Talk:British Israelism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dimont

A PD copy is here but I'm thinking we can find better sources. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I dug out the page numbers from that site (but didn't include the link in the citation because ELNEVER) and I couldn't help notice is was just as much a one-sided, self-published diatribe as those of the BI proponents. It may be PARITY to give both, but it would be better to give neither. That being said, some of these points are hard to find addressed by a modern scholarly community that doesn't take the specific claims of BI seriously enough to bother critiquing them - the old fringe conundrum. Agricolae (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a big problem with fringe stuff, one of the reasons why we have WP:UNDUE. I think we can find some better sources for some of the Dimont stuff. I am probably too busy until Wednesday but I'll have a look tonight if I have time. Slowed down because I'm away from home with a laptop whose cursor jumps around the screen and i find I'm typing where I don't want to type. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The best bet for the replacing Dumont would seem to be Friedman, Origins of the British Israelites : the lost tribes. He seems to be addressing the specific verses used in the BI arguments, as well as their interpretations and theological arguments in detail, but all I can see are snippets. His table of contents given with his OCLC entry shows extremely detailed coverage - indeed, I don't think we can say that we have adequately summarized the scholarship on the topic without incorporating the material from this work, but it doesn't look like I will be able to lay hands on a copy any time soon. Agricolae (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Dimont needs to go. That reference is Dimont peddling his own religious views. Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be best to replace all poor references, but as long as we are citing Allen and Poole and BIWF peddling their religious views, Dimont is no worse just because he is doing the same in opposition to their views. Agricolae (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, we should have both sources that express their beliefs (BI sources are fine for this, they after all know what they think) and other sources analyzing what they think.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

BI authors know what they personally think, but it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who supports the core tenet agrees. I'd prefer to use BI authors who have their own articles or have held important positions in the movement. And we should never call any of our sources 'notable'. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Poole statement on language

I removed this again, because I can't tell what point it is trying to make - is this an apology for the now-accepted absence of any apparent similarity between English and Hebrew? If so, then it would not be the point Poole was trying to make, which isn't entirely clear. We don't want to just throw in such a sentence, devoid of context and not connected with the rest of the section. Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

We also need to move away from citing primary sources by B-I people and more throroughly source this from independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Many of the statements made in this article are very broad and all encompassing what is really a collection of various British-Israel 'proofs', sometimes by single authors. Not all adherents believe the linguistics arguments made, and Poole makes the counter argument clearly. Leaving it as is would have the reader believe that all adherents believe this, which is completely untrue, and the Poole reference, although primary source, proves this. "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources may all be appropriately used, if (1) they are used without engaging in original research or synthesis and (2) if in the event of conflicts between sources they are treated with the appropriate deference to the "better" source." It's been mentioned many times on this talk page that it's hard to find reliable secondary sources as the topic is not widely studied. Wilfred Brown (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is an argument that can be made any more. Friedman wrote an entire book on BI beliefs, and we now cite other sources that go into some detail as a setup for discussing the movement's more racist offshoots. As to generalizations, that happens with all movements, particularly those with no formal leadership to distinguish what is canon. We can't possibly decide which out all of the disparate beliefs of all the various authors are worth attention - that is why secondary sources are favorable, they make that discrimination for us. Agricolae (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And who is O. Michael Friedman?Wilfred Brown (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Who did he have to be? He wrote a full-length book which was accepted as appropriate for publication by Mellen Research University Press and for acquisition by 60 university libraries in at least 8 countries, as well as being cited and quoted by several of the other scholarly sources we in turn cite here and numerous other scholarly works on the Ten Lost Tribes, 19th century English religion, and Orientalism. Agricolae (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

He is RS, and that is all he has to be. But also we can (and should) cite BIUists for what they believe (however weight does come into it, we should only be putting is widely held beliefs, not ones by random BIists).Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with using a BI writer is as Wilfred has pointed out - since there is no central organization in control over the movement, each and every one of them is a random BIist, perhaps indicative of the broader community, perhaps not. As much as Wilfred dismisses 3rd parties as not being correct about what the important core BI beliefs are, their presentation of a particular belief as representative of the movement resolves this problem from our perspective as editors, of determining which beliefs are widely held. Agricolae (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well one method is "official publications" by the various major branches of BIism.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Which only says what each individual organization thinks. For example, I suspect that the end-times propheteering of the Armstrong church are not representative of the broader movement, but it's not for me to decide what is a 'major branch' and more indicative of the whole. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

And? This page suffers form trying to encompass everything about a very diverse movement. So (yesa) wew have to represnt all significant doctrines (if I may call em that).Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

