This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Israelism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Explain how the legends relate to the belief system.
Improve referencing in Theory section.
Improve article structure.
Incorporate material from the Criticism section into Theory section if and where these overlap.
Find illustrations
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Scynthian (talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British Israelism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
British Israelism is the belief that British people are descended of the lost tribes. The error is if this is so how come arabs are more closely related to jews if the british have a more common ancestor with the jews. Also many British Israelism believers cite forgeries as proof. see Category:British Israelism--Java783723:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last edited at 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
Substituted at 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The above comment assumes that modern Jews carry the same Y haplogroup as ancient Israelites. Given the matrilineal basis of Jewish identity, as well as the historical proximity of Ashkenazim and Sephardim to Middle Eastern peoples, it's entirely possible that the 3 tribes of the House of Judah---rather than the 10 tribes of the House of Israel---had their original Y haplogroup supplanted via Middle Eastern miscegenation sometime during the 2500+ years following the Babylonian captivity. Another, albeit less likely, possibility is that modern Ashkenazim and Sephardim are simply not genetically related to ancient Israelites. In any case, a DNA critique of British Israelism, especially one centering on Y-DNA, should be based on DNA evidence excavated from known Israelite archaeological findings contemporaneous with the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel (assuming such DNA findings are even obtainable). Likewise, those studies based upon on the Y-DNA of today's Druze, who historically, like modern Jews, reckon tribal membership matrilineally, should be discounted or held as highly suspect. Instead, given the matrilineal factor, a modern DNA critique of British Israelism could focus on mtDNA (as roughly half of the Druze study linked to in this article does), however, in that case the DNA evidence seems rather to support the claims of a tie between the ancient kingdom of Israel and the British Isles, vis-a-vis the higher prevalence of mtDNA K in both Wales and the Levant.199.104.207.2 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename
I believe this article is incorrectly named. The teaching/belief this article is about is officially and correctly named "British-Israel" not "British Israelism".
Can we please have this article moved or renamed to "British-Israel".
I've been studying this topic for over 30 years, and this article has a strong negative bias associated with it, and in particular the 'Compatibility with present-day research findings' section.
examples: this statement "Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans" is simply not true.
Another: "British Israelites claim that population genetics have changed in the Middle East since the time of the Kingdom of Israel's deportation by the Assyrians; hence, the genetics of modern Jews are not representative of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea or the historic population of the Kingdom of Israel."
First of all, there's no such thing as a British Israelite. British Israelism is either fact or it is not. We don't call people that believe the supposition that there's aliens on other planets 'Alienites'.
Second it's not just those that believe BI that 'claim population genetics of Jews have changed..' other academics believe this as well, and I edited the article (below) with a reference to their work, but it too was undone. Explain why this happened. This article clearly contradicts the current statment
Contrary studies show that "Most Ashkenazi Jews, traditionally believed to have descended from the ancient tribes of Israel, may in fact be maternally descended from prehistoric Europeans."[2]
I also changed the following to include that Elhaik, Wexlar and others agree.. not just BI believers. I wasn't aware that you can't reference a Wikipedia article, so here's the paper's link
In “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses,” published in December in the online journal Genome Biology and Evolution, Elhaik says he has proved that Ashkenazi Jews’ roots lie in the Caucasus — a region at the border of Europe and Asia that lies between the Black and Caspian seas — not in the Middle East.
(my edit)
British Israelites along with academics Elhaik, Wexlar and others[3], claim that population genetics have changed in the Middle East since the time of the Kingdom of Israel's deportation by the Assyrians; hence, the genetics of modern Jews are not representative of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea or the historic population of the Kingdom of Israel.
You need to read original research as I suggested. If a source discusses British Israelism fine, but this isn't an article about Asheknazis (a pretty disputed subject itself). And we call people British Israelites because that's how they are called in many sources meeting WP:RS including Collins Dictionary. Elhaik don't believe in British Israelism so far as I know, so they can't be used to argue for it. Doug Wellertalk10:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read that 'as suggested'. Why is this not applied to the rest of this article?
There's so much 'The British Israelites believe this' and 'The British Israelites believe that' with ZERO references, but of course, the counter arguments are full of references. How is that acceptable? What kind of acceptable WP:NOR reference is the author planning on using to prove the BI say this or that? Why are the same standards not applied?
Another example of the double standard seen in this article. You state "If a source discusses British Israelism fine, but this isn't an article about Asheknazis" and yet we have the following reference..
"In 1906, T.R. Lounsbury stated that “no trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered” between English and ancient Hebrew.[37]"
Linguistics can tie two separated peoples together. Shared words, grammar, etc. would suggest a past association, relationship, or heritage. Linguistics is commonly used for such analysis. The lack of such a link suggests that the two cultures are not related. Jim1138 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We report what RS say, we do not analyse it. When we say "X says this" it usually because either A: We are quoting them for a contested claim or B:We are quoting what someone else has said they have said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence."
I'm simply stating the beliefs of British-Israel adherents, or publishing minority viewpoints, often using the very same references. There's no 'novel analysis'. There's nothing stating it's more 'widely accepted than it is'. On the contrary. The British-Israel movement has struggled with it's critics from day one. However, most arguments against it have been shallow, questionable, and prone to personal opinion, albeit academic or layman.
The British-Israel movement, is alive and well to this very day. I personally know of adherents in over 20 countries, including Sri Lanka, Singapore, Zimbabwe, China and others.
As for 'fringe', the British-Israel movement is a religious belief, based on the Bible. It's their understanding of the scriptures. Their interpretation if you will. How can that be fringe? Is Mormonism fringe? Why not? How about Satanism? How is it that isn't fringe? The first line of that article is "Satanism is a group of ideological and philosophical beliefs based on the character of Satan." And the 'Ideological' and 'Philosophical' beliefs of the British-Israel movement is fringe? I think this needs to be corrected, by arbitration if need be. Wilfred Brown (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We also consider Creationism fringe. The historical, genetic and linguistic arguments of BI are fringe, just as are those of Mormonism, read those articles. Doug Wellertalk06:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verification failed for the lead statement:
British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a religious movement that claims that people of Western European and Northern European descent are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of the ancient Israelites, particularly in Great Britain.The movement includes the claim that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.[4]
. I have changed it to reflect the reliable source used. The thesis that encompasses Western and Northern European people doesn't emerge until the 20th century (1954), some 364 years after Anglo-Israelism emerged in the 16th century (c.1590)
British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a religious movement that since the 16th century, has held the belief that the people of "England (Great Britain)" are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel. The movement includes the claim that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.[5]
1. (Curr)
"One such case is the distinction that British Israelists make between the “Jews” of the Southern Kingdom and the “Israelites” of the Northern Kingdom. They believe that the Bible consistently distinguishes between the two groups..."
This distinction is unquestionable to anybody that studies the bible, let alone BI. There are dozens if not hundreds of references in the bible to establish this point.
"...Critics counter that many of these scriptures are misinterpreted because the distinction between “Jews” and “Israelites” was lost over time after the captivities.[38][40] They give examples such as the Apostle Paul, who is referred to as both a Jew (Acts 21:39) and an Israelite (2 Corinthians 11:22) and who addressed the Hebrews as both “Men of Judea” and “Fellow Israelites” (Acts 2:14,22).[38] Many more examples are cited by critics.
Regarding Paul...
Romans 11:1
I say then, Has God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
So Paul was both an Israelite (of the tribe of Benjamin, not Judah), and a religious Jew (a Pharisee, no less)
2. (Curr) "British Israelists believe that the Northern Tribes of Israel lost their identity after the captivity in Assyria and that this is reflected in the Bible..."
A reference is needed for this statement, as it's simply not true. It's clear that not all of the Northern House of Israel were taken captive.
"... Critics disagree with this assertion and argue that only higher ranking Israelites were deported from Israel and many Israelites remained."
This too needs a reference stating that only higher ranking Israelites were deported.
(Curr)
"They cite examples after the Assyrian captivity, such as Josiah, King of Judah, who received money from the tribes of “Manasseh, and Ephraim and all the remnant of Israel” (2 Chronicles 34:9), and Hezekiah, who sent invitations not only to Judah, but also to northern Israel for the attendance of a Passover in Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 30);[39]
Again, this is not true, and needs a reference showing BI believe that all of Northern House of Israel were removed.
"note that British Israelites interpret 2 Chronicles 34:9 as referring to "Scythians" in order to fit with their thesis."
(again, reference needed)
3.(Curr) "For example, some English translations refer to Tyre as an ‘isle’, whereas a more accurate description is that of a ‘coastal town’.[38]
Eventually Alexander the Great built a land bridge to attack the island , connecting it to the mainland.
So which is more accurate.. Tyre as an island, or a coastal city? The author of this reference is mistaken.
This section has some serious flaws and reference issues and should be removed or corrected to at least neutralize the points made.
Associating BI with "Christian Identity" Leads to Bias and Confusion
(Curr) "A variant of British Israelism formed the basis for a racialized theology and became known as Christian Identity, which has at its core the belief that non-Caucasian people have no souls and therefore cannot be saved.[19]"
Is this an article about 'Christian Identity'? It has it's own page. This statement would suggest that BI believers have the same beliefs as this group, which is completely false. It's like saying a Islam is the basis for terrorism.
This statement does nothing to describe BI, but is a clear attempt to promote negative opinion and bias.
I've created a separate section for its relationship, which can't be denied, with Christian Identity. I disagree that the core of CI is as you say, although there were and almost certainly still are people in that movement that do. It's certainly racist. Doug Wellertalk19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've quoted the ADL (although your link is broken). How is it they are a reliable source? Where are their references?
And how is it you managed to not include this when updating?
"Although eccentric, British-Israelites seem to have had no ambitious political agenda or animus, and were probably no more racist or anti-Semitic than the mainstream of Western culture at that time."
This is found in the previous paragraph? Instead of fixing the issue, you've made the clear NPOV aspect of this article worse. The point has been made many times by myself and others regarding the lack of balance found in this article, and you continue to aggravate the point. -- Wilfred Brown (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the link. Wikipedia generally considers the ADL as a reliable source, especially when attributed. There is no question whatsover that Christian Identity grew out of British Israelism and there are many reliable sources that discuss this. I was copying from our article, not the actual source (which you've read), which is why that sentence isn't in the quote. Of course if you read the last paragraph in the new section you would that it would be redundant as it makes the same point but in more detail and more forcefully. Doug Wellertalk11:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
British-Israel Tenets
1. I suggest the Tenets section be moved up in the article. How is it that the tenets.. the core beliefs of British-Israel believers come after 'Contemporary Movement' and 'Christian Identity'?
2. The current number tenets (3) are lacking in scope.
3. (Curr) "The key component of British Israelism is its representation of the migrations of the Lost Tribes of Israel."
Further down in Tenets we read "The core belief of British Israelism is that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and Northern Europe have a direct genetic connection to the Ancient Israelites mentioned in the Bible."
So which is the key component or core belief?
Both are incorrect. The 'key component' or 'core belief' (for lack of a better phrase) is the identification of the Lost Tribes of Israel with modern day Anglo Saxon / Western European peoples. This is made clear in the first paragraph of this article, but these subsequent points simply add confusion. -- Wilfred Brown (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source about the Khazars contradicts BI belief, not supports it.
