Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem

Montefiore 1839 "estimates" exaggerated

"Writing in 1841, the biblical scholar Edward Robinson noted the conflicting demographic estimates regarding Jerusalem during the period, stating in reference to an 1839 estimate by Moses Montefiore: "As to the Jews, the enumeration in question was made out by themselves, in the expectation of receiving a certain amount of alms for every name returned. It is therefore obvious that they here had as strong a motive to exaggerate their number, as they often have in other circumstances to underrate it." The Montefiore headcount of 1839 was not an estimate, but a detailed census. The census is available online and lists every person by full name, age and place of birth (in total 1,617 families in Jerusalem). How is it an estimate or an exaggeration? Additionally, Robinson adds right after this neatly severed quote: "Besides, this number of 7000 rests merely on report; Sir Moses himself has published nothing on the subject; nor could his agent in London afford me any information so late as Nov. 1840." So he wasn't addressing the census at all, but some rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.162.66 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I ran a small test. Counting the members of 300 Sephardi families (out of 1,362 in total) I found 854 individuals, making the average Sephardi family in 1839 2.84 members strong. The total number of Sephardis would thus be around 3,877. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.37.128.97 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How is a ‘small test’ relevant in response to a factual demographic count? 49.184.149.207 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

Your 1905 Census showing 13,000 Jews of a 32,000 populaion is Off the Wall wrong: -

-

Jerusalem Growth http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm - (Catholic Ency, Edition VIII, 1910)

-

"..5. Present condition of the city (1905)

-

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. - - The total population is estimated at 66,000. - The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century Large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population..""

- 

-

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present - ....... Jews Muslims Christians Total -

-

1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000 - - - 1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ....... The First Official Ottoman Census

-

1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .......Second """"""""""

-

1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ..... Third/last, detailed Catholic Encyc above - 1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300 1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400 1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000 http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm"]http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

-

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.20.88 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What figures in this table are attributed to PASSIA and where on that site are they found? Figures from Focus on Jerusalem are entirely unsourced in the external link provided and the site does not appear to be a reliable and reputable source, in any event.--DieWeibeRose 10:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding external links but this still does not solve the problem of sourcing particular statistics. As you know, the historical population distribution of Jerusalem is a matter of some controversy. I think the matter deserves a more careful documentation such as notes on individual figures or on the year, perhaps. The 1844 figures are still not from a reliable or verifiable source. Also, there are discrepancies between the external sources provided. For example, for the year 1922, compare Israeli - Palestinian ProCon.org[1] with Mideastweb[2]. I would think that all verifiable figures should be presented in the table.--DieWeibeRose 03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to help here, using reputable sources and noting each figure. If there is competing data, we should list it her (such as the 1948 UN estimate) it should be included. The Mideast web data looks quite solid, though. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. I've moved the Focus on Jerusalem link to external links since it is not a source. I'm inclined to delete it entirely unless someone objects.--DieWeibeRose 07:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In relation to a political document, is there any doubt of the importance of its author and payer? Yet, DieWeibeRose first omitted and later removed this vital information. Is there a good reason? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the data seems to conflict with the demographics of the British Mandate of Palestine article. On that article, the population in Jerusalem in 1945 is set as 103,520 Muslims, but the Muslim population on this article in 1944 is set as 30,600. That is a VERY big discrepancy, especially according to this article's chart where the Muslim population does not reach this high of a number until the 1980's. Anyone know what's going on? 66.75.241.149 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - the table there is the population of districts, not cities. The Jerusalem district was much larger than the actual city, including other towns and villages. I believe it included Bethlehem, for instance. As that article explains, Palestine was divided into 16 districts, named after the major city they contained. okedem (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[unnamed thread]

I was looking for the population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, couldn't find it anywhere on the wikipedia Jerusalem articles. After finding it somewhere else, I added it to this page. I think it's an important bit of information, even if the number is only a rough estimate. Feel free to move it into the table or edit it some other way, like changing it to 0BCE or something like that.--R0 25 March 2006

