- History of the Jews in Nepal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Disagree with judgment of closing admin. I queried closing admin on their talk page as to the policy based rationale, but the admin flat out refused to provided any indication as to the reasoning serving as the basis or the close as a "Clear policy-based "keep"". User_talk:DangerousPanda#Your_close_of_AFD_discussion_on_History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. There was an An/I thread filed in relation to the deletion discussion here, and the OP of that thread has opened an RfC at the article Talk page here. As was pointed out by several editors during the deletion discussion, there is nothing of historical note in the article. One editor that didn't participate in the deletion discussion made the same observation toward the bottom of the AN/I thread as well. There was a proposal to merge made by a couple of editors which may be a viable alternative--to deleting the article--for some of the material. The OP of the An/I thread added a substantial amount of irrelevant or fringe material to the article during the deletion discussion, but has since removed the most contentious material. After he removed that material, however, there is absolutely no basis for an "Ancient history" section in the article, for example, which now simply states that there is no ancient history. Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) -->[reply]
- Support Close as Keep . I agree with decision of closing admin. What's done is done. No need to re-open this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been re-opened absolutely bloody everywhere else. Those extraneous discussions should all be closed. DRV is the correct venue to dispute an AfD outcome, and Ubikwit is entirely within his rights to begin a deletion review, so this is the only place the discussion should be re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My sense is the closing admin did a responsible job, and that the subject has pretty much exhausted itself. My current take is there is a problem with the article title, specifically the word history in the title, I think it should be renamed to Judaism in Nepal or possibly Jews in Nepal, but that the content is worthwhile and should be kept, since it meets GNG, is encyclopedic, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I find this utterly bizarre. I've been a frequent participant at DRV for five years and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.
If we review the debate without examining the article the debate was theoretically considering, then DangerousPanda's close is right in the bullseye. But when I look at the article, I can't connect it with what people said in the debate. I mean, the "keep" recommendations just don't make any sense to me. Neither the Jewish nation nor the Jewish religion have any meaningful history in Nepal and it's not anti-semitic to say so. I don't think your problem is with DangerousPanda's close. I think the debate, rather than the close, was what was defective.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that consensus was not based on a vote count, but on assessment of policy-based arguments, in this case, WP:NOTABILITY. If, as you have also found and as many participants in the deletion discussion pointed out, there is no content in the article related to the title, then I was assuming that the consensus of policy based opinions put forth in the discussion would lead to a judgment of consensus such that the article would be deemed to fail to meet the notability criteria, and the discussion closed as "delete", or possibly merge, but not all of the material would fit into the proposed merge destination article. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, this is rather par for the course for this topic area; article squabbles from the Israel/Palestine/Islam/Judaism rarely make it to DRV, as one side usually marshals (pun unintended) the forces to come bloc vote along strictly ideological lines. Nearly every incident of stone-throwing, axe-wielding, bulldozer-driving, etc...has an article in the project. Even the incidents that are truly notable get bloated to 100k of prose in a matter of days. The alphabet soup of WP:* acronyms is no match. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose the DRV nomination and Keep article as is, because the closing admin followed policy, while the nominator in this case, barely 24 hours later after he lost his nomination at the AfD [1], and has been warned for violating WP:DONOTDISRUPT [2] [3] [4], now rushes to this DRV based merely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:LIKE. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" [5], that added to his general unstoppable violations of WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL should make him eligible for a quick block here and now. The nominator is simply continuing his WP:WAR [6] over content that has nothing to do with the correct procedures and policies followed by the closing admin. Nominator would be well-advised to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, 13:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse the keep decision: I agree with S Marshall above. Consensus does not merely mean numerical vote. The views of editors whose opinions are unrelated to the actual content of the article should be discounted. It is patently absurd to have an article about the history of Jews in a country that has never had a Jewish community. I have suggested a number of compromises that would preserve potentially notable material contained in this article, and all these have been rejected by a group of editors that seem blind to the total absurdity of this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Close as Keep The closing administrator was rather clear in addressing the strength of the arguments. The AfD was turned into a battleground and now the effort to fight a needless and disruptive battle shifts to DRV. The arguments made in support of the article at AfD directly addressed notability and substantial efforts were made to improve the article in the face of persistent disruptive efforts to remove those improvements. The arguments being made here for overturning the closing administrator's decision simply repeat the same arguments rejected at AfD and go nowhere to making the case that consensus was ignored. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How embarrassing for Wikipedia to have such an sub-standard article. I didn't read it until now and played no part in the previous discussion. Where is the argument for notability? Is it notable because no Jewish community ever existed there? Because none of the 10 tribes were supposed to have moved there? Perhaps it is notable because some Israeli mountain climber was there? Chabad has some emissaries there, like they have everywhere else, big deal. I'm an inclusionist by nature and often vote to keep marginal articles, but this one is essentially devoid of content. Zerotalk 14:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The discussion had a rough consensus to "Keep". The discussion could not have been closed as "delete".
- S Marshall's comment of 12:39, 1 July 2014 is interesting. I agree, it appears that the AfD discussion was faulty, but not the close. I suggest, as often in DRV protests against a Keep closure, to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion.
- Sure enough, the nominator began the discussion with a weak nomination. "The article is purported to be about history, but the article describes no history, with the earliest date referred to being 1986, with absolutely no historical context or relevance." is an argument for improving the article. The sentence fails to assert that the topic has no history, or even no sourceable history. The first nomination sentence does not assert that the topic has no events prior to 1986. It is just a collection of loose statements. It could equally be a rationale for a RM proposal to rename the article to Jews in Nepal. The second sentence, "The article does not meet the notability criteria" appears to miss the point that deletion considers the merit of the topic, not the current state of the article.
- Is there a non-trivial history of Jews in Nepal? Is there sourcing from reliable sources? Can the nominators issues be solved with a rename? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the critique of the wording of my proposal, but I didn't want to appear to presume to know whether there was anything that would be turned up to establish notability. That, however, was not the case.
- The questions you pose were all substantially answered during the course of the deletion discussion, and the answer is no, there is no non-trivial history of Jews in Nepal. Ravpapa did some research that pretty much established conclusively that there was no "there" there, and proposed ways to salvage some of the content in the article, namely the material about Chabad and the material about diplomatic relations.
- A couple of editors on the "keep" side made overzealous efforts to "improve" the article during the course of the deletion discussion to prove that the topic had merit, but their efforts were an exercise in futility; moreover, fringe material and irrelevant material was added to the article, detracting from the focus on the deletion discussion.
- Your suggestion of Jews in Nepal might pass notability, but outside of Chabad and the embassy, there are only Jewish tourists, apparently. Jewish tourism in Nepal? I don't know, but it is clear that there is no notable history.
