Talk:Judaism in Nepal

RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

During the recent deletion discussion, many expressed discontent with the current title, including people arguing for deletion as well as people arguing for inclusion, specifically that the word 'history' was misleading in this case, that the article was more about Jews and Israelis in Nepal, and not about the history of the Jews in that land, which -- I think most agreed -- is unsubstantial, and limited to the past few decades. I think there is agreement that there is not a strong permanent presence of Jews in Nepal, although a strong tourist population as well as Jewish outreach organizations such as Chabad. It is likely that the term 'history' caused the deletion discussion to begin in the first place. User @Nyttend: proposed renaming or moving the article to Judaism in Nepal which seems, in my view, to accurately and succinctly describe the article. The question, then: should we change the article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ravpapa: Here is a suggestion. First of all, let's be honest about this article. It is not about the history of Jews in Nepal. It is about Chabad House in Kathmandu. Everything else in the article is just there to justify the discussion of Chabad House. Now Chabad House in Kathmandu is notable, at least marginally. Aside from the big seder they hold every year, they get in the news now and again (see, for example, http://forward.com/articles/185760/nepal-chabad-rabbi-prevents-cremation-of-jewish-ac/), and even had an Israeli TV series produced about them (http://www.mouse.co.il/CM.television_articles_item,790,209,68121,.aspx).

What we (you, actually - I am here only as an etses gibber) should do is to rename the article "Chabad House of Nepal", get rid of all the extraneous claptrap, fill out the article with other information about the activities there, add a picture. There will no doubt be those who will renominate the new article for deletion, but I believe you will survive, because Chabad House of Kathmandu has indeed achieved a certain amount of notability and is worth an article. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Chabad is only mentioned in perhaps a fifth of the text; it should not be over-emphasized.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by Ubikwit There would seem to be a problem with "Judaism in Nepal" in that there wasn't even mention of a single synagogue in the country, and the only Jewish residents are connected with the embassy or Chabad. Ravpapa's suggestion might be viable. Alternatively, the merge suggested during the deletion discussion appeared to be the most reasonable approach. The scope of Judiasm in Nepal would seem to be limited to the ceremony held for travelers once a year.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the article, not to merge it into another article; I doubt Jewish and Israeli travelers only visit once a year, particularly if about 1500 attend the seder, but the actual total of travelers is about 20,000/year; it has to be year-round.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to the points I raised about "Judaism" as a religion being practiced in Nepal. I would assume that since the Chabad organization is a religious organization there may be rabbis at their location, but aside from the "seder", which I gather is conducted by Chabad, it doesn't seem that there are enough people practicing Judaism in Nepal for a Wikipedia article, again, based on the notability criteria.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and keep current title of History of the Jews in Nepal because: 1 that is the standard way all Jewish history in countries is used on WP. This article is no different to all the other articles in Category:Jewish history by country. And because 2 anything to do with the secularly Jewish state Israel is not in any way "religious" or involves Judaism. And, 3 tourism, the involvement of Israeli colleges and Israeli mountain climbers, and diplomatic relations have nothing to do with Judaism as such. 4 The WP:CONSENSUS reached, after much vigorous and serious debate at the recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal should be respected, so as not to infringe on WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, as this article has received enough attention at the present time and should either be improved or left alone for now. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. About your point #1 -- That this article should have the word history in it simply because other articles have the word history in it should have no bearing in this case, simply because, and I think the point was made repeatedly in the deletion discussion, that there is not much history of Jews in Nepal for the past millenia, that it is only in the past few decades that Jews and Israelis have come to Nepal in significant numbers as tourists. About your point #2 -- look at your own words secularly Jewish state Israel -- see the problem -- you referred to Israel as a Jewish state which it is, that is, meaning that it is impossible to unbind the religious aspects from the national aspects in this context. About point #3 -- of course actions by the Israeli government such as issuing joint postage stamps with Nepal, have an impact, since they are public relations gestures to encourage friendly relations between the two countries, why, to make it safer for their citizens (mostly Jews) to travel to Nepal, and Nepal wants the benefit too. About point #4 -- there was a consensus reached to keep the article but there were numerous voices commenting on the title, many persons asking that it be renamed, with the specific problem being the word history. Overall, the idea behind renaming the article is to more closely describe to readers what the article is about; it is not really about the history of the Jews in Nepal, since there is not much of that, but rather Jews, Judaism, etc in Nepal -- that is what the article is about. It should not be focused on Chabad exclusively, either. Btw, Ubikwit, I am not a Jew but am an active and devout believer in a higher religion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer: From your comments above, it seems that you lack an understanding of the difference between Jewish history, the History of Israel, and what Judaism really is. Read up on all three, and then read up on the difference between Jews as an Ethnic group versus Judaism as a Religion, they are not always the same, since many Jews can be atheists and secular (like many Israelis are!) but they are ethnically Jewish, while there can be people who are not ethnically Jewish but they convert or adhere to Judaism, and then try to understand the differences before you dive into these complex topics. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and keep current title of History of the Jews in Nepal - there was a recent vote to Keep the article as is - why this subject is raised again? --Yoavd (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I appreciate the scheme set forth of History of Jews in ....., but under the given circumstanced in which nothing in the article can fairly be described as "history" the more appropriate name should be Judaism in Nepal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