Intercommunal relations

Do you guys envision a place for the deleted Intercommunal relations section in a separate article or in some other existing article? The content was merged from Jerusalemite, which is now a redirect, after some discussion there. nadav (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the same kind of information that exists on so many of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pages. If there is an especially germane fact, then it should be merged. My specific rationale:

• the "Qudsi" line seems to be the only really encyclopaedic bit, but it is extrapolated from a vaguely worded comment by the writer of the feature. If the phenomena is truly notable, it should have better sourcing.
• Catholic relations bit should be in one of the religion Jerusalem subarticles, or due to its broad scope, in Religion in Israel or Roman Catholicism in Israel, assuming that the source is judged reliable (of which I'm not certain, though the phenomena may be accurate).
• If there will be a discussion of the level of social interaction between the demographic groups, it should be multiply sourced to discussion of Jerusalem's unique situation, and not based on a noncentral aside mentioned in a thesis on the related but not on-topic issue of film as a conduit to dialogue.
• Facts about the al-Aqsa Intifada and Status of East Jerusalem residents are amply mentioned in those entries.

To reiterate, we shouldn't be repeating information about the general conflict here, and if we are going to create a socialogic discussion, then it should have high-quality relevant and explicit sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Muqaddasi quote

"In 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi stated that "The mosque is empty. The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population"."

Hi all, this is a very nice quote but on its own, without any context explaining the shifts after the Muslim invasion, it seems out of place. It also comes across as an attempt to say the Jews were were before the Palestinians. It would be nice to see the quote re-inserted. Please find a way to balance it within some context. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Population Table

I came here open-minded, but I have to say, the table is very very strange. I get the impression the table's starting point seems to be the Jewish population (Did I misunderstand?) This seems a bit strange on a page that is not titled: "Jewish presence in Jerusalem" but rather "Demographics of Jerusalem." A single table on Jerusalem's population, not focused exclusively, or mainly, on the Jewish population, could not be found? Am I completely off here? Can someone please explain? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the table is a bit strange. It also contradicts the first paragraph of the article, which states that "For over 160 years, since 1844, Jerusalem has had a continuous Jewish majority." The table entries for 1947, 1876 and 1844 show a Jewish minority. So either the table is wrong or the 1844 claim is wrong. Since the table cites sources and the 1844 claim in lead paragraph does not, I suggest editing the 1844 claim. ThePhantomCopyEditor (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The problem was probably some confusion between plurality (largest community, compared to Muslims and Christians), and majority (above 50% of the total population). I rewrote that sentence to clarify. okedem (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to change title of page

This page is about the demographic HISTORY of Jerusalem - can we please change the title.88.110.137.157 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of numerical accuracy

As currently written, the article seems to be trying to prove a point. As most of the numbers pre-20th century are estimates from foreign travellers rather than official figures, some discussion about the robustness of the historical numbers would be merited. Particularly in light of the fact that each of these foreign travellers had their own agendas for providing the data. Also some historical context behind the moving numbers would be helpful - e.g. Pre-Zionist Aliyah and Tanzimat.88.110.137.157 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have made an effort to add more numbers, and add some historical context. Am struggling to identify some of the underlying sources though. 88.110.197.165 (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

changes by User:Oncenawhile

i reverted the recent changes because i noticed some unexplained content removals such as this described as "tidying up." I encourage any changes to be made clear, consistent with sourcing, and with correct edit summaries. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits were not been explained, but that does not challenge their validity - it's not acceptable to revert all changes on that basis. You can see from the history that many edits were made - there was no attempt to hide anything. This is not a complex article, so we can discuss here - it's not reasonable to ask me to go back and change one by one. The article is clearly much improved now - obviously keen to improve further so please don't hold back on commenting on the content. Re your specific point, the deletion of the reference to King David founding in 3,000BC was because was just obviously incorrect - see any of the history-related articles on Jerusalem in WP.Oncenawhile (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting estimates

