Talk:Jericho (TV series)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Seeking Spoilers

I don't plan on watching the show, but I do want to know what happened. "war, accident, experiment, aliens, dream, etc...". Just seeking the spoiler. If anyone can find it and post it here, much thanks.

-G

No aliens, dont know if its war. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can not confirm this, but for some reason I can recall talk about a nuclear terrorist attack upon the U.S. One thing that can be confirmed is that there are multiple nuclear explosions, as Jon Turtletaub mentions "nuclear bombs" in an on-line interview with the executive producers. Phimu222 11:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The pilot does not explicitly state that a terrorist attack has occurred, although whatever happened is certainly nuclear, as the residents of Jericho deal with the issue of fallout in episode two. Since the CBS promos for the show claim that "it will keep you guessing all year long" (shades of "Lost"?) I don't expect a quick explanation, but it doesn't seem to have been an accident (note the multiple explosions), aliens, or a dream. 64.12.116.138 03:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the major clues that this is a terrorist attack and not an attack using ballistic missiles launched from outside the US is that, as far as we've been shown, none of the blast zones are specific miltary base targets. Some of the cities do have military installations - San Diego being the best example - but note that NORAD headquarters in Carlsbad and Omaha, Nebraska have been shown as having been hit.

Uh, what episode showed Omaha getting hit?
Looks like a typo. Based on the phrasing, it's obvious he meant "have been shown as having *not* been hit."

See "Possible Attackers"

Introduction

I'm reverting the introduction back closer to it's original form and dropping all of the extra "the" that have become present. I think it's current form is better than saying the CBS dramas . . . the NBC comedies . . . the ABC reality . . . the FOX drama Bones. Since abreviations are being used instead of the networks' full names, the "the" seem unneccesary

Phimu222 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "the" does not modify the network abbreviations, but rather the nouns that follow. In other words, it isn't referring to "the CBS," but rather "the...comedies," "the...results show," "the...drama." The sentence fragment "and FOX drama Bones" is at best awkward English usage without it. So I have put "the" back where it was. 64.12.117.11 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Music

ive identified the music as best i could with some help from [1]

im not that good at wiki structure, so if anyone could clean it up a little better, please be my guest.

--Kommando 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the music to the page for the pilot episode, as it will be more appropriate there; I also simplified the format and removed the scene references. If people really liked those, they can be re-added.Transcendentalstate 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename

The article should be moved to a new name, as WP:NAME notes that "Series" shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun. This article and Jericho (2005 TV series) have been playing musical chairs, so it's not clear what the best name for this article is... maybe Jericho (CBS TV series) (and rename the other Jericho (ITV TV series))... maybe Jericho (2006 TV series)... maybe move this on top of what's currently at Jericho (TV series). Take your pick, any of those would be better than "TV Series". --Interiot 09:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I put in a request to change it to Jericho (TV series). Using the "move" tab doesn't work because the two names are the same on a case-insensitive basis. SnappingTurtle 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support move to "(TV series)", of course. I don't know if this is really a matter of voting since it's obviously incorrect as it is, but I figured I'd chime in anyway. Kafziel 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Article has been moved. Joelito (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nav box, list of episodes, and links to episodes

I made a navigation template, please feel free to add further categories as needed if you know how. I added a simple list of episodes and a link to a full list of episodes. I also established an infobox for the series on the pilot page and started the pilot page. I moved the music discussion to the pilot page itself.Transcendentalstate 16:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Show is already out?

