Jump to content

Talk:Jericho/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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 [1]. 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.)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Years

Reading the second paragraph about Roman and Byzantine period, I got somewhat confused about the years when things happened.

I've included the section below with the life of the people mentioned. It just doesn't seem right!

"During Herod (73 BC – 4 BC) the Great's reign of Jericho, he managed to build three independent palaces at the same site, which ultimately functioned as one. In 37­1 BCE, the Hasmonean family continued to use his palace in Jericho. The dramatic murder of Aristobulus III (b. 53 BC - d. 36 BC) in a swimming pool at Jericho, as told by the Roman historian Josephus (37 – sometime after 100), took place during a banquet organized by Herod's Hasmonean mother-in-law. In 330 BCE, Jericho was taken from Herod and transferred to the control of Queen Cleopatra of Egypt."

I think it should also be clarified which Cleopatra we're talking about (I - VII), or at least link to the one directly!

--Suhajdab (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been a typo. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

confused anon

WEST BANK?

When in History was Jericho a part of a WEST BANK? The Article says that Jericho is in hte West Bank, but nowhere in history was this land called the west bank. Historically, it is known as Judea. What is a WEST BANK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See West Bank or nearly every map of the Middle East in the world for the location of the West Bank. nableezy - 03:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical References

In this section could we have some commentary on how the biblical accounts are thought to relate to reality? E.g. "The biblical account of the collapsing of the walls of Jericho are thought to refer to the destruction of the city in 1550 BCE". I'm not proposing that sentence (I just made it up), but something saying there is lots/some/no evidence to tie the biblical accounts to actual events, if indeed they happened at all (if not then that should/could be said). LastDodo (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Population

"and has a population of over 20,000 Arabs." this statement looks very strange for me, 20,000 Arabs!!! maybe the person who wrote it was trying to distinguish it from Israeli settlements.. otherwise, It looks like Arabs are another type of beings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.5.86 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It has since altered to "over 20,000 Palestinians". I've removed the demonym entirely; it doesn't seem appropriate here, since virtually no other city article comments on the nationality of its population this prominently. Shimgray | talk | 14:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Era abbreviations

throughout this article i have noticed the use of CE and BCE where one would normally use AD and BC. in the case of BCE i would just delete the E, ans Before Current Era typically means the same as Years Ago, it does not refer to the year 1 on our calendar. but the use of Current Era in place of AD leaves me to wonder if its a good idea to change.

discuss. JetJon (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Easy one: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change", and there has to be "consensus for the change" from all editors. What's the "substantial reason" for "Jericho"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity about what is inhabited

This is simply a request for more clarity in the first couple of paragraphs in the History section of the article. It says,

"Jericho is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, with evidence of settlement dating back to 9000 BCE, providing important information about early human habitation in the Near East.[3]
...
The site remained uninhabited until the city was refounded in the 9th century BCE."

It may be that the second sentence refers to only part of the city, but at first (and even second) glance the second section in bold apparently contradicts the first.

If what is meant is that the city of Jericho is considered to be one entity, but that different parts of it were inhabited at different times, then that should be clearly stated. If there was an overall continuity but certain sections of the city fell in and out of use, then that too should be said.

Can somebody who has a good grasp of the overall early history of the site perhaps clarify this?

Jorvikian (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The website "Jewish Jericho" There is an English version of the site. This is the only site showcasing the contemporary Jewish connection to Jericho

The website http://www.jewishjericho.org.il/ is a non-commercial website promoting the contemporary Jewish connection to the city of Jericho. It reports on activities in and around the city of Jericho, mainly related to the ancient synagogue in the centre of town, talks about Jericho by leading rabbis, history and archaeological articles and a diary of future activities to be held in Jericho. It also has individual pages about various sites in Jericho. Most of the site is in Hebrew, but it has an English section http://www.jewishjericho.org.il/english . The site is still under development, and the English-language section has yet to be revamped and given a modern format, but nevertheless there are already some interesting articles (especially http://www.jewishjericho.org.il/english/thoughts/VisitingTheCityofJericho-en.html and articles describing various sites in the city, under the "Places in Jericho" menu item). It is important to show the public that there is a contemporary Jewish side to the city of Jericho, and this is the only site (as far as I know)doing this. Blessings, 80.230.41.90 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Yonathan Gormezano e-mail: yoni_go at hotmail com