Surely research showing that 'The most important infusion of non-Jewish racial elements into the veins of Eastern European Jews took place in the eighth century when the Chozars adopted Judaism" contradicts "claims that people of Western European and Northern European descent are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of the ancient Israelites, particularly in Great Britain." Of course the source doesn't discuss British Israelism so its use is original research and I have no idea how Eastern European Jews can factor into Western Europe and Northern Europe descent, but again that's irrelevant except for the fact this makes the article look silly. Doug Wellertalk20:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are conclusions made in this article by the BI critics that basically say "The British-Israelite adherents believe that are directly descended from the 10 lost tribes, but we checked the DNA of some Jews, and found no match, so the adherents are wrong. The end." There's a very clear description and explanation by others at the top of this talk page on this subject. The verifiable argument as to why this is has been stated numerous times now. To say it's irrelevant makes the original statement even more so, right? I mean, if this is a moot point, then why is the original DNA argument allowed to remain, while any counter argument is 'silly'?
As for WP:NOR the Bible doesn't mention 'British-Israel'. The 'linguistics' references don't mention 'British-Israel'. You get to pick and choose what's WP:NOR? If that's the case, and the Bible can't be used as a reference, or strong scientific DNA analysis references that talk about Western Europeans and Jews in the same sentence, but doesn't use the term 'British-Israel', can't be used, then delete the article, because it's toast. To cite WP:NOR like this, in my opinion, triggers a WP:NPOV violation. Wilfred Brown (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand NOR if you think anyone says it needs referencing in the Bible. But yes, I think there are problems with this article. I've raised the issue at WP:NORN. Mentioning NOR here on the talk page can't be a violation of NPOV, this is a talk page. Doug Wellertalk12:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what he is saying is that to use the bible as a source for something it does not explicitly say is OR. It does seem that much of the argument seems to be "well the bible says x" and "and X is what BI adherents claims, true Y must be true".Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
British Israelites claim that population genetics have changed in the Middle East since the time of the Kingdom of Israel's deportation by the Assyrians; hence, the genetics of modern Jews are not representative of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea or the historic population of the Kingdom of Israel.
, which had no citation when it was added 12 December 2015 with this edit summary: "British Israelites claim the genetics of modern Jews are not those of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea" by 24.156.91.86[1]. This pargraph was edited by Wilfred Brown[2] for ("Compatibility with present-day research findings")
British Israelites along with academics Elhaik, Wexlar and others[1], claim that population genetics have changed in the Middle East since the time of the Kingdom of Israel's deportation by the Assyrians; hence, the genetics of modern Jews are not representative of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea or the historic population of the Kingdom of Israel.
and then added another paragraph:
Contrary studies show that "Most Ashkenazi Jews, traditionally believed to have descended from the ancient tribes of Israel, may in fact be maternally descended from prehistoric Europeans."[2]
@Jim1138: then reverted these edits, asking to discuss it on the talk page.[3] but
@Wilfred Brown: reverted[4] saying it was a "Vandalism of valid contrary argument supported by references", then added:[5]:
"Admixture with other populations occured at later time during Jewish history. According to Fishberg, 'The most important infusion of non-Jewish racial elements into the veins of Eastern European Jews took place in the eighth century when the Chozars adopted Judaism. The Chozars (or Khazars) were a people Central Asian Turkic origin who ruled a Jewish state near the Caucasus Mountains.'"[3]
Doug Weller then reverted[6] and Wilfred Brown undid the reversion[7] saying: "The paragraph had no references.. this is a quote and reference from a reliable source." The source is a RS, but it does not support the previous statement(s).
What we need here is a RS source for this statement:
"British Israelites claim that population genetics have changed in the Middle East since the time of the Kingdom of Israel's deportation by the Assyrians; hence, the genetics of modern Jews are not representative of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea or the historic population of the Kingdom of Israel."
Neither Elhaik, Wexler, Behar, or Ostrer are 'British Israelites', and nor do they write about British Israelism. To add any of these authors writings in support of that original statement, even in it's edited form, is WP:OR.
The British Israelite position on Khazars does not support the original uncited statement:
"There was nothing in the Khazar theory per se that commended it to British Israelites, for - ironically - legend had for generations associated the Black Sea Khazars with the ten lost tribes of Israel. [...] What is not speculative is that John Wilson, the founder of British-Israelism, in his effort to track down stray descendants of the lost tribes, did in fact link them quite explicitly with the Khazars, who sprang from Israel and 'who are of the same race as the Anglo-Saxons.' Having been brought so explicitly within the Israel and Anglo-Saxon folds by Wilson, how did the Khazars become linked a century later to Esau-Edom, Bolshevism, and the Zionist conspiracy?"[4]
As no RS supports the edit as it stands currently, I have removed the following paragraph from the article as WP:OR:
British Israelites claim that population genetics have changed in the Middle East since the time of the Kingdom of Israel's deportation by the Assyrians; hence, the genetics of modern Jews are not representative of the Jews of the Kingdom of Judea or the historic population of the Kingdom of Israel. "Admixture with other populations occured at later time during Jewish history. According to Fishberg, 'The most important infusion of non-Jewish racial elements into the veins of Eastern European Jews took place in the eighth century when the Chozars adopted Judaism. The Chozars (or Khazars) were a people Central Asian Turkic origin who ruled a Jewish state near the Caucasus Mountains.'"[5]
If at any point in time, reliable sources emerge for British Israelites believing the above, then please discuss first on the talk page. Thank you.
Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have to look too far for that reference.. you can find the same statement under the 'The Relation to Christian Identity' heading.. it reads "However, Christian Identity, which emerged in the 1920s, began to turn antisemitic by teaching the belief that the Jews are not descended from the tribe of Judah (as British Israelites maintain), but are instead descended from Satan or Edomite-Khazars.[27]" Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Direct connection between the Anglo-Saxon / Celtic peoples and Ancient Israelites, including Judah (Jews) is a central tenet of British-Israel beliefs.
(Curr) " The core belief of British Israelism is that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and Northern Europe have a direct genetic connection to the Ancient Israelites mentioned in the Bible".
Stating that (curr)"Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans." is a very bold statement against the this belief.
First of all, I see nowhere in British-Israel material stating 'a close lineal link' so a reference is needed. The fact that the two groups (10 tribed Israel, and 2 tribes of Judah/Levi and the half tribe of Benjamin (see the chart in the article) separated over 2500 years ago (another tenet of British-Israel belief) the term 'close' is far from relative.
In the paper "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East" -- Gennet
"In a report published elsewhere, we recently showed that Jews and Palestinian Arabs share a large portion of their Y chromosomes, suggesting a common ancestry (Nebel et al. 2000). Surprisingly, in the present study, Jews were found to be even closer to populations in the northern part of the Middle East than to several Arab populations."
Again, in the Gennet reference
"Muslim Kurds
However, on the basis of mtDNA polymorphisms, Kurds were reported to be more closely related to Europeans than to Middle Easterners (Comas et al. 2000)."
"Y chromosome evidence for a founder effect in Ashkenazi Jews". - Gennet
"Ashkenazim have an elevated frequency of R-M17, the dominant Y chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow. In the present study of 495 Y chromosomes of Ashkenazim, 57 (11.5%) were found to belong to R-M17. Detailed analyses of haplotype structure, diversity and geographic distribution suggest a founder effect for this haplogroup, introduced at an early stage into the evolving Ashkenazi community in Europe. R-M17 chromosomes in Ashkenazim may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars."
The bible itself states "And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you." Deut 4:27 (This 'scattering' is another tenet of British-Israel belief. over 30 other biblical references refer to it.)
The point i this, I've attempted to add some simple references to this article regarding the BI belief, and they are constantly deleted by Doug Weller. His last reasoning was "what do Central Asians have to do with claims fo Western European and Nordic heritage"
"We therefore see the Sephardic Y-DNA profile to be very similar to Europeans along the Mediterranean, as well as to the Ashkenazim. The only major difference with the Ashkenazim is that rather than having about a third of their Y-DNA in haplogroup R1b (Western Europe), the Ashkenazim are about evenly split between R1b and R1a (Eastern Europe and Scandinavia)." -- Ethnic Genome Project
R1b is the dominant Haplogroup among the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic peoples.
Again, to state "(curr)"Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans." and yet, to argue the point, with strong academic evidence, is to be excluded?? This only proves the NPOV aspect of this article to not only be some kind of skewed witch hunt, but on the edge of need for arbitration. -- Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee only deals with conduct disputes and then only when other venues, e.g. WP:ANI, have been exhausted. There are many times that I'd like to treat an article about a fringe subject by treating the article the way might write an essay or academic but our policies forbid it. You are new and don't seem to have any understanding about our policies, including NPOV which says, I repeat, that we treat fringe articles as fringe. Have you read WP:NOR yet. I hope so. Now read WP:FRINGE. You'll also be surprised to hear that although we can use BI sources to some extent, most of the article should be based on independent secondary sources that meet WP:RS. Not primary sources. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"However, as Barbara Arredi and colleagues were the first to point out, the distribution of R1b microsatellite variance in Europe forms a cline from east to west, which is more consistent with an entry into Europe from Western Asia with the spread of farming"
The British-Israel message isn't about finding genetic association with modern Jewry. The tenet is the tribes taken captive by the King of Assyria made their way west and north, and settled along the North Sea as Scots, Picts, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Danes et al. Is there evidence of R1b in modern Jewry? Yes, in the Sephardi Jews.. upwards of 30%. Wilfred Brown (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This line (curr) "Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans."
Where is the reference anywhere in BI literature that says Western Europeans have 'a close lineal link' with Jews? According to British-Israel proponents, Jews and other theologians, these two groups parted ways over 2,500 years ago.
Have you actually read that reference regarding 'population movement to UK'? It's a report on a paper published in Nature that states "This confirmed the flow of Anglo-Saxons from present-day Germany into Britain after the departure of the Romans in 410 ad." As for the 'Assyrian Invasion', four separate Assyrian Monarchs were involved over a span of decades. Look at that little chart over there -> Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind, thanks. The point made by the OP is suggesting that some other history of Anglo-Saxons 'movements' contradict BI tenet that the Anglo-Saxons migrated the middle east, into Europe, and finally into the British-Isles. That study cited discredits that notion. Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The British-Israel movement is a faith. A belief and interpretation of the Bible believed by tens, if not hundreds of thousands. How many scientists don't believe in Creationism? I'll bet I could find some serious references by notable scientists and academics discrediting it. Is Creationism a 'fringe' belief? If not, what makes it not? A particular quantity of believers? If that's the case, how many before something goes from fringe to not fringe? And if it is a fringe theory, then that makes the vast majority of religious groups and articles fringe as well. Who's to say 'this faith is fringe, but that one is legit'? No, this leads to partiality, which is what I'm afraid is happening with this article in particular. Wilfred Brown (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of course. It contradicts history and genetics. That it was integrated into religious beliefs does not matter. Other people believe the Earth is 6000 years old for religious reasons, and that is fringe. Others don't accept climate change as real, again for religious reasons - fringe. Still others believe the Shroud of Turin is real for religious reasons - fringe. And so on. As soon as religions and faiths make testably wrong statements, they are in conflict with science, history, or whatever field is in charge. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIt is clearly a belief that is held (even among religious folk) by a fringe, thus it is (by it's very definition) a fringe theory. It does depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular fields (whether they be genetics, linguistics or biblical texts).Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"While British Israelism would degenerate in England to being yet another eccentric fringe movement, its transplantation to the United States in the 1880s not only ensured its survival but also enabled it to merge with other biblical interpretations such as millerism, dispensationalism. and Christian Aryanism to produce a potent variety of revolutionary messianism and virulent racism. If Britain was Ephraim, then the United States was Menasseh, another Lost Tribe and heir to the promises of Abraham."[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we seem to be discussing all of these issues. Wouldn't it be better to have separate sections since they seem to be all bones of contention? Or have I misunderstood? Doug Wellertalk14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I want to know what this thread is about, we can discus other issues in their own threads. But trying to discus half a dozen separate things just confuses the debate.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Osterer questions his own findings regarding DNA of Jews
"Ostrer’s careful and understated analysis of the evidence makes his arguments convincing. He is nuanced and doesn’t pretend that science has all of the answers about how Jews should feel about their identity. “The stakes in genetical analysis are high,” he writes, noting that they touch “on the heart of Zionist claims for a Jewish homeland in Israel.” Admixture with non-Semitic groups, in fact, “may absolve Jews from Christ-killing,” he writes. And he rejects the idea that his and others’ work would have pleased Hitler: “We were not seeking to develop a hierarchy of human groups nor attempting to eliminate individuals on the basis of their having ‘undesirable’ genes or traits, as the Nazis had.”"
