Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Kashmiris in India

An IP deleted the whole section of kashmiris in india. I did not see any discussion regarding the deletion on the talk page, so I have restored it. Please do not resort to deleting it again without specifying why and/or without consensus depending on the nature of the sources based on which you feel that it is justified to delete it. Lucifer (Talk) 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely no evidence to support the claim, the only evidence given is "They have similar names and traditions." In Kashmiris it discusses they are the result of Soofi influence. It's well known that Soofi was an off-shoot of a Jewish 1600's cult started by Shabbatai Sevi AFTER he converted to Islam. Meaning none of the people of the region are actually Jewish, rather they kept the traditions handed down to them by their False Messiah. Upon this clarification I am removing the piece in its entirety. CheskiChips (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sufi'ism was not a cult offshoot of Judaism initiated in the 1600's. Do you have any proof of this at all. I mean the actual reference to Sufi'ism can be traced back early Islam, an esoteric devotion of Islam. There are many references in poets of the time and wandering ascetics who practiced Sufi rituals and way of life. Now if you've got actual clear proof that Sufi'ism was created in the 1600's by some random Jew then bring it forward, otherwise keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well—Shabbatai Tzvi wasn't a "random" Jew, he was a significant figure! Regardless of that, you are of course correct, and I can't imagine where CheskiChips got his idea. In any event, the sections on this page are about claims that one people or another is a remnant of the Ten Tribes. Therefore, evidence that any of these claims is correct is not required, only evidence that a noteworthy claim exists, even if the claim is patent nonsense.—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sabbatai converted to Islam in 1666 and there were at the time different offshoots. Sabbateans, Donmeh, and various other. They infiltrated all religions, on a personal note there was an Iraqi 'Jew' living in my apartment complex recently who was Sufi. He's aware of his past. In any case, I will get more sound evidence when I return home, I have more sound information and lineages there. Also on a side note, can I go on the main page and type "Cheski thinks he's the son of David and is the new moshiach? Then write a bunch of bull and make a website and quote it? It seems unlikely. CheskiChips (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your apartment and your neighbor notwithstanding, Sufism predated Shabbatai Tzvi by centuries, so he wasn't its founder, period. As for your proposal, no, because the material you propose to add has nothing to do with the Ten Lost Tribes. Besides that, you seem to be missing the point of this article: claims that one group or another is descended from one or more of the Ten Lost Tribes are a noteworthy phenomenon, and there is an article on that phenomenon which discusses many of those claims. If you personally have a belief that you are the messiah (or, worse, decide to write that you are even though you don't believe it), there isn't anything noteworthy about the existence of your claim (WP:NOTABILITY) and moreover it would be your own opinion ([[WP:NPOV])). For those reasons, it wouldn't be appropriate for you to contribute them to Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Largo plazo re the direction and focus of this article. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of my neighbor was a personal note of first hand experience. They aren't a phenomena! People don't know what happened to scythians, but you don't have thousands of people claiming "I AM THE SCYTHIANS!!!" why? Because they were cannibals. Let me explain, the views of Sufism and location of its practicing was very similar to Sabbatai. In fact today, Neo-Donmeh cults STILL practice sufism. There are direct quotes translatable from the two. Before him Sufi did not practice Jewish traditions, they practiced their own traditions. Kabbalistically malformed concepts entered their practice afer his conversion, where he was accepted as a large religious leader at the time. It goes so far to say as the Q'Ran even contains old writings of Sabbatai, as it wasn't compiled and cannonized at present times. Such practices were carried forth through the family traditions and this is why they have Jewish traditions, which totally voids their claims to being a decendant of a tribe. Even if they ARE, this claim shines no evidence on it. CheskiChips (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(a) First hand experience of what? Having a neighbor of a particular nationality doesn't confer knowledge of the topic at hand. (b) So if there are no claims of people being descended from the Scythians, then I will not expect the Scythians article to describe such claims. What does that have to do with the Ten Lost Tribes, about which there are many such claims? (c) Since the Qur'an predates Shabbatai Tzvi, it follows that the Qur'an does not contain old writings of Shabbatai Tzvi. In any event, it appears as though you are trying to argue why a particular claim is false. It may very well be false, but the article isn't arguing the merits of the claim, it is attesting its existence. You seem determined to read into the article something that isn't being asserted by the article. You're taking issue with a straw man. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is I don't believe even they are making these claims. I believe because of the traditions they hold which are similar to Jewish traditions it has influenced people to write it. Never have I heard of met one that even claimed Jewish ancestry, the only possibility would be if they forgot their own past. It has to do with the scythians because there is no grandeur in the scythians. There is grandeur in being a part of the lost tribes, you feel as if you belong. Q'Rans recitations predates Sabbatai, however Sabbatai predates the Q'Rans compilation. CheskiChips (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

