Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  Sandstein  07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete as almost unsourced patent nonsense (G1, G10 and possible G3). Quis separabit? 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The dead-link website wouldn't have been a reliable source even if it were still available, I don't think.  An earlier version of the article was sourced, after a fashion, but entirely to primary-source travelogues from the 19th century.  While I don't think 19th century sources are necessary a problem, unlike the editor who stubbified the article, the primary source writings of people like George Forster and Horace Wilson are deeply insufficient to defend what is basically a fringe theory, wrapped up in essay-style novel synthesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Striking my delete !vote, but I'm not quite willing to actually advocate "keep". There are apparently enough sources that cover this bit of ethnographic nonsense to warrant an article, although I'm more than a little dubious about the quality of scholarship they express.  However, this is a fringe theory in every sense of the phrase, and the material we have here at the moment reads like it has actual currency.  We're almost certainly keeping this mess, but I'm not sure whether what we have would be better off being rebooted to correct the point of view and weight issues.  Regardless, if this is kept, a rename would necessarily be a first step. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's an utter WP:HOAX, like the ten lost tribes of Israel sailing to the Americas to found Mormonism--the difference being that Mormonism is much better sourced. Qworty (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong and being hasty. The article has been around since 2007 with lots of input from a variety of editors over the years, so that if it was hoax it would have been deleted a long time ago. The topic is not "Mormonism" (your curve ball+red herring+that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China) which is not the point here, but this topic does have WP:RS even as a theory, see my comments below. IZAK (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge with Kashmiri people as I do find mention of this theory in multiple books like India's communities and some others, but all have written as a possible theory rather than an actual one. So in my opinion it do not deserve a separate article and should find due mention in "Kashmiri people" article. -- S M S  Talk 06:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't support a merge at all. Maybe if there's a lot more detail in the wider context, but if that snippet is all it's got, then I'd be far more willing to assume that "'lost tribe' communities" is being used somewhat metaphorically rather than as support for this fringey fringe theory.  Regardless, the standard for inclusion for this, even in another article, needs to be pretty high; it's really far afield.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nonsense. Do not merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC) I am afraid now this nonsense has to be kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be kept "now"?? Quis separabit?  21:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this fringe nonsense unfortunately made it way to some respectable editions.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong! It's no "nonsense" see my comments as to why it's a valid topic below. IZAK (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename Delete and do not merge or redirect. The content is unsourced and controversial to merge. The title is unsubstantiated for a redirect. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While the article cites only one source, this topic is not "unsourced" and has some pretty good WP:RS, see my comments below. IZAK (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep as per the recently added sources and the rename suggestion. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 20:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to Theory of Kashmiri descent from Israelites because: ( 1 ) that would be in line with articles such as Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites; Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites, Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory, Subbotniks and a number of others to be found in Category:Groups claiming Jewish descent. ( 2 ) This subject could be presented as a truly encyclopedic topic as the Jewish Virtual Library does in its article on this topic Kashmir that cites F. Bernier, Travels in the Moghul Empire, 1656–58, ed. by A. Constable (1891) and T. Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth (2002): ""The association of Kashmir with Jews was first alluded to by the 11th-century Muslim scholar Al-Bīrūnī in his "India-Book"...In the time of the Moghul emperor Akbar (1556–1605), the question of the association of Jews with Kashmir and the Jewish descent of the Kashmiris was raised by the Jesuit Monserrate, who regarded the old inhabitants of this region as Jews by race and custom in view of their appearance, physique, style of dress, and manner of conducting trade...The claim to be of Israelite extraction is still widespread among Kashmiris, who point to the similarity of place names which appear to reflect biblical names..." so that if it not a fact, at least it is a theory discussed in WP:RS not to be scoffed at! ( 3 ) The nominator and the "delete" votes seem to be rushing to judgment in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many stubs like this exist and they are fleshed out. But this is no reason to violate WP:DONOTDEMOLISH because on closer scrutiny this subject-theory does have traction and is discussed in a variety of sources and forums. ( 4 ) This article is not as far-fetched as it may seem at first, and there is some decent WP:RS that are found by a Google search, such a source found through Google Books, citing research: Kashmir and It's People: Studies in the Evolution of Kashmiri Society (By M. K. Kaw); Where are The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel? (geni); Promised land, Cursed people (Kashmir First) and others like this if one searches carefully, caringly and sincerely enough. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject of the article is probably only a theory and it may even be untrue but even if untrue the suggestion contained within it is supported by some sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - anyone who deleted it because they said it was a hoax, while their opinion is welcome, should realize that just because there isn't a lot of info on the article, it's not a hoax. Do a Google search for this.  Here's one book that discusses it, for example.  I don't know if it's true or not, but it's certainly not a hoax - it's a theory. The article is in a terrible state now, but can be improved.  Deleting it because it's a hoax isn't a valid reason. -- Jethro   B  16:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep and Rename to Theory of Kashmiri descent from Israelites per IZAK, with a redirect from Theory of Kashmiri descent from the Lost Tribes of Israel. Had the nominator bothered to do a quick Google Books search on "Kashmir Lost Tribes of Israel" he would have found plenty of scholarly citations to keep him busy. As it was, I spent an hour or so adding reliable sources and laying out the basics of this widely-cited theory. It also figures prominently in the philosophy of the 19th-century Ahmadiyya Islamic reform movement, which postulated that Jesus survived the crucifixion and traveled to Kashmir to preach to the Lost Tribes of Israel. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly enough material. Rename as Izak suggests. BTW, does anyone know if there is any relevant genetic data ?  DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked an editor here who specializes in Jewish genetics, and he said he's pretty sure there isn't, and according to the editor, "Considering the haplogropups distribution in Kashmir the pair-wise genetic distances between Kashmiri People and Jewish populations is likely huge, with little possibility of common origin." Doesn't discount this as a theory that can have an article. -- Jethro   B  00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but, if kept, strong support for re-name - the title is rubbish and just lends to suggestions that the whole thing is either WP:OR or a WP:HOAX. I accept that it might not be - there certainly seems to be references to support the suggestion that the theory exists. I'm not convinced it is so widespread a theory (in the scholarly study sense) that the subject deserves an article. The most substantive source supporting the theories in question is from David Hatcher Childress, an "alternative historian" and "historical revisionist" who "claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study". Whether the other sources are enough to establish notability of the theory itself, any version of the article that doesn't describe it as a fringe theory is, in my opinion, not accurately reflecting the available sources. It's a fringe theory from a fringe theorist who writes about it in his non-scholarly book without referencing any facts, sources or primary material. The fact that others have bought into the theory means it might pass notability tests for inclusion but if it is kept it should be described for what it is. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalwart: Why are you calling Childress the "most substantive source"? I just added another reference from the Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture. The fact that the theory is cited in a wide variety of publications makes it easily pass WP:GNG and therefore makes it worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he seems to be the person who, in a modern context, brought a bunch of disparate fringe theories together into a wider narrative and published it. Most of the subsequent references seem to have broadly followed his theories (or parts of them). I don't know for a fact that he was the first to do so but the article, broadly, seems to have been based on his ideas. It doesn't really matter, as I said, the subject probably passes notability criteria as other sources (like the one you cite) have subsequently referenced the ideas, or parts of them, regardless of who published them first. My point was that we need to "call a spade a spade" - it is a fringe theory and it should be discussed in that context. Stalwart 111  (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:FRINGE and ISAK. Yes, it's certainly a weird, fringey theory -- but a notable one.  Nor its it new; I've read about these theories since I was a kid, over 30 years ago.  Some of the Afghanis and Kashmiris have long claims descent from Joseph (son of Jacob) via Ephraim or Manasseh, and then through, the respective two tribes.  Formerly respected sources exist that back up the claim is notable.  It may be true, or it may be urban legend, but it's a the sort of crackpot theory we have on the Project. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK and Bearian. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.