Talk:Ten Lost Tribes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Assyria (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Bible / Latter Day Saints (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Religion  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Deleted text[edit]

I deleted the "Saka Connection" as this is the same as what the British Israelites believe. However, after deleting Seeker of Truth undid the delete claiming that these are different. What I propose is that someone adds a line or two in this section detailing how (if?) it is different from British Israelism. British Israelism believes that the "lost ten tribes" became the Scythians and Cimmerians and that they went on to become Western Europeans. If "The Saka Connection" believes differently, e.g. that the Scythians and Cimmerians stayed in Eastern Europe, then someone should say so. If no-one clarifies this and this subject remains ambiguous then I propose deleting it again. Who knows more about this theory? Waitingwatch (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As no-one is coming forward with explanation for why this theory is different from what is used in British Israelism I am proposing re-deleting the text.Waitingwatch (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the following text that somebody added.

The Bible states that the JEWISH PEOPLE would become a MULTITUDE OF NATIONS in Genesis (Bereshis), The 10 TRIBES exiled by the Assyrians (Asshur), were assimulated and scattered into many lands more than 2,000 years ago. The prophets all testify to their return. Ezekiel makes reference to the 2 DIVIDED KINGDOMS becoming ONE NATION in the land of ISRAEL.
Most IDENTIFIABLE JEWS today, do not know specifically which TRIBE they belong to. They know 10 TRIBES are missing, but are not so willing to accept those who testify to being those peoples. HOW CAN PEOPLE MISSING FOR OVER 2,000 YEARS BE CARRYING OUT THE PRACTICES OF JEWS TODAY?? They were not around for the destruction of the 1ST OR 2ND TEMPLE!!! They were disobedient lawbreakers. Who exactly would these peoples be today???
REMEMBER SHEM HAS MIXED WITH HAM AND JAPETH. ABRAHAM WAS AN IRAQI not an ISRAELI, although the land of ISRAEL was promised to his descendants. Even IDENTIFIABLE JEWS today are not IRAQI in their origins, SO WHAT MIGHT THE 10 TRIBES BE TODAY???? Selah!!!
The prophets in the Bible state quite accurately and in depth that the 10 tribes will return and will be a MULTITUDE OF NATIONS. If one would open one eyes and not be short-sighted by race one might recognise one's brothers.

It is possible that there is some useful information in there, but it certainly does not fit reasonably into the article in its current form. I put it here so that anyone minded at incorporating the actual information in a reasonable manner can have another go at it. TerraGreen 12:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The text you've deleted belongs to me: Jackie Brooks. You mention that there is some useful information there, but does not fit reasonably into the article - why remove all of it. If it is useful you could have edited in, instead of denying people useful information. Friday 10 March 2006

Deleted the section on Biblical support because it was entirely nonsensical. I apologize for not logging the full text here; I meant to. In any case, although it did contain a few Bible quotes that vaguely applied, it was just an incoherent springboard for the same kind of stuff listed above. It doesn't have a place here. -KD-- 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have one great problem in Semitizing us the Pakhtuns. Before Islam came we followed Aryan religions, spoke an Aryan language were ethnicaly Aryan. Now we follow the compassionate religion Islam (a Semitic) religion but our language and ethincity remains Aryan. Some of us have Semitic (Arab-Jewish) names due to Islam and also our language has picked up Arabic words. Arabic and Hebrew are Semitic languages and very close. So the Pathans an Aryan Race can not be made Jews the Semites. Gul Khan Afridi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this -- I doubt that the anon editor will read this, but the article does not claim that this is true, it reports, as an encyclopedia should, that some sources have made the claim. That's the job of an encyclopedia. Quite possibly most of the claims of the article are wrong, but that doesn't mean that the existence of the claims doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the reference on Pashtun Isrealite heritage is in the non-specific tribe section, but while reading it, I noticed that it very specifically names the tribe of Joseph as its link. SO it doesn't make sense to me why it is in this category and not in the section related to claims descending from the Tribes of Joseph. Also as to the comment above, The Islamic tradition is to adopt Arabic names which are NOT Semetic, The ISREALITE names are not the ISHMAELITE names of Arabs. IF there exist SEMETIC names there, it's more likely because ISREALITES were there, NOT because of Islam. IT is NOT a traditional muslim custom to adopt Semetic names but Arabic ones. Also the Aryan "race" is even more untraceble than the Semites, but as DW states the validity of the claims are not relevant to the reality that the claims exist and so belong in the section reporting such claims. IF there are Pashtuns claiming Aryan descent then it should be noted in Aryan and or Pashtun articles not here in the Lost Tribes of Isreal article unless a statement is posted that cites a reference to citations for studies or publications that use the Aryan theory to disprove the Semetic connection(eg perhaps proving the Aryans were there and somehow the groups could not have coexisted or supplanted each other.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

bedouin in Jordan[edit]

I would like to see more information provided on the bedouin in Jordan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talkcontribs) 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Theory about Ancient Israelites in Ancient Japan[edit]

There is a theory about Ancient Israelites visiting Japan over 2000 years ago. If any of this is true, part of the Lost Tribes have been in Japan also. Not only that, this theory claims that the Lost Tribes have influenced (helped create) the Japanese Shinto religion and the Japanese Imperial Family, among other important things in Japan.

Please see the following for reference, regarding this theory:

Chapter 1: Israelites Came To Ancient Japan

Chapter 2: The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Myanmar, and China

Chapter 3: Did the Lost Tribes of Israel Come To Ancient Japan?

Chapter 4: Various Other Similarities Between Ancient Israel and Ancient Japan

Please note that none of this stuff seems to be proven.... It's just a lot of coincidences. But some of it may be worthy of mention in the article about the Ten Lost Tribes.--Endroit 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people from various backgrounds visited Japan through the silk road in the ancient times. You can still see a number of ancient Arabic and Persian artifacts at Shousouin Temple in Nara. So, Israelis may or may not have come to Japan. However, it is not really proven in anyway, and, even if proven, it doesn't make Japanese people (including myself) Jews. --TokyoJapan 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible Jewish migration through Japan is interesting, but I don't think this is the right article for that content. There are no claims that they are specifically a "Lost Tribe", which is the subject of this article. — Reinyday, 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag[edit]

I added this because the section is difficult to read with all the bold and upper case. It needs to be edited to be more readable. --Kerowyn 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


There is a section called "The Tribes in history" that is mostly about Biblical content. There is serious controversy over whether any portion of the Hebrew Bible can be considered reliable history. I strongly suggest separating out the Biblical material, which is currently scattered around the article, into a section of its own (near the top), separate from the (differently controversial) modern claims about genetics. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please delete or serious fix[edit]

