Talk:Netherlands

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Increased Jewish population source JMW

[edit]

According research of JMW the Jewish population in Netherlands increased. It’s about Circa 65,000 Jews in the Netherlands.

see sources: https://joodswelzijn.nl/site/uploads/2024/12/Definitieve-versie-factsheet-demografisch-onderzoek.pdf

https://jonet.nl/israelis-zorgen-voor-groei-aantal-joden-in-nederland/

https://www.trouw.nl/religie-filosofie/joodse-gemeenschap-groeit-en-wordt-israelischer~b62038a8/ 2A02:A446:4E09:0:7098:C266:59C7:12E (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This figure is for enlarged Jewish population. It does not equal Jewish population. gidonb 06:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't understand the difference between "Jewish population" and "enlarged Jewish population". Could you explain? Largoplazo (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The enlarged Jewish population includes family members of Jews and individuals with Jewish ancestry who are not Jewish themselves. They may still seek out Jewish services or maintain some connection to Jewish life. That’s why JMW maps out this broader group. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems you're correct. Those sources are clear that they're combining 35,000 Jews as self-identified with 30,000 others who have Jewish backgrounds. Of course you can make the number look like it's increased by throwing in a group of people who weren't counted in the first place. Instant population boom. Largoplazo (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even so the numbers went up a bit. Much of it by immigration from Israel. gidonb (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the number is, it should be reconciled in the article because it already contradicts itself. In one place it says "Jews 41,000-45,000", in another it says there are 30,000. The sources you supplied say 35,000. Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number based on self-identification was adjusted from 30,000 to 35,000. That explains two figures. The lower 40,000s could reflect the number of people who are halachically Jewish, which is somewhat higher than those who self-identify as Jewish. For the Netherlands, we should use self-identification as the basis. gidonb (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or we have two sources giving two different counts based on self-identification. We need a better idea of what they respectively represent and then be clear about that in the text. If they represent two different things, both figures may be worth providing. Largoplazo (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is supported by the literature. gidonb (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiiliam I

[edit]

We say, "William Frederick raised this United Netherlands to the status of a kingdom and proclaimed himself as King William I in 1815."

Can this really be true? Did William envisage himself as the first of a long line of Kings named William, or did he just proclaim himself as King William?

After all, the English monarch Elizabeth was not known as Elizabeth I until centuries later when a second ruling Queen Elizabeth turned up and there was now a need to distinguish between the two queens. --Pete (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering is a deliberate deviation from the stadtholders Willem I to V. Additionally, the future King Willem II was also already in his twenties in 1815. Therefore, it is less unlikely than, for example, Elizabeth. Dajasj (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Density confusion

[edit]

The article states the country is the 33rd most densely populated country and yet when you click on the link to that page, it has it as the 26th. Which one is right? RyanPLB (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands vs Holland

[edit]

The first sentence states:

"The Netherlands, informally Holland, is a country ..."

However, referring to the whole country as 'Holland' is discouraged by the Dutch government and often considered a faux pas by inhabitants of the other regions of the country (See also this entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries#Holland). Given that the context of the country page is the country, would it not be more correct to rephrase it to as something along the lines of 'The Netherlands, historically also referred to as Holland, is a country ...'. Or perhaps leave it out entirely here, since there are other pages discussing it? 2A02:A442:777E:2:F984:D5FD:A19F:50C3 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many, if not most, English speakers primarily call the country "Holland". It's up to Wikipedia to reflect this in the lead without wagging its finger on behalf of people who don't like this. "Historically" isn't even correct, because that usage is current, it isn't something found only in older publications. In the section on the country's name, it's appropriate to point out (in a neutral tone) that it's a semantic shift from the names of the provinces.
I've struck out some of what I wrote originally because on reflection I realized that in previous discussions along the same lines, I've perhaps conflated what people say with what's found in reliable sources. I'm now thinking a priori that perhaps reliable sources consistently use "Netherlands", in which case it would be reasonable to qualify the use of "Holland" in the lead as "often popularly called" or something like that. I still reject the position of some that we should engage in finger-wagging by writing something like "erroneously". And "historically", as I wrote above, is incorrect. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The usage is informal in English. Anon uses "however" yet says in many words the same. It's an I don't like it argument without merit. No cumbersome passive language will describe informal better. In most other languages the usage is formal. In Dutch and English, Holland is a synonym for the Netherlands, including in leading dictionaries of the Netherlands. As you correctly point out, the qualification of "historical" is false. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about the map in the info box

[edit]

At first glance I can't see what the netherlands is on the map. I see a lot of light green, and the dark green doesn't stand out. Suggestion: Zoom into the netherlands on the map and perhaps use more contrastive colors. What do you think?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emissions rank incorrect

[edit]

Under Geography → Climate change it’s stated that the Netherlands is 4th in greenhouse emissions per capita. When I look at the source today (2025-06-18) it comes in at number eight for “Total greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 2023”. Octopus Party (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2025

[edit]

This page is missing the ISO 3166 code for the Netherlands.

ISO 3166 code NL 71.11.24.173 (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because, as confusing as this is, the code appears in the article for Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is the sovereign nation of which the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are the constituent parts. Except—what puzzles me is that, as explained at ISO 3166-1 alpha-2#NL, the latter three also have their own ISO-3166 two-letter codes (which show up in the infobox in those entities' articles), but no mention is made of one for the Netherlands on its own. I wonder why that is. Is there one, that they forgot to include? If no, I wonder why not.
By the way, if you look at, say, France, you'll see that while it displays the ISO 3166 code, no parameter for it is included in its infobox. That's because when one isn't given, the template's code automatically checks to see if one exists for the country named in the name parameter and, if so, applies it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: As above. Closing edit request. SI09 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]