Talk:British Israelism/Archive 1

LDS
For discussion on latest removal of material regarding British Israelism and Mormonism see recent addition to Talk:Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. B 04:32, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As a follow up to my comment above, the LDS Church does not teach British Israelism...it NEVER has. People (this means you, Arline, and apparently only you) claiming otherwise (including Mormon missionaries who are NOT the arbiters of LDS Church doctrine and make errors like any other human and of whom more than 90% have never even heard of the phrase "British Israelism") simply misunderstand the Church's doctrines regarding Israelites, chosen people and patriarchal blessings. B 16:23, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Merged material from a much smaller page on Anglo-Israelism as the two terms appear to be synonyms Mokus 16:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Herbert W. Armstrong
I have removed the following text under "Advocates" because it was inaccurate: "The most visible advocate of this doctrine was probably American evangelist Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God. Armstrong frequently used his broadcasts, The World Tomorrow, and particularly the church's magazine, The Plain Truth, to advocate this doctrine. However, in 1995 the church publicly renounced Anglo-Israelism and repented for having advocated it; however, certain breakaway groups from this church still proclaim it, as do some other small evangelical groups."

I don't know who originally wrote this text but it does not reflect the teachings (as they were) of Herbert W. Armstrong, or the splinter groups that came to life after his death. What can be said of the Worldwide Church of God today (2004) is that the only thing that it has in common with the church under Herbert W. Armstrong, is the name and it may be changing that. It has closed its colleges, sold its grounds and is even moving from Pasadena, California. The same is true of the magazine, it is the same in name only, not in content nor in purpose or distribution. Its broadcasts have also been terminated.

There is documentary evidence to show what these beliefs were and it will take some time to find them and create new text. This entire article needs rewriting because it seems to be a hodge-podge that is not well written (which is probably the result of endless changes and edits.)

The problem begins with the opening line which identifies these beliefs with "Germanic peoples", because Armstrong believed that the Germans were not Israelites but Assyrians who were the enemy of the Israelites - old and new. His booklet 1975 in Prophecy! dealt with a German led United States of Europe destroying the USA and UK in a World War III sometime between 1972 and 1975. For this reason alone the present article is a total contradiction of anything that Armstrong taught, no matter how off-beat his actual teaching was. Since this is an encyclopedia the information should at least be accurate. MPLX/MH 04:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Offensive text removed from article to this page
This was on the article page under the heading of "Origins". This is guilt by association and it does not belong in this article. This is the misleading text: "'The roots of the Christian Identity movement can be traced back to British Israelism, the conviction that the British are the lineal descendants of the 'ten lost tribes' of Israel. British Israelism was brought to America in the early part of the 1920s, where it was promoted by William Miller and adopted by the Worldwide Church of God.'"

I also notice that the link to the real originator does not work because there does not seem to be an article about him. I suggest that this is remedied without delay. MPLX/MH 05:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about William Miller but as a former member of the Worldwide Church of God, I can attest to the fact that British-Israelism was a major doctrine in the church. Current scientific evidence with regard to DNA analysis would render Armstrong's teachings as garbage, and if you will, heresies. It is only logical if most Jews(Judah) fall into Haplogroup J that their biological brothers from the north (Israelites) would as well. It is interesting to note that Haplogroup J splits into two subgroups, J1 and J2, with most Jews being J1. The British and most northern Europeans or as Armstrong called them- AngloSaxons, fall squarely into Haplogroup R. End of story. At best this was a doctrine that promoted certain groups of white Europeans as "special" in the eyes of God. At worst, it quietly promoted racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.62.212 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it can be said that DNA analysis has rendered Armstrong's teachings "garbage". British-Israelism has as much to do with spiritual descent from the Ten Tribes as physical descent.JohnC (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "It is interesting to note that Haplogroup J splits into two subgroups, J1 and J2, with most Jews being J1. The British and most northern Europeans or as Armstrong called them- AngloSaxons, fall squarely into Haplogroup R. End of story." ...that is, unless today's Jews are not the actual descendants of the peoples who constituted the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Israel.199.104.207.2 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

DNA
Has any DNA research been done on this? Jim62sch 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There seem to be an awful lot of crackpot ideas in this article which is fine by me as it's more about people's beliefs than about truth. However I do think there should be a chapter containing scientific scrutiny and general criticism.--Tchoutoye 09:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added some general background to the DNA case against British Israelism.Waitingwatch (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments above under Recent Edits. DNA research is a valuable source of evidence, but it needs to be used accurately to be effective and credible. Iris-J2 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Scots and Declaration of Arbroath
IMHO the paragraph "British Israelism often coincides with British Unionism, but it is worth noting that the Declaration of Arbroath, which declared Scottish independence in 1320 not only mentions a Scythian origin for the Scots, but also a Biblical one, which is used to justify Scotland's sovreignty over itself", besides being badly written, doesn't seem to quite fit in with this section. The Declaration of Arbroath does not explicitly claim descent from the "people of Israel" - the reference could be (and, on the face of it, without further evidence, probably is) just flowery language making a comparison between on the one hand, the Scots making an exodus across a sea from the barbarism of Spain, and entering their own "promised land" of Scotland, and on the other, the Biblical exodus of the Jews from Egypt across a sea into the promised land of Israel.--PeterR 13:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above comment is correct as far as it goes. However, as this is a discussion of British Israelism, it should be noted that some proponents of this idea point to the Scythians as being the offspring of Israelites carried off by the Assyrians. See, for example, the works of contemporary author Steven M. Collins in his four volume series on the lost tribes of Israel (www.israelite.info). I don't claim to know enough of the ancient history of the Mideast to evaluate the claims of Collins and many earlier writers on this topic, but it seems to me reference to it should be included here for the sake of a fuller exposition of the claims of British Israelism proponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.242.223 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2006

Ulster-Scots
"While still obscure, British Israelism has a vocal presence in Northern Ireland, particularly among proponents of the Ulster-Scots cultural movement."

This is not based on fact. There are British Israelites throughout the UK. The Ulster-Scots movement or indeed Unionists or Loyalists in Northern Ireland cannot be labelled as "proponents" of BI since the overwhelming majority are not. 84.45.131.142 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Tara
"The now defunct loyalist paramilitary organisation, Tara, espoused a British Israelite philosophy"

Again your cited source ( http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:aVsYma0YM-4J:www.irish-association.org/archives/stevebruce11_oct03.html+tara+loyalist+israelism&hl=en )actually cites that William McGrath the founder of Tara was a proponent of BI, not that the Tara organisation was. 84.45.131.142 14:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

masonry?
I've heard this idea is popular among many British Free-Masons as part of the whole Knights Templar mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.139.160.73 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2006
 * Heard that, too. But evidence is required. I think that may also explain certain features like egyptology, temple of Salomon, etc. --41.151.110.80 (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

BRIT-AM of Israel with Yair Davidiy
Today, the leading authority on the Lost Tribes of Israel, and British-Israelism is Yair Davidiy. See: http://britam.org Not only has Mr. Davidiy offered proof of the identity of the lost tribes, but outlines their history, movement, and characteristics given Biblical to specific tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.22 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2006

This "proof" you claim to offer does not meet Wikipedia standards and is moreover often used by racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.165 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Teamhair na Rí/Plain of the Kings/Tara)
These are the nutcases who came over to the Hill of Tara in Meath and started digging it up between the years 1899-1902. They believed there was some Ark of the Covenant there. They destroyed the place, the seat of the ancient High Kings of Ireland. That is what the British Israelites are best known for in Ireland. There is a new book on their role in Tara writted by Mairéad Carew called 'Tara and the Ark of the Covenant'. There is loads of information online about it. Here's an article about it from The Irish Times, July 28, 2005: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/71184 El Gringo 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Stone of destiny / Jacob's Pillar / Lia Fail
How did this precious Israelite treasure arrive in the Brittish Isles? What is it? Where is it now?

To find out, read the articles found at http://jahtruth.net/liafail.htm

These well written articles are very informative and they shed light on this sublect like never before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.140.131 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2006


 * What gives you the idea that this is a "precious Israelite treasure"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.218 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2007


 * I'd suggest that the answers to your questions are, in order - it didn't, the product of your imagination, and nowhere. --Apeloverage 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The stone might not be the product of his imagination, but then it ain't "precious Israelite treasure" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.218 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2007

DNA
A reader enquired about DNA testing in ref to British-Israel topic. I contacted the Brian Sykes DNA testing lab, Cambridge, England after I read his book 7 Daughters of Eve, based on a serendipitous DNA discovery. He was working on DNA of Otzi the Austrian iceman and surmised that Otzi had redhair, for a DNA lab control for redhair, Sykes tested his redhair Irish lab tech and not only got a redhair confirmation he got a matrilineal, mitochondrial genotype allolele match as well. This find lead to further studies that led to 7 Daughters of Eve. My request to Sykes if they have a DNA specific screening test for female semitic-hebraic, so a person could establish their semitic-hebraic connection, the response I got was they were working on a patrilineal screen for semitic DNA but it included arabs since they have the preponderance of this genotype. Since men can disseminate their DNA into multiple ethnic populations, this doesn't help me. Women tend to be very conservative and selective in their partners and produce only 1 baby at a time, usually confined to the ethnic group she is in. There are exceptions and I present one as follows. Twice in antiquity semite-hebrews were enslaved and set into Diaspora. I assume human nature then was no different than now in that fertile, fecund semite females were crossbred, interbred by their captors just like fertile, fecund, female african slaves were in the Americas. Offspring of these crossbred, interbred semite-hebrews were part of multiple waves of migration that crossed Asia and Europe. I surmise that the mark of Cain was redhair, Cain got from Adam, which means ruddy man, otherwise why would Cain be so concerned about being readily identified. The ethnic groups that have the highest incidence of redhair are, Jews, Irish, Scandinavians. Its due to these Diaspora migrations redhair spread like it did. It accounts for how Otzi got his redhair, how Sykes' lab tech got her redhair and her DNA match to Otzi. Bible is the story of the Adam/Noah family, it doesn't mention a momma Shem, if one goes out from the notion one is a jew only if the mother is a jew, Yet the notion of semitic and hebrew stem from a patrilineal source, and the only way a viable population could arise from offspring of Ham, Shem, Japeth it stands to resaon these offspring intermingled with each others' offspring. The idea of a single, solitary non-blended familial lineage of just offspring of Shem is genetically impossible to sustain for 5,000 years, the ergo is we are all semite-hebrews, that is why Sykes can not single out which of the 7 Daughters of Eve is solely from momma Shem.

In regards to the British-Israel discussion author Michael Tsarion reverses the entire process and claims that ancient Irish disseminated their culture and civilization to the Mideast, Egypt, just like they did to Europe when the Roman Empire there collapsed. He bases it upon Celtic-Gaelic language and druidic religion. I can't reach Tsarion to ask him where is his proof the Irish had redhair before Adam/ Noah generation. If there is a reader or wiki editor who can contact Tsarion and get his DNA track record to match Brian Sykes, it would lend credibility to Tsarion's theory.Jaako 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can lend credibility to that which is incredible. Compare the frequencies of yDNA in Jews and Irish. Then compare Jews and Arabs. Lastly, compare Irish and Arabs. Which pair is most similar? Why are R1b-L21 and I so predominant among Irish and so rare in both Arabs and Jews, while the three most common yDNA haplogroups in both Arabs and Jews are J1, J2, and E1b1b, all of which are pretty much unheard-of among Irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.165 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Readability
It looked like this particular subject had been the recipient of a number of edits by opposing POV's. As a result it seemed to be a little confusing and disjointed. I tried to make changes from an objective perspective, and attempted to make the content "flow" better.

Brythstone 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Brythstone

Addition of Critic's Section
In order to attempt to maintain a neutral POV and allow an accurate presentation of differing POV's on the idea I included a "Critic's" Section and took many of the objections found in the text and relocated them to this section. I do not have any citations to support these claims, so I simply noted that citations were needed.

I also fleshed out the information on Modern Adherents and early builders to the ideology from content already on Wiki.

While I have added a number of ref's, more could still be used.

Hopefully this will go to satisfy some of the requests by Wiki in Dec. '06.

Brythstone 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Brythstone


 * This is a good idea. This article is unusual in some respects.  A purely religious belief system does not require any citation or documentation.  People are entitled to believe whatever they believe.  One related idea to this theory is the notion that in the silent years of Jesus' life from age 12 to 30, Jesus visited England.  There is a beautiful hymn about it.  If one wants to believe that purely as a matter of faith, they have that right, even though there is no factual support for it.  Could have happened.


 * But the British Israel theory is fundamentally different. It portrays as  FACT  a  version of history that is demonstrably untrue.  Again, this is argued as historical FACT, NOT religious belief.


 * Furthermore, the British Israel theory is, and is intended to be, A DIRECT ATTACK UPON JEWS, denying their legitimacy as Israelites, with  CURRENT POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS attacking the right of the Jews to live in the land of Israel.


 * This attack upon the Jews and the political dimensions do not appear in full here, but are all over the internet.