your are being very narcussisistic in your editing style here, Just because you never personally met an Kashmiris claiming this, doesn't mean it has not been made by Kashmiris, maybe even further out of reach for you is the reality that it doesn't have to be Kashmiris themselves who make the claim, only a notable claimant, maybe the Dalai Lama for example or a set of archeological,linguist or anthropology experts with published findings on the subject.. Yourself and your Iraqi roommate each of who may have a POV soaked agenda does not probably constitute a noteworthy claimants in this situation. If you want to reference an opposing view for this claim I would suggest probably insert a line indicating the argument and citing a reference added to the citations section. Even a an edict issued by a newsworthy Kashmir government official hoping to rewrite history might be eventually considered notable if he or she is believed to be any authority on the subject, but if it turns out your citation is just a crackpot neo-sufi religious fanatic with no real study conducted better than a forced consensus among all 13 of his or her devotees or something, It will probably cause your reference and input to be removed. My point is you'd have a better chance of presenting info about the debate than of getting away with just deleting the section as if the claim did not notably exist.MY personal POV is that your fighting an uphill battle as long as any substantial historic evidence supports this claim, but that's own my POV and I wouldn't let it motivate me to edit the article to remove reference to a notable counter-claim if you ever added it to the section, of course that's just me someone else might do so, thats the nature of Wikipedia on an unprotected article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.202.55 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Igbo Jews of Africa

Just practicing customs does not make you a long lost tribe, in many ways it actually negates you. They have no claim other than they practice Jewish rituals. Prevalent in these forms of communities is simultaneous worship of Jesus, and other messianic aspects. When a single shred, whether it be historical, document (Even of oral tradition) older than 120 years ago, or of any kind of evidence is provided. Then it should be allowed to stand. CheskiChips (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a close look at the article. The top-level sections are called "Groups claiming descent from specific Lost Tribes" and "Groups that others claim are descended from Lost Tribes". They aren't about groups that demonstrably are descended from the Lost Tribes, they are about noteworthy claims, however poor the rationale for those claims might be. Granted, citations should be given showing that the claims genuinely exist, rather than being speculation on the part of the person who entered the text into Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The content of this article shouldn't even include such a topic. We there's no topics of 'Other People in history who might have been Moses' or other similar articles to be found in these topics. The Ten Tribes were existing people (according to religious tradition), unsubstantiated evidence doesn't qualify as valid. There's pages that could be written off of biblical history on the 10 tribes, the section in its entirety is unneeded and should be moved to a new location. CheskiChips (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, the articles on Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa and Judge Crater and Anastasia shouldn't include prevailing theories on what happened to them or on people who have made the news over the years claiming to be them? Because the parents of Jon Benet Ramsay have now been exonerated of responsibility for her murder, the article on her shouldn't mention the longstanding common opinion that they were responsible? Should the history of biology article not mention any of the dead ends (for example, spontaneous generation and Lamarck's conjecture) encountered in the course of developing the science as we know it today? Should there be no article on phlogiston theory or the hollow earth theory? Beliefs, claims, conjectures, and so on are often notable in their own right. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely; Largo Plazo is right. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An additional note: it would be appropriate for someone to write (in the appropriate places) about Sun Myung Moon's belief that he's the messiah or about the belief of some followers of Rabbi Schneerson that he's the messiah. But it would be inappropriate for Moon himself to make a contribution making his own claim, or for one of Schneerson's followers to add material about his own belief. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a significant difference here. Amelia Earhardt was based on facts, historical facts. Not to mention the main topic of discussion is the fact that they got lost. No one would know Anastashia if she wasn't so mysterious. No one would have known earhardt if she wouldn't have crashed. People would know of the lost 10 tribes, even if they weren't lost. CheskiChips (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree with you. Wikipedia is based on finding a consensus-driven idea of what each article should look like. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For your information, Amelia Earhart was wildly famous well before she disappeared. On the other hand, no one would be talking about the Ten Lost Tribes if they hadn't been lost, so following the very logic your just expressed with respect to Earhart (based on your misconception of the primary reason for her fame) it makes perfectly good sense that theories about where they went would be discussed in this article that is about their becoming lost. —Largo Plazo (talk)