If the show is already out somewhere then the article should not say that the show will premiere in "fall 2006", it should mention when the show premiered. However, I can't find any info on the web that indicates that the show has premiered yet. tv.com says that the show premieres on September 20, 2006. SnappingTurtle 15:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is avilableas a dvd to a select ammount of people for critical commentery, reviews etc etc. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, but I wouldn't call that "out" yet. Preview releases are common in movies and tv, but the show hasn't officially premiered yet. The definition of "upcoming" in this context should apply to what's available to the general public. I move that we put the "upcoming" template back in until Sep 20. SnappingTurtle 15:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

I liked the mushroom cloud image a lot more than the current image. The mushroom cloud gives a more vivid description of the what the show's about. It's also the image CBS uses in the official web site. Opine. SnappingTurtle 15:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the offical intro and thus should be used as it is the std. generally. I uploaded a mushroom cloud scene from the programe if you wish to view it its on the pilots episode summary. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That standard is only loosely followed and anyway it's a lousy standard. A shot from the show is often a much better visual description of the show than the opening sequence. SnappingTurtle 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree One thing rarely changes the intro. You are more likely able to identify the show via the intro. + The fair use argument is stronger. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • shrugs* We'll agree to disagree. I'm more concerned that the show get listed as "upcoming" until Sep 20. Any thoughts on that? SnappingTurtle 16:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if you believe it should be listed on futre tv as its not been on tv yet, just dvd ill revert it now. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! It occurs to me that the future tv template says that that article contains "non-definitive" information. Obviously if you're drawing from an official DVD that's not true. It might make more sense to just put the article into the "Upcoming television series" category w/o using the template. SnappingTurtle 16:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Or we could use {{In-progress tvshow}} as that has the advance publicity part in it. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


{{In-progress tvshow}} certainly makes sense. However, it doesn't add the future tv series category to the article. My vote would be to add {{In-progress tvshow}} and also manually put the article into future tv series. SnappingTurtle 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A nuke in Denver? Didn't that happen in Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" (book, not movie with Baltimore)? Any connection?

I did some searching for images of Jericho and if you search at blogger dot com there was a site that had some pics, including some of the cast plus some nice pictures of Emily. Jericho-cbs was the title I think. Keep up the good work and lets see some more about Emily!!!

The official CBS "Jericho" site now has a bunch of pictures posted, including Emily (Ashley Scott) and Heather (Sprague Grayden), looking good in dresses I haven't seen them wearing on the show, plus some staged shots and a few scenes from the series. 64.12.116.138 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Location of Jericho

