Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt

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

The result of the discussion was  Delete. --RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt


This is a userspace draft of an article that is pure original research on a fringe topic. It has been hanging around in userspace for a couple of years now, but this is not something that is ever going to be able to be turned into a viable article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for someone's pet ideas. Lady of  Shalott  14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research not at all compatable with the project. Refer the user to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obvious Original Research.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 19:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is part of a series of articles. Each article in the series will add more weight, backup and support the others. I am certainly not the first to suggest that Joseph was Imhotep and so this cannot be considered original research. The title of this artical is an "Alternative" view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt which which is realy modest considering I consider this to be the correct view. People who object to this article do so on the basis of dating of Egyptian dynasties using pottery found with the artifacts. Some Egyptian dynasties have been counted twice and some ran in parallel. The dates of Egyptian dynasties continues to be revised down. Speaking of reliable sources, the undated Egyptian glyphs recorded on stone cannot be reliably sequenced, let alone interpreted anywhere near as reliably as the genealogies recorded on papyrus in the Bible. To put it simply, nobody can say that writen Israelite records on papyrus are less reliable than glyphic Egyptian records on stone. If they cannot be reconciled, then all the alternatives should be considered. At this point in time, it is not unreasonable to have a separate article for each alternative.

Please do not delete this article, at least until I have finished the series.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The correlation of Egyptian, Israelite and Mesopotamian ancient history is of interest to all and central to our understanding of our origins. It is definitely not fringe! --Drnhawkins (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the efforts of other editors this editor still does not accept or perhaps understand our policies on sources and original research. We don't use other articles to 'add more weight, backup and support the others'. We don't use sources that don't discuss the subject to build up an argument (WP:NOR. If created this would just be a POV fork: we do not have 'separate articles for each alternative' about a subject and would go straight to AfD. This isn't what userspace is for. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator and Dougwellers reasoning. Pure OR on a fringe topic that seeks to split off from existing articles. If user wants to publish his "ideas", he should take it elsewhere.  He  iro  17:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete. The main reason for objecting to this artical is that you call it original research because you say the sources are not reliable. There is no source on this subject that is more reliable than the Bible itself which contains the historical records of Israel, which are spelt out in words. The genealogies are complete and the age at which they gave birth to their offspring is recorded in the Bible. It is not mythical. A new diagram has been added which shows how the date of Abraham, Joseph and even the Flood can be calculated. Dates given in this diagram are based on the ages and genealogies given in the Bible. This chart differs slightly from those of other Biblical scholars in that the dates before the Exodus have been moved back by about 215 years. Many scholars have only allowed for 215 years of Egyptian slavery for the Israelites. The Bible actualy says that the Israelites were in Egypt for a period of 430 years (Exodus 12:40). It can be calculated from the dates given in the Bible (Genesis Ch 11), that the flood occurred 582 years before Jacob entered Egypt (Jacob was 130 yrs old when he entered Egypt and Abraham was 100yrs old when he had Issac and Issac 60 yrs old when he had Jacob). Archaelogical evidence is increasingly pointing to the Exodus being in the 13th Egyptian Dynasty in 1445BC and this is confirmed by the Bible which says that Solomon began building the temple 480yrs after the Exodus (1Kings 6:1). If the Exodus date is correct, the flood of Noah would have occured around 2457 BC (1445+430+582). Using the Modern Chronology proposed by Ashton and Down, Egyptian Dynasties correlate well with the Bible and there is ample archaeological evidence for the existance of the Jews in the period stated. Each dynasty or Character should be afforded it's own article so that it can be the focus of that article. Covering multiple dynasties in one article could be very confusing unless it was an overview or summary that linked to the other articles. don't delete--Drnhawkins (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This is another example of the editor's lack of understanding of our policies. Original research occurs when you take arguments from one source and use them to make an argument not specifically mentioned in that part of the source you've used. The reliability of sources is immaterial, although there is a problem about using the Bible as a primary source. You need to use sources that discuss the Bible in relationship to the topic, you can't just use the Bible to build an argument that it doesn't specifically address, nor can you make your own calculations about dates, etc. Have you read WP:NOR? And you've ignored the fact that this would be a WP:POVFORK: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." And you talk about a series of articles which looks as though it will contain a number of dynasties and characters, all of which would be pov forks (and presumably original research). Do this somewhere else, not here, please. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

