Jump to content

Talk:Judaism in Nepal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit]
NAC: Consensus is to rename the article as requested Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support. The article, as kept, would be more appropriately named "Judaism in Nepal". Fylbecatulous talk 13:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Haven't included

[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS

[edit]

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)[reply]

Spikenard

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Out of confusion is illegitimacy born

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Misleading and incorrect lead

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(@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))[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If there are more than two non-Israeli Jews in Nepal, please find a source that says so. The quote you provide does not say that. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In your initial post for this section you write: "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.'" Why are you saying Israelis? Wouldn't it be more correct to say Israeli Jews? Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, the 2 other Chabad houses apart from Kathmandu are temporary and open according to the tourist season. The 3rd Chabad house in Manang is only active on the holiday of Passover providing the Israelis trekking a place to celebrate the holiday in the middle of trekking. TMLN123 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable section

[edit]

What is the relevance of the section "Israelis and Nepal" to the article? There seems to be no content related to Judaism in that section now that the embassy connection to the sponsoring of the seder celebration has been moved to religious life, where it belongs.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you pay closer attention to the edits before engaging in reverts.
I moved a sentence, didn't delete the section. That I will wait for others to voice opinions on. Your comment regarding Israelis is irrelevant, and unsourced, not to mention the fact that it contradicts other assertions you have made about "non-observant" Jews/Israelis.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: I was about to reword it when you reverted me. I am not "contradicting" myself. Judaism (sourced) has its own opinions about Who is a Jew? (read it, it's sourced) regardless of what Jews (secular or religious) may think about or regard themselves. Israelis are Jews (sourced) and Israel is the Jewish state (also sourced) that is governed by Jewish Law (sourced) in conjunction with secular law. One's Jewish status in Israel is decided by Judaism (sourced) and not by you or by anyone on WP. This is what happens when this kind of can of worms is opened, it leads to mass confusion, while Jewish history covers everything Jewish, Israeli and Judaism, as well as factors from other places that intersects with all that, all inclusive. What is your final objective by the way, once you are done fiddling and slashing down this article according to your narrow POV? IZAK (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: Are you doubting that nonobservant Jews are Jews? I find the following: "By the time of Rabbi Menachem Mendel’s death in 1994, there were thousands of shluchim scattered across the globe, in places as exotic as Katmandu, Nepal—where on Passover they organized one of the largest seders in the world for the many Jewish trekkers passing through—and as mundane as Long Island, New York, where religiously wayward Jews are aplenty." Notice the terminology: "religiously wayward Jews". The source is showing us that though they are "religiously wayward", they are Jews. Bus stop (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a diversionary irrelevant question doubled over that asked by Izak.
What does any of this have to do with Judaism, "...the Jewish religion"?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: I have provided a source. Do you agree that my source shows that nonobservant Jews are Jews? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: C'mon don't play games and act "ignorant" all of a sudden because you know quite well, as anyone can see from the way you phrased it in your own words to User Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) at this edit-summary [8]: "They are not in nepa, so why are you adding this material? They are also recent converts to Jewdaism, period, no previous history" [9], so that when it suits you you freely refer to Judaism as JEWdaism, but when it does not suit you you then don your WP:LAWYER outfit and try to allege a disconnect between Jews and Judaism. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Are you being serious or are you here to waste everyone's time with your tendentious edit warring? You are an expert at running to every last WP admin and policy discussion board when it suits you based on your own edit history by the way. That kind of constant combative strategy is not a way to genuinely improve articles. You would do well to read up on what Judaism makes of its adherents and you definitely do not display any signs yet that you have read let alone digested the definitive Who is a Jew? article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK Aside from the fact that your rant is another irrelevant post to the topic, the edit summary has typos. I repeat, WP:NOTFORUM. This article is about the religion Judaism, "...the Jewish religion", in Nepal. This is not a place for you to rant in an offensive manner about some incoherent pet POV of yours.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ubikwit: I am not ranting, I am pointing out your words and other articles on WP that define Judaism, Jews and Who is a Jew? (none of which I made up by the way). So what do you want to see happen here? Be honest. No games and no running to forums to get your way. Let's talk face to face and man to man and not argue childishly! How do you propose to deal with those Jews, Jewish scholars, and Israeli Jews who have a WP:V & WP:RS connection with Nepal without violating WP:CONTENTFORK and without ignoring them and their connections to Nepal? If Jews reject Judaism and accept Buddhism and spend years in Nepal is that part of this topic or not? Or is it only about Orthodox Judaism meaning those who practice or promote "strict" Judaism, or which brand of Judaism are you going by, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Hasidic Judaism or Haredi Judaism or Religious Zionism or Modern Orthodox Judaism? We must decide now or else it makes no sense to talk about fitting everything into a topic that has no definitions. How narrow do you want this topic to be? And if it were to be as narrow as you want to squeeze it down to, then what new topic would you suggest creating for the rest of the article that you don't like? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting yet again, after I promised not to. But I really do have to point out that, however passionate your comment may be, it only accentuates the failing of this article. You ask, "How do you propose to deal with those Jews, Jewish scholars, and Israeli Jews who have a ... connection with Nepal ... " Well, the article mentions exactly one Jewish scholar (Levi), and exactly one non-Israeli Jew (Horace Kadoorie) with any connection to Nepal. You ask "If Jews reject Judaism and accept Buddhism and spend years in Nepal is that part of this topic or not?" But in fact, the only mention of such people is a a two-word reference in the quote from Gordis, which is presented pretty much as conjecture, not provable fact.