We read "So, if Jews have common genetic markers, can a gene test (like the ones already being marketed) really tell you if you’re Jewish? “[T]here is no rigorous genetic test for Jewishness, nor would the geneticists who have conducted studies in recent generations propose that one should be created,” Ostrer writes. “Moreover, such a test would not replace the religious definition of who is a Jew.” The Israeli Law of Return, for example, doesn’t have a genetic requirement."
And yet, Osterer is the reference for the following statement..
"The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and philological research.[2]
It is the same Osterer that I quoted with the following
"Admixture with other populations occured at later time during Jewish history. According to Fishberg, 'The most important infusion of non-Jewish racial elements into the veins of Eastern European Jews took place in the eighth century when the Chozars adopted Judaism. The Chozars (or Khazars) were a people Central Asian Turkic origin who ruled a Jewish state near the Caucasus Mountains.'"[35]"
Here's a reference regarding this interview with Osterer[1]
And yet my entry is removed, again by Doug Weller. Please explain to me how the 2nd reference on the page, which Osterer himself disagrees with, stays? Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a strange place and often enthusiasts are misled. As a strategy, posting many messages and making a flurry of changes may appear to work, but anyone can take a look at this page and decide that a new editor (account less than a week old) is dominating a fringe topic, and that the article should be reverted back to how it was a week ago. If you want your changes to stay in the article, it will be necessary to slow down and wait for others to digest what is happening. Sure, WP:BOLD says to go for it, but if others are not happy with the bold editing, they will just revert it. The only way for progress to occur is to slow down and focus on one topic at a time. It is also necessary to avoid indignation—just stick to discussing why text should be removed or added, with a reliable source to support the proposal. Please avoid adding references on a talk page—there is usually no need because it is better to post the reference in a visible form (just the URL or other citation). Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is he the sole reference for this line at the top of the page ""The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and philological research.[2]" Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Harden Allen (1847–1930), an American holiness minister, wrote Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright
C. A. L. Totten (1851–1908), Professor of Military Tactics at Yale University, wrote countless articles and books advocating British Israelism, including a 26-volume series entitled Our Race
This ordering is definitely better than the original random order. I adjusted Barnes and Bird per birthdate.
I found all but Barnes had articles. I linked and updated both pages. I removed the CNs from people with BI mentioned in their respective article, but did not verify the source except for Bird.
Edward Wheeler Bird - article says Bird is the founder of BI. I filled in refs on that page
Archbishop William Bennett Bond - article mentioning BI
George Jeffreys - article does not mention BI
I copied the bot-repaired link from the main page and replaced the dead link for the Mary Baker Eddy reference.
The poem by MBE mentions BI, suggestive that she is an adherent, but does not specifically state such. Might be a case of wp:SYNTH.
Should people mentioned in the article be mentioned here? Herbert Aldersmith, Edward Hine, Edward Wheeler Bird are mentioned as founders of the movement, but Aldersmith is not in this list. Should they be mentioned here as "founder of the movement"?
"John Wilson is credited with institutionalizing the British Israel movement. A self-educated man, he published five editions of his central work, Lectures in Our Israelitish Origin, beginning in the year 1840. Wilson was the first spokesman of British Israel to become less than marginally philo-Semitic. One of his favorite approaches was to look for ancient English, Scottish, and Irish cognates, words sounding alike in various languages. He concluded that many of the Scottish, Irish, and British words were Hebraic in origin.
Scholars call this approach a “philological claim.” It should be pointed out that Wilson was a self-trained linguistic novice, rather than a classically trained university graduate or seminarian. Many others British Israel advocates followed suit, and a host of language associations were chartered all over Europe, Ireland, Scotland, and England.
Dr. Michael Eriedman questioned this linguistic interpretation: “Again and again we are assured by British Israelism that the Hebrew language is closely related to Keltic and Anglo-Saxon, and that there are many names which clearly prove their identity with Israel. But the actual evidence could hardly be any weaker.”83
Dr. J.A. Vaus, director of the Hebrew Department of the Bible Institute, is quoted by Eriedman as saying, “A religious system that seeks to justify its claims by an appeal to resemblances in words of different languages, succeeds only in displaying the poverty of its proofs.” [10] The source has more useful material but I've hit the copyvio limit.
I'm suggesting we rewrite the linguistics section using reliable sources. Right now we are using Greer in the article with no indication what it is. I've found it at [13] and it doesn't seem to be a reliable source. See www.network54.com/Forum/89087/message/1196101900 and z15.invisionfree.com/revivalchurches/ar/t44.htm and Churches of Christ in Australia. We have much better sources available. We should replace Greer everywhere he's used. Doug Wellertalk15:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on British Israelism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Trying to find information on the Orr 1995 reference, and it leads to an article published by 'some guy' named Orr in 'the Worldwide News'. The Worldwide News was a magazine(?) and currently a blog on Herbert W Armstrong's site http://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=wwnews
Searching for the Orr reference lead to this:
A Rebuttal To The “Worldwide News” Article By Mr. Ralph Orr Entitled “United States And Britain In Prophecy”
"The December 19, 1995, issue of The Worldwide News contained an article by Mr. Ralph Orr on the subject of the “United States and Britain in Prophecy.” That article rejected a long-standing belief of the Worldwide Church of God that the people of the United States of America and Great Britain are primarily descended from the Israelite Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. The errors in that article demand a scholarly response." http://www.british-israel.ca/answers.htm
This paragraph and subsequent reference is clearly a 'personal opinion' of an unreliable and unverifiable source (Orr 1995), and needs to be removed. Wilfred Brown (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After that initial post, I found the other reference citing 'Ralph Orr' used in this article that I suspect is the same Orr 1995. That reference links to this blog post https://www.gci.org/prophecy/usb
Orr appears to be a member(?) of the 'Grace Communion International Church' and states his authority to make these statements as "This message and our commission to preach it has been given to us by Jesus Christ." He starts off with "After having carefully researched the tenets and history of this belief, we do not teach this (British-Israel) doctrine."
I agree entirely. We shouldn't be using Orr. And I still plan to remove Greer as a source for the same reason, I just haven't had time yet and hope I can find substitutes before removing. Doug Wellertalk18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this article is marked as within the scope of the Wikiproject Skepticism. This is misguided.
This article should have it's 'skeptical' marker changed to 'controversial'.
British-Israel is first and foremost an interpretation of Biblical scripture. The 'religious movement' aspect of BI is merely a group or groups of people that believe these interpretations, and publicly express the same. Without these scriptural beliefs, there is no British-Israel. While there may be some non-religious groups that believe the same things, they are not British-Israel.
BI does not fall under the definition of theory. Although it may be part of a larger Philosophy (Christianity), it's relatively smaller number of current and past adherents, as compared to say Catholicism, is completely irrelevant to make it 'skeptical'.
The article as it sits now is controversial. Statements are made which have been shown to be outdated, of poor references, and it's 'skepticism' is found in the references of one or two academics that could be described as 'skeptical' in themselves (Tudor Parfitt believes he found the Ark of the Covenant in Africa being used a drum ;)
Lack of Consistency with modern Genetic Findings states "Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans." I've posted articles here that show a genetic link via the Haplogroup R1b, the dominant Haplogroup of Northwestern Europeans, that Wikipedia article states "The point of origin of R1b is thought to lie in Eurasia, most likely in Western Asia". I also see no references stating that British-Israel believers say there's a 'close' lineal link. On the contrary, one tenet of BI is that Jews and the ten lost tribes of Israel departed ways over 2,500 years ago!
This, and other similar issues need to be addressed. If these critical points are the basis for the 'skeptical' flag, then it's not enough.
Other 'religious movements' that could be considered 'fringe' if this movement is, don't have the 'skepticism' flag. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own 'Criticism and Controvercy' section. Same goes for Mormonism, Satanism,
These all have the controversial flag, that reads;
"The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information."
This is probably the wrong place to discuss this. I presume it was added by s member of the wikiproject so you might ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. But it seems to fit as the project covers pseudohistory, and although its believers don't agree, other sources call it that. Doug Wellertalk19:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Tudor Parfitt a reliable source? After reading up on this author, he is not without his own skepticism. A few points;
"Ken Mufuka, a professor of history from Zimbabwe who teaches at Lander University in South Carolina, called Parfitt a "publicity-monger" and "a charlatan" in a newsletter published in Harare."
Parfitt authored the book "The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth", and says "the Lost Tribes are indeed nothing but a myth", but then declares to have found one of the 'lost tribes' in Zimbabwe?
This apparent quote by Parfitt found in this article states "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre."
Really? Not only do British-Israel believe in the Lost Ten Tribes, so do numerous archaeologists, Jewish scholars and religious leaders. Watch this film and count the total number as you go.[copyvio link, redacted]
Documentary by Simcha_Jacobovici. Tell me, what makes Parfitt's opinion more notable than this guy, or any of the others found in this film?
Have you looked up his academic credentials? Or read Tudor Parfitt. So long as we attribute him I see no problem. If you still do after reading his article, take it to WP:RSN. I'm not endorsing everything he wrote as I haven't read it all, and I'm dubious about some of his claims, but in those cases we simply find other reliable sources that discuss him and his claims and disagree with them. The copy of the documentary you linked to is obviously a copyright violation so Ive removed it from your post. And this isn't a place to debate whether there were 10 lost tribes. And I don't think Parfitt himself called the Lemba a lost tribe, despite the title of the documentary. I may be wrong of course. Doug Wellertalk08:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nebel as a reference
I'm trying to find the source of the Nebel 2001 references cited regarding genetics in this article. While I can see a number of studies by Nebel regarding the genetics of the Jews, what I don't see is any association regarding Anglo-Saxons / Celtic peoples specifically?
This line, with a citation by Nebel...
"Genetic research on the Y-chromosomes of Jews has found that Jews are closely related to other populations originating in the Middle East, such as Kurds, Armenians, and Arabs, and concluded that "Middle Eastern populations… are closely related and… their Y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans"
..means nothing. Which Europeans? All Europeans? How about the Sephardi Jews of Spain and Portugal with a 30% association with the R1b haplogroup found predominantly in Britain and Northwestern Europe?