This article does a serious disfavour to Wikipedia. Someone needs either to delete it altogether or do some substantial rewriting - especially the introductory section. This article is a joke. Derekwriter 05:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The opening stuff was unreverted vandalism, which is now gone. I agree the article isn't very good, but it's tolerable with the removal of the vandalism, I think. john k 07:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Too much speculation in the article to justify keeping it here as is.--DominusEtDude 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This article, unfortunately, is a magnet for British Israelism cranks and their ilk. Wikipedia has a number of fields of such articles. Believe me, the rubbish that keeps cropping its head up in this article is "very tame" by comparison to the crap that single-issue zealots insist on trying to cram into other areas of wikipedia (the range of circumcision-related articles comes immediately to mind...) Have a beer and keep the faith.  :-) Tomertalk 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have revised the section on British Israelism to shorten it and remove some of the potential overlap with the main british israelism page. I have also added references. Debate and discussion on this issue should be directed towards the main british israelism page. Waitingwatch (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I gave it what I hope is a "serious fix". — Reinyday, 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian rape[edit]

This article has been raped by Christians 10x over. Could they please stop raping the article. This article has nothing to do with Christians. There are many people of many nations that also show interesting in Judaic background but we don't see them raping it. So we ask you nicely, please stop. 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please think before you post. No one has been sexually molesting this article. 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. How could they anyways?

Not to mention, what gives you the idea that they are only Christians


For several hours I have been checking the Bible and Josephus for any mentions of the Ten Lost Tribes and what occured to them. 2 Kings 17 definitely rules out the possibility of the Samaritans being the Ten Lost Tribes (they may have intermarried with the priest sent to Samaria by the King of the Assyrians, but this does not change the general status). Tobit 1:18-25 mentions that Sennacherib killed many of the children of Israel after the failed attack on Judah, and from the context it sounds like he was killing Israelites even before the defeat. After Sennacherib's death it sounds like Israelites were still being slain in Assyria (Tobit 2:2-9). There were many other occasions before Christ (Maccabees) and after (during the revolt of the Jews against the Romans, well narrated by Josephus) that Jews were slain and massacred. Ezra 6:14-22 may shed some light on the subject:

14 And the elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

15 And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king. 16 And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy. 17 And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. 18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses. 19 And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. 20 For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves.

21 And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat, 22 And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.

St. Paul refers to the tribes in an interesting manner (Acts 26:6-7):

6 And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our fathers that I am on trial today. 7 This is the promise our twelve tribes are hoping to see fulfilled as they earnestly serve God day and night. O king, it is because of this hope that the Jews are accusing me.

St. James addresses his epistle in the following manner (James 1:1):

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

The slaughter of the Israelites in Assyria before the end of the Babylonian Captivity would probably not leave very many Israelites left of the Ten Northern Tribes. The mention of Assyria is quite unusual in Ezra, as Persians are mentioned in all other cases. I checked three versions of the Bible, and they all have "Assyria" in that instance. Another interesting point is Ezra mentions twelve he goats for a sin offering, but goes further to mention that it was because of the twelve tribes, whereas if there was only Benjamin, Judah, and Levi, it would seem more fitting to have three he goats for the tribes there present. Gotta go--you can figure it out. JBogdan 00:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


Mormons believe that the ten lost tribes were scattered over much of the world. Today Israelites are found in all countries of the world. Many people do not know that they are descended from the ancient house of isreal. This is one of many reasons mormons do so much research on ancestry. It is true that most mormons believe that the tribe of ephriam settled in northern Europe. The book of mormons history of ancient americas is the supposed to be the book (or stick)of joseph that is talked about in Ezekiel 37 16-17. This is because Lehi was a descendent of Joseph who left Jerusalem with another houshold from Manasseh. American indians are not part of the "Lost Tibes" per the normal definintion but if the Book of Mormon is correct they are part of "Scattered Israel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the statement about Mormon beliefs is no longer in the article. I believe that the Mormons do believe that at least some Native Americans are descendants of the Lost Tribes. Not a topic on which I'm very knowledgable, but if I'm right it belongs here: there are certainly more people who adhere to Mormon beliefs than to some that are already mentioned in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I also was surprised to find that this had been removed. I have restored the content. — Reinyday, 00:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mormons don't believe that the Native Americans are the Lost Tribes. They assert that they descend from four different Jewish families that allegedly sailed to America. Nothing to do with the Ten Tribes, so the Mormon theory is off-topic here.

Added Mormon content. Native Americans, through Lehi, are descended from Manasseh. Northern Europeans are descendents of the lost tribe of Ephraim. I tried to be brief and broad, with details to be found on other respective pages. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jonathan Tweet 02:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The LDS belief is that the people of the Book of Mormon are mainly descendants of Manasseh and Ephraim, but who lived in Judah and weren't taken into captivity. The opening events of the BofM are supposed to have happened a little bit before the Babylonians captured Jerusalem, significantly later than the 10 tribes. The BofM does not state that they are part of the lost tribes and the LDS church doesn't teach that they are. I'm removing it. AllenHansen (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish section[edit]

NPOV here or religious propaganda forum? Why tagged for cleanup?[edit]

Hello. Is this a FACTUAL encyclopedia article (with OBJECTIVE information about this topic)? Why is it tagged for cleanup? Is it NPOV here or MISUSED as a religious propaganda forum? Isn't it a fact that the TEN LOST TRIBES are not Jewish? How about an NPOV cleanup (replacing IRRELEVANT religious propaganda with OBJECTIVE factual information about this topic)? Cordially, --Hrhdavid 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No!!!! It is not a fact that the 10 Lost Tribes are not Jewish. Most people believe that they are Jewish. That is why your change to make this article reflect your Kurdish theory was tagged as not having a neutral point of view (NPOV). — Reinyday, 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


I came in to do some cleanup, and did a little, but the lead section looks to me to be a representation of one, probably fringe, theory. I didn't bother going any further. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a mainstream theory. Pretty much WP:CB if not WP:DUMB --Shirahadasha 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I made it a subsection and called it a theory. — Reinyday, 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RE Disputed[edit]