Such political web sites do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for "reliable sources". Also, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise. Zerotalk 02:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Now found the English language link—thanks. Such proselytising statements as "we will succeed, with G-d’s help, to settle Jericho" seem to conflict with the WP's WP:NPOV policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern v. Neolithic Jericho

Cities of the ancient Near East lists Jericho as (Tell es Sultan). Findings at Tell Qaramel predate Jericho, but most Wikipedia pages list Jericho as the oldest city on record. The two cities are not equal, but each is important. Old Jericho, or Tell es Sultan designation ? Romanfall (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Tell Qaramel says that it has stone towers older than those found in Jericho, but the "oldest city" claim refers to "continuous" habitation, but just the age. Tell es Saltan is alleged to be the original site of Jericho, about 2km NW of where the modern town was. Nowadays both locations are within the Jericho built-up area. Zerotalk 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure everyone agrees Qaramel was a city in any case. For instance this [2] doesn't call it a city. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
what's a city? civilization, culture ? It depends which dictionary you grab. They were cultivating wild cereals and herding goats. Jericho & Qaramel were both pre-ag settlements. But, my point is mixing history and prehistory is confusing. Don't merge the wall page, take the prehistorical info out. split the articles. Romanfall (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On being wrong

Dougweller makes an important point. [3] is a great site. Thanks. Scientists disagree. Most likely no one is correct. We can date the wall. It probably took 10 years to build a 28ft ? tower. The guys building it would have lived outside of the wall. Some anthropologists think we built religious shrines first. Hunter-gatherer clans would meet on holy days at the holy sites. c. 4200 BCE Tell Brak shows how wary people were of living closely to one another. To live in a city, eat in public, you need food security. Anthropologists learn from trash. These sites have art and skeletons, but why is there no garbage? Romanfall (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Wall of Jericho into this article

At the moment we have a short article on the Neolithic A wall which it has been suggested by another editor should be merged with this article. I agree with this suggestion so am putting it forward here. This article is not yet that big that it wouldn't benefit by such a merger, and the current title of the stub is confusing. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I was the editor who suggested this merge. Since then I have revised the wall page with a very notable quote and discussion about the rock-cut ditch around the exterior of it and it's construction by Kenyon to give the article more validity as a stand alone. I have also created a Tower of Jericho article which I believe qualifies as the world's tallest skyscraper between 8000 BC and 2700 BC. These are highly notable components of a major archaeological site and I now support the view that they should be treated as separate articles. The article on Jericho is quite big and these neolithic elements are a field of study unto themselves as the 2011 Jerusalem Post reference demonstrates. I now propose removing the merge tag on the wall if no-one objects within a reasonable amount of time.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how that changes the issue about the wall page which is still a stub. And this is an unusual use of the word 'skyscraper', media hype aside. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Point taken, so I've updated the page up to at least start class and removed the stub tag. I've added extra details about all the various walls (17 in the early bronze age!), the biblical account, more dimensions. Also made the point about the "media hype", or at least "elevated public interest" in the wall of jericho up until Kenyon's excavations. I guess that's the point I am making, that the wall was a highly notable topic of debate during the period before Kenyon's excavation along with the neolithic one being probably the most exciting information to come from the dig. There is still improvement to be done here and I'd be interested to know what you think. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The page should not merge.