Either contrary DNA studies, that simply refer to 'Europeans', need to be allowed, or this whole 'lack of consistency with modern genetic findings' section needs to be dropped. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've started on this. No more tonight though. I removed one use of Greer and with that your edit relating to it, as no longer relevant. Will work on the rest later. Doug Wellertalk18:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another statement from Nebel "The investigation of the genetic relationship among three Jewish communities revealed that Kurdish and Sephardic Jews were indistinguishable from one another, whereas both differed slightly, yet significantly, from Ashkenazi Jews. The differences among Ashkenazim may be a result of low-level gene flow from European populations and/or genetic drift during isolation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Brown (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are these new references you're using? Just using the reference in the New York Times (questionably) alone states;
"Among major contributors to the ancestral Arab-Jewish population were men who carried what Dr. Hammer calls the Med lineage. This Y chromosome is found all round the Mediterranean and in Europe and may have been spread by the Neolithic inventors of agriculture or perhaps by the voyages of sea-going people like the Phoenicians."
"On the assumption that there have been 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, Dr. Hammer and colleagues calculate that the rate of genetic admixture with Europeans has been less than half a percent per generation."
Are you actually reading these studies, or just googling the terms and trying to justify the statement of this article, which is vague at best? There's absolutely zero references comparing all Jews with the so called British Israel claim of a 'close genetic link', of which I can find no references of either.. on the contrary, as stated, the British Israel tenet is that the modern Jews and the lost tribes of Israel parted ways over 2500 years ago. This point and others are merely smear campaigns. Since I've been studying this article, the critic's references have been droping like flies. They're weak, non-existant, amateurish and designed to
There's no such thing as a pure Jewish Haplogroup, or pure Nortwestern European Haplogroup. Any simple study of the Y Hapologroups shows mixtures of varying degrees among all peoples, usually based on geography.
Who in the world are you talking to? WHy the weird indentation which made it look as though others were replying but not signing ? If you are referring to me, I don't appreciate the personal attacks which are in fact gross misrepresentation of what I'm doing. Doug Wellertalk09:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, my deletion of this section was reverted with a 'continue the conversation' comment. Let's do that. Please explain how any part of this section is allowed to remain given none of the references remain given my points clearly made above. Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a source linking the declaration to British Israelism. Where does The Grail Procession: The Legend, the Artifacts, and the Possible Sources of the Story link it with British Israelism? Not on Amazon, where you can search the book, or Google books[16]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section of the article is declaring what British-Israel followers believe. They aren't academics. How many BI websites do you need? 10? 50? The British-Israel-World federation isn't good enough?
Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, William, Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Steward of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, guardian of the earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernethy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton.
All these leaders of Scotland who signed the Declaration of Arbroath agreeing that they were descended from the Scythians isn't good enough for you. They believed that Scots were Scythians, but because they didn't call themselves 'British Israelites', that it has no place on THE article in Wikipedia that is about British-Israel, who's central tenet is the 'identification of Jacob-Israel in the British Isles and Northwestern Europe'. That's a violation of WP:NPOV. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a belief that the article dates to the late 16th century can be claimed as the belief of people who signed something in 1320. That would make a mockery of the article. So BI no longer has any academics or well known authors? How about 20th century authors? Doug Wellertalk18:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The majority viewpoint of this article is about the faith of British-Israel adherents in their doctrines. Clearly and unquestionably they believe that the Declaration of Arbroath is evidence of this belief, and they write about it. The title isn't "The signatories of the Declaration of Arbroath were British-Israel believers". It's not OR because the point isn't what is said. It's about the adherents believing was was said, which again, is the whole point of the article. Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just reiterate this point. The majority viewpoint of this article isn't about what you, I or some Academic believes. It's about what British-Israel adherents believe. The article isn't designed first and foremost to discredit the faiths of these people outright, which it's clearly trying to do using editors that claim it as "British Israel nonsense". People coming here have asked themselves "What is this British Israel thing I'm hearing about?". They should FIRST get a clear answer. I dare say that all British-Israel documentation could be referred to as OR. At what point did any BI author go to some academic and say "hey, I have this idea.. what do you think?" Wilfred Brown (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines like to use Flat Earth as an example. It has nowhere near the same level, if any, of the criticism this article does.
Owen Flintoff seems to have written "Imag. Histor. ad A. D. 1185, says, that Scythfe, Schythici, Scoti, and Sco-tici, are all one ; Nennius expressly calls the Scots Schyth® ; and Gildas, the Briton, who lived immediately after the overthrow of the Britons by the Saxons, calls the Irish sea Vallem Scylhicam. Alfred, in the English translation of Orosius, calls the Scots Scyttan: the Germans call both Scy-thians and Scots Scutten : and the old Britons called them Yscott. The Irish sometimes styled themselves Scoitagh or Scuiteigh, that is, warriors, from scoit or scuit, a kind of dart carried by them ; Camden’s Brit, by Gough, iii. 471. Tacitus, although calling the Caledonians Britons," I see no evidence he was a British Israelite, and he wrote almost 2 centuries ago. No mention of similarity with Scotland or of Scoloti.
John of Fordun obviously isn't a British Israelite and also doesn't mention Scoloti.
When did 3 organisations become numerous? And it's 2 anyway
@Wilfred Brown: - you must know that '3' isn't numerous. Nor is it actually three, I'd argue. Two of them are Yair Davidiy sites & I wouldn't count them as actual separate organisations, just different part of the same organisation, Brit-Am, which is not a notable organisation by our criteria (and that was decided by an AfD discussion, not me.
There are a lot of notable adherents listed in this article, didn't any of them write about this? Doug Wellertalk19:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough yet? Ok.. I'll add this too. John H. Ogwyn - "The United States and Great Britain in Prophecy" pg 27-28 (chapter 4)
If you require more citations, let me know and I'll pull them from the 'numerous' available.
Perhaps you could possibly find the time to deal with the lousy references cited that was discussed earlier. Nebel, Orr, Greer... Wilfred Brown (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2017
(UTC)
Ogyn seems reasonable, the claim for numerous organisations is not. I've been working on it, but I'm going to bed now. I've removed some of the Greer stuff, thought you'd removed the rest. (where'd my sig go? Doug Weller)
I did, it was put back.
Oh, for future reference Brit-Am isn't so much an organization.. it is , but it's name is short for British/American-Israel..it's the synonymous with Anglo-Israel, British-Israel, all of which include the belief that America can be identified as descended from the lost 10 tribes as well.. but that's a new topic in this article that I'll put together another day. Wilfred Brown (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Due and Undue Weight category in WP:NPOV states "However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
I would dare say in an article titled "British Israelism", the majority viewpoint would be the viewpoint of British-Israelites (for lack of a better name) and their doctrines. If the majority viewpoint was it's critics, then the title should be changed to 'Critics of British Israelism'.
It goes on.. "In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
And "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."
So even if the belief of British-Israel is held 'by a tiny minority', which is contentious at best, this article is 'devoted' to those views.
This is not happening.
To rectify this, one thing that needs to happen is the order in which the various points are made. It should be the majority view first, then any critical or contrary point following.
As an example, I've renamed and reordered the Modern Genetic Findings section. Renamed from 'Lack of consistency with Modern genetic findings' to 'Modern genetic findings' as there are plenty of high quality research papers that contradict the previous title.
You're reading policy wrong. NPOV states "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." "On a subject" is the key bit here. For Wikipedia, BI is the minority view because that's how mainstream sources see it, and we are a mainstream encyclopedia.
WP:FRINGE states that "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independentreliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." The "belief that the people of "England (Great Britain)" are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel. The movement includes the claim that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David." is fringe "in Wikipedia parlance."
"When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views."
The guidelines further states that "The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." There's a lot more there that you should read. Doug Wellertalk09:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, which is it? This is an important question as should direct somewhat the article's flow. Is it a political group? Then where's the politics? Is it an idea? Then why the stringent requirements for academic research when making the point? etc. Given the answer, it may be necessary to either change the title, or create other articles that are more specific. Is it a 'theology'.. then it's a 'study'.
The definition of 'movement'is 'a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas'. Well, if that's the case, as stated at the top of the article, then why all the critique? Don't like the group's 'movement', then don't read it. The world if full of 'movements' that don't require criticism.
I guess it's a 'social movement', in which case Wikipedia states "A difficulty for scholarship of movements is that for most of them, neither insiders to a movement nor outsiders apply consistent labels or even descriptive phrases. Unless there is a single leader who does that, or a formal system of membership agreements, activists will typically use diverse labels and descriptive phrases that require scholars to discern when they are referring to the same or similar ideas, declare similar goals, adopt similar programs of action, and use similar methods. There can be great differences in the way that is done, to recognize who is and who is not a member or an allied group.
If that's the case, which it sure appears to be, then why the strict labeling, like "Any references must say exactly 'British Israelism'.. we won't accept the Bible as a reference because it doesn't use the word 'Celtic', and other such nonsense.
And as for people that 'follow' (for lack of a better term at this point) we have;
Adherent - 'someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas'.
Follower - 'an adherent or devotee of a particular person, cause, or activity' so same.
Believer - 'a person who believes that a specified thing is effective, proper, or desirable'.
Even those terms have their synonyms, like 'card carrying member', 'fan', 'friend of', 'admirer', 'disciple', 'zealot', 'devotee' and others.
Each of these has their own unique connotation attached. There's a big difference between a 'fan' and a 'card carrying member'.. so, which best describes this? Wilfred Brown (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those sources fail WP:RS or are too old to use definitively. This BI source[20] calls itself a movement and uses the word 'believers'. Various reliable sources use different terms - just "movement", "religious movement" and yes "social movement". But they are all talking about the same thing, people who believe that the British descend from the Lost Tribes. And so far as I can see the vast majority, maybe all, use the term British (or Anglo) Israelism. None of this affects the way Wikipedia treats this set of beliefs. And "adherent", "follower", "believer", these are synonyms. [21] You're almost in "how many angels" territory here, not quite, but not really important right now. Doug Wellertalk09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify a bit more. This is an encyclopedia. You say " 'a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas'. Well, if that's the case, as stated at the top of the article, then why all the critique? Don't like the group's 'movement', then don't read it. The world if full of 'movements' that don't require criticism." I really do not understand this. Political parties can be defined as movements. You think their articles should have no critique? Once again, it is a requirement that articles present all significant points of view, and that includes criticism. Readers of an encyclopedia are entitled to see that criticism. You clearly don't think they should and are saying that there should be no criticism in this article. You also seem to be suggesting that there really are no central tenets identifying British Israelism, but I'm sure you don't mean that literally, that you aren't saying that there aren't any core ideas every adherent considers important. Doug Wellertalk11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that British-Israel is a religious based 'belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group'. In other words, a 'religious based doctrine'. Whereas there might be some scientific or other group that has similar tenets and conclusions, that's not British-Israel. As such, it falls under 'Religion' (see my post below).
Regarding critique, as I've stated elsewhere, I have no problem with that in this article. This doctrine has had it's critics from day one. So what? What religious movement doesn't have it's critics? But if you go to say, the Book of Mormon a 'sacred doctrine' it has two paragraphs of critique half way down the page of a very long article. Why? Because it's an article about the Book of Mormon, not some kind of witch hunt.