In light of the addition of the material related to Shavei Israel centers in Nepal, there would seem to be a bit more of a basis for renaming the article to Judaism in Nepal.

This RfC has been superseded by DRV discussion, though.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm FYI, the all-inclusive name for "Jews in Nepal", "Judaism in Nepal", "Israelis in Nepal", "Jewish organizations in Nepal", "Jews who visited Nepal", "Jews who lived in Nepal", "Jewish scholars and Nepal" etc is the current correct title of History of the Jews in Nepal, that's how it's done, no need to swing from idea to idea every time a new bit of info pops up. IZAK (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The other option is Jews in Nepal, which might work better considering that the Jewish population (aside from the Chabad House staff) is transient. This would also help clean up the lead, which seems to be defending the current title in a rather convoluted way. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The article, as kept, would be more appropriately named "Judaism in Nepal". Fylbecatulous talk 13:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I have started a more general discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#History of the Jews in X articles, and all here are invited to chime in.--Pharos (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Change it. As was made clear in the AfD (and the DRV, listed below, has some additional endorsements), there is no history of the Jews in Nepal. It's even doubtful that there is "Judaism in Nepal". I'll settle for "Jews in Nepal", with "Jews in" here meaning something like "some individual events that aren't worth noting, really, connected (tangentially or not) with Jews and with ___". What we really need is another AfD, of course. Oh, someone pointed out that "this is totally like the other articles on "History of the Jews in Country X." It's not. One doesn't need to be all that smart to see that. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRV

There is now an official WP:Deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Haven't included

I haven't included Olga Murray and her Nepal Youth Foundation. It looks like an important and valuable charity, and the founder is of Jewish background, but the connection is perhaps not strong enough.--Pharos (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

A lot of the recently added material has nothing to do with history, and is more WP:RECENTISM and news articles. The entire History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#Security_issues section for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ubikwit: It is not meant as "news" it is about an important historical phenomenon i.e. the impact of Islamic terrorism that is very WP:NOTABLE and part of the history narrative. In the context of the article it is perfectly acceptable as one ongoing continuum. Kindly refrain from narrow POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT responses. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Spikenard

As per comment on Spikenard talk page[1], Old Testament and New Testament differ with respect to plant, so how this should be characterized or what the relevance is to this article is questionable considering that the individual mentioned is 11th century (which is after the Radhanite era).
"Karim" are described as being mentioned in Islamic sources, and not as "Jewish".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The cited sources actually distinguish the Jewish "Karim" system in Egypt from the Muslim "Karimi" system that apparently succeeded it. If the Rhadanite article is correct in listing the era as "approx. 500–1000", then certainly the 11th century (1000-1100) is not out of scope.--Pharos (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Which source? I checked this one [2]. There are no hits for "Jewish Karim"

Meanwhile, please see pp. 175 and 182-3 of this paper by Shelomo Dov Goitein, in particular [3] based on analysis of the Cairo Geniza, and this book by Margariti. Note that Turner refers to Nissim as one of a group, doesn't specifically indicate that he traded in spikenard, let alone from Nepal. Goiten refutes that to a large extent, and the Turner book doesn't even cite Goiten, the leading scholar, apparently. The Margariti source is also informative, but doesn't refute Goiten.