The wall is a Tower. .First Skyscraper Was a Monument to Intimidation: How Jericho's 11,000-Year-Old 'Cosmic' Tower Came Into Being http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110217125205.htm see http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/barkai327/

The page should move to an archaeology portal. If I was not a dork I would do it,... I'm a dork. The Neolithic settlement should merge with the Levant, Fertile Crescent , prehistory, The Ancient Near East,...not Jericho today.... Romanfall (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Biblical References Removed

This section was removed. I am not sure why. The reason given was because it contained original research. This section refers to biblical references which are mentioned in the bible are not original research. Biblical references are an integral part of this article. Both pages on Nazareth and Bethlehem contain biblical references. If one would argue against original research then neither of those articles should contain biblical references. 62.219.145.234 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors sampling primary religious texts in order to generate content that demonstrates that something is the case is original research. Please have a read through WP:OR e.g. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." If you see this kind of thing in other articles please delete it. It isn't allowed. Editors need to use secondary (or tertiary) sources that discuss biblical references to Jericho etc and use those instead. They should be easy to find. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Taxes

Invention of taxes? First human dynasty run by humans? On account of the bible and the occult it seems that the sumerian civilizations ended sometime with a transition around 600 bc. Now jericho was around 9000 bc, therefore it was the first tax'd city before the roman empire. Who would be stupid enough to invent taxes? Thats right humans. Therefore this city has no influence of the divine kingdoms or culture. The sumerian hybrids, Sennacherib and the cromagnums? No nature of their culture what so ever. It must have been run by lower-nature humans of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jericho / Damascus = the first city in the world

did Jericho was the first city in the world ? . פארוק (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

did Jericho is the first city in the world  ?

Jericho is show in the bible befor Damscus. פארוק (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's the archaeology that's important here as this is long before written records. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Tell Aswad near Damascus has emmer wheat first at ca. 8800 BCE, which is the first crop that can support a sedentary population. Jericho had a giant 600m x 3m x 9m ditch around it not long after (ca. 8000 BCE) that was likely used for some irrigation purpose. I would interject that the history of our first city would have been held of exceptional importance to our race, as every child wants to know where we came from! Hence I do not deem it as entirely unlikely as Doug does that stories of this settlement could have been passed down via language prior to written records. For a less distorted account of such things, older records than the Bible should be studies however as they are less corrupted. Sumerian records begin at about 2700-2600 BCE (1500-2000 years before the earliest parts of the Bible) with works such as the Kesh temple hymn that may be of interest to people studying such things. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Highly biased article

This article is highly biased. Undue weight to history and archeology. Present day is hidden between history and archeology. Occupation is denied, whereas correction is deleted. A casino that existed only a few years in the past. An Agro-Industrial Park that still does not exist.

You will not find the history that tells:
"The occupation of Jericho and the nearby Jordan banks and bridges on June 7, 1967, by Israel troops practically concluded the *Six-Day War fighting on the West Bank. Along with tropical, irrigated oasis-type farming (with date palms and pomegranates prominent, to which bananas, citrus, fodder crops, and certain tropical species, were later added), winter tourism and recreation developed, particularly from the 1950s, as an additional source of income." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10082.html

"Agriculture is another source of income, with banana groves ringing the city."
Without doubt, the Palestinians will do the slave work, but you will not read that the bananas do not grow in Jericho, but in the Jewish settlements on grabbed land, Tomer, Niran, Naomi, etc, etc. http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/070905-jv-factsheet.pdf --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletions from Bronze Age section

These deletions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jericho&diff=279338696&oldid=279282780 removing a few hundred words from the Bronze Age section go too far. The correct action to take would be to add fact templates, in order to get editors to add citations as needed. If, after a reasonable period, there was no interest in backing it up, it could be deleted. I also note that much of the deleted text were already supported by citations. patsw (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

-Thank you very much, I was looking exactly for this information. It should be included in the article.[[[Special:Contributions/93.196.233.191|93.196.233.191]] (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)]

Tumbling walls

In the article it states that

In the Book of Exodus, Jericho's walls are said to have come tumbling down upon Joshua's order;

Last time I checked this didn't happen anywhere near Exodus.Am I imagining things? Chocom (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The conquest and sack of Jericho by the Israelites is described in the Book of Joshua, which is most often placed in sixth position after the five books of Moses who did not enter the "promised land" but died after seeing it. The book chronicles the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan under the new leader Joshua. [[[Special:Contributions/93.196.233.191|93.196.233.191]] (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)]

Google Maps?