The real problem with most of the disputed text of this article is that it has become a coatrack for every crackpot fringe theory about groups that are the subject of bizarre claims to descent from the ten lost tribes. There is no reason to believe that anything recognizable is left of the tribes. The analogy to Amelia Earhardt and the others is overdrawn. Wikipedia's policy is to treat fringe theories as fringe theories, clearly labeling them so. Much of the material in dispute is insufficiently referenced or completely unreferenced. Furthermore, it's treated with an uncritical eye. Unless the material is put into some kind of encyclopedic perspective, it's better not having it in the article at all. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Steven J. Anderson. It's also the reason I left legitimate claims such as The Japaneese connections, which have historical and modern backing from viable sources. CheskiChips (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you are continuing to confuse the substance of the individual claims with the phenomenon of the claims' existence. You are addressing the former, while denying the notability of the latter, which is what these sections are about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you (Steven J. Anderson) that the claims are bizarre, and that there is no reason to believe that anything recognizable is left of the tribes. In making these points, however, you are addressing the truth of the claims, when what these sections are about isn't their truth, it's about their existence, and the existence of a plethora of legends about what happened to the lost tribes is both genuine and notable. Certainly, add cautions that these are fringe theories, and add citations establishing their existence and their notability (or remove them if no one provides such citations). Claims of a similar nature appear in many articles. Ordinarily they aren't so obtrusive because they take little space. The fact that the amount of space taken up by such claims here is so massive is associated with the fact that there have been so many legends associated with the Lost Tribes; the sheer volume of these claims itself makes the topic of their existence all the more notable and worth documenting. (By the way, I would be interested to know why the analogy to analogous situations is "overdrawn".) —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Steven J. Anderson, i'm a little bit surprised at you. What's in the article is based on long months of colaborative work, as well as careful editing based on notable and verifiable sources. I don't have any problem with individual discussion of specific topics, but I'm surprised at you joining in with this attempt to paint the entire article with such a broad, undetailed brush. Wikipedia is based on following established principles, and following a credible consensus, as you well know. you are an established editor here, and are well-acquainted with the numerous positive ways to discuss things constructively, as well as the ways to hear others' point of view. i already know from past experience that i can rely on you to approach issues clearly and constructively, and I am sure we will all continue to do so. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you're addressing me in a civil fashion in spite of the fact that we apparently disagree. I hope my comments are seen the same way. Let me just ask that you take a look at WP:COATRACK and tell me if you think it applies. I understand that it's only an essay, but I think it contains well-taken arguments that have been applied in other debates. The reason I think the analogy to Earhart is overdrawn is that the Amelia Earhart article is mostly about, well, Amelia Earhart, with relatively brief summaries of the woo surrounding her disappearance. The bulk of this article is concerned with a lot of effin nonsense about where or who the Ten Lost Tribes are today. I recognize that you don't ascribe validity to these notions; I just think they've taken over the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Hi. thank you for your civil tones as well. Sorry, but i don't agree. i feel that these concepts are extremely relevant, and are based on valid sources and notable as well. and in addition, to answer your questions more directly, no i don't think this is a WP:COATRACK, or some other cavalcade of fringe theories. Lost tribes are not merely coming out of the woodwork; they are showing up on Israel's doorstep, demanding new apartments, UJA grants, and voting rights. This is a vitally important late-breaking issue, and so far Wikipedia may be the only one keeping some sort of handle on all these new findings, events, and data. So no, i don't agree, and i do feel this definitely has a legitimate place and relevance here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is about a religious topic, shouldn't the religious leaders decide who and who isn't the tribe? If there was no state, whose claim would be cited then? It's not possible to verifiably know however in other articles the famous rabbis of the time were cited. The state of Israel doesn't really in entirety represent the people, and definitely not more conservative sects. Those same conservative sects are the ones who maintained the traditions and kept aware of their details. 100's of thousands of Russians also show up at the door anually, the reason they come is for economic support not to be part of an old home. Thus far the only group deemed accepted in the slightest degree is Beta Israel, which doesn't claim to be a long lost tribe. CheskiChips (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer to that is no. Here at Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources, and academic sources. there are many different religious sources with many different opinion on certain things; but even if there weren't, we rely on scholarly research into topics, not opinions on various things. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If the state of Israel took a conflicting opinion on Tefillin, would that be considered what should be written of in the article? While 90% of the world would disagree is it still a reportable phenomena? Government intervention does not mean it's not a crazy theory. There is no academic sources there, there are no schollarly views on that. Because it's not a hot button issue, this is. A religious topic should not have 'academia' taking precident over 'authoritative knowledge'. In any case, none of that negates the fact that even if we were accepting academia over the modern authorities (Which you would think to be academia..), 90% of the claims are still unjustifiable and should be removed. CheskiChips (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Already stated and addressed, whether agreement has been reached or not. Please don't take up space repeating your position endlessly. WP:IDHT —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The State of Israel has nothing to do with this and I'm sorry that i brought it up. The real key to any topic is the reliable sources of information which can provide details on both sides of an issue or topic, not who has "authority" over any particular issue. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting to the right margin and placing this at the bottom to avoid confusion) Steven J. Anderson, now that I've read the article on coatracking, here are my thoughts. I don't believe that most of what's in this article is coatracking, because to my mind what happened to the Ten Lost Tribes and sheer power it has had to motivate people to concoct hypotheses is the central point of interest relating to them. However, I think we move into coatrack territory each time the details behind one of those theories are elaborated in this article. So here's what I'm thinking: practically every single one of the theories listed here already has a Main Article link, and most of them have been left as a judiciously short summary following the Main Article link. I think it would be appropriate to pare down the treatments that go on for more than a couple of lines to short summaries as well, and then decide whether the remaining theories, without Main Article links, should be trimmed as well. And in all cases, a claim shouldn't be included at all unless there is a reference that attests to the established nature and notability of the claim. What do you and others think? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a wise way to proceed to me. I will, add that I'm really just an occasional visitor to this article, although it's on my watchlist, and haven't tried, and don't intend, to do much substantive editing. I say this because I sometimes get frustrated with editors who visit a talk page to complain about what a mess an article is and insist that others improve it without making any effort themselves. To some extent, I feel like this is what I'm doing here. Having said that, I support what you're proposing and will try to offer whatever constructive help I can. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In fairness, concerning what you said about those who don't help improve articles, the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be used, not to be written ;-) and I think it's reasonable for someone seeking information about a topic from an article that turns out to be "a mess" to record a plea for improvement without necessarily having the capacity to provide any himself. I've done that myself! Also, as I'm doing now, it's clear from what I've read about WP policy that it's considered a good idea to ask for comments before committing the kind of deletions I'm suggesting. I'm not a significant contributor to this article either, but I will take on the paring down after my proposal has been up for a bit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken about the purpose of Wikipedia. I just feel like I've been doing a lot of complaining on this talk page and not a lot of improving the article. Thank you again for taking it on. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. sorry to be a dissenter, to two such useful editors, but sorry, but i'm afraid I must disagree. yes, there are main articles for several of these topics; however, very few of them deal with the Ten Lost Tribes angle. there is little way that they could, since it is often quite tangential to the main topic itself. So I feel that having this article here, along with the level and depth of all the details which it contains, provides a unique and important place for coverage. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to assist in editing, please contact me on my talk page for what leg-work you would like done. CheskiChips (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I'd like to address, briefly, the side issue raised above by CheskiChips, regarding whether the veracity of the claims shouldn't be left up to rabanim or "religious" people to decide. The answer is, "Yes", but must quickly be followed up with "But how is that relevant to this discussion?" As Largo Plazo has said so eloquently, it is not our duty as editors of Wikipedia to determine the veracity of the claims made by or about the various groups, it is our duty as editors simply to report that the claims have been made, to what extent, when, by whom, and why. It is fully within the scope of that duty to include criticism of the claims, where such criticism can be found in reliable sources, but the determination of the claims' veracity is something we are enjoined only to report here, not to decide here. Tomer^talk 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about or limited to the religious beliefs and practices of the legendary 10 Lost Tribes of Isreal and so it would not be appropriate to limit the sources of the information to religious scholars of any particular religious or even secular body of knowledge. The article appears to be about the legacies and legends surrounding the movement of an ethnic population over many ages of time, and so the sources of information should likely be varied among many walks of life. That said I DO agree it almost but not completely irrelevant to the article as to which of the legends holds most validity of being true to historic activity of these groups. One should maintain however that the inclusion of relevant footnotes providing brief descriptive information from notable sources about elements of the subject's disputability could be appropriate, especially if the debate itself brings with it more information that helps to define the notability of some of the various topics of the article. The main articles of Wikipedia do not seem the appropriate place to wage debates or censorship over the validity of any of the Facts/mysteries surrounding this subject as they relate to religious or anthropological research but it does seem to be a place where verifiable and even notably conflicting facts could be presented to help the researcher peace together the encyclopediacly presented VERIFIABLE(which is not the same as VERIFIED..if we only rely on VERIFIED data without any cultural or institutional bias the encyclpodia would be very thin indeed and raise questions about the very existential nature of reality itself. ) data/clues for themselves. The rule of thumb should be to ask of the submissions: DO they contribute information that, with the support of other articles in wikipedia or its citations, help define more clearly the accuracy of the wikipedia article as it relates to the facts provided in the article. Any notable information addressing the probability of existence of the lost tribes as a whole would actually be in a full and separate section within the article, while sourced arguments disputing a particular regional or ethnic sub-group might appear within any sections focusing on that particular identified group as a sub-topic. It already seems the claims are being described separately under the diaspora relevant topic in an organized and easy to digest format..THAT must be the overall goal of the article, to present the information in as digestible,efficient and informative manner as possible, while not easily ascribing to the argumentative nature of anthropological research and cultural pov. Subjects like these are somewhat lost to antiquity and would naturally rely on constantly updated information from increasingly vigorous research and natural growth to bodies of verifiable knowledge from advances in discovery and assimilation of new data or theoretical perspectives. As always It will depend on these discussion pages and the wikipedia community at all levels to maintain the encyclopedic relevance and notability of sources used to validate any facts presented in the article. That at least is my understanding of how this works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.202.55 (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mongols