 * British Israel -- and the idea that only White people can go to heaven -- was used to justify slavery and the religious underpinnings of the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It has been the foundation of the KKK for a century.  And today it is the religious underpinnings of neo-Nazis, skinheads, and varius racist groups.


 * So, I don't think it is appropriate to present as FACT a version of history that is demonstrably FICTION.


 * As such, the reader seeking knowledge is entitled to a full presentation of what the theory states, in the light most favorable to the proponents of the theory.


 * RIGHT NOW THE "PRO" SIDE IS A LITTLE WEAK. I THINK THAT THERE IS MORE ATTENTION ON THE CRITICS' SIDE.  But since I don't believe in the theory, I don't think I can  adequately improve the "pro" side.


 * But someone should.  The reader should be entitled to know what the theory is all about.  Someone should improve the part of the article putting forth the British Israel theory in its best light.


 * ON THE OTHER HAND, the reader should also not be misled.   The reader is also entitled to know   IF  HISTORICAL REALITY AND FACT IS AT STAKE  the evidence and information pointing to the more common understanding of historical fact concerning the Israelites.


 * Consider: If not here, where?  There is no better place for the reader to learn about both sides, in order to gain a more well-rounded education and understanding.


 * -- Jack Stone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.205.167 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the general thought of your argument is, "This theory goes against the Jews so it must be wrong!"


 * Anon 14 December 2008 23:43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.43.194 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorialization
Apeloverage removed the following statement: “While legend should not be mistaken for scientific fact, folklore has often been shown to contain seeds of truth. Regardless of the accuracy of the details of these legends, each of them are evidence of a belief by British people and those descended from them for hundreds and even thousands of years in a tangible genetic connection between the people of Britain and the people of the Holy land.”

Apeloverage justified this removal by suggesting this paragraph was “editorialization”.

As I understand it, an editorialization is “expressing opinion in the guise of an objective report.”

An example would be writing an article about “Big Foot” and presenting evidence that native Americans have preserved legends of a large beast that resembles the descriptions of modern day “Big Foot” sightings, so because the Native Americans have these legends we should beleive big foot is real. This is an editorialization.

Presenting the information, and then suggesting that the fact that Native Americans have this legend is proof that Americans have held a belief in a “Big Foot” for centuries, is not editorialization, it is a statement of fact. Suggesting they believe it and have for years doesn’t in and of itself make their beliefs true, it only helps to establish a time frame and the perspective of the believers.

Any rational scientific presentation of information must also give a rendering of the point of view of the testimony or of the evidence. All objective analysis must take into account the POV of the testimony or evidence, and then attempt to compare this information with the rest of the information gathered on the subject without attempting to “lead the evidence” through subjective “proof texting”. The statement removed by Apeloverage, was attempting to point out that this belief has been around for quite some time, and these legends provide evidence to that effect. If we are to truly understand it, then its origins and the POV of the adherents must be accurately reproduced. In previous versions of this page some suggested that this belief was a rather recent incarnation. The evidence of these legends tends to say otherwise.

The idea that these legends have been around for quite some time is not an opinion, but a deduction from the evidence available.

This information by itself does not “editorialize” the facts at hand, only presents them. I suggest that the removal of the majority of that paragraph represents editorial censorship, a type of editorialization. If Apeloverage has evidence to contradict these statements (i.e. the age of the existence of these legends), perhaps it would be more constructive to produce that evidence in the critic’s section.

I rolled back the alteration made by Apeloverage, but would like to see any evidence he or she might have contrary to the statements expressed there or herein.

Brythstone 3-11-07

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.21 (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Pseudohistory
I added the comments made regarding “pseudohistory” and questioning the DNA evidence made by Java7837 to the critic’s section.

The reason the critic’s section was created was to give those who have contrary evidence to that presented by adherents of British Israelism the opportunity to present it. Just as in the rest of this page the statements made contrary to the assertions of the adherents to British Israelism should list their sources for these contrary statements.

Its only fair. That’s what being objective is all about. :)

Brythstone 4-13-07 —Preceding undated comment added 13 April 2007.


 * There are those who would claim than both Judaism and Christianity as a whole are based on "pseudohistory". There was a time when many thought the concept of the city state of "Troy" was "pseudohistory", but now archeology has presented evidence to justify its existance. It is one thing to claim a beleif or an idea is "pseudohistory" it is another to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.216.18 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2007


 * This is a plausible addition in terms of content, but someone should find a citation of this analysis. --Jack Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.205.167 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction about the dates of earliest migration
This statement seems to be contradictory (my emphasis): The ancient scholars Bede and Tacticus both agree[9] that before the time of Christ German and Teutonic tribes began to migrate to the British Isles forcing the early Britons to the western portion of Britain. The earliest settlers were the Angles and Jutes, followed by the "Great Saxon Invasion" (between 450 and 600 AD) Thefuguestate 10:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I presume it means 'Tacitus', not 'Tacticus'? Thefuguestate 10:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points, I changed the wording re: the dates of the German "conquest".


 * Also, yes, you were right about "Tacitus" vs. "Tacticus". Fixed now.


 * Thanks


 * Brythstone 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)brythstone

Orange Order, British Christian Zionism
Does anyone care to tell me what is the connection between the Orange Order and British Israelites? Which sect did Orde Wingate belong to? Is there a list of famous believers such as Cromwell, Newton, Blake, Lloyd George and Churchill, who may or may not have been initiates? If such a list were to be found it would explain the course of the British Empire and the situation of present day Britain in a new light. Wool Bridge (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeremiah / Tea Tephi
I propose we add a new section to the article: one detailing the belief that the current British royal family is descended from David, Solomon, etc through Tea Tephi, reputedly the daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. The theory alleges that the Judean princess, having been whisked away to Ireland by the prophet Jeremiah, marries the son of an Irish king. Essentially, this royal line goes on to oversee the conquest of parts of Scotland (Dál Riata); the royal line becomes the Scottish Monarchy; with King James I the Scottish Monarchy becomes the English Monarchy; England becomes the United Kingdom, and the rest is history. It seems to be a pretty common explanation used by British Israelists. It's quite interesting; there's numerous websites out there espousing and debunking it; and I think it warrants a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knyght27 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Israelism
Re: Franco-Israelism (Gallic) merged into British-Israelism (Anglo-Saxon).

Not a good idea. Like Apples and Oranges. Gallic esoteric ideas concerning Israel have nothing at all in common with British Israelism, the cultural difference is massive, for one thing.

Let's get the British Israelism article right. It's still a right mess.

Wfgh66 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and will remove the merge tag. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New revisions
Hi friends and colleagues. I have made sevral changes in sections sequence, and phrasing, to bring this more in line with some concerns expressed at WP:FTN. hope this is helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, helpful. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Capt
Capt was a right-wing anti-Semitic hero of Christian Identity and a noted kook. In this article he is used twice, and simply referred to as an archaeologist - this is the guy who thought one of Noah's sons or grandsons was the architect of the Great Pyramid. I don't think he is a reliable source and I do think that the statements sourced by him should be removed. Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've just taken a look at some different Net sources. It appears that Capt did provide a unique overview of some genuine data found on some ancient Assyrian tablets which no one else had analyzed in-depth. with that said, it's true that some have used (or misused) his findings for ideological reasons, but it appears he did look at some archaeological data which few others provided documentation or analysis of. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section is at many points confusing and difficult to read, and doesn't seem to hit upon the most important parts considering that British Israelism is an idea that has been almost universally rejected by scholars. It needs to be expanded upon and improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.76.186 (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Criticism section has been revised and expanded in order to accommodate some of these concerns.Waitingwatch (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * the article neds to stop implying that ths is a "theory" of any merit. This is an idea of some 18t to 19th century spleeny Brits which found its way into US Bible-thumpery. Notable for historical interest and for those taking an interest in the nether abysses of US religiosity. It is not a "theory" in any reasonable sense of the term. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I have added a number of edits in an attempt to improve the quality of this article:

- Some minor edits for grammar and relocation/reorganization of information.

- More general references to important sources about this topic.

- More information and references for the 'Growth and spread of belief' section.

- More information and references on Herbert Armstrong's beliefs in the 'Modern adherents' section.

- Moved section on genetics to 'Criticism' and expanded this section to encompass recent research on the subject of Haplotypes and Population Genetics.

I have split Criticism into various categories and have started adding information from various sources of criticism.Waitingwatch (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

- Added a section in 'General Criticism' about Tudor Parfitt's criticisms.

Waitingwatch (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shortened your genetics section because we don't need to go into the science much. People can follow the links if they need to know what a haplotype is. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It reads better now. Waitingwatch (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the section listing the Near Eastern Descent of Armenia approximately 4000 years ago into what is now England, France, Wales, etc. What does Armenia have to do with British Israelism?  The theory that anglo-saxon, and even celtic descendants came from Armenia is nothing new, and has been postulated for quite some time, but it has nothing to do with British Israelism. Helioprogenus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.11.22 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I corrected some of the previous attempt (by Waitingwatch, I guess) to use Y chromosome population genetics to disprove British Israelism. I came to the article to fill out my knowledge of this movement's unscientific teachings, but was stopped in my tracks when I saw the very inaccurate statements made in this section with the best of intentions, but with a very limited understanding of genetic genealogy and population genetics.  It's no more true to say that Western Europeans generally belong to R1b than it would be to say that older white male Americans are generally Republicans, that Midwesterners are generally overweight, or that orange flowers are generally marigolds ;-).


 * There are a great variety of haplogroups among Western Europeans, including a very substantial J2 population, particularly in Mediterranean countries, whose origins are Neolithic, not Jewish. And among Jews, with the possible exception of Mizrahi Jews, there are a wide variety of haplogroups as well, including J2, J1, E1b1b1, R1b, R1a1a, etc.  The article as it was written reflected the misconception that each ethnic group largely corresponds to one haplogroup, which is far from being the case anywhere in the world.  More than one haplogroup is represented in virtually every population and ethnic group in the world.  Please, Waitingwatch, it would behoove you to do a bit more reading before trying to incorporate evidence from a complex field you have inadequately studied into your argument, although there's a fundamental truth you're trying to convey: the genetic makeup of Western Europeans and the British in particular, is incompatible with a Jewish origin for them as a people.


 * The complex reality may be inconvenient to the argument which we both want to make about the scientific incorrectness of British Israelism's teachings, but the truth is that there is a certain amount of genetic overlap between Jewish and European populations, really a substantial amount, and to say otherwise feeds the racist belief that humanity is made up of distinct "races" whose origins are separate from one another.


 * To say there is overlap in no way points to an Israelite origin for Europeans. It's above all the consequence of the fact that the ancestors of all non-Africans migrated from Africa only 60,000 or so years ago, a small group from whom we've diversified.  In studies looking at autosomal genetics, Europeans and Middle Easterners are not sharply distinct populations, but shade gradually from one into the other by clinal gradients. They can certainly be distinguished, but there has been a great deal of migration back and forth for millenia.  To imagine that we can refute the doctrine of British Israelism by pretending that Western Europeans are one genetic group and Jews a separate one is just falling into a fallacy that's disturbingly reminiscent of doctrines of a past era in which Jews were believed to be an alien race.


 * Please note that the scientific papers cited (by Jewish, Israeli authors) which show the similarity of Jewish genetics to those of other Middle Eastern peoples are in no way ignoring the existence of a variety of haplogroups among all these peoples.


 * On top of all this, despite the notable endogamy of Jewish communities, intermarriage between their members and their "host populations" did go on over the centuries, as well as conversions to Judaism at times, despite the severe consequences imposed by church and state authorities. The European traces in Jewish Y-haplogroup distributions are visible, not to mention the mtDNA contributions.  There's much controversy regarding the percentage of European admixture into the Jewish community, but no one denies that it exists.