Tritomex, please could you kindly explain your reasons for your continued reversions? I think this may be simply a language issue, as I do not understand what you are saying:

• "User Oncenawhile edition is again makin up claimes as the claime he posted dosen't exist on the page which he offered.Also there is no such holiday as Halukka.Beyond this all sources indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority)"
  • • Q: which claims are you talking about - they are all clearly sourced to WP:RS?
    • Q: What do you mean "holiday as Halukka"?!
    • Q: What does "indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority" mean? I agree that they all show at least "relative" majority (also known as "plurality") - the version you reverted acknowledges that.
• "As all sources given indicate Jewish majority,I changed the name of section from "conflicting reports to Jewish majority while the source (without veb page reference) Harel (1874) is misquoted I removed the falls claime and corected the refernces)"
  • • Q: they do not all show majority - something you accept above by reference to "relative majority"?
    • Q: what is the "Harel (1874)" reference you are referring to?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hy Oncenawhile

Yes I made two corrections.Fist I corrected the name of the chapter as all sources given indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority.I don't see any conflicting results given.Second the reference Harrel and Stendel, 1974 was quoted twice,once correctly which I left and second time incorrectly,(showing two different results).I removed it.

Third I didn't remove the only source indicating Muslim plurality in section 1830-69: Conflicting estimates regarding Muslim or Jewish plurality ref Yigal Shiloh, 1980 [11]although the page given is nonfunctional.

There was one additional quote given which didn't match the source which was given.I would like to see that quote on the page,but given correctly without misleading interpretations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tritomex, to your points:

1) The sections have been split to show the point from which a jewish "full" majority is clear (1922) versus where there are conflicting estimates as to whether that majority was "full" or "relative" (1893-1922). Can I suggest we change the subtitle to "1893-1922: Conflicting estimates regarding whether Jews were a full majority or "relative majority" (plurality)"

2) The Harrel and Stendel numbers from 1896 which you removed are actually correct - I have double checked them. Both authors show tables in their articles, containing numbers for different years

3) There are three sources suggesting muslim plurality during that period - (i) Robinson; (ii) Miller and (iii) the 1850 source here which appears to be mislabelled

4) Re the quote, please feel free to amend as you see fit.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, please note that this page is subject to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction - please read this carefully as you have already violated it today. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile The only source which I dispute was the source regarding the calendar for Palestine (Harel and Stendel 1974) It seems to be falls claim. I suggest to leave the page without misleading conclusions,as I have done Just with demographic numbers and sources.I hope this solution will be acceptable by you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

New Sources

A very detailed table with additional sources here - I will add when I have a moment. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have that book, in case there is something Google won't let you see.. Zero^talk 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubious web page

jewish.history.com does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. As it says on the page, their "timeline" is based on a document presented by the Vaad Leumi to the UN in 1947 – in other words, on a document produced for propagandistic purposes. I will replace the counts from that document by those in an eminent source (Cohen and Lewis) which devotes 23 pages to the registers of 1525-1596. The Ottoman tax registers counted four types of person: heads of households, bachelors, religious men (usually only Muslim clerics included), and disabled men. It did not count adult men. These were classified into quarters and religious group. Numbers for the total population are given by some authors by multiplying households by a guess at the average size of the household. For example, Sharkansky has clearly calculated 6*324+13+1=1958, there being 324 households, 13 bachelors and 1 disabled. Bernard Lewis preferred the factor of 5. We can just give the raw data. Zero^talk 14:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zero, agree this is a much better and more comprehensive source - good work. Not sure about the way the new data is shown though - it's a bit complex to follow. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but what is a better way to show it? Zero^talk 00:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be my preference to use the Sharkansky method to add up the numbers, with each calculation explained clearly in the footnote. Would be much more user friendly whilst not losing any of the data. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but let's use the multiplying factor suggested in this source. I left the book at work today, so I'll check tomorrow. Zero^talk 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