Where is any actual dispute about the objective facts presented in the lead section? Calling this set of facts "a theory", or "dumb" in no way disputes the truth of the facts presented. Why not dispute the RELEVANCE of all of the IRRELEVANT religious propaganda which follows thereafter? The Ten Lost Tribes are not Jewish, so what NPOV relevance could such a large amount of religious propaganda possibly have (in a factual encyclopedia article)? Cordially, --Hrhdavid 06:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The article claims that DNA evidence shows that the 10 lost tribes are now living in Kurdistan as ethnic Kurds. This claim is completely unsourced. Unsourced claims are not permitted in Wikipedia and must be deleted. See WP:Reliable Sources , WP:No Original Research, and WP:Verifiability. We are giving you an opportunity to provide sources as a courtesy. Where are your sources for this claim? Please identify sources describing the DNA analyses that are claimed. What kind of DNA analysis was performed? By whom? And what was compared with what? WP:NPOV requires presenting all relevant points of view (POVs) held by scholarly sources, not just the POV one personally believes to be correct and therefore "truly" neutral. WP policy explicitly disagrees with your claim that religious POvs are to be dismissed or discounted as "propaganda", particularly in an article whose notability comes from its relevance to religion. --Shirahadasha 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hrhdavid, your Kurdish theory is a theory. It's great that you have some citations, but there are numerous other theories about the Ten Tribes, so your theory cannot be posited as fact. — Reinyday, 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RE *Hrhdavid, your Kurdish theory is a theory. — Reinyday, 18:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Dear Reinyday: Though your NPOV editing job is otherwise commendable, HOW IS IT that the set of objective facts (with objective references)about the Kurds are called by you "a theory"? Upon what basis is such a set of VERIFIABLE facts blindly labeled a theory by you? The only motive for such behavior would be to try to EQUATE this set of objective facts with the opposing and contradictory THEORIES propounded by the religious ideologists. The equating of objective FACTS with opposing ideologist THEORIES is NOT NPOV. Objective facts should take precedence (in a supposedly FACTUAL encyclopedia article) over contradictory and opposing ideologist THEORIES, don't you agree? Cordially, --Hrhdavid 23:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hrhdavid, thanks for the compliment on my editing. I do not want to get into an argument with you on this subject. My edit of all sections was NPOV, and unlike you, I don't have an opinion on this subject. Every section in this article is a theory. Each section says people "claim" or "believe" they are a lost tribe; it is never stated as fact. Unfortunately, since you wrote Isn't it a fact that the TEN LOST TRIBES are not Jewish?, I am pretty concerned that you don't really understand what a fact is. It isn't even a fact that there were ten lost tribes, so how could it be a fact that they weren't Jewish? Whose definition of Jew are you using? It makes no sense to claim that as a fact. Also, it is difficult to read your message when you capitalize many words and phrases. I'm going to edit your section now. Please understand that it is not a "fact" that any inheritance would be paternal only. Nor is your particular way of deifining "lost" a fact. — Reinyday, 05:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I correct myself. I did find evidence of a tradition that inheritance is paternal, and have modified the article accordingly. My apologies for my mistake. — Reinyday, 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the Kurdish section[edit]

Few objections:

  • One of the "documents" referenced is a wikipedia page - I'm not entirely sure but I believe it's bad form to use a wikipedia article as a reference (as oppose to a "see also")
  • are believed to positively and objectively show who they are (and where they live) - adding "positively and objectively" to the sentence adds nothing and seems to be an attempt to bias the reader
  • The following:
These Ten Lost Tribes are Kurdish Hebrews. They are not Jewish and are not Jews - who are matrilineal (mother to daughter) descendants from females who have been accepted as being Jewish because of having been part of old Jewish communities. In fact, the Kurds are almost entirely Sunni Muslims.
The land of ancient Israel (now the nations of Israel, Palestine, and parts of Lebanon and Jordan) belongs to the Tribes of Israel (according to the Old Testament). The Jews are therefore rivals for possession of the Israeli part of this land of ancient Israel.
is not in any way NPOV.

In essence this whole section (with only two external references, both for one of the four claims referenced above) is original research intended to promote this theory rather than describe it. --Black Butterfly 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. — Reinyday, 19:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I also find all this "positvely and objectively" etc. seems more sales than exposition. Also agree it appears to be OR. The author is the one who is connecting otherwise disparate sources to form a theory. The author needs to cite a published source who puts the pieces together, otherwise we have an OR problem. --Shirahadasha 03:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Ideologues and Religious Propaganda vs the Kurdish Section of this article[edit]

The Wikipedia NPOV information sections mention this very matter of ideologues trying to "filibuster" articles (by means of excess volume) - while falsely accusing anything else as NPOV. I am the author of the relatively small Kurdish section, which I believe would be supported in a formal NPOV dispute process to the exclusion of the numerous unsupported ideologue propaganda statements that contradict the facts therein (and the authoritative references that support them).

Please note that I have refrained from deleting or editing any of this large volume of unsupported, irrelevant and contradictory ideologue propaganda, but have seen repeted deletions and editing of the relatively tiny section on the Kurds - which completely changes and destroys the information presented therein. Such destructive editing is the opposite of NPOV. If it continues, then the only avenue left is a formal NPOV dispute process that justly will reduce this excessively long article down to the supported factual material relevant to this topic.

Cordially, --Hrhdavid 00:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If we can't reach agreement, perhaps we should invoke the dispute process and find out if this is so. --Shirahadasha 04:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hrhdavid, please feel free to open any sort of formal review of this article. I have just again attempted to clean up the section of the article you are editing. Please do not remove links to relevant Wikipedia articles or remove the formatting of references. Please understand that the Bible is not considered to be a historical document by all (see The Bible and history). Please do not remove the link to Genetic origins of the Kurds as it is obviously relevant. Please note that you state that "the majority of male Kurds have a genetic inheritance that is believed to be found only among male patrilineal descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel" but actually it is only one tribe, the Cohanim, who are not one of the lost tribes, and it is disputed (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Also, I don't understand "the Kurds contain the Ten Lost Tribes (instead of being the Ten lost Tribes)". What does that mean? Lastly, claiming that we are Ideologues or Propagandists is incivil and inapropriate. You are promoting a particular idea whereas we are trying to compile a comprehensive encyclopedic article. It is not a fact that the Lost Tribes exist, so it will never be a fact that a certain group is a Lost Tribe. This is all theory. — Reinyday, 23:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hrhdavid - The only ideologue here is you.
I - and others - have not expressed any objection to the presence of this section, but rather, the fact that (a) it is written in a largely POV way (although the latest revision is moderately less so); and (b) no reputable source (or in fact, ANY source) has been provided to back up this claim.
If you can find a reputable writer who has investigated and published information on these claims, bring them forward and use this article to DESCRIBE them. This is not the place to promote your own theory.
Also, someone (you?) has removed the NPOV tag on this section. Am going to restore it now. --Black Butterfly

NPOV tag was removed again without resolution of this discussion. Restored. --Shirahadasha 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurdish Section Dispute -- Reprise[edit]