 * At the same time, because of the harsh persecutions over the centuries, many Jews survived or were able to live in peace only by conversion to Christianity.  Thus, there are indeed some originally Jewish lineages among Christian Europeans, but not for the reasons that British Israelism proposes. The uncovering of such "crypto-Jewish" origins is now extremely popular in many circles; fortunately most of them are not inspired by the movement this article discusses. Iris-J2 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Iris-J2: I only read your piece now after all this time. I agree that population genetics is a very complex subject, but at the same time, developments in genetic research make it pretty clear that the genetic pool of most Middle-Eastern populations, including Jews, is quite distinct from the genetic pool of the British and other far-Western European populations. Genetics make it readily evident that the British / French / Dutch etc. are most definitely not direct lineal descendants of the Israelites / Jews. I think that we are agreed on this point? Please note that I am not saying that there is not inter-mixing, nor am I saying that there aren't shifting gradients of different proportions of Y-DNA haplotypes throughout Europe and the rest of the World, nor am I saying that all British or Jews are only one or the other type of Y-DNA Haplogroup. What I am trying to do, is to explain, in ways that a lay-person would understand, that findings from genetic research contradict the theory of British Israelism. How to explain this succinctly is a bit of a challenge due to the breadth and complexity of the subject. I welcome you to make suggestions of how we can clearly explain the lack of a lineal descendant link between Jews and the British, while not over-generalizing. At the same time, we want to leave out the deep complexities and science so that people can read up on these on other pages, which are more specifically devoted to these subjects. Waitingwatch (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, when you wrote : "Genetics make it readily evident that the British / French / Dutch etc. are most definitely not direct lineal descendants of the Israelites / Jews", what is your "base" for the genetics of the Israelite/Jew. I am no dna expert, indeed simply a "lay-person", but logic would suggest that the DNA samples of an Israelite would have to come from an Israelite of Biblical times. Where were the DNA/genetic samples of an Israelite/Jew that you refer to, perhaps indirectly, taken from. Any how many and from how many sources ? What I am trying to do, is to explain, that if British Israelism is correct, then their DNA would be the true-Jew, if you follow that. Sort of like a mirror image of the "truth". thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.18.220 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed work group
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Historiographic importance
The concern of the matter shouldn't be merely the historical ground for British Israelism, but to what extent what is here embedded have had impact on the selfunderstanding of the british royality, nobility, let say ruling elite. Is it a mere co-incidence that King James united Great Britain (?) under the union jack? Or the legends concerning Jackob's Pillar Pillow stone? This is of course on the side of the legendary, but as long these legends are believed by, and motivating the historymakers, the importance of such should not be reduced. I believe it is worthy to ask whether or not the British empire would have been possible without the justification, so to say, by such a "divine scheme" --Xact (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or indeed that James 1st and 6th was the "unifier" of the now "United Kingdom", and whilst besides revising and promoting "his" Bible, he mused on the sentiments of "the divine right of kings". Surely only the "chosen ones" have a "divine right". Then there's James 4th, and his forbidden experiment - the two infants placed on an island in the First of Forth with a mute carer - allegedly, they spoke Hebrew. Then there's Uri Geller, and his purchase of Lamb Island in the Firth of Forth as he allegedly beleives that RETURNING Princess Scota stashed her loot there. Let's not forget Comyns Beaumont and his bizarre, British Israel related, theories. That Great Britain was once Atlantis. Then look at this weeks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27224243. Certainly though, the British Royal Family act like chosen ones, and millions are alleged to subscribe to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.18.220 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Foxe's Book of Martyrs
Foxe's Book of Martyrs has relevance here. The book takes the position that the true people of God are always persecuted and martryed, and then traces the occurrence of christian martydom from palestine, across asia-minor and europe, to england.

Citations needed, of course. I can't back this up - but perhaps someone else can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Books writen in XIX Century about British Israelism
This site: [Books] has links to more than 10 books, about British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism, writen XIX century and in the first decades of XX century.

About the article itself, it writes:"The central tenets of British Israelism contradict modern genetic, linguistic, and historical evidence, and have been accorded little scientific credibility."

In fact, British Israelism or Anglo-Israelism is nothing more than a fraud, without no support from any science. Eugenics and other pseudo-sciences were/are among the supporters of this useless fraud.Agre22 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

British israelism is found in the bible, look for the quotes. It is not fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At least with the phrase above we can call that almost-opening paragraph plaigarism and remove it. "The central tenets of British Israelism contradict modern genetic, linguistic, archeological and historical evidence. They are considered without scientific credibility.[3][4]  The concept and theory details have been thoroughly criticized."  I really abhor paragraphs like that, which can be found on anything anyone considers pseudoscience, including chiropractic, organic foods, and vitamins!  It is academically sound to say there is controversy, and/or that such controversy comes from a specific scientific body, but not casually introduce a concept many people, including scientists, believe in as "without scientific credibility."--Mrcolj (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Section in Criticism
The section titled "Lack of consistency with modern genetic findings" is to be removed until it can be shown that any notable British Israelists claim there is a genetic link, familial bond, and/or "blood ties" between the genetic group of Western Europeans and the genetic group of the people that refer to themselves ethnically as Jews in modern times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.56.51 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2010

undid deletion of section in criticism
Firstly, note that 'notable' British Israelists that gave form to the idea of British Israelism lived before the age of advanced genetics. Secondly, critics (e.g. Tudor Parfitt - author of the Lost Tribes of Israel, history of a myth) have shown that genetics do not support the great majority of claims to Israelite descent. Not just for the British Israelite theory, but also for many others. (Some groups as far ranging as Japan.) There are very few groups claiming descent from Israelites that can actually be proved as such, some of which turn up in the most unusual of places. e.g. the Lembe tribe in Africa. If the theory's original proponents don't make reference to genetics then that is no reason to obscure that critics do use genetics to investigate and prove or disprove claimed relationships between various groups of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitingwatch (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply
You seem to have made the mistake of not noticing that Israelites and the people known in modern times as 'Jews' are distinctly different in all notable forms of British Israelism. Criticism of British Israelism by showing the results genetic testing to determine if there is a genetic bond between the people in modern times known as 'Jews' and Western Europeans is uninformed and invalid criticism, because no such genetic bond is proposed by notable forms of British Israelism. While British Israelism may have begun before the time of advanced genetics, it still did not propose familial or 'blood ties' between the two groups. To be clear at risk of redundancy, there is not a claim of relationship between the two peoples to be found in mainstream British Israelism. Not only is there a lack of claim of relationship, the claim that the two peoples are mostly UNRELATED (but possibly not entirely due to race mixing) is made. I know this may seem strange. Distinguishing 'Jews' and Israelites seems odd to the uninitiated, but this is a main ideal in all forms of British Israelism I've seen. If this supposed criticism of British Israelism must be included in the article, it should not be without noting its irrelevance. It can perhaps be seen as supporting British Israelism (because of the lack of genetic ties) and be included in the relevant section. I only hope to obscure that which is irrelevant to the article. I hope you understand how I still feel the need to remove the criticism at this present moment after reading this. 71.8.56.51 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding genetics
In response: 1) Yes - British Israelism teaches that the 'Israelites' were distinct from the 'Jews', but it also teaches that these 'distinct' groups came from a common ancestry - i.e. Abraham. In other words, Israelites and Jews would have the same genetic origin - Abraham's 'seed' and would therefore belong to the same general Y-Haplotype groups. 2) British Israelists claim a direct relation between Western Europeans and the Ancient Israelites - this is not supported by modern genetics, which shows a more distant genetic Y-haplogroup for Europeans. 3) Modern genetics shows that Jews are related to other populations in the Middle East. i.e. Modern day Jews are genetically linked to other populations from the MIddle East. (Whereas Western Europeans are not.) 4) Tudor Parfitt - a researcher studying various claims of jewish ancestry through the use of genetics - rejects the claims of British Israelists in his book on the Lost Tribes of Israel. Waitingwatch (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This response does not appear to address the point brought up by "71.8.56.51", namely, that self-identified modern Jews are not necessarily direct Y-DNA descendants of the peoples of the ancient Judean and Israelite kingdoms. "71.8.56.51" is proposing that ancient Israelite DNA---rather than modern Jewish DNA---should be the true measure of whether a people is in fact related to the ancient Israelites.199.104.207.2 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Tudor Parfitt is not a good source
Someone, either Tudor Parfitt or his number one fan, has inserted his name willy-nilly all over the place as if he was a credible source. From an academic standpoint his views are polemical and fall far below the standards of accepted criticism. The reference to genetics raises the question as to the credentials of Parfitt by citing him as an authority on this subject, or any subject relating to this matter. By jumping from the people who became known as Hebrews (not the originating people of the tribes of ancient Israel, since the Hebrews emerged from Egypt as all credible sources admit), in order to try to attach a comparison between the various tribes of Great Britain with the singular tribe of Judah, is dishonest to say the least. Clearly the people of the British Isles have many genetic strands and my own have been genetically established as having originated in Anatolia, and I am not a believer or anything else in British Israelism, but I am historically English in my roots by many generations! The genetic lab that gave me this information was engaged by a genealogy society researching our family origins, but the research group is anything but affiliated with British Israelism and these genetic findings have caused the core group no end of problems because I suspect, some of them are anti-Semitic (both Jewish and Arab) and have no desire to be affliated genetically. Sometimes it is better not to ask the question if you don't want to know the answer, and in this instance authors such as Parfitt have engaged in publishing hysteria in order to drown out academic, cultural and historical questions. Forget the religious angle, this is all about culture and history! 80.192.68.143 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * British Israelism is generally seen as so far removed from reality that most researchers won't touch on the subject. Tudor Parfitt is the only non-amatuer researcher (or are there others?) investigating British Israelism - hence the multitude of references. Most other support and rebuttals of BI has been from amateur research.Waitingwatch (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus if one man takes a dislike to a theory and somehow reaches the heights of "non amateur", then he is considered the be all and end all. Could you, perchance, cast the eye over a book which can be sourced very easily on google (I am reluctant to link) called (Union Jack) British Israel - The Hidden Hand behind the Kingdom of God Deception. It's just that I always, since a little boy, deep concerns about the UK's Royal Family, and when I read this, being Scottish, it joined the dots. Perhaps you could unjoin them ? If not, could you let me know if it is considered a proper source on wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.18.220 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DOA and Bede
This passage seems problematic:


 * One of the manuscripts often cited is the "Declaration of Arbroath", written in 1320 by members of the Scottish nobility in Latin to the Pope John XXII. This declaration, as an introduction to the Scottish people and their history, narrates the journey of Israelite tribes. Allegedly they left Scythia, traveled through Spain, and ended in the British Isles.  The 891 AD edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states "The first inhabitants [of England] were Britons, who came from Armenia.” Critics believe this section is based on Bede's Ecclesiastical History. Bede actually wrote 'Amoricano', i.e. Armorica (Britanny} and historians suggest that this is a misreading by the scribe caused by the word Armenia having appeared just a few lines above Armoricano.[][][]

Where and when is the DOA cited by British Israelites? As far as I can see, the DOA makes no claim that the Scots are descended from Israelite tribes. As for the Armenia/Armorica issue, I fail to see how it is even relevant. Since when were the Armenians Israelites? Is a claim being made that they were? Who by? Paul B (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know why this was removed. British Israelite type legends date back to at least the middle ages, and do NOT originate in the Tudor period.-MacRusgail (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No they don't. British Israelism has nothing to do with either the Middle Ages or Tudor period. What exactly are you trying to say here? Paul B (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At the risk of turning this into a pantomine, yes they do. Modern British Israelism uses various legends of Mediaeval origin, and derives at least partly from them. There is a good argument for saying that these legends never entirely died out, since there have always been some people who have believed them and that is the wellspring of British Israelism. This is almost as good as that old cliche that nationalism somehow originated in the French Revolution.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The ideology of British Israelism began essentially in the late 18th century. Your initial comment was clearly related to your characteristically knee-jerk Scottish nationalist impulses, which seem to make you see national power disputes where there are none. This is obvious because of your bizarre reference to the Tudor period, which had no presence in this article or this debate page whatsoever. British Israelism is the view that British peoples of various ethnicities are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel. The DOA makes no such claim. It says nothing whatever about this and ergo has no relevance here. Of course all medieval writers believed that British peoples, like all peoples, were descended from Biblical patriarchs, but typically Europeans were supposed to descend from Japheth and his offspring, who are completely different from the Lost Tribes. The Lost Tribes descended, of course, from Shem, or more particularly from Jacob. We shouldn't confuse these two quite different claims, since British Israelism regards the specific Biblical promises made to the descendents of Jacob. Jumbling this up with all medieval models of descent from characters in the bible is the road to complete confusion. In any case the DOA, makes no such claim. It repeats the Irish myth of the origins of the Gaels in Spain and their ultimate origns in Scythia. This is consistent with standard Japhetite models (according to which Scythians were descended from Magog), though they are never mentioned. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your open-minded and unpatronising response. However, as I keep on telling you, these stories are not exclusively the product of Tudor England. They predate the Tudors and can be found in all the countries in these islands (even Brittany). And as you well know - judging from your last comments - they're related to continental traditions. 10/12 of the listed "Legends and folklore" predate the Tudors.


 * People have attempted to use these traditions to justify their overlordship of one country or another. Some of them seek to justify the supremacy of the English crown, some of them seek to justify the supremacy of the Scottish crown and so on. The current dominant version tends to follow the English version, while picking up on elements of the others via Geoffrey of Monmouth, supposed cognates etc.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC) p.s. Why is there no mention of "Dan".
 * You write "as I keep on telling you, these stories are not exclusively the product of Tudor England". Jeez. Are you incapable of reading plain English? I said "The ideology of British Israelism began essentially in the late 18th century... This [nationalism of yours] is obvious because of your bizarre reference to the Tudor period, which had no presence in this article or this debate page whatsoever". The Tudor period has nothing to do with it. And no, "these traditions" do not "seek to justify the supremacy" of the English or Scottish crown. They have nothing to do with it. The Declaration of Arbroath has nothing to do with British Israelism, for reasons that have been repeated several times and which you ignore utterly. Paul B (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly capable of reading "plain English". The running theme here is that you have certain ideas drilled into your mind, and you refuse to budge on them even after a reasonable discussion.


