Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person


 * 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 SNOW delete. ÷seresin 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

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

I have declined a G4 speedy deletion request on this article. However, there is much that is similar between this article and the one that was deleted as a result of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep. While the author has in good faith rewritten his article and added references, it is still essentially a mass of synthesis, and the references used are not WP:reliable sources. Lady of  Shalott  15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thank you for considering this article again.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will approach it better this time having benefited from our previous discussions.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has been thoroughly rewritten. The basic outline is much the same but the quality of the referencing has been substantially improved.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded and mentions all viable alternative points of view. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep. Article is not substantially different and suffers from all the same problems. Verbal   chat  15:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with regrets. While there are additional references, the content very much is POV and would have to be significantly altered to a more neutral viewpoint if it were to be kept. Also, I myself am less than sure that the subject as is meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This article attempst to consider all view points. When a source does not reach the same conclusion as the article that source is not used to support the article's conclusion but is included to give perspective to the arguement.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This article does not contain synthesis WP says that synthesis is Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. This article does not do this. Please do not delete--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment - That's the thing though: you are developing a thesis. This is the very definition of synthesis. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Lady  of  Shalott  16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There were only 30 dynasties in Egypt and so we are talking about a finite number of possibilities. When we start to narrow them down by matching profiles then there are no other contenders who fit the bill. --Drnhawkins (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC) When it comes to dates, the main contenders are the 3rd dynasty of djoser and the 17th dynasty of Hyksos. These are world's apart, especially when the exodus is said to have been around the end of the 12th dynasty about 1445BC and Joseph preceded the exodus by 430 years.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) There are numerous articles on the web and in published books that conclude as I have. The number of reliable sources who have actually gone to Egypt, looked at the data, learned to read the heiroglyphics etc is somewhat limited.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I have produced have produced a handful of what I would call reliable sources. Reliable sources on this subject are few and far between. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve. I would ask you, what reliable sources can you produce to say that Joseph was not Imhotep? As an encyclopedia, would you rather avoid the issue or publish a balanced article that considers all views and leans towards the consensus. The consensus is leading strongly towards Joseph being Imhotep.--Drnhawkins (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that the consensus on this discussion is not to delete is based on non biased informed decisions. --Drnhawkins (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, not all published books qualify as reliable sources, as per that page. Basically, as I see it, this whole article presents a few problems right off the top: The article has a lot of varifiable content which should be sufficient to justify it's own article.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Regarding Notability, WP says: ''If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * (1) It assumes that the OT Joseph were a real, historical personage. This assumption, so far as I am aware, is one that not even a majority of Christians share. However, by acting on that assumption as a reality, the article is inherently violating WP:POV.
 * (2)It also goes further to make the assumption that there would be extant historical documents about that person which can be used to indicate his identity. This is a very weak assumption. The number of sources from the era is extremely limited, and far from comprehensive. If Joseph were a historical person, there is no necessary reason to believe that the few extant historical documents would even mention his name. Note that we didn't even have external proof of the existence of Pontius Pilate under about 100 years ago. To assume that we would have such documents regarding a personage several hundreds, if not thousands, of years earlier is untenable.
 * (3) The article if it were to be NPOV would have to present all sides of the discussion with basically equal weight. This article very clearly fails to meet that criteria.
 * (4) As stated above, this article as it exists is apparently trying to make an argument for something. Such would be a very clear violation of wikipedia policy. We do not write articles to try to prove anything. All we basically do, and are supposed to do, is repeat what others have said in reliable sources elsewhere.