Of Israelis (who, I know, I know, are also Jews) there is a good deal of mention.

What you need to support the central premise of this article - that there is a relationship between Judaism or Jews in general and Nepal - is some hard facts. Like, "Researcher Moishe Zukhmir estimates that there are 500 Americans of Jewish origin studying in Buddhist monasteries in Nepal." Or, "Rabbi Chezky estimates that about 80 percent of attendees at the Seder were Israelis, the rest (about 300) were Americans and other nationalities."

Do you have such quotes? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ravpapa: I asked User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) some pertinent questions, and he has still not replied, and instead you answer them for him. Weird! Please follow process, and please be 100% honest, since as you have openly said a few times you do not like anything about this article and you just wish it would go away and that you cannot wait for it to be deleted, then you obviously have a sharp POV axe to grind and should not be slicing away at this article sections and parts that are from WP:V & WP:RS without more WP:CONSENSUS. I and User Bus stop (talk · contribs) and others would be more than glad to engage you in discussion. Feel free to renominate the article for deletion all over again, but quit chopping it up into smithereens rendering it weak and devoid of its researched content, because that was NOT the purpose or the intent of the RFC either. Note the first AFD and the DRV affirmed the article and its content so you are clearly over-riding that WP:CONSENSUS as well. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the last delete. You are quite right. I thought the Times of India article ended at the advertisement, and did not read the continuation of the article below. My error. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, I'm not impressed with histrionics, and I have answered you, repeatedly stating in n uncertain terms that your assertion are unrelated to the topic of this article, but apparently you didn't hear that.
Ravpapa has shown that even if the pov you are trying to surreptitiously support were to have any merit, there would need to be much more RS statements to achieve WP:V.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What keeps this debate going?

[edit]

