Jump to content

Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Recap: January 1, 2005

Prior to December 13, 2004 this article page was a mere redirect to an Istraelite page which began with a POV statement interpreting the motives of everyone and anyone who had anything to say about this matter, if those views did not support the previously linked source. On that date I created a new disambiguation page in which I began list all of the people and all of the theories related to this article. The people and the theories were not and are not compatible, but they were all viewed as variations of the same dissent from the original linked source. Well I began to add to this page and to create other articles and other pages all related to the disambiguation page, when all of a sudden, with no discussion, the disambiguation page vanished and everything was stuck into this one article. Other pages were also cut off under this sudden revision and those actions led to the present discussion. Rather than jump into a revert war I left well alone and engaged in discussion instead. Since there are obviously various points of view being expressed, wouldn't it be better to go back to the disambiguation approach instead of turning this now very confused article into a controversial one as well that will not make anyone happy? MPLX/MH 22:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can go either way on this. If the disambiguation page really does cover all of the bases briefly, and then all of the various views are each covered in an article of their own, fine. Conversely, if this page contains a paragraph or two on each of the major related topics, with some sections also linking to separate main articles, that's fine, too.
If the judgement were up to me, I'd go for the latter: a disambiguation page is appropriate when the same term refers to unrelated matters (e.g a bunch of unrelated colleges called "Trinity College", lots of towns called "Freeport"). In this case, everyone referring to the Lost Ten Tribes is referring to more or less the same phenomenon, with the same origin, it's just that they have radically different claims about the Lost Ten Tribes. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Please access the History of this article and follow the development of the disambiguation page. I like your suggestions with one drawback which was the reason why I created the disambiguation page in the first place. Originally the link before disambiguation pitted this issue as "all-Christian" versus "all-Jewish" and that is a problem. Because lumped in with the "all-Christian" lot is Christian Identity with all of its hanger's-on. Christian Identity is both anti-semitic and anti-American in the sense that it was at the root of Timothy McVeigh's terrorism in Oklahoma City! Those neo-Nazi ideas trace the history of the Jews back (just like some Jewish groups) into an era pre-Book of Genesis. But whereas the pro-Jewish groups are positive towards the Jews in their mysticism, the neo-Nazis link the Jews to a race issue that creates a sub-human species - just as Heinrich Himmler and his lot did once before. The British Israel page should be about that movement which came out of the British Empire loyalists of the 19th Century. The Anglo Israel page should trace the Cromwellian - ben Israel connections and the others connect up somewhere to that page. The British Israel connections then almost die out and get revived in the 20th Century to veer off towards Christian Identity while retaining its own individuality. The Jewish mystics which includes David Horowitz (but only slightly) veer off a path that was defined by (among others) Nathan Ausubel in the 1950s (who was a respected Jewish author and produced some very fine books which I have in my own library.) Review the History of this article to see what I mean. MPLX/MH 00:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I feel an article about the 10 Lost Tribes which documents the various groups which have made claims to either have discovered them or be them would be appropriate and quite interesting content for this article. That would include discussions of Armstrong, British Israelism, Anglo-Israelism, Mormons, Tudor Parfitt, Ethiopian Jews, B'nei Menashe, etc. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have a practical question Jayjg : How would you do all of that in one article in terms of space and how would you do that without duplicating what is written in other specific articles about those same topics? Wouldn't a disambiguation page solve what you are suggesting with just a paragraph lead in to link to more specific articles?
Larger articles typically summarize positions in a few sentences in each section, and then point to the main article on the topic. The Jew article could serve as an example. If the information in the sub-articles is small enough, it could be re-incorporated into here. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also have a big problem with the current lead in to this present article which replaced the original attempt at a disambiguation page: 1.)See also Israelite article. - That is like a single POV disambiguation right out of the gate which when you follow the link does not address the issue at all but leads into: 2.) Lost Ten Tribes, also referenced as the Ten Lost Tribes or the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, usually refers to ten of the tribes of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel that were "lost" after the Kingdom of Israel was totally destroyed, enslaved and exiled by ancient Assyria. - which I have no problem with - but we then come to: 3.) There are also modern-day "theories" about this subject by some Christian theologians whose claims are in effect nothing but Supersessionism. - which is highly POV because there are many other ways of looking at this topic. All that does is dismiss the entire article as rubbish and not worthy of consideration. But that is not informative, that is what the right-wing Christian fundementalists do to views that they don't like. The present lead-in continues with: 4.) These latter-day "theories" are not necessarily compatible with each other and are sometimes actually hostile to each other." I wrote the non-compatibility part but it got modified with the use of the Mormon term "latter day" (which these theories are not - because that begs the question of how old does an idea have to be before it is not "latter-day" and Mr. Zevi and his messianic followers were claiming to represent the lost ten tribes in the days of Oliver Cromwell. Then the word theories got modified with quotation marks wrapped around it which implies a POV mark of disdain for the very notion that such ideas could even exist. It seems to me that a NPOV index of paragraphs leading to various articles which are not compatible with each other would be the easier approach and that could be done with a new disambiguation page. MPLX/MH 17:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The material in the Israelite article and this article should be sorted out; there is considerable overlap which needs to be undone. The Israelite article is currently fairly POV, but that can be fixed. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lost Ten Tribes topic INEXTRICABLY tied in with Hebrew Bible