- Finally, the content that was added to the article during the deletion discussion, starting with the current opening sentence, redefines history
The history of the Jews in Nepal describes the activity of people from Israel as well as Jewish people who live in and visit the nation of Nepal, including tourism, cultural ties, and religious experiences.
and attempts to support that the article addresses something that fits that new definition. What that first sentence attempts to call "history" is not. Whether the closing admin should have considered a rename or merge, which were both suggested in the deletion discussion, is beyond the scope of my procedural knowledge. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the benefit of others here for the first time, I just found the guideline WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which includes this text
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close To do otherwise requires far stronger policy based arguments than here presented. No sign that the closer ignored policy based arguments is given, and thus the close holds. Collect (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. Well within discretion based on discussion. If the article is still in flux wait for a consensus stable version and then renominate for afd based on changed article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or re-open AfD: The "keep" votes in the original AfD are policy-based, well-argued -- and appear to be totally disconnected from the actual content of the article. If History of the Jews in Nepal had the contents implied by the "keep" votes and the "close" reasoning, I'd be in favor of keeping it, but it actually reads like a list of every tenuous link between Judaism and Nepal the authors could dig up. --Carnildo (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close no one has shown any evidence that the close was wrong. Those who complain about the quality of the article should well understand that the present quality or lack thereof of an article is NOT NOT NOT a basis on which to delete an article of we could dump 80% of our content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carlossuarez46: Quality is not the issue here, it is a logical fallacy to assert that the material in the article relates to history. None of the keep arguments that attempted to do so could back that up with RS, though some fringe and otherwise extraneous material was introduced during the AfD. Both Racpapa and User:Drmies did some research into the topic that fairly conclusively determined there was nothing there. Meanwhile, it was acknowledged that there was notable material that could be integrated into other articles, but no name was presented that would facilitate keeping the article in its present form that would meet the notability criteria.
- How do votes such as these, for example relate to policy relevant to an AfD? It seems to me that they should have been discounted because they are based solely on opinion
Keep - I would err on the side of assuming notability, as this article comes from a link in the almost-entirely-filled-out Asia in topic|History of the Jews in template. The topic seems pretty notable, and if the article could do with some (or a lot of) expansion, that's not a matter for AfD. ∴ ZX95 [discuss] 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep and link to WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per Bearian and numerous references. One comment, I think the article is not only about the history of Jews in Nepal, but more about relations between the two countries, as well as about Israelis/Jews in Nepal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Had such votes been discounted, the likely outcome should have been to move some of the material to one or two different articles, as there were editors on both the keep and delete sides that favored that option. The fact that the content of the article did not correspond to the name of the article makes it clear that there was a logical fallacy involved in any keep vote attempting to maintain that the article was notable as an article on history and should be kept as such.
- In the meantime, this is a learning process for me, as I have not participated in a discussion here before and only a couple of AfD's. If another AfD is the best way forward after people have had more time to try and fill out the article, then I would have preferred a close of "no consensus", for example. I don't see how the keep votes merited a "keep" close in light of the "rough consensus" guideline.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse but strongly suggesting a speedy new AfD discussion, per sound User:S Marshall, Tarc and Carnildo's arguments. Cavarrone 07:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As this DRV commenced, User Pharos (talk · contribs) has taken on the task of improving the article and adding even more solid content that even the nominator has verified and endorsed [7]. IZAK (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to find a source and reworded the comment added by Pharos to reflect what is in the source, but as I mentioned in the edit summary, I do not find the fact that a scholar visited a country and wrote a study on it to substantiate the notability as "history" of "the Jews in Nepal".
- For what it's worth, it should also be pointed out, perhaps, that the source I found makes no mention of the fact that Levi was Jewish.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:20, 15:13 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ubikwit: Could you please tell us, as briefly as possible, what you would consider to be Jewish history in Nepal or any country or place for that matter? Since no one knows what your minimal "requirements" are in that regard. Is it something grandiose? Is it that Jews should be born in that place? Is it a major catastrophe? A migration? It is just impossible to get a handle on your thinking, or better yet what "principles" or rules" you are going by, that most people are just not accepting. Please stop yelling about what it is "not" and tell us what you think Jewish history "is"! Thanks and regards, IZAK (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi IZAK, briefly, this is not about my version of anything, it is about history per se. The second paragraph of the lead of that article states
History can also refer to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine and analyse a sequence of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause and effect that determine them.
It has already been pointed out by Ravpapa ad Drmies that there are no Nepali Jews--and there never have been--and there has never been a community of diaspora Jews in Nepal, so there is no "history". That leaves only the present.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ubikwit: First of all we don't know what went on the last 5,000+ years in the area of Nepal. Secondly, there have been Jews in Nepal at least since 1960, why does that not count? Thirdly, you are evading my question, I asked you what you would consider to be JEWISH history (hint, it is about Jews in a country, no matter whether they are born there or not), it is not the same as general history, and that I think is the central problem here, we are arguing apples and oranges, can we agree on that? Let's try to be brief (I know we both like to be wordy, so I am trying my best, I assure you.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't argue with the close given the debate, but wow, that article, and the topic, just really aren't encyclopedic. There is no meaningful history here if the article (and the comments here and at the AfD) are to be believed. But I can see the closer feeling that deletion would have been a supervote. But given the article and the strong sense it can't be meaningfully improved, I'm going to go with overturn to delete. This is basically an article that says "X in Y" and has as content "there is no X in Y". A merge would be a better solution (Jews in SE Asia? I'm not sure Nepal is considered to be in SE Asia though) if a solid merge target can be found. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete: echoing reasoning of Hobit. And as for user IZAK's (unsigned at 12:17 above) assertion that we cannot know what went on in Nepal over the last 5,000 years, there is therefore no history involved for a Wikipedia article, since there can be no accurate sources and without sources it is OR. Hence no history. I agree that this article was essentially badly named. Fylbecatulous talk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Close as Keep. I find that we have an article on Contemporary history which is speaking about a timeframe closely connected to the present. And I find that the BBC refers to "recent history" in reference to events and developments only decades old. (Note topics under "Recent History" at the linked-to BBC website.) Our article clearly states the limitations of the history under consideration, and assertions in the article seem well-supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you re-read the Contemporary history article to which you linked and then try explicating the article under discussion in terms of contemporary history. What is in the article under discussion do you find to be of historical note along the lines of the events described in the "contemporary history" article?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Far be it from me to disagree with a fellow admin, but there is no history of the Jews in that country, and no one in the AfD had any arguments to prove otherwise. The presence of one organization does not history make. Jews haven't lived there or built there or anything else until quite recently. I suggested a better course but its pretty well-known that Wikipedians would rather write a bunch of crap with stuff pulled from Google than a real article with journal articles and books as a source. The suggestion that all this stuff is "history" proves our history, and that we should keep this "because something may have happened in the last 5000 years" is so ignorant I don't have words for it. But I suppose that editor will vote to keep Drmies in Nepal since they also don't know anything about that.