Jews are Jews be they Israeli not. That's why Jewish history always covers all topics like this. You know, the more I think about, as I try to understand why some people are so anti this article, I come to the conclusion that it's from two core sources. One source for the objections is from an Israeli-Zionist POV that is just plain mad that so many young Israelis choose to go to places like Nepal for their spiritual pilgrimages that so outrages the Israeli-Zionists because it is a slap in the face of their notion that "Zionism is ubber alles". The second source for the opposition to this topic seems to come from some so-called "orientalists" who are outraged that Jews and Israelis are treading on the "holy ground" of what is supposed to be a holy "shangri la" when they would much prefer that it be a case of "no Jews welcome" in this exotic place reserved for those with a "higher-consciousness" and a "higher wisdom" that does not feel comfortable with mundane Jewish backpackers and cooky Chabadniks floating around the place cheapening the whole aura of the place. So what you then have is a weird "alliance" between nationalistic Zionists out to protect the "purity" of their dream joining with people who just don't like pesky Jews floating around in all nooks and crannies who don't even like Zionists, but when it comes to some topics both sides will unite to fight the common enemy: Valid Jewish presence and Jewish history in places like Nepal, all backed up with good enough WP:V & WP:RS to withstand an AFD, an DRV, and various other efforts to demolish this poor little article that stands like a meek little hero in a Tintin comic book, like poor little Chang Chong-Chen in the The Blue Lotus and in Tintin in Tibet facing all sorts of enemies that want to do it in for no good reasons. Just some thoughts on this ongoing debate that should have ended by now but just keeps going on and on... IZAK (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain slowly and simply so you will understand: No one is denying that most Israelis are Jews. Certainly the Israelis who visit Nepal are almost universally Jews. But what distinguishes these visitors is not that they are Jewish but that they are Israeli. They are also, for that matter, also almost universally between the ages of 19 and 25 (something supported by sources). Could we then call the article "Young adults in Nepal"? No. Although they are all Israelis, nearly all of them speak English to a passable degree. Could we call the article "English speaking people in Nepal"?
If you want to write an article about a particular group of people that does a particular thing, there has to be some connection between the defining characteristic of those people and what they are doing. In this case there is no such connection. None of the Israelis going to Nepal are doing so because they are Jewish. Nor are these Israelis representative of Jews who are not Israeli. There is no connection whatever between the Israelis' Jewishness and their visit to Nepal, not in intent and not in execution.
Indeed, the parade of young Israelis to Nepal is a phenomenon, perhaps in itself notable enough to be worthy of an article in Wikipedia. It has made an imprint on Nepalese society, there are Chabad houses, there is an Israeli film festival, there is an Israeli restaurant, and many Nepalese taxi drivers know some rudimentary words in Hebrew. That is all something you could write about. But you insist instead on writing on something that does not exist and never has.
This attempt to make a connection between two completely unrelated things - Judaism and Nepal - is what Wikipedian gurus call "synthesis". This entire article is synthesis, perhaps the best example ever of how not to write a synthetic article in the entire volume of articles.
This will be my last post in the matter, until the article is renominated for deletion. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravpapa: Thanks for the response, but you miss my points. Firstly, this article is WRONGLY named "Judaism in Nepal" (a name that was foisted by some after a narrow RFC to skew the article and line it up for a future deletion, as is quite obvious from all the machinations.) I have always insisted that the article be called History of the Jews in Nepal, its correct name per all such articles in Category:Jewish history by country, as it was even after the RFC and DRV, because the name "Jewish history" covers everything Jewish, Israeli, Judaism and any other phenomena not even Jewish that intersects with Jews, Judaism, Israelis, and Jewish history itself. Secondly, it makes no difference what types of Jews or Israelis visit or come to Nepal or any other country nor does it matter why they come or what factors bring them, the bottom line and net result is that you have a notable number of Jewish people, be they Israeli or from wherever, verified by WP:V & WP:RS that come to Nepal, hence it's WP:N. Thirdly, this is no different to how and why Jews and Israelis have moved to other countries becoming part of that country's Jewish history and even making [Jewish] history. Fourthly, thus, as an example, in the history of the Jews in America there is no need to write about Israeli entrepreneurs who have made it big in America or Russian Jews who came to America because they were starving and persecuted in the Pogroms, that would make a caricature of how Jewish history is studied and presented, rather topics are presented as "History of the Jews in city/region/country/etc ___" or sometimes plain American Jews or Jewish Americans of History of the Jews in the United States. Fifthly, the arrival and presence of Jews in countries is driven by different historical factors and forces of history and it has a starting point, a middle and an end, obviously. You seem to be having great difficulty with the way those thousands of young Israelis flock to places like Nepal and what then ensues. Or with how small numbers of businessmen and scholars have dealt with Nepal. You forget that if it is based on WP:V & WP:RS then it is WP:N. Sixthly, you also seem to have trouble with what type of demographic they are and obsess over it and taunt it when it makes absolutely no difference. Whether they were victims of kidnappers or came there as tourists makes no difference once their presence is reported in WP:V & WP:RS and thus is easily WP:N. Even though there were hundreds of thousands of children and young teens who migrated from Eastern Europe to America, it would be redundant and foolish to write it up in terms of Jewish youngsters who migrated to the United States as if it was some kind of joke, when it is all included in a scholarly and encyclopedic way in the accepted heading/s of History of the Jews in the United States. Seventhly, so please stop ridiculing the events and people (be they Israelis of any age, other types of scholars, Chabad or other types of rabbis, or cultural organizations affirmed by WP:V & WP:RS making it all collectively WP:N) that are the raw building blocks in WRITING history and it is NOT "synth" (how absurd) it is logical use of information and presentation of facts and data to create an orderly well-researched article, when the aim is NOT to make fun of the phenomena and building blocks of what constitutes Jewish history and the different ways Jews arrive in various countries and places. Finally, in today's day and age of spiritual seeking and masses seeking higher consciousness and easy travel, that becomes a driving force, while in past times it was poverty, wars, antisemitism, and persecution, but the result is the same, Jews, now in the shape of mostly Israelis since as of now the majority of the world's Jews live in Israel and Israel is thus the source of "exporting" Jews/Israelis per Yerida and tourism, arriving in those other countries creating Jewish history anew. Regards, IZAK (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just the facts