 * It might, emphasis might, be possible to make an article about the Historicity of Joseph, if there were sufficient reliable sources as per WP:RS to establish notability as per WP:NOTABILITY. But that article would also have to present with equal weight the possibility that the story of Joseph is a total myth, that it may be the conflation of several different individuals into one story, etc., etc., etc. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also agree that we would have to be realistic in what we can achieve. I, and I believe the rest of wikipedia, would take that statement as being, basically, a statement that, if there aren't enough reliable sources establishing notability, then the content or article should not exist. There is no inherent need for wikipedia to have an article on everything, particularly if by so attempting we act contrary to the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. If, as I think might be true in this case, there isn't sufficient reliable information on the subject, then there isn't an article on that subject here. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It reads as a soapy personal essay with alot of original research. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.'' This article satisfies all these criteria.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Where is the oposition and what do they say and what reliable sources do they have? People who say that Joseph was not a real person are not quoting a reliable source, be primary or secondary.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The book of genesis in the Bible is a translation of some of the oldest and well preserved manuscripts written before and after the flood of Noah (estimated to be around 2500BC). It contains considerable historical information about the patriachs of Nations in the Middle East such as Abraham, Ishmael & Issac, Jacob & Esau, Judah and Joseph and many others.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This article cannot be considered original research. Historians and archaeologist have long identified these two characters. The major objection has been the discrepancy in the estimated dates. The revised article addresses this issue much better by explaining how Egyptian history has been stretched out far too much by incorrect assumptions like counting the same dynasty twice or not appreciating that two dynasties may be contemporary. Most historians have aready revised Egyptian origins down from 5000BC to 3000BC. New insights noted by reliable sources have now shown that Egyptian history can now be contracted by another 1000years which will bring it into line with the Bible and Mesopotamian history. This article uses reliable sources to address the issue of dates. It does not use synthesis and is not a POVFORK. The identification of Joseph with Imhotep is so longstanding and is so widely held and prevalent that it cannot be considered FRINGE. What's more, the article is not merely a rehash of the previous article. I have made a genuine attempt to find reliable sources to substantiate the article which has been written in the Neutral point of view. There are numerous articles written on this subject available to those who would like to do a google search.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Dates can only be imputed by tracing the genealogies of key figures in the Bible and knowing who their contemporaries were, how long they lived and how old they were when they produced their offspring. The genealogical records are not as extensive as one would like for these purposes and so the dates ascribed to various figures in the Bible are only estimates.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting but WP is a place for basic information, not advocacy. Any sourced information could be added to the articles on each man. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: article appears to consist of little (nothing?) more than WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. A brief mention of this theory may be appropriate in the parent articles, to the extent that it's supported by reliable sources; but this kind of in-depth coverage of a WP:FRINGE theory is not appropriate for Wikipedia.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is still WP:FRINGE material that does not derive from WP:RS. Were it just fringe nuttiness, it could be presented from a neutral POV, but it is presented from a position of advocacy, as is obvious from the very title.  The entire thing is predicated on a revisionary chronology that is only accepted by 'scholars' who are POV pushing, not mainstream. It is an opinion essay writ large, entirely dedicated to presenting an alternative interpretation to that accepted by mainstream scholars, without the slightest indication that this is the case - that most scholars think this interpretation is total BS. As such, it represents a prototypical POV fork.  Agricolae (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please consider for a moment: what if the article is right - wouldn't it be tragic to continue to treat these characters as separate individuals. What are the implications if you are wrong in not allowing this basic fact to be commonly known.--Drnhawkins (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Please give this article a trial for say six months to a year to guage reactions and to allow others to contribute.--Drnhawkins (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidence for the identification of Joseph and Imhotep is accumulating. If this theory proves correct, the appropriate thing to do is to merge the records of Joseph and Imhotep. For now, as it has not been proven beyond doubt, it is sufficient to have a separate article to deal with this topic. --Drnhawkins (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To omit is just as serious to include. So I emplore you to do what is right. --Drnhawkins (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The case for is much stronger than the case against. To suppress true information is just as serious as spreading false information. Please do what is right. --Drnhawkins (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Asserting your opinions as fact is not helpful. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - this appears to be a clear-cut case of synthesis. I'd suggest to the article's creator that if they want to see this material online they should start their own website, as it doesn't fit into Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not a web host. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