The NPOV problem has been substantially improved. The remaining problem seems to be WP:OR. No source has been cited, reliable or otherwise, which connects the four documents together and draws a theory out of them. So far as can be verified, an editor may have been the first person to connect these documents together and the theory may represent the editor's own original research. I propose deleting the entire section if a source for the theory is not identified soon. --Shirahadasha 07:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This dispute has gone on for two months and no-one has produced a source to establish that anyone other than an otherwise unpublished Wikipedia editor holds the theory in question, despite numerous warnings repeated in several subparts of this Talk page, and elsewhere. Deleting per WP:OR. --Shirahadasha 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I restored a small Kurdish section with information on the DNA testing, which is verifiable. — Reinyday, 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologize for having replaced what you restored, Reinyday, but the fact that DNA testing was mentioned did not make what it claimed verifiable, although it might have appeared that way on first glance. The source that was cited, Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin,"Are today's Jewish priests descended from the old ones?" HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Biologie des Menschen 51:2-3 (Urban & Fischer Verlag, 2000): 156-162, is one that I have seen cited only on British Israelite-type websites, and cannot be found in PubMed, for example. I would like to read it if it were possible to find a copy. Frankly, I doubt that it contains any information that is not widely known today, in this fast-moving field. I didn't realize that there had been such extensive discussion of the whole Kurdish topic. I have tried to present only factual and up-to-date information, with relevant and easily accessible, widely accepted sources. I realize that it may be a bit lengthy, but in fact it would require a much longer article to do justice to this topic. I wish I knew more about the reasons people have tried to link the Kurds and the Jews in this way, it would be worth saying something about that. If you can suggest ways to improve what I've written, I'll be interested, though of course I hope it won't be deleted wholesale. I'm inexperienced at Wikipedia, and just trying to make an honest contribution, to replace what I felt was too inaccurate and misleading to leave as it was. -- Iris-J2 03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Status of Tribes of Dan and Manasseh[edit]

While I'm not changing the article myself in deference to the current inuse template, the article should definitely mention highly notable claims that two of the 10 tribes, the tribes of Dan and Manasheh, have been found and are no longer lost. The Israeli Rabbinate and government have accepted claims that the Beta Israel or Falasha people from Ethiopia are Jews of the Tribe of Dan, and that a remnant of the Tribe of Manasheh exists in India as the Bnei Menashe. Both groups have extensive WP articles and a lot of activity in recent history; this content should definitely be part of this article. --Shirahadasha 18:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the inuse tag, so please feel free to edit away. Both of these groups are mentioned in the article, but only briefly. — Reinyday, 00:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul[edit]

I just gave this page a major overhaul. I removed the clean up and other tags. Please feel free to restore them if you think it is necessary. I have tried to present all of the different theories in a clear way, but since I am not an expert on any of them, my changes should be proofed. Please do not completely remove any particular section without discussing it here. — Reinyday, 17:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish Beliefs[edit]

Are these geographical descriptions of the tribes referring to their encampments in the desert because the locations I'm familiar with as to their inheritances in the land itself do not agree with this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aphe (talkcontribs) .

  • I don't know. I was just cleaning up the existing text. Please feel free to change it if it is wrong. — Reinyday, 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the tribes from Mizoram[edit]

this page does not mention about the lost tribes of Israel, which came to Mizoram in India. they, in fact, now form a part of Israeli army fighting Lebanon and others now. nids 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please feel free to add this section, since you seem familiar with it. — Reinyday, 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
These are the Bnei Menashe. They're mentioned in the article at Ten Lost Tribes#Bnei Menashe --Shirahadasha 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Radio Church of God POV[edit]

Hello, this seems to be a lot of content on a very obcure POV. Notability needs to be established. If notable, perhaps a 1-3 sentence summary would suffice unless it can be shown that this POV is well known. --Shirahadasha 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the disputed text in full:

In the 1920s, Herbert W. Armstrong published the belief that the 10 tribes of Israel (Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Mannaseh, Naphtali, Rueben, Simeon and Zebulon), constituting the majority of the ten displaced tribes, after their captivity by the Assyrians, had eventually migrated to northern and western Europe and constitued large portions of the nations that now exist in those areas. These tribes were most commonly referred to as the "House of Israel" in the scriptures as separate from the "House of Judah". The House of Judah was composed of the tribe of Judah, Levi and portions of Benjamin, and generally known as the Jews in later centuries. The House of Judah was sent into captivity beginning in the 6th century B.C. by the Babylonian Empire and their subsequent history is well chronicled by secular and biblical records. Regarding the "Lost Ten Tribes, Mr. Armstrong stated that the nations of Britain and the United States of America has in part been populated by the descendants of Ephraim and Mannaseh, the two sons of Jacob. According to Mr. Armstrong, the national destinies of all of the these tribes were outlined in chapter 49 of Genesis. These beliefs were in large part based on the specific biblical promises made to Abraham and his descendants as recorded in the chapters of Genesis. This belief also formed an essential basis for his understanding of Bible prohecy and its fulfillment in the "latter days". Armstrong on his radio and TV show 'The World Tomorrow' offered a free book called 'The United States and Britain in Prophecy' that explained these beliefs in detail.
After Armstrong's death in 1986, the Worldwide Church of God under Joseph Tkach Sr. and Jr. rejected many beliefs that Mr. Armstrong had held and the doctrine of the ten tribes was among them . Several churches were formed from former Worldwide Church of God members who departed and most of these churches continue to accept this doctrine. Among these are the Philadephia Church of God which publishes a similar treatise explaining their belief (see [1]). In this publiation, the Twelve Tribes mystery is explained. After the Philadelphia Church of God began printing Armstrong's material in 1997, the Worldwide Church of God promptly sued stating that they had the copyright to the material. The Worldwide Church of God won and then sold the rights to the Philadelphia Church of God in 2003. Two other churhes, the Living Church of God and the United Church of God, also publish material on the biblical evidence for lost ten tribes.

--Shirahadasha 04:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong was pretty well-known during his life. See Ambassador College and The Plain Truth. I'd say his name was almost a household word in the 1960s in the U.S. I think he was a total loony on this topic, but he was a notable loony. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)\\
Do we need the full content or would it suffice to have a brief summary and point to the main article for details including church history, interchurch disputes, and other matters. Is the present summary adequate? --Shirahadasha 05:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Summary is fine with me. FWIW, he's probably a more notably loony than some of the ones we give space to here, but I guess that's why he gets his own article(s). - Jmabel | Talk 01:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the Radio Church of God section, and I think it should be put back in. Jonathan Tweet 00:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree Jonathan. Radio Church of God info should rather be confined to the main British Israelism page.Waitingwatch (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence Which Suggests that the Ten Tribes were not Lost[edit]

I noticed that this article does not make mention of the fact that there are many who believe that when Cyrus the Conqueror issued the decree described in Ezra 1 that this decree allowed Israelites who had been carried away by a now defunct empire and who resided in the lands which were now part of the Medo-Persian empire to return to the land of their fathers.

Luke 2:36 asserts that Anna was of the tribe of Asher. 23:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) James Shewmaker

The idea of lost means that nobody knows exactly what happened to them. Also, by the traditional accounts, most of them 'ran away' from the Assyrian Empire, to places unknown, long before the Persians appeared on the scene. AllenHansen (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the term is some what suggestive.