 * Here is another one of your statements, written as if it holds absolute authority - 'And no, "these traditions" do not "seek to justify the supremacy" of the English or Scottish crown. They have nothing to do with it.' I'm afraid if you can come out with a clanger like that, then you have read very little British Israelite material indeed.


 * As I have said, your assumption that this is of purely Tudor English origin is facile, reductionist and misleading, and is contradicted by both the article and some of your own statements. Good luck with that one. -MacRusgail (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC) p.s. I suggest reading more of the material in question, including the more popular versions.


 * I cannot believe I am reading this. You clearly cannot read plain English. Again you write "your assumption that this is of purely Tudor English origin is facile" even though it has been repeated over and over and over that British Israelism is not of Tudor origin. I have the impression that you have not even the slightest idea what "British Israelism" is. Why don't you read the article? It's not terribly good, but it gives you an idea what BI claims. Your last sentence is surreal. You obviously have read nothing about it at all and show no signs of even understanding what I wrote above. Do you understand why the Declaration of Arboath is not an instance of British Israelism? Paul B (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul you have this wrong, the Declaration of Arboath supports British Israelism. British Israelite archeologist E. Raymond Capt published a booklet with a line by line analysis explaining how the text support BI, you can buy and read this for yourself, it was published by Artisan Publishers. An example in the declaration declares that there is no difference between Jew or Scot, i.e pointing to their common origin as Capt pointed out, Israel and Scythia are also mentioned. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have only just seen this comment. I am perfectly well aware that some BI theorists have tried to argue this, but the point is that it is completely contradicted by the text. BI theorists will twist evidence any which way. Israel and Sythia are indeed mentioned - as separate ethnicities. At no point does the DOA say there is no ethnic difference between Jews and Scots. It says that in the eyes of God there is no distinction of "Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman"; in other words all are equally human. The parallelism is of "Jews and Greeks", referring to the Bible having been written in Hebrew and Greek, and of "Scots and English", referring to the topic under discussion: the whole point of which is to say that there is an ethnic distinction between Scots and English. So it's saying "to God these different peoples are all one, but ethnically and nationally they are distinct". As for common origins, everyone has a common origin if you go back far enough. That's a completely separate point, wholly unrelated to any claims of origin in Israelite tribes. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, why should we take Capt seriously about this? Is that booklet any more reliable than than his booklets about the predictions built into the Great Pyramid? Capt's stuff is a good example of British Israelite nonsense but can't be used to argue that the DofA supports BI, only that some people make that claim. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And Capt's credentials look pretty iffy, see freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/890777/posts?q=1&;page=151 Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, he sure aint RS, but I guess there is the question of whether his ideas are notable enough to summarise. Paul B (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy
Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science was a supporter of British Israelism she believed she was a descendant of King David, she wrote a poem about British Israelism in one of her books supporting the Anglo and American peoples are the true Israel. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential source?
What do we think of this academic conference paper (p106 on) as a source? It has a brief summary of British Israelism and explains how it links to Christian Identity. The quotes from the fieldwork may make you feel queasy, to say the least. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comyns Beaumont
According to the narrower definitions of this phrase (by certain editors), Comyns Beaumont would not qualify as a true BI. He certainly did locate Biblical events and places within the British Isles, but he did not, strangely view it as much of a religious matter IMHO. He was an eccentric, but his ideas were more similar to those of Immanuel Velikovsky (who may have plagiarised him).--MacRusgail (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

MacRusgail you clearly have just gone over to the Immanuel Velikovsky Encyclopedia, you have not read any of Comyns Beaumont's works. I am not interested in British Israelism but my brother is a British Israelite and author on the subject. He has read Comyns Beaumont's works. Comyns Beaumont was a British Israelite, you should read his books then you would realise this. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

John Milton
The statement "Earlier John Milton in his Areopagitica said something very similar about the Hebrew origin of the Druids" is, I believe, inaccurate -- although I don't have access to the "New York, 1950" edition that is cited. Having read through the wikisource version of Areopagitica the most relevant passage I can find is: "... even the school of Pythagoras and the Persian wisdom took beginning from the old philosophy of this island". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.106.3 (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Image
Do you think the image at the top of the article (File:British Israelism.jpg) is fitting as an illustration of the subject? I'm asking since it was. As the creator of the image, I think it makes the article more attractive. Your opinion is appreciated. --Jonund (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear a description of what you intended to convey with this "original work"?
 * Since it is not an image that is associated with any group affiliated with the movement or historical aspect, I think there is a question as to whether it can be deemed to be representative of a neutral point of view.
 * While it may have artistic merit insofar as it captures aspects of the movement in a synthetic whole, it also seem that it could be appropriated as a positive symbol by adherents. It incorporates the British lion, while the lion is used as a symbol of Zionism, for example.
 * In that regard, though some people might see a streak of sarcasm in it, it would seem to be more a representation favored by the adherents insofar as it associates national symbols with the movement, and that is not neutral.
 * Therefore, I'm for taking it down.Ubikwit (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * It's not the ideal image, but it's better than no image. Ideally we should have a book-cover, poster or some other image created by BI proponents. Paul B (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But don't you think that because the image is a fabrication it is inappropriate? In a sense, it represent a type of original research created specifically for posting on this Wikipedia page.
 * What about simply bringing up the image of the title page of the book from 1795 found at the beginning of the main body of the text?
 * My impression of the image is that it has resonance with nationalistic themes and is structured along the lines of a fascistic campaign posterUbikwit (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * Images are more difficult to define as OR because they are not "assertions" in any simple sense (thjough they may contain them, or be held to do so). In this case, I'd say ity's borderline, but yes altrernatives are available. Images from G. G. Rupert's Remnant of Israel could be found as they should be out of copyright, or one of the maps documenting BI theories of ancient tribal migrations. The only problem with the image you suggest is that it's a bit, well, dull! Paul B (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"It incorporates the British lion, while the lion is used as a symbol of Zionism, for example" You are surely talking tongue in cheek, given the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.18.220 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this, which I've just uploaded - not exactly thrilling, but a little bit more visually striking File:Anglo-Israel.jpg. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks like a better choice than the present image, definitely. We're dealing with a doctrine that has been refuted and is basically anachronistic and on the fringe. This image conveys a sense of the period to which it belongs.
 * The current image may be the work of an advocate, and since it incorporates a pre-modern combination of symbols associated with both nationalism and religion (evoking theocracy), I like to see it replaced soon. If you want to do the edit, I'm supportive of that. Ubikwit (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * Here's another one I've just uploaded File:Israelinbritainb00garn 0005.jpg. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've used the second one, as it's rather sharper and the central 'message' of the title is clearer. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, It's nice to see that changed.
 * The military connection of the author is a bonus!Ubikwit (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * It's by John Garnier (1838-1929). He was one 0f the founders of the British-Israel-World Federation, and was also a Pyramidologist, like many of them. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Was he a Freemason?Ubikwit (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm afraid I don't know, sorry. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. It's kind of difficult to flesh out those individuals, seeing as the masons are a secret society...
 * There is a book published by Cambridge University Press on the trial of the Templars that presents historical background in which some parallels can be found with respect to the role the Crusades to the Holy Land played in the rise of the Templars to the role of the British Israelism played in British politics and ultimately American politics with respect to acknowledged Freemason and president of the USA Harry Truman, who was friends with Chaim Weizman, a Zionist activist that apparently had a role in the drafting of the Balfour declaration. The Amazon link to that book is here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Trial-Templars-Malcolm-Barber/dp/0521856396 There are some interseting comments in the reader reviews.Ubikwit (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * I have to say that I'm perplexed by your opinion. First, I'm not an adherent of British Israelism. It's quack. I'm Lutheran. Second, the image conveys exactly the ideas British Israelism is about: British nationalism, Jewishness and Bible text. Nothing could be more neutral than associating British Israelism with the national symbols of the country that they are obsessed with. You have to stretch the interpretation quite far to make it promotional. Third, even if it would convey positive feelings, that's a feeble argument. Bias means more than a mere positive look. Finally, in my humble opinion, the image I created is superior to the one suggested to replace it. Least of all is it dull - which is more than you can say about the cover of Colonel Garnier's book. --Jonund (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the current image is less exciting than yours. But yours is nevertheless your own interpretation of BI doctrine, and that does skirt OR (though admittedly policies on images are not clear. See the current debate on the NOR page). In general I think we should avoid creating our own images unless they are purely informational (maps, charts etc). We should be using images that are of the someone or something that is under discussion. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal, Jonund. I think that you image does manage to synthesize the spirit of the movement to a certain degree, and it is somewhat overbearing, in a sense. This is not about impressing the reader in a dramatic fashion, but providing a resource that helps readers learn and become better informed.
 * This is a historical topic that relates primarily to a doctrine that is somewhat anachronistic, with very little currency in the mainstream of Christianity, for example, and which has been thoroughly refuted by every pertinent field of modern scholarship.
 * I don't think that the issue of "dullness" is as important as the issue of historical accuracy and actual association with the movement. In a sense, your image provides more currency to the movement than it actually has at present. The image could probably be adopted by an organization such as the British-Israel-World Federation as a not unfavorable representation of their values and aims, but you have indicated that it was not your intent to support the doctrine. Ubikwit (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * Calling the image an interpretation of BI doctrine is a platitude, since all descriptions are, strictly speaking, interpretations. More relevant is that this interpretation is accurate and unassailable.
 * A google image search reveals that the image has been adopted by both critics and representatives of BI, so now it's not merely a user image anymore.
 * WP:Manual of Style/Images says "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful." We already have four book covers/title pages.
 * I don't agree that the function of the image is to impresses the reader in a dramatic fashion. It captures the ideas of the movement, and it makes the article more attractive for readers. Nor can I see that it provides more currency to the movement than it actually has at present. It doesn't say anything about currency. --Jonund (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Calling the image an interpretation of BI doctrine is a platitude, since all descriptions are, strictly speaking, interpretations. More relevant is that this interpretation is accurate and unassailable" I'm sorry, but now you are just being silly, and are apparently ignorant of the meaning of "platitude". A book cover is not an "interpretation" of anything. It'as a book cover. Obviously the title is part of the author's interpretation of history, but that's the whole point. The author is a British Israelite. Their interpretations are what wee are supposed to be addressing, not your interpretations or my interpretations. In addition, your image is not "accurate" lety alonme "unassailable". The grandiosity of that comment is truly remarkable. The image implies that there is some connection betwen the British state and Israelite peoples, but BI is about the British people. American versions exist in which ther Bitish statre plays no role. Likewise your use of Hebrew implies that Hebrew text somehow has something to do with BI. But it doesn't. It's about ancestry. You are creating a myth in the Barthean sense with this image which is an undoubtably "assailable" one. Paul B (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "I have to say that I'm perplexed by your opinion. First, I'm not an adherent of British Israelism. It's quack. I'm Lutheran."
 * Well, thanks for letting us know you are Lutheran, though I must admit I fail to see the relevance.


 * My opinion is not "quack", it is an opinion that reflects my impression of your collage. As far as I'm concerned, there is no question that the collage represents your personal interpretation and appropriates emotionally charged symbols in a synthetic manner to put across a subjective message. That leads me to question your self proclaimed status of non-partial observer. You seem to have quite an emotional attachment to the collage you assembled.


 * Perhaps you would like to share what motivated you to create the image in the first place.


 * The following two statements you make are strictly matters of personal opinion:
 * 1."Second, the image conveys exactly the ideas British Israelism is about: British nationalism, Jewishness and Bible text."
 * 2."More relevant is that this interpretation is accurate and unassailable."
 * 3."It... makes the article more attractive for readers."


 * Moreover, as I have stated above, BI is a largely anachronistic doctrine with only a fringe following today. Your statement, "Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful." We already have four book covers/title pages" misses the point that the doctrine first appeared more than 200 years ago, and the movement to which it gave rise didn't achieve sufficient prominence to reach the stage of having a unified organizational structure. Therefore, there are no corresponding unified symbols for the movement as a whole--such as that portrayed in your collage--and the book covers/title pages in question serve to illustrate different manifestations of the presentation of the doctrine by various proponents over the years, starting in the 18th century to the present.


 * Finally, you attempt to claim that:
 * "A google image search reveals that the image has been adopted by both critics and representatives of BI, so now it's not merely a user image anymore."
 * That would seem to be a desperate attempt to legitimize the posting of your collage by falsely assigning to the subjective interpretation it portrays an objective representative status in the public sphere; furthermore, it is simply ludicrous in light of the fact that both of those links (you have them reversed, by the way) are to fringe element religious groups (maybe I should call them "quack"?). BI is so fringe at the moment that it is only addressed critically in academic conferences and papers, with a couple of exceptions in the form of publications by bona fide scholars, and not one of those bona fide critics has anything favorable to say about BI.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Orange Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Don't they support aspects of this? It should be mentioned. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2012 (UTCI have images of the Star of David and Red Hand of Ulster being flown together in Ireland. It's highly symbolic. I have another of the English Defence League with a SOD. I can post ? It may not go down well with the editors but I only seek to point out the obvious.