To reduce this article to a one or two line reference in the articles on Imhotep or Joseph at this point in time will just antagonize people who disagree. It needs to be accompanied by a full explanation. As such, it deserves it's own article. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC) people who belief this article is synthesis is are not quoting reliable sources and are of questionable neutrality. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically this article asserts that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. This is a widely held belief in religious circles because religious people have no trouble with the Bible as a historical document. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop making demonstratably false statements. If this were a widely held belief you be able to produce reliable sources supporting it. It is a fringe belief and based on your lack of sources supporting the belief, it is a non-notable fringe belief.Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if you do not believe the Bible is true, you will have trouble believing that this article is true. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

People who disagree with it are really disagreeing with the Bible upon which this article heavily depends.--Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly explained before, one's belief in the accuracy of the Bible has nothing to do with the issue. Absolutely nothing in the Bible says that Joseph is Imhotep.  The majority of Bible-believing Christians do not agree with you and I expect most Christian would find your acting as a self-appointed spokesman for them to be offensive at best.  I certainly do. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was not for the Bible, we would not even know about Joseph and this discussion would not be taking place. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bible as a Historical Document
The book of genesis in the Bible is a translation of some of the oldest and well preserved manuscripts written before and after the flood of Noah (estimated to be around 2500BC). It contains considerable historical information about the patriachs of Nations in the Middle East such as Abraham, Ishmael & Issac, Jacob & Esau, Judah and Joseph and many others.

Dates can only be imputed by tracing the genealogies of key figures in the Bible and knowing who their contemporaries were, how long they lived and how old they were when they produced their offspring. The genealogical records are not as extensive as one would like for these purposes and so the dates ascribed to various figures in the Bible are only estimates. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. For well over 3,000 years, Joseph and Imhotep were not believed to have any connection with each other. Thus, I don't believe that any harm will result from deleting this article at this time. If the view that Joseph and Imhotep were the same person becomes more commonly known (it does not have to achieve universal or even majority acceptance, just become a prominent and well-known opinion), we can re-create the article later. I also question whether the belief that Joseph and Imhotep were the same is widely held in religious circles, given that Imhotep is not mentioned in the Bible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are 4000 years since Joseph and Imhotep. That's a lot of time that that they have been considered the same person. It is not hard to see how their connection got lost!--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you moved to China, would you still be called by the same name? There is a Chinese equivalent for most anglicized names. Many people would just choose a new name or be given one. The same is true of Joseph / Imhotep Egyptians knew him as Imhotep and Hebrews knew him as Joseph --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph was a very prominent figure in egyptian history - why doesn't he figure in it??
If Joseph was placed second in charge of Egypt by Pharaoh, there should be some note of this in Egyptian records. [1] Joseph helped to save Egypt and the surrounding nations from a famine lasting seven years. [2] Joseph would have had to construct massive grain silos for storing grain in many Egyptian cities and indeed, massive silos can be found in many historical significant Egyptian cities today (eg Saqqara). Joseph married the daugher of one of the High Priests in Egypt. [1] He saved his country from a seven year famine and brought up all the land of Egypt except for that of the priests who did not need to sell their land because Pharaoh supplied them with food. The people became loyal subjects of Pharaoh because of what Joseph had done. [3] Joseph was, therefore, responsible for making the Pharaoh's wealthy and powerful. [11] Joseph served the Pharaohs from the age of thirty. [1] He died at the age of 110 years of age and was given a Royal Egyptian burial. [46] It is quite possible that he may have been involved with the design of the first and maybe the second pyramid. His family, the descendants of Jacob (Israel), produced mud bricks and became numerous in number in the 430 years that they lived in Egypt. There were over 600 thousand adult males (not counting women and children) who were lead out of Egypt by Moses during a time of great disaster in Egypt. [47] With a list of accomplishments like this, it would be hard to conceive that Joseph would not be mentioned in Egyptian heiroglyphics or memorialized some other way. --Drnhawkins (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer is - '''he does figure in Egyptian history. He was known as Imhotep by the Egyptians.'''--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please give this article a trial for 6-12 months
give other people a chance to comment on the discussion pages and make changes to the article when there is a consensus.

Isn't this what Wikipedia is all about???