- Endorse This is a mere argument over title: if people really insist on interpreting "history" in the narrow sense, it could be changed to Jew in Nepal. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a link to a google search on "Jews in Nepal". I won't repeat what I mentioned above, but if you peruse the Afd, you'll see mention of a JSTORE search conducted by one of the participants.
- It seems to me that if the "history" aspect is acknowledged to be a logical fallacy, there is nothing else on the thematic level that holds the collection of material in the article together, and it begins to look like a blog.
- I've also found this interesting essay WP:MASK, which states
The use of numerous, often unnecessary references, known as bombardment, can give a good impression and make an article appear notable. In many cases, these could be sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong. But the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability.
- Without general notability, the article sounds promotional in relation to the activities of Chabad and perhaps those of the organization converting tribal people from India because it is illegal in India to do so. WP:NOTPROMOTION states
Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
Since there are dedicated articles on Chabad and the other organization (can't remember the name), the material belongs there, not in a general article called "Jews...". They are not representative of "Jews" as a whole, and there are almost no other Jews in Nepal (except tourists).--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ubikwit, repeating the same slogans does not make them "true" so please quit talking for the Jewish people, since there is no such thing as the "'Jews' as a whole" except in your mind because Jews come in all varieties, in all situations and cannot be judged the way you are judging them from your obviously very narrow POV. You have yet to prove that you know anything about the principles of Jewish history. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin and anyone still to !Vote: Please be aware that even since the commencement of this DRV, the article is being constantly upgraded with additional information with more WP:V WP:RS [8] particularly by User Pharos (talk · contribs) and myself. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
::WP:NOTNEWS, with respect to the History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#Security_issues section, for example.
- Other than that, the material being added is tangential at best, consisting of isolated one-off stories about individuals. The latest relates to an eleventh century merchant based in Tunisia who reportedly sold a spice said to originate in Nepal--but even that is not certain. None of this marginalia is about history of "Jews in Nepal". I also looked at the source here on "Jewish history, and you are misrepresenting that by using history as a hook for your coatrack article about any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal.--Ubikwit<sup 連絡 ]]見学/迷惑 07:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what Ubikwit, by now it's pretty obvious absolutely nothing will ever make you happy, you have tried an AfD, complaining at ANI, and now at this DRV, you just want the Jews out, out, out of Nepal, and you figure if you just repeat yourself long enough you will get your way, no ands ifs or buts, and there is no reasoning with such an irrational approach. Furthermore, since you are such a self-claimed "expert" about the History of Nepal why don't you go and fix that key main article first because since 2011 (three long years) it's been tagged with a huge {{Multiple issues}} template that requests and notes: "cleanup=February 2011; refimprove=June 2011; confusing=January 2011" and as they say, "charity begins at home" and once you can show your bona fides over there maybe you will have some credibility here. But right now, all it seems like is that you are just being stubborn, not acknowledging the constant improvements to the article being made daily and just tiresome obstructionism that is getting to be a pain. IZAK (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah Ubikwit and when you hiss things about objecting to "any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal" it is both worrisome and weird that you are so blind to the obvious conclusion that certainly collectively that that is in and of itself part of the History of the Jews in Nepal, besides the strong WP:V and WP:RS (e.g. 1 Horace Kadoorie was awarded the Order of Gorkha Dakshina Bahu, First Class by the Nepalese government -- obviously they didn't think his links were "tenuous" to Nepal; or 2 The French Jewish scholar Sylvain Lévi who visited Nepal in 1898 and published a three-volume historical study Le Népal: Étude historique d’un royaume hindou, 1905-1908, considered the authoritative Western account of the country for most of the 20th century -- nothing "tenuous" about that either; or 3 the Israeli-based humanitarian organization Tevel b’Tzedek that sponsors Israelis and Jews to go to Nepal as a contribution to improving the lives of Nepalese -- nothing "tenuous" about that either...and there are more such so-called "tenuous" and truly un-tenuous examples in the article that you blithely want out, out, out in your rampaging against this article, while all these, and more in the article, show you are 100% wrong and even if you do not like it. Wake up and smell the coffee, IZAK (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article is being transformed during the course of this DRV and that many verifiable, reliable sources are being added. I admire the effort and ingenuity that's gone into this process, and I wish it had been used more appropriately. The article now consists of a series of reliably-sourced facts, incidents and anecdotes. The problem is that you and Pharos are making connections between these facts, incidents and anecdotes that, as far as I can tell, no authoritative or scholarly source has ever made. I can understand why you're doing it; you're linking together things that have happened involving Jews in Nepal because you want to keep the article. But it's a WP:NOR violation (specifically WP:SYN): you're creatively mixing together ingredients that no reliable source has ever connected to each other. I'm sorry to say this because the effort is commendable but I believe it's misdirected.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressing :Ubikwit|'s argument that the material should go under Chabad in Nepal, there at present is really only sufficient material for an article; However vague the definition of Jews may be, it certainly includes Chabad; equally, it certainly includes others than Chabad, and evidence has been presented they're other Jews there; more specific articles can be written if there is need for them. DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: 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. I don't know if such an article would survive, but it would be better to go with something like that than what there is now if it is to be maintained in any form. The Shavei centers would also seem to be a somewhat tenuous presence, though, tasked solely with the mission of converting the remaining people from a community in NE India.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: Could you please clarify your last comment. In retrospect, I'm not sure I understood it. Are you agreeing with the suggestion of Ravpapa and others about moving it to a Chabad based article? And adding others about other groups as they become notable?