Incidentally, "karim" appears to have been the term for a convoy of ships, originally, perhaps of Tamil origin, while "karimi" was a term for "merchant". But I'd still like to see the source you got that from, of course.

Also, the plant in question would botanically seem to be a Himalyan species, why the insistence on "Nepal"? Is there a source that emphasizes that?

Furthermore, unless you have a source that extends Radhanite beyond 1000, I see no reason to mention it here, as it would not appear to be relevant to the merchant mentioned, and it would fail WP:V.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:47, 08:49 5 July 2014 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Nepal

For some or other odd reason many people do not understand that for many, Israel and Israelis are very secular and thus have nothing to do with Judaism! Israel is the Jewish state but the majority of its Jews do not adhere to Judaism. So it is absurd to make this into an article about "Judaism" when the Israelis do not practice it and often know nothing about it. In addition this article also discusses topics not related to Judaism, such as Islamic terrorists targeting of Jews that has nothing to do with Judaism as such. Thus Jewish history is the correct all-inclusive nomenclature for this article just as it is for virtually all articles about "History of the Jews in ____" in Category:Jewish history by country. Finally WP:CONSENSUS at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal (AFD) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (DRV) clearly established that this article remains as History of the Jews in Nepal. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of confusion is illegitimacy born

NOTE: The majority of LEGITIMATE WP:CONSENSUS is on the side of History of the Jews in Nepal based on the 9 Keep votes (versus 6 Deletes) at the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal and the 14 Keep votes (versus the 8 Deletes) (I tried to count them as best I could) at the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30. The closing of the RFC above #RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'? is OUT OF ORDER because it was started on 30 June 2014 and closed on 12 August 2014 during which time the official DRV was opened on the same day on 30 June 2014 and closed on 8 July 2014 that should have shut off the DRV or at least made it moot and irrelevant, but it got dragged out for over another month and a half, not taking into account that it was put out of business by the DRV, and then just by dint of laziness and lack of attention or just ignorance on the part of the closer, the RFC was left open just long enough for just 5 votes to Support the RFC versus 2 Opposing since the majority of users would have seen the notice on 1 July 2014 Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#DRV that the main debate was moved over to the DRV: "There is now an official WP:Deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal". Trickery and fraud does not create "consensus" and results that are illegitimate have no validity. IZAK (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a proper procedure to challenge a legitimate close of an RFC, but you have chosen to act unilaterally instead.

Again, I suggest that the re-moving of the article be self-reverted and that you pursue the matter through the proper channels and procedures.

The closer, User:Robert McClenon was not involved in the discussions and there is nothing procedurally wrong with the close, but you have now added personal attacks in the form of insinuating that "Trickery and fraud" were involved.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: You know full-well that the YOU opened a request for a DRV the SAME day the RFC was started, (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30). You LOST your DRV gamble. I even posted a notice as such on the article's talk page right below the request for RFC (see Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#DRV). It is now you that escalates the discussion by threatening me and by citing a totally out of order RFC when you know (or should know) that you are yourself out of order! The formal DRV settled the matter of the naming of the article as "History of the Jews in Nepal" once and for all by an overwhelming majority. Yet the RFC lingered for more than a month after the DRV was closed. User Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) should have been aware that the DRV had shut off the RFC debate, and I am assuming he simply was not aware of what was going on, that the RFC was old and had been settled by other means (i.e. the DRV), unlike you who comes along and screams his head off as if the RFC is "holy writ" when in fact the DRV had already settled the matter. The net result, is that the decision to move based on the RFC alone is illegitimate and in practical effect amounts to a sleight of hand arrived at by smoke and mirrors. IZAK (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading and incorrect lead

While I recognize the futility of arguing with the legions of partisans of this article, nonetheless my intellectual integrity behooves me to point out the error of this lead.