But we need secondary sources to determine what are significatant doctrines, and if we have the secondary sources, then we don't need to quoting the adherents directly. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No more then we would for what doctrines are significant to the catholic or CofE, the pronouncements of those branches leaders. I agree, we cannot use the random statements of any old member, we can use the statements of those who speak for the various "denominations". All we need to establish is who is an official spokesman for each significant (such as the BIWF) branch.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Both the Catholic Church and the CofE have a centralized heirarchy that determines the official beliefs of their churches. There is no such spokesman for BI. BIWF speaks for BIWF and we have no basis to accept their views as reflective of those of the whole movement without a secondary source saying so, and again, if we have that we don't need to cite BIWF. Agricolae (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Which secondary source doesn't rely on the printed materials of the British-Israel authors for their 'expert' opinion? Obviously not Friedman. Did Dimont attend BI meetings to get a academic 'feel' of what's going on in BI? No way. They all use the BI authors as primary sources for their OR. Wilfred Brown (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to prove with this question. Independent scholars are expected to do Original Research in primary sources. Wikipedia editors are not. Wikipedia editors don't decide what primary sources are relevant or representative, they summarize what has been written by those who have published their original research. Agricolae (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What Agricolae said. Wilfred please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

NO, but it can as representative of what they say it is. So it become a question of weight.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Only for what that groups says it is, which should only be presented as representative of the larger movement if a secondary source lays it out as such. Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's the point "Primary sources may be appropriately used, if they are used without engaging in original research or synthesis and if in the event of conflicts between sources they are treated with the appropriate deference to the "better" source." The opinion that only secondary sources are allowed is contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines. My point is the BI authors themselves are the OR, and the secondary sources are simply acknowledging 'some' of those tenets. I don't need to come up with synthesis or OR... it's all right there. And I don't appreciate your threat Jytdog of getting 'tough' for simply stating my opinion on the matter. Wilfred Brown (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The "point" is that every policy and guideline calls us to use secondary sources for most everything we do. Yes we can use primary sources but with care. Not to build whole sections from. Bad things happen when people just do what they "can" and not what they should do, in general. You either will aim for the mission following the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines or you won't. Advocates always make the argument you are making here. There is nothing new under the sun here. Explaining to you how the community deals with advocates who waste everyone's time arguing edge cases, is not a threat. It is handing you a map. You can read it or not. In any case I am not spending more time on this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My argument is not unique, as Slatersteven is making the same point. It almost goes without saying that an article on British-Israel may need to reference the British-Israel authors who make the original claims. Are you suggesting, as example, that if a reliable secondary source can't be found that states "British-Israel adherents believe that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples are descended from the ten lost tribes" that we can't use a primary source instead? That's not advocacy, it's common sense... and same goes for a number of British-Israel claims. If these well known, well published British-Israel authors aren't experts on what British-Israelism is, then who? Dimont? Friedman? Parfitt? Wilfred Brown (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The key difference is that most of the authors in question are not saying what BIism believes, but what they themselves believe (as a follower of BIism), a subtle but important distinction. Even when they say 'this is what BIism believes', one has to be careful because it is all too common for authors to project their own personal beliefs onto a wider movement. This is why independent secondary sources are preferred. Agricolae (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) When you try to apply a Wikipedia policy such as OR to a 19th century proponent of BI, it only muddies the waters. The key caveat of the policy you quote is "without engaging in original research or synthesis", which is not just there to make the sentence more florid. Were one to quote a BI proponent saying 'Herotodus indicated that the Persians called the Scythians Scoloti and this shows that the Scots are Scythians' as a representative BI argument, it is actually a complex act, policy-wise. For what Herodotus said, you are using the BI writer as a secondary source (although perhaps an unreliable one if the misleading statements the 19th century BI writers said of Ptolomy's account of the Saxons are any indication). In conveying the interpretation made of Herodotus' statement by this one BI proponent, that it means the Scots are Scythians, you are using it as a primary source, and depending on context may be performing OR. In suggesting that this represents the beliefs of BI because this proponent said it, you would definitely be performing OR, and perhaps SYNTH. You may also be giving it UNDUE weight - you youself have complained that some of the arguments made in support of BI aren't really important, so how are we to know what is really important if we are basing what we say on primary sources? We can't. If we have a source saying that Poole's argument about the Hebrew origin of the word 'British' is indicative of the type of arguments BI proponents have made, then havign cited this secondary source we would then be justified under policy in citing Poole as a primary source to summarize his argument, but without the secondary source we are drawing our own conclusions with regard to its importance, representative nature and due weight, and thus running afoul of the explicit limitation of the policy you have quoted on using primary sources. Agricolae (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Other Scythian names

The Scythians (/ˈsɪθi.ən/ or /ˈsɪði.ən/; from Greek Σκύθης, Σκύθοι), also known as Scyth, Saka, Sakae, Sacae, Sai, Iskuzai, or Askuzai Wilfred Brown (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have a point, make it. Agricolae (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Royal family

