User talk:Drnhawkins

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Premillennialism has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bwordpress\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Drnhawkins! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits

Hi -- you'll notice I've reverted your edits. You need to read up on our policies and guidelines to see why. Start with WP:RS - I'm afraid Wyatt is not a reliable source in Wikiedia terms, and although you can use the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, going beyond that is fraught with problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point. Several recent developments in history, psychology, sociology, etc., have called into serious question the factual accuracy of much of the Jewish Bible/Christian Old Testament. So seriously, in fact, that, speaking as someone with an academic background in religious history, much of that material is not counted as historically reliable, the Pentateuch in particular. On that basis, we can't really put forward possible linkages between Biblical characters and historical characters in our main articles on those people, because unless there are very strong evidences that they are considered reasonable by the academic community, they tend to carry little weight. Such proposed changes as you sought to make would probably also count as falling under WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, and such content as that isn't considered acceptable either. This is not saying that there could not be separate articles on these subjects if they are notable enough as per WP:NOTABILITY and there is enough content to be added to them from reliable sources as per WP:RS to justify a separate article. But that is as a separate article, not as material to be included in the main one. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Joseph and Imhotep

There is a discussion about whether or not to delete that article which you created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep. You are welcome to comment there. If you want to argue for keeping the article, that is the page where you should do so. Ladyof Shalott 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, was this originally written as an academic paper before it was added to Wikipedia? It uses a lot of formal expository writing techniques. I found the article interesting, but I'll admit I think it falls firmly under rules barring original research. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've added a long reasoning to the deletion discussion. Just a point of advice, but people don't tend to read a long spiel of information. All the deletion discussion is doing is deciding whether there is enough notability for a subject and that there are reasonable reliable sources about the subject matter. I strongly suggest that you read these guidelines, so that you have a better idea what is required. All you need to do to avoid deletion is to demonstrate that the article can meet the above. If the sources are available you should be able to do this fairly succinctly. Quantpole (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text, essentially per Quantpole. If you want to leave a rationale, fine, but 1) make it shorter and 2) base it on actual Wikipedia policies, not what goes on inside your head. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sources need to be not only reliable and verifiable according to our criteria, they have to discuss the concept that Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to comparison of credentials / achievements etc vs guestimates of dates. The discussion will be profitable.--Drnhawkins (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we are trying to say that it doesn't, it comes down to our poliies and guidelines, and reliable and verifiable sources discussing the issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a strict policy on no original research. Making that comparison is original research unless you can find reliable, independant sources that claim the two men were actually the same. No ancient accounts of either Imhotep or Joseph claim they were the same person, so they do not help. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please post comments to the BOTTOM of the AfD. Ironholds (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please post comments at the bottom. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep, you will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm backing that up. You absolutely must not remove or refactor the comments of others. Do not do it again. Argue with the comments; say why they are incorrect or why you disagree with them, but you may not remove them. Ladyof Shalott 15:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this apply to articles or discussions because some of my comments have been removed or modified or reverted by others in both articles and discussions.

also how can an article be tidied up or improved without altering the comments of others?

I need to have this clarified so that I do not breach the rules or upset you again.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, your recent comments on the page in question will be more likely to have people think ill of you than enhance your cause in any way. I would urge you to cease making such comments. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

Can you please justify why the Bible cannot be used as a source of information about characters mentioned there in and why it cannot be crossreferenced with other manuscripts and artifacts such as egyptian heiroglypics who may be referring to a character in the Bible. Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article