"In modern times, significant numbers of Israelis and Jewish people have visited Nepal... " The contention that significant numbers of Jewish people - as distinct from Israelis - have visited Nepal is completely unsupported by the article, and purely speculative. If the author is counting Israelis as Jews - something that User:IZAK rightly doubts - then the lead could read "significant numbers of Israeli Jews". As written, it suggests that a significant number of Jews who are not Israelis have visited, something which, as I have said, is totally unsupported.

"... historically Judaism has not been one of the region's central religions and there has not been much of a Jewish presence in this region." "Not much" means some. This is not merely unsupported, but explicitly contradicted in the article. The article quotes scholar Eliahu Birnboim that "There was never a Jewish community in Nepal, not in the past and not in the present," as well as the Nepalese census of 2011.

The lead should read like this:

"In modern times, significant numbers of Israelis have visited Nepal for purposes of travel and tourism and spirituality and have had an impact on tourism and culture, although historically there has never been a Jewish community in Nepal."

--Ravpapa (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And, as long as I am on the subject, in the extensively footnoted sentence "... nor does it include Jews and Israelis who have been drawn to visit or live in Nepal in order to study and practice Buddhism and Hinduism[8][9] since the early 1960s as part of a worldwide phenomenon among Jews noted by scholars[10][11] and those who have followed such a path to Nepal.[12][13][14]", not one of the sources cited mentions anything about a worldwide phenomenon of Jews visiting Nepal. They mention specific individuals who visited Nepal, and mention a phenomenon of attraction to Buddhism among Jews, but nothing of the sort described. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: Kindly do NOT twist my words into something I did NOT say!! You said above that "If the author is counting Israelis as Jews - something that User:IZAK rightly doubts" (the latter in italics is not my view and is not what I said or implied!). I was focusing on the problem of using the word "Judaism" i.e. the religion of the Jews that NOT ALL Jews, certainly not all Israelis, practice or believe. Thus while most Israelis are technically Jews (per Who is a Jew?) many (maybe even most) Israelis do NOT identify with or practice Judaism and many are in fact atheists and deny their own connection with the Judaism as the religion of the Jews, while they acknowledge their connections to other Jews, the Jewish people and to Jewish history. Thus, this is the reason that the name Jewish history covers ALL types of Jews, whether they practice or believe in Judaism or not. That is why the title of "History of the Jews in Nepal" covers ALL types of Jews and situations, while "Judaism in Nepal" is a terrible name for any such article because "Judaism" only applies to one aspect of Jews and Israelis, and to one type of religious beliefs and religious practices. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for misrepresenting your view. Your comment not only corrects my misconception, but also expresses the deep umbrage that you took at my post, for which I am sorry.

Your response, however, does not address the issue that I raised. If you write in the lead "Israelis and Jewish people", what you are saying is that there are two distinct groups of people involved. That is unsupported by the article, which discusses only Israelis. By the same token, if you write, "not much of a Jewish presence", that means there is some Jewish presence - something specifically refuted in the article. So we have to change the lead, to make it reflect what the article actually says, and not some fantasy about what we would like the article to say.

I await your response before making the change. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I see that User:Ubikwit has already made the change. So I guess my last comment is moot. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(@Ubikwit:, aren't you being a little trigger-happy? Let's let User:IZAK respond before we start eviscerating his article. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

@Ravpapa: I suppose you are right. After all, it is his article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit:@Ravpapa: Done [4]! Hope you guys like the logical traditional WP type intro now! What you had up there was sheer waffle and near-meaningless. Of course I still think it would make more sense for this article to be about Jews in Nepal at the very minimum. I was going to suggest that at the recent discussions, but I see they were shut off over Shabbat when I could not participate. At any rate, how about suggesting a new RFC to re-name to Jews in Nepal since the proper full title History of the Jews in Nepal is so objectionable to you (even though it was approved by both a full AFD and DRV). And as we know, a lot of this article is not about "Judaism" but also very much about how all sorts of Jews have connected with Nepal over the decades, nothing to do with "Judaism" in any way really, until the present and the consequences and meaning of those phenomena. Take care, IZAK (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I have made my position clear in this matter: I am indifferent to the name of the article. It has no content, and therefore should have no name. It should be deleted.