As for 'central tenets' again, you're mistaken. My whole criticism of this site is that the 'central tenets' are missing. Or if mentioned, are absolutely vague as to why British-Israelites believe this doctrine and how they got to that point. Yet very often when I try to add this missing information, it gets 'undone'. If some guy self publishes a book, and 2 million+ people are 'moved' by it, you would delete the point saying 'it was self published'. That's ridiculous when it comes to a 'Religious movement'. This is a very serious issue in this article. Obvious critics using whatever means possible to make sure the British-Israel doctrine is squashed. And that on a page dedicated to British-Israelism. That is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Brown (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks as though it was either edited by people who didn't understand reliable sourcing (or before we had a good guideline/policy), by adherents of sects/denominations specifically opposed to it, and by adherents, one of whom was a prolific sockpuppet. I've been meaning to comment on the tenets below but am not sure why you haven't suggestsed some. Doug Wellertalk17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because so much of my time is wasted defending the rights of British-Israelites in getting their message out. But I've added a few now. More to come. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually claiming we should ignore basic policy and guidelines? See WP:SPS. We can't use Foster. I'll comment more about the Bible below. 16:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
What Wikipedia has to say about WP:NPOV and Religion
Religion
"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources."
So tell me again. The Bible, or the 'historical' Declaration of Arbroath can't be used as a reference on an article that is a 'religious movement'??
But a source still would need to "acount for how such beliefs and practices developed". If a source says "We believe in the power of prayer to turn the hair purple" we can say that faith believes in the power of prayer can turn the hair purple, what we cannot say is that is a source for the sentence "and followers of that belief have purple hair".
Yes, we should avoid using the Bible as a source. That's because it's a WP:PRIMARY source. We should use sources that meet our criteria that discuss the Bible. Otherwise it turns into original research with editors choosing their own verses, and as they say, the Devil can quote scripture. The Declaration is also a primary sources. Doug Wellertalk16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources" don't you understand? Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ", we can use a source as long as we do not draw our own inference from it. So I ask again, please provide the text you want to include.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not drawing 'our own' inference.. It's the beliefs of the adherents of this religious topic. I don't need to fabricate the beliefs of British-Israelites. Their beliefs are well documented.. just no in this article. Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep saying that? I'll let you know. And calling the Bible an 'artifice' is offensive to billions of Christians, and only proves your bias. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because I want to know what text you want to add Also I did not call the bible an artifice, unless you are saying you are currently writing the bible.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define the difference between 'Religion' and 'Religious movement'. This is why I posted the "What exactly is the definition of British Israelism" section on this talk page. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Christianity is a religion. It has its own unique deity (or deities depending on your point of view), places of worship, etc. Within it and within its denominations there have been religious movements. Eg within the Anglican Communion there's Anglo-Catholicism. Although BI's roots may be older, it basically started as a religious movement within the Church of England. It is also classified as a New religious movement. Hm, here's another source I just found.[23] I'll read it later. It isn't the reason I said it can be called a new religious movement, by the way. Doug Wellertalk08:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Central tenets
I think we may have these wrong.
I did find this quote: "however, the distinctive ideas of British Israel ism are based on three tenets:
that God’s promise to Abraham that he would father a great nation (Genesis 17:3-8) has a literal and physical fulfillment,
that the 10 lost tribes continued to exist unseparated as a nation under Davidic dynastic rule (2 Kings 17:6, 18:11), and
that Britain and the United States are the great nations descended from the lost tribes and constitute the “New Israel.” I'm not sure if both Brit-Am and the BWI agree on these three. Doug Wellertalk 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
[24], seems to be what (at least one branch) believes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'central tenet' is a misnomer. It's like saying what is the 'central' tenet of the Book of Mormon. Here's a list of tenets that should be covered in this article
The Heritage of Israel
The House of Israel and what became of them.
God's Plan for Israel
The seven times punishment of Israel
What happened to Judah?
The Promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
Jacob's birthright - Ephraim and Manasseh
Scriptures regarding Britain's Identity with Israel
The Lion and the Unicorn
Over 17 various Historical details including 'Cleopatra's Needle', The Behistun Rock, Jacob's 'Stone of Destiny', 'the Throne of David and Britain', the 'unite' of James I
Significance of the Union Jack
Obviously not all adherents agree or even know about these fairly common doctrinal tenets, so each one would need a 'Some adherents believe... '
No it would be like saying "the central tenants of Mormonism". A list of central tenants is just that. Now as we have the BI foundations tenants linked to here we can use that as a basis for constructing a basic text about BI's beliefs.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or we only include what the "official" stance of "the church" is, that would be the "central tenants" of the faith, what the Church believes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there's a reason why I don't edit the Koala page of Wikipedia.. because I don't know anything about the topic!. To say one of the central tenets is that "the 10 lost tribes continued to exist unseparated as a nation" shows a lack of understanding. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A tenet is a central principle or belief. Wilfred Brown, what you have is more a long list, too long in fact, of headings, not tenets. And of course we need sources. My three are sourced by the way. @Slatersteven:, I wouldn't call it a church. And as far as I know, it's not really a religion and many adherents are Christians. Doug Wellertalk19:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Merriam, the definition of 'tenet' is "a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy." So not all tenets need to be 'a main principle'. That list I provided are headings of the some of the tenets of British-Israel doctrine. It should be rather obvious they need to be expounded on further, which I intend to get to. And I wasn't aware that there's a limit to how many beliefs a group is allowed to declare. Who's going to perform triage on these? You? Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The koala bear comment suggests a belief that you can't constructively write a Wikipedia article if you don't know the subject. That's absolutely not the case as we don't want your knowledge really, our articles should be based not on what editors know but upon what reliable sources say about a subject, as Slatersteven said. As for the lack of understanding, that was a quote. Doug Wellertalk20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the page where the quote came from, however to identify this quote "10 lost tribes continued to exist unseparated as a nation under Davidic dynastic rule" as one of three central tenets of British-Israel doctrine is mistaken. Regarding editors, you may want to read this Wikipedia:Expert editors. I'm not claiming to be an expert on British-Israel, but I have been studying it, in depth, since 1983. The 'we don't want your knowledge really' statement seems to contradict Jimmy Wales statement, and this quote from the Expert Editors page.. "Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed, or places where ideas are over- or underemphasized, and to identify optimal and recent sources in their fields". There is no academic course called British-Israel 101. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are prophecies and scriptures that adherents use to support the tenets, and it is a rather long list. But these should be interspersed among the descriptions of the tenets themselves. For example "Jacob-Israel was to spread abroad to the West, East, North, and South. Gen 28:14, Isa 43:5-6" are scriptures that should be found under a "The Movements of Israel After the Captivity" (or something like that), as that is a rather strongly held belief. Others in this list, like "Israel is described as “Drunken.” Isa 28:1-17, which is accurate, as the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples have some of the highest levels of alcohol consumption in the world List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita, however I don't know that every point in that list would or should be covered in an encyclopedia. As for the 'white' reference, I'm sure many British-Israel adherents would find that repulsive. I personally know of hundreds and hundreds of British-Israel believers that live in Singapore, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and many other non Anglo countries. Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
od
Well I linked to the BIF page on what they think the central tenants are (or core beliefs), do we have a sourcve for this alternative list.
As to length of study, I have in my personal library (for over ten years) works such as "god and my birthright", "the triumph of British Israel" and others.Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfred Brown, thanks. Of course it's anonymous (and racist, although that alone wouldn't disqualify it as a source) and despite what User:Scynthian said not official. We couldn't use it as a source. It does show however that the link between BI and Christian Identity still exists. Again, I think that a list and description of central tenets should be by its very nature be short. Our article on Christianity only lists one tenet. This source(Cambridge University Press, thus an RS) says "Here too lay the principal novelty of British Israelite belief. Its defining tenet was the identification of the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and North America as a race of Israelitish origin, indeed whose descent could, in fact, be traced quite specifically to the tribe of Ephraim." I won't argue about the Ephraim bit, but I think that some form of this statement is indeed the most important tenet.
As for expert editors, that's an essay, not a guideline, and says " Although other encyclopedias might have articles based on personal "expert opinion" or unpublished conjecture, Wikipedia requires all text to be verifiable to published sources." As your quote says, we hope that experts will be familiar with reliable sources and can use them in their editing. So we'd still expect an experienced airline pilot to use reliable sources, ditto a Bishop. There may be no academic course in British Israelism, but exactly what is your point? There are academic books on the subject. And in fact there are academic courses that discuss it.[25]Doug Wellertalk07:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the 'the identification of the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and North America as a race of Israelitish origin' is the main tenet. The first line of this article says that. That quote however, would make a better introduction than what's there currently. But you can't stop with that point. Why do they believe this? What evidence do they have? They believe in the lost ten tribes.. what's that? etc. To not add these points would be like having an article on Koala that says "Koalas are a marsupial that live in trees in Australia. The end" One of the hardest parts of writing articles for this page, or any other, is trying to get the tenets clear, and concise. It's not a dictionary. When I come here, I expect details. Wilfred Brown (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not suggesting no details. Please read WP:AGF. I'm saying identity the tenets first, then the details. Right now is seems more the other way around. Tents, reasons for their belief (interspersed with criticism, we try to avoid criticism sections although some articles still have them). Obviously the history of the movement and changes in it over time. The splits need to be included as well if we have reliable sources for them. Doug Wellertalk10:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relation to Christian Identity is too Verbose for this Article
According to WP:NPOV "Making necessary assumptions"
"It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate.
Having a 'brief' and 'unobtrusive' pointer regarding Christian Identity is legit, however, the verbosity of this sub-heading is unnecessary and clutters the article, as Christian Identity has it's own page where these points are made. Unless someone can explain why it needs to stay here, contrary to WP:NPOV, then I'll be making it 'brief'. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The British-Israel doctrine is not about white superiority.
Clearly there are some that use the British-Israel doctrine as an attempt to exalt the white race above others, but that is clearly incorrect.
According to the Bible, we read "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen 17 (KJV) ..."That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
God's blessing on Israel, because of their belief (all of this is well documented in the Bible), was to be an example to the Nations to forsake their heathen gods. In spite of this honor, Israel rebelled, and God divorced her. By their continued rebellion, both the Northern House of Israel, and the Southern House of Judah were banished, and, according to scripture, punished for 2,520 years (this is another tenet of BI). Unto this very day, the majority of Jacob-Israel and the Jews are rebellious. So rebellious that God has promised destruction upon them, and I'm sure most people reading this have heard of the Battle of Armageddon. (again, another tenet of BI)
In Romans 10:21 we read "But to Israel He (God) saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."
I would ask you, where is the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples in any of that? On the contrary.