C&L say that scholars have suggested multipliers between 5 and 7, and they prefer the "conjectural" multiplier of 6. So one thing we can do is present 6*(households+religious)+bachelors+disabled. It has an element of OR about it, but maybe not too much to get away with. An alternative is to simply add the four numbers and call it "adult men". That would be more precise but less useful to a casual reader. Zero^talk 10:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the 6 multiplier makes for easier understand than the "adult men" version, as is much more comparable. And i definitely don't think it is OR, because you have mentioned a number of RS which use and discuss the multiplier. The only question in my mind is which multiplier to use, and 6 seems to be around the middle of the sources you have quoted. Perhaps "notes" with the calculations, with the number 6 referenced to the RS? Oncenawhile (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm onto it. Zero^talk 02:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero, just to say thanks - it looks great. Interesting to see that the population seems to have trebled in 30 years after the ottomans took over. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Debate about sources and info on land ownership in Jerusalem up to 1945

In addition to the debate about sources here (i.e. regarding different travelers to the land and their methods or biases); all sources say land ownership in Jerusalem even up till 1945 was almost all Arab [3] The land ownership breakdown in 1945 for Jerusalem: 84% Arab owned, 2% Jewish owned, 14% Public and other: [4]. Anybody have information related to this, where were different Jewish settlers (primarily from Europe) living in this period? Obviously they had to have a roof over their head and not be living outside, were they living mostly in property that was Arab owned? Any scholarly info on this would be of interest.Historylover4 (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody have a scholarly source discussing the issue of land ownership in the Jerusalem subdistrict? [5] this 1945 source by the United Nations says that land ownership by percentage in Palestine in 1945 CE was again as follows; 84% Palestinian Arab owned, 2% Jewish owned, and 14% Public and Other. How does this relate to land ownership visa-a-via 1945-1946 stats like these [6]. Did Jews not legally own the land their population in Jerusalem was living on; in the year 1945? (again when this UN map source breaking down land ownership by percentages is from [7]). Again anyone with information on the land ownership issues should post something about it.Historylover4 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have scholarly sources discussing this, because it is again undeniable that in 1945 land ownership in the Jerusalem subdistrict of the British Mandate of Palestine was "84% Arab owned, 2% Jewish owned, and 14% Public and Other" [8].

British Mandate of Palestine source Survey of Palestine 1946

This pro-Palestinian website cites the work of the British Mandate authorities in Palestine in 1946 "A Survey of Palestine" [9]

Discussing the Jerusalem Sub-District [10], note the map, overall it says the Jerusalem Sub-District's total 1946 population was: 253,270; with 104,460 being "Moslems" (42.24%), 102,520 being "Jews" (40.48%), and 46,130 being "Christians" (18.21%). Info should be made about the different regions of the Sub-District of Jerusalem itself.Historylover4 (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem Sub-District was a lot larger than Jerusalem. There were lots of extra villages (mostly Muslim) included. However you added the numbers to a table about Jerusalem. You can find the figures for Jerusalem on the previous page (p 151). Zero^talk 10:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Section "Demographic key dates"

It seems to me that many of the items in this list are not much about demographic history at all, but are just historical dates with little consistency. Who will object if I prune it? Zero^talk 09:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