Move/merger reverted
I have reverted the merger of this article into British-Israel-World Federation by. Moves of articles being actively edited need talk page consensus). I also reverted a major edit by Bioextra mislabelled "cleanup". Among other things it removed any mention of antisemitism. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
'Some critics of British Israelism claim that some tenets of the theory are based on speculation.'

Is this a joke? Everything about British Israelism is speculation at best, if not already scientifically disproven. The article should make it clear from the beginning that BI is nothing more than religiously motivated pseudohistory, yet scientific criticism is not even mentioned until the very end and then in a manner that gives largely undue weight to its so-called proponents. I added the POV tag as this article is really embarassing Teh hackz0r (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're obviously right. People have taken a lot of stuff out of this article on various occasions, but it gets added back. If you want to keep watching it and improving it, then that would be great. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... what are you going to do about it? We can't just leave that big ugly tag there forever. I think "British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is the belief that people of Western European descent..." is pretty clear-cut, and the reactions section seems fairly balanced, including both support and criticism from those from those who consider the idea barmy or racist. You must have some idea of how you're going to improve it? — JonC ॐ 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Reactions section" doesn't mention scientific criticism, which is what the POV is all about. I'm aware that this is a theological topic, but since it does make verifiable claims about history, we need to make clear that this "belief" does not enjoy any support among mainstream historians. Making a good article out of this mess would require a complete rewrite, and I'm not going to attempt that. But mentioning scientific criticism in the lead and improving the "Research Findings" section so that it actually reflects scientific consensus should do for a start. I'll try to do that when I find time Teh hackz0r (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That will be great. Bear in mind that we do not need to go into the mainstream position in detail. None of BI's claims are accepted in modern scholarship. That's best said firmly and briefly. This article comes under the remit of WP:FRINGE. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 58 reference
The information referenced from Footnote 58 is incorrect. Robert Peel, in his book, "Mary Baker Eddy- The Years of Authority", makes reference to Ms. King's genealogical research and his research in the CS Church archives uncovered letters where Mrs. Eddy told Ms. King to drop the investigation into her descent from King David, etc. as she was no longer interested in it. It's an honest mistake for an author to make as Mrs. Eddy has correspondence with Ms. King but had primarily sent her to England to promote the Christian Science religion. Mrs. Eddy's interest in British Israelism is overstated in this article according to more currently available documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.123.229 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Jon C.
You have repeatedly deleted my posts to the above-referenced page. The first time you mentioned that "quasi-religious" would need to be sourced, so I deleted that phrase. The second time you suggest that I read the Vandalism page, but I consider you to be the party conducting the vandalism here.

What are the specific objections you have to the 672 words excluding "quasi-religious".

I consider your deletion to be unjustified.

The false doctrine that the British (in particular, the royal family) is descended from Jews, more specifically, Lost Tribes of Jews, has been decisively debunked by scholars in all relevant fields. That much is certainly not opinion, and only someone with a religious bias or other emotional investment in the issue would attempt to refute the genetic and historical evidence.

FYI, the topic of the "Ten Lost Tribes" itself is described in the following terms on the Wikipedia page: "This is a subject based upon written religious tradition and partially upon speculation" ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

That is also a doctrine that has no basis in historical or scientific fact, only some texts from a "written religious tradition".

I'm willing to discuss the topic with you briefly, but if you delete the edit again I will report you for vandalism and open a dispute.

Regards,

Ubikwit (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * What's up with this? Ubikwit, I thought your edit was generally good, but that doesn't mean that we can't discuss on the talk page or that there is any vandalism going on. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply to "Itsmejudith", and introducing some related pages and topics
Judith, this is somewhat new to me, having editing conflicts, and I haven't contributed to many topics since registering. The individual Jon C. repeatedly reverted the entire content of my edit, he didn't address aspects that he found problematic, so I took that action. Subsequently, another member of his circle, apparently, reverted the edit again, thereby enabling John C to avoid being blocked. I'm sorry, but I do not consider that to be civil. Thanks for the somewhat supportive comment regarding my edit. I had not been aware of the existence of these talk pages before this, and have since glanced through some of the content on this page, and was encouraged by many of the comments. In fact, some of the content of my edit addressed a couple of points specifically mentioned above by other contributors. First there is the question as to whether it is even legitimate to define British Israelism as a "belief", instead of a "doctrine". I think not, and would like to discuss that. I am very busy and haven't had time to read through policies yet, or to go through this page more thoroughly. I had submitted a request for protection of the edit, but it was denied as I was blocked for 24 hours after requesting it. I will check to policies to correct any technical deficiencies in the post before reverting it and re-filing a request for protection, as it seems that may be necessary. Some of the edits that I made in fact relate to specific points addressed in the talk page, of which I was not aware. The first point being including mention of the research that debunks the doctrine in the introduction to the article, the absence of which in its present form is telling.

Incidentally, this topic relates to the topic of "Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-Jewish_Common_Ancestor_Theory At least that is referred to as a "theory" as opposed to a "belief". In this regard, it is important to point out that this was a doctrine associated with Christian missionary type activity propagated not only in Britain but also in Japan starting in the later half of the 19th century by a Scottish emigrant to Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_McLeod Here is a free pdf file of the tome in question, and it is decidedly racist and bigoted. I will read it in its entirety and critique it, as it is a rich source for engaging the political (and geopolitical) aspects related to the doctrine; in particular, the relationship of western missionaries to colonialism, for example.

Epitome of the ancient history of Japan, N. McLeod http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=U2c_AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ja&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that the same group of users have been targeting my contribution to these topics, too. I see that Freemasonry has been brought up on this page, and I am inclined to believe that McLeod was a Freemason, perhaps associated with Thomas Glover, who was also a Scot.

Fortunately, there is enough physical evidence to raise the point of Freemasonry with respect to Glover (see my contributions to his page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Blake_Glover as well as the Glover Garden page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glover_Garden). On the other hand, since they are a secret society, and the membership of many of them concealed, that presents difficulties, particularly with respect to sourcing. Ubikwit (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * What is wrong with stating British Israelism is a belief? It is. "Belief" is hardly non-neutral; it implies that it's not necessarily true. — Jon C.  ॐ  08:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a question of epistemology, for starters. Defining this convoluted set of false assertions as a "belief" is a gross oversimplification of the issue. British Israelism is based on a set of gratuitous appropriations and misinterpreations of written relilgious traditions, which have been applied to inculcate a belief.

To assert that it is an a priori "belief" is to short circuit the entire discussion of its propagation. It can only be said to be a belief as an result of having accepted the teaching. It is not the same as a "belief in gods" for example. In that regard, belief is indeed non-neutral, as it applies an interpretation in advance instead of allowing the reader to assess the status independently.Ubikwit (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * How is it different to a belief in gods? There's arguably more evidence for British Israelism than for any deity. And FYI, I'm not part of any "circle" – you were blocked by a neutral admin for repeatedly ignoring warnings to stop edit-warring. — Jon C.  ॐ  09:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Arguably more evidence? That nonsense, but is indicative of your position with regard to the criticism of the false doctrine. Your statement is tantamount to an admission of adherence to British Israelism, when it has been thoroughly debunked by all relevant fields of modern scholarship from archaeology to genetics.

As I mentioned to you previously, the Wikipedia page on the Ten Lost Tribes states: "This is a subject based upon written religious tradition and partially upon speculation." The premise upon which British Israelism is based is already acknowledged to be outside of the scope of actual history. British Israelism is a fabrication based upon writings that document religious beliefs, not history, and speculation.

There is no evidence that proves the existence of gods, or for that matter in relation to an arguably more neutral belief, a "belief in the afterlife". There is, however, an abundance of evidence that disproves the doctrine of British Israelism, not the least of which is genetics, which in and of itself is decisive. With respect to the term belief, especially in the context where religion is involve--as in this case--there is a basic distinction.

That distinction relates to mental (intentional) states of an individual. If an individual states that they "believe in the afterlife", for example, another individual can neither prove nor disprove that statement. It is an authentic state of mind of the individuals that relates to the individuals existence as a human being, and addresses a fundamental question common across cultures. On the other hand, an individual that proclaims to "believe in British Israelism" can be presented the findings of research from a wide range of fields that disprove that "belief", reducing its status to a misinformed adherence to a doctrine that has been called into question and refuted.

The belief of an individual in the afterlife corresponds to an aspect of reality of existing as a human being that cannot be disproven, whereas the belief in British Israelism does not correspond to any reality other than a fabricated doctrine, and can be disproven. Ubikwit (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * Both doctrines – the belief in gods/an afterlife and the belief in British Israelism – require a leap of faith, as neither are based on empirical evidence. There's no difference. That British Israelism is a "fabricated doctrine" is your own point of view – I believe, say, astrology and Islam are made-up hocus-pocus, but other people don't. They are beliefs, but not my belief. British Israelism might not be your own belief, but it's hardly neutral to call it "made up". — Jon C.  ॐ  10:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, your assertion contradicts the content of the following passage, for example, on Wikipedia's current British Israelism page:

Historical criticism and support Tudor Parfitt, author of The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre." (Parfitt,2003. p. 61.)[7] Other critics note: “When reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies. None of these sources prove an Israelite origin for the peoples of northwestern Europe. Rarely, if ever, are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics or historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism. Anglo-Israelism operates outside the sciences. Even the principles of sound biblical exegesis are seldom used, for...whole passages of Scripture that undermine the entire system are generally ignored...Why this unscientific approach? This approach must be taken because to do otherwise is to destroy Anglo-Israelism's foundation.” (Orr, 1995)[8]/>

You are the party expressing a personal point of view, not me. Furthermore, the debunking of British Israelism is based on empirical evidence.

The question of the belief in deities, or the belief in the afterlife are universals that occur across throughout history in all human cultures. On one level, they are fundamentally existential questions about life with which individuals are faced as individuals. On another level, they are questions which religious traditions address, and try to provide the answer. One does not have to believe in either, and your assertion of a "leap of faith" is a cultural specific concept that doesn't necessarily apply. On the other hand, because the doctrine of British Israelism is counterintuitive, it certainly would take some persuasion to convince the Brits to accept such baseless speculations with religious overtones as truth.

You other mentioning of "belief" with respect to Islam and astrology relate again to intentional states in an individual, and there is no need to repeat what I've already said about that. However, whereas is Islam is a religious tradition that encompasses a Belief System, which addresses the several fundamental existential question related to life that religions generally address, astrology is a body of teachings related to the more narrow scope of foretelling the future based on an eternal, transcendent set of factors that are said to influence the future in a manner beyond the control of the individual.

Being an adherent of in Islam means adhering to various beliefs associated with Islam. Being a Muslim is not a simple intentional state of an individual, it is a religious identity that has a socially determined component. The belief that Muhammad was the prophet, on the other hand, is simple intentional state that represents one belief constituting Islam as a belief system. Ubikwit (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * British Israelism is, nowadays, a small minority fringe viewpoint and we need to make that very clear in the first sentences of the article. Having said that, I don't have any issue with using the word "belief". "Belief system" is perhaps more accurate. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Belief System or Doctrine
I certainly agree about the fringe status, and my edit didn't even alter the first sentence, yet the final sentence in the introductory section that I did add, simply summarizing the points made in the criticism section was deleted wholesale.

Maybe belief system is a way to characterize this, but that comes at the price of associating it with legitimate belief systems, perhaps adding an undue degree of validity to some of the otherwise debunked aspects. If it can be agreed that it has been debunked by modern scholarship, then I don't see the problem with characterizing it as a "quasi-religious doctrine".

It is derived from a written religious tradition, and has resonance with certain strains of the Judeo-Christian tradition, yet it is NOT an authentic part of that tradition. If we call it a belief system, how does that bear on the Judeo-Christian tradition?

I think that we have to evaluate the extent to which British Israelism is based on an assertion that itself is derivative on the biblical account of the Ten Lost Tribes, itself characterized as a "myth" by one author. It seems that British Israelism consists of a body of speculative postulations contrived to support the assertion that the British--in particular, the royal family--are descended from one of the purported aforementioned tribes.

I don't have time at present even to read through the entire article, but in going through the book by McLeod from 1878, he can clearly be seen to be making false--some times racial--attributions in order to support some interpretation or other relating to fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

A main parallel in McLeod's book with British Israelism is an assertion that the priestly Japanese sovereign is descended from one of the aforementioned tribesUbikwit (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * You don't seem to be getting it – it's not up to you to decide what is "legitimate" and what isn't. These essays you keep writing aren't going to get us anywhere unless you discuss exactly what you want to change in this article. — Jon C.  ॐ  14:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand that your assuming a patronizing tone does not put you in a position of authority; furthermore, I don't appreciate it. You need to stick to the issues.

I have already made an edit that was available to be evaluated on a point by point basis, but instead of doing that, you deleted it wholesale, repeatedly. YOU started the editing war, and that, Mr. Jon C., was not "legitimate", as far as I'm concerned.

