Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wording question: "Fancciful accounts" vs "Accounts"

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

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

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

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

Maybe Apocryphal? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that should work. I'll wait to see if there are any further suggestions. Some people are against using higher order vocabulary here, but the suggested term is frequently used in such context.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Of doubtful authenticity"? No way, that is a heavy POV. I just changed it to "Religious accounts" in an attempt to make it neutral. Bahooka (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Religious accounts" is a synonym of "False accounts"?? Isn't that worse?? Can we simply that the accounts are not based on historical facts? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That would imply that religious is a synonym for false, which is POV. These are traditions within religions, so that is as neutral as I can think of. The paragraph is specifically about the religious aspect, not the secular aspect. Bahooka (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I see Ubikwit just reverted to the POV version that casts doubt on the subject. It looks like the next step is WP:NPOVN. And it looks like the blockquotes will be removed from the lead section. Bahooka (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that religious sources are not in agreement on the status of the tales. RS refer to the tales as "fantasy", "myth", and "imagined". That is what takes precedence, not your POV, which is apparently religious.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Focus on the neutrality of the edit, not the editor. And editing from a POV of it being fantasy is not neutral. Bahooka (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

I reverted the wording of the sentence being discussed to the version that existed before either of us started editing this article. That should eliminate claims of POV from either side. Bahooka (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Apocryphal", meaning "of doubtful authenticity", is a word "that may introduce bias" and so does not comply with WP:WTW. I will revert again to the original wording before I or Ubikwit started editing this article. Any changes can be discussed here and a consensus achieved. Bahooka (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The only bias is your religious POV, apparently. Are you trying to suggest that any of the fantasy stories about lost tribes in the Americas or Japan, for example, from the 17th century onward are not 100% pure fabrications? That has clearly been proven by modern scholarship. It might be possible to argue that the biblical accounts aren't apocryphal, but that is because they are part of a valid religious text. That is not to say that they are accurate historical accounts, but they did serve as a reference upon which later speculation was based.

As the text of the article says, there is not even any mention of "lost tribes" in the Hebrew bible. All of the accounts are derivative speculation based on biblical accounts that in and of themselves are not even regraded as being historically accurate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Even the earliest Jewish accounts are referred to as "apocryphal", in fact, the earliest recorded assertion of the lost tribes is in the "Apocrypha".

1. The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History, Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, Oxford University Press, p.59

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

2. In the Apocrypha it is presumed that the Ten Tribes still exist as tribes.
3. In the Apocrypha, the book of 2 Esdras states that (after the fall of the Assyrian empire) "the ten tribes… took this counsel among themselves… [to go forth into a further country…]
4. These lost tribes are referred to in the apocryphal Second Book of Maccabees, written between 50-100BC

So there are plentiful sources for the description of accounts as apocryphal going back 2,000 years ago, let alone the 17th century.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• It would seem to go without saying, but since I have again had to revert an insertion of material with a referential scope constrained with respect to religion, I will have to make it clear that the accounts of Montezinos, Thorowgood, McLeod and others from the 17th and 18th centuries are apocryphal accounts that are more directly referred to in the paragraph at issue.

It is somewhat curious that the biblical Apocrypha have not been discussed elsewhere in the article, as they would seem to occupy an important position. Zvi Ben-Dor Benite treats them extensively, for example. Perhaps there should be a subsection on them added under the "The Bible" section. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

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

It is sometimes capitalized by Parfitt when used as a proper noun, but it is generally not capitalized. Benite, who, along with Parfitt is one of two authoritative scholars that have reliably published on the topic, does not capitalize "lost tribes" or "ten lost tribes", so it is open to discussion.

Where there are quotes from sources it should reflect the capitalization used in the sources, but otherwise should probably not be capitalized, though it should be open to discussion.

Since Parfitt uses caps in referring to the tribes as a proper noun, there may be grounds for leaving the title capitalized, but people more familiar with policy should weigh in on that. I suppose the question revolves around whether it is considered to be a proper noun or not.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

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

Survey

(Please put Support or Oppose in this section)