I would have liked to be able to extract something useful from your article, but I fear that this is impossible. WP is an encyclopedia, not a home for fringe theories. These will tend to be classified as original research. It is possible within WP to bring forward original ideas, but they need to have in-line citations of reliable sources. WP needs all the editors that it can get, who will undertake constructive work on the encyclopaedia. In dealing with Biblical subjects, you need to ensure that what you write will stand up to criticism from skeptics, and I am afraid that your theory is so offbeat that there is no hope of it doing so. I would suggest that you avoid pious language, which is likely to be like a red rag to a bull. Do not amend what other people have written on talk pages (including Articles for Deletion pages), save possibly to correct minor errors of syntax. Your article was essentially a historical one; this means that the Bible must be treated only as a historical source book, not one that carries the authority of divine inspiration. I write this as an evangelical Christian, who believes in the Bible, though it is difficult to correlate the early parts of it with secular history. This applies particularly to Genesis, whose chronology certainly presents difficulties. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blood thing is nonsense, which may be why at least one of his past associates was telling people not to talk about it. You should know that there is no evidence of a report on it. There isn't even archaeological evidence of an Exodus, and Genesis was written centuries after it supposdly happened, so to talk about where it was is pointless. 81.105.226.60 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Ark of the Covenant, where do you get the idea that the Israelis claim to have it? I know the Ethiopians claim to have it. And what evidence is there for a new permit? I note that the Wyatt site says that "The excavations of 2005 and 2006 at the Garden Tomb, in Jerusalem, did not completely confirm the findings as stated by the late Ronald E. Wyatt during his periods of excavation during the years 1979 to 1989. We no longer have the personal account of Ronald Wyatt to help guide us. For these reasons, until further research, the Ark of the Covenant materials presented by Wyatt Archaeological Research prior to 2005 have been removed from circulation." By Calvary I presume you mean 'Gordon's Calvary', one of 4 sites claimed to be Calvary.

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:13:12 +0300 (IDT)

From: jo@israntique.org.il

To: jsearcy@connecti.org.il

Cc: Harriet@israntique.org.il

Subject: Re: Ron Wyatt

Dear Mr. Searcy

Mr. Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. We are aware of his claims which border on the absurd as they have no scientific basis whatsoever nor have they ever been published in a professional journal. They fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc. It's amazing that anyone would believe them. Furthermore, he has been thoroughly discredited by various Christian organizations such as Creation Research in Calif. For the latest on his "discoveries" I suggest going into the WWW (use Vista) someone called Tentmaker decided to do an expose of his various claims. Here you will find the truth, which is more amazing that his (RW) fictions.

Shalom

Joe Zias

Curator of Anthropology/Archaeology

Israel Antiquities Authority

POB 586, Jerusalem

Joe also asked for a copy of the blood report, but didn't get one. No one has seen it. Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

This is response to a long message on my talk page:

Do not alter what other people have said on talk pages. This is putting your words into their mouths. Similarly, so not alter what other people have written in discussing Artilces for discussion.
You have chosen a highly controversial subject for your first article. This was unwise. My first encounter with WP conmcered an article on the River Teme, where some one was propounding a theory for which he had no evidence, only imcorronprated theories. If you look at the earliest part of the history of that article, and the archive on my talk page, you will see what happened. I had to defer posting my view until I had published it elsewhere (in J. Railway and Canal Hist. Soc.). This generated correspondence in that journal, and a competing editor kept trying to put his view back in. I had consisderable help from an ADMIN who was monitoring (and moderating) what was going on. At one point I had to entered into correspondence with a producer at the BBC, because the other editor was citing their website as an authority: they had evidently been fed the same false story. That was all several years ago, when WP was a much less well developed encyclopaedia and had a poor (and perhaps underserved) reputation for reliability.
In a world where many people (unlike you and me) are not Christian believers, it is not entirely surprising that they do not regard the Bible as a reliable source. If they did, they would not be unbelievers. Theri attitude is "The Bible is a religious book; I believe in religion is rubbish; therefore the Bible is rubbish". However, that is not a proper sylogism, and the second premise anyway involves their WP:POV, and we are as much entitled to our POV as them, provided the result is an article shoing a Neutral point of view. That is sometimes best done by ensuring that both sides of the argumetn are fairly set out.
Accordingly, the Bible as a source needs to be approached on the same basis as any other historical work from the ancient world. It can be treated (in my view) as a reliable source in so far as it is dealing with history. That certainly means events from the time of David onwards. For earlier periods there is a difficulty: secular archaeology has failed to find evidence for the change in culture that would be expected if the old Canaanite population had been replaced by a new Israelite one. The fallen walls of Jericho were once said to be evidence of the Israelite conquest; then some one revised the chronology and they did not match; now some one else is suggesting a further revision that (I understand) does match. This is a controversial subject. It partly depsnds on what date one thinks that the Exodus took place. The Isaelite sojourn in Egypt is even more difficult. It is possible that it coincides with the Hyksos period, which is poorly documented, but (accoridngly to conventional chronology) that is too early. Nevertheless, it is long after Imhotep's time.
I would recommend you not to bring forward your article again, even with full in-line citations. Only if you can find a reputable academic source, would I even suggest that you think of it. I would suggest that you develop it initially in a WP:sandbox (within your user pages - a place where people will not usually make changes unless invited to).
In the meantime, I would suggest that you spend time going through articles in WP, looking for errors and articles lacking detail, the shortest being classified as "stubs". This will give you experience in editing before you bring forward controversial views. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit unfair. A lot of Christians don't believe that the Old Testament is completely historical (including some Biblical scholars), and the same is true for some Jews. I'm an atheist, but I think that some of the Old Testament is historical but certainly not all of it. Just as with other ancient writings, one has to try to weed out what might have some historical value and what doesn't. And not just ancient writings but modern day secular writing. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Working

Drnhawkins, at this point consensus is leaning toward the deletion of your article. Please do not take this personally. My advice would be to spend some more time editing and learning your way around wikipedia and its policies before attempting to start any more new articles. We are always looking for quality editors ... sometimes it just takes a little while to learn the ropes. Athanasius1 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trust me, sir, there are a lot of articles we already have that are in less than impressive shape. Most of the articles on in the individual books of the Bible would be included in that number. I say that with some awareness of the religious content here because I am currently, somehow, don't ask me how it happened, the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject. We would be more than happy to welcome your help to most of the content we already have. There are several particular functions within the project, including review, assessment, and others, which can use additional workers. We also have a short list of the comparative quality and priority of most of our articles at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Christianity articles by quality statistics. You might be able to find some topics in the various listings there which interest you. If you should ever want any assistance in working on any of these articles, please drop me a message on my talk page or e-mail me and I'll do what I can. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Imhotep

Your comments and responses from me, intended afterwards.

Sorry about that.

I was disturbed about the comments of other editors that the bible is not a reliable source to clarify historical issues even on Biblical Characters.

Some of the Books of the Bible represent the historical records of Israel for that period (eg first and Second Kings, Chronicals). In fact most books of the Bible contain historical information that can often be varified in non biblical literature. There are not many other books of that vintage that have been preserved so well. The bible is primarily a record of God's dealings with man, in particular, Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels and the Gentiles in Acts and the Epistles. It contains reliable historical information and discusses places, people and events that are mentioned in non biblical manuscripts and heiroglypics.

Obviously, it is necessary to quote the Bible when discussing biblical characters, sites and events. (should it be a note or a reference?)

It may not be necessary to quote the Bible, actually. One other alternative is to provide a link to an external site which does quote the Bible. I don't have a ready example of such in front of me, but it is done in several articles. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a reliable source is required to support any correlation of Biblical Characters with other Historical material.

When editing, can I make changes to the comments of others in articles. Otherwise, how can an article be improved or tidied up?

If you mean the comments on the talk pages, only if the comments clearly violate policy. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is not fair to do this in a discussion page. But people did it to me first!

Articles are not meant to be discussions and it is not considered good form to put your name in article anyway.

When is a change considered vandalism and when is it not.

