Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep


 * 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   WP:SNOW delete, no need to continue this any longer. Fram (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a POV fork with extreme WP:FRINGE views from sources that fail WP:RS rules quite dramatically. It was created after the claims were removed from the main Imhotep article as not meeting our criteria and for violating the WP:UNDUE weight clause of the WP:NPOV policy. It's completely unsalvageable.

this article was deliberately created as a separate subordinate page linking to the other articles so as not to hijack the theme or purpose of the other articles and so as not to repeat info that is in them. It is not misleading or unintentional. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is about Biblical characters and so it is important to be able to quote the Bible.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

many of my comments have been erased or reverted. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Please see older versions.

maybe wikipedia is not the best place to look for information if you believe in God--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How dare you, sir? Many of us here are strong in our faiths. That does not give us license to disobey all the rules and principles by which this project operates and continues to operate! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I am just wasting my time--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is written with the claim that the Bible is true (on Talk:Imhotep, the editor who created this article made the argument that "the Bible is the most reliable source there is") and that his interpretation is the only reasonable one. There is a huge long list of supposed sources and links, but the vast majority of them have absolutely nothing to do witht he claim that these two people were the same: they jst have background knowledge on the topic in general. The only source making the claim that these two are the same is an obscure fringe author whose book was published by a small press whose works all fail WP:RS. DreamGuy (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether or not one believes the Bible is true has nothing to do with this article.  The article creator's claims are not backed by  the Bible or any other source, save for the obscure fringe author mentioned.  Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:OR-filled fringe crap. The few actual sources fail WP:RS by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - this article is synthesis in the extreme. Lady  of  Shalott  14:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  14:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have notified the article creator of this discussion. It would have been polite for the nominator to have done so. Lady  of  Shalott  15:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article creator was well aware from discussion on Imhotep that if he created an article with the content he was proposing that it'd be deleted, and he was already aware of and responded to the speedy deletion tag and was active on the article so would have seen the new tag. He was well informed of what all was going on even if I didn't place a template on his talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - for reasons expressed above. Article is WP:OR by synthesis. With the exception of a few non-reliable web pages, the article is drawn from a single source from antiquity which makes no claim similar to that presented in the article.  It is POV, and given its history, a POV fork.  Cleanup is not a viable option, as the topic itself is WP:FRINGE. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's actually an interesting read and probably would make the start of a freshmen year comparative religion paper, but it's not an encyclopedic article. Falls under WP:OR and related rules.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  (UTC) of  Shalott  15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Why not put it in the list of Islam related deletion discussions too.  You are insulting them aswell when you say that the Bible, the Torah and the Koran are not a reliable sources. --Drnhawkins (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009
 * I'm sorry you are offended then. When you come to Wikipedia, however, you follow our rules. Our rules do not consider a book that 1) is filled with stuff that makes no logical sense, 2) has been edited tons of times over the years and 3) isn't even in its original language, causing translation errors, to be reliable. In addition you can't say that the Koran, Torah and Bible are all reliable sources as they conflict on many points. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been telling the editor all along it is original research/synthesis. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In any case, this article is about correlating the Joseph of the Bible with Egyptian historical figures. Surely, I should be able to quote the bible and reliable sources of Egyptian history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnhawkins (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Clearly the article at present cannot be kept, but a quick search indicates there is a lot of debate about this theory. I don't know enough about the subject, but are there any reliable sources that talk about the theory? Because there are so many results when I search, it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. (Even if it's just to say "Some fringe theorists say Imhotep and Joseph were the same person, but they're not. Here's why.....") In other words, just because something is a crackpot idea, doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it, provided adequate sources can be found. Quantpole (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. --Folantin (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

this is my third and final attempt to justify this article - it is 2:30 in am and I have to work tomorrow - so please do not delete
 * The Case for not deleting

I do not think I need to justify the notablity of this article. I think most people will realise it's significants.

As regards to the reliability of sources, I contend that the Bible can be used as the historical records of Israel and there is no other document of that age that has so many copies in circulation. The Book in question is Genesis which is the first book of the Bible. The chapters in question are not mythical fictional or symbolic. They are concern the patriachs of Israel.

Many of the Egyptian heiroglyphic records have been lost of destroyed and are incomplete. They have been peiced together like a jigsaw puzzle and there are many missing pieces. There are however many reliable sources about what does exist.