I thought that the people in the Middle Ages thought that the Mongols were a lost tribe as well. Because of their destruction in the Islamic world. I don't know how long exactly they thought that, but does it deserve a mention? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reliable source for this claim? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Ausubel's list

Can anybody tell me why this list gets such prominence? I can see little on his own article to support it (or even his own notability). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lemba do not claim Descent form the Lost Tribes.

Or the northern Kingdom, they claim they fled the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The Ethiopian Jews do not claim to come from the northern Kingdom either, or for that matter from Menelik, thats a Purely Christina legend. But from the Jews who built the Elephantine Temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.229.89 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not at all accurate. Beta Israel claims, and has been recognised as having, descent from the tribe of Dan.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Myth, Account, Legend?

Ref the recent change to account rather than myth I have provided RS which shows the widespread use of legend, by even religious sources.195.171.9.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

History and politics

There needs to be a treatment of the various incarnations of these hypotheses over the years and in different countries with respect to its appropriation and adoption for political purposes. In the UK, Holland, and the USA it has been wielded to great effect, with historical implications. And the role played in colonialism should not be overlooked.

The article in its current form seems in some ways like a debate about which version is more valid, when of course none of them are valid, in fact.

I'm reading Parfitt's book, but there are other sources, such as Ernestine van der Wall, and a PhD dissertation from the USA.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Mountain Jews and Georgian Jews

I don't see that the "Mountain Jews" and "Georgian Jews" of the "Caucasus" have been discussed yet. Are they to be counted as part of the "Lost Tribes", or at least adding to the legend? Just a thought... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.80.6 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced criticism on in opening statement to separate deserving section

Controversial quotes and ideas that are not in line with generally agreed history give an inaccurate perspective of such an important topic. Rather than focusing on universally accepted history, the lines in question lead readers to believe that nonexistence of the 12 lost tribes is a mainstream belief, when in actual fact, there is much historical evidence to their dispersion. By putting forth such a perspective in the beginning summary is both manipulative and unethical. At least honor the research and beliefs of millions of historians, scholars and religious believers before introducing criticism. In all articles, criticism belongs as a final and last section rather than part of the introduction. The lines in question are inappropriate further because they quote the belief (not personal experience or first hand testimony) of a single person 2500 years displaced, unrelated to the event… in the opening lines of the article.

Lets take a look at two Wikipedia Articles as a standard:

First - Jesus

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. While the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate."

Note: The authors are painstakingly careful to focus on facts that are universally accepted before introducing criticism in the last written section (section 6).

Lastly - lets look at he article of Santa Claus:

"Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas and simply "Santa", is a figure with legendary, mythical, historical and folkloric origins who, in many western cultures, is said to bring gifts to the homes of the good children on the night before Christmas, December 24. The modern figure of Santa Claus was derived from the Dutch figure of Sinterklaas, which, in turn, was part of its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Christian bishop and gift giver Saint Nicholas. During the Christianization of Germanic Europe, this figure may have absorbed elements of the god Odin, who was associated with the pre-Christian midwinter event of Yule and led the Wild Hunt, a ghostly procession through the sky."

Note: How the authors focused on who Santa Claus is rather than who he is not. Criticism is the last written section (section 5). Johndheathcote 83462 18:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The 10 Lost Tribes were not the only ones to "form Israel". My edits were not vandalism but an effort to make the Lead more concise.Parkwells (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing

The style and sentences need improvement. I will return to doing that - including making the language more concise and direct.Parkwells (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Parfitt in Lead

It seems inappropriate to have Parfitt's quotes in the Lead - to favor his one opinion. The Jewish state of Israel has recognised various communities as descendants of the Lost Tribes. It appears that at least two different levels of understanding about what the Lost Tribes represent are under discussion here, and that needs explication. Recommend that his quote, with more explanation, be used in the body of the article rather than the Lead - have a summary there. Parkwells (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Lead is supposed to reflect the content of the article, which is why I do not think this Parfitt quote is appropriate. He is mentioned only one time in the article, and not with a fuller explanation of this quote, but with a quote about the Japanese as a potential Lost Tribe. There is no context given for his role, nor for his statement about the significance of the Lost Tribe myth in "colonial discourse." I think this needs to be expanded. In addition, the phrase his "unabashed conviction" sounds as if it is lifted from a source and should be either put in quotes or deleted. I am bringing numerous items to the Talk page for discussion. The article can be improved in several ways - as noted in longstanding comments, it needs secondary sources, even for the Biblical discussion; it needs a discussion of the significance of this theory in European ideas of history and anthropology, and, when it discusses peoples who identify as Lost Tribes or are so identified, needs more explanation as to how they fit into this scheme, not just their own self-identification. Yes, I will add more cited content - was trying to indicate the direction of contributions to the topic. It is not my POV but other sourced content. Parkwells (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote about the Japanese as a potential Lost Tribe is attributed to speculation, so your bringing it up seems somewhat erroneous in this context. To my knowledge there has been no establishment of a connection to any modern group of people with the so-called "Ten Lost Tribes". All utterances attempting to make such an attribution as a statement of fact are false. See Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory. "Unabashed conviction" is my description of his position, as per the quoted text and other passages. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous? I'm not supporting the speculation. My point was that you mention Parfitt only once in the body of the article, and in a somewhat different context than the Lead. If he is so significant, it seems you might give him more content in the body of the article, including more explanation of his comments about the uses of Lost Tribes in colonial discourse, which you think is important enough to put in the Lead.Parkwells (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I could do that, and probably should for the Americas section. On the other hand, if you've checked the Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory article, you'll see that he is quoted in the lead there, as well as in the [British Israelism]] article. Those quotes could be repeated in this article, but seems a little redundant, as there are links to the dedicated articles.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Much of this article is given over to listing various peoples who either claim to be descendants of Lost Tribes, or others claim they are, but none of that, including the most contemporary claims, backed up with DNA evidence, is referred to in the Lead - it is thus lacking an important element of the article. So, Parfitt says he doesn't think there are any Lost Tribes, but in fact, Israel has recognised several and conducted a major airlift to bring one group, the Ethiopian Jews, to Israel. So what does this mean? And why are they doing it? And what do people in Israel think, at least those who "believed" in the Lost Tribes? Those issues are significant and need to be considered/discussed in this article.Parkwells (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Find academic sources to support your POV. This is an encyclopedia, what you or others "believe" doesn't matter unless it is described in reliable secondary sources. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discussing personal belief but possible areas to be included in the article. By the way, you were so eager to revert any changes I made that you reverted my corrections to errors in other editors' cites - both N. McLeod and Joe Entine's cites now go back again to McLeod's 1878 book, which clearly doesn't have any of Entine's conclusions about Japanese DNA.Parkwells (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Importance of Lost Tribes in historical thought