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is one of the weirdest articles i've seen recently (vandalism excluded), it claims to deal with the "Jewish history in Nepal" and the gist of it is "There is no noticable Jewish history in Nepal". Tourists and diplomatic staff do not make "history". This way I could write an article "Dutch history in Nepal", too. This is ludicrous. Kleuske (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was reminded of WP:Articles for deletion/Railway stations in Burundi. Thincat (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To user Kleuske: Why is the article "weird"? because you find Jews in Nepal as a topic "weird"? What is your definition of Jewish history? You think one needs drama, blood and gore, to make history? How would you write such an article? This is not just about "tourists and diplomatic" staff. If you want to write a "Dutch history in Nepal" there is nothing stopping you because WP:NOTPAPER, go ahead and find the sources. To user Thincat, are you comparing Jews to "railway stations" or "railway cars"? and if the same number and type of Jews went to Burundi or anywhere else then it would get its article, and many do, see Category:Jewish history by country. Please note, that WP articles do not need to start out at the heights of academia to be acceptable, they must be written in good English, meet WP:V & WP:RS (see the over 45 reliable citations and sources in History of the Jews in Nepal#References that prove that!), it has WP:NOTABLE information and fully abides by WP:NPOV -- all of these criteria are fully met in this case and an AfD confirmed that, so making a mockery of a good article and ignoring the facts does not befit a sensible discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is weird for the reasons stated. There simply is no appreciable Jewish history in Nepal. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @IZAK: No, not at all. Rather it was "Jews" made me think of Burundi[9] (I expect the article is being worked on right now) and "Nepal" made me think of railway stations, as well it might (Railway stations in Nepal). Thincat (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article does pass the test of notability. Efforts are underway to improve it. It should not be summarily deleted. -- Dauster (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Close as Keep . I do not see any reason to overturn the decision of the closing admin.Smeat75 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Close as Keep. Fully support closing admin's rationale. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SW3 5DL: What "rationale" would that be? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ubikwit: This rationale: The result was keep. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep. That last bit about a disruptive nominator would be about you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Close as Keep The closing administrator was rather clear in addressing the strength of the arguments, and in weighing consensus properly. Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break
- Reverse the keep decision. The article is a patent disgrace, unencyclopedia. It's frankly unbelievable that a pastiche of recent tourist connections and religious proseylisation in Nepal be an excuse for the title of an article which, everywhere else on wikipedia History of the Jews in Jamaica;History of the Jews in the United States; History of the Jews in India; History of the Jews in Greece; History of the Jews in Norway ;History of the Jews in Australia and dozens of others, the fundamental premise is that there are centuries-old historic links, and these are well documented in scholarship on the history of Jewish communities. Here there is no such thing, the article is a sui generis piece of WP:OR, with both the title, and the fudged and fabricated 'Ancient History' section trying to pull that over people's eyes by citing extreme WP:Fringe website material that is frankly, off the planet. Secondly, there is good reason to suspect that this is part of an outreach programme by a specific group, since they are mentioned frequently. The closing judgement shows oversight perhaps, but not insight into the POV-shenanigans at work in pushing an unencyclopedic tidbit about hippie tourists from Israel and a religious group catering to their treks through the country. I write as someone who became an orientalist after a marvellous sojourn in Israel during which I decided to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk, training in Nepal, a project defeated by circumstances, leaving me just an orientalist with, as my editing shows, a fair knowledge of the Tibetan world. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating Nishidani, that while you shamelessly accuse others of fantasies such as "there is good reason to suspect that this is part of an outreach programme by a specific group, since they are mentioned frequently" in flagrant violation of WP:AGF based on no knowledge of who and what current contributors such as User Pharos (talk · contribs) and myself are, and neither of us has any attachment to Chabad as far as I know, in fact, I single-handedly took Chabad on WP to task in an ArbCom case in 2010, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement and I have accordingly cut down to size the mention of Chabad in the article in question, so please quit with the false accusations and insinuations, yet you have no problem in violating WP:COI about your own personal life and outlook: "I write as someone who became an orientalist after a marvellous sojourn in Israel during which I decided to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk, training in Nepal, a project defeated by circumstances, leaving me just an orientalist with, as my editing shows, a fair knowledge of the Tibetan world" -- Who cares?! Unless you want to convince us that you have POVs of your own that you cannot control?! So, let's face it, it would be best for you stay out of this discussion of you cannot control that. Now this may come as a shock to you Nishidani, no one knows who you in real life, and no one cares either, since no one can know what is real and what is pure fabrication. Anyone can claim to be anything on WP, even the "Wizard of Oz" and no one really cares, because on WP we judge editors by their productivity, skills, their ability to abide by WP policies and to behave. On WP it is required to write in clear English, provide WP:V & WP:RS and stick with WP:NPOV and all that is more than met in this article. There is no exaggeration in it, and just because there are no huge tomes in academia about it (yet) still and all the article has over 45 WP:V & WP:RS from media, universities and a variety of good sources, see History of the Jews in Nepal#References. Few articles like that can boast even a quarter such refs. Your recourse to hyperbole, baseless insinuations and unverifiable private anecdotes does not befit a serious WP editor. Feel free to put all that personal stuff onto your own user page but please spare us at serious DRVs and AfDs such as these. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Gee whiz! Sieving this I find one tidbit. Your deduction I am getting at you. At AN/1 I showed the article's attempt to make any historical connection was a false synthesis from weirdo websites, and linked to an eccentric rabbi's personal convictionbs. I noted that the article was left only with (a) the existence of a Chabad House of Kathmandu catering to trekkers (b) facts about Israeli trekkers visiting Katmandu and environs. There's nothing else there. But what did editors do? They fudged, fabricated, invented a pseudo-history out of two-bit religious websites to assert a historical connection. It's like making an article about '''History''' of the Greeks in Nepal, or even '''History''' of the Scottish in Nepal. Notes 1-7 and the section constructed from them are all egregiously WP:OR. The fact that the great orientalist Sylvain Lévi was Jewish and wrote on Nepal has nothing to do with 'History of the Jews in Nepal,' any more than the great Maxime Rodinson being Jewish and writing on Ethiopian culture and dialects would justify insertion in an article History of the Jews in Ethiopia as a fact bearing on the subject.