• Oppose, the lead section is supposed to be a neutral summary. Adding block quotes from one viewpoint violates WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEAD. Bahooka (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose block quotes in the lead. The material in the block quotes should be paraphrased if it is to be kept in the lead.~Adjwilley (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support the long standing consensus on the basic form and content of the lead. As described below, there would appear to be no policy-based rationale for this RfC as worded. Moreover, Partiff is the foremost scholar on the topic and is cited more than 10 times in the article, and the quoted passages in the lead summarize two of the most salient points he makes. Furthermore, it does so in a concise and accessible manner, while adding credibility to Wikipedia insofar as apparently controversial subject matter is addressed directly by the quotation from the authoritative work by the foremost scholar.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's quite jarring, imo, and even appears non-neutral, even if he is "the foremost scholar", and these are "two of the most salient points he makes". The lead is not the place for these quotes or this judgement. The lead should merely summarise content from the body, where these quotes, along with relevant content from other sources can be expanded on with appropriate weight. (I was invited to comment by RFC bot). Begoon ^talk 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• oppose WP:UNDUE WP:POV quote should not be in the lede. The quotes are fine deeper in the body in some sort of 'vailidity of beliefs' section or something, and a BRIEF one line statement in the lede saying there is a debate about the accuracy of these theories can be added. This is an article which accurately describes the beliefs and traditions of many people. this isnt a scientific WP:FRINGE theory we need to debunk in the lede. That those traditions and beliefs may be historically incorrect (like most traditions of every culture) is irrelevant to the accurate description of those traditions. We don't put major quotes into the lede of Thanksgiving even though we KNOW the traditional story is wrong, or into the lede's of any religious belief. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Blockquotes of the nature we find in the lead section of this article are not appropriate. There are also neutral point of view issues, but the specific question of whether to include blockquotes in the lead of this particular article is a separate one, and said blockquotes are not proper for the lead in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.61.245 (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the lead section is supposed to be a neutral summary. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Block quotes in the lead make for jarring reading and unduly promote a particular POV.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. In opposition to what some others have stated above, I don't really see this as a matter of "POV" (the suggestion that they aren't historical is not POV but simple historical consensus), but block quotes are usually a sign of poor writing at the best of times, and they certainly shouldn't be used here. Please rewrite that whole lead; it's currently doing a very very poor job at even getting across what the topic is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

The policy mentions inline as opposed to blockquotes, and that is a stylistic point which, in the present case, I've gone with blockquoes because of the somewhat indirect relatedness of the two statements. Perhaps an inline quote would workable, but the paragraph would need to be well integrated. I don't believe that it would be possible to paraphrase the text in a manner that would produce a more efficient or concise presentation; in fact, I think that the opposite would be the result.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• • @Gaijin42 I would say that the various lost tribes theories are fringe at this point in time, and that issue has come up on the British Israelism page. A substantial amount of nonsense trying to promote lost tribes connections has, in fact, been based on pseudoscience (i.e., linguistics, philology) ::The comparison to Thanksgiving in incongruent, as they are categorically incompatible with respect to both form and content.

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

    --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Creating a section on the Nestorians

I just read "The Nestorians Or The Lost Tribe" by Asahel Grant from the mid 19th century. Any thoughts on adding a section on the Nestorians or modern day Assyrian Church of the East members as being the descendants of the tribes, which he suggests they are in his book? Penguins53 (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

Have you taken the time to read either of the Parfitt or Benite books?

This is a topic that falls under the category of pseudohistory, folk tales etc., and both books make that point very strongly. I don't see what the significance of fictitious tales based on prophecy recorded in the past would be with respect to modern scholarship on this basically fringe topic. Claims of descent from lost tribes are fringe, period. The lost tribes are not considered to have ever been a historical reality by any reliable source.

Parfitt an Benite most definitely belong at the beginning of the lead right after the topic matter is defined in order to situate that topic matter for the reader according to the mainstream academic view of the topic. Explication of the development of the discourse should follow, and in a chronological order that facilitates the parallel explication of the role of the discourse in Western colonialism, which is emphasized by Parfitt and Benite.

I'm too busy to incorporate any of the material from Benite at present, and have only made a small dent in the book, but I have already mentioned several points gleaned thus far and made a couple of edits based only on that amount. I have mentioned the name of the first person (12th century) that Benite discusses with respect to the search for "lost tribes" above, but there isn't even a wiki about that individual. So, if you think that you know who said what when about 'lost tribes' or whatever, I would hope that you were drawing on reliable sources comparable to Parfitt(London, Oriental Studies) and Benite(NYU), both professors whose research is directly related to the topic.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference sources

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

What About the Gypsies,I am a true blood American Gypsy.A whole lot of our culture is exactly like Jewish someone needs to do DNA testin on us as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.58.163 (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"ethioguide.com". ethioguide.com. Retrieved 2010-12-25. This reference appears to be a porn site. This should be removed. 122.106.95.45 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Hertz1888 (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Native Americans