Parfitt and others have noted the significance of the Lost Tribes in colonial discourse, and other intellectual thought (it was part of the basis for early anthropology in the United States). I think there should be more treatment of this, rather than just the listing of peoples who claim or were thought to be, Lost Tribes.(originally posted by Parkwells [1])

I've restored the above comment (some coding glitch?) in order to post an Amazon link to a book published on Oxford Univ. Press in 2009 addressing aspects relating to colonialism, etc., The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History

Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

RS material deleted

The following are legitimate content and sources (PBS, UNC Press, and an 1816 book that is described for what its author said, as an example of thinking at the time):

The PBS broadcast is definitely not reliable in this context, neither are the other texts in the sense used.

I suggest you read the Parfitt book on the topic before attempting to insert such material.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you need to understand what you're reading. The Boudinot is clearly included as an example of what people thought at the time, not an assertion that he was right in his theory. And Parfitt is not the only person to have written about the Lost Tribes, or their place in historical or religious thought. Parkwells (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The key phrase to your assertion is "at the time". Boudinot is not significant for anything except for a representation of his opinion at that time, which has been superseded by modern scholarship.

You are clearly pushing an ahistorical POV in a duplicitous manner.

I am not pushing "an ahistorical POV in a duplicitous manner." What is your problem? You have used more attacks and insults in rapid succession than I usually encounter here. First of all, people use examples of older writing to show what people were thinking. I was not suggesting that his opinion is relevant to today's thinking, but had not added it; rather, I was trying to put it in context. The Boudinot reference was here all along. If you think his writing is a problem, perhaps you also have to delete N.McLeod as an example of dated thinking on Japan. Why mention Montesino? He was wrong, too.Parkwells (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I added a references section and you deleted it. Why? Do not do that again, please.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That was an error - I thought it was my mistake from trying to show a draft of suggestions, where other references had gotten mixed up.Parkwells (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

North & South American Indians and The Caribbeans

Several explorers, beginning with Christopher Columbus, thought the American Indians were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes. Many books and articles have noted the history of these ideas."The Ten Lost Tribes", NOVA, PBS.][http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/372 Shalom L. Goldman, Sacred Tongue: Hebrew and the American Imagination, University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

Note for the Talk page: Because Western culture was based on the Bible, people tried to classify and explain the Native Americans within that system. This became a fundamental aspect in the 19th century of attempting to explain the monumental earthworks left by indigenous peoples. Steven Conn, of Ohio University, is a scholar who addresses this aspect in his book on the development of US historical thought and American anthropology, which I will cite.Parkwells (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Suggest the following for overview: The belief that some American Indians were a Lost Tribe of Israel was part of early thought in the United States, persisting into the nineteenth century. (I will provide an RS academic cite.) Elias Boudinot, the 1782 President of the Continental Congress, is an example of a political leader who wrote about this concept.Elias Boudinot (1816, 2003). Star in the West Or a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Ten Tribes of Israel Preparatory to Their Return to Their Beloved City, Jerusalem. Kessinger Publishing. Retrieved 2008-09-15. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)Parkwells (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Parfitt discusses this part of the world, too. If necessary, I can post quotes from his text.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he does, but he is not the only source. My point is, that Boudinot is an example of one who was writing about the Lost Tribe connection. You're reverting material faster than I can make any sense out of additions. You don't own this article - perhaps others have something to contribute.Parkwells (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You have attempted to vandalize the lead and continue making piecemeal interim edits that have to be reverted to return any incorrect edit made along the way. Why don't you spend a little more time considering the edits? Are you just trying to make it difficult to correct your mistakes?

I suggest you read WP:OWN before making a personal attack against me after attempting to vandalize the lead, which is well-sourced to secondary academic sources, long standing, and in conformance with other relevant policies.