historylover's recent edits

Am I missing something obvious or did historylover4 just remove a whole bunch of sourced material, specifically relating to a Jewish majority? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed material that had no link to a source (and more importantly did not even provide any form of what its' supposed primary source was) and I removed some other sections that were poorly written and included many "citation needed" notes (someone with solid links should rewrite that section if they want). I then also added info from the British Mandate authorities 1945-1946 "Survey of Palestine [11] [12]Historylover4 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, You're not missing anything, and I wonder if there is some list of massacres we should include that edit sequence on. But seriously, do you know this "Harrel and Stendel"? Maybe it is a Hebrew source, since I don't find a trace of it in English. User Goodoldpolonius2 added it in 2006 as Harrel and I'm suspicious because it had "The Harrel numbers are also used in Mitchell Geoffrey Bard" right from the beginning and maybe we are looking at a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. We shouldn't sink so low as to rely on Bard, but all is not lost as there are tons of good sources. I will return the mandate-era figures with better sources soon. Regarding the 19th century, I have an academic book which lists 94 estimates between 1806 and 1882 (but amazingly most of the "Harrel and Stendel" numbers from that period are not in the list). However the numbers vary so much that I'm not sure how to proceed; any selection would look like OR as it would be easy to make the Jewish fraction look high or low as I pleased. I'm thinking about a graphic instead. One other thing: the completely unsourced paragraph of text about trends since 1967 really did need to go. Zero^talk 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite what historylover says, there was a source (which he also removed). It was sourced to "Manashe Harrel, "The Jewish Presence in Jerusalem through the Ages" and Ori Stendel "The Arabs in Jerusalem", in Sinai and Oestericcher, eds., Jerusalem, John Day, 1974". I'm going to revert the whole bunch of edits and restore the text that has been there for what, 5 years? You can remove the unsourced paragraph if you like.

Regarding your 19th century source, maybe we can include it in a collapsible table? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it is annoyingly obscure. I don't see it on worldcat.org, amazon, google books, etc.. I only found one mention (a book in Italian) that was not a wikipedia derivative. Can you do better? Zero^talk 15:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

[13]] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Good. Oesterriccher not Oestericcher. Now that we've established I'm useless at searches, here is why I think we should change the periodisation from someone's uncited OR (2.4.1 Muslim "relative majority", 2.4.2 Muslim or Jewish "relative majority", 2.4.3 Jews as a full or relative majority, 2.4.4 Jewish majority) to time periods like "19th century" etc.. I've included every number listed in two good sources. I'll add other sources if they are good quality and I can include all their points (not someone's selection). It is obviously impossible to objectively state when Jews became a "relative majority" or whatever. The only thing certain is that Jews became an absolute majority by 1890 at the latest. I'm going to put this graphic into the article but I want to check it and look at my other books for more data points first. Zero^talk 16:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Survey of Palestine done by the Mandate in 1945-1946 is a source [14] that includes a google book academic link with text [15]. If "Stendel and Harrel" are going to be included (who are they?) some link to there actual sources should be provided not just statements with no links even to go to. Also these "Stendel and Harrel" numbers liking a link of a source to go to; are quite different than every other source presented around them in the tables. Historylover4 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. A link is a courtesy, it's not required. If you have an issue with sources that have been in the article for over 5 years, you can take it to RS/N. You have now removed the same reliably sourced material for a second time. I suggest you undo your last edit or I will seek admin intervention regarding this and some other policy violations I've seen you commit. If you want to put the Survey stuff back in, you can do that without removing reliably sourced material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are "Stendel and Harrel"? The numbers that give them as a source, include figures that are again much different than every other one on the various tables. Because of this large discrepancy a direct source link should be provided as to what "Stendel and Harrel" base themselves upon (one source using whoever these two people are, as we have no links for them, is a "Dummies" book generically said to be about the "Middle East conflict" written by a former Israeli government official). Others have noted this discrepancy in this talk page even. The fact that "Stendel and Harrel" may have been here for a while, doesn't mean they or their numbers should stay if it has no link and is widely different than every other citation and set of numbers/estimates provided (again in the various tables, with actual links and direct sources easily provided).Historylover4 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A source for the separate works of Harrel and Stendel was in the article. You can't just delete it and claim it doesn't exist, which is what you just did. It looks to me like a reasonable source and I don't see a reason to doubt it. However I ordered it on interlibrary loan to get a better look. The census figures from there exactly match what the census reports say. Zero^talk 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It needs a link, especially since it is much different than all the other sources cited (that include links). Also how does this compare to an authoritative source like the Survey of Palestine in the Mandate [16], [17], [18] the book available to read online; and also how is this related to land ownership by sub-district in Palestine (1945 CE study to be exact, UN map) [19],Historylover4 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, a link is not required, it's a courtesy. You should read WP:RS and perhaps consult with an experienced editor that you trust before you get yourself into trouble.