Having other groups twist British-Israel to suit their own agenda of racism and white superiority has no place on the article. Do you think you can find the word 'terrorist' on the Muslim page? No. Do you think you can find the word Muslim on the Terrorism page? No. Should there be? Well, that's been a big issue of late, hasn't it. Never the less, British-Israelism gets associated with white supremacy, and racism? Why the double-standard? Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you know that reliable sources associate the two. And that some adherents aren't racist. I've no doubt that you aren't a racist, and it would be great if there was no racism in BI, but there always has been. As I said, even today Brit-Am says there are anti-Jewish elements in the BIWF. We go by what the sources say, not anyone's interpretation of the Bible. And I'm not accusing BI today of being inherently racist, but it seems to have started that way at a time when racism was more or less the norm. Doug Wellertalk07:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? I'm a regular editor of this article even if most of my edits in the past were dealing with sockpuppets and vandals. Whether or not other articles meet our policies and guidelines doesn't matter for this article. Virtually all academic sources relate the two as do a number of its adherents. Doug Wellertalk10:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim is a religious person, BI is not it is a religious movement. It is not a religion in and of itslef, but part of a religion. In the same way Islamism is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May I correct you. British-Israel is not actually an "ism" nor an "ity". British-Israel is a simple inter-denominational belief that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world are the descendants of the Northern House of Israel (as racial Jews are descendants of the Southern House). It is not a movement, for if it was, it would be one of the longest movements ever. Scynthian (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing those who say it is a religious moment. Herein lies the problem with using "what you know", you say it is not a movement, and another "follower of BI" says it is. One of you (and thus one factions of BI here on Wikipedia) must be wrong. So that is why we use only what third party RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me this. Where do these 'third party' so-called RS get their information about British-Israel? I pointed out a massive list earlier of RS calling it all sorts of things from 'belief', 'idea' etc. Even the RS can't get it right, but that's ok.. just dump on the British-Israel adherents trying to get it straight. But I guess you guys get to pick which one of the RS descriptions suits you best. Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By our rules it does not matter where they get it form,. as long as they pass the RS rule. Yes sometimes it lets down genuine edds with knowledge of a subject, but more often then not it stops people who are loons including their personal theories that (for instance) that BI was invented by a small dachshund called Collin after losing the Dunny on the Wold by election. As in the discussion above we have two "experts" one calling it a religious movement, one not. So which "expert" do listen to, or do we just say "well we need it in print by other people so we can at least verify it's a genuine concept, and not some random trolling"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfred Brown: No, you didn't give a list of reliable sources. You gave a list of unreliable sources, mostly websites, none of them mainstream except the encyclopedias and we try to avoid using tertiary sources. We don't use Wikipedias, blogs, church websites, quora.com (which often copies us), etc. Don't you do any checking of the sources at all? Doug Wellertalk09:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put it in as a source, but as proof of confusion of what the definition of British-Israel is. This is a talk page, I don't need to use RS Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You called them reliable sources. They weren't and only showed that sources we wouldn't use are confused. But even reliable sources have different perspectives. Doug Wellertalk20:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading of maps with dubious, incorrect, and/or incomplete licenses
Images have been uploaded with incorrect and/or incomplete licenses. The current ones are:
The map on Israel is made by JJ Hall which i am have authority to put online. I don't know what licensing I should put it as, because I was just given permission by the BIWF president who has authority from JJ Hall. Scynthian (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And who is JJ Hall? Here's his FaceBook page[26] I believe. He's not a note authority on British Israelism. I don't see why we should be using it. And the family tree is clearly original research which we don't allow. Doug Wellertalk10:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that Facebook account is not him, maybe from his family? JJ Hall made his drawings during WWII and was in most of AJ Ferris' booklets. Many British-Israel authors have continued to reproduce his images in many books (even I). I personally don't know much about JJ Hall, but whenever I ref his work I also keep the JJ Hall on the corner of his images. Scynthian (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate addition of "background scripture regarding Ephraim and Manasseh"
This is exactly what I was talking about above, using a primary source the Bible for something - I'm not sure what. It's inappropriate and not encyclopedic. Doug Wellertalk18:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think (I may be wrong) that he is not using the bible as a source, just quoting the parts that BI thinks supports it's philosophy. But I agree the inclusion of the biblical texts seems superfluous.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about what he's doing, but if so he coo U.K. does do it using proper sourcing and just cite the passages with links that go to them. Doug Wellertalk18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hence why I said the passages are superfluous. We do not need to read the passages to know that BIists think they mean X, we just need to know they think it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
British-Israelism is pure interpretation.. thus it is OR? As for the quotes, I simply thought the relevant scriptures explained it best. It's both an explanation of how the British-Israelites come to the point, and the point itself. But whatever. If this article quoted every biblical reference, it would be a very long article indeed. Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but on Wikipedia we can use the interpretation that RS make (as long as we make it clear they say it), what we (as edds) cannot do is use our own interpretation (that is what Wikipedia means by OR "Our own Research").Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources just added
Codjoe is selfpublished so can't be used.
J. H. Allen is credited by some for being the foundation of some of Armstrong's ideas, but I see no evidence he's an expert enough to use for this. We really need better sources, probably academic ones. Doug Wellertalk21:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and Armstrong was a British-Israelite. He even gets his own subheading in this article. Codjoe is obviously an BI adherent as well.
Besides all that, this point regarding Ephraim and Manasseh is a well known doctrine. And it's really just a primer to more in depth entries of the fundamental 'Ephraim is England and Manasseh is the USA' British-Israel doctrine. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being an adherent doesn't make them suitable for use in defining the foundation of BI. I don't think Armstrong's belief in the Assyrian-German connection is "mainstream BI", is it? Doug Wellertalk09:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who's in charge of defining 'main stream BI"? However using Armstrong as RS is plenty suitable for suggesting 'some adherents', otherwise you can't use any source at all. What are you going to do, collect all BI literature, break it down into tenets, and then count the number that write on each tenet as some sort of importance scale? Talk about OR.Wilfred Brown (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a question and mainstream was in quotes. Can you identify any BI groups as on the fringes of BI? And please don't put words into my mouth, your comments on tenets have no relationship to what I wrote. I was talking about Codjoe when I said being an adherent doesn't make them suitable, etc, not a Armstrong. The question about Armstrong that you haven't answered is whether that believe about the Assyrian-German connection is a common one. I didn't think it was. Doug Wellertalk20:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Racist elements in the British Israel World Federation
I see the main text on the BIWF has been removed. The BIWF was a major force within the movement and really shouldn't be minimised. It still is part of the BI movement, not Christian Identity. User:Scynthian posted a racist BI page in one of the sections above, which is still published by the Covenant Publishing Company Ltd.[27] Colin L. Rubenstein in The American Jewish Year Book Vol. 97 (1997), pp. 401-415 wrote "A number of small organizations that define their Christianity through anti-Semitism, such as the Christian Identity Ministries (which facilitated and actively promoted the Jack McLamb tour), British-Israel World Federation, Covenant Vision Ministries, and Church of the Creator, had a small but visible presence on the extreme right of Australian politics. The British-Israel World Federation sold Holocaust-denial material and anti-Semitic literature in its Central Sydney bookshops, as well as Christian Identity, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel books and magazines." The American Jewish Year Book, Volume 95 says it promoted Holocaust revisionism. Again referring to Australia, Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 By Stephen Roth, Nebraska University Press, refers the to BIWF as an extremist organisation. I've already pointed out that Brit-Am has criticised the BIWF, here's a discussion[28] about antisemitic books being sold by the BIWF and a conference they organised. One of the people most involved in founding the BIWF was Herbert Sawyer[29] who was very active in the KKK.[30] The Canadian Branch sells books by the racist[31] Howard Rand.[32] founder of the Anglo-Saxon Federation of America (an article which says nothing of its racist nature). That article probably needs the Christian Identity category as well.[33]
I'm not saying that the leaders of the UK BIWF are racist, or that BI as a whole is racist, far from it. I don't think it is. But the article can't ignore that the BIWF exists, was in part founded by a racist, played a major role in BI in the 20th century and still has elements of racism. Doug Wellertalk10:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably ok to link to racist BI organisations at times to source what BI groups or websites say, but should they be identified in any way as racist? I see that both the single purpose accounts editing here have linked such sites. I presume both editors know about the content of the sites they link. Wilfred Brown in particular has been studying the subject for over 30 years and presumably is familiar by now with virtually all the relevant organisations. If I'm mistaken I'll apologise in advance, but everyone adding references is expected to know what they are adding and to make sure the references are appropriate and meet our guidelines and policies, and are not just picked up in a Google search without checking. Doug Wellertalk16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on using the plural when there is only one source
I understand the reason, although the proper was to do it is to name the author, not say one critic", after of course you checked the source to make sure the source doesn't say critics. But you're being pretty selective. The first sentence in that section starts with "adherents " but only has one source, why didn't you change that? Doug Wellertalk21:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you were going to say that. Personally I think this whole paragraph is pure OR, and the whole Scriptural interpretation section transgresses WP:NPOV. It cites a single critic, but made to sound like many, and lacks any references to the declared British-Israel POV. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am I being selective when the sentence "Adherents of British Israelism cite various scriptures in support of the argument that the "lost" Northern Israelite Tribes migrated through Europe to end up in Britain." Could we not find 50 British Israel sources to cite that point? It is, as discussed, ad infinitum, THE central tenet of the British-Israel doctrine. And by the way, I've been reading the source for the last couple of days. This guy must froth at the mouth when criticizing BI. He says of Richard Brothers "No wonder he ended up in an insane asylum" suggesting that his BI beliefs drove him mad. Nice. Real nice. Oh, and one thing you probably shouldn't accuse others of doing is being 'selective' with their edits regarding, how did you put it,.. oh yeah.. "British Israel nonsense" Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you would show conclusive, overwhelming evidence that the British, et al. were one or more of the lost tribes of Israel. Then we could dispense with all of this reliable source nonsense. I and others would be free to do other important things. How about it? Jim1138 (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I so wish you were serious. Personally I've been reading a number of 'recent' DNA analysis, by Hammer no less (used by critics on this site). Looking at this earlier today https://gap.familytreedna.com/media/docs/2013/Hammer_M269_Diversity_in_Europe.pdf (again by hammer).. in particular, look at the post-neolithic slides. The evidence of waves of migrations originating from the Iberia region into the British Isles is beyond controversial. And to call it 'skeptical' is pure ignorance and bias. Wilfred Brown (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am serious regarding moving on. The British Isles were colonized; no question of it. Don't conflate immigration of people from wherever with being evidence for British residence being of the Ten Lost Tribes. Is there any credible evidence for Ten Lost Tribes? Lots in the bible, lots of people basing books on the bible, but archeological/DNA/linguistic evidence? I don't see any. So being "skeptical" of such an extraordinary claim as British Israelism would be expected. Jim1138 (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image: File:Declaration of arbroath.jpg is not in English, is not readable by the vast majority of Wikipedia readers and conveys no useful information. It would be better to link to the article - which is already done in the section Scots are of Scythian Ancestry. One could show a picture of most any foreign-language document and it would be of no difference to the average reader. The image should not be on this article and should be removed. Jim1138 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why the photo of Goard? Does that display some special significance? Why not Roberts, why not a photo of Armstrong.. he has his own section? Why the Orange street church.. are they so much more notorious than any other church that adheres to the British-Israel doctrine?