There seem to be misrepresentations of sources analyzing 19th century discourse as making present day claims, which is not the case.p. 123, for example
Other claims that have been discredited should not be presented as if they hadn't. If a discourse is being examined, that needs to be clarified and put in context, not presented as a claim that, e.g., "Native Americans may really have been descended from lost tribes".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Records regarding the "Lost Tribes"

The records of Ptolemy II and Aristeas have been cited. There is no valid reason to keep reverting it back, the edit shall be included and if you have any objection then you're more then welcome to clarify your basis, but from henceforth since all guidelines are respected the edit stands as valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarification in perception (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

The records of Ptolemy II and Aristeas have been cited. There is no valid reason to keep reverting it back, the edit shall be included and if you have any objection then you're more then welcome to clarify your basis, but from henceforth since all guidelines are respected the edit stands as valid. As for the use of multiple accounts, the only one that is being used is the current one. Clarification in perception (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Change the first paragraph to clarify the ambiguity of any potential misunderstanding of correlating the "lost tribes" motif with the Neo-Assyrian Empire, citations have been included to clarify preceding presumptions. Also last sentence of second paragraph should be after last sentence of first paragraph and first sentence of second paragraph should be after first sentence of first paragraph Clarification in perception (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Change this...

The ten lost tribes refers to the ten of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel that were said to have been deported from the Kingdom of Israel after it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire circa 722 BCE. Claims of descent from the lost tribes have been proposed in relation to many groups, and some religions espouse a messianic view that the tribes will return.

The motif of "the lost tribes" first appeared in the post-biblical era, and was subsequently elaborated upon in a number of apocryphal texts. In the 7th and 8th centuries CE, the return of the lost tribes was associated with the concept of the coming of the messiah.

Change to...

The ten lost tribes refers to the ten of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel that were said to have been deported from the Kingdom of Israel after it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire circa 722 BCE. The motif of "the lost tribes" first appeared in the post-biblical era, and was subsequently elaborated upon in a number of apocryphal texts. The tribes later appear in the letter of King Ptolemy II to Eleazar the high priest of Jerusalem, confirming the whereabouts of the Twelve Tribes 285–246 BCE, well beyond the authority of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 722 BCE. This discourse was also recorded in the Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates. Claims of descent from the lost tribes have been proposed in relation to many groups, and some religions espouse a messianic view that the tribes will return. It was in the 7th and 8th centuries CE, the return of the lost tribes was associated with the concept of the coming of the messiah.

You should be providing page numbers. In any case, your source for the Ptolemy letter says " the letter of Ptolemy II to Eleazar, the high priest (Josephus. AJ 12.45-50, par. Aristeas 35); the reply of Eleazar (Josephus, AJ 12.51-56, " but doesn't mention the content. But it's . The Letter of Aristeas: 'Aristeas to Philocrates' or 'On the Translation of the Law of the Jews' that is most interesting. It does mention the content and 12 tribes. The author also makes it very clear that he doesn't see Aristeas has having any historical value. The comments on 12 tribes are also interesting. So if we do use these alleged letters we'd have to say that the original document has been said to have no historical value.

Using alternate accounts to edit war is a really, really bad idea, by the way. Doug Weller (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And led to an indefinite block of this editor - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Retract, lest you regress/Archive - one of them even added Maurice Doreal's Emerald Tablets of Thoth as a source to an article. Doug Weller (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Edits

Hi. I've tried to make some changes, focusing on what is actually known about Jewish deportation/migration east, and trying to provide an objective point of view, in other words making clear that the claims of Jewish groups in weird places are obvious pseudohistory or conspiracy theories. I'm trying to write about the conspiracy theory ideas as ideas of their time, rooted in period thinking. Blythwood (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the fifth paragraph after the listing of the tribes--I would like to call attention to the fact that 2 Kings 17:34 does not refer to the practices of the deported Israelites, but rather to the population imported to Samaria by the Assyrians. A careful reading of the preceding verses of this chapter will confirm this. Gnuwhirled (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DNA studies etc