Basically, the best source for that is WP:VANDALISM. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, my edits of the article on premillennialism were removed and called vandalism.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to see the details there to be able to make any reasonable statements. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Joseph and Imhotep was not original research. It has been suggested by many others, most notably Ronn Wyatt who has conducted considerable research on this topic. Wikipedia does not regard him as a reliable source even though his works are being increasingly recognised (Mt Sinai, red sea crossing at Nuweiba, Gulf Aqaba). Now some Israeli Rabbis claimed to have recovered the ark from tunnels under the temple mount and the Israeli government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen his excavation of calvary. The red material that was analysed and found to be living cellular material with 24 chomosomes turned out to be Chiton of snail origin - so he did not fabricate his findings - he just concluded wrongly as to what it was. This therefore does not invalidated any of his other work.--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

However, it does call into question the reliability of his conclusions. For a source to be counted as reliable, it has to be on, basically, which is relied on by other similar "respectable" sources. If the source does not meet the standards on this page, WP:RS, it isn't counted as reliable. There is also the additional matter of fringe sources, as per WP:FRINGE. They are a bit harder to deal with, because that becomes more a matter of how much weight to give the content. Also, unfortunately, particularly regarding material relating to religion, there are a lot of comparatively unconfirmed assertions, and they have to be dealt with with great care. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I resubmit the article on Joseph and Imhotep once I have sorted out my references?

A separate article should have at least two separate reliable sources which give substantial content to it. I'm not sure if this one does, because I've forgotten. In any event, it might make more sense to try to add it to another article first, and then develop it there until it grows large enough to be a separate article.

--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Wikipedia has disallowed them because Wikipedia dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC

One, it is not our place to "offer candidates" for being someone. We only repeat what reliable sources say, and if they don't say anything, neither do we. And a fringe theory is any theory which has not met with substantial credibility from the appropriate academic field. I haven't seen any clear evidence that this theory is widely accepted. If it isn't, then by the definition of the term it is a "fringe theory". Secondly, specifically regarding Joseph and the presence of the Jews in Egypt at all, I have seen several academic sources which seriously question whether that had any basis in fact at all. Some of them contend that the Jews were, effectively, making themselves look better to their neighbors by creating an impressive "family tree". I myself don't have a clear opinion one way or the other, but do note that I have never seen any particularly clear nonbiblical evidence that the Jews ever were in Egypt. If they weren't, as that theory contends, then the story of Joseph could have been made up entirely or perhaps altered from some other extant story. Third, regarding Ron(n) Wyatt. We do not count sources per se based on the reliability of the source in other matters, but in the source's specific reliability regarding the subject in question. Mircea Eliade is counted one of the most reliable figures in the history of religion field, and his work there does count as extremely reliable. His political statements do not fall within the same field, and are not considered reliable. If the relevant academic community hasn't effectively given the work or author a general endorsement, then his work isn't quite up to the level of "reliability". Based on your own statements above regarding Wyatt, at this point he is not seen as a particularly reliable source within the field, for whatever reason. Lastly, in wikipedia, we do not propose hypotheses. Our fundamental purpose is to repeat what other reliable sources have said regarding a subject, and that's about it. If you are seeking to include the article on the basis of it being a hypothesis, this probably isn't the best place to start. Regarding Wyatt's works, however, it is certainly possible that if any of his books has been significantly discussed in at least two reliable sources, then a separate article on that book would certainly be possible. To stand a good chance of being retained, it would have to give a comparatively large amount of space to what the sources discussing it said about it, but that's standard and shouldn't be much of a problem. I hope that helps a little. John Carter (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John has already given you a pretty thorough response to the questions you also posed on my talk page. I will add that we have an article about Ron Wyatt. It is quite brief, and if you have reliable sources that discuss his work, that could be a good article for you to expand. Ladyof Shalott 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse the suggestion that you should try to expand Ron Wyatt, by describing briefly what he asserted, if you have access to his work. If you stick to reporting what he said, it will be uncontroversial fact, even if many people may consider his views highly controversial. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably a bad idea as it will once again lead to disagreements. There is discussion there already about merging the article into some of our other articles. It's got the active attention of several editors, including me (I've been involved in Wyatt discussions for many years). There's bound to be conflict on an article like that and I really would like this editor to get some experience in some less contentious articles. Wyatt is fringe, and our NPOV policy applies there and means that the article will have to clearly portray Wyatt as having a minority view, and in this case a minority within a minority. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Drnhawkins, John carter has provided some good responses to what look like the same comments you posted to my talk page. At the risk of being repitetive, I will post my responses here. First, the conversations about the Bible as a source take two different, yet also important, directions. The Bible is a primary source. Solid research - the sort that could be used in an encyclopedia, comes from secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to supplement the material culled from secondary sources, but drawing one's own conclusions form primary sources is considered to by original synthesis. Secondly, the historicity of the Bible - especially prior to David - is dubious. Very few scholars outside of the community of faith accept Bible as a historical source for anything prior to the United Kingdom. This is not calling the veracity of one's faith into question - rather it is acknowledging that the Bible is written by people of faith for people of faith. In terms of editing other people's words. Yes, within an article we can and should edit one another's work. However - it almost never acceptable to edit another person's comments to a talk page. See the talk page guidelines for more info. In academic terms, I would call Ron Wyatt the definition of a fringe source. That his claims have been roundly rejected by the academic community says something. Not saying that you can't personally believe him - you are certainly entitled to that. However, it is highly unlikely - given the position of his views in the academic community - that his positions would be considered normative on wikipedia. You could do some work on the article in question, and then try again. But, I would discourage you from doing so. As I said in my earlier comment: get to know wikipedia a little better. Spend some time editing other articles. Learn the ropes of policy and community first. Writing a new article that fully meets policy requirements take some knowledge of how things work -- especially when editing topics that overlap with your own faith. Athanasius1 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox article