In trying to decide whether Imhotep and Joseph were the same person, I would ask you, what are the implications for Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Egyptian history if the answer is yes or no.

If the answer is yes, then the Egyptians have to rearrange the Jigsaw. Will they like it? Who knows. If the answer is no then Christians, Jews and Muslims will have to keep trusting that Genesis is true without knowing why Joseph never made it into the history books in Egypt.

The bottom line is, do you rely more on comparing credentials of Joseph and Imotep for which there are many reliable sources or on the somewhat unreliable guestimates of various historians as to how old this person or that pyramid is.

sorry but have to go to bed. Please please do not delete. May not be able to continue for a few days.

Will be happy if article is incorporated into another but structure should stay the same.

Maybe best to stand alone until there is more concensus

--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't given any Wikipedia policies. How important this "topic" is isn't the question; the reliability of the sources is. The bible is not considered a reliable source, as you have been told. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

give me an example of something from that era that is more reliable than the bible. --Drnhawkins (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The reliablity of the Bible is absolutely irrelevant to the subject of this article.  The Bible does not even mention the central claim of this article, nor do any ancient sources.  Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I think Drnhawkins does not yet understand the difference in meaning of "notability" as used in standard English and notability as used in Wikipedia jargon. In Wikipedia jargon, "notability" has very, very little to to with importance. Lady  of  Shalott  17:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will add that the editor is working from a translation, and not the original texts. So this article is based on an interpretation of a derivative bible, and not the original.  This article is interpretation of interpretation and therefore highly speculative OR.  Hence the need for an external, authoritative/expert, and verifiable source supporting the points made in the article.Mattnad (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

please give me some time to answer -

It comes down to comparison of credentials / achievements etc vs guestimates of dates. The discussion will be profitable.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bible is not considered a reliable source. Most books that talk about big beardy men in the sky are classified as "fiction" to start with. A reliable source is one published by a reputable publisher and reputable author, not one published because lots and lots of people believe it was written by said beardy guy or one of his chums. To quote WP:RS; "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The bible doesn't fall into this; its been rewritten a dozen times, and unless you believe that the bible is the True Word of God (tm) and the most reliable source in the universe (a belief that isn't counted as fact by Wikipedia) it isn't a RS. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

what then is a reliable source for that era? why don't we just leave it open so other people can consider the facts and decide for them selve which way they want to lean? --Drnhawkins (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD is "leaving it open"; editors can consider the facts and decide whether this is a load of synthesised garbage. There are very few reputable sources from that period, although there are a few that are thousands of years old; Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, for example. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bible can never be used as a source for history, that isn't up for debate. I'm sure you know many Biblical scholars think it was written after the period in question in any case, but that's another issue. Wikipedia isn't some sort of web forum, it is an encyclopedia reporting what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about a subject, and you've been pointed to the relevant policies and guidelines. Those sources need to discuss the subject, in this case your claim that Imhotep was actually someone named Joseph. You can't put together various sources that don't make the comparison the way you might do in a thesis. And until your arguments  that this article should be kept are based on our policies and guidelines, they are more or less invisible for all practical purposes. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What you need is a reliable source that draws the connection you're making in the article. That's what we're asking for.  The bible does not explicitly say Joseph was Imhotep.  Therefore it's not a source that supports your article's central theory. As others have already mentioned, we need published scholarship, and not a fringe viewpoint.  By the way, even if we were to allow the bible as a source (and we cannot under Wikipedia rules), for a reliable source from the era, you can do a lot better than an English translation.  Most scholars prefer going back to the earliest texts they can find.  That said, I personally like the Oxford Annotated Bible  which tries to explain the sources. Mattnad (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete POV Fork and OR. The justification in the paragraphs above not to delete was itself OR and not the required citations from other external works.--Jayrav (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:POVFORK, take your pick. ukexpat (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - A prime example of original research and synthesis. Unsalvageable POV, and I concur with the nom that the sources are not reliable. — neuro  (talk)  00:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete   the interpretation of the Bible for historical purposes requires research. The extrapolation in this article is very far from the sort of combination of obvious facts that is acceptable as part of a Wikipedia article. If by any chance some actual person has discussed the similarities, then it might be possible to write an article, but it would need to be based upon the sources found. DGG (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per original research and synthesis. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an independent source. I am not claiming original research. --Drnhawkins (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The most important source that directly asserts that Joseph and Imhotep were one in the same person was the Biblical Acheologist Ron Wyatt. --Drnhawkins (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wyatt is regarded by many as an Ametuer archaeologist and and several editors have unfairly branded him as an unreliable source. --Drnhawkins (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please state why you consider this accomplished archaeologist as an unreliable source.--Drnhawkins (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He was recognised by the Israel Government for his finding the true Mount Sinai in Arabia and the site of the Red Sea Crossing at Nuweiba Beach, Gulf of Aqaba. (And hence the route of the exodus). His team was and is the only archaeological team that the Israeli government has permitted to excavate the rather sacred Calvary Escarpment. The Israel Government, department of antiqities has allowed the Wyatt museum to reopen Ron's previous explorations some 20 years after he claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant. His team has also been privilaged to conduct investigations at the Garden Toomb. Why would the Israel government do this if his works have been discredited? --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He has devoted much of his life to archaeological expeditions and has made several important discoveries. His work was recognised by the Turkish Government after he varified that the huge petrified boat shaped object on found near Mt Ararat was not only man made but had the right dementions and the right constituents to be the remains of Noah's Ark.


