Talk:Ten Lost Tribes

Archives There is a tendency to make every important group on this Globe of Jewish Origin. The Pathans and Kashmiris are the purest Aryans . They got Semitic (Arabic-Jewish names) after they converted to Islam in this region. Before this even their names were Aryan. So by removing this you can not change history.
2004 Archive 2005 Archive

Deleted text

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--216.43.17.100 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Theory about Ancient Israelites in Ancient Japan

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

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)

"History"

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

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.  :-) Tomer^talk 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I gave it what I hope is a "serious fix". — Reinyday, 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian rape

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. 203.214.133.79 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please think before you post. No one has been sexually molesting this article. 67.142.130.33 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

Eureka?

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

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

NPOV here or religious propaganda forum? Why tagged for cleanup?

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)

Disputed

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) .

• 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

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

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)

Evidence Which Suggests that the Ten Tribes were not Lost

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. 4.154.74.183 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)

Interesting article

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

• 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

http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=185 and http://www.israelite.info/Source_Documents/MainPageSourceDocuments_Folder/Spartan.htm 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.

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

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

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 69.234.182.211 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Koreans and the Lost Tribe of Dan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Igbo Jews of Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Israel

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. Tomer^talk 18:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Disclaimer - Not everyone from that ethnic group claims lineage"

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 87.194.21.39 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Bene Ephraim

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)

ques re diffs

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)