Talk:Jericho

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Jericho is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Jericho is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

PPN A and B much older than Catal Höyük. --Yak 15:03, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The {} sign/s

The sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 07:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I feel like the Cleanup sign should be added; this article, especially in the PPN B section of the article.

[edit] McCarthy passage

I twice removed these passages from the article:

However, the current orthordoxy among acheologists is that Jericho was uninhabited at the time or in the words of Bill Dever "...if you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there". (It Aint't necessarily so, John McCarthy p61)

I don't dispute that many archaeologists take this position, however:

  • The claim is already stated in the "Archaeology" section
  • It is poorly written
  • It is not in the "Archaeology" section, but rather inserted into the list of biblical quotes.

If it is sufficently notable, we can cite McCarthy's book (ISBN: 0747245061). As it now stands, the passage disrupts the article. Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the section has been moved. It has been expanded but I think that counts as useful background (hopefully). I've asked for citation for the the 15 destructions not because I dispute it but simply because if I didn't then it would look as if it is from "It ain necessarily so".Dejvid 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Why does the article start with recent history, rather than work chronologically? Mzyxptlk 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It should start with the current position and statistics of the city because it still exists. If it were no longer an inhabited place with a government or social structure then starting chronolically would make sense. If you were to look up New York City would you expect it to start chronologically, or with it's present statistics and reference?

Actually, the New York City article does deal with the city's history chronologically Rojomoke 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing change 22.02.07

In my view, the article is correct to start with the recent history, for two reasons:

  • (i) Modern Jericho is a significant town, with importance for current events. This surely takes priority.
  • (ii) The section on modern Jericho is comparatively short, and easily seen past for readers primarily interested in archaeology. But the reverse is not true.

For those reasons, I'm backing out the most recent change, and moving the current status of the town back up to the top of the article. Jheald 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Modern Jericho section should go back to the way I had it, as it seems like a more logical order. Though the "section on modern Jericho is comparatively short" -- this section should be expanded. And, the lead section be improved to give greater mention of modern Jericho. --Aude (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Jhealed, the most common layout, to my knowledge, is to begin with a brief leader containing notable, interesting or otherwise important facts, then moving into a discussion of history in chronological order. After that, any other topics about the city (ex. politics, administration, economy, culture, transportation, etc.) are discussed in an order deemed reasonable. But I really think one shouldn't move into a discussion of a city's current state in detail without first discussing its history. I know this has been resolved but that is my take on it for future reference if this ever comes up again. However, I think that the current state of the city is still woefully underrepresented so if anyone has any new information to add...--Jt (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casino

I have removed the Casino info section from the article. This doesn't belong in the entry for the city of Jericho. Here it is for the record:

On September 16, 1998, a medium-sized casino (35 tables (later increased several times) and 220 slot machines) and hotel (220 rooms), jointly called Oasis, were opened on the southern outskirts of Jericho. Owned by the Palestine Investment Fund, as well as foreign investors including Austrian financier Martin Shlaff and South African financier Cyril Kern, and operated by Casinos Austria, the project was the largest private employer in the West Bank with over 1000 local and foreign workers (mainly croupiers). The casino/hotel was supposed to be the first stage of the Jericho Resort Village including a convention center, golf course, a cultural activities center and a Swiss Austrian cable car that links Old Jericho(10000 BC) with the Mount of Temptation where Jesus fasted for fourty days.
For the few years of its existence, it attracted mainly Israeli gamblers. After the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, Oasis continued to operate with many Israeli gamblers still coming to gamble with the assurance of the Palestinian government for safety of patrons. Soon after, militants used the high-rise hotel to fire on Israeli Army forces who returned fire damaging the structure. The Palestinian forces abandoned the site and the damage was repaired. A lull in the violence allowed speculation of a reopening, the construction on the widening expansion to Route 1 was also renewed in anticipation, but the casino/hotel, still a prominent landmark, have since remained idle.
Hamas, who originally opposed the opening of the casino, refuses to reopen it while heading the Palestinian government.[1]

[edit] Disambiguation

I don't think a search for "Jericho" should arrive at this page automatically, instead it should go to the 'disambiguation' page, as, I would venture most hits at present would be after the TV show. 220.245.137.174 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a TV show called Jericho. I think most people looking in an online encyclopedia would be looking for this page rather than some TV programme.
Actually, the TV show was what I was after.