--Drnhawkins (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and also has POV issues, not to mention the creator appears to have COI issues. Skinny87 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is this article simply an enhanced but not improved version of the first deleted article, it is the very model of a WP:SYN.WP:OR article, full of self-published sources (some fringe of fringe), an attempt to use the Bible as a historical doocument, an attempt to argue a particular point in a way that makes it look like anything but an encyclopedic article, a lack of understanding of Egyptology, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not quote any reliable sources to substantiate your views. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to close as Delete
Per WP:SNOW - The only keep (although they haven't !voted or presented policy reasons) is from the article creator, and all other !votes are delete, plus the previous AfD. Verbal  chat  12:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Not Delete based on truth and principle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnhawkins (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have any wikipedia policies or guidelines that back up your position? Verbal   chat

At least the world will know where wikipedia stands so far as the Bible is concerned. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The world can easily know if they read our policies and guidelines. Deletion of an article using such fringe and self-published sources would occur even if the Bible hadn't been mentioned. Was this the purpose of the article all along? Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the article has always been to say that the Hebrew Joseph mentioned in the Bible is the same person as Imhotep mentioned in Egyptian history. I am not trying to achieve anything more than that. If it is true it should be in an encyclopedia. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Imhotep/Joseph is an anchor point for historians to tie together the history of Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia.--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "At least the world will know where wikipedia stands so far as the Bible is concerned." Wikipedia has no opinion on the Bible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The matter at hand is the notability or lack thereof of the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not a soabox for religion or fringe theories.   Dloh  cierekim  13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * delete per above fine arguments Creator appears to be out to promote "The TruthTM" as they see it. There is no WP:RS supporting this for an encyclopedia article. he has synthesized and and Original researched his way to a winderful thesis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a publisher of synthesized, original researched theses. That the article mentions "other points of view" just makes it-- a thesis. Other editors have already given good reasons for delete. No policy based argument has been made to keep.   Dloh  cierekim  14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted non-notable fringe theory. Salt  The article creator is highly problematic as he repeatedly ignores concensus or indeed any and all attempts explain reliable sources, fringe theories, etc, etc.  His attempts to turn this into a religious issue, when it has nothing to do with religion are troubling.  His attempting to act as a self-appointed spokesmen for Christians is troubling as well, frankly offensive, and seems a deliberate attempt to cloak personal opinions with some sort of moral authority.  14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been amended
The article has been amended to read more like an encyclopedia article than a thesis. It is not original research.

The Bible says that Joseph went to Egypt and was appointed by the pharaoh to be in charge of all Egypt. Joseph stored up grain and so saved Egypt. He was able to buy all the land for pharaoh except that of the priest's by selling grain and so the pharaohs became wealthy and the people became his subjects. Pharaoh invited Joseph's family to come and stay in Egypt where they grew to become the nation of Israel over the next 430 years. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One would expect Joseph to be mentioned in Egyptian history. The Egyptians, however, knew him as Imhotep.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The profile of Imhotep matches that of Joseph remarkably well--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This article presents the evidence to say that the Joseph of the Bible is the Imhotep of Egyptian history.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All the information is varifiable from reliable sources even though I have quoted some sites that are 'self published' --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have quoted numerous reliable sources that draw the same conclusions with the arguments stated.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Therefore, it is not synthesis. --Drnhawkins (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not said that the Bible identifies Imhotep as Joseph.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What I have said is that if Joseph was Imhotep, Egyptian history would be consistent with the Bible.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again. This is original research and synthesis of information. It is not encyclopedic information covered by reliable, third party sources. While interesting as a theory and a thesis, it has no place in an encyclopedia.173.171.151.171 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So called 'reliable third party sources' do not like (and exclude) historians and archaeologists who believe in GOD
This is not 'fair' as most of what you call 'reliable third party sources' exclude material that supports the idea that there is a God.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Please stop making new sections and keep your comments together. Most of these don't belong here. Verbal   chat  15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete It appears to be snowing; you have one editor (the author) commenting over and over again making no new claims to notability. Clearly an extremely fringe viewpoint, with an article made up of original research synthesis, some balsa wood and some glue. Whether the actual sources are reliable (and many are not; the last one is to Wikipedia itself!) is neither here nor there; the topic itself is apparently not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:48, 31 May 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.