Hi, what are your intentions regarding what you have been developing at User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person? Ladyof Shalott 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to submit it for consideration as an article again. I am proofing the references and making a few improvements but it is close to it's final form. --Drnhawkins (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

A tag has been placed on Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Verbal chat 13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references

Please add references in the text using <ref> TEXT </ref> tags. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information. Verbal chat 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

I have nominated Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ladyof Shalott 15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knol

I would move a copy of your article to Google Knol, and a copy to Google Sites. The information will be preserved, and have a wide audience. Write me if you need help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False claims on your part

The Bible no more supports your theories about Imhotep than it supports the theories of people believe the moon landings were hoaxed. Most people who believe the Bible do not support your theory. Your continued false statements about the Bible and those who believe it that you use to attempt to justify your personal opinions do not change the facts. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect Joseph to be mentioned in Egyptian history. The Egyptians, however, knew him as Imhotep.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:11, 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) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said that the Bible identifies Imhotep as Joseph.--Drnhawkins (talk) 15:11, 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) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're admitting that the Bible in no way supports your theory? Edward321 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU AND AND THE WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATORS just do not like me quoting the BIBLE - full stop.--Drnhawkins (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) NO, I do not admit this. You must be crazy if you think I could write an article like Joseph and Imhotep are the same person without quoting the BIBLE. --Drnhawkins (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) What the Bible says is crucial to establishing this.--Drnhawkins (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) The profile of Joseph given by the Bible is critical to the arguement. The estimated dates of Joseph calculated from the Bible are also critical. If the Bible did not support this theory then there would be no point having this article. The fact is the dates of Joseph calculated from the Bible and the Profile of Joseph in the Bible are quite consistent with what we know about Imhotep from Egytian history. What is more, the modern understanding of the Egyptian dynasties chronology also matches the Bible and can no longer be used as an objection to the theory that Joseph was known by the Egyptians as Imhotep!!--Drnhawkins (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you quoting the Bible, but as a Christian I am grossly offended by your repeated attempts to falsely portray those who do not agree with your personal theories as opposed to the Bible. You are correct that "If the Bible did not support this theory then there would be no point having this article." The Bible does not support this article, which is one reason I have consistently voted for deletion. Your claim that the dates for Joseph and Imhotep match is yet another false statement on your part - even your version of the article admitted that conventional dating places their lives hundreds of years apart. Further, even if you could prove the two men were contemporaries that does not prove the two men were the same person. Edward321 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you say Jospeh fits into Egyptian history? Which Pharaoh did he serve? If Imhotep was not Joseph, what archaeological evidence is there for Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt? I hope that you are not one of those people who think he was fictional. If you cannot find any evidence that he existed, why do you think that this is the case? --Drnhawkins (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the two men were contemporaneous, there is more than enough evidence to prove that they were the same person. The profile of imhotep and Jospeh match very well. And there were only so many non royal second in charge visors who saved egypt from a 7 year famine by interpreting Pharaohs dreams in the name of God, lived till the age of 110, imposed a 20% tax and brought up all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imhotep was the High Priest of Heliopolis. Jospeh married the daughter of the priest of On (the capital of Heliopolis)!--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision did not become common practice in Egypt until the third dynasty!--Drnhawkins (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Imhotep