No, the Lead does not include any reference to the extensive list/discussion of contemporary groups who identify or are identified as "Lost Tribes" in the body of the article.Parkwells (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

One last point, your statement "Western culture was based on the Bible" is indicative of your bias and POV pushing disposition.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate. The point was that much of this article as it is refers to Biblical sources and to the culture concerned with them. That's neither bias nor POV.Parkwells (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Menassah ben Israel, who wrote The Hope of Israel, has the following on the first page, related to who the Native Americans were: "...for the Scriptures doe not tell what people first inhabited those Countries; neither was there mention of them by any, til Christop. Columbus, Americus, Vespacius, Ferdinandus, Cortez, the Marquesse Del Valle, and Franciscus Pizarrus went thither;..." That's the context for my statement above, as Europeans did use the Scriptures to try to make sense of the world as they saw it.Parkwells (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

OPED

Some editors have overused what WIKI MOS calls OPED words, when unsourced: "actually", "moreover", nevertheless", "furthermore" - not all here, but I've deleted two "actually"s that weren't necessary. The MOS considers them unnecessary emphasis. Parkwells (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Book first before 2nd Menassah quote

Because you have noted how important Menassah's book was as a milestone in European thought, I think it should be first before his late Dec. 1649 quote of that year. We don't know yet if that was in the book or a letter or what. Have edited as the following suggestion: <<The Portuguese traveller Antonio de Montezinos returned to Europe with reports that some of the Lost Tribes were living among the Native Americans of the Andes in South America. Menasseh ben Israel, a noted rabbi and printer of Amsterdam, was excited by this news. He believed that a Messianic age was approaching, and that Jewish people being settled around the world was necessary for it.

In 1649 Menassah published his book, The Hope of Israel, in Spanish and in Latin in Amsterdam, including Montezinos' report of the Lost Tribes in the New World. An English translation was published in London in 1650. In it Menasseh argued, and for the first time tried to give scholarly support in European thought and printing, to the theory that the native inhabitants of America at the time of the European discovery were descendants of the [lost] Ten Tribes of Israel. He noted how important Montezinos' account was, "...for the Scriptures doe not tell what people first inhabited those Countries; neither was there mention of them by any, til Christop. Columbus, Americus, Vespacius, Ferdinandus, Cortez, the Marquesse Del Valle, and Franciscus Pizarrus went thither..."(deleted references on this page to try to avoid problems.>>Parkwells (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Menassah is indeed important, particularly in light of his connection to Cromwell. British Parliament member John_Sadler_(town_clerk)#Political_thought also published a book in 1649 which was a book that tried to defend Cromwell's execution of the king, apparently in part using British Israelism. I haven't read that book, but there are some pdf references of papers by professor Ernestine Van der Wall such as these, for example and these that discuss relevant issues like the Hartlib circle etc. and these individuals.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Various lists of the tribes.

See http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/History-12Tribes.htm for a survey of the various lists in the Bible. Should we not mention this variation? At present [2] it reads as if there are only two lists. As catholic-resources.org points out, this is not true, even in the Old Testament. Andrewa (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"disappeared from biblical and all other texts" claim is false

The reason I added a disputed tag to this claim at the top of the article: the tribe of Asher is mentioned in Luke 2:36, which is a biblical text, and is certainly post-722 BC. Totoro33 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Christian identity

This really needs its own section. It has its own article and is mentioned in a number of others but not here, despite it being a descendant of British Israelism. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead, again

@IP (same comment left on IP's talk page): Tudor Parfitt is the foremost academic authority on the topic, and is not a "skeptic". It has been proven that there is absolutely no truth to the myths of the Ten Lost Tribes. It is nothing more than a fringe theory with no basis in reality. That not clear from the quoted passages.
The Parfitt material in the lead does summarize his overall beliefs stated elsewhere in the article as well as the related pages that are simply linked to in the article to avoid redundancy.
Claiming that it doesn't is a false pretense for reverting it, and it seems suspicious in light of the fact that you are a first time editor to this article, and the lead has been under siege by an IP editor.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as my edit being suspicious, I have had this article on my watchlist for some time and did make at least one edit here. The POV that there is no truth to the Ten Lost Tribes is just one view and not "proven". The view of Parfitt may be referred to briefly in the lead section, but adding verbatim quotes to the lead from one person is WP:UNDUE in that section. Bahooka (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with User:Dougweller that Parfitt is the mainstream view (it is just one view) and that only his quotes, using block quotes no less to bring additional attention and length, should be included in the lead section instead of elsewhere in the article and a summary in the lead. I have no problem with changing the section heading from "Skeptic", but this content should be fleshed out in the body of the article and not just in the lead. I hope other editors will weigh in here. Bahooka (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Parfitt is summarizing the mainstream view and should not be relegated to a 'skeptic' section. This isn't just 'one view' any more than the view that Atlantis never existed is just 'one view'. Yes, perhaps this should have more coverage in the body. My edit summary said nothing about quotes so I can't see how you can disagree with me. What do you suggest for the lead? Dougweller (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to make a suggested edit directly on the article to make my suggestion clearer, so my adding and any subsequent revert/change by another editor should not be counted towards EW or 3RR. By the way, I changed "Skeptic" to "Academic view", although "Secular view" may also work as the bulk of the article refers to "Religious beliefs". Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That edit posits a verbatim truth status for the myth making of the religious texts, and that is obviously advocating a fringe view that has been thoroughly discredited by modern scholarship. The view of academics is the mainstream view, not people promoting a religious fringe view based on myths from religious texts.