- During Jeremiah's time many fleed to Egypt. (Jeremiah 24:1, 8-10)

- A number of exiled Levites priests fleed went into Gerizim.//When Manasseh refused to give up his Samaritan wife, he went into exile. The priests who also refused to separate from their Samaritans wives followed him also.(Neh 13:28)

- Quoting a reference book here: “During the reign of Israelite King Pekah at Samaria (c. 778-759 B.C.E.), Assyrian King Pul (Tiglath-pileser III) came against Israel, captured a large section in the N, and deported its inhabitants to eastern parts of his empire. (2Ki 15:29) This same monarch also captured territory E of the Jordan and from that area “he took into exile those of the Reubenites and of the Gadites and of the half tribe of Manasseh and brought them to Halah and Habor and Hara and the river Gozan to continue until this day.”—1Ch 5:26.”

Maybe the far Persian regions, or even the Indus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - this page is to discuss additions to the article, rather than discussing the subject itself. If you have some reliable sources on this that discuss the idea that the lost tribes were not lost, great. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article[edit]

Link removed

Christian speculation using scripture to argue that the Han Chinese are the lost tribes, from what I can tell on a quick read, if anyone was wondering; nothing here that looked to me to merit more than a quick read. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that I'm not the one who removed the link to it, though. - Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The theory of ten lost tribes of Israel has created Racial-Biblicalism and disregard for fact. - Mohammad al-Assad

Merger of Israelite Diaspora[edit]

  • Support. Separate articles appear to be a WP:POV fork --Shirahadasha 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, they can cover two different although related topics. Mathmo Talk 07:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you see as the two different topics? --Shirahadasha 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE these are very unrelated topics I am interested in the lost tribes but not that much interested in that of the Israelite Diaspora also the study of these things is by different fields of scholars most professors who know a lot about the diaspora know little about the lost tribes other than they were from the south--Java7837 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE. The two topics are totally separate. The historical concept of the "Ten Lost Tribes" is a significant topic in its own right, and been greatly discussed for centuries. So i feel that this article should remain separate. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk contribs) 20:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources[edit] and are not reliable sources. Please provide sources quoting serious, scholarly works. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. It is good to have your input. I'll see what i can do. howevr, my impressionw was that Wikipedia was open to reasonable ideas based on objective data. These websites seem to meet that standard. I'll try to get some better sources, but it does seem to me that these websites's statements are based on the work of people who have taken time to do some research and examine various concepts. I realize they seem a bit out-ofthe-ordinary, but they do seem to me to be somewhat credible. However, I'm happy to look a little deeper, and try to find some better sources. Thanks for your comments. --Sm8900 15:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spartans as Jews paragraph has to go. The above mentioned website has no scholarly relevance. I will remove this paragraph in two weeks unless the poster can quote a reliable source.evangeline.a (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC) evangeline.a

I couldn't see any point waiting that long so I just deleted. The links were (1) a whacko prophecy website, (2) a quotation from the book of Maccabees, and (3) a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia that specifically says that the claim of Spartans being descendants of Abraham was false. None of this supports the claims in the graf. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tribal descent patrilineal only? Unlikely.[edit]

The reference to membership in the tribes being patrilineal, without reference to the possibility that that membership could also be matrilineal, implies that tribal membership is only patrilineally determined, which is unproven. Without both the mother and the father, there can be no Israelite of any tribe. The reason for the apparently patrilineal descent of the tribes could have been that these sons of Israel chose wives within their own tribes. That is likely, given that the Bible says that each tribe had their own land, and that people closer together tend to marry each other more often. I strongly suggest including the possibility that tribal descent is not exclusively patrilineal. Mcampbell422 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic interpretations[edit]

This section needs to be sourced and cleaned up or otherwise deleted. Not one example is given and it seems the author is just pulling stuff out of his/her behind. For example, I deleted the following sentence: "Among the well-known believers of such ideas have been individuals such as the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh." Although McVeigh came across Christian Identity and White Supremacists in the anti-government circles he frequented, there is no evidence to my knowledge that he actually was a member of these groups or subscribed to their general ideologies, much less the specific ideology regarding the Lost Tribes that the author of this section is hamhandedly attempting to describe.

Out of Context[edit]

Most of these adherents differentiated between the terms "Jew" and "Israelite" suggesting that Jews usurped the identity of the true chosen people of God. The verses of Revelation 2:9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.and 3:9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. provided for them a basis for their beliefs rooted in scripture. They also focused on Genesis chapter 38, the story of Judah, one of the original 12 sons of Jacob (Israel) and his daughter-in-law, Tamar, claiming that this story could be a cause of separation between certain seed lines of the family of Judah, since Judah intermarried with a Canaanite woman.

That is taken out of context. When they say the slander of those who say they are Jews but are not Jews, this is talking about Jews who are insincere in how they follow their religion, or hates him or herself because they are Jewish. In addition, the part about Judah and Tamar doesn't remove the fact that Judah's descendents are still descendants of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Koreans and the Lost Tribe of Dan[edit]

Hello all. I'm a student at Hebrew University, and there are a lot of Koreans here. So I asked why and was told by one student that there is a belief that Koreans are a lost tribe of Dan because of an early Korean King named Dan or something to that effect. anyone have any sources? Hkp-avniel (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

to be sure...while Lost Tribe theories do have their comedic value...this was a serious request for sources about Asian/Korean Lost tribes theories... Hkp-avniel (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiris in India[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Igbo Jews of Africa[edit]

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[edit]

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:IDHTLargo 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. Tomertalk 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 (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

House of Israel[edit]

When any evidence can be provided of this it should be mentioned again, currently the article only says "They claim to be decended of Jewish people." Look at House of Israel, none of the evidence citations come from really reliable sources. Their mere existence according to that argument is in doubt, let alone evidence for some kind of historical trace. If Wiki pedia allowed people to put everything they 'heard' it would not work. Just because it claims religious connection, it should be no different! CheskiChips (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Their existence is in doubt only in the minds of obnoxious pointmaking editors. That said, they probably don't belong in this article, since, iirc, they claim to be descendants of Jews from the Maghreb who fled south from muslim persecution. Tomertalk 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Disclaimer - Not everyone from that ethnic group claims lineage"[edit]

I would appreciate it if this article was cleaned up a little and had a few disclaimers and more accurate wording in place, especially with its insistence on wholesale generality of various ethnicities and groups of people on claiming Jewish lineage. My main contention is simply that the people who claim to descend from the Lost Tribes of Israel are really quite small in number as compared to the generality who really couldn't care less or don't know anything at all about a slightly vague and contentious if not slightly conspiratorial topic. My case in point is myself and my people. I am from Azad Kashmir, I have met many Pashtuns and Pakistanis and the vast majority of the Pashtun people are Muslim through and through and in no way claim any descent from Jews. Not that they would particularly care, but it's just the article makes it seem as if there are whole groups of people, especially with such a large demographic like Pashtun who claim this lineage, it simply isn't there. Pashtuns don't go around claiming descent from the Lost Tribes of Israel, nor do Kashmiri's by and large. All I ask is for a more accurate wording and not to be so general about talking about huge groups of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's currently in dispute CheskiChips (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bene Ephraim[edit]

