The result was SNOW delete. ÷seresin 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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. LadyofShalott 15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You do not quote any reliable sources to substantiate your views. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
At least the world will know where wikipedia stands so far as the Bible is concerned. --Drnhawkins (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The profile of Imhotep matches that of Joseph remarkably well--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have not said that the Bible identifies Imhotep as Joseph.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]