With respect to "belief systems" and the "legitimacy", I'm trying to discuss specific aspect of topic, and your recalcitrance to do so is not productive. You are the one, again that is trying to validate your personal opinion that British Israelism is legitimate without examining the evidence. In fact, you have tried to prevent people who access Wikipedia from seeing the evidence, presented in a fair manner, for themselves. I, on the other hand, do not think it is legitimate, and therefore question whether it is optimal to characterize it as a "belief system". As I mentioned earlier, the Japanese version is referred to as a "theory", which is probably a characterization that would be more apt in the British case as well. But that, Mr. Jon C., is just my personal point of view, so I'm laying it out here in advance.

My "essays", as you call them, will serve as information when this goes to dispute resolution. This question can be taken up by the people that handle that, if necessary. It is increasingly apparent that you and I are going to find little on which we can agree. I'm not hear on this talk page to argue with you.

If you want to go back and address the points I made in my edit severally, by all means, I welcome that. But you are not in a position to make any demands, especially in a retroactive and manipulative manner. Are you attempting to divert attention from the fact that you did not take the points of my edit into consideration, especially with respect to content that has been posted on this page that you have long been aware of before I knew of its existence???

I'm hear to discuss the issues and try and build a little consensus, if that isn't possible, this will go to dispute arbitration in due time.Ubikwit (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Okay, seeing as you can't be bothered to propose any changes yourself, here is the link to the diff which showed exactly what you were trying to alter before. Here we go:
 * 1) "belief" > "doctrine" – It is a belief so there's nothing wrong with that; if reliable, third-party sources usually call it a doctrine, we'll go with that, but so far you have failed to bring anything to the table that isn't your own opinion
 * 2) "concept" and "belief" > "doctrine" and "tenet" – As above
 * 3) + "Critics assert that the central tenets of British Israelism contradict modern genetics...", etc. – There is a whole criticism section so why are you duplicating information?
 * 4) + "... therefore does not support the notion of a lineal genealogical link between Jews and Western Europeans" – Again, repeating redundant information; the sentence before already said there's a difference between Jewish and European genes
 * 5) More redundance: "Critics of British Israelism note that the arguments presented..." – It's all below already

To sum up, you've added precisely nothing, other than some words which mean very little or your own personal commentary. Over to you. — Jon C.  ॐ  16:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to see some discussion happening on this page again. IMHO this page has become unnecessarily complex and confusing, and of little use to to the casual reader looking for a general discussion of the core concepts and issues. So I think a more drastic review and recomposition is needed to cut things down to the core concepts and let people do their own further reading. There are so many wild ideas on the periphery of British Israelism - many of which are quite unique and outlandish - that it becomes futile to touch on all of them. This page used to be quite readable (several years ago) but a user came along that dumped heaps of unnecessary information leading to the above-mentioned fluff. I would support a version of this article that cuts to the chase and that is also more explicit in stating that British Israelism is primarily a religiously fueled ideology with little support from secular science. For those that don't know, there are still churches that actively teach British Isrealism albeit with some 'creative' reinterpretation of supposed history and science to support these claims. See the United Church of God and other Worldwide Church of God splinter groups. Waitingwatch (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that it needs an overhaul, starting with the opening passage. I don't think that the paragraph beginning with "Adherents may hold a diverse set of beliefs..." belongs there, and should simply be removed. I think that it will be best to proceed in a piecemeal manner with the edit, considering the scope, and I'm working on a provisional draft of the introductory passage, one that will aim to be concise and inclusive.


 * As far as the multitude of fringe ideas the doctrine has come to comprise, if adherents want to post them, there would seem to be no reason to prevent that, so long as the presentation is from a neutral point of view, and not in a manner of proselytization. What is more important, I think, is a restructuring of the article in a manner that enables readers to more readily comprehend the content and thereby navigate it to access the information that they want, and not get diverted or overwhelmed by an the sheer volume.


 * I have ordered a copy of the Parfitt book, and intend to cite specific passages with respect to the somewhat obtuse academic field of philology in the criticism section, but am not sure how to properly introduce the existence of such criticism in the introductory passage without piling on references.


 * Note that the corresponding Japanese page to the English language article on Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory is as overblown and disjointed as this BI article. That is also something that I will do some work on at some point.Ubikwit (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Or "Theory"?
Here is another instance from Wikipedia where "theory" is used in a context directly related to this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes 17th- to mid-20th-century theories Since at least the 17th century both Jews and Christians have proposed theories concerning the Lost Tribes, based to varying degrees on biblical accounts. />

I think that it may be worthwhile to suggest that maybe only people that accept a theory, or teaching as true can be said to "believe" in it. A teaching is not a belief unless there are people that believe it to be true, whether they are right or wrong.

But once again, there is a difference between existential questions, which an individuals can answer for themselves and in respect of which an individual's answer cannot questioned with respect to the intentional content of the individual (who believes/doesn't believe in the afterlife), and hypothetical propositions that pertain to assertions related to historical occurrences, the facticity and validity of which are subject to examination and evaluation. British Israelism clearly falls into the second category of hypothetical propositions that pertain to assertions related to historical occurrences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ubikwit (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * Are you going to respond to my above points, or just keep merrily making new sections? — Jon C.  ॐ  16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just now noticed your points, but will have to wait until after I have a chance to pull up the old edit to go through them.

Let me just say that terminology is relevant, especially in light of the fact that this article has been associated with "rational skepticism". There are lists of religious organizations at the bottom of the page that adhere to this body of teachings, so I don't dispute that there are aspects of the topic that should be addressed in terms of belief, but the taxonomy for framing the topic is a meta-level issue.

Also, some of your points seem to relate to the sentence in the introduction that points the reader to the Criticism section, and lists the relevant fields of research in which criticism has been made.

Judith has also recognized the need to have a strong statement in the introduction to the article (she said "in the first sentence") that counters the overall thrust of presenting this issue in terms of a question of faith, so to speak, as opposed to a historical issue that has been scrutinized by academics in various fields and debunked as false, basically.Ubikwit (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * I'm going to post again on the fringe theories noticeboard in the hope that we can get some further input. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at that page, but it is probably of limited applicability here, as the context of this topic encompasses more than the history of religion.

The fringe aspect may be useful with respect to relating BI to Christianity, as Christians would seem to have been the primary proponents. With respect to Christians, however, the article states, for example, that: "early British Israelites were strongly anti-Catholic"; "There are very few Jews who support British Israelism"; and "The broad spectrum of Christian denominations do not teach British Israelism, and some consider it speculative". So it is certainly a fringe doctrine with respect to Christianity as well as Judaism, but it derived from speculation related to biblical passages on lost tribes.


 * It may fit into the history of ideas, as you've suggested, insofar as it appears to have first surfaced during the Age of Reason. In that case, there would have to be secondary sources that evaluate the positions of the early proponents against the background of the intellectual environment and the like. Maybe we could add a category if there are secondary sources that address its context against that background, something like "Religion in the Age of Reason".


 * The Wiki page on the Age of Reason includes the following passage, for example:

"Spinoza was 'the chief challenger of the fundamentals of revealed religion'", while the first image appearing in the text of the BI articles shows the title page of a publication that starts with, "Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times, from 1795". Obviously these represent diametrically opposed mindsets.


 * The opening sentence/paragraph should incorporate all of these aspects, including modern scholarships decisive refutation, and the fact that there are a significant number of people that believe the theory/doctrine to be true (despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, etc.).Ubikwit (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * I don't like the word 'theory'. I've seen several mentions of the British or Angllo-Israelism hypothesis. You can certainly believe in a doctrine. I'd replace the word 'concept' in the lead with 'hypothesis' - that seems a no-brainer. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hypothesis" works for me. "Notion" is an available word for some of the claims that are generally regarded as disproved. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on Terminology
Jon C, first of all, consensus building is one thing, but this is not about compromise, it is about reaching agreement as to what represents the most accurate way of presenting a topic in an encyclopedia in an objective manner with a neutral viewpoint. Obviously we disagree regarding the way to characterize BI, as I consider “belief” to be unacceptable for use in describing the overall socio-historical phenomena.

Moreover, the question of the use of the term belief or doctrine does not require a “reliable third-party source”, as it is more of a dictionary level issue, as I've already attempted to describe.

Most of the people that write about BI are adherents, not scholars, with the current exception of Parfitt. However, Doug has mentioned seeing it referred to as a hypothesis, and with regard to common usage, a simply Google search turns up many hits using “doctrine”: here

The term “tenet” is used nine times in the article in similar context; in fact, the longest section of the article is titled: TENETS.

The following discussion on the Talk page also frames the matter is terms similar to what I have used in the edit. Teh hackz0r (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The same contributor also problematizes the use of the term “belief” in the following passage, so there has obviously been prior support for the same type of editing content that I posted to this article. Teh hackz0r (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Another contributor brings up the term “theory”. --dab (𒁳) 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

These and other pre-existing posts on this Talk page would seem to have dictated against your gratuitous deletion of my edit. I think that “doctrine” is most apt, and “quasi-religious”, too, is not an inaccurate characterization, as the hypothesis is derived solely from “written religious tradition”. However, I will defer to you on that point for the time being and agree to leave it out (I have no source). Maybe the “movement” should be characterized in those terms, but I'll have to look into the sources, unless some has an idea.

The term "ideology" has been mentioned twice here in recent days, and there is an Ideology section on the article page. I think that the term that is probably most applicable with regard to the political manifestations of the doctrine through history. I am inclined to agree with Doug with respect to the point that one "can certainly believe in a doctrine", whereas "belief" and "ideology" seem less closely connected.

The existence of quasi-secular organizations such as the British-Israel-World Federation and the significant implications stemming from BI in the public sphere addressed in the Politics section lend credence to the characterization in certain contexts, at least.

At any rate, Jon C., you would appear to be in the minority with regard to the terminology. We need to raise the level of discussion and presentation of this topic, not dumb it down and obfuscate. Ubikwit (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * One more time – what you think is completely irrelevant. If most sources call it "quasi-religious" we'll go with that, but we won't use it solely because you want us to. So, your proposing a chance from "belief" to "doctrine" – that's it for the some thousands of words you've written above, right? This looks suspiciously like filibustering and hoping everyone else will just give up because they can't be bothered to read your essays.


 * Let's get down to a bulletpointed list of what you want to change, and on what basis you want to chance it (sources). — Jon C.  ॐ  07:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again you adopt a patronizing tone and attempt to dictate the course of this editing process. Another contributor has suggested a need for more drastic changes in the past day, and others have called for substantial changes as well. You try to portray my contributions on this page as simply being about "what I think" as opposed to working out a comprehensive approach to revising the article with other contributors.


 * You seem to be intent on setting up a strawman "us vs them" type argument when you are the only person arguing for the opposite position, whereas several people would seem to favor edits along the lines that I am suggesting--and which in fact have existed on the article page in the past in similar form. We haven't heard from Itsmejudith for a few days.


 * You accuse me of "filibustering", in what would appear to be an attempt to deprecate the gist of what I've written, while you continue to basically refuse to respond.


 * I intend to approach this in a piecemeal manner, editing the introductory passage. I'll post a preliminary version here within a couple of days.


 * Aside from that, I'll start looking at the overall structure of the article after having had a chance to assess the content of the book by Parfitt, and read through the entire article, at any rate.


 * Aside from that, it would seem reasonable to revert the passage on genetics that indicates that the findings contradict the genealogical tenet of BI, not simply that there is a difference.


 * Your objection to that was based on claiming it redundant, as I recall, whereas it is merely a paraphrase of the results of the research findings. If necessary, I will wait until I can find a direct quote to that effect, likely in Parfitt's book, I would imagine. There are other sources presented with the same claim of refutation on the basis of genetics in parallel situations (vis-a-vis the Japanese, in this case) that haven't even been referenced on the BI article yet, including this one Abraham's children: race, identity, and the DNA of the chosen people, Jon Entine.


 * The phrase accompanying that reference on the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article page is: "DNA evidence, however, excludes this possibility." Ubikwit (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Proposed edit for Introduction
I propose to edit the introduction by replacing the opening two paragraphs with the two paragraphs shown below.

Note that in conjunction with the listing of the fields of study in which pertinent research has been produced, it will be necessary to reorganize the Research Findings section in accordance with inclusion criteria that parallel the respective academic disciplines. In its current form, linguistics and philology are mixed in a haphazard manner, and the discussion of "proponents/adherents" and "critics" seems to muddle the presentation of the Findings of research. it may be necessary to determine whether all of the sources cited represent valid "research".

For example, there is a source referenced (appears twice, nos. 264 and 274) for spurious philological and archaeological information sourced to a website run by the United Church of God, without attribution of authorship. ^ "The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy". Retrieved 2009-01-14.[dead link]

Both links are dead, but the source can be found here: United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy

I think it is clear that this doesn't meet Wiki standards for reliable third-party sources. Other references contain research that has clearly been superseded. What is its current relevance?

For example, reference nos. 267 and 269 are for books from 1913 and 1906, respectively. One is a grammar book, here: Welsh Grammar book from 1913, and the other a history of the English language.