I was just looking at Google Maps, and they seemed to have eradicated Palestine. It is all Israeli. As an example, I looked at Jericho, and there was almost nothing there. Is there some way to address this issue?

thanks, Baden 41.63.142.229 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has no influence over what Google do, but Google Maps displays the "Green Line" that separates Israel and the Palestinian territories. They dynamically label Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip based on the scale of the map, and all 3 of those labels are treated the same way i.e. they are either all present or all absent for a given scale. So, while it's true that they don't use a Palestine, Palestinian territories or the ISO 3166 standard name "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" label, they label the Gaza Strip and West Bank individually instead, it's not the case that they treat it all as Israeli. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
What I am getting at, is if you click on the coordinates at the top of the article, it will take you to the map page, where if you click on Google Map, you will see exactly what I am referring to. No matter at what scale you zoom into, Jericho has no street labels, where if you examine nearby Israeli settlements, they are fully and colourfully notated.
thanks, Baden 41.63.128.175 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction with Wikipedia's Tell Aswad page (Over-modelled skulls)

Just noticed an apparent contradiction between these pages. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Age section of the Jericho page it says:

"After a few centuries it was abandoned for a second settlement, established in 6800 BC, perhaps by an invading people who absorbed the original inhabitants into their dominant culture. Artifacts dating from this period include ten plastered human skulls, painted so as to reconstitute the individuals' features.[12] These represent the first example of portraiture in art history, and it is thought that they were kept in people's homes while the bodies were buried."

If this second settlement was established in 6800 BC, this implies the earliest time these plastered skulls could have been crafted would be immediately afterward. My concern is with the claim that they represent the first example of portraiture in art history.

In the Tell Aswad page, under the Culture section, it says:

"A collection of 9 technically and stylistically similar, over-modelled, skulls were retrieved from 2 areas. Detailed study of the skulls is currently underway to provide insight into the traditions and social ties of the villagers. The residents of Tell Aswad reserved a very sophisticated treatment for the dead: skulls were removed and cleaned, with a face modelled directly onto the bone with lime plaster and then painted."

That sounds like the very same process referred to in the Jericho page as the first example of portraiture in art history, yet wikipedia lists Tell Aswad as having been deserted in 7500 BC. Would that not imply the Tell Aswad skulls were crafted earlier than 7500 BC and hence predate those from Jericho?

http://anthropology.net/2006/09/26/9500-year-old-syrian-decorated-skulls/

216.64.170.2 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew

Is there a Wikipedia requirement that a language be an official language of the country in which a city is located, before the name of that city in that language be used? It doesn't seem to be the case here: Strassburg or here Gdańsk. This standard is not even apparent with regards to other historical cities in the West Bank: [[Hebron], Nablus Brad Dyer (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