''I would be satisfied for now, at least, if this article could be renamed "Could Imhotep be Joseph the son of Jacob in the Bible?" and then linked or included in the main article on Imhotep in Wikipedia under this heading. The conclusion may need to be softened and left open and a heading for "Evidence against Imhotep being Joseph" created''--Drnhawkins (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not likely to happen. This material does not belong on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is for collecting information on what others have already written.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See references 5,6,7,8,9,10,12,14,15,16,20,21,23,48,50-60 which are not from the Bible and are written by reliable scholars and archaeologists. These references are all original sources which have made the point that Joseph and Imhotep are likely to be the same person. Why do you not consider these to be reliable given the difficulty in finding reliable information about something that happened 4500 yrs ago? As this article uses so many referrence that aready make this assertion, this article cannot be considered original research. If this article was original research and I published it in a journal acceptible to you, then I would have trouble with neutrality and I would not be able to write this article anyway. So either way, I cannot win because you will claim problems with neutrality, original research or reliable sources. Your seem to argue in circles. --Drnhawkins (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The biggest objection that I have to you is that "the Jews had to have come from somewhere". According to your sources, they never existed!!! Can you please quote your sources to say that Joseph was not Imhotep and there is no record of the Jews ever being in Egypt. Why do they celebrate passover if they were never in Egypt? Of course they were in Egypt and that is where they grew to be a nation of 2 million people before entering the promised land of Cannan on 1405BC. The nation of Israel is as old as the Nation of Egypt. That is why their respective patriachs were probably contemporaries. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Joseph was Imhotep and that the Israelites were slave in the 12th dynasty. The major objectors are people who quote unreliable sources that have used erroneous dating techniques and methodologies. It is the objectors who have unreliable sources. Unfortunately, they seem to own the establishment!!!--Drnhawkins (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to publish your WP:OR, start a blog or write a book, but publishing it here is not an option.  He  iro  11:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First, Ron Wyatt is not a reliable source. Second, you are using sources to build an agument not in those sources, which is WP:OR, as you have been told numerous times. Third, we are not stating "that Joseph was not Imhotep and there is no record of the Jews ever being in Egypt", but that does not mean you can state the converse. Lady  of  Shalott  11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt was a nurse who decided to become an archaeologist. He made some very significant findings, none the least being the discovery of the true Mt Sinai in Arabia - Jabel Laws. He also found the two pillars left by Solomon to mark the site of the Red Sea crossing. He found Chariot wheels on the floor of the Gulf of Aqaba which were encased in coral. These findings are to his credit. Around the same time, the late 1970's, early 1980's he went looking for the remains of Noah's ark on Mt Arrarat in Turkey. He found a boat shaped object whick was composed of fossilized wood and giant iron rivets. It had the right dementions to be Noah's ark. Giant anchor stones were found near by. As with most of his discoveries, many of the artifacts he found like the pilar of Solomon on the Jordanian side and the anchor stones that he found at Ararat were removed by unknow parties. It is forbidden to go to Mount Sinai, so few have seen it. The Photos that Wyatt took were confiscated but the Jordanians and Wyatt was held in a Jordanian jail for some time for his efforts. I believe that these finds are significant and credible exactly as he reported them and I agree with his conclusions. It was around the same time that Wyatt also went looking for the Ark of the Covenant. He spent a year exploring caves around Golgotha extending under the temple mount. After exploring the caves for a year, he got into a cave which had two entrances, one of which had been bricked off. In the cavern he claims to have found the Ark of the Covenant. He also claims to have found a crucifixion site immediately above the cavern and connected to the cavern by an earth quake crack. He says the crucifixion site had been marked by a round stone with the same dimentions that the missing stone of the garden tomb would have had. He found red material which he thought could have been the blood of Christ. After announcing his discoveries, the excavation was shut down by Israeli authorities. He was not able to bring the ark out and has never been able to substantiate his claim. He is now dead. Remarkably, though, he is the only person who has been permitted by the Israeli govenment to explore the caves. His associates lead by Richard Reeves were allowed to reopen his excavations 20yrs later around 2001. The cavern where the Ark was found is now filled with rubble. It is gone. It looks like he fabricated everything. But did he? That is the question. Did the Israeli government remove the Ark after shutting down his excavation? Why is Wyatt's team the only team that is allowed to drill and excavate at the garden tomb even now over 25 yrs since the site was closed? The Israeli government has recentlt let them go in there with bulldosers! Why is this? May be it is because he did find the Ark and he suffered humiliation because the Israeli government covered it up. There is another group of Jews who claimed to have the ark in their possession not long after Wyatt claimed he found it. They went through the caves under the temple mount and found the bricked off end of the cavern that Wyatt found and removed the ark. The red stuff that Wyatt found was very unlikley to be Christ's blood according to Richard Reeves. Reeves also found red material at the site 20 yrs after Wyatt, but it was a mould! Wyatt seems to have drawm the wrong conclusion about this but he never fabricated any evidence. Because much of what he found has gone missing and he could not substantiate his claim to have found the Ark of the Covernant, he has been discreditted in the eyes of many people. He is still one of my heros and I do not believe that he fabricated anything. His discovery of Mt Sinai, the Red Sea crossing site and maybe Noah's ark still stand. It is hard to believe that one man could achieve so many discoveries in such a short period of time but look at Imhotep and what he achieved!! I stand by Wyatt and hope that one day he will be vindicated. He was an honorable man and I believe he was a reliable source of original information.--Drnhawkins (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody on here will agree that the person you are referring to above can be considered any kind of reliable source for anything archaeological in nature. If the crux of your articles revolves around his work and he is the best source you can cite, then there is no way these articles will remain here. Period. No one in the archaeological disciplines agrees with him or finds any validity in his work, he is by definition "fringe" at best. Wikipedia does not exist to promote his theories or rehabilitate his reputation. Go read WP:FRINGE, and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  He  iro  16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The main Archaeological Source I am using now is David Down. The pilar of Solomon on the Egypt side still stands. You can see it on Google Earth. Other Groups have now documented the relics around Jabel Laws (Mt Sinai) which were origingally found by Wyatt. Petrie is also another good source. The Mud brick core of the pyramid of Amenemhet III at Hawara speaks for itself.--Drnhawkins (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: please also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt. Lady  of  Shalott  02:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You have almost excluded every contribution that I have made. What sort of community Encyclopedia is this. I promised not to move this article into mainspace if it was not deleted. That was two years ago. The pictures that I posted in the Abraham and Exodus artices were just recently created.--Drnhawkins (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: He is now adding this stuff to articles. He is adding File:Egyptian dynasties and the Bible.gif which is also OR but to make things worse he is adding links to his userspace stuff. And now he's created User:Drnhawkins//Archives/Where do Moses and the Israelites fit into Egyptian History?. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is more, you will not let me place, in the relevant article, this picture about the end times - a prewrath, premillennial view with a pre and a post trib rapture. --Drnhawkins (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC) thumb|center|800px


 * Speedy deletion. All said above, and the editor still shows here a lack of policies. He promissed two years ago on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph_and_Imhotep_are_the_same_person to not use his content on articles, but he eventually started to do-so now. Ctrl+A, Delete is the only option, IMO.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why Wikipedia will not allow information like the following diagram which can be amended according to wikipedia policies. At least it is a starting point and it shows that Israel did come out of Egypt. You may argue about which dynasty but if you try to say that the Jews were never in Egypt then you are deliberately trying to push an agenda which is to make the Bible look like a fairy tale.--Drnhawkins (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) File:Egyptian dynasties and the Bible.gif|thumb|right|800px|Correlation of Egyptian Dynasties with the Bible. The Israelites lived in Egypt 430 years from 1875bc to 1445BC. They became slaves in the 12th dynasty long after the death of Joseph (Imhotep). They were lead out of Egypt in 1445 BC by Moses in the 13th dynasty (Neferhotep). The loss of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea allowed the Hyksos (Amelekites) to invade Egypt where they ruled for hundreds of years. Jacob and his family numbering around 70 came to Egypt about 10 yrs after Joseph became visier to Djoser of the 3rd dynasty 1875BC When the Israelites left Egypt, they numbered around 2 million.--Drnhawkins (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC) ]] Wikipedia allows articles like The Exodus which are clearly biased towards athiesm and say that the exodus was just a religious concept, that there is no record of the Jews in Egypt and that the Jews amassed in Caanan and never went to Egypt or re-entered the promised land.--Drnhawkins (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's of some concern that your understanding of Wikipedia (or your willingness to work within its policies and guidelines, or perhaps both) hasn't progressed since Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep over two years ago. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So what is an acceptible solution
What solution can you offer that allows some discussion (in main space) about who was the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham, Joseph, Moses (and also the Isralites who were in Egypt for 430 years and grew from 70 to 2 million in that time). I understand about what you say about original research and reliable sources but your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.--Drnhawkins (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This editor, while in good faith, simply refuses to accept our standards. His original research has no place here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for WP:FRINGE WP:FAKEARTICLEs and original research. MER-C 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Notice An RfC has been created at Requests for comment/Drnhawkins. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I assume the good faith of the author in creating these things, but am very concerned about his/her lack of understanding of Wikipedia, and his/her apparent inability to follow the rules of Wikipedia. "Your policies put Christianity at a disadvantage because you do not accept the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information" - we also do not accept the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Ramayana, or the Morte d'Arthur. Christianity has to provide reliable sources as does everyone else. As this is Wikipedia, the definition of 'reliable' is Wikipedia's. The author is at liberty to start a wiki of his/her own, where the Bible and fringe archaeologists are considered reliable, and Science is not. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 29 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.