MPLX's "description" of "edits" does not do any justice to the core undeniable fact that the subject of the "Lost Ten Tribes" does in fact primarily relate to the Israelite article in the first place. The so-called "disambiguation" page about "Lost Ten Tribes" as somehow being a "preserve" of modern-day crack-pot theories is an abuse of both the facts of history long established and highly-regarded as recorded in the Hebrew Bible-Tanakh and thus making it an integral part of both Judaism and subsequently Christianity, and also an abuse of Wikipedia's system of organizing serious scholarship. There are HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of classical rabbinical commentaries by Rishonim and Achronim that talk in depth about the subject of the "Ten Lost Tribes", referred to in Hebrew as the Aseret Hashvatim. Forget "Horowitz" and that level of low scholarship, there is a mountain of serious Talmudically trained scholars' output on the subject that has not even been broached here yet. So NO need for melodrama, and let us continue the discussion. Thank you. IZAK 08:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IZAK tone it back down. The possibility of flaming with this topic is built-in and I am doing my best to ignore the heat in response. My response to what you wrote is simply this: Is the REALITY of Heinrich Himmler or Timothy McVeigh a rabbinical issue? I think not. Are they such fringe issues that they affect few people? I think not. I will leave unsaid the ramification of Heinrich Himmler's views, but what about McVeigh? What motivated him? Not why did he specifically blow up that building, but what motivated him to go that far? What was his core? His single act touched thousands in just one morning. The Christian Identity lot create a race sub-species out of the Jews that is outside the book of Genesis. But then the Jewish mystics coming from a different standpoint also go outside of the accepted storylines and some of this stuff is getting renewed attention due to Maddona's expressed interest in that subject. How does that fit in to the mainstream of Jewish thought. It goes outside the bounds. The same is true of Armstrong who dumped mainstream Christianity and absorbed a LOT of teachings familiar to Jews from the holy days to a version of what foods are acceptable. Then look at the millions and I do mean millions of dollars spent on print and airtime by Armstrong, not to mention Gene Scott who has his own take, on teaching a version of the Lost Ten Tribes. Armstrong did all of this with his arms wrapped around the State of Israel and the State of Israel knew who he was and what he was doing. But Armstrong was a big anti-Nazi and those same millions warned the world that a Nazi Europe could happen again. Armstrong was anti-German so when some suggested that Bobby Fischer was swayed by Henry Kissinger they did not know what they were talking about. Fischer turned anti-Semite after being disillisioned by other Armstrong teachings and Fischer was no stranger to Jews. Then if we add the pages of raw history dealing with the era of Queen Victoria and the sun never setting on it because the British were God's chosen people ... what then? How do the rabbis absorb all of that? They don't and they can't. This is a NEUTRAL subject full of contention and emotion by not a single group, but by many. Your reaction is typical of that reaction from only ONE point of view. That is why a true disambiguation page is the best way to go. I am not saying that what I created was perfect or complete, it was neither, but it was a start and it needed cooperation from all sides to create a true NPOV article that could be a work of cooperative art ... if we can all get together and pull it off that is what we could all contribute towards creating. How about giving it a go? MPLX/MH 14:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MPLX honestly: I have just read and re-read (and read again) what you have conveyed above, but it all seems more like Psycho-babble to me than anything that should be taken serioulsy by SERIOUS scholars. What on earth do Nazi-Himmler, pop-Madonna, diplomat-Kissinger, chess master-Bobby Fischer, British-Queen Victoria, and mass-murderer McVeigh etc have to do with serious discussions about the topic of the Ten Lost Tribes which is derived directly and irefutably from the Jewish Hebrew Bible??? Does it matter that millions of beguiled fools think that the Rev. Armstrong was a "true" prophet or not when all we want to do is DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN who and what the Ten Lost Tribes were according to the primary source (i.e. Judaism's Hebrew Bible - Tanakh) that cites the facts surrounding who and what the Ten Lost Tribes were and without which the whole subject is moot? I cannot fathom your obsession with McVeigh either. What went on in the mind of that killer is not germane to this subject. Why do you drag Himmler into this discussion? Who cares what he thought?! And Kissinger? This is all beginning to sound like an incoherent ramble and not the raw material for a serious article about a serious subject. IZAK 10:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IZAK: My interpretation of what you have scattered all over this page (I was attempting to keep it orderly) is an example of what you are accusing me of doing. It is highly POV. It is your way or no way. I knew that this topic could be highly charged so I went for the neutral disambiguation approach. Your last comment above I cannot even begin to disassemble without taking up volumes of space. (At one point you call millions of people "fools".) The reason I put in my own references regarding nunc pro tunc was to show not only my opinion but that I had more than a book knowledge of the subject. On the other hand I gave you no personal details because unless you spend the time and the effort, what I have written about myself is all that you know about me. You don't even know if I am male or female. My page only tells you the country of birth and country I migrated to, plus some likes and dislikes in very general terms. On that last score this topic is now going where I don't want to go. It is becoming a little unpleasant for my taste and so I am bowing out. This means that I am leaving the discussion on this page and on the related article because to my way of thinking political and religious issues have been dragged into an academic arena. For me (I am personally non-partisan and non-sectarian) that is neither acceptable, nor entertaining and therefore it has become an unpleasant chore. You have my permission to delete anything or everything that I have ever written on both the article page and this page (not that you need permission in the first place, but now you have it.) I will now post on my own page that I am no longer contributing to this subject. If we meet on other articles I will treat our encounters as fresh starts and respond with friendship and neutrality. MPLX/MH 17:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the destination of the "David Horowitz" link--it currently takes you to the page on the American intellectual/social activist David Horowitz, who was born in 1939.