After seeing the TV show, I was looking for info on the real Jericho, knowing that there is a connection between the title of the show and the real place. I wanted to know the history of the place, to better understand the title of the show. All I knew was there was a biblical story about Jericho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amccarri (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
How about we add a sentence in disambiguation text, sth like "for the Tv show see...". I've seen it in lots of places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.246.94 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
I would say that even listing "for the TV show see..." at the top of the page wouldn't be desirable as there are obviously numerous other uses (many towns, a band, a video game and so on). I'm glad that the present solution of "for other uses" has been settled on. Should this issue ever come up again though, let me just reiterate that the idea we should move an article on one of the most culturally significant cities in human history to accommodate a mildly successful TV show is utterly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.44 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walls of Jericho

I'm attempting to correct some typos in this paragraph and someone changed it back. Any reason why?

"The opinion of some archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account. However, virtually every archeological study involving some aspect of the bible is going to be heavily scrutinized and viewed from a mythological light by more humanistic members of the archeological community. One must judge the credibility of the sources when looking at supposed evidence regarding some biblical findings, and realize there are many in the sciences that are rabidly for and against the bible."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevenwhig (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 October 2006.

The above paragraph was added in the rather destructive and rather POV edit by 12.25.186.226 on 18 October [2]. I have reverted the whole section on the walls of Jericho and the historicity of the Biblical account of their destruction to the last version immediately before that edit, restoring the more detailed and informative (and NPOV) discussion on the page up to that point. If there are any issues with this text, they should be discussed and reasoned out here. Large-scale partisan deletions without discussion, such as 12.25.186.226's edit, are not the Wikipedia way. Jheald 07:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am new and was just trying my hand at correcting some typos. Thanks for the change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenwhig (talk • contribs)

I think that portions of last part of the "Walls" section need a rewrite. Ok, archeology often disagrees with the biblical account. Nothing new under the sun there. What I find objectional is the almost Ad-hominum way in which parts of the paragraph is written. "Scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain...", and the way in which the writer is almost *instructing* us. "Nevertheless, Josephus's historical inaccuracies should be considered and his word not taken as law." "...virtually every archeological study involving some aspect of the Bible is going to be heavily scrutinized..." "One must judge the credibility of the sources when looking at supposed evidence regarding some biblical findings..." To me, this style of writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and I've gone ahead and put a NPOV tag at the head of the final section.Johnmc 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the NPOV tag, as most of the disputed text has been removed or brought into line. It looks ok now (better than I could have done)--Johnmc 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I have made a change over at the Book of Joshua section with the following info you may want to incorporate into this section and later edited by the guy in charge of the book of Exodus section: A theory suggested by Emmanuel Anati states that the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites actually occurred prior to the Late Bronze Age as commonly held. Anati says he has found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the Early Bronze Age circa 2200–2500 BC. Anati says that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the Biblical cities of Ai and Jericho were destroyed in this time frame, in a period when both sites had defensive walls. He also found that Ai was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua, and that the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology.

(I also put sources over there for this, an article by Dr. Anati, which last I checked you could peruse online for free.)

[edit] Holy Echo?