Kindly cease removing this information. If the lead character is driving east on a Kansas two-lane highway with a road sign that reads "Jericho 47, Wichita 196," it is fair to assume that Jericho is approximately 149 miles distant from Wichita. Western Kansas is straight and flat. I have added the word "suggests" to placate the nitpickers in the crowd, and have removed any indication as to direction, even though the context of the series indicates that Jericho is in the northwestern corner of Kansas. 64.12.116.138 05:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is only fair to assume that the character is currently 47 miles distant from Jericho and 196 miles distant from Wichita. If Jericho is not on the same path as the road to Wichita, your calculation (which is not verifiable) is incorrect. Lets look at this map of Kansas. Pretend that we are nearing the point marked Pratt (to the west of Wichita) and that the distance to Jericho could be the distance from the sign before Pratt then along the highway from Pratt to Hutchinson (NE), or it could also be the distance to Jericho on the highway from Pratty to Wichita. The latter situation would make your calculation accurate, the former would likely make your calculation completely incorrect. At that poin the distance from Jericho to Wichita would be calculated either over land, or by road (from Jericho to Pratt to Wichita OR from Jericho to Hutchinson to Wichita I am not trying to use those numbers to identify where Jericho is, according to the scale of this map, I'm simply using Kansas' map to show how the road network's geometry can easily make your calculations speculative... a guess. You are assuming that Jericho lies on the highway to Wichita, and it could easily lie off the road on another highway. It is for this reason that I will continue to remove the information that is based on a calculation. - BalthCat 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point is taken. I have tried again with more neutral language, though still speculative (indeed, the series itself is speculative). There are few clues to the exact location of "Jericho," so I feel that this information is important to include, especially in a "trivia" section. Also, the word "reads" appeared in that sentence twice, so I have removed its second occurrence. 152.163.100.138 06:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the show is about speculation, what matters is that Wikipedia is not about speculation. As the show progresses, as media explores the show, sources which can be cited may pop up which speculate as to the location of Jericho. However, for the moment, you are engaging in WP:OR, and speculation. Your current version is less speculative, however it's still speculation. Using the map and using those numbers I could place Jericho to the South West. Do either of us know how far away a mushroom cloud is viewable? I'm betting no :) It's only been one episode so far, there's no rush. - BalthCat 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You write "you are engaging in WP:OR and speculation" as if it were an indictment. If you will, go to the page for the pilot episode, and you will see an image of a young boy looking at a mushroom cloud. The boy is in Jericho. The explosion is in Denver. That much is established in the pilot. For the mountains and the explosion to be so clearly visible (indeed, line of sight), the location of Jericho must be near the Colorado border, since there are no mountains in Kansas, and the mountains in Colorado would not be visible in southwest Kansas. If Jake (the main character) is driving on a highway which signs Jericho, Wichita, Kansas City, in that order, he is obviously driving east, since no other direction would present the latter two cities in that order. It is also clear that both Wichita and Kansas City lie either along the highway, or on another road just off the highway, or else they would not be signed. Since he will obviously reach Jericho before Wichita, and since he is driving east, Jericho must be some distance west of Wichita. None of this is intended as WP:OR, but rather, drawing logical conclusions from the evidence presented. Granted all of this is fictional (and the mountains and mushroom cloud are, in fact, a matte painting), but I am merely trying to provide some information to those fans who have an interest in pinpointing the location of the fictional Jericho. Finally, this seems like an awful lot of discussion/argument for a matter of trivia. 152.163.100.138 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are bad, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yet they are all over Wikipedia. I do not believe either blank was constructive. - BalthCat 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, one was :) - BalthCat 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my tone isn't great, but "drawing logical conclusions from the evidence presented" is precisely what original research is. And while I'm not "indicting" you in a nasty sense, that is what I see happening, and that is one thing we are supposed to avoid here. I will admit that my knowledge of Kansan geography isn't great, so you may be right that to see the mountains that close may mean that the town would realistically be in NW Kansas, however we may find out soon that it is in fact in the SW and that the producers made a geography mistake. (The promo poster of anything shouldn't be taken as indication of anything really, those are liberally doctored and spruced up all the time.) I also don't know how Kansan road signs work, but here, having two cities on one sign does NOT mean they are in a line, *especially* on a highway. It simply means that, regardless on where your turn offs are, you are currently that distance from arriving. Like in the Pratt/Hutchinson/Wichita scenario I explained above. In fact, you can be headed almost *away* from a place and still see the city listed if a common off-ramp is coming up. Again, all depending on the road geometry. Not that anything that radical has to happen in this case. The very plausible scenario I presented above invalidates speculation based on the numbers. I am curious to know if you are a driver? Because the "just off of" part really doesn't sound right in my experience. If it's a big enough population center (like Wichita would be, in Kansas) it will be noted even if it is out of the way. (Driving through Quebec was like that, NONE of the tiny towns were along the actual highway and they were ALL off to the side.) And again, even if it's the most obvious thing in the world, if you can't WP:CITE the information, it technically isn't right for Wikipedia. So regardless of the mountains, regardless of the fact that you HAVE to be in the west of Kansas to be that far from Kansas City... it's still just speculation and OR. - BalthCat 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture presented on the pilot episode page might be used as a promo poster by CBS, but it is also a scene from the pilot episode. As such, it is, as they say so often on the Star Trek pages, canon for the series. And if it is canon, then no way does the boy view the mountains and the explosion from anywhere but northwest Kansas. Here's another scene: Emily, Jake's ex-girlfriend, goes to pick up her fiance at the Denver airport. That presumes Denver is close. This is not OR, it is a statement of fact -- obviously relating to a fictional scenario and location. I suppose I could WP:CITE all of my references with specific scenes from the pilot episode (and exact times from the episode, if desired), but that seems like an awful lot of work for such a trivial piece of information, and I've got this feeling you still wouldn't be satisfied with the results and would call it OR. This is more time and effort than I ever planned to spend on a minor item which was only posted in an attempt to be helpful. You fellows sure know how to spoil a contributor's spirit; I should have taken that warning about "merciless editing" a bit more seriously. Standing down. 152.163.100.138 09:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you feel that I was merciless, but "presuming" and "deducing" based on posters and scenes in the episode is still presuming (assuming) and deducing, even if you could show the second at which those scenes appear in the episode. The producers might have fudged it and may come out and say that Jericho is in SW Kansas. *I* didn't know that you can't see the mountains that well from SW Kansas, maybe they didn't and forgot to check. If they say it's SW, it's SW, even if the mountains are in the wrong place in the world of Jericho. Doesn't make you wrong, doesn't make them right (about real world Kansas). It just means it shouldn't be in this article because it isn't a Fact about Jericho. It's an assumption. - BalthCat 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. As I stated above, I am standing down from this argument. 152.163.100.138 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But here is an addendum. I am curious as to what you make of the following paragraph from the Wikipedia page on The Day After. It appears to be wild speculation, posing as deduction, not to mention POV opinion ("it hardly matters"?), yet it has stood for months. Here is the paragraph in question (not written by me, FTR):