The last section of the lede states "Some DNA studies have refuted any connection between modern-day ethnic Jews and most of the ethnic groups discussed below as possible Lost Tribe candidates." However, the article does not elaborate on any of these DNA studies and the one linked source does not satisfy the criteria for reliable sources on WP. Does professor Amtul Razzaq Carmichael, a consultant breast surgeon, have any credentials in molecular biology or historical studies? Also, how would examining modern-day ethnic Jews yield any usable information about the possible descendants of Israelites? Jews in Hasmonean times were only in a small part descended from any historical Israelites, and modern Jews are only in a small part descended from Jews of Hasmonean/Greco-Roman times. DNA comparisons would be utterly pointless. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, she has no business being used as a source here [1].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ten Lost Tribes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080224063624/http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm to http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Archaeology

If the Assyrians deported a significant part of the population, there should be archaeological evidence for it, e.g abandoned towns, different mixture of pollen in the timeline (more trees, less corn) etc. and evidence for increased population elswhere in the Assyrian Empire. Has archeological researcht taken place, and if, what are the conclusions? But this isn't even mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:3BE7:7900:307D:D13:ABC:3FAC (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the page, these links suddenly appeared on the talk page, but not in the "edit" section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:3BE7:7900:307D:D13:ABC:3FAC (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

YouTube video

I've repeatedly explained in edit summaries and at User:Gihpjaor's talk page why I think this fails WP:ELNO to no avail. I also pointed to two forums where he can discuss this and raised it here. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the link should remain excluded. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I just found the original documentary. It has nothing to do with Rabbi Kin, so I hope it won't be disrupted.--Gijaor (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

2 Kings 17:34

This passage is referring to the foreign peoples imported into the land of Israel after the Israelites were deported, not to the Israelites living in other lands. It looked to be a useful reference for a paper I am writing, but double checking it showed it to be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.192.230 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Lost Tribe of Levi but not lost Levites

Could someone clear this up? The Tribe of Levi page gives some explanation in the Biblical Criticism section. 105.227.13.241 (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph of this article lists 10 Tribes including Levi. A correct listing of the 10 Tribes would exclude Levi and would also replace Joseph with Ephraim and Manasseh. During or after the Exodus, the Tribe of Joseph split into the Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (leaving the number of "landed" Tribes at 12) and the Levites became the "priestly" Tribe that, because it had no territory for itself, would live among the people of the other Tribes.Bayowolf (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

A rewording may be in order, but if the "lost tribes" theory includes then so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ten Lost Tribes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114115123/http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracam2.htm to http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracam2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216104529/http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracam3.htm to http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracam3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114045620/http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracam4.htm to http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracam4.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dinur.org/resources/resourceCategoryDisplay.aspx?categoryID=411&rsid=478

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ten Lost Tribes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184039/http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1660Thor.htm to http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1660Thor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205163627/http://www.ucg.org/booklets/us/archaelogical.htm to http://www.ucg.org/booklets/US/archaelogical.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68I3ycrci?url=http://jewsandjoes.com/israelite-and-noahic-haplogroup-hypotheses.html to http://jewsandjoes.com/israelite-and-noahic-haplogroup-hypotheses.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pashtun section.

I'm going to remove this part because its already been proven Pashtuns have no genetic link to Jews. The dailymail is not reliable either. Akmal94 (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they do not have direct links, but to be fair, it does seem to be a fairly old and established tradition. From the Pashtun origin page:

There is a tradition among the Pashtuns of being descended from the exiled lost tribes of Israel. This tradition was referenced in 19th century western scholarship and was also incorporated in the "Lost Tribes" literature popular at the time (notably George Moore's The Lost Tribes of 1861). Recently (2000s), interest in the topic has been revived by Jerusalem anthropologist Shalva Weil, who was quoted in the popular press to the effect that "Taliban may be descended from Jews". Ruletrader819 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Original AD/BC dating usage

The original dating usage (see entry December 28,2004) was AD/BC but was later changed by woke leftists without consensus. I am changing back to AD/BC until or if a consensus for CE/BCE emerges. (I have no hope or expectation that editors will act ethically or professionally. It is well established that leftists Admins and their winged monkeys interpret rules for the sole purpose of advancing their woke ideology and crushing other people.)

Since the story predates the Anno Domini convention, using BC is not "the original". I think many Jewish people might object. Also, new comments at the bottom of the page, please. Kleuske (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks will not help your case. I am not bonded to this article but it appears that consensus has already been established regarding the date convention here. Changing it unnecessarily is disruptive and not helpful to the reader. This is not the place to set forth an ideology, it is to provide information. Ifnord (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Following the vandalism by this anonymous troll, should this article be protected? Dimadick (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I know this thread lost track a bit but the CE/BCE is a more widely accepted description of the calendar nowadays, right?