I can find no evidence of an etymology that would equate "jericho" with "holy echo." I think this is false etymology, based on the fact that the word in Greek is comprised (sort of)of these two words. Considering that the word is not primarily Greek, this seems ridiculous and should be removed. -M

I can't find it either. --Zerotalk 12:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it. If it finds its way back into the article, the only way I can see it passing muster is if it's explained as a false etymology. That said, I can't even find that anyone noteworthy has even seriously proposed this fanciful theory. Tomertalk 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed page move

This article was relocated to Jericho, West Bank by Cwk14724. The apparent purpose for the move is to enable a disambiguation page at Jericho so that a link can exist to the editor's article on the fictional town of Jericho, Kansas. I have entered a move request to repair the damage. --~~

Page is restored to its original location. Requested page moves can be discussed at WP:RM. --Aude (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

By no means should the place in the Middle East be moved, as it is by far the most notable bearer of that name. TewfikTalk 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion aside, I have to say I am suprised that the modern west bank city and the biblical city are essentially merged into the same article. I know that they are essentially the same location but I would think the breadth of information uniquely pertaining to each would warrant two separate articles. Then' a disambiguation page would make more sense since I think a slightly larger segment of the readership would be looking for the Biblical city article, followed by the modern city and with the fictional one lagging way behind. 205.157.110.11 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS PAGE MUST BE MOVED. THE PPL WANT TO KNOW ABOUT JERICHO. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BongHits4Jesus4Ever (talk • contribs)

[edit] Synagogues

A subsection on synagogues occurs twice, with effectively the same information (the second occurance has a couple of links). Unsure as to where it should stay, but the repetition is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.8.94 (talk • contribs)

The second mention seems out of place. WP:BB You can delete it. --Shuki 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Block quote

.

i

[edit] The naming of the site

There are two reasons for questioning whether this site has been properly identified; 1. The biblical narrative does not equate the current location with the few topographical clues contained within scripture. a. Its west of Gilgal(uphill). b. It has a spring. In desert regions it is common to find water in sloping draws, which also implies it was uphill from the Jordanian plain. 2. Tactical considerations exclude its placement on an unprotected plain. The only way to reconcile the narrative with sound tactics is to place it on one of several nearby elevated plains, any of which can include nearby springs which will almost completely confirm a new, more viable excavation site.

[edit] Genocide

I note the article claims the destruction of Jericho as listed in the Biblical record is 'the city is the first of nearly 30 systematic genocides carried out by the Hebrew people'. No evidence is given for this claim, either Biblical or archaeological. And of course there is no evidence for this claim, either Biblical or archaeological. --Taiwan boi 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest city?

The article states "Jericho is believed to be the second oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world" - but this list claims it to be the oldest. Which is correct? Ramskjell 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced statements removed

I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

  • The earliest village sites discovered by archaeologists at Jericho are 2,000 years older than other finds in the region, with the exception of similarly dated outposts in what is contemporary Syria.
  • After a period of Israeli control during Operation Defensive Shield, it was returned to the Palestinian Authority on March 16, 2005.

If anyone can find sources to support them, feel free to re-add them. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 10:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No such thing as palestine at least in this millenia

You know romans , kicked jews, renamed it Syria Palestina after the plishtim people who once lied in the area who were actually more greek then indigenous.

We can all guess who would use inapropriate terminology for that period in the article can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.110.110 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So, a people who have been living there for thousands of years have no say, and a people who have some obscure references written in a book about how their people may possibly have had a tie to the land thousands of years ago .. have a say? Are you dumb?

Palestine for Palestinians.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canaan

It would be good to indicate somewhere in this article that Jericho is/was a city in Canaan, which seems to be the case. Neither this article nor the Canaan article make it very clear. The adjective Canaanite is used a few times in this article, but nowhere does the article explain Jericho's relationship to Canaan. An internal link to the Canaan article is absent. The Battle of Jericho article is a bit more forthcoming, but that took me a while to find. I defer to others to decide how best to fit this into what seems to be a delicately balanced Biblical vs archeological discussion of the origins of Jericho. It would have been helpful if it was included when I was doing my research, so maybe it would help others, too? --Pat (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] How many dunams?

The article's info box has a place for jurisdiction size, but no size is present. Anyone have any information on this? I can't find anything at all. --Jt (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)