All claims of them even existing go back to Here, and it's a personal website held to no accountability. Much less is there evidence in either THAT site or the Wiki site of [Bene Ephraim] that supports the claim that they are decended from Jews, please find a source THEN post. Or create a NEW section discussing CLAIMED Tribes. CheskiChips (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in separate sections discussing claimed tribes. What part of the section titles "Groups claiming descent from specific Lost Tribes" and "Groups claiming descent from a non-specific Lost Tribe" and "Groups that others claim are descended from Lost Tribes" is unclear? —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that they don't belong on the same page at all! They are not speaking of the same thing, I should say new page, not section. CheskiChips (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. Ten Lost Tribes on the one hand, and Ten Lost Tribes on the other hand. Yeah, they're the same thing. And the claims about them are about them, so they bear mentioning in the main article, just like everything else that is about them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
See my post above under "Igbo Jews". There has to be at least some semblance of notability for these claims. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost or not[edit]

For consideration:

1Kings 19:18 (NIV) "Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel- all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by No938 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sooooooo, you think the article should be changed/edited/improved how, exactly? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Much of the article needs to be moved as proposed. What should be left are the introductory sections to 17th century. What needs to be added/expanded are:
  • Section on textual evidence in the Tanach
  • Section on textual analysis in the Talmud and elsewhere in rabbinic sources
  • Section on anthropology
  • Section on archaeology
  • Section on population dynamics and migrations

The claimants need to be replaced with the hypothesis and each evaluated based on some tangible evidence. As it is what is available is just lots of opinions and original research--Meieimatai? 12:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

it is always helpful to discuss any revisions, before making significant changes. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ques re diffs[edit]

Can anyone please tell me what changes are indicated in all the paragraphs highlighted in green here? Can't spot 'em. sorry, thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs that seem to have no changes probably contain some kind of a null edit, like a line return. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that's not what it is. I just checked. Some kind of glitch in the sortware? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I got it. What's going on is that the editor is adding an additional space between two words, usually at the end of a sentence. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Or something is, see [2]. Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

saka connection[edit]

there is no basis for removing the section on the saka connection based on some mythical connection with british israelism, as claimed by the edit summary. the two theories have no link or overlap at all, as shown by the fact that the Saka material contained numerous facts and data not shown in the slightest bit in the section on british israelism. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, the text used here for Saka Connection is almost identical to what was contained on the British Israelism page. (See this link.) Keep in mind that the part on the Lost 10 Tribes page about British Israelism is only a brief intro.
What bothers me about this piece of writing on the Lost Ten Tribes page is that it doesn't give any kind of clear explanation of what it is trying to say, nor why this is different to British Israelism. If you really want to keep this then I'd encourage you to edit this section to provide a more clear summary of what exactly the argument is? The Israelites became Cimmerians? It would be helpful if you explain who teaches / believes this theory, and whom the modern day claimed descendants of Cimmerians are that are claiming this link to Israel? Eastern Europeans?
FYI - British Israelism teaches that deported Israelites became Scythians / Cimmerians and that these Scythians / Cimmerians migrated westwards and became modern day Western Europe. Waitingwatch (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the argument is clear, and no need for more clarification, while any more clarification is welcome!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
the scythian hypothesis is part of several valid theories on the Ten Lost Tribes, including british israelism. therefore it has a legitimate place here, as is it is a valid hypothesis regarding this topic. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Steve, what is problematic is that no-one seems to be able to say which theories, which people, etc. other than British Israelism. I am open to keeping the text but someone really has to come forward and explain more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitingwatch (talkcontribs) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
here's one answer; try the page at this site. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Steve - this link helps. The argument is essentially the same as British Israelism but the difference is that BI claims that Lost Israelites became Western Europeans (R1b genetic haplotype) whereas the website at that link claims that they became Europeans in general. (Haplogroup R.) Are these the only people that believe this or are there other groups with different nuances? Depending on the answer we can think about adding this info to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitingwatch (talkcontribs) 04:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
hi. thanks for your question. i can tell you that there a variety of groups who take various aspects of this datam, and use it for a number of theories and/or hypotheses, not just BI. the problem is that not all of them have references on the web. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Samaritanism? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stupid me! There's a whole section, small but nice. (Giggling evilly!) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Tribes, according to the Old Covenant[edit]

Well, the Bible says which tribes remained: Judah and Benjamin - and the non-territorial levites, who were the priestly class (what later disappered by allowing non-jews to be priests). They are the only named surviving tribes for the state Judah in the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Several other lists[edit]

There's much scope for improvement to the coverage of this question, but it's a bit tricky.

The article currently gives two lists of the twelve tribes, and they're certainly the best known, and widely assumed to be the whole story. Unfortunately this common assumption is false.

The two lists given are the OT lists from Genesis and Joshua, as stated in the text. Genesis is the list of the sons of Jacob, aka Israel. Joshua instead lists the land allocations, leaving out Levi and splitting Joseph, in response to Jacob's promise to that effect.

Revelation 7:5-8 lists the twelve tribes as Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin. Note that both Joseph and Manasseh are listed, but not Ephraim, and that Levi is counted as one of the twelve, but Dan is omitted, making twelve.

There are also several other lists later in the OT. The first tribe to be omitted is Simeon, left off the list in Deuteronomy 33:1-29, but there are only eleven tribes listed there. Simeon seems to have fallen from favour as a result of joining Levi to avenge Dinah, and their allotment after the conquest appears to be an afterthought of some of the desert that Judah, whose lands surround them, didn't want. Benjamin is simlarly under a cloud shortly after this, and appears to have been absorbed by Judah as presumably was Simeon, but Benjamin is included in all lists in the Bible and is today widely regarded as the other unlost tribe. Paul is of course of this tribe. 2 Kings 17:18 however notes that "only Judah was left".

Levi seems at least as unlost as Benjamin, but there you are.

Zebulun is missing from 1 Chronicles 2–7, and Asher and Gad are both missing from 1 Chronicles 27:16-22. That latter list is also remarkable in that a separate tribe of Aaron is included, probably reflecting the growing importance of the Kohens at the time of writing.

There's also evidence that Manasseh was itself split and regarded as two tribes at one stage, one East of the Jordan and the other West of it, making three tribes in the House of Joseph.

The explanation IMO is that Israel is a military structure for most of this history, and like any army in a long combat is continually reorganising to meet operational needs. The twelve tribes represent the twelve divisions of the army, each with its commander, and each with its traditional recruiting base. One of their regulations is that their supreme commander will always have exactly twelve senior officers reporting directly to him, and this seems quaint to us but it made sense to them. And seen in this way, it all makes sense.