From WP:PLACE: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."... so at first glance, no, there doesn't appear to be any requirement that a language be an official language of the country. Tobus (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Some comments.
  • I don't think looking at other articles is useful in practice because the presence and absence of non-English names is often nothing more than an artifact of ethno-nationalist pissing contests and neglect. This is especially the case in WP:ARBPIA (and a few other topic areas) that are subjected to constant POV pushing by ethno-nationalists, often by unregistered editors and sockpuppet accounts.
  • Local official non-English names should certainly be included so that's a simple and straightforward decision procedure for many English Wikipedia articles about localities in Israel and the occupied territories, Israeli settlements for example, localities that are administered by the State of Israel, where both the official Hebrew and Arabic names should be included. That isn't the case in practice however. The official Arabic names (that appear on road signs for example) are almost always absent (see Template:Neighborhoods_of_Jerusalem and Category:Israeli settlements for numerous examples) or systematically removed (see this article history or this ANI report about just one of this persons multiple accounts for example). Of course, ethno-nationalists will tend to focus on adding one language while removing or more often simply ignoring the absence of the other language. This is a major issue in ARBPIA.
  • How to handle localities like Jericho, that are outside of Israel and administered by the State of Palestine rather than Israel seems less clear. Hebrew is not a local official language according to Palestinian basic law so the localities are not going have Hebrew names that can be added to the article on the basis that they are local official names. As for including non-official non-English names in regionally "relevant" languages such as Hebrew (or I suppose Ottoman Turkish or even Russian nowadays I guess), what is the precise basis for including Hebrew in this instance ? If it is on the basis that Hebrew is the language of "a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place", who are we talking about and when precisely ? Are we talking about ancient history or Palestinian Jews before 1948 or the post-1967 pre-Oslo situation or what or does it even really matter ? I understand that to ethno-nationalists who see the occupied territories as part of Israel and who don't really distinguish between the modern State of Israel and Eretz Yisrael, the reason to include Hebrew for anything within Eretz Yisrael will be obvious/self-evident, but it isn't to me. I would like to see the rationale spelled out using language I can understand, partly to ensure that rational decisions are being made based on policy (or common sense) rather than as a side-effect of ethno-nationalist socialization or the systemic bias that comes from the demographic make up and prevailing political views of the subset of editors who edit articles about these localities, systemic bias that is evident from the current state of locality naming in hundreds of articles in the topic area.
  • Now, having said all that, I'm not very interested in the details or complicated rules personally. I would much rather see a simple one-size-fits-all rule rolled out across ARBPIA (maybe agreed at WP:IPCOLL) to cover this with editors acting responsibly and evenhandedly to ensure that the rule is implemented right across the topic area in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

According to carbon dating the Canaanite city (Jericho City IV) was destroyed between 1617 and 1530 BCE, but rounded as c.1550 BCE

Cary Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cary Cook (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an error to me. I have corrected the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The grain found burned in Garstang's city IV level was RC dated by Bruins and Van Der Plicht to 3306 bp plus or minus 7 years. There are a number of RC calibration schemes. All produce unsatisfactory results for this time period because of a 'wiggle' or 'turn about' in atmospheric carbon during this period. So, a single bp date will produce a set of bce dates. In this case, the calibrated dates produced by the scheme selected by Bruins and Van Der Plicht produced the date sets of 1601-1566 bce and 1561-1524 bce. None of these dates are acceptable to archaeologists and historians. The fall of city IV almost certainly took place during the reign of Amenhotep III, whose scarabs were the last (most recent) found on the tell and in the graves associated with the city. This, along with indisputable ceramic evidence from LB I (ignored by Kenyan) cement the case for the destruction of city IV in LB I. No archaeologist or historian of note would accept a date for Amenhotep III that is compatible with the date range suggested by the RC results. This problem is not confined to Jericho, but is a well known problem affecting all ANE archaeology. Kenyan's MB II destruction (presumed as she did not publish a final report before her death). Has been conclusively shown to be invalid since the early '90's principally through the doctoral thesis of Bryant Wood, widely published in non academic circles as well, through the Biblical Archaeology Review. This should be corrected in the article. The evidence unequivocally points to a destruction in LB I and there has been a great deal published on it in the last 25 years. People who hold to Kenyan's work are either doing so in ignorance (an ignorance that Wikipedia should not participate in) or as a social/political opposition to anything that might seem to indicate any level of historicity to the 'biblical' narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

"The people raised the war cry, the trumpets sounded. When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there. At once the people stormed the city, each man going straight forward; and the captured the city. They enforced the curse of destruction on everyone in the city; men and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep, and the donkeys, slaughtering them all. -- Joshua 6:20-21"

Here is the evidence you were after.

