Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. Notability established, particularly by Milowent. postdlf (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've tried to edit this article to make it somewhat useful, but there's nothing there. The original article is original research developed from articles that are not in English. It is impossible to determine if they qualify as reliable sources for any of the statements. Moreover, after a search of academic publications in linguistics and genetics, I cannot find any reliable, peer-reviewed source that supports this idea. There are a lot of blogs, but where does that fit? The myth of the 10 lost tribes of Israel is interesting to religious types, I suppose, but if we're going to create dozens of articles that try to lay claim to one of the tribes as part of their mythos, we're going to get a lot of bad articles. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: The bot says this is the second discussion, but I cannot find the first one. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Claims of heredity are no longer a cause for concern. Genetic evidence is available to debunk or prove them all. The hypothesis is notable; the evidence indisputable. DNA evidence excludes this possibility.Abraham's children: race, identity, and the DNA of the chosen people: "the DNA evidence suggests that the Japanese are of exclusively Asian ancestry, with no Semitic markers" . Author is Jon Entine.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable, debunked, fringe theory. We would run out of bytes if we included every Japanese urban legend about their origins and relations to other peoples.  Bearian (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's mind-boggling in its improbability.  But it is a theory that does exist.  Keep it so that anyone running across it can quickly google up a proper debunking.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't matter if it is true or false, what matters is reliable sources documenting the myth. One casual mention in a non-notable book doesn't cut it for notability. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, inasmuch as there is more than one, and WP does not only use books that have a Wikipedia article as sources. I agree, inasmuch as debunking is just gravy. Maybe a tiny bit more than gravy, but WP is currently missing a USEFUL rule (in fact, mentioning usefulness is supposed to be a bad thing), or any rules for inclusion, for that matter. Just rules against inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Abraham's children: race, identity, and the DNA of the chosen people: "the DNA evidence suggests that the Japanese are of exclusively Asian ancestry, with no Semitic markers" . Author is Jon Entine
 * 2) The Jewish encyclopedia: a descriptive record of the history ..., Volume 12. Isidore Singer, Cyrus Adler. "worship their ancestors, as the old Israelites did; and in addition to this McLeod points out the Jewish appearance of some Japanese, and supplements his "Epitome" with a volume of illustrations depicting among other things..."
 * 3) Epitome of the ancient history of Japan; N. McLeod, page 46 onward, way back in 1878.
 * 4) McLeod, Norman. subtitle:Japan and the Lost Tribes of Israel, Nagasaki, 1876.
 * 5) ^ An article of this book can be seen at the Rare Books site of National Library of Scotland with search words "Norman Mcleod Epitome", (accessed March 09, 2011).
 * 6) ^ See the article titled "TRIBES, LOST TEN" at Jewish Encyclopedia.com with search words "LOST TEN TRIBES" and its paragraph regarding Japan. (accessed March 09, 2011).
 * 7) ^ Takahashi and McLeod 1997.
 * 8) ^ McLeod and Kubo 2004.
 * 9) ^ Tokayer and Kubo 1999.
 * 10) The sources cited by Millowent and BabbaQ. Anarchangel (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep  I am writing and sorry to have disturbed you because of my ignorance. This is my first experience to discuss here and  I' m sorry if I am impolite or incorrect.I am checking detail of policies of wiki. If I remember correctly, I think non academic sources are allowed if it is published by "mainstream publisher" according to the explanation in wiki. For example, Gakken publishing is a division of Gakken Holdings and (main business is publishing and education) this Holdings sell USD900,000,000/year. And according to the explanation about SOURCE, non English source can be allowed if short translation is added.  Regarding the policy of NEUTRALITY in wiki, it requests various sources or opposite claims, but wiki also requests published sources, so it must be published opposite claims. I'm not sure about published opposite claims, so it is impossible to write opposite claims at the moment. I would like to consider for several days.  Lakym  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakym (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This does not appear to be original research, but an odd theory developed in the late 19th century that has been cited (and debunked) and discussed many times in books and other sources. I don't know if the article title is the best possible title, but the subject does appear to be notable.  At least as notable as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as far as kooky theories go.  See ;  (book excerpt describing it as a "fairly popular" theory);  (books refers to McLeod and more contemporary writers, including one from 1980);  (1942 "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia" references McLeod's theory);  (1904 piece in New Era Illustrated Magazine concluding that McLeod's theory is "curious" if not "comical");  (see footnote 1, above line text not available);  (1882 page discussion of McLeod and joiners);  (1911 mention of theory), etc.--Milowent • talkblp-r  02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Milowent. The article appears to be notable. especially per .--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge (content) and Redirect to the main History of the Jews in Japan that needs expansion, and because there is not all that much in this stub. It makes a nice point, but that's it. IZAK (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, rewrite and change the messy title. I have read about this theory in Tudor Parfitt's The Lost Tribes of Israel. The History of a Myth, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002, which covers every such "lineage" from British Israelism and the Bnei Menashe to the Beta Israel. That, I guess, is a reliable secondary source which does not sympathize with the cause, but merely documents its existence. Dahn (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe theory not warranting separate article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where you would you put the concept, then, though? its sort of its own thing, covered in many books and periodicals.--Milowent • talkblp-r  01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.