As far as I can gather, there is not a single shred of modern research that support the doctrine of BI. The anachronistic research based on dated research methods and the church source would appear not to be types of information that belong under the category "Research Findings", or should perhaps be presented in a chronological order to show the course of progress in the respective fields.

Proposed Edit: British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a doctrine based on the hypothesis that people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The doctrine often includes the tenet that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.["Beliefs of the Orange Street Church", a British-Israelite church][British-Israel World Federation – Beliefs]

Though the central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological evidence (see Research Findings below), the doctrine continues to have a significant number of adherents. There has never been a single head or organisational structure to the movement. However, various British Israelite organisations were set up across the British Commonwealth and in America from the 1870s, and many continue to exist.[Helen Bouverie, Countess of Radnor, Notes and Queries on the Origin of British-Israel, 2nd edtn. (London:, Marshall, 1925), p. 11]

Ubikwit (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
 * The proposed introduction is fine except that we don't need references in the lead, because the lead should summarise the main points in the whole article. It also seems odd to use a 1925 text to support that BI organisations still exist today.


 * Regarding the Research findings section, this is quite a mess at the moment, and really just needs cutting down and merging into other sections. We do need to make it very clear that none of the ideas are supported by recent scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, that’s good news about the references. I took those out and also modified the final sentence. Are there organisations that were founded in the 1870s that continue to exist? From the article it seems that only the organization formed in 1919 continues to exist, as well as some churches maybe that teach the doctrine. The sentence was composed in a somewhat rhetorical manner, so it seems it should be clarified.


 * Proposed Edit 1a:
 * British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a doctrine based on the hypothesis that people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The doctrine often includes the tenet that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.


 * Though the central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological evidence (see Research Findings below), the doctrine continues to have a significant number of adherents. The movement has never had a head organisation or a centralized organisational structure. Various British Israelite organisations were set up across the British Commonwealth and in America from the 1870s, and many such organisations are active today.


 * Ubikwit (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Early Versions is the next most easy of the sections to clean up
In going through a book on a related topic I found reference to John Sadler, and have noted that the discussion of him and his work is incongruously minimal, and that the importance of John Wilson's book from 1814 would appear to be deprecated in light of the opening sentence of the section, which addresses the start of the movement as occurring in the period 1860-70. The Wiki page on Sadler is informative and has a reference to Parfitt discussing his book of 1649.

Sadler was a man of considerable stature in English society, and 1649 is more than 200 years earlier than the time frame stated in the opening sentence. Obviously that is problematic.

Furthermore, I also found a reference to a Porugese Jesuit, Joao Rodrigues, who claimed that the Chinese were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes in a book he had published in 1608.

Perhaps this section should be renamed simply as "Background" in order to facilitate discussion of the works that influenced to formation of an actual organization.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

A veritable mess
The more I look at it, the more apparent it becomes that this article has been hacked almost beyond recognition.

The “History” section and its pseudo-chronological arrangement are problematic, though I don’t have enough of a grasp of the scope to suggest a new structure as of yet. However, perhaps the title of “Early versions” should be changed to “Early proponents”, for example.

It would appear that some people have been loading this article with false references that they cite in a generalized manner to inflate the importance, when in fact they are largely peripheral or irrelevant.

There are no sources for “M. le Loyer”, and the only online reference in English is a religious website: here There are a couple of references in French, such as this one: here Adriaan van der Schrieck is discussed under Dutch Israelism, but would seem to be of minor significance here compared to others that are not discussed. On the other hand, the Dutch Israelism article would seem to be woefully lacking any reference to Dutch rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel. Dutch Israelism

The respective Wikipedia pages for Vincenzo Galilei, Henry Spelman, and Jakob Abbadie make absolutely no mention of British Israelism. Furthermore, the references listed after the names of the aforementioned individuals would appear to be irrelevant or unreliable.

Reference no. 4 is a link to the British-Israel-World Federation website, clearly not a reliable source. It contains the following passage in reference to Galilei: Vincenzio Galilei, father of the famous astronomer, in writing about the origin of the harp in Ireland mentions the native Irish tradition that they had descended from the Royal Prophet David. 1581.

Reference no. 6, “The True and Noble Origins of the Anglo-Israel Message” is also clearly not a reliable source. It contains the following passage apparently in reference to “Jakob Abbadie”: "A TESTIMONY OF OUR IDENTITY" "In 1723, Dr.Jacques Abaddie (1654-1727), Huguenot refugee and Dean of Killaloe, Ireland, in his Le Triomphe de la Providence et de la Religion, wrote:" "'Certainly, unless the Ten Tribes have flown into the air, or been plunged to the earth's centre, they must be sought in that part of the North which, in the time of Constantine, was converted to the Christian Faith - namely among the Iberians, Armenians, and Scythians; for that was the place of their dispersion-the wilderness where God caused them to dwell in tents, as when they came out of the land of Egypt... Perhaps, were the subject carefully examined, it would be found that the nations who in the fifth age made irruption into the Roman Empire, and whom Procopius reduces to ten in number, wer in effect the Ten Tribes,who kept in a state of separation up to that time, then quitted the Euxine and Caspian, the place of their exile, because the country could no longer contain them. Everything fortifies this conjecture; the extraordinary multiplication of this people, marked so precisely by the prophets, the number of the tribes, the custom of those nations to dwell in tents, according to the oracles, and many other usages of the Scythians similar to those of the children of Israel.'" "translated from the French by Revd Robert Douglas" "Dr Abaddie published his work in Amsterdam and the original four volumes can be seen in the British Museum."

In conjunction with the woefully inadequate discussion of Sadler is the complete absence of mention of John Dury, the Hartlib circle, philosemitism, and the invisible college. There is some highly relevant research by Ernestine van der Wall in the following pdf: THREE LETTERS BY MENASSEH BEN ISRAEL TO JOHN DURIE These were important factors in the early stages of the development of the doctrine and movement. Furthermore, these people’s activities and works predate “Phoenecianism” and “Orientalism” (by at least 100 years), so those references would appear to be irrelevant.

References to fringe and obscure proponents, such Vincenzo Galilei, Henry Spelman, and Jakob Abbadie, should be mentioned only in the Doctrine and tenets section (proposed renaming of the Tenets section). Furthermore, as cited above, the connection of the statements of the aforementioned individuals to BI is tenuous, at best. People who want to examine the obscure and marginal manifestations of the doctrine can see it there. It doesn't belong in other sections, where it serves to do nothing but interfere with the reader's ability to grasp the historical significance of the doctrine and its most recognized proponents.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Deep reversion
I've reverted to a May 2011 version.WP:BOLD I know, but I think necessary. The article was heavily edited by an apparently pro-BNP editor, the now blocked Anglo Pyramidologist. See for instance the ANI discussion at. He is I believe the person who added these sources. He certainly added Loyer.. We've probably lost some good edits but I think this is a firmer basis for the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That didn't get rid of all of them. I had missed the fact he'd been editing since February 2011. I've now reverted to that version. As for Dutch Israelism, that was created by Anglo Pyramidologist, and see Articles for deletion/Dutch Israelism. The references look a lot more solid. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting points to be gleaned from this version--such as the sentence on Sadler--but I think that it is still structured in a manner that does not serve the purpose of facilitating an understanding of the historical significance of the topic separate from doctrinal issues that are more of interests to people studying the movement per se, for example. The section on "Research findings" containing the crucial genetics information, etc., also has to be restored--though it needs serious revision.


 * You should take a look at the pdf file of an excerpt from Ernestine van der Wall, for example, to see how deeply this entire article needs to be restructured and revised.


 * I'm totally with you on eliminating the garbage from the pyramidologists, etc. but there are personages of historical import that were deeply involved with this movement, and that needs to be explicated. Granted, it was a different era that was imbued with religious fervor on the heels of religious strife, perhaps, but there are serious lessons to be learned from this delusional exercise in wanton speculation based on scripture that in itself is of a pseudo-historical status.


 * I'll leave you reversion up for the time being, maybe some other editors will comment, etc., and it affords a chance to see an earlier version for others interested in restructuring the article.


 * I would imagine that the background has to be examined chronologically on a century-by-century basis, and the early proponents connection to philosemitism, the "hidden college", etc., be threshed out. I have also found a source, as mentioned in an earlier post on this page, to 1608 by a Portuguese Jesuit claiming the Chinese were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes that may be relevant, considering the source by van der Wall discusses a Portuguese Jew that was involved in the movement with Sadler et. al, and his statement would appear to be the earliest attempt to make such an attribution. See my post to the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article for the quote.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * Oh, I agree stuff has to be restored. But I also think that we can't trust AP's edits and shouldn't simply restore but material needs to be checked, other sources found perhaps, etc. I'm not saying my deep reversion is a better article, just a 'cleaner' one, a better starting place perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, since there haven't been any comments made, I simply copied the content of the pre-AngloPyramidologist-edited version to which you reverted, adding the recently edited versions of the lead section and image. I also modified the lead section based on further observation, in consideration of that fact that, for example, there are not "many" BI organizations active today. I could only find reference to three such organizations online, in fact: the British-Israel-World Federation; the Anglo Israel Association; and the Canadian British-Israel Association.
 * I think that this version, seeing as it is lighter and less encumbered, should be easier to edit in a piecemeal, section-by-section basis.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

lead
Numerous sources are cited that definitively refute each of the central tenets of BI, i.e., genetics, philological/linguistic, archaeological, etc. and there are no reliable sources that support any of them.

It is an anachronistic disproven doctrine, the tenets of which modern research has disproven according to all of the reliable sources cited in the article.

What is the basis of your assertion of "bias"?

The version of the lead before you started editing it was in compliance with WP:NPOV with respect to all reliable sources.

I'll remove the word thoroughly, but the strong statement was adopted as the result of a consensus on the Talk page and will be restored as that consensus is still in vigor. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Page protected
Please discuss changes here. Tom Harrison Talk 18:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Welsh stuff
The new editor "Richard the bread man" is clearly very confused, but behind his edits there is a real point at issue. Most of this section (British_Israelism) is addressing arguments about the British/Welsh language, discussing the etymology of the ethnonyms "British" and "Cymry", but the final sentences suddenly start making assertions about English. Of course it's not difficult to cite the fact that both English and Welsh are I-E languages, but the section as a whole probably needs to be cleaned up a bit to be clear when it's addressing English and when British identity. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's clear from his edits that "Richard the bread man" is a follower of the theories of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, Coelbren, "ancient Welsh DNA" and all. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Richard Brothers + Sadler
Richard Brothers and Sadler were not BI's. British Israelism as movement emerged in the 1870s/1880s. I provided a scholarly source that shows this. Brothers was put in a mental asylum and argued he was a descendant of King David and "prince of the Hebrews". This can hardly be called BI. Sadler,, again hardly BI. Its also a petty attack to mention Brothers. Modern Anglo-Israelites consider this a smear, trying to discredit them by linking them to someone who was mentally ill and insane. Of course, this also looks stupid because BI is pseudo-history and has been discredited by actual evidence (history, genetics etc). HerodotusReader (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

lacks neutrality
This article lacks neutrality, featuring heavy tones against the theory throughout. What can be done to balance this?--Sigehelmus (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of your edits in fact violated NPOV. This is a WP:FRINGE subject and that needs to be clear in the article. Our articles on fringe subjects aren't meant to be 'balanced': "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This can still be clarified as WP:FRINGE up-front and still address possible evidence and claims in support of the theory. I do not see a coherent part of the body addressing it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BI has been falsified by genetics and linguistics. Its few left proponents on the internet (none of whom are scholars) are left with Medieval tales such as the Stone of Scone being the Stone of Jacob, hence Parfitt came to comment proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre". AncientScribal (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see below how BI proponents misquote or fabricate sources typical of pseudo-history/pseudo-science.AncientScribal (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Fake Rawlinson quote
George Rawlinson wrote:

“ We have reasonable grounds for regarding the Gimirri, or Cimmerians, who first appeared on the confines of Assyria and Media in the seventh century B.C., and the Sacae of the Behistun Rock, nearly two centuries later, as identical with the Beth-Khumree of Samaria, or the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel.[15]

- '''This quote actually does not exist. George Rawlinson never wrote it!''' Yet shockingly its been on the Wikipedia page for years? British Isrealites invented this quote. At least it is not found in [15]. Also BI sources cannot even agree if this quote came from George or his brother Henry Rawlinson.AncientScribal (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the earliest mention of the quote is, R. N. Adams, p. 61, an obscure British Israelite book published in 1883. AncientScribal (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It certainly does not seem to come from the Herodotus, but then Adams never says that it does. I suspect it does come from somewhere in Henry Rawlinson's writings. Adams is clearly trying to demostrate his scholarly legitimacy. But if it can't be properly sourced it shouldn't be here - not that it proves anything. Paul B (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that this edit removed mention of Rawlinson, the quote, and the supporting cite. I don't know a thing about this and I have not seen the source cited in the removed material. However, some googling turned up
 * (in the section headed "Archaeological Testimony")
 * Other sources probably exist. Some of the sources mentioned above say that the quote is located at I don't see it on page 378 there, though, and there are no content search facilities available there to look for it elsewhere in that source.
 * (in the section headed "Archaeological Testimony")
 * Other sources probably exist. Some of the sources mentioned above say that the quote is located at I don't see it on page 378 there, though, and there are no content search facilities available there to look for it elsewhere in that source.