That would be a slaughter, not a genocide. Unless one was making the case that the inhabitants of Jericho were the sole representatives of some distinct cultural or ethnic group. Evidence from excavations would seem to indicate that the inhabitants of Jericho were not a distinct ethnic or cultural group, as their material remains correspond well with those of the entire southern levant in all periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Archaeology

The destruction of Jericho ca. 1550 B.C.E. has been disputed and this should at least be noted. The single article referencing Dr. Bryant Wood is hardly encompassing of his work on Jericho. In the very least this should be included next to reference 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjaggard (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr Wood's challenge to Kenyon's dating has been found to be incorrect - the accepted date remains c.1550 BCE. This is referenced in the footnote in this article, and at more length in the article on Wood.PiCo (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wood's criticism of Kenyon's dating of the the fall of Jericho city iv to the MB has withstood all criticism for the last 25 years. Garstang, Kenyon and the new Italian-Palestinian dig at Jericho all found LB I ceramics on the tell in the last layer of Jericho city IV. The RC dates of grains from city iv are dated far older than any historian or archaeologist would accept for LB I, a problem all across the archaeology of the ancient near east at this time. Just to be clear, Kenyon was wrong, because she dated the fall of city iv in the middle bronze. The last scarabs found on the tel and in associated tombs are those of Amenhotep iii. The destruction of city iv took place early in his reign, which is late bronze. Kenyon's dating at other sites has also been demonstrated as incorrect as well. She followed a pattern of judging a site's date by what she didn't find in it, rather than what she did find. She was specifically interested in Mycenaean ware at Jericho. Because she didn't find any in her small sections, she judged that there was none. However, Mycenaean ware was found by Garstang (also by the Italian-Palestinian digs). Additionally, the wares she did find in her city iv plots were indisputably LB I as well, just local. The article should reflect that the fall of city iv, demonstrated by pottery and scarab evidence from the tel and tombs, took place in the late bronze, during the reign of Amenhotep iii. The dispute about dates is not one of when Jericho fell, but a wider debate about the dates for the whole Bronze Age in the ancient near east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Name Etymology

JER-icho is very near JER-usalem, which means "Ur-Salem" or "city [of] peace". "Ur" is quite common, around the region, as a term meaning "city" -- cf. Ur, Uruk, Eridu (Uridu) in Sumer. (cf. Latin Urb- ?) So, perhaps Jericho also begins with this same, quite common, "Ur" element. 66.235.26.150 (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Expressive is the name Jeruschalem which is to be described with »foundation of the (God) Shalem« and was adapted in Akkadian language as urusalim, »town of the (God) Shalem«, as well as Egyptian as ruschalimum, »mountain height of the (God) Shalem« while a phonetically more assonant sense was wrung from the prefix jeru, what meant "foundation". The God Shalim/Shalem is well known from late bronze age texts of the canaanite port Ugarit on the Syrian Mediterranean coast and is connected there as an evening star with the divinity Shahar, the morning star, and with the solar divinity Shamash. Jerusalem bears the God Shalim/Shalem as a town God in its name which should stand up as a god of war for the protection of the town, got in touch as the evening star also with the realm of the dead, and applied as an offspring of the creator god El.
from: Das antike Jerusalem: Archäologie und Geschichte, author: Eckart Otto, publisher C.H.Beck, ISBN: 340656881-5, year: 2008, page 46, translated by myself (sorry!)
Tri-l (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

May I propose that the name of Jericho could be the last avatar of the hieroglyphic name Sharruken. It was designing the main fortress of Hyksos in Canaan that was taken by Pharaoh Ahmose after a 3-year siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.146.60 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The city of Jericho was called Ruha in Egyptian documents from the Middle Kingdom forward until its destruction sometime in LB I. The proper name would have been Ur Ruha in Akkadian and Ir Richo in Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Date of PPNA wall, tower

There is a 1500-year discrepancy between the PPNA dates given by specialised archaeologists here, and the dates used by the WP articles on Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, Jericho, the Wall of Jericho and the Tower of Jericho: ≈11,500–10,500 cal B.P. vs. 8000 to 7000 BC. The PNAS article is referring specifically to the PPNA site at Dhra', but Jericho is only a stone throw away, so regional differences can hardly play a part. Or is it connected to calibrated carbon dates vs. what has become common dating standards? Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at the PPNA article and the sources cited give the earlier dates, 11,500-10,500 BP, so I have amended the article. The other articles you mention will also need checking. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Dates for PPNA, PPNA, Sultanian

We have quite wide variations now.

