll to the end of the table. And anyway, that row should be at the top for other reasons, such as the fact that if what percentage of the total number of Jews in the world the number of Jews in each country represents is interesting, then surely that total itself must be? That last row is the foundation, and the context of all the other percentages.

The original version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_population_by_country&oldid=8321462 of the article in fact does have the world population of Jews as the top row, and I think that's why looking at this page allowed me to see what "pct" actually meant in this table.

The totals in the regions of the world are also interesting, but that's perhaps another matter. Polar Apposite (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: Moving the bottom row to the top goes against how charts are normally formatted. I think your options here are to boldy change the {{abbr}} from "percent of total" to "percent of total world population" and see what happens, or do nothing. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a rule (does the MOS say anything relevant to this case?) that says all charts must or should be formatted the way charts are normally formatted? If not, I'd say the harm of misleading a large fraction of readers, including (dare I say it?) above average intelligence readers such as myself, outweighs the harm (if any - I don't see any at all) of being formatted in a way that is not normal. Polar Apposite (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

For example, I had concluded from the top row (Israel) that Israel's population was mostly not Jews, and that I must have been laboring under a misconception all these years by thinking that Israel had a Jewish majority.

Note that this would make a lot of people then conclude that Palestinians must be the majority in Israel, and then (based on this wrong idea) sympathize with those who are already, in the media, drawing parallels with South Africa during the era when it was controlled by a white minority.

And even when I studied the U.S. row, and saw it was absurdly wrong, I concluded that a decimal point much have been missed out. It was, for me at least, highly counterintuitive for "pct" or "percent of the total" to mean "percent of the world Jewish population". But as @FormalDude has pointed out, it all becomes clear instantly if (a very big "if") the reader sees the World row. Polar Apposite (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If I had to bet I'd say you're one of the few people, if not the only person, who made such a grave misassumption by not reading the entire chart. Nobody else has ever brought this up before, it's more than likely just a you problem. Not everyone thinks the exact same way you do, and you need to consider that your thought process may be the problem when things like this occur, and not jump right to thinking the page is misleading. It's definitely not misleading, it's just potentially not as clear as it possibly could be by changing the hover text for pct. This discussion has gone on far too long now, either do that or move on. I'm not gonna keep discussing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was planning to change the hover, because the hover should be changed, regardless of whether the "World" row is moved to the top, but I first need to learn *how* to do that. I don't know how to do that kind of editing. I expect I can learn how but I also expect it will take time. I said in the OP:

"I don't have a clue how to do these types of technically advanced type of editing, and it could take me days or weeks to master them, so, could someone else, if there's no objection, please do this?"

By the way, I'm not saying you *should* have done it, but I am curious why, if you agree that it is a good idea, you didn't do it yourself.

There's no need for anyone to "bet" (which I take to mean "guess". It should be easy enough to find out whether the chart is misleading, by showing it to some random people (or readers of Wikipedia) and asking them some questions to test their understanding. It's not a matter of taste, or a subjective question, at the end of the day.

"It's definitely not misleading". How do you know that? It seems clear to you. It seems misleading to me. How can you know that you are right? You sound awfully confident. Are you speaking for a group that had a discussion that I wasn't privy to?

Regarding the fact that no one has, as far as you know, brought this up before, may I remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

You wrote: " it's more than likely just a you problem". May I ask why you are so angry about this (if you are not, I apologize)? I am just trying to help. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not angry, I'm just becoming tired with such a long discussion over such an inconsequential matter.

In this case, with a page that receives 237,727 monthly views, the absence of evidence is evidence. It suggests that plenty of random Wikipedia readers did not find it misleading.

I'd be happy to add the correction to the hover, but I'm not 100% sure it's needed. You should be able to figure out how to change it by reading the instructions at Template:Abbr. If not, you could make a edit request or ask for help at the Teahouse. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Two bits of wrong information, that are each possible cases of *serious* vandalism

"According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, between 2010 and 2015 "an estimated one million babies were born to Jewish mothers and roughly 600,000 Jews died, meaning that the natural increase in the Jewish population – i.e., the number of births minus the number of deaths – was 500,000 over this period".^{[failed verification][dubious – discuss]} According to the same study, over the next four decades the number of Jews around the world is expected to increase from 14.2 million in 2015 to 20.3 million in 2060.Template:Contradicted by the citation^{[dubious – discuss]}"

I added the four tags. The "contradicted by the citation" tab came out in wrong font. I couldn't see how to fix it, so I figured it was better than nothing, and left it like that.

There seems to be at least two cases of wrong information here. I suspect vandalism in both cases, partly because the numbers don't even add up in either case (which is what first caught my attention), and partly because the are *very* different from what the citation says in the second case, and completely absent from the citation in the first case. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is from the citation given: "Jews, the smallest religious group for which separate projections were made, are expected to grow by 15%, from 14.3 million in 2015 to 16.4 million worldwide in 2060.5" Polar Apposite (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The material was added at 07:24 on 27th November 2020, by a user who is currently blocked (I think it's a permanent block), and seems to have been there continuously until now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_population_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=990919743

So this *obviously* wrong information was (some has been fixed) and has been (some is still there, pending someone fixing this, or confirmation that I am allowed to edit this article or some sort of encouragement from someone) sitting there undisturbed for just over two years and eleven months. Pretty surprising, to me, given that the article has had over a million views during the time that paragraph was there. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that what was added to the article in that initial edit must have been edited to make it contain even more wrong information at some later time. This is what was added at 07:24 on 27th November 2020:

"According to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey, between 2010 and 2015 "an estimated one million babies were born to Jewish mothers and roughly 600,000 Jewish died, meaning that the natural increase in the Jewish population – i.e., the number of births minus the number of deaths – was 500,000 million over this period". according to same study, over the next four decades the number of Jews around the world is expected to increase from 14.2 million in 2015 to 16.3 million in 2060."

It says "16.3 million in 2060", which is off by a hundred thousand, but not far wrong. It is only the first part with it's wrong subtraction "One million minus six hundred thousand equals five hundred thousand".

So now I am wondering when "16.3 million" got changed to "20.3 million", and who made the edit. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm only going to address how you get these annotations into an article. Do not use the "sup" markup or anything similar. This is assuming that you are editing the wikitext (i.e. not using the visual editor) , you need to use templates, such as {{dubious}} or {{failed verification}}. Oh, and note that I am using the {{tlp}} template so that those other templates display the template rather than the results of using the template.

When adding one of these templates, a bot will come along a minute later and append the date, so it looks like {{dubious|date=October 2023}} or {{failed verification|date=October 2023}}. I dislike having the extra edit in the article history, so I try to remember and include the date parameter when I add such templates.

Sorry, it's going to take me a while before I get back to your other questions. Due to my limited familiarity with this, figuring out how to get the {{tlp}} template to use a parameter with an "equal sign" (so I could show you how to enter the dates) perplexed me for long enough that I have some other things I need to deal with in real life. Fabrickator (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the 16.4 million projection by Pew for 2060 based on the cited source. I'm going to wholesale remove the other factoid because I found nothing.

• Google yields only results from Wikipedia.
• According to the edit summary, the text in question was copied from Growth of religion.
• That article's history has Special:Diff/988781591, which copies text from the article Jews
• The version of Jews on that day has no such text or citation.
• An archive of the cited Pew source shows no such statement.
• The editor in question was blocked as a sockpuppet.
• The master account has been blocked for various reasons, including inserting false info (per the master's oldest block log entry from 2007).

tl;dr Even accounting for any confirmation bias, safer to remove the unsubstantiated text than to leave it in. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)