Talk:Fall of Jericho: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:21, 13 August 2009

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bible Start‑class

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Palestine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

"If the Old Testament version is accurate on all facts and not a fictionalized account, then this would likely be considered a genocide."

This is a blatant POV statement, so I removed it. Also this section needs some more scholarly references on either side, not just the "we don't believe it really happened" side. There is much research the indicates there was a conquest of Canaan. Kristamaranatha (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

breaking the sabbath?

The Israelites marched around jericho once a day for six days and seven times on the seventh day. At one time or another they marched on the sabbath travelling a good distance from their tents. It is forbidden to travel 'outside ones dwelling place' [town/community/city] for any reason. Explanation is much appreciated. Craobh sidhe (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANY reason?

Priests had to be at the temple/tabernacle. That was probably not their family's house. For special reasons given by God, the normal societal order could be postponed. Men were not to engage in physical labors for their own personal agendas (e.g., gathering wood, Numbers 15). However, when commanded by the same God to destroy a city for its evil citizenry, the men were warned not to loot it on the day they raided. Once again, the emphasis is on men not being allowed to work on personal goals. Many other Jewish traditions regarding forbidden "work" comes from efforts of convenience to define "work" more specifically than Moses does.

The Bulldozer (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Genocide" - The right word?

Some would argue that the use of the word "genocide" is too strong a term for the campaign. Yes, the Israelites were expected to annihilate entire civilizations, but the condemnations against those civilizations usually consisted of allegations of terrorist-like activities and sexual deviancy. It was also an effort to wipe out those nations' questionable religious and cult practices.

"Genocide" implies a racial/ethnic cleansing motive. This, however, is inconsistent with Rahab being allowed to live. If ethnic cleansing were the motive, she too would have been killed, regardless her kindness to the spies. She certainly would not have been allowed to have children with an Israelite suitor later on. --The Bulldozer (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity

"The battle's historicity is dismissed by modern scholars" makes it seem like all modern scholars dismiss it, but this totality clearly isn't true. For example, Dr. Bryant G. Wood in this article from several years ago. Perhaps he's not credible, but he's a modern scholar. Fustigate314159 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wood's arguments have been reviewed and refuted - the article makes this clear.PiCo (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not true. There are scholars who do not dismiss it.

Furthermore, you have removed cited information without giving a reason why.ReaverFlash (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 [[User:Fustigate314159|Fustigate314159]] ([[User talk:Fustigate314159|talk]]) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 :Wood's arguments have been reviewed and refuted - the article makes this clear.[[User:PiCo|PiCo]] ([[User talk:PiCo|talk]]) 06:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
+Clearly not true.  There are scholars who do not dismiss it.
+Furthermore, you have removed cited information without giving a reason why.[[User:ReaverFlash|ReaverFlash]] ([[User talk:ReaverFlash|talk]]) 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)