Compare with Neolithic#Fertile Crescent with slightly different grouping of sub-periods suggested by French researchers: "between 10,200-8,800 BC, PPNA: Sultanian (Jericho), Mureybetian, early PPNB (PPNB ancien) ".

Here we have: "Pre-Pottery Neolithic, c. 9600 BCE", "The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A phase at Tell es-Sultan (ca. 8350 – 7370 BCE)", under the PPNA heading: "first permanent settlement ... between 10,000 and 9000 BCE", "Pre-Pottery Neolithic A phase at Tell es-Sultan (ca. 8350 – 7370 BCE)" (maybe a mix-up with "Sultanian", which might (?) have slightly different dates than geographically wider defined PPNA?), and then for PPNB: "Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, 7220 to 5850 BCE".

Barkai & Liran, referring strictly to the tower, are quoting Richard Burleigh: "The tower was constructed and used between ~8300 BC and ~7800 BC (Burleigh 1981, 1983)." Arminden (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Arminden

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jericho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jericho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jericho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Help needed!

Ben-Arieh, p. 80, writes that Schick, 1896 gives Jericho 210 inhabitants. Unfortunately, he does not say which page in Schick....and I have not been able to find it. What am I missing? ...or is it a mistake in Ben-Arieh? Huldra (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anybody with authorization can add this to the external links:

  • Jericho & Tel El Sultan - Aerial photography - Mikraot Gedolot Haketer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel678 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Emmanuel1678: what's your relationship to that website? It looks as though you are spamming it - again. Last time you agreed not to add it without discussion on the appropriate talk page, but only here, where you don't have permission, have you even posted to a talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Billinghurst: this editor has resumed his cross-wiki spamming, any comments? Doug Weller talk 10:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Also noting that when this site was removed from the spam blacklist, this editor agreed to Billinghurst's request: "I would heartily suggest that continued addition, especially xwiki in the main namespaces of the wikipedias would not be advisable. If in doubt, ask on an article talk page whether the link should be added (due to potential CoI) and rely on the community to make the decision to add or not. I would also encourage you to talk openly with heWP about your vested interst in the link, and arrange with them how they wish to manage the link and your addition. Having that as an open discussion extinguishes natural tensions."[4] Doug Weller talk 10:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • @Doug Weller: Hmm, I should have read this page before replying on the user talk page. This user should be required to declare any interest, and we should flag heWP admins like @Matanya, IKhitron, and Amire80: to alert them to local issues if they have returned. The subject matter of which I know sufficient to make an authoritative statement, though the traits of the additions is problematic and does not seem free of vested interest. Cross-wiki it did look that way, and the user does not look to be here to improve our encyclopaedias but to add their link, the contributions seem to be promoting their site luxo:Emmanuel678. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Detroit: Become Human

I want to know if this has any relation to Detroit: Become Human. Is it just the name, or does it have some connection to this city? EmeraldTheGamer (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No relationship is known. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

West Bank vs Palestine

An edit was made in 2018 changing the location from the West Bank to Palestine.

I’m sure this was motivated by bias. It is inconsistent with other wiki W.B. cities and Gaza cities. This change is likely going to confuse readers. Maitz23459 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Mud-smeared brush?

"Each house measured about 5 metres (16 ft) across, and was roofed with mud-smeared brush."

I don't understand what this means, and searching about does not help.

-GreenlandGneiss (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"brush" is like "brushwood". But I don't know if that sentence is sourced. I can't find it in the source given for the following sentence. Zerotalk 20:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Ghaur link under Ayyubid period is clearly wrong. 216.8.188.31 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this!  Done Huldra (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Change AD to CE: A number of monasteries and churches were built, including St George of Koziba in 340 AD and a domed church dedicated to Saint Eliseus. -> A number of monasteries and churches were built, including St George of Koziba in 340 CE and a domed church dedicated to Saint Eliseus. 016bells (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. -Tri@l (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done. You need to give a strong reason to change date formats. - Sumanuil (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Name Etymology

It is funny that the article says "The Arabic name *also* has roots in Canaanite". Instead of saying "the Arabic name is derived from the Ancient/Archaic Hebrew name".