- Christianity in Nepal or Roman Catholicism in Nepal make some marginal sense because Kathmandu has a Church of the Assumption and historical missionary work exists and local communities exist so if the title had Judaism in Nepal, by analogy, I'd have no objection. As it is it should be History of Contacts between Israel and Nepal. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sections 'Historic trade routes' are WP:OR since no sources there make the connections, and Notable Jews and Nepal has nothing to do with the title i.e. Jews in Nepal. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- References are not measured by the pound, yard or cubic meter.The "referencing" in this particular article is less than reliable. Example: The article states "Spikenard is a class of aromatic oil used in many ancient cultures that may represent either lavender, lemongrass, or the modern definition, Nardostachys jatamansi (the latter a spice originating primarily in Nepal and also in neighboring countries),[1][2] and that was a component of the Temple in Jerusalem's incense offering." The two references both refer to the spice, which is a real spice, but the bit that actually needs referencing ("This spice was used in the temple and it came from Nepal") is not. IOW, two bogus references. I very much suspect the rest isn't much better. Kleuske (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That whole section is bogus WP:OR as I said on the other page (AN/1) all the sources from 1-7 don't connect Jews to Nepal.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nishidani. There doesn't have to be a "centuries-old" Jewish history. The fact that Jewish history begins in the 1960s in Nepal is in my opinion actually an argument to "Keep" the article. A curious reader may want to know the extent of Jewish history in Nepal. This article with a reasonable degree of accuracy presents that, including the fact that a serious influx of Jews only begins in the 1960s. As an encyclopedia, we examine countries for their Jewish history, because this is of some interest to some readers. Should we eliminate from our examination the country of Nepal due to lack of significant extent of history? Supported by 3 sources we have a sentence in the article reading: "Birnbaum estimated that each year the number of Israeli tourists to Nepal is approximately 20,000, and many of them stay for long periods, such that the Hebrew language is spoken in many streets of Kathmandu and elsewhere; in that sense, there is a vibrant Jewish tourist community in Nepal.[14][15][16]" Why would our encyclopedia eliminate an article that speaks to a hypothetical reader who might be curious about this? That reader may very well be an English-speaking person residing in or visiting Nepal. Wouldn't it be better to improve the article by inserting a sentence in the lead that emphatically stated that there is little evidence for a Jewish history in Nepal prior to the 1960s? Bus stop (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename the article Israel and Nepal. The only substance here concerns the establishment of ties and tourism between Israel, Israelis and Nepal. I suppose by analogy we will have a History of Scots in Nepal, History of New Zealanders in Nepal: every modern society has hoards of kids going to Nepal. In Kathmandu you can hear every major world language. So what. This is an encyclopedia not a touristic brochure.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nishidani—it is a safe bet that a sizable number of the Israelis in Nepal are Jewish. There are three Chabad houses in Nepal. This article simply follows a workable pattern of listing Jewish history by country. I think that pattern probably makes for easy navigation by a reader. Should we break that pattern because in this case an argument can be made that the history is limited and/or shallow, and that the majority of Jews in question may in fact be Israeli? Your points are valid, but the content of the article still roughly fits the title of the article as well as the series of articles on Jewish history by country. Furthermore the lead can clearly articulate that there is little evidence of Jewish presence in Nepal prior to the 1960s. This is a more constructive remedy than deletion of the entire article. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an inadmissible argument for several reasons, the first of which is the claim that because Wikipedia has a series of articles on a given topic that the series can be arbitrarily expanded without RS support simply because "Wikipedia has a series of articles". --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this arbitrary expansion you are referring to? How is this article an arbitrary expansion on the basic outline applicable to similar articles in this series? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no appreciable history to which the title of the article purports to point the reader. So the "arbitrary expansion" to which I referred was a reference to the "series of articles. The fact that there is a "series of articles" that is legitimate in relation to a given topic is not a justification for extending the series beyond the scope that is supported by RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse the keep decision and delete. The article is a mishmash of WP:OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Cwobeel. Can you please provide some examples of the original research you see? Bus stop (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sylvain Levy is WP:OR. The fact that an orientalist was Jewish and briefly visited Nepal, and wrote a book on it, does not establish a fact for a 'History of Jews in Nepal). Maxime Rodinson was Jewish, a superb scholar like Levy, he wrote extensively on Ethiopia's languages and history, but not for that would his passion for the subject qualify as an item in a History of the Jews in Ethiopia. The Levy/Kadourie stuff is barrel-scraping and grasping at straws to try and fudge up a substitute for the lost pre-1948 history of Jews in Nepal.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nishidani: Great to see you are in such great form! Hey, it is always easier to tear things apart than to build. You can keep on going and do this to hundreds of thousands of articles on WP, if you need help I will find them for you and we can destroy half of WP that way quite quickly. I have no doubt that if you happened to like this topic you could easily put up just as strong an argument for building it up and not tearing it down to the ground. Say what you want, very few articles of this nature have what counts on WP, namely the over 45 WP:V & WP:RS, see History of the Jews in Nepal#References, it also entirely written in WP:NPOV to back it up and build it up, and that is all that counts to keep it on WP. There is no "rule" anywhere (except as you make it up as you go along) that says there is a "residency requirement" of any length of time to connect any Jew or anyone or anything with any phenomenon that may visit or live or that exists to make that "notable". If Neal Armstrong stepped on the moon for a day he is connected with the subject of the Moon and Lunar exploration forever, you can object as much as you like that "humans do not live on the moon, and Armstrong was a human". I dunno, but as I read this article again and again now as it exists I just don't see how a phantom "rabbi" bogeyman is shaping its agenda in any way shape or form. On the contrary the article is actually central to why tens of thousands of young Israelis are coming in droves each year since at least 1960 (proportionately that's like millions of US college students) searching for meaning in Hinduism and Buddhism in Nepal, yes Nepal, something they do not find in Israel and Judaism. Your focus on the Chabad thing actually hinders the real issues going on here. It is not about some kids climbing the Himalayas for fun and you know that from your own experiences as you have admitted to doing this very thing yourself and surely that was something very notable and significant to you, as you have openly admitted above: "I write as someone who became an orientalist after a marvellous [sic] sojourn in Israel during which I decided to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk, training in Nepal, a project defeated by circumstances, leaving me just an orientalist" -- your words about yourself, not mine! Do you even realize what you write?! Take it easy, IZAK (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way Nishidani, I also love the way you attempt to marginalize Horace Kadoorie who was awarded the Order of Gorkha Dakshina Bahu (First Class) the highest honor of that country by the King of Nepal himself, and no doubt it was for something very, very significant, or do you dispute that, maybe he got if for "mountain climbing" too or going to a Chabad house for Passover? Note what is says, that "The Most Puissant Order of the Gorkha Dakshina Bahu (Order of the Gurkha Right Arm or Hand) is an order of knighthood of the Nepal. It is one of the highest honors given traditionally by the king and now the president. It can be awarded to both the military and civilians, including foreign nationals, for the distinguished contribution to the country in the field of arts, literature, sports, science, and social service." No small change and certainly WP:N! So your frenzied arguments based merely on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT just do not hold water. IZAK (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wild assertions, all wrong, all personal, and you have the hide to complain of Ubikwit? This is a logical exercise in article construction.
- Perhaps indeed Horace Kadoorie, a very great man, could go into an article on Nepal. But logically, if we need this special article, then we create 'History of New Zealanders in Nepal', with Edmund Hillary (who received the same medal), statistics on the considerable number of Kiwis who hike there every year, and mention of the churches they attend in Katmandu, plus consular exchanges. Through in the Kiwi clothing company whose name I can't remember, active there.