Fixed, thank you. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes?

Shouldn't the article be named Ten Lost Tribes? Lost Ten Tribes is rather un-natural-sounding in English - Nik42 06:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Ten Lost Tribes" gets 26,900 google hits, "Lost Ten Tribes" gets 10,600. Jayjg (talk) 06:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So, who's gonna take the bull by the horns? Tomer TALK 01:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the following two links from the external links section,

My rationale: The first link is to a fickle (as in not reliably "up") British Israelism website. There is already a link to Anglo-Israelism in the See Also section. If this site is really worthy of inclusion in any WP article, it would be in that one, not in this one. The second link is to a set of New Earth Inheritance Writings by Paul Phelps, who by the way I read it is a messianic [1] crackpot [2] [3] [4]. The link to eifiles.cn was first made yesterday (May 21) by an anonymous coward, User:24.218.47.118 contribs, whose entire purpose at WP appears to be inserting this link into this particular article and changing "chestburster" to "chestbuster" in Xenomorph. This makes the second time today I have removed it.

At the same time, I inserted links to Kulanu and Shavei Yisrael, (formerly known as Amishav), since both those groups have the Ten Lost Tribes at the core of their missions. Tomer TALK 01:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


Response to Tomer

User:24.218.47.118 writes: First of all, I made that link because of an interesting article on the http://www.eifiles.cn website called "The Twelve Tribes of Israel," which talks about Israel's lost tribes, and where Paul Phelps (the author) thinks they are today. It is all speculation, but Paul supports his ideas well with much research from the Bible, and I'm sure many readers will find his researches interesting. Second, I don't think it's correct to label Paul as a "messianic crackpot," because he did spent a lot of time and effort into supporting his ideas. Third, I happened to stumble across the Xenomorph article while browsing Wikipedia and reading other things, so I decided to change the "chestburster" to "chestbuster," which is a more correct and popular name. However, it is not my "entire purpose" at WP, as I was researching other stuff.