Do I understand correctly that you refuse to correct the policy violation (removing sourced material) you committed? I will not be asking again. I notice that you have received the ARBPIA warning. In case you were not aware, this page falls under the discretionary sanctions mentioned there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, we have to stop agreeing like this; it's unhealthy. Zero^talk 09:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I know! I will think of an appropriate conspiracy theory to explain this. Will keep you posted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I have the book edited by Oesterreicher and Sinai, including the separate papers of Harel and Stendel. These are "reliable sources" but not much to get excited about. Stendel gives a subset of the values that Harel gives, but adds sources where Harel has none. I added them to the scatter plot above; you can see it doesn't change the picture. I also added a table from McCarty's book. Now there are 172 points plotted, which ought to be enough. Zero^talk 07:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling the average reader won't be able to make sense of that chart. Feel free to put it in though. Do you want to remove all the tables or just add this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposal: add as a table all the data from Kark & Oren-Nordheim, plus the chart. Kark's table contains 28 values from 1806–1945 and you can see from the chart (open diamonds, red crosses, and open circles) that it is reasonably representative. Adding numbers from other random places wouldn't help much (except post-1945). The only thing that concerns me is that maybe it would be a copyright violation to reproduce a whole table, what do you think? There's also the question of whether to provide the original source for each datum. In the book the list of sources takes most of a page. Zero^talk 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about copyright issues to give an opinion one way or another. I think one footnote with all the sources should be good. Maybe you could just scan it if it's too much work to type in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero, is there any way you could send me the Parfitt source? I have Kark and I have Harrel already. Separately, to your suggestion above re adding Kark, I compared it line by line from 1800-1882 and you'll see that within that date range all the Kark datapoints are already included. It seems from your graphic above that Parfitt has more data than anyone else, so it would be interesting to see what his primary sources were. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Demographic key dates

In this section there are several entries such as "The Third Aliyah results in 35,000 Jewish immigrants entering the Mandatory Palestine region." Since this article is about Jerusalem Demographics and not immigration figures to Mandatory Palestine or its Demographic, can someone(I couldn't) find the info on the effect of those aliyah's to Jeruslaem Demographic or remove those entries.--Mor2 (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that information exists - the only available data is the number of people who entered the country, but noone recorded where they went to live (other than in the population statistics in this article).

I have another suggestion however. I am not a big fan of the "demographic key dates" section, but i think it serves an important purpose to explain the changes in population. Perhaps a better way to do this would be to replace the section with short explanatory paragraphs about demographic movements before each table, i.e. spread throughout the article, in the same style as we have for this section: Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem#Muslim_or_Jewish_.22relative_majority.22

What do you think?

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Historical population figures

In considering the population of the city during the Roman period, we are given these two points:

• "The population of Jerusalem in the time of Josephus has been estimated to be around 80,000"
• "During the first Jewish-Roman war (66–73 CE) the population of Jerusalem was estimated at 600,000 persons by Roman historian Tacitus, while Josephus, estimated that there were as many as 1,100,000, who were killed in the war."

First, the second point is really two totally distinct points, as well as being unclear. Were 1.1 million killed all through Judea? Roman and Jewish casualties? Just native population? What? And by commingling these two points, one can read in an implication that Josephus was saying Tacitus was wrong with his estimate, i.e. "If 1.1 million were killed, how could the population only have been 600K?" The best assumption is that 1.1 million were killed for the course of the entire war, Roman and Jewish casualties alike, but this needs to be clarified.

Second, the implication of these two statements together is that the population of Jerusalem dropped by an entire order of magnitude between 66 CE and "Josephus' time", i.e. before 100 CE. That's absolutely possible, of course--it was a brutal war--but is that really the case? Did the population of Jerusalem really drop from 600K to 80K in less than 20 years? Again, this needs to be clarified.