But that's my own OR. Not quite sure how to fix the article... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

This article is about the Lost Tribes, not about British Israelism. Yes there should be a discussion of that, but detail should go in the BI page. The stuff about the Declaration of Arbroath is simply false. The IP has added that "Conflict between the worlds of academia and religion over this issue begin with the Declaration of Arbroath which was written in 1320." It's not at all clear what this means. There was virtually no difference between 'academia' and 'religion' at this time. Academics were clerics. The DOA was drawn up to provide a heroic history for the Scots in line with inherited Gaelic myth. It says nothing whatever about lost tribes. It merely dates the migrations of the Gaels to events in the Bible, in line with standard medieval practice. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, particularly the last two sentences. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


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? (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Ausubel's list[edit]

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). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Lemba do not claim Descent form the Lost Tribes.[edit]

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 (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)

Reference sources[edit]

Aside from the inappropriateness of using only the Bible as a source, I see it as extremely improper to use the New Testament.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What About the Gypsies,I am a true blood American Gypsy.A whole lot of our culture is exactly like Jewish someone needs to do DNA testin on us as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Myth, Account, Legend?[edit]

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

History and politics[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced criticism on in opening statement to separate deserving section[edit]

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)


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)

RS material deleted[edit]

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[edit]

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.][ 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.  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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [3])

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)


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[edit]

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)

Creating a section on the Nestorians[edit]

I just read "The Nestorians Or The Lost Tribe" by Asahel Grant from the mid 19th century. Any thoughts on adding a section on the Nestorians or modern day Assyrian Church of the East members as being the descendants of the tribes, which he suggests they are in his book?

Various lists of the tribes.[edit]

See for a survey of the various lists in the Bible. Should we not mention this variation? At present [4] it reads as if there are only two lists. As 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[edit]

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)

The lead, again[edit]

@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)

Christian identity[edit]

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)

RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section?[edit]

There is a clear consensus, that the lead section shouldn't contain block quotes. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should block quotes be included in the lead section? Bahooka (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


(Please put Support or Oppose in this section)

  • Oppose, the lead section is supposed to be a neutral summary. Adding block quotes from one viewpoint violates WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEAD. Bahooka (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose block quotes in the lead. The material in the block quotes should be paraphrased if it is to be kept in the lead.~Adjwilley (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the long standing consensus on the basic form and content of the lead. As described below, there would appear to be no policy-based rationale for this RfC as worded. Moreover, Partiff is the foremost scholar on the topic and is cited more than 10 times in the article, and the quoted passages in the lead summarize two of the most salient points he makes. Furthermore, it does so in a concise and accessible manner, while adding credibility to Wikipedia insofar as apparently controversial subject matter is addressed directly by the quotation from the authoritative work by the foremost scholar.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's quite jarring, imo, and even appears non-neutral, even if he is "the foremost scholar", and these are "two of the most salient points he makes". The lead is not the place for these quotes or this judgement. The lead should merely summarise content from the body, where these quotes, along with relevant content from other sources can be expanded on with appropriate weight. (I was invited to comment by RFC bot). Begoontalk 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose WP:UNDUE WP:POV quote should not be in the lede. The quotes are fine deeper in the body in some sort of 'vailidity of beliefs' section or something, and a BRIEF one line statement in the lede saying there is a debate about the accuracy of these theories can be added. This is an article which accurately describes the beliefs and traditions of many people. this isnt a scientific WP:FRINGE theory we need to debunk in the lede. That those traditions and beliefs may be historically incorrect (like most traditions of every culture) is irrelevant to the accurate description of those traditions. We don't put major quotes into the lede of Thanksgiving even though we KNOW the traditional story is wrong, or into the lede's of any religious belief. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blockquotes of the nature we find in the lead section of this article are not appropriate. There are also neutral point of view issues, but the specific question of whether to include blockquotes in the lead of this particular article is a separate one, and said blockquotes are not proper for the lead in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the lead section is supposed to be a neutral summary. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Block quotes in the lead make for jarring reading and unduly promote a particular POV.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In opposition to what some others have stated above, I don't really see this as a matter of "POV" (the suggestion that they aren't historical is not POV but simple historical consensus), but block quotes are usually a sign of poor writing at the best of times, and they certainly shouldn't be used here. Please rewrite that whole lead; it's currently doing a very very poor job at even getting across what the topic is. Fut.Perf. 07:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Comment First, there is no prohibition in policy relating to using quotes in the lead. Accordingly, perhaps the RfC is worded in a manner that is against policy insofar as it would seem to aim at superseding policy. The relevant policy has at least to pertinent sections

    The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

    The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.

The policy mentions inline as opposed to blockquotes, and that is a stylistic point which, in the present case, I've gone with blockquoes because of the somewhat indirect relatedness of the two statements. Perhaps an inline quote would workable, but the paragraph would need to be well integrated. I don't believe that it would be possible to paraphrase the text in a manner that would produce a more efficient or concise presentation; in fact, I think that the opposite would be the result.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • @Gaijin42 I would say that the various lost tribes theories are fringe at this point in time, and that issue has come up on the British Israelism page. A substantial amount of nonsense trying to promote lost tribes connections has, in fact, been based on pseudoscience (i.e., linguistics, philology) ::The comparison to Thanksgiving in incongruent, as they are categorically incompatible with respect to both form and content.

      Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects... Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research – denialist histories, for example – should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic.

      --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • @Fut.Perf. Thanks for the constructive comments. Due to limited time I haven't even been able to read the excerpts of the second of two most relevant secondary sources, but it has become apparent that more of the material from that book needs to be incorporated. I've been working on straightening out the chronological development of the appearance of the "lost tribes" in ancient texts and discourse based on the exegesis presented in the book by Benite, which is complementary to the more sociological approach in the history presented by Parfitt. The block quotes can be placed elsewhere once the overall outline comes into focus, and that should make it easier to rewrite the lead. A lot of the primary source religious references seem like as much flotsam and jetsam after starting to go through Benite's book, as he puts those in context whereas they have been used in a very disjointed and haphazard manner to date in the article. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evisceration of article Ten Lost Tribes[edit]

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


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 (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 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)

Wording question: "Fancciful accounts" vs "Accounts"[edit]

First of all, please read the quotes from Parfitt in the "Japan" section

Tudor Parfitt writes that "the spread of the fantasy of Israelite origin... forms a consistent feature of the Western colonial enterprise"

"It is in fact in Japan that we can trace the most remarkable evolution in the Pacific of an imagined Judaic past.