I will add Parfitt's text from other articles later to address the claim that the lead did not represent a summary view.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with Ubikwit's ownership issues of this article. When dealing with a religious topic such as the ten lost tribes, the religious viewpoint is not WP:FRINGE. The academic/secular view is not necessarily mainstream, and it is certainly not the only one correct viewpoint according to millions of people. It is one viewpoint, and long quotes from one viewpoint should not be in the lead section. Good luck with maintaining a NPOV in this article. Bahooka (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Academic is definitely not the same as secular, if that is what was meant. And yes, we do view the academic view as mainstream - others may disagree but that's the way we approach articles. And the religious point of view is not unanimous on this. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Guess that wasn't my last edit. I still disagree with long quotes in the lead section. That section should be a summary of the article, so that particular academic viewpoint should be summarized there, not quoted. Bahooka (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As evinced by your contestation of the quotes in the lead, the material is objectionable to those interested in promoting a "religious view". As Doug noted however, that is not Wikipedia policy, while the academic view is the view that takes precedent in any general encyclopedia.

Accordingly, the way I view the use of such block quotes is that they ensure, on the one hand, that the reader is aware that the view presented by Wikipedia is the authoritative view in the respective academic field, and not simply conjecture emanating from a Wikipedia editor. In cases where the topic is controversial, such practice facilitates reassuring the reader that what they are reading here is valid, encyclopedic content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would object to large block quotes from either religious or academic sources. I do not believe they are appropriate in a summary section. Bahooka (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe enough editors have weighed in on having block quotes in the lead instead of a summary, so I will be setting up an RfC soon. Bahooka (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw the thread on ANI and came to see the article. Prior to reading the talk page, one of the very first things that struck me reading the article was the WP:UNDUE nature of those quotes in the lede. A separate section should be added that covers all major POV of the possibility or not of these theories and traditions being true, with a VERY VERY brief mention in the mentioning the conflicting opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread all relevant text on this Talk page, the edit summaries, etc., before appearing out of nowhere and making such an uninformed statement.

In short, there are no reliably published sources that support the POV of the possibility of the existence of the fictional Ten Lost Tribes.

Parfitt is the only scholar that has published on this topic because it is all fringe theory; moreover, it has been thoroughly refuted by every discipline that has examined the myriad of bogus claims, including genetics and linguistics.

Excuse me for being curt, but I'm tired of wasting time rehashing this with editors trying to push a fringe religious POV. So before throwing around a policy like WP:UNDUE in this context, I suggest you do the homework. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The traditions and religious practices of EVERY religion and culture are WP:FRINGE according to scientific thought. We don't put major debunking quotes in the lede of any of them. The lost tribes are a well documented tradition in many cultural groups. It is not fringe to accurately describe those traditions. It would be fringe to say those traditions are true. It is entirely appropriate to have a section commenting on the historical validity of those traditions, and to reference such in the lede, but putting the actual critique into the lede itself is undue. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Evisceration of article Ten Lost Tribes

Ubikwit has made over 40 edits to the article Ten Lost Tribes that have removed a significant amount of valuable information on the subject and replaced it with clear NPOV violations. Examples:

• Replaced the article header with controversial and revisionist opinions.
• Removed numerous valid paragraphs and indeed entire sections.
• Added numerous unencyclopedic statements.

Since at least the 17th century both Jews and Christians have proposed theories concerning the Lost Tribes

was changed by Ubikwit to read:

The increased currency of tales relating to lost tribes

And

background of general belief

was changed by Ubikwit to read:

Fanciful accounts concerning

Those are just 2 of many examples. The voluminous nature of the verbiage added by Ubikwit has made it virtually impossible to remove his/her additions.

Furthermore,Ubikwit has asserted in said article that historians are in general agreement with statements that are not widely accepted as fact.

Ubikwit has done so much damage to this articel that I, as a novie editor, could not fix it. Someone else who knows how will have to do it. Additionally, it appears this article has been the battleground of an ongoing edit war going back several years between Ubikwit and several other editors. From what I can tell Ubikwit has un-reverted changes made to correct NPOV errors several times to advance his/her personal viewpoint.

I have posted this information to the user's talk page. Also, this user has been such a drain on the Wikipedia community I feel he/she should be blocked. I made that request on the user's talk page as well.

I hope someone with the know-how to do it will fix this article. Currently, it does not reflect well on Wikipedia's legitimacy as a non-biased source of information. However, it would be an asset to Wikipedia if it can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.61.245 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the word "fanciful" as that violated the WP:NPOV policy and some scare quotes. Bahooka (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it is your edit that violates NPOV (as per the section below), but I will see if someone else would like to propose and alternative neutral wording that reflects the statement made on this topic in the RS.

It should be noted that 66.228.61.245 represents yet another SPA IP that has become active on Wikipedia in relation to this article in the past months.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)