[edit]

I should give some references for my recent changes, which are explained inadequately in the edit comments.

According to the national tourism statistics document for 2012, 7151 Israelis came to Nepal in 2012. This is 1.2 percent of total tourism to Nepal. Of these, 62 said their visit was for spiritual reasons ("pilgrimage"), or less than 1 percent. The average stay for an Israeli tourist was 16.25 days, compared to 20.23 days for Australians, 21.65 days for Finns, 20.12 days for Danes. In other words, Israelis do not stay in Nepal any longer than other tourists, and shorter than many other nationalities.

In light of these statistics, it is impossible to call the Israeli tourist presence in Nepal "significant". These statistics also call into question the reliability of Birnbaum as a source, as they contradict at least two of his specific factual claims. They also contradict the contention of Gordis, at least regarding Israelis. Whether Gordis is correct about Americans is questionable, but I have not pursued the question.

In any case, I am deleting the first part of the Gordis quote. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of contradictions, we have: "Every year, some 20,000 Israeli backpackers travel to Nepal, mostly to embark on treks in the Everest and Annapurna mountain ranges." Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do. The Jerusalem Post is obviously wrong here. It happens, even among publications considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. --Ravpapa (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you remove the words "some stay for long periods" with an edit summary of "Removing Birnbaum comment that Israelis stay long. Nepal Tourism stats say Israelis stay average of 16 days, no longer than other nationals". But Eliyahu Birnbaum says that they "usually remain there for long periods". We don't have to have support in sourcing for a longer-than-average stay for all Israelis. We merely need support in sourcing for some staying for long periods. We have that support in Birnbaum's assertion. If only a small number stay for "long periods" this can result in Hebrew language being spoken in the streets of Kathmandu. Furthermore Birnbaum is not necessarily speaking about the year 2012. You are examining a WP:primary source for only the year 2012. Bus stop (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If, as Birnbaum claims, Israelis "usually remain there for long periods," then the average stay of Israelis would be greater than that of other nationalities. That is simple statistics 101. Birnbaum is simply wrong. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravpapa: Nonsense! You admit you want to delete the article, so renominate for deletion, making 20 cuts and deleting WP:V & WP:RS unilaterally is not the way to set up for deletion based on your POV only. Please follow due process. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my edits

[edit]

I see, IZAK, that you have reverted the edits I made. Excepting the last edit, about which you are right (see post above), all of the edits were to correct factual errors, or to correct misleading syntax based on factual errors. I list them here:

  • "... significant numbers of Israeli Jews have visited Nepal for reasons of tourism and spirituality." This statement is supported in the article by two sources: Birnbaum, who claims that 20,000 Israelis visit Nepal annually, and Gordis, who claims that "Ashrams in Nepal and India are filled with young Jewish people, mostly American and Israeli." Both these statements are false. According to statistics of the Nepal Bureau of Tourism, cited above on this talk page, only 7,151 Israelis visited Nepal in 2012, the last year for which statistics were published. That is one percent of the total number of tourists to Nepal of all nationalities, and about than 1/10 of one percent of the 4.4 million trips abroad made by Israelis that year (according to the Israel Bureau of Statistics). This cannot be considered a significant number. As for visiting for reasons of spirituality, only 62 Israelis - less than 1 percent - visited for reasons of spirituality. So the sentence in the lead is incorrect and needs to be fixed.
  • "Historically, Judaism has not been one of the region's main religions... " This sentence clearly suggests that Judaism has been one of the region's minor religions. But this is untrue. Judaism was not practiced in any way, shape or form until the establishment of the Chabad House in 1999. So this sentence is misleading and needs to be fixed.
  • "(Birnbaum) estimates that each year the number of Israeli tourists to Nepal is approximately 20,000." It is true that Birnbaum estimates this, but he is wrong. As noted above, the number of Israelis that visit Nepal is actually a third of that.
  • "Many tourists stay for long periods". Untrue. The average stay for Israelis in Nepal is 16.25 days, less than Finns, Danes, Australians, and numerous other nationals.
  • Conversion Center: This section describes a plan to send members of the Bnei Menashe sect in Manipur, India, to Nepal for conversion to Judaism in conversion centers set up by Shavei Israel. In fact, however, there never were any conversion centers set up by Shavei Israel. Members of the sect were flown directly to conversion centers in Israel. See the Shavei Israel website for details. The section should be deleted.
  • The section on "Spiritual quest": This section contains quotes from author Daniel Gordis, who offers an explanation why many Israelis seek spiritual fulfillment in Nepal. In fact, however, very few Israelis (62 in 2012) seek spiritual fulfillment in Nepal. Therefore, the entire premise of this section is wrong, and it should be deleted.

Please correct these factual errors in the article. Thank you. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored those edits, with which I agree fully.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK, you have twice reverted edits I made to the article without addressing any of the issues I have raised on the talk page. Does this mean you want to resolve the issue at ARBCOM? I have never made a complaint to Arbcom, and do not wish to begin now. So please respond on the talk page, address the issues that I raise, and resolve this amicably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravpapa (talk • contribs) [10]
@Ravpapa: 1 Your point is moot. User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) "restored" (meaning: "re-deleted") all your stuff, I have not commented. I have spent a lot of time explaining myself on this talk page. So quit complaining. 2 Ubikwit continues to delete everything, no matter how minor, I may add. He does not bother explaining just refers to you&he are the source of a two-man tag-team "consensus". 3 Right now, only you and Ubikwit are in serious WP:OWNERSHIP mode with this article, you are working as a tag team to assert your deletionist POVs while excluding anything that you don't like, by applying the most extreme and narrow application of the word "Judaism" in the title, based on your own POV interpretations, while excluding WP:V & WP:RS WP:N material. 4 You have stated a few times that your one and only goal is to get the article deleted so your request for discussions is out of order and makes zero sense since you want the article destroyed 100% and not improved! Make up your mind please! 5 Note, that ArbCom does not deal with WP:CONTENTDISPUTES, however your own behavior of not adhering to the resolutions of the AFD and DRV in support of the article is a problem you fail to see. Even the RFC did not "authorize" anyone to cut away a variety of related Jewish and Israeli information, it merely asked for change of title and not for massive deletion of content! None of the prior discussions or decisions called for the "death by a hundred cuts" that you and and Ubikwit are subjecting this article too, and 6 as you can tell at this point most people have moved on and do not have the patience or the stomach for this kind of laborious debate and WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT attitude over so relatively minor an article. You and Ubikwit are making a mountain over a molehill. 7 While Ubikwit refuses to engage in any dialogue, you claim you want only dialogue, so it is difficult to put up with the run-around. 8. While I would gladly talk some more, right now we are approaching Rosh Hashana (24-26 September), Yom Kippur (3-4 October) and Sukkot (8-17 October) when most Jewish, Israeli and Judaic editors are busy in real life and cannot do justice to improving this article or wasting time on futile debates that unfortunately lead nowhere. Thank you and regards, IZAK (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of page

[edit]

I have reorganized the article so that it is not so negative, is actually relevant to the subject, and is factually accurate. I have, I think, preserved all of the content of the original version, except for the section on the conversion centers, which, as I pointed out earlier on this talk page, is incorrect. I also restored some of the material I had deleted earlier, by putting it into a context that makes sense.

My hope had been to reach this reorganization through dialogue with Izak, who has invested a lot of work in the article. Discussion with him has proven difficult, though I respect the passion he expresses for the advancement of this and other articles with Jewish content. After his last post, I felt that progress might be better made by proceeding on my own, and I have done so.

The article, of course, is still open for revision and improvement. No urgency, though, as Izak points out, Jewish holidays are upon us and a lot of us will be busy with other things. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism in Nepal. 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:

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) 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judaism_in_Nepal&oldid=1201067987"