- Kadoorie's philanthropy extended to helping Jewish refugees in Shanghai, not for that do we add his name to History of the Jews in China. He always was awarded the French Legion of Honour, but not for that do we have him registered in History of the Jews in France. People who have this ethnic fixation, who can't look at anything without trying to find a badge of their identity stamped on the subject, are a nuisance socially and on wikipedia. I just think this is nationalist/religious POV pushing. Just as I won't tolerate antisemitism, I dislike its positive mirror, ethnic obsessiveness about Jewish connections in every subject - it smacks of the same malady, the inability to enjoy anything unless it is, in this case, part of us as opposed to them. And it is odd that this occurs in Jewish articles. Anyone who is Jewish has such an extraordinarily rich global and historical heritage that trumpeting it is like yelling to monkeys 'I'm different'!!! recognize it!!! 'Quite pointless. Jews are Jews, they are also philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, German, Icelanders, metal smiths, hollywood stars, ballerinas, and cowboys, and this obsession people have with jumping on the Jewishness to the exclusion of their individual human gifts is as dangerous as antisemites, who see Jewishness everywhere and in everything.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Let's get this straight, this is a DRV discussion about a valid topic relevant to Jewish history not much diffrent to the myriad topics in Category:Jewish history by country. Are you saying that any topic related to Jewish history should "not be 'Jewish'" like saying a topic about the history of the Arab people should "not be about 'Arabs'"? That is very illogical and irrational. Please stop pontification your personal POVs about Jews, Jews, Jews, (or about anything else that's not directly relevant for that matter) since nobody is interested! Either contribute and edit the article as Ubikwit is trying to do, but please stop serving as his oversize "wingman" in this DRV. In addition, I quote you verbatim speaking about yourself (naturally, as that seems one of your favorite ploys) so since when is quoting someone's own words a problem? You need to tone down your emotional oversize reactions, stop speaking about yourself (since no one cares about your personal history or self-declared claims to fame that no one can prove) and stick to the cold facts alone in a calm manner please, and please avoid filthy language as I have requested above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you some problem with me? You think my replies are 'emotional' outbursts? I'm deeply amused by inanity, wherever I find it. This is just one example. I guess a wry smile may be 'emotional' but when I happened on this, that is all my emotions expressed.
Are you saying that any topic related to Jewish history should "not be 'Jewish'"
- Nope, and that's a bizarre reading. I am saying, quite commonsensically, that for a topic to be related to Jewish history, it must have a Jewish component, and be historical. Jei9sh history is too rich to be triviliazed by far-fetched fantasies and nonsense of the kind which blotted the editorial history of the article in question.
this is a DRV discussion about a valid topic relevant to Jewish history
- Um, read the text
According to the 2011 Census of Nepal, there is no Jewish community of native Nepalese people
- Some days back it had
As of 2014, the permanent Jewish community in Nepal is very small and consists largely of Israeli diplomatic officials and Chabad staff.
- There is no 'history of the Jews in Nepal. The article, after successive eliminations of all the bogus history confectioned up to give the appearance of historical depth, is left with noting touristic visits. It's a silly article. It began as an attempt to fudge up a 'history' and then had to admit there was none, and then had to alter the lead to note that there is no history, only trekker visits, a religious house catering to them, and diplomatic staff. I can't wait to watch the next exciting developments in the series:
- (a)History of the Jews in Ladakh (if you go to Leh you'll see a Habayit HaYehudi there): (b) History of the Jews in Bhutan; (c) History of the Jews in Tibet (the late lamented translator of the Gesar epic Robin Kornman), (d) History of the Jews in Mongolia (Mikhail Izrailovich Tubyansky, murdered in Stalin's purges), etc.etc. These are all technically feasible also because Aurel Stein travelled there, as did and have many other scholars of Jewish descent (Melvyn Goldstein).
- Look, I don't care either way, whether this is accepted or not.It's simply that no one has given a reason for the inclusion of this nonsense into wikipedia, and the editors constructing the article have made consistently silly contributions. But stranger things happen.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: You are a master of taking snippets from here and there and quoting them totally out of context to prove your POV. Nice try, no cigar. Not the first time it's done. You know you sadden me, you talk as if WP is supposed to be some sort of pluperfect production of sublime knowledge which it is not. As we all know, WP is still only in its relative infancy gathering, welcoming and building up articles. Many articles do not exist yet and many articles do not cross-reference each other. If you want to go and do that, don't talk about it as some kind of "tragedy", just go and take care of it. I am sure neither the hospital Kadoori was born in nor the synagogue he had his barmitzvah in do not mention his name either, so what? All it means is that an editor has not gotten around to it yet (it may take years, but WP has time). You are wrong about there "not" being Jews in Nepal, they are there and have been coming to Nepal for decades, they are there in droves right now as we speak, many works talk about it, they are coming for the Buddhism and Hinduism they find there. I have now added more about this with WP:RS to the article. I am really sorry that you cannot tolerate people studying, talking and writing about Jews and Judaism and Jewish history etc (do you also say that to Christians, Muslim, Hindu and all editors who may have an interest in ANY religions and ethnic groups, as you know the Jews are both a religious group and and ethnic group??) it makes it sound as if you wish that Jews and Judaism and Jewish history would disappear. It is also very alarming when you compare Jews to antisemites!!!! as you put it in your own words: "this obsession people have with jumping on the Jewishness to the exclusion of their individual human gifts is as dangerous as antisemites, who see Jewishness everywhere and in everything" really now ??!! can you back that up with some WP:V & WP:RS???? (what the heck is "Jewishness" in any case???) but I suspect it is just you, yet again spouting your own very prejudiced POV (against "Jewishness" at any rate by your own words) in your own words to your detriment (naturally) that is totally irrational, illogical, insulting and sorry to say it unacceptable or worse, don't you see you are harming yourself with that kind of talk as well as offending Jewish editors with that kind of spiteful hate-filled speech?! Do you not like people who study Jews and Judaism in colleges, universities, schools, or write books, and journals and newspapers about that subject, too many to count??!! Should they all "go away" and then you and Ubikwit will be "happy"??!! As I said, no one is forcing you or anyone to edit articles in any field, and if editors wish to contribute of their free time and expertise in any area, WP welcomes that and as far as I can tell you do not speak for WP, or am I missing something? Take it easy, maybe it is time for you to have a WP:WIKIBREAK. IZAK (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK. I've been raising analytic, logic, analogical and technical problems with the article in several posts, and your replies consist of these personal attacks, impressions, remarks and innuendoes' (it's not hard to read between the lines:Nishidani is not one of us, and if he comments on a topic that interests me he has a problem with Jews). Let me list the innuendoes, insults and personalized pulpit thumping.
- you shamelessly accuse others of fantasies (I noted the sources were fantasies)
- you have no problem in violating WP:COI about your own personal life and outlook (?)