Izak, by insisting on this spurious and embarrassing article, you are missing an opportunity. Rewrite the article about the only thing that is notable in it - the story of Chabad House in Katmandu. Get rid of everything else. Then offer it up for a name change to "Chabad House in Nepal". You can then be rid of all the trumped-up pseudofacts that make the current version of the article so offensive to everyone. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: Calm down! I did not create the article! When it came up for it's first AFD I looked into the topic on Google and saw it had merit and improved it. In the beginning it was indeed written as a puff piece for Chabad from Arutz Sheva sources. On that basis it had no merit. I do not support Chabad propaganda and I have often clashed with the partisan pro-Chabad editors on WP. However when some editors such as User Pharos (talk · contribs) an excellent and reliable researcher, then myself, delving deeper into this subject it was very evident that there are more than enough people and events and phenomena -- nothing to do with Chabad -- that then became the real buildings blocks of this article. Not sure why you are so upset about it, because the article has survived both an AFD and a DRV simply because, unlike you, most users agreed that this article has more than enough WP:NPOV, WP:V & WP:RS that makes it a WP:N subject worthy of a WP article. It is certainly a valuable part of Category:Jewish history by country! Just because you don't like it or because it is somewhat too esoteric does not mean it has to die by a thousand cuts! It is NOT an "offensive" article! What an odd thing to call it! And who is the "everyone" you are referring to? No one really cares or gives a hoot. There are myriads of WP articles about genuinely offensive topics relating to Jews that can be found in Category:Antisemitism and Category:The Holocaust etc that should raise your ire. This is an innocent article about some things of note that concerns Jews in their interactions with that far-off land called Nepal. Take it easy and be well! IZAK (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ravpapa:—There are 3 Chabad houses in Nepal. They only exist because there are Jews in Nepal. In large part it would be the presence of Jews that brings the Chabad houses—not the other way around. The Chabad houses are there to serve the Jews, many of which are nonobservant. Chabad has a mission of kiruv. Reliable sources are telling us that many of the Jews coming to Nepal are nonobservant. Why should the title of the article be changed to "Chabad House in Katmandu"[5]? Reliable sources establish for us the presence of both nonobservant Jews and observant Jews in Nepal. Let us consider the title. Don't we want a title that encompasses the presence of both nonobservant Jews and observant Jews in Nepal? Why would we title the article, as it is presently titled, Judaism in Nepal? Isn't that only half the story? @IZAK: has suggested "Jews in Nepal" as a title. Isn't that title more fit insofar as it is encompassing of the entire phenomena of the recent influx of Jews to Nepal? It is not the case that Jews have a lengthy historical presence in Nepal. And it is largely not even the case that Jews have become permanent residents in Nepal. But there is definitely a Jewish presence in Nepal. The objection has been made to "History of Jews in Nepal" on the basis that "history" implies "extensive history". But why wouldn't "Jews in Nepal" be acceptable? Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought the story was that the Israeli embassy sponsored the seder, and then turned it over to Chabad.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The article currently mentions exactly two Jews who are not Israelis who are or were associated with Nepal: Sylvain Levi and Horace Kadoorie. There is also a quote from Gordis that some American Buddhists of Jewish extraction have visited Nepal - but there is no supporting evidence, there are no numbers, and the quote is completely unsupported. Everything else in the article is about Israelis - much of it already adequately covered in other Wikipedia articles.

So perhaps you want to call the article "Israelis and two Jews in Nepal"? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)