There's also no information about Demographics from Josephus' time to the Middle Ages--a gap of about 1000 years, which is pretty significant. Does someone have the information for this period?

I apologize for merely bringing up the issues without suggesting fixes, but extensive googling has not helped me clarify these points, so I thought I'd throw them out there for people to discuss and hope there was someone on the board more of a historian than myself. :) Dougom (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

Your 1905 Census showing 13,000 Jews out of 32,000 total population is Very wrong.

Catholic encylopedia (1907 edition) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08364a.htm

[.....] "Present condition of the city"

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. [b]The total population is estimated at 66,000. The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures: Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000; [/b]Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites,ú Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly half the present population.

See also the MANY estimates on Table 2 just a slight but down in his link. Almost all about 45,000 out of 66,000. http://books.google.com/books?id=f_ABAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=ottoman+census+1905,+jerusalem&source=bl&ots=9VXBqpeNgV&sig=U2cyPxxOzLouWTr3PoewbpaJkF4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dh8FVIWmMs2nggT0oICIAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ottoman%20census%201905%2C%20jerusalem&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.20.88 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Our modern academic source is much stronger than a 1907 encyclopaedia. I checked the source and it contains the numbers in our table. However, the source makes it clear that only Ottoman citizens are counted yet most of the Jews and many Christians were not Ottoman citizens. I put that information in. Zero^talk 03:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Restrictions on Jews

The 1721 burning of the Hurva synagogue and expulsion of Ashkenazim should be listed among Demographic key dates. The quota imposed on Jews up until 1799 (in the mid-17th century it was 500, later on reportedly 2,000) could also be mentioned in the article, although it wasn't always implemented. --ארינמל (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Source? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of primary sources, but since it has to be secondary how about this: "Finally, in 1721, their Muslim creditors, tired of waiting for their money and seeing their repeated warnings go unheeded, destroyed the synagogue. The Ashkenazis were driven from the city, and after that any European Jew caught in Jerusalem was liable to be held for the outstanding debts." - Between Redemption and Revival: The Jewish Yishuv of Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century by Jeff Halper.--ארינמל (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. But it doesn't mention the quota, and it seems important to mention the context. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Historical context

The article is very sloppy at present. What is the purpose of providing estimates of the population without any context? Take Nahmanides for example. Quoting him on finding two Jews in Jerusalem in 1267 (his estimates of 300 Christians and 1,700 Muslims were left out for some reason) without his account of the Jewish community having been slain by the sword or fled in 1260 is simply pointless. The tables should serve as a visualization following a description of each period. I also have to question the division of the tables into Muslim and Jewish relative majority. Why make this distinction? Wouldn't a written description of the changing majority followed by a single table suffice without this extra emphasis? Besides, several estimates of a Jewish relative majority were made between 1750 and 1830, and the accuracy of most sources prior to the 20th century is limited. There were even some 19th century estimates of a Christian majority. With regard to the Jews, certain Christian groups had an agenda of emphasizing their return to the Holy Land. For the Ottoman registers I would quote an early 18th century account of the many measures taken by the Jewish community to avoid taxation, which included hiding in the streets. Jews also have a religious opposition to being counted (Hosea 1:10), which at least one European traveler wrote about. The Muslims, besides taxation, also had to worry about enlistment, and their female population largely remained at home. For the 1931 census Muslim women and girls were counted through locked doors. --ארינמל (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add the context, assuming you will bring reliable sources to support it. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm barred from altering this article until I have five hundred edits to my name, but I've started working. --ארינמל (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Put your wording here and i’ll add it. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Demographic history of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070513102025/http://jewishhistory.com:80/jh.php?id=Timeline&content=Timeline to http://www.jewishhistory.com/jh.php?id=Timeline&content=Timeline#
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101210065839/http://www.mishkenot.org.il:80/en/secmain.asp?secid=1 to http://www.mishkenot.org.il/en/secmain.asp?secid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Demographic history of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070213095518/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/dd53e072b16b507485257003004fe1fa!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/dd53e072b16b507485257003004fe1fa!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20011125114628/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/533b4714451b48bf0525651b00488d02!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/533b4714451b48bf0525651b00488d02!OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographic history of Jerusalem. 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/20110515000000/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A8138AD15B0FCAC385256B920059DEBF to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A8138AD15B0FCAC385256B920059DEBF