This could cause viewers to think there is a separate etymology that somehow developed both in the Arabian peninsula *before the Arabian conquest of Israel* , and in Israel from the same root at the same time even though Jericho is very far from the Arabian peninsula.

This is obviously untrue, seeing as there are earlier references in the Hebrew language to the place, way before the Arabian conquest of Israel. Also this may cause viewers to think Arabic is *based on* Cannanite, when in fact it derived from an entirely different semetic branch (Cannanite is branch of northwestern semetic and has it's origins in Central Semetic , Arabic is on a different branch of Central semetic)

If my arguments arent enough validation, here is a language chronology order to prove this is true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#/media/File%3ASemitic_languages_-_Chronology.png

Please fix "also has its roots in Canaanite Reaẖ" to "stems/loans from the Archaic/Ancient Hebrew name יריחו". Colanderion1 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry WP:OR does not beat WP:RS, especially when there are three of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

PPN (A + B): years don't add up

As they are stated now, it leaves two substantial gaps, one -, one +: if PPNB covers 9,500-9000, and PPN altogether ends around 6500, that leaves 1780 years belonging nowhere (9000-7220), and extends PPN from the stated 6500 by 650 years to 5850 BC. Must be addressed (different authors maybe, calibrated dates vs uncal., older vs newer periodisation, habitation gap between A and B,... - ?). Arminden (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor suggestion for British Mandate Period

Hello, I was reading this article and noted in the sub-section on the British Mandate Period that the first sentence deals with World War II, before immediately going back in time to talk about World War I and the inter-war period. I would suggest somebody simply moves the World War II sentence later in the section, probably going just before the final paragraph. I would do it myself, but I don't have the clearance thingy necessary to edit the article. GeorgmentO (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, User:GeorgmentO: have done, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Palestine is not a legitimate or "real" place it was made up only in recent times Using the term is offensive and ignorant 70.163.223.87 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: As documented in Timeline of the name Palestine, the name "Palestine" dates to ancient times. The article adequately documents its legal status in the section "1967, aftermath" Vahurzpu (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"The oldest representation of a human face ever discovered"

This statement in the description of the head of an ancestor statue dated at 9000 old is unsourced and factually false. The Brassempouy Venus is over 15 000 years older. Drilou (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

The Christian Gospels state that Jesus of Nazareth passed through Jericho where he healed blind beggars (Matthew 20:29: Mark 10: 46-52: Luke, 18:35-43) Josmathews (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

BCE AND CE

WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT SAYING BC AND AD?

WHAT DO BC AND AD STAND FOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justified19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This article was changed to a BCE article randomly by user Troy von Tempest in 2019 without any reason. This is a BC article and should not be changed. We should revert their changes. Paokara777 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To be accurate, it’s been BCE since 2006 with a small number of IP changes quickly reversed.[5] I can’t see why it should be changed to “year of our lord” dating. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Particularly since calling Jesus our dominus is offensive. We are not his slaves. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Creation of category "EB cities in Southern Levant"

Please see discussion here. Arminden (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Did not find in main article mention of Jewish occupation c 3000 years ago

Where in the main article is the Biblical historic record of Jericho being the first point of jewish conquest of the land if Israel? 2A0D:6FC0:742:ED00:DCA1:4C95:B527:CBFE (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not a fact of history, it's a myth. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Jericho

Jericho wasn't founded in 9600 BC. 96.53.84.138 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Says who? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Change

"In 1994, Israel and the Palestinians signed an economic accord that enabled Palestinians in Jericho to open banks, collect taxes and engage in export and import in preparation for self-rule.[104]"

To

"In 1994, Israel and Palestine signed an economic accord that enabled Palestinians in Jericho to open banks, collect taxes and engage in export and import in preparation for self-rule.[104]" Ruler in Peace (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done The person who loves reading (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

The list linked no longer states as the oldest city. Also references used only mention 9000bc not 11000bc Jericó as abandoned during its history it seems? AndresMP.wiki (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jericho/Archive_1&oldid=1218563706"