We mention the descent of the royal family from David in the lead, then never again. If this is truly so important, then it shoouldn't be too hard to create a short entry for it under Tenets. If not, then perhaps the statement doesn't need to be in the lead, and should be moved down to the body (again, probably under tenets). Has anyone seen anything that highlights this claim? Agricolae (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The latter I think.Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and demoted it - it can be bumped back up if appropriate cites surface. Agricolae (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Huge research into this, might write something with refs. I might upload a few images of the huge family trees I have. Scynthian (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as it is from RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) No, don't. Given that independent secondary sources that cover BI don't see fit to mention any details of them at all, it would be WP:UNDUE (and probably WP:NOR) to present anything more than what is already given. It is not good enough to be able to put together such a tree (which you have), nor for a BI enthusiast to have published such a tree (which they have) - you would need a source independent of the movement that gives such a tree when talking about BI for it to even be worthy of consideration. Agricolae (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

please bring any suggested text and sources here first. You know you have a COI.Doug Weller talk 11:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC) @Scynthian: pinging. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, it is in one of the public museums in London. Scynthian (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This in no way assuages my concerns. Such genealogies are notoriously unreliable (indeed, it is the consensus among scholarly genealogists that all such Descents from antiquity are at best uncertain and at worst outright fraud: there are no such descents for any of the European royalty that are considered valid). Likewise, a genealogical chart hanging in a museum is only relevant to BI if independent secondary sources describing BI have discussed in detail that specific line of descent, and they haven't. Agricolae (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Which museum?Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not in display in museums anymore. But are kept in Windsor Castle, and I can even give you a reference number for the dep of manuscripts in London, MSS 43968 Scynthian (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You left out some important parts of that citation. The repository is always a useful piece of informtion when describing a manuscript, in this case, the British Library. Likewise, you have only given a partical reference number - the full number is ADD MSS 43968. The BL catalogue describes the succession it details as "partly fabulous" (fabulous as in 'the stuff of fables', not 'spectacular'), and mentions its portrayal of coats of arms, "real or imaginary", of the kings from Ecgbert. Not exactly a reliable source, then. [1] Here is the problem when using a chart as source - without accompanying text or other explanation, you can't tell what is being conveyed. Is the compiler trying to give authentic ancestry, is he trying to give a historical perspective by portraying what those silly people back in the time of Geoffrey of Monmouth believed, is he letting his own imagination run free in order to flatter the royal family (to whom the chart would eventually be presented)? You just don't know, so you can't assume reliability was even intended, let alone achieved. Agricolae (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That comment is personal, rude and rude to His Royal Highness. It should be used as like every other source. Scynthian (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That comment is about a document (and it's compiler), not any member of the royal family.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Few of us care about being rude to whatever royal family member Scynthian had in mine, and if that's the document it was compiled by William Courthope. In any case a family tree in the article would be inappropriate. At most we'd mention its existence. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think(yes) a mention that BIists have complied dodgy genealogies would be fine. But we have to reflect what RS say about it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Except the chart is dated to about 1830, which predates full-fledged BIism. It would be more accurate to say BIists drew their inspiration from dodgy genealogies, but as you indicate, to be included we would want a reliable secondary source that this was the case. Note to Scynthian: There was nothing personal or rude in what I said, I just explored the varied motivations of pedigree compilers (accuracy, documenting what they find independent of accuracy, flattery, and I left out over-enthusiasm) that have long precedent in genealogy. It is vaguely insulting to have it suggested that is the best I could come up with - if I was intending lèse majesté, you would certainly know it. Agricolae (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Chief Rabbi

The letter from the Chief Rabbi of England was removed, this was a source that adds more detail to the beliefs of British-Israelists. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We use secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That was a secondary source, the book quoted the letter. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

see above. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Edward Hine

Was was his books removed? He was a prominent writer and wrote books before Richard Brothers did. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

the source did not support the content. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a book that talk about British-Israelism, and also quotes Josephus, therefore, citing that there are books that quote Josephus. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"secondary source" =/= "book" Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a secondary source, not a primary source. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

We went over this during the extensive discussions several months ago. If Hine says it in his book, it is evidence that Hine, a proponent of British Israelism, held this belief. The problem is that British Israelism as a unified concept is not just the sum total of each of the quirky personal beliefs of individual practitioners. To present a belief as a tenet of British Israelism, we need someone to specify that a belief presented by Hine is representative of the movement as a whole. Agricolae (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You argue that Hine wrote before Brothers, but Hine wasn't even born until a year after Brothers died, this seems unlikely to have been the case (unless Hine had a time machine or Brothers narrated his work posthumously via a medium. Agricolae (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If a belief is actually BI

If a belief is listed and has a book from Covenant Publishing Co. Ltd., then that book is recognised as a legit belief because The Covenant Publishing Co. Ltd. is the publishing company for The British-Israel-World Federation. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't use in-bubble refs like this. They are primary. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you read those books? They all use quotations and references and talk about History, they aren't Primary. Perrtyo1719 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What is in-bubble refs?