That photo fits nicely within the topic. To me, it conveys importance, that it's ancient, unique, serious, validated, preserved etc. It's considered the most important document in Scotland. It deals with the 'todo' list, at lest somewhat. Maybe in the future it may need to make room for a more important image, but that's clearly not the case at this point in time. But the biggest issue for me is why all the angst against it? Unless of course, the critics would rather see the whole topic swept under the rug. Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
implication that British Israelism is the majority view is wrong
BI is clearly a minority view. Bigger probably than pyramidology, smaller than the minority view on a similar topic held by Mormons. Editing as though it is the majority view is a clear violation of NPOV. This does NOT mean its history and beliefs shouldn't be the majority of the article, but BI has a fringe view of history, linguistics, population movement, etc. If you seriously think it's the majority view of mainstream academics in these subjects we can of course have a formal discussion. Doug Wellertalk06:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever said it's the majority doctrinal view of Christianity? If you read the literature, rather than snippets from google book search, you would soon find that a major tenet of British Israel is that very point. The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples of the earth rejected their God and His commandments, and the vast majority do so to this very day. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the article must reflect that. The article is about BI, not only it's beliefs but it's structure. history and the nature of the evidence used to support it's tenants.Slatersteven (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I do not believe it is the majority view of mainstream academics, in fact, as with the general public, I don't think many of them have even heard of it. Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of sources on this. The latest one I've read is this. 12:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
Your source's definition of British-Israel.. that it's 'fundamentally about providing a rationale for Anglo-Saxon superiority'. I take it you find this source RS, so I'll add it to my list of 'what exaclty is the definition of British - Israel'. Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It probably goes in the history section describing how it arose. You've misquoted it by leaving out the word "was", she's not describing its contemporary forms. Doug Wellertalk09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Also section
The See Also section would seem to need some serious trimming - I don't recall ever seeing one this long. More selectivity should be employed, but I don't know enough about the topic to know what is really a pertinent association and what is more superficial/peripheral. Agricolae (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where do the academic critics find their sources regarding British-Israel? Are they privy to some papers or other studies that we're unaware of? I doubt it. The only source they would have is the very sources we have.. literature created by British-Israel authors themselves.. so some academic like Dimont(1933) can pick up a particular book, say 'I don't believe it', then make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, that's acceptable RS? Alright, I'm ok with that. As I've said in the past, British-Israel has always had it's critics. Just.Like.Anything.Else. But when an encyclopedic article about British-Israel turns into a launch pad for anti 'white supremacy' viewpoints and the like , then it's become a coatrack.
The recent genetic research proving the links of the Israelite peoples originating the middle east and migrating through Europe into the British Isles has become conclusive. I read a recent DNA analysis on the Basque peoples of Northern Spain, that whereas it was originally believed that they were descended from very early europeans, the DNA evidence know proves them originating in Iberia (near the Caucausus mountains). The Basque language is not an Indo-European language. Same goes for Irish. Up until recently belief was that they were descended from the Scandanavia region, but recent DNA research shows a closer link to Spain, and before that, the middle east. These studies are numerous. I haven't had time to read them all. If the genetic evidence isn't enough for critics, layman and academic alike, then nothing will be.
The 'population movement' tenet of British-Israel, (which is fundamental), is definitely not fringe. It's controversial at best, as the academics argue about it themselves.
And the linguistics thing always gets more limelight than it deserves. It's not a fundamental tenet of British-Israel, but simply what some would see as more evidence of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples connection with the middle east. There's all sorts of ideas and theories published by adherents. Just.Like.Anything.Else. Tell me. A scientist, makes on observation, forms an hypothesis, and tests it and... BZZZT nope. Well then, he should stop right then and there. Guy is obviously a quack. Does that happen? Typically not. But British-Israel, fundamentally an interpretation of the Bible.. a doctrine. Are they getting the same treatment here? No. Instead it's this "'British Israel nonsense' believes all these things, and all these things are wrong". Here's an interesting vid on the point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9wo2VKrP7c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Brown (talk • contribs) 21:14 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually they do have evidence, such as genetics and linguistics. But this is also irrelevant, WP has rules on RS. We edit articles based on those rules, if you think they are wrong take it to the talk pages on those subjects, but we cannot allow one article to ignore those rules, not is this talk page the right place to talk about altering the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I am not familiar with the movement as a whole, but what you say about the DNA here is just plain false, dramatically so. There is nothing whatsoever in the scientific reports to link the Irish DNA studies (or the Basque ones) with British Israelism, or that the ancient DNA being analyzed has any link to Israel. The scientific consensus describes them in terms of farmers of Anatolian origin (yes, they can be that precise - not generic Middle East, but Anatolia), and later migrants from the Steppe, layered on top of local hunter-gatherers, with no mention of Israelites at all (indeed, the modern scholarly consensus would suggest that the entire concept of Israelites at this period is ridiculously anachronistic). Likewise, the part summarizing Jewish Y-chromosomes is based on sources that have nothing to do with Britain. The entire Modern Genetic Findings subsection doesn't belong in the article, being Original Research/Synthesis, and very deceptively taking the studies out of context to spin them as if they supported British Israelism. (It isn't good enough to find studies that you think support British Israelism.) Indeed, the whole section name, Compatibility with Present-day Research Findings, gives the false impression that there is any. Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's funny. I've arguing from early on that the whole genetic point is moot. The only entry under 'Compatibility with Present-day Research Findings' was the critic's 'Jews not related to Anglo-Saxons so there, BI is wrong!. That reference was noted by Doug Weller 2 years ago as OR/Synthesis, but allowed to stay, and whenever I tried to delete the critic's genetic points, they were undone. So, I put the OR/Synthesis DNA study to at least neutralize it out, and would you look at that. All gone now. Suits me.
While on the same OR/Synthesis point.. I argued earlier..
""In 1906, T.R. Lounsbury stated that “no trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered” between English and ancient Hebrew.[37]"
Is this an article on the origin of the English language? Where's the BI discussion in that reference? Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh no they said, that gets to stay...
"Linguistics can tie two separated peoples together. Shared words, grammar, etc. would suggest a past association, relationship, or heritage. Linguistics is commonly used for such analysis. The lack of such a link suggests that the two cultures are not related. Jim1138 (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)"
I am not sure I am following you. If a BI enthusiast says the Old English derives from Hebrew, and the accepted scholarly consensus is that Old English derives from Indo-European Steppe roots, it is unnecessary for the scholarly articles presenting this to directly address BI for it to be relevant as refutation of the BI claim (it is legitimate to present a scholarly consensus that differs from a fringe claim). On the other hand, if a scientist says that an ancient Irish corpse has DNA from Anatolian farmers, and some editor decides to claim that this supports BI, that is just the edotor presenting his own opinon. They are different circumstanes entirely. Agricolae (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Define 'consensus'. Somehow I think a single academic critic here (Parfitt) and a single academic critic there (Dimont) fails the definition?
The linguistic argument is moot as well. The beliefs of the British Israel doctrine is that the Israelites taken captive by Assyrians eventually left, migrated north and west into Indo-European lands, and have been living among Indo-Europeans now for 2,500 years. And as for Hebrew itself, the spoken language became nearly extinct around 500BC (see Hebrew). It was only revived as a spoken language in the 19th century AD. At the time of the writing of the New Testament, starting about 50AD, Greek was becoming the defacto language of the Jews in Palestine. That was 2,000 years ago. Wilfred Brown (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time nor inclination to play word-parsing games over what 'consensus' means. BI is fringe. You would be hard-pressed to name a single current academic scholar who supports it, so let's not pretend (or Wikilawyer into making it appear) otherwise. It is so fringe that it can be a challenge to find anyone bothering to formally dismiss it, but don't fool yourself into thinking that Parfitt is all alone in rejecting it. British historian have moved on from this race- and religion-infused mindset so long ago that it isn't even a part of the conversation and hasn't been for some time. And if some BI supporters (either currently or historically) can be shown, using reliable sources, to have made the linguistic argument, it is legitimate to include it as well as its refutation, even if you think it's moot. Agricolae (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will play the game, in this context we can see "consensus " as being "the majority view point of experts in the filed who have expressed an opinion". This is why it is defined as Fringe, most Linguists, geneticists or anthropologists have not even given it space in their heads. Those that have have found it wanting.Slatersteven (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the coatrack argument at all. White supremacy has always played a role in the development of BI, are you really arguing that it shouldn't be mentioned? Or that a philosemitic movement also included antisemites? This is part of its history and discussed by academic sources. Doug Wellertalk10:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This same argument keeps going around in circles. It's an 'Attack Article'. If I didn't know better, I would have read this article and come away thinking 1) British-Israel is a bunch of racists. 2) There's only a handful of believers. 3) That absolutely every single tenet (of which most haven't even been mentioned yet) is absolutely and undeniably not only wrong, but designed to deceive, and the entire scientific community has looked at this and they all agree that there is 'absolutely NO WAY the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples migrated from the near east into the British Isles'. Is that the message of this article? If so, then change the name to 'British Israel Myth'. Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern archaeological, ethnological,[2] genetic,[3] linguistic, and philological research.
Where's the evidence for this statement? What archaeological? Regarding the 'genetic' reference, the author being cited has rejected the very statement... Osterer himself states “[T]here is no rigorous genetic test for Jewishness, nor would the geneticists who have conducted studies in recent generations propose that one should be created,” Ostrer writes. “Moreover, such a test would not replace the religious definition of who is a Jew.” And just what are the 'central tenets' of BI that are being refuted (such a strong word)? Read the earlier talk on Osterer above. Wilfred Brown (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "There is no rigorous genetic test for Jewishness" in the previous sentence don't you understand? If you can't define a Jew through DNA, then you can't point to a person and say she's genetically a Jew. So If you have nothing to point to.. to compare to, then how can you make a statement saying there's 'no genetic link'? But I would love to see your evidence. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot define A Jew by their DNA...you cannot define who has (or does not) have it. So you cannot use it to say "X are not genetically Jewish" either. So any DNA evidence used to support a 13th tribeness to the British is debunked by the statement by Osterer, it is not something you can test for.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a supporting reference, which says BI is "contradicted by modern DNA testing, linguistic theories, and understanding of cultural connections between people of the ancient world", and goes on to call BI "thoroughly discredited". It would seem to support the entire sentence. Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And another one that explicitly names archaeology. "British Israelism has suffered greatly from the demise of the British Empire and the findings of modern archaeology, which clearly refute their ideas." We now have references that explicitly refer to each and every part of that sentence. Agricolae (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistics
The Encyclopedia of Prophecy by Geoffrey Ashe: "To confirm the equation, ingenious speculations traced the Lost Tribes, by various routes, to northwestern Europe and the British Isles. For instance, Assyrian inscriptions called the northern Israelites the people of Omri, after one of their best-known kings. The name could have been modified into “Khumri,” and this could have been the origin of“Cimmerian” (applied in antiquity to a nation in southern Russia, doubtless Israel on the march) and “Cymry” (applied to the Welsh, doubtless part of Israel in its new country). A more direct argument was that the word British sounded like the Hebrew b’rit ish, meaning “covenant man.”[34]Doug Wellertalk10:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Omri was the king who founded Samaria, but the Assyrians called his son, Jehu, 'Bit-Khumri' and 'is generally accepted to follow Hincks as the Biblical Jehu, king of Israel'. Omri in Hebrew begins with the consonant 'ayin', formerly 'gayin' which was the gutteral gh or kh sound. So the Israelites would have said 'Ghomri', and the Assyrians wrote this as Khumri, as seen above. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to ask an expert. It looks plausible in English, but I don't know if it makes a difference that they used cuneiform. But all of this sound alike business is less than compelling. Doug Wellertalk18:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia expert enough? I quoted it from Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. As for 'sound alike business', that article describes a perfectly legit 'you say toMayto and I say toMAHto' example of language evolution. Between 732 and 700 BC, the captive Israelites were removed to both Media and Meopotamia. Within 50 years, a people showed up who the Assyrians began calling 'Gimira'. Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We never use Wikipedia as a source. We can use reliable sources from other articles where appropriate, but the "follow Hinckley" stuff isn't sourced, and the rest I don't see in the article. As for language evolution, I thought you were talking about a claim that the Welsh spoke a language descended from, what? That sort of identification can't be made that way. Doug Wellertalk20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That Black Obelisk article states " Hincks' identification is now the commonly held position by biblical archaeologists." A quick search shows numerous references stating the same thing. Keep up the good fight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Brown (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I better include one reference, or I'll never hear the end of it "Congress Volume Cambridge 1995" pg 89 "Overall Hinck's translation of the Black Obelisk text is remarkably good."Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chosen People: The Rise of American Black Israelite Religions by Jacob S. Dorman. an Oxford University Press book. Comments on use of linguistics but also quite a bit on the history.[35] Note that Google searches really need to be British|Anglo Israelism. Doug Wellertalk12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Josephus