"It is not clear in the film whether the Soviet Union or the United States launches the main nuclear attack first. It hardly matters. However, we may deduce that the Soviets launched first since their missiles hit Kansas very soon after the American launches (although it is of course possible that a U.S. Nuclear submarine or other Cruise missile system could have fired first and therefore an American strike might have already been in the air by the time of the main American launch)."

Crikey! That paragraph makes my calculations of the distance and location of Jericho look like the Encyclopedia Brittannica. By the same standard you have applied to my postings, all but the first sentence should be removed. Your call. 152.163.100.138 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I am not sure how to edit it properly, so I'm not sure if I am going to edit it. I have not seen the movie, and as such might make a mistake in removing content. I checked one of the older versions that had a better wording for it, as well. So for now, I'm not sure I plan to edit. It *is* still assumptions. I'm not sure why this is so important to you... - BalthCat 23:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Just trying to make the point that if the standards are going to be enforced (and rather strictly so with respect to the "Jericho" article), then they ought to be enforced across the board, no double standard. Perhaps this article merely has more hall monitors. I have seen "The Day After," and the paragraph in question goes far beyond assumptions, and in the spirit of equanimity, it has now been edited, by me. 152.163.100.138 14:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The distance from Wichita to Kansas City by road is 200 miles. It means that the road from the sign to Kansas City does not go through Wichita. In this case, two statements "Wichita 196, Kansas City 362" are enough to significantly narrow down the location of the sign. ( Generally speaking, two circles intersect in two points or do not intersect at all; in real life the situation is slightly more complicated, but this model works pretty well, especially in Kansas ).

The first location is at the intersection of state route 156 and state route 23 in Southwestern Kansas, 25 miles east of Garden City, Kansas. It would put Jericho somewhere east of there, possibly identifying with Dodge City, Kansas or Ness City, Kansas ( but not in Northwestern Kansas! ) I doubt that you can see Colorado mountains from there. In fact, I don't think you can see Rockies from anywhere in Kansas - they start 150 miles west from Kansas-Colorado border. Also, if those mountains were Rockies, they would've been seen behind the explosion, not in front of it.

The second location is near Oklahoma City, so it's out. --Itinerant1 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because this discussion interests me... the problem with your theory here is that distance markers on highways aren't as the crow flies, and -- especially out in the middle of nowhere -- a route may go at right angles to its intended destination for quite some distance without really getting any closer to where you're going, even though the mileage still counts. (An example: if you're north of Luray, Kansas, heading southbound on US 281, you're very close to being due north of Great Bend... but once you hit Luray, US 281 turns west along KS-18 for almost 15 miles, actually going away from Great Bend even though eventually it turns back to the south and ends up in Great Bend. It's around an extra 20 miles, which is significant considering, as the crow flies, Luray's only about 50 miles north of Great Bend.) JFMorse 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it can't be Fowler. Fowler is too far from Wichita ( 167 miles, according to my mapping software )