In the BI "bubble" of belief. Not independent. They are primary for BI beliefs. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If we want to add a belief from BI, we would need to add a verified BIWF resource. Without putting their own material that makes it impossible. How is this wikipedia article going to have correct information about what the group believes in? Perrtyo1719 (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If BI books are in-bubble, then what about Christianity? Books about Christianity are by Christian authors, non-Christian authors generally would have an agenda to write false information against Christianity because they aren't Christian. See how stupid this is? Perrtyo1719 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is a Christian?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, non-Christians would have an agenda against Christianity... Perrtyo1719 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually I partially agree with you, BIF beliefs need only to be sourced to them, but we also need to make it clear they are just beliefs not facts. But yes they are still primary sources (which we can use for the authors opinions). But the rest of what you says is (frankly) tosh, there is no evidence that all non-Christian writers are anti-christian. Even Dawkins is not anti-christian, he is anti-religion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Perrtyo1719: Please abandon the idea that we can't use sources for articles related to the religion that are not by believers in the religion. The idea that non-Christian writers would probably be liars flies in the face of reality, and if you continue to take that stance you won't be happy here because it's against our policies. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Perrtyo meant that rhetorically as an argument that British Israelist sources on the topic are just as reliable as non-BI sources. 24.185.241.203 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That does not stop it being a false analogy. By it's very nature a BI source is wring from a BI is true perspective, a non Christian source however is not automatically anti-Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Anglican Church

The article mentions that Newman thought the (laughable) ideology of British Israelism might take over the Anglican church completely, but it doesn't name and shame which specific clerics within the Anglican church who bought into this and promoted it. Any prominent bishops, archbishops? Is it only Anglicanism that this ideology became widespread in? What about other established English sects? Also we need to delve into the ecumenical relationship between Anglicanism and Judaism and what role, if any, British Israelism had on its developments. Claíomh Solais (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

|An advisor to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is actually of Anglo-Israel belief. This is one prime example, as well as many other prominent members of the Anglican church, believe in such belief, but many don't want to risk their position as it is such a controversial topic. FrederickvanDyke (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Other British Israel churches

There are a number of pentacostal denominations in Australia that are or were teaching this doctrine. Christian Revival crusade, abundant life Centre. Adelaide revival centre. 124.169.238.116 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:v, we need wp:rs to say this for us to include it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary movement

I removed the recently added sentence regarding Shane Vaughn for now. While the what he says via the source would fall into British Israelism, the source would not likely pass as WP:RS. Additionally, I don't find much reference to him other than self published and blog-type sources - nothing academic. I'll agree that there does seem to be a resurgence of BI belief systems along with the Armstrongism of former WCoG churches, and we could probably work on expanding the contemporary movement section to include more modern iterations; but right now it's simply WP:FRINGE without a decent source. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoreligious?

Why is this pejorative being used? It is a religious belief... I don't know how to add tags and I know I'll get spanked if I edit a lede, but someone needs to look at this. You can like it or not like it, but this is a religious belief.. noone gets to label someone else's religious beliefs "pseudo-religious." Mercster (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

noone gets to label someone else's religious beliefs "pseudo-religious." - sure they do. Just because something is a pejorative doesn't mean it shouldn't be used if it fits. If you're going to argue that BI meets criteria to not be called pseudoreligious, you're going to need to put forth a much more cogent argument than that. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. 220.76.183.4 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we go by what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

if a reliable source violates WPs neutrality policy you're not supposed to use it. 2601:601:51A:D1A:30DC:F336:5C68:7BD2 (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

False. While the article must maintain a neutral point of view, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. See: WP:BIASED ButlerBlog (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The negative epithets

The negative epithets in the introductory paragraph create a tone that violates WP's neutrality policy. You can explain what they believe without attributing your bias. 2601:601:51A:D1A:30DC:F336:5C68:7BD2 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:YWAB. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

1st tenet of british israelism is objectively right

>most israelites are not jews

yes that is a proven fact, see

judaica encyclopedia 1971

1925 jewish encyclopedia, vol.5 page 41

jewish almanac 1980, page 3 Tetrazhozen (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

oh yeah i forgot the page for judaica encyclopedia 1971, here it is

“Jews began to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860″ —Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol 10:23 Tetrazhozen (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This kind of dogwhistle is obvious, quit using your pseudo dumbing internet ideologues to influence an encylopedia research

Why bother using greentext even here? 180.253.10.158 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)