This is not relevant here. It may belong at the Lost Trobes article but this article isn't the place to try to prove the myth is real by random quotes. We all accept that BI depends on accepting their reality. No need for the article to say more than the BI thinks they migrated to Britain, etc. Doug Wellertalk05:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is not random. The British-Israel belief uses many resources in support, displaying this on the article displays the amount of research from even historians from the Biblical period.Scynthian (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are the critics here trying to suggest that this fundamental proof, cited by British-Israel authors and adherents so many times over the past 125 years is unworthy to be put on this page? British-Israel and the lost 10 tribes are joined at the hip. The term 'lost tribes' is currently mentioned on this site 31 times. The critics use different arguments citing the lost tribes as proof why British Israel is in error. You've crossed the line this time. Wilfred Brown (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unmistakable that British Israelism is a 'religous belief'. It's foundation is the Bible and the scriptures. As such, this quote from WP:NPOV Religion applies perfectly;
"In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfred Brown (talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfred, why don't we put all of those references onto the article? (The ones I added which you removed (Judah's Sceptre... and British-Israel Church of God) )
Yeah, sorry about that, but in the kerfuffle that is Wikipedia British Israelism, the one secondary quote that Agricolae requested got lost, and a good chunk of the quote. So I reverted back to the original. Feel free to add the others.. it seems if you have about 7 or 8 references, then the critics are happy. Any less and you risk an edit war. Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) If it is relevant, then there should be a source that talks about this quote in a BI context, but it is not just a question of whether to include it, but how. We don't use a quote from a primary source because we as individual editors decide it is relevant, and we shouldn't use just any old secondary source that includes the quote from the primary source because we decide it is relevant: we cite a secondary source referring to the quote in the context of our topic because the author has decided it is relevant to our topic, and when we do, we should provide the context that the author gives the quote to make this association clear, and not just present the naked quote as if the relevance was self-evident. Agricolae (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Poole quote is exactly that, and in context. These tenets were being discussed extensively as early as 1879. There's a critics 'proof' in this article where they say the ten tribes simply got mixed back with the other two. Poole addressed that particular criticism back in the 1800s as well, and I intend to use that as the British Israelim's view on the matter. Nothing more, nothing less. Not my personal thought, but Pooles. Take it up with him. Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except you were inserting just the quote, without anything Poole had to say about it, and it is what the BI supporters think of Josephus that is of interest to the readers of an article about BI. Agricolae (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't necessarily quote the witness, when a brief paraphrase accomplishes the same task. In general (although there are excptions) we don't use quotes as elaborate decorations. We almost never quote the the people who interpret it, unless their precise wording is critical. More importantly, though, in the current situation the disputed text is only the quote, without any indication of BI context. What the BI people think of the Josephus quote is more important for this article than the quote itself. Agricolae (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the average reader could read between the lines and come to the conclusion of what BI thinks about the quote? Just what do you have in mind? Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the new text says, not even all BIists agree with this, so why should the man on the Clapham omnibus have any idea what it was talkign about?Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To date, I've found nothing rubs the critics harder than the British-Israel belief regarding the quote by Josephus where he says 'while the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude'. It's such powerful argument for British Israelism isn't it? Here's this notable historian who was actually alive at the time, stating that fact. Wow. I'll give you this, that portion of the quote probably ought not to be under the "Israel Were Not Jews". But the identification and migrations of Israel after their captivity is another hotbed of criticism of BI, as well as a fundamental tenet of BI that has yet to be addressed, or addressed properly, in this article Wilfred Brown (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this is about discussing the article, not soapboxing. So to your last part. Yes we should mention that BI thinks that the Jews migrated from"beyond the Euphrates", and also any disagreements with their claim.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Theological claims that assert a racial lineage[edit source]
British Israelism asserts theologically related claims of a genetic link to the early Israelites.[citation needed] As such, it is based on a genealogical construct. This belief is typically confined to the geo-political status or the prophetical identity of the nation, not to the individual's superiority or salvation status with God.
Due to the diverse structure of the movement, other elements of its belief and its key doctrines may be embraced by individual adherents. British Israel theology varies from the conventionally Protestant Christian. Most British Israel movements believe that personal, individual salvation is open to all people."
No, absolutely not. If a BI proponent can be shown to have made the claim, then it is relevant, even though it is demonstrably false - indeed the fact that they made a claim now viewed as demonstrably false is extremely relevant. Anyhow, this paragraph, which I agree borders on incomprehensibility, is not about DNA or genetics. It is about theology and genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'borders on incomprehensibility'? It's a hodge podge. All it's doing is confusing the reader, and it doesn't really make any profound statement, statements.. or whatever it's trying to say. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for in Biographies of Living Persons, no, it is not necessarily enough itself. Unreferenced material may be removed, but the ethos of Wikipedia gives preference to improvement over knee-jerk removal, except when it is clear that no such reference exists. Agricolae (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism section
From Wikipedia:Criticism
Philosophy, religion, or politics
For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. Wilfred Brown (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's rocket science. State the British Israel doctrine clearly in the main part of the article, then go nuts in the criticism section. What's happening now is nothing but confusion to an average reader. There's almost zero real content regarding the BI beliefs and how they came to them. I personally have no problem with criticism of BI, but it needs to follow the same guidelines.. OR, NPOV, NOR etc. Wilfred Brown (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know this topic has been brought up numerous times, but it needs fresh addressing.
This article has statements like 'central tenets refuted by genetics', or 'British Israelism asserts theologically related claims of a genetic link to the early Israelites' etc. Where are these 'central BI tenets' that make this claim? I don't know of any RS BI source that does. Where's the proof? Where's the evidence? If anything, it's a bizarre, self-fulfilling Wikipedia loop. Some academic reads it on this page, then makes the claim? "Hale (2015) refers to "the overwhelming cultural, historical and genetic evidence against it." Again.. plenty of claims, but no evidence.. no studies.. nothing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. 1) The central claim of British Israelism is one that can be evaluated by testing the hypothesis against archaeology, genetics and linguistics. A century's worth of work in these fields has failed to find any support for this central claim, but instead support a different model of the peopling of Britain. The 'central tenets' sentence succinctly summarizes this. This is not the same as saying that BI has made claims regarding DNA, DNA is the evidence that will either be consistent or inconsistent with the claim, not the claim itself. 2) the 'theologically related claims of linkage' sentence, as discussed in the previous section, is poorly written. That doesn't not mean that some adherents to BI haven't historically made claims of a theological/genealogical nature, such as the espousal of the pedigrees tracing the Brits and Irish from Biblical progenitors. You are right it needs a cite, but this has nothing to do with a 'Wikipedia loop'. 3) Finally Hale. Her work was published in a scholarly compilation under the oversight of a scholarly editor. To be a WP:RS, Hale does not have to convince us of the validity of her conclusions, she only had to convince her editor. She was presenting a brief summary of how BI is viewed by the academic community, not the full argument, and her summary is ratified, for the purposes of Wikipedia, by the editor's acceptance of it. Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's hardly 'refuted' then is it? Everybody can claim 'we can prove via DNA', and yet nobody does. At least I have DNA studies indicating that the BI belief is, if nothing else, a definite plausibility. This whole 'oh yeah, we got proofs..trust us' leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's absurd that some academic, like Dimont, can say "I looked into this BI thing and its wrong' and gets cited. No evidence, no real sound science. Same goes for Parfitt. This guy states he found the 'Ark of Covenant' being used as a drum in Africa, and that the Israelites, who built the temple in great detail were 'incapable of designing the ark'. Now there's a reliable source. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is refuted. That you don't understand this, that you think the existing data supports a plausible BI-consistent model, just reinforces why Wikipedia leaves interpretation of DNA results to experts. Agricolae (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody call these guys and let them know; "'Our results show that the Basques trace their ancestry to early farming groups from Iberia, which contradicts previous views of them being a remnant population that trace their ancestry to Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups,' says Prof. Mattias Jakobsson of Uppsala University, who headed the study." and
"The Neolithic and Bronze Age transitions were profound cultural shifts catalyzed in parts of Europe by migrations, first of early farmers from the Near East and then Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe. However, a decades-long, unresolved controversy is whether population change or cultural adoption occurred at the Atlantic edge, within the British Isles."
So let's see. There's a 'decades long' unresolved controversy (paper published 2015) on this topic. But I'm to take your word for it? I don't think so. Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. All of the knowledge in the world at your fingertips, with just one Google search. Too bad it can't convey understanding as well. It is not true to say "there is a decade-long controversy" - there was a decade-long controversy. The very paper you cite is accepted as answering that question, particularly as it fits perfectly within the overall pattern seen in the peopling of Europe - the British Isles are not some exceptional special case. Likewise, the debate you are pinning your hopes on is between indiginous hunter-gaterers, Anatolian farmers and Steppe invaders with no Israelites in the equation, and at time-frames completely inconsistent with any kind of migrating-Israelite model. Anyhow, you don't have to take my word for it. Maybe I don't know what I am talking about. But then again, maybe you don't know what you are talking about. That is the point. We don't base our editing decisions on your novice interpretation, we don't base it on my non-novice interpretation - we look at the scholarly record, not as we interpret it, but as the scholars themselves do. Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your perusal, 'What appears to be an never ending edit war'
Dear Fellow Editors, It has come to my attention while checking to see how long the 'Theological claims that assert a racial lineage' subgroup had been there without any edits or references. (The answer.. before Dec 8, 2012), that, much to my surprise, I found a rather old, yet what appeared to be superior version of this British Israelism page, especially given it's current state. It was both clear and informative about the topic of British Israel. Unlike the current page, it actually had tenets, real tenets, as well as other features that I'm sure your readers would find interesting. Where might this jewel be found you ask? Why, right here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Israelism&oldid=522822237 )
However, what must surely have been an oversight of some sort, the aforementioned page was, alas, dismantled. And in it's place, what I personally believe to a inferior attempt at explaining the topic at hand, it was replaced with this; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Israelism&oldid=52537616
Pity.
Upon further examination, it appears that not much has changed regarding this British Israel article. Unlike the other, the tenets are weak, or non-existant. The overall tone is, how would one say, possibly in transgression of WP:NPOV? Maybe that's too harsh of a statement. Let's just say it's lacking.
The 'apparent' decades long battle over the same issues, time and time again, must be frustrating to the average reader. Surely their heads must be in a tizzy, and that is most undesirable. So many years, and yet no consensus? Egads!
I hope I'm not out of place by making this suggestion. I know one must be bold and can just revert the article as in times past, but my suggestion would be to revert to the earlier version mentioned above, and try to work together to build what should be, and could be an article that we can all be proud of. An article worthy of that great oracle known as Wikipedia, where all peoples, great and small, adherent and critic alike can come and basque in the knowledge of British Israelism.
It sounds deceptively enticing, but in the end is fruitless. If the fundamental problem is that we can't agree what the page 'should be', nor on what constitutes a legitimate source, a true BI view or scholarly consensus, I don't see how picking another starting point is going to get us to a page we are all satisfied with any quicker. Agricolae (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that maybe we combine the achievements we have made in agreement from this article with the old article and try to come to consensus. Scynthian (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