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographic history of Jerusalem. 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/20120308174629/http://www.crethiplethi.com/download/memoranda1.pdf to http://www.crethiplethi.com/download/memoranda1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308174648/http://www.crethiplethi.com/download/memoranda2.pdf to http://www.crethiplethi.com/download/memoranda2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080407044619/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_14.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004112357/http://www.passia.org/publications/bulletins/english-jerusalem/EnglishJerusalem.pdf to http://www.passia.org/publications/bulletins/english-jerusalem/EnglishJerusalem.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Why include false information?

@Drsmoo: The article is about the demographic history of Jerusalem. What value do you think a completely off the mark estimate bring? ImTheIP (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not completely tied to including it, but I think it’s relevant due to the historical significance of the sources. Something like “in contrast, modern historians estimate...” Drsmoo (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

True story, I googled "Jerusalem population first century" and this article was the first hit and in Google's "quick answer" box the figure 600,000 was given. That peeved me off, so I deleted the incorrect figures. Yes, we could could Josephus and Tacitus and other antique writers numbers by writing "They say X. However, modern historians believe those figures are exaggerated ... " But I imagine historical "bad guesses" are just not very useful information for people reading this article who are interested in Jerusalem's demographic history. I'd be interested what others have to say. ImTheIP (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I find the history of estimates interesting. How about this: instead of starting with the ancient estimates and then qualifying them, put the modern estimates in the body of the text and mention the ancient estimates as no longer accepted in a footnote attached to them. Zero^talk 01:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A certain amount of 'correcting errors' has some value, too. It can stop well-meaning people from trying to add the "right" answer by acknowledging its existence and explaining that it isn't right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

Change: while Josephus estimated that there were as many as 1,100,000 who were killed in the war. To: while Josephus estimated that there were as many as 1,100,000 who were killed in the war but specified that this number included people who did not belong to the city itself.

Quote from the source: ... the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the citizens of Jerusalem], but not belonging to the city itself; Olssy (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I also added a link to the translated Tufts thing. SWinxy (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Muslim immigration not included

Jewish immigration to Palestine from mid 19th century onward is well mentioned but significant Arab immigration is not. Why is this? 45.48.31.133 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Typo in German Quote Fn 48

The quote runs

Ludwig August Frankl (1858). Nach Jerusalem!: Palästina. Nies'sche Buchdruckerei (Carl B. Lorch). Die Gesammtzahl der Juden in der heiligen Stadt ist nach amtlicher Erhebung 5,700 Seelen; sie stellt somit den dritten Theil der Gesammtbevölkerung dar, welche 18,000 Seelen umfaßt, und überragt die christliche um das Doppelte. Jerusalem zählt 3000 Christen, darunter 1000 Lateiner und 2000 Griechen und Armenier. Von den Juden sind 1700 österreichische Unterthanen und in Schuß Genommene, während Desterreich nur 100 christliche Unterthanen, alle Secten zusammengenommen, in der heiligen Stadt zählt.

but "Destereich" must be a scanning error or typo for "Österreich" (Austria), since we are talking about Austrian subjects "österreichische Unterthanen". 213.47.79.152 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Muslim or Jewish "relative majority""

In the section "Muslim or Jewish "relative majority"" in the table the line for 1850 is unsourced and should be removed from the table as it is the only unsourced entry. Galdrack (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added a "Full citation needed" tag to the source the table gave instead of just removing the row. Shadow311 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)