Nuclear explosion in Denver would be seen in Dodge City / Garden City area, if it's either an extremely powerful weapon ( at least 20 megatons ) or a very high altitude explosion. The fact that the explosion manages to knock out phones and other electronic equipment from far away suggests high altitude explosion ( aka EMP ). --Itinerant1 06:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the second thought, it can't be a high altitude explosion because we see a mushroom cloud. Besides, an EMP would not just disrupt radio and TV, it would fry all electronics in the city. [2] --Itinerant1 09:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect BalthCat will be along momentarily to dispute your findings. I gave up on this argument a while ago but after seeing the pilot (and reading a lot of details of the backstory), I am reasonably sure that Jericho is intended to be in northwest Kansas, and that the explosion at Denver is supposed to be seen across the Colorado border (although you have quite correctly noted that there are no such mountains in Colorado that would be visible from Kansas). It's a case of dramatic license. Since all of this is considered to be speculation, and has been excised from the main article, I will leave it here on the talk page, but the question has been answered to my satisfaction. 152.163.100.138 04:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, didn't anyone else remember seeing Jake getting off a train Denver, Colorado and picked up his car in the parkade and started driving? He was definitely driving east towards Jericho. --Kvasir 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
See above. This has been argued to death. 205.188.116.138 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If there truly is a town where the fictional Jericho is located, it could quite possibly be Oakley, KS, and the fact checker on the program screwed up on how far Oakley is from Wichita. The reason I say this is the digital map of Jericho that CBS has put up [3]. On this map you can see I-70, SR-40 and SR-83, and the one place these three intersect is near Oakley, KS. That being said, the CBS map is inaccurate vs. an actual road map and Oakley is over 200 miles from Wichita. Just a thought. Phimu222 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The presence of I-70 converging with the numbered "routes" 40 and 83 at Jericho seems to be more than coincidental. Oakley is evidently in keeping with the other determinations about Jericho's location. I have merged all of the information into one paragraph in the main article, being careful to note that Jericho is a fictional creation, and so is the map on the CBS site. 205.188.116.138 03:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to note regarding the distance marker: a distance marker, in general, will only display mileage to cities on that route, or using a secondary route whose sole purpose is getting from "here to there" (for example, you can find signs directing you to San Francisco on I-5 south of downtown Los Angeles because US-101 splits off from I-5 in downtown). The only way that's possible with only one route in question would be for Jericho to be somewhere south of Oklahoma City on I-35, which we know isn't correct.

Since Jericho is purportedly on I-70, and there is no specialized "cut-off" highway veering off I-70 in western Kansas toward Wichita, it would have to be somewhere on I-70 where a north-south route leading to Wichita temporarily merges with I-70 and runs east-west for a time. Such places do exist near Topeka... but are non-existent in western Kansas, and certainly nowhere near a point some 360 miles from Kansas City. As such, within any real-world scenario, there's no way to identify the location of Jericho given the information at hand. Any speculation must then inherently rest on suppositions regarding the fictional universe in which the show takes place; as a result, any citations directed to real-world data are essentially irrelevant, making the entire exercise WP:OR. This section really doesn't belong on Wikipedia until such time as some official entity (CBS, production company, licensee) explicitly identifies Jericho's purported location, because none of this speculation -- however well thought out, and in fact I agree Oakley's the best bet -- has any basis in reality. JFMorse 02:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me tabulate this. On the "official" web site, I-70 and Routes 40 and 83 converge at Jericho. In the real world, I-70 and Routes 40 and 83 converge at Oakley. To paraphrase the post made above, the convergence of these three roads in two places (one real and one fictional) seems not to be an accident. While I cannot find any evidence that the creators of the series used Oakley, Kansas as a basis for Jericho, it seems obvious that from all the "facts" we have, it would have to be in that neighborhood, especially since the explosion in Denver is seen across the state border. People, CBS is not going to publish a "Jericho Road Atlas" showing its precise location in the state of Kansas, so I do not think it folly to come to a reasonable conclusion when the "facts" point to the obvious answer: Jericho is clearly on I-70 in northwest Kansas. 64