P.S: How were you able to track my activity so closely? 11:46, May 22, 2005.

  • I assume you're refering to this article...It's a collection of sheer speculation, relying on mistranslations including those found in the KJV as well as the author's own (it even says so). It invents an "Eastern House of Judah", comprised of 90% of Jewry in the Persian Empire, which it goes on to claim is lost to history—in complete error. (Not only was there no "Eastern House of Judah", but those Jews who did remain behind in Mesopotamia and other parts of the Persian Empire were not "lost", they were either assimilated following the arrival of Islam (to this day, the Pathans in Afghanistan, Pakistan and eastern Iran, all muslims, are divided into tribes whose names bear striking resemblance to the names of some of aseret hashevatim. You can read all about them here. In any case, if we're going to link to that eifiles article, it should be in a separate article, perhaps entitled Crackpot theories about the Ten Lost Tribes...but I don't really think WP should become a repository of every scrap of nonsense out there. As for how I was able to "track" your activity, I looked at the article's edit history, saw that the same IP address was used to make all the changes involved in inserting the link, and went and looked at the contribs from that IP address. I recommend that you create an account so that nobody else calls you an anonymous coward in the future. :-p Also, sign your name when you post on the Talk page so that people know whom they're addressing. The quickest and easiest way to do this is to simply type ~~~~ at the end of your post. Tomer TALK 17:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


  • I don't think Paul means they are "lost," but like you said, assimilated into the cultures in which they live. Here's a short passage addressing the topic:
    The commonly known ones are descendants of the western Roman captivity. 
    They are Judeans, formerly of the House of Judah, Jews.  They are descendants
    of the Jewish 10% who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.  Isaiah 6:12-13,
               The LORD has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are
               many in the midst of the land.  But yet a tenth will be in it, and will
               return and be for a consuming, as a terebinth tree or as an oak,
               whose stump remains when it is cut down... 
    Most Jews did not return to Judea but stayed in Persia.  We read about them
    in the Book of Esther, written long after the 10% returnees went to Judea.  The
    Persian Jews that stayed in the east are the eastern House of Judah.  This group
    is lost from history except for a few that still cling to Jewish traditions.  Without
    Jewish tradition or with no outside contact most of them have become another
    part of the lost tribes, the unknown Jewish tribes of Israel.

It never invents a Eastern House of Judah, but rather, it implies that the "Persian Jews that sayed in the east (never returning to Jerusalem) are the eastern House of Judea." Thus explaining them for being "lost." It seems to address the "Ten Lost Tribes" article really well and should be included as an external link. Ryz TALK 20:17, May 23, 2005


I would argue that it explains Paul Phelps' views wrt the ten lost tribes "really well", but that it leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to actually explaining the ten lost tribes. As for the "eastern House of Judea", it's a flight of fancy by the author. And, as for your having reinserted the link, at least now it actually points to the article you consider to relevant. I've taken out the "with much support from the Bible" part, as I think that's a judgment on your part (with which Mr. Phelps would no doubt concur), but one which I find highly dubious. I really don't think it should be necessary for me to have to go through a line-by-line critique of that article to refute it just for you, so I'm not going to. Nice TALK thing, btw. :-p Tomer TALK 18:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
The Phelps link is a non-notable personal opinion, not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 01:27 (UTC)
I wouldn't say his article so much as a personal opinion. It's more likely that he sees something in the Bible that should be pointed out. Considering the amount of work that he shows, it's hard to say that it's nothing but a personal opinion. --Ryz05 29 June 2005 13:05 (UTC)
What does the amount of work he has done have to do with it being a personal opinion? There are a million of these guys, each with their own unique understanding of the Bible; that doesn't make them notable. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
If you can find me one article that can be called a "personal opinion" that has as much support about the lost tribes from the Bible as Paul Phelps, then I will stop posting up the link. Until then, the link should be posted as a resource that tells of the Lost Tribes of Israel in a Biblical context. --Ryz05 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
The article is all Paul Phelps' "personal opinion", and while it has Bible citations and misappropriated mistranslations sprinkled throughout it liberally, it is neither encyclopedic nor particularly noteworthy. Tomer TALK June 29, 2005 21:52 (UTC)
You mean you think it should be included because you like his argument? Sorry, it's still just one person's opinion; please find more credible links. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)
If eifiles.cn is not considered a credible link, then at least someone should put its claim under the heading "Varied Claims" in this article. (Ryz05 14:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