 * Ron Wyatt and his two sons were imprisoned by the Jordanians for taking photos of what is now recognised as Mount Sinai. Ron Wyatt identified the important artifacts in this area that prove the Isralites occupied the surrounding valley.  This was before it was fenced off by the Arabian authorities.  --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would you regard a man with these credentials as an unreliable source?--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he was an amateur hack, most of the academic world things his claims were essentially bullshit, and even his own religious group think largely the same way? Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)	+

You are violating wikipedia etiquit. Could you please quote a reliable source for this--Drnhawkins (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not violating any etiquette. Check out this, this, this and this. Now that I've provided a reliable source, would you mind doing the same? Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure these are reliable sources that are well referenced?--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No real need for all this I think. Drnhawkins probably knows that Joe Zias (who I've just been chatting to by email about this) who was working for the IAA at the time has discredited Wyatt's claims as a hoax. The Standish's document a lot of Wyatt's frauds in their book Holy Relics of Revelation. There is no point discussing whether Wyatt can be used as a RS as the case against him is crystal clear. If anyone wants to continue this, please don't do it here but go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at WP:RSN but there really is no point. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So much for WP policy about being respectful and polite and not defaming people. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am an independent editor. I am not claiming original research WP:OR. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not puting together information from various sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. I am not violating the synthesis policy of WP. To do this, I will have to cite Ron Wyatt and justify why he is a reliable source on this topic.


 * At this point in time, this article may be considered a WP:FRINGE but this in itself should not justify deletion given the article itself acknowledges this and there are no other eminent egyptian historical figures that match Joseph's credentials and achievements and that given Joseph's achievements, one would expect to find such a figure in the Egyptian History. Nobody to my knowledge is offering another Egyptian Personage to be Joseph's equivalent.Drnhawkins