 * It seems to me that WP:DUE comes into play here. WP:DUE generally trumps opinions expressed by WP editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That book is on archive.org. I took a look, no such quote is there on page 378. There are other fake or misquotes quotes in BI as well as forgeries, I believe Charles Ottley Groom Napier is another. Napier wrote and delivered a speech to the London anthropological society in 1875 entitled 'Where are the Lost Tribes of Israel?'. In this speech he just covered all the extant theories. BI's however seem to have distorted this as him equating Israel with Britain. AncientScribal (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I searched extensively through all four volumes of the book using archive.org's keyword search facility, using several keywords, just in case the passage had been slightly mistranscribed. I could find no evidence whatever that it exists in any edition of the book. What the Rawlinsons do say about rhe Cimmerians is wholly inconsistent with it. I also found a book online yesterday in which the author said he's been through all of Rawlinson's writings but could not find the passage (I somehow can't find that book online now, so I can't link it). It may be from some obscure lecture published as a pamphlet, or reported in a newspaper; or it may be a misattribution on Adam's part, but it's definitely not in the Herodotus book. Of course even if he did say it, it's not proof of anything. Such speculations were reasonable at the time. Rawlinson was working in a period of transition from the Bible-based models of earlier generations to the scientific methods of which he was a pioneer. Paul B (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point I'd say even if we found it, I can think of no reason to use something so obscure. Rawlinson should always be handled with care - in history articles I'd always ask why use him instead of a modern historian. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Genetic section
I don't think this belongs in the article. I've not checked all the sources, but those that I have don't mention BI, thus it's original research. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This wikipedia page is clearly a thinly veiled vendetta against British Israel teaching and does not meet the true criteria of impartial information on the subject.
This wikipedia page is clearly a thinly veiled vendetta against British Israel teaching and does not meet the criteria of impartial information on the subject.


 * --Agreed. Nearly every point starts off with something like "The British Israelites think this.. " accompanied by a short one-liner, with few, or more often, zero references, and then proceeds to argue against the point with the remainder of the sub-section, usually citing the same couple of nay-sayers (Parfitt, Greer).


 * This article should be about BI. Instead it's about 'Everything that's wrong with British Israelism', with a few loose facts thrown in. 100s of books and articles have been written about the subject, and this article has reduced it to a few confusing paragraphs. To add, could it not be said that religion as a whole is 'Fringe' because 100s of academics say there is no God? Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Adherents
For something so controversial as this, every name must have a reference showing they are indeed an adherent--that they have done more than stated some interest in the subject, but indeed believe/believed in this fringe theory.  DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree that this is a controversial theory - it is however one held by numbers of people. I would contend that as such it desrves a better treatment that is currently has. A slightly more dispasionate style would help. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic,[1] linguistic, archaeological and philological research.
This is one of several pieces of misinformation. Apart from an absence of scholarly reference to support this claim, it reveals a basic misunderstanding of BI teaching; a teaching that in all its literature clearly points out that in accord with scripture, the ten tribes were to become a gentilised people who, as idolaters, unlike the Jews, would lose their Israelitish characteristics and identity. Hence, over time, in terms of genetics linguistic, archaeological and philological indicators, very different from the Jews. They would, however, as a nation & company of nations in the course of time subscribe to the 'new Covenant' in Christ, (Hebrews 8:7-12) and therefore nominally recognised as 'Christian' nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.88.81 (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The precise location to which a huge number of non - Jewish Israelites were deported is known (2Kings 17&18). Their migrations to the Caucasus region is known (2 Esdras 13). That they would lose their Israelite identity is known (Amos 9) The origin from this same Caucasus region and time frame of the Anglo Saxon Celtic peoples is also known (Turner S. ‘History of the Anglo Saxons’, Book II, Ch.I). The Biblical promises to the patriarchs are clearly fulfilled in these Anglo Saxon Celtic peoples(Genesis 28&35) British Israel is one of the most easily demonstrated truths of history. So why the derisory and malignant tone of this article? 86.3.138.145 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess because none of those are what we consider to be reliable sources besides being wrong/personal interpretation. Doug Weller (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So, whilst admitting to the biased derisory and malignant tone of this article, this editor as a self appointed expert on 'reliable sources', dismisses the Bible which is used by archaeologists to locate excavation sites & found to be fully reliable, and dismisses the renowned historian Turner whose work is corroborated by Camden, Milton and others and indeed by modern genetic findings. These authorities are cited as factual evidence of British Israel teaching and should not be dismissed with derisory prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.138.145 (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's rare to see someone misrepresent me so comprehensively. Oh, and I'm pretty sure Genesis doesn't mention the Celts. Or that Sharon Turner is considered an expert on British Israelites. Probably a waste of time, but if you are seriously interested in how we work, read WP:NOR. Doug Weller (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Any feeling of misrepresentation must pale into insignificance when compared to the exclamation "Oh, and I'm pretty sure Genesis doesn't mention the Celts. Or that Sharon Turner is considered an expert on British Israelites". A belligerent refusal to recognise how the references quoted properly feature in the simple step by step logic of British Israel teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.138.145 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I gather that means you haven't read WP:NOR as what you are suggesting is forbidden by policy. Sources must not only meet our criteria at WP:RS but must discuss the subject of the article. Genesis, for instance, doesn't discuss the Celts. Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is the Bible itself can't be used as a reliable source because it doesn't mention the terms "British Israelism" or "Celts" or other similar terms? The whole belief (or message, theory, doctrine, ism or whatever else you wish to call it) depends entirely on the Bible. Without the Bible as a primary reference, there is no 'British Israelism'. To use WP:NOR as an excuse to exclude Biblical references, even if they are to be considered interpretive, is to show a strong bias against the beliefs of the proponents of this article. -- Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I gather that means, as suspected, that the wiki article on British Israel ought to have been written by someone who had researched the subject properly and would therefore not make facile comments such as "Genesis, for instance, doesn't discuss the Celts"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.138.145 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC) The promise contained in Isaiah 7:14 makes no mention of Jesus by name. However, the gospel writers recognised the fulfilment of this promise in the person of Jesus (Matthew 1:23). In similar vein, the pioneers of British Israel teaching in their step by step logical study of the destiny of Israel's deported and migrating millions, recognised in the Anglo Saxon Celtic and related peoples, the fullfilment of the patriarchal promises contained in the book of Genesis and prophecies elsewhere in scripture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.14.18 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also worth adding (and as a believer in the Biblical record - just add that to say I am not ideologically negative to such articles) that this dispute is not really about what the merits of the issue are - but what reputable and citable source are saying about this issue. What Doug is saying is that the whole point of wikipedia is to record (as dispassionately as possible) the best verifiable opinion that is "out there". This needs to produce a wikipedia article text that is largely neutral in tone - and brings together the best summary of opinion on the article's subject. I can see that some of the "tone" could do with improvement and that there is reason to move some of the more dismissive opinion to "expert x says ....." type statement, rather than "this has been disproven" style statements. Other than that Doug is quite correct and your comments are clearly declaring an agenda! Might also be worth signing in and declaring a more formal wikipedia identity too. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And sorry [[User:Kevinalewis, many apologies, I'm embarrassed to say I've reverted you. The source is a bit like us, and I've raised it at WP:RSN, and as it doesn't mention BI we can't use it. I made the same kind of edits at Where Troy Once Stood adding material to disprove the book, and was, correctly, told they were original research. Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem - and you are quite correct - although it frustrating when an arguement (even one properly cited) has clear flaws, limitations or is just wrong. Here it was just a limitation, caveat that was needed. As I assume you can appreaciate. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  07:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why attach the suffix 'ism' to the title 'British Israel'? (Collins Dictionary - 'often derogatory' term) It is non - political and non - sectarian. It is a teaching supported by Christians from all denominations therefore not in any way a religion or cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.138.145 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890); when asked why in 1845 he had left the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Church, he said that there was a very real danger that the movement "would take over the Church of England."" Oh! I see that this derogatory hearsay addition has not been deleted; unlike meticulously referenced statements that verify British Israel Teaching. A further example of how this article is nothing other than a pernicious attack on an inspiring, easily demonstrated and very worthy Historical and Biblical narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.138.145 (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
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)

Discrepancies under 'Scriptural Interpretation'
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.

For a proper understanding of the events and numbers, read this Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_captivity

(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]

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon#History "Tyre itself, which was on an island just off shore, and the associated settlement of Ushu on the adjacent mainland"

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.

Wilfred Brown (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We need independent sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. I'll take a look when I have time. Doug Weller  talk 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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".

Scynthian (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to make a move request as described at Requested moves. Titles need to conform to WP:COMMONNAME so base your arguments on that. Doug Weller  talk 09:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A more accurate name would be the 'British-Israel Movement' see

Wilfred Brown (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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.

Wilfred Brown (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 Weller  talk 19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 Weller  talk 11:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at the No original research notice board
See WP:NORN Doug Weller  talk 12:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513084035/http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/49020 to http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/49020/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong negative bias in article.
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."

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23241444

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, 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.

Wilfred Brown (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 Weller  talk 10:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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?
 * This is not a neutral article. It's heavily biased against BI believers. Wilfred Brown (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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]"
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * In any case, this is a mainstream encyclopedia and BI is a fringe belief. WP:NPOV requires us to make that clear. Doug Weller  talk 20:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's the policies regarding 'fringe' theories..
 * "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)


 * 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 Weller  talk 06:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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.". 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."diffs 'Direct descendants' means the same as 'lineal', so removed 'lineal'. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Notable adherents section
A number of the individuals listed on the British Israelism section do not have any mention of "British Israelism" in their respective article. I have tagged the section with and those individuals with  Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest the order is by order of birth (except when no birth date available, then by notable publication). Also template goes before image. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Richard Brothers (1757–1824), early believer and teacher/promoter of this teaching
 * John Wilson (1799–1870) published a series of his lectures in a book, Our Israelitish Origin (1840)
 * Archbishop William Bennett Bond (1815–1906), Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada
 * Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900), pyramidologist and Astronomer Royal for Scotland
 * Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910), founder of Christian Science
 * Edward Wheeler Bird (1823–1903), Anglo-Indian judge and British-Israel author
 * Edward Hine (1825–1891), artist, historian, author of Forty-Seven Identifications of the British Nation with the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel
 * George Owen Barnes (1827–1908), Presbyterian missionary and independent evangelist in Kentucky
 * Elieser Bassin (1840–1898), a Russian-Jewish convert to Christianity
 * John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher (1841–1920), Admiral of the Fleet
 * Richard Reader Harris (KC) (1847–1909), founder of the Pentecostal League of Prayer movement in London
 * 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
 * Charles Fox Parham (1873–1929), American preacher, instrumental in the formation of Pentecostalism
 * William Comyns Beaumont (1873–1956), British journalist, author, and lecturer
 * "Bible Bill" Aberhart (1878–1943), a Social Credit premier of Alberta from 1935 to 1943
 * Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone (1883–1981), a patron of the British-Israel-World Federation
 * David Davidson (1884–1956), Scottish structural engineer and pyramidologist
 * George Jeffreys (1889–1962), Welsh minister and evangelist who founded the Elim Pentecostal Church
 * William H. Poole (d. 1896), Methodist minister, known for his book Anglo-Israel, or the British Nation the Lost Tribes of Israel (1889)
 * Herbert W. Armstrong (1892–1986), American founder of the Worldwide Church of God
 * Boake Carter (1903-1944), British-educated American radio news commentator
 * Patience Strong (1907–1990), poet
 * Garner Ted Armstrong (1930–2003), Church of God International (United States)
 * Robert Bradford (1941–1981), Methodist minister and Ulster Unionist politician
 * Alan Campbell (b. 1941), Pentecostal pastor from Northern Ireland
 * Nelson McCausland (b. 1951), Democratic Unionist politician

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.
 * George Owen Barnes - no article. The DAB page George Barnes does not have anyone of that date range.
 * Elieser Bassin - article mentioning BI
 * 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.

Jim1138 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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"?

Articles / book
Jim1138 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BI adherents excavating a historical site and doing extensive damage.

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 Weller  talk 20:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 Weller  talk 12:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Hi The difficulty is with the following paragraph: "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. This pargraph was edited by for ("Compatibility with present-day research findings") "British Israelites along with academics Elhaik, Wexlar and others, 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.'" then reverted these edits, asking to discuss it on the talk page. but reverted saying it was a "Vandalism of valid contrary argument supported by references", then added:: "'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.''" then reverted and undid the reversion 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?'" 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.''" 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)


 * 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)

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

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)


 * 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)


 * Harry Ostrer doesn't seem to be the most respected geneticist on the planet. Jim1138 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)