- Your recourse to hyperbole, baseless insinuations and unverifiable private anecdotes does not befit a serious WP editor
- your attempt to marginalize Horace Kadoorie (I didn't. I showed use of his award was improper for the article)
- your frenzied arguments based merely on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT just do not hold water
- Please stop pontification(about) your personal POVs about Jews, Jews, Jews. (= I am obsessed with Jews, i.e., am antisemitic)
- please stop serving as his oversize "wingman" (is a pilot who supports another in a potentially dangerous flying environment) in this DRV (WP:Tagteam)
- You need to tone down your emotional oversize reaction
- stop speaking about yourself (I made an aside once, and IZAK, you repeat it several times, suggesting I stop speaking about myself. I.e. you should stop speaking about me)
- self-declared claims to fame that no one can prove) and stick to the cold facts alone in a calm manner. (I made no such claim, and have adduced cold facts)
- please avoid filthy language (turpiloquy in calling a spade a spade?)
- You are a master of taking snippets from here and there and quoting them totally out of context to prove your POV.(WP:Point/editwarriordom etc.)
- You know you sadden me, you talk as if WP is supposed to be some sort of pluperfect production of sublime knowledge which it is not. (ie. I want to write an encyclopedia, not muddle through)
- I am really sorry that you cannot tolerate people studying, talking and writing about Jews and Judaism and Jewish history (Really? I've written several fairly good articles on the subject. See my page)
- it makes it sound 'as if you wish that Jews and Judaism and Jewish history would disappear (oh, echoes of the proverbial holocaust redivivus mentality)
- It is also very alarming when you compare Jews to antisemites!!!! (I didn't. I had in mind an anecdote you often hear in Israel (most recently by Uri Avnery(the original in the 1920s, by the way, did not speak of Jews. It spoke of Poles. I don't believe in collective descriptions. I don't believe in 'nations' or ethnic groups of any type. I demand that each person/editor take responsibility for what he says, writes, does, without playing the ethnic/antiethnic card by spinning everything as based on 'racial' antipathies)
UNESCO invites representatives of different countries to a conference on elephants and the following pagers are given The Englishman gives his paper on "Elephant hunting in Colonial India." The Russian reads "the Superiority of the Russian elephant." The Italian reads "Elephants and the Renaissance." The Frenchman offers "The love life of the Elephant." The American reads "How to Raise Bigger and Better Elephants." A Nigerian offers "Elephants and Racism." The Czechs offer "Why the Soviet Elephant is Our Idol." An Israeli offers "Elephants and the Jewish Question." Arthur Asa Berger,Blind Men and Elephants: Perspectives on Humor, Transaction Publishers 1995 p.100
- I suspect it is just you, yet again spouting your own POV in your own words to your detriment (naturally) that is totally irrational, illogical, insulting and sorry to say it unacceptable or worse, don't you see you are harming yourself with that kind of talk as well as offending Jewish editors with that kind of spiteful hate-filled speech?!
- Do you not like people who study Jews and Judaism in colleges, universities, schools, or write books, and journals and newspapers about that subject, too many to count??!! Should they all "go away" and then you and Ubikwit will be "happy"??!! (I.e. a lousy article is held hostage because objectors to it are antisemites and my dissatisfaction with a pathetic article must be rooted in antisemitic distaste for Jews.
- Apart from repeatedly violating WP:AGF and sidestepping the specific wiki-based objections I raised, you are employing throughout these personal tirades of vilification by innuendo a hackneyed piece of quarter-baked rhetoric, whose propositional form is. 'Someone disagrees with me (b) I happen to be Jewish (c) the objection must be grounded in antisemitic enmity.
- Try, dear chap, to focus on the objections, and avoid these farcical attempts to denigrate and personalize them.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: So now you are trivializing this subject yet again, if anyone wants to write what UNESCO thinks about anything, let them go ahead, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not UNESCO while WP is an international collaborative effort to write an online encyclopedia about everything, that has also added policy guidelines that require WP:V & WP:RS that articles should be written in good English in a WP:NPOV manner which the article in question more than satisfies as was confirmed and affirmed by an AFD and certified by the closing admin. But User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) cannot accept the WP:CONSENSUS of that and he then resorts to all sorts of WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to attempt another destruction of the article now through this DRV. In the interim the article is undergoing considerable improvement (like every article can) and most users have had their say and have had enough of this headache that is really not worth this type of discussion. Yet you and Ubikwit keep on writing reams of comments and critiques that you self-label as "raising analytic, logic, analogic [sic] and technical problems with the article" (that only you think is so, after all, no one says that, and self-praise is no recommendation) that others see as just another guy's POV. Then you claim that there is some kind of "us versus them" conspiracy going on here of: "Nishidani is not one of us, and if he comments on a topic that interests me he has a problem with Jews" -- when I just cite your own words that seems to surprise you. As for comments that are full of innuendos and aspersions on others, your posts seems to indicate an irrational fear of some sort of "conspiracy theory" and cynical put-downs such as when you allege 1 "Secondly, there is good reason to suspect that this is part of an outreach programme by a specific group, since they are mentioned frequently." (Your "conspiracy theory" not anyone else's.) 2 "POV-shenanigans at work in pushing an unencyclopedic tidbit about hippie tourists from Israel and a religious group catering to their treks." (You may not like them, but they are there doing things, like it or not, and WP can describe and try to explain it.) 3 "the article's attempt to make any historical connection was a false synthesis from weirdo websites, and linked to an eccentric rabbi's personal convictionbs." (Again, who is this mysterious "rabbi" who is behind the "conspiracy theory"?) 4 "But what did editors do? They fudged, fabricated, invented a pseudo-history out of two-bit religious websites to assert a historical connection." (Go ahead insult fellow editors and excoriate anyone else as if you own WP, which you don't.) 5 "I just think this is nationalist/religious POV pushing. Just as I won't tolerate antisemitism, I dislike its positive mirror, ethnic obsessiveness about Jewish connections in every subject - it smacks of the same malady, the inability to enjoy anything unless it is, in this case, part of us as opposed to them." (Just your POV, and another "conspiracy theory" -- because if editors have an interest in a subject, any subject, WP welcomes them to contribute, you are not running the show here AFAIK.) 6 "Anyone who is Jewish has such an extraordinarily rich global and historical heritage that trumpeting it is like yelling to monkeys 'I'm different'!!! recognize it!!! 'Quite pointless. Jews are Jews." (What are you talking about? Do you now want to remake all of Judaism and change all the Jews, go ahead, we can only deal with the reality of what is, not what you would like to be.) 7 "this obsession people have with jumping on the Jewishness to the exclusion of their individual human gifts is as dangerous as antisemites, who see Jewishness everywhere and in everything" ("interest in 'Jewishness'" = "antisemites" -- what a sick conclusion!) 8 "Jei9sh [sic] history is too rich to be triviliazed by far-fetched fantasies and nonsense of the kind which blotted the editorial history of the article in question." (What "fantasies" are in this article? Pray tell. Why does it deserve such harsh language? Do you do that every time you don't like any article?) 