The comment below this was written by John Carter 'the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject'.--Drnhawkins (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently the lead coordinator of the Christianity WikiProject. I dare to say that I am more than a little informed on the subject. I also took as my major in college archaeology, specializing in Middle Eastern archaeology, with a minor in history of religions. Like I said on either the AfD page or the now deleted article talk page, the fairly universal academic view of the subject of Joseph is that he either never existed at all or was somehow a conflation of various other stories and or people.
That does not however mean that there is no place for alternative views in wikipedia. There is. However, those alternate views have to meet the same requirements of WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RELIABILITY, and WP:NOTABILITY as all other articles. If you have not already read the three pages linked to here, please do so now, because any article and content to be introduced has to meet those criteria. Why are they required? I think the answer to that is fairly simple. As a European, you may not be as familiar with the various conspiracy theories regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy as I, as a citizen of the United States, am. But, basically, trust me, somewhere on the web, virtually every person of even moderate notability who was alive at the time, and several other people as well, are thought to be the second gunman. I think you can understand that we can't have articles in what is designed to be an encyclopedia on every basically non-notable web site that alleges any given person is that second gunman. Just like in any other encyclopedia, all of our information has to be reflect that of reliable sources elsewhere and has to be written in accord with the expectations of most readers regarding what an encyclopedia article would look like. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament prior to David, is not today considered to be an at all reliable source.
I do however note that there is comparatively little content on wikipedia relating to the concept of biblical inerrancy and the associated historical ideas. Part of this may be due to the fact that there isn't much information out there from reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. However, I personally, as well as several others, would probably welcome content that meets wikipedia guidelines regarding that subject.
If I were in your position, by which I mean wanting to add content regarding theories based at least in part on the concept of biblical inerrancy, what I might try to do is find some books on the subject from a reliable publisher, preferably a university press like Harvard or Oxford, although a major publisher something like Doubleday would work as well, and add whatever content can be determined to be notable based on those sources to relevant articles. Most of the existing content on that subject can be found in the Category:Christian fundamentalism or its subcategories. Also, you might seek help from other editors who work extensively with ideas which are out of the academic mainstream. The best such group out there right now is Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible might be of limited use as well. That project unfortunately is not particularly active. Once you find the required sources mentioned above, then add the relevant content to whatever articles are most appropriate, or start other articles if the given subject meets the notability requirements linked to above, and maybe ask for some help from the members of the Alternative views project on how to construct articles on such non-mainstream ideas. That would probably be the best way to go from here. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What hope have we got on wikipedia if you are the administrator/co-ordinator for Christianity on Wikipedia??--Drnhawkins (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hope is a good one, provided the material which you seek to add meets the three requirements outlined above. It is actually fairly simple, if that requirement is met. Also, do not place too much emphasis on my being in an elected position. All it means is that I am trusted enough to do some of the grunge work for the project. If your hope is to continue to add information based on unreliable web sites, there probably is no hope, because such material is not allowed anywhere in wikipedia. If you can find books from reliable publishers, or material from similarly reliable websites, that would be another matter. Again, the people who would be most familiar with the kind of content you seek to add are the people at the alternative views project. I would once again urge you to contact the more active members there. Even there, however, articles which do not conform to encyclopedic standards, such as taking advocacy positions like the last one, have no hope. The people at the AV project would have a better idea how to structure articles based on sources and ideas similar to the one you are so interested in. Also, your own comments above indicate that you have a rather weak idea of how things work around here. This is somewhat to be expected, given that, so far as I can tell, you have worked on comparatively few articles. It would very much benefit you if you were to carefully read all the pages linked to in the welcome notice you received earlier, if you haven't already done so. Thereafter, you will probably have a better idea of how things work around here. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Just to make sure you are not laboring under a misapprehension: adding links to online Bible verses will not make your article more acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ladyof Shalott 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