The point of introducing the term fanciful" in that sentence is because the stories are all far-fetched fabrications based on fantasitical misinterpretation or extrapolation of biblical tales.
Using only the term "Accounts" makes it seem like the subject of the sentence is based on actual historical events instead of fictional fabrications based on biblical stories that are somewhere between myths and pseudo-history.
Can someone please propose an alternative wording that reflects the above state of affairs, as is represented by the quotes from Parfitt?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Apocryphal? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that should work. I'll wait to see if there are any further suggestions. Some people are against using higher order vocabulary here, but the suggested term is frequently used in such context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"Of doubtful authenticity"? No way, that is a heavy POV. I just changed it to "Religious accounts" in an attempt to make it neutral. Bahooka (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"Religious accounts" is a synonym of "False accounts"?? Isn't that worse?? Can we simply that the accounts are not based on historical facts? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
That would imply that religious is a synonym for false, which is POV. These are traditions within religions, so that is as neutral as I can think of. The paragraph is specifically about the religious aspect, not the secular aspect. Bahooka (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I see Ubikwit just reverted to the POV version that casts doubt on the subject. It looks like the next step is WP:NPOVN. And it looks like the blockquotes will be removed from the lead section. Bahooka (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that religious sources are not in agreement on the status of the tales. RS refer to the tales as "fantasy", "myth", and "imagined". That is what takes precedence, not your POV, which is apparently religious.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Focus on the neutrality of the edit, not the editor. And editing from a POV of it being fantasy is not neutral. Bahooka (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In case anyone is interested in weighing in at the NPOV Noticeboard, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ten Lost Tribes. Bahooka (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the wording of the sentence being discussed to the version that existed before either of us started editing this article. That should eliminate claims of POV from either side. Bahooka (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"Apocryphal", meaning "of doubtful authenticity", is a word "that may introduce bias" and so does not comply with WP:WTW. I will revert again to the original wording before I or Ubikwit started editing this article. Any changes can be discussed here and a consensus achieved. Bahooka (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The only bias is your religious POV, apparently. Are you trying to suggest that any of the fantasy stories about lost tribes in the Americas or Japan, for example, from the 17th century onward are not 100% pure fabrications? That has clearly been proven by modern scholarship. It might be possible to argue that the biblical accounts aren't apocryphal, but that is because they are part of a valid religious text. That is not to say that they are accurate historical accounts, but they did serve as a reference upon which later speculation was based.
As the text of the article says, there is not even any mention of "lost tribes" in the Hebrew bible. All of the accounts are derivative speculation based on biblical accounts that in and of themselves are not even regraded as being historically accurate.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Even the earliest Jewish accounts are referred to as "apocryphal", in fact, the earliest recorded assertion of the lost tribes is in the "Apocrypha".
  1. The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History, Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, Oxford University Press, p.59

    Apocryphal texts, dressed in the guise of biblical books and even revelations, played an important role in the early stages of the creation of this new knowledge concerning the ten lost tribes.

  2. In the Apocrypha it is presumed that the Ten Tribes still exist as tribes.
  3. In the Apocrypha, the book of 2 Esdras states that (after the fall of the Assyrian empire) "the ten tribes… took this counsel among themselves… [to go forth into a further country…]
  4. These lost tribes are referred to in the apocryphal Second Book of Maccabees, written between 50-100BC
So there are plentiful sources for the description of accounts as apocryphal going back 2,000 years ago, let alone the 17th century.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It would seem to go without saying, but since I have again had to revert an insertion of material with a referential scope constrained with respect to religion, I will have to make it clear that the accounts of Montezinos, Thorowgood, McLeod and others from the 17th and 18th centuries are apocryphal accounts that are more directly referred to in the paragraph at issue.
It is somewhat curious that the biblical Apocrypha have not been discussed elsewhere in the article, as they would seem to occupy an important position. Zvi Ben-Dor Benite treats them extensively, for example. Perhaps there should be a subsection on them added under the "The Bible" section. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


I don't understand why the words "lost" and "tribes" are capitalized in the title. In the opening sentence, they aren't. It is Wik policy to only capitalize the first word and any other words that would normally be in caps in the middle of a sentence.Kdammers (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is sometimes capitalized by Parfitt when used as a proper noun, but it is generally not capitalized. Benite, who, along with Parfitt is one of two authoritative scholars that have reliably published on the topic, does not capitalize "lost tribes" or "ten lost tribes", so it is open to discussion.
Where there are quotes from sources it should reflect the capitalization used in the sources, but otherwise should probably not be capitalized, though it should be open to discussion.
Since Parfitt uses caps in referring to the tribes as a proper noun, there may be grounds for leaving the title capitalized, but people more familiar with policy should weigh in on that. I suppose the question revolves around whether it is considered to be a proper noun or not.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Various issues related to "identification", and need to make more extensive use of Benite book[edit]

Having only been able to read 40 some pages of the Benite book, I'll keep this focused on a couple of main points. But first, to give an idea of the glaring lack of information and adequate framing of the subject matter, there is not a single mention in this article of Benjamin of Tuleda, for example.

First, in the last pp on p. 11 and the first pp on p. 12, Benite states

The fascination with the tribes has generated, along side ostensibly nonfictional scholarly studies, a massive body of fictional literature and folktale... always ready to show up or be found, never coming, and intimately connected to apocalyptic and messianic visions dating back to the Middle Ages. Such rumors were not exclusive to Jews, Christians and Muslims, too, subscribed to them. And over time, an arry of peoples who were identified as being the tribes came to subscribe to them as well.

In short, there are exceedingly few groups of people anywhere that today identify as descendants of lost tribes, and even those that do so arrived at such an identification on the basis of outside influence of missionaries and the like.

Even in the case of the Lemba, there is no RS indication that they identify as descendants of a lost tribe, and the dedicated Wikipedia article on them doesn't describe them as such. So why does this article do so?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


The Ten Lost Tribes were discussed long before the period that Parfitt describes. Since both he and DNA studies are products of contemporary times, it seems it would be more appropriate to have the paragraph with his quote at the end of the Lead, rather than at the beginning - before discussion of the history of this concept.Parkwells (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you taken the time to read either of the Parfitt or Benite books?
This is a topic that falls under the category of pseudohistory, folk tales etc., and both books make that point very strongly. I don't see what the significance of fictitious tales based on prophecy recorded in the past would be with respect to modern scholarship on this basically fringe topic. Claims of descent from lost tribes are fringe, period. The lost tribes are not considered to have ever been a historical reality by any reliable source.
Parfitt an Benite most definitely belong at the beginning of the lead right after the topic matter is defined in order to situate that topic matter for the reader according to the mainstream academic view of the topic. Explication of the development of the discourse should follow, and in a chronological order that facilitates the parallel explication of the role of the discourse in Western colonialism, which is emphasized by Parfitt and Benite.
I'm too busy to incorporate any of the material from Benite at present, and have only made a small dent in the book, but I have already mentioned several points gleaned thus far and made a couple of edits based only on that amount. I have mentioned the name of the first person (12th century) that Benite discusses with respect to the search for "lost tribes" above, but there isn't even a wiki about that individual. So, if you think that you know who said what when about 'lost tribes' or whatever, I would hope that you were drawing on reliable sources comparable to Parfitt(London, Oriental Studies) and Benite(NYU), both professors whose research is directly related to the topic.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)