British Israelism

While I personally agree that British Israelism is repugnant crap, the section Brit-Am - Yair Davidiy is way too POV as written. Could someone take a shot at this? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:23, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it could be re-written; the POV is so pervasive. You'd probably have to delete and start fresh. Jayjg (talk) 06:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have taken it out:

===Brit-Am - Yair Davidiy===
Among the many myths and the most fanciful conjectures that have been elaborated about the alleged "Lost Tribes" of Israel, there is one that by its fallacious nature goes beyond everyone's wildest imaginings so that it cannot be even regarded as a myth or legend, but a very superstition. This theory is infecting the web in such a way that whoever intends through any search engine to find anything related with the term "Lost Tribes", will get a string of websites promoting this new deception, listed under different names and claiming theological authority: they are all based on a false philosophy usually known as "British-Israelism", "Anglo-Israelism", "Brit-Am", etc. This fallacy has a sectary religious origin but nowadays lays scientific and historic claims so that ignorant people may fall in their snare. Since every learned person understands that all scientific, historical and biblical evidences utterly disavow their alleged "proofs" and that their theory is simply ridiculous, it would not be necessary to disprove it. Notwithstanding, as many people may be searching for the truth and might be caught or have just been caught in their trap, this exposition may help them to acknowledge that the promoters of such superstition are fanatic deceivers as many other lunatic sectarian leaders. Since even including the name "Israel[ism]" in their fallacy sounds offensive, henceforth I will refer to this deceptive theory by the name of one of the sects supporting it, Brit-Am, that does not contain the name of the chosen nation in its denomination, but in this faction I intend to represent all movements supporting the same or similar ideas. Indeed, the Brit-Am sect falsely proposes itself as an "Orthodox Jewish" organization led by Yair Davidiy, an alleged "Jew" (but actually 100% GOY), a typical sectarian leader with irreversible psychological troubles, in the fashion of Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson or even like Osama bin Laden, self-obsessed people that manipulate racial tensions and politics, Yair Davidiy came up with his own bizarre, destructive world view and version of pseudo-Israelism, indeed, a deep anti-Judaism and anti-human-nature-of-the-non-British. Brit-Am's pernicious doctrines are widespread mainly through so-called "Messianic" movements (that have no relationship with the true Messianic Judaism, but they give themselves titles that appear creditable and that do not show their actual ideology). They are neither Jews nor Messianic Jews, nor Christians, but another kind of pseudo-religion that arose from a Christian environment and found a fanciful thing in pretending to be not Jews but "Israelites". They are ultimately anti-Jewish and in their essence they show to be the same as those who believed in the superiority of the so-called "Aryan" race, therefore, they are in contrast also with pure Christian and Messianic beliefs, that do not accept the idea of a people being better than other. Actually, the only difference between Brit-Am & co. and nazism consists in defining who is the master race. Their leader presents himself as an "Orthodox Jew rabbi" but paradoxically he preaches a deep anti-Judaism and his ideology is utterly the opposite to Judaism! He is not a rabbi at all, but a deceiver!
It is essential to remark that the biblical concept of "Chosen People" that belongs to Israel is purely spiritual and has not racial or discriminatory implications towards any other nation - Judaism does not consider Jews to be better than any other people, but all human beings are equal; the status of Chosen People regards the task of keeping Torah and introducing Torah to the whole mankind and is not connected with ethnicity.
Brit-Am's manifest inferiority complex towards Jews generated the absurd demands to transfer the spiritual status of "Chosen People" that belongs to Israel into an actual ethnic superiority of the Anglo-Saxon peoples over any other, and mainly over Jews, whom they deeply envy and consider to be non-Israelites (in full agreement with the anti-Semites that pass the "Khazar myth" off as a truth and with other preachers of counterfeit stories).
In this essay it is necessary to cover different topics that are indeed not related to each other, but that Brit-Am & co. have gathered in order to make the exact opposite elements to become one and the same thing to support their fallacy. Therefore, since they allegedly found their claims in biblical and scientific so-called "proofs", we have to consider mainly biblical and scientific concepts that prove that their claims are utterly false.