He is ridiculed for being wrong. Most of the seven-day adventists who initially supported him think his claims are bullshit; religion has nothing to do with it. Please structure your posts in the same way as everyone else; it is getting impossible to follow what you are saying. Ironholds (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody who maintains that Joseph was not a real person is not quoting a reliable source WP:RS.--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When has anyone said he is not a real person? Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is written in the neutral point of view WP:NPOV. It basically says that the candidates for Joseph include Imhotep or an unknown figure in a later dynasty and goes on to discuss the problems with each of these views. --Drnhawkins (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I maintain that this is a neutral artical that represents all considered opinions. It is not in violation of the WP:UNDUE policy. It contains links to the Imhotep articl and the Joseph (hebrew) article to save repeating information that is in these articles but not central to the topic.  The article indicates that Joseph's egyptian equivalent is either unknown or he was Imhotep.  The fact that Joseph existed is based upon using the Bible as a reliable source WP:RS of historical events and genealogies.  --Drnhawkins (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to argue that Ron Wyatt is a reliable source WP:RS. He is an eminent archaeologist who is ridiculed because he believes in God and believes the Bible is True.  He has made important discoveries that have been acknowledged by the Israel government and the Turkish Government and event the Jordanian authorities.  (see below)  His discovery of the True Mount Sinai is even recognised by Google Earth.  Just look it up on google earth and you will be at Jabel Lawz (the one that Mr Wyatt found and documented and went to jail for photographing).  If you go on tours of the middle east and Egypt, you will be find that even the commoners are coming to accept that the Real Mount Sinai is in Arabia and the site of the Red Sea Crossing is right where Mr Wyatt claimed it to be after he discovered chariot wheels on the sea bed (covered with coral) directly in line with the only feasible route that Moses could have travelled to get to Mt Sinai from Succorreth.Drnhawkins
 * His claims of finding the Ark of the covenant in a natural cavern connected with caves that go under the calvary escarpment (and also link to tunnels that go underneath the temple mount) have not been disproven. A likely explanation is that his discoveries were supressed by the Israel government at the time.  Now Israelies claim to have the Ark in their possession and Ron's Excavations have been reopened to reveal the cavern that the Ark was said to be in is full of rubbel, thus explaining why it was not detectable by radar and electrical resistance methods.  His reputation suffered because he was not able to produce the Goods and his church was not willing to risk it's reputation to stand by him.  --Drnhawkins (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, this does not belong here. Take it to WP:RSN. You are making a mess of this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, you will have to justify why he is a RS. I don't see any evidence of you having done that so far. Ironholds (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article seems to be based, to the extant that it actually is based on anything, a single source who may well not meet WP:RS standards. Regarding the various claims that source has made, the fact that they have not been disproven by others is irrelevant. They would have to be proven by him to qualify as reliable, and they have not been so proven. Article as is probably doesn't even meet WP:NOTABILITY standards, and any content which can be verified as per RS could probably be easily added to other pages. I would be willing to see content Userfyed for editor to work on, on the expectation that no content be added to mainspace from it without getting consensus from other interested editors. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This started in his userspace, in fact the original userspace is now a redirect from here, which I think may be a misuse of redirect. The article in userspace shows up on Google and I am not happy with that. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That a redirect was created is an artifact of the page move process; the redirect is automatically created, and exists until and unless someone manually changes it. Lady  of  Shalott  15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have given Drnhawkins an only warning for removal of content from this article, including Delete !Votes. When I earlier restored content he'd removed I'd assumed Good Faith, I can no longer do that since he's removed content again. If he does it again I'll take him to ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Even though that said "only warning", I backed it up with my own comment emphasizing that removing others' comments is not allowed. Lady  of  Shalott  15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the page is userfyed, there will be no redirect to it from mainspace. Should it still appear in google searches, a separate MfD for it could be made then. And I also agree that any further deletion of any comments will result in that party being blocked. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong, Speedy, Delete a mass of WP:OR. Echoing comments above, the truth (or not) of the Bible is irrelevant, as the Bible doesn't support this WP:FRINGE rubbish. We need WP:RS, and there isn't any. Sir Verbal   chat  16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible delete - Original research, NPOV fork, etc. - the creator totally fails to understand the purpose of this project, the rules under which we operate, etc. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you would rather put my artical other pages so it does not violate the NPOV fork then that is ok with me but it may disrupt the flow of these articles. As such it is not misleading or deceptive as it is subordinate and links to these articles. I think it deserves to be an article of it's own unless you want to combine Imotep and Joseph into one article aswell. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I am new to wikipedia, I will not do it again. I thought it was ok because other have deleted mine. I thought I would tidy up the article once I had addressed their issue. Sorry. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete my article then feel free. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This verges on WP:OR. It is an attempt to link together two people who must have lived centuries apart.  Views differ on the date of the Exodus, but it was 1200 or 1400 BC approximately.  Joseph was a few generations earlier, conceivably as much as 200 years.  The article says that Imhotep lived in 2400 BC.  It is thus obvious that the two people cannot be identical.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this material has not been included on other articles for precisely the same reason that this one should be deleted - because it is original research. I certainly understand the editor's confusion, as he has provided sources.  But the reliance entirely on primary sources, combined with conjecture, is exactly how synthesis is produced, and it should be published by a reliable publisher before arriving on WP.  I hope that Drnhawkins will not take this as a discouragement to editing, or a bias against religion.  Athanasius1 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2009 (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.