Talk:Joseph

Post comment,
or browse more talk.

Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Title Revision

You can switch those titles around if you think its more appropriate. I'd expect when a person mentions Joseph from the Bible, they are more likely talking about the son of Jacob. You may want to move the original Joseph article to Joseph of Nazareth, and then move this one to Joseph. --Mr. Ashcraft 23:06, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Sorry, no can do. I tried to move this page to Joseph, and it told me that it couldn't do it because it was a presently existing page. I might try again by redirecting Joseph to this article and then trying to move it. --Temlakos 23:37, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Sorry again; it failed. I'll have to request your assistance. --Temlakos 23:41, 16 December 2006 (EST)

OK - its done. When moving a page to a title that already exists, the other page must be deleted. To perform this operation a checkbox must be selected. I dont remember having to check that box before, and believe is was part of the most recent Mediawiki upgrade.--Mr. Ashcraft 21:52, 22 December 2006 (EST)

The discussion above appears to incomplete, but I would like to add a comment to what (I think) is being discussed. I acknowledge that I'm a "new guy" here, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. However, I've worked on several Wikis (including the "big" one :), and this article appears to go against one of the common policies of Wiki: a truly ambiguous name shouldn't land you on a page for a specific instance of that name. For example, my suggestion for how to handle this page would be to move all its content to a new page ("Joseph (Son of Jacob)", maybe?). This page ("Joseph") would be reduced to a redirect to the "Joseph (disambiguation)" page. That way, if someone types "Joseph" in the search box, they land on the disambiguation page, where they can choose which person they had in mind. Pharos 05:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

As examples of what I've seen before, I created four new pages: John, John (disambiguation), Mark, and Mark (disambiguation). Pharos 06:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not so sure about the above. What I've seen on Wikipedia, for example, is that typing in an ambiguous name does go to the most common use of that name. But: the article includes a spcific message, like the one I have in this one: "This article is about the son of Jacob. For other uses, see Joseph (disambiguation)."--Temlakos 10:59, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I agree that the disambiguation page should only be the default if there is not a clearly predominant use of the word. It also must be kept in mind that such uses are in regard to creation apologetics (i.e. the most common use of the word by creation apologists).

For the examples created by Pharos I would agree that a predominant use might be questionable, and the word should then default to a disambiguation page.

--Mr. Ashcraft 11:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the quick response(s)! I see your point about going directly to a given page when there is a fairly obvious "most popular" instance, then that should be the default landing point, with a leading note about other uses; you're right, Wikipedia does this often, see their link for Bible. Based on this, I have created pages for Isaiah (prophet, book, disambiguation), and redirected links on other pages that used to point to the generic page to either the prophet or the book stubs. I am looking at the "Missing Pages" list with an eye to filling in some of the blanks. There are some great in-depth pages on this site, but there are far more dead zones; IMHO, a short "stub" page beats a dead link any day.

Pharos 15:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, I disagree. A "dead zone" shows up on the Wanted Pages section, and thus anyone who wants to create something, knows what areas of research are most urgently needed.

A "stub" disappears from virtually all reckoning. Even the "short pages" list will often bury your "stub" near the bottom, unless you exercise a very strict discipline and not put more than a single-digit number of characters into it.

But I would accept this compromise: create a Category called Stub and make sure that any such short page you create goes into that category. Then let's let everybody know to check the Stub category. It will even be sorted into alphabetical order.

Of course, if you have a specific area of research interest, then you can check certain articles having synoptic tables. Perhaps I should create a Category for that, and put into it a number of synoptic-table articles that I have created or visited.--Temlakos 15:31, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Done. I created a category of Stub Articles.

While I see your point about the "dead links" showing up on the Wanted Pages, making it easier for contributors, I think (and I admit, this is just my opinion) that that's looking at it backwards. An "encyclopedia" site should be, first and foremost, a benefit to the reader, not the writer. While Wikis tend to blur that line, we should still try and view things from the audience's standpoint.

For example, if a non-Christian visits the site, and comes across a reference to the book of Isaiah, he expects that link to work. It may take him to a single-paragraph summary of the book, but at least it's gotten him something. If too many links don't work at all, he's not likely to come back. And unless I'm mistaken, the true purpose of this site is (like all Christian life should be) to help win souls to Christ -- in this case, by countering the anti-Christian propaganda.

Look at it this way: if we can get the most of the egregious "Wanted Pages" taken care of (some are up to 9 links), then the "Short Pages" list and "Stub Articles" category become the contributors' priority. It's not an either-or situation; the migration of articles from a dead link, to a stub, to full encyclopedic content should be a natural progression. Again, IMHO.

Pharos 17:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Dates of Life and Career

Under the heading The Dates of Joseph's Life and Career how does point 2. link in? It is very obscure, if in fact the days of iniquity of Ezekiel have anything to do with Joseph, viceroy of Egypt. WesDale 01:20, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the days of iniquity tell us how far back in time was the division of the kingdom. You work back from then to get to the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, by counting back from the fortieth to the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Then you count back 480 years from then to get to the Exodus of Israel. Then its a matter of how long was the Sojourn in Egypt.--Temlakos^Talk 09:34, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Relationship feed

Actually, Rachel was Joseph's mother, not his wife. Joseph's wife was the Egyptian maiden, Asenath.--Temlakos 12:51, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Yes - thanks. It was a typo.--Mr. Ashcraft 13:42, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Ptahhotep

I beleive was Joseph, the Mentuhotep idenfication claims have no bene independently veirfable from my view. Plus there was 430 year sin Egypt meaning for a 13th Dynasty Exodus Mantuhotep isn't early enough.--MithirandirOlorin 17:01, 4 June 2011 (PDT)

Which dynasty seems appropriate depends greatly on your views on the chronologies of Israel and of Egypt. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (PDT)