9 "no one has given a reason for the inclusion of this nonsense into wikipedia, and the editors constructing the article have made consistently silly contributions" (Sorry, but I am one of those people who has worked hard, for no pay, as a labor of love, to improve the article with better information, clearer focus and reliable sources.) 10 "remarks and innuendoes' it's not hard to read between the lines:Nishidani is not one of us, and if he comments on a topic that interests me he has a problem with Jews. (There is no "us versus them" here, most editors here are probably not even Jewish, so why are you throwing this in, as if you are the main focus, and if not, you will make yourself the main focus, when no one is interested in your personal history or your personal POV views, just stick to the topic at hand.) 11 "Uri Avnery the original in the 1920s, by the way, did not speak of Jews. It spoke of Poles. I don't believe in collective descriptions. I don't believe in 'nations' of any type." (Okay, so you don't like nations or ethnic groups or religions, who cares? WP has a commitment to accept and write about everything -- nations, ethnic groups and religions included.) 12 "I demand that each person/editor take responsibility for what he says, writes, does, without playing the ethnic/antiethnic card)." (Who are you to "demand" anything here, do you own WP the way you talk to others?) 13 "'Someone disagrees with me (b) I happen to be Jewish (c) the objection must be grounded in antisemitic enmity." (Now you are really making things up because no one ever said that or meant that. Just take responsibility for your own words about Jews, how interest in "Jewishness" is somehow like "antisemitism" and now you are playing the "victim" card when it is you who is verbally beating up anyone who comes in your path.) Bottom line, A you constantly violate WP:AGF all the time, B you are most certainly NOT WP:CIVIL to editors who do not share your POV or are not submissive to you. CYou violate WP:NPA when anyone stands in your way and you dislike the topic enough, which does not take much. D You act as if you WP:OWN not just this article but the entire scope of WP policies and its purpose. E You violate WP:BATTLEGROUND via your use outrageous language and insult those who differ with you, and you see "conspiracy theories" emanating from "rabbis" and "religious groups" that is just unreal and just plain scary. F You obviously cannot see when you are busy with WP:POINT all the time via unsolicited and unwelcome "personal anecdotes and comments" and a holier than thou lecturing tone to impose what you think should be WP's agenda, the hell with the fact that the world is not just made up of yourself or of "me, myself and I" as they say. Then you have the audacity to say that hey look at IZAK, he is actually talking back to me and calling me on all this. That is the height of chutzpah. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TLDR. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nishidani:, too bad, you would learn something positive. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No. All I've learnt here is that people talk past problems and don't read books, and edit subjects without an ability to spot errors or sheer nonsense. Just looking at the article pains me. After all, whoever edited it is so magnificently erudite that (s)he had mangled the very first citations, and I've checked everyday to see if the obvious blooper will be sighted by the geniuses working the page. I.e. There is a comical confusion re one of the greatest sociologists of all time Marcel Mauss. Someone editing this junk thinks that he was a 'mouse' (Germ.Maus). Which reminds me I once recommended to a wikipedian, who asked me for some advice, that he read Mauss's masterly Essai sur le don. I guess he's no longer around, certainly not watching this article.
- And of course whoever misread the source to state that Sylvain Lévi 'was the first to take a comparative approach to Hinduism and Judaism,' hasn't the foggiest notion of Indology. The comparison was made 2 centuries before Lévi's floruit, by La Crequinière in his Conformité des Coutumes des Indiens Orientaux avec celles des Juifs et des autres Peuples de I'Antiquité, Brusselles, chez George de Backer, (1704), and became a meme long before Aryanist racism infected Orientalism. But of course, I've been reminded I know nothing of Jewish history or culture, and am faking it when saying I have some knowledge of the Orient. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Close As Keep. I agree with Alansohn that the closing administrator was quite clear in supporting the arguments of the Keep !votes, rather than just tallying up those who voted Keep. I'm aware that AFDs can be brought to DRV for re-review, but I am shocked by the number of new editors who are suddenly weighing in for the first time, as if this were an AFD discussion. Regarding Ubikwit's effort to revert the close, he is simply repeating the same arguments that lost him the AFD the first time around. The only salient solution I can see here – which is not for a DRV, but for the talk page of the article – is to ask for consensus on renaming the page Jews in Nepal or Judaism in Nepal. I think that a rename would go far to unruffle the feathers of those who fervently insist that "history" must be centuries old and not decades old. (By the way, the history of the Jewish diaspora is exactly that: settlement and exodus, settlement and exodus, whereby Jewish communities that once thrived in certain countries are completely extinct today, while newer communities now thrive in places that never before saw a Jew. Your epiphany while visiting Israel is commendable, Nishidani, but you know nothing about Jewish history and culture.) The article as it stands today has 47 reliable sources, making it clearly notable and verifiable. It could use some copyediting to smooth it out and not make it sound like a series of sentences strung together, but that's no reason to delete it. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your epiphany while visiting Israel is commendable, Nishidani, but you know nothing about Jewish history and culture
- Again, as per IZAK, the personal insults. I would yawn except for the fact that you misuse the word 'epiphany'. I mentioned no such experience (as you get correctly employed for example in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. You alsp ignore the fact that the first 7 RS are not RS for this topic, since none of them connect the dots in the WP:SYNTH argument made there. You also ignore the point about Kadoorie. You also ignore the fact that this is the only 'History of the Jews in . .(name a country) that uses the word history of events in the last three or four decades. As for not knowing about Jewish culture and history, you may be right. But then, to judge from the state of articles on these topics, I am in very good company, since no one seems to roll up their sleeves and correct the numerous confusions between hearsay, legend and scholarly determined facts which make a large number of them an eyesore. I don't look at them anymore, to save myself the trouble of having to spend hours fixing them, like I did this morning with just one egregious piece of source misreportage in the little I read in History of the Jews in India. I do wish we had editors who are thoroughly familiar with Jewish history and culture. I've only seen a handful at work in several years, and this absence is rather shameful for a community where eruditeness is commonplace. But then again, smart people don't often waste their time on wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alansohn: @Yoninah: I have made it clear that I disagree with the closing admins so-called rationale, with respect to which he declined to reply to multiple queries seeking clarification.
- If you two are so confident about this article and its notability, then why don't you simply try to improve it by adding some RS-sourced content? No can do?
- Well then, I've just deleted a bogus section after User:Pharos failed to reply to queries on his user talk page as well as the article talk page regarding some information of dubious sourcing. Anyway, let's see what you have to say about that. Either start editing the article, or stop trying to defend it on the basis of recourse to unsubstantiated ideological hubris over and against specific faults with it vis-a-vis WP policy, such as WP:RS WP:V and WP:N.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:21, 6 July 2014; 00:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