This is BREATHTAKINGLY POV. Whoever put it in the article needs to be whacked over the head. Meanwhile, given its tone and the apparent size of the brainpan of its contributor, I smell a copyvio. If this stuff can be NPOVized, I invite any and or everyone to go for it, but leaving it in the article is, in a word, UNACCEPTABLE!!! As probable evidence of its likely status as a copyvio, I point out the beginning of its 4th paragraph: "In this essay it is necessary to cover different topics..." Bleh. see also CRAP . Tomer TALK 06:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribe

So why is this page not titled "Ten Lost Tribes"?

I also think the page could use a lot less discussion of the more controversial claims. There is little discussion about the Lost Tribes going to Ethiopia, India, Magog, the Asian Steppes, or the dozens of other places they were said to go in various legends at various times. The controversy and British Israelism idea get way too much time.--Cuchullain 15:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree about how this article ought to be at Ten Lost Tribes. The current title is just awkward. john k 05:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Babylonian captivity

the story about these tribes seems similar to the story about Babylonian Captivity, but the article makes no mention of it. Are they related? -Lethe | Talk 16:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

my idea of the hebrew bible is a local god favored a particular folk. modern man's idea of god has grown to his ability to comprehend the universe. one need not reject scripture to compartmentalize it; rather the truth of science blends nicely with ancient views of god if one is not strident. fundamentalism is a relationship to a holy book, and the life of one man is worth more than the whole lot, that's jesus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jhughescoleman (talk • contribs) 1 July 2006.


Incoherent

The following sentence in the lead paragraph seems incoherent to me: "Among most groups of Jews and Christians, the tribes are said to have disappeared, together with doctrine concerning continued hidden existence and/or future public return." If I parse this correctly, it says (in part) that doctrine concerning the continued hidden existence and/or future public return of the tribe is said to have disappeared. That makes no sense to me at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed without comment

The following was recently removed from the article without comment: "Since Cromwell had totally severed the link between the Pope and organized Christianity within England to the point of executing the king; abolishing the monarchy and House of Lords; destroying the abbeys and even banning observance of Christmas due to its (disputed) pagan heritage, the way seemed open to reverse the edicts which had forced the Jews to either flee from England, go underground or be killed between the time of the first Magna Carta of 1215 and the Magna Carta of 1297." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 26 October 2005

I removed the passage in question, because the whole sentence is either off-topic or misleading - creating links that are not there: Cromwell's motives are partly religious (eschatological, as given in the next paragraph), partly commercial. It has nothing to do with the abolition of the monarchy or the Reformation (apart from the motives I refered to). Kings could have revoked this before (and informally a few Jews were admitted to England) and after 1660 Charles II did not revoke this. In fact, he even contined this policy, since some Jews had helped him during his exile. And please sign your post (I did it for you this time). Str1977 10:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

80.92.52.43 01:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

mcVeigh

I doubt there is any evidence McVeigh believed he was a lost tribe or was in the so called Christian Identity movement —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.103.74.153 (talk • contribs) .

Rastafarians

I remember at one time reading about a connection between the Ten Lost Tribes and Rastafarianism. Why is a section on Rastafarians not included in this article? I think it is extremely relevant. If there is a section on LDS, there should be a section on the Rastafarian theory of the Ten Lost Tribes otherwise I believe the neutrality of this article is compromised! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.244.202 (talk • contribs) .

I don't see any LDS section, other than a small mention that LDS beliefs hold that native americans are descended from Manasseh. Incidentally, the Book of Mormon peoples are descended from both Manasseh (Lehi) and Ephraim (Ishmael), among others. Aranhamo 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ten_Lost_Tribes/Archive_2&oldid=1251568439"