Just thought that you might like to know that you would probably be very well served if you were to make some contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to just your userspace articles. I see from your contribution record that you have really only contributed to Imhotep, in contributions which have, I believe, all been deleted, Prewrath, about a dozen total, and Premillennialism, once. It might reasonably be possible that someone so inclined might decide to nominate for deletion User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox, User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Joseph, and User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, based on the fact that you have made few contributions that have been kept in main article space and seem to be, basically, almost exclusively interested in this one topic, which has repeatedly been found to be, at least in the forms yet created, unacceptable by wikipedia standards. I would urge you to make some meaningful contributions to the mainspace article pages, should you not want such a development to take place. I would once again urge you to contact the WikiProject Alternative Views and seek some input on what extant articles there are on the subject and how you can most effectively develop them. Alternately, I believe that the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine are always interested in adding new editors with a real knowledge of the subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Historicity of Biblical Joseph (Son of Jacob - Israel)

A tag has been placed on The Historicity of Biblical Joseph (Son of Jacob - Israel), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Verbal chat 10:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person

User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Verbal chat 10:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Day_Lord1.gif

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Day_Lord1.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apocalypse1.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Apocalypse1.gif, has been listed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity discussion

A discussion about your images is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#File:Apocalypse1.gif. You might wish to comment there. Ladyof Shalott 02:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LadyofShalott 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt

User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. LadyofShalott 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of User:Drnhawkins

I have proposed a community ban at WP:AN#Proposed community ban of User:Drnhawkins Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puts Christianity at a disadvantage? Wikipedia does not exist to promote christian theology. Real archaeologists and historians do not accept any ancient text as holy writ, not just the bible. Real scientific investigation is not about taking a preconceived notion and trying to prove its validity, no matter what the actual evidence says, just like every other scientific discipline. But this is totally beside the point. The point to all of this is, WE ARE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WHICH USES RELIABLE SECONDARY AND TERTIARY SOURCES, we do not do original research, we do not synthesize research to promote our own religions and world views and we strive to maintain a neutral point of view in the material we add here. Read and follow the policies for editing here, or your time here may be limited. He iro 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Drnhawkins)

Hello, Drnhawkins. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins, where you may want to participate. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) . Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person (2nd nomination)

I don't see that you have been notified of this discussion, and I thought you should be. LadyofShalott 02:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you editing logged out?

This edit [1] is presumably yours but it isn't signed. Without being signed it probably doesn't belong where it is as it looks as though it's from someone else. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC) yes, I didn't realize I was logged out I will go back and sign it--Drnhawkins (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to read and use the talk page at the RfC

Just to note that you should also read and use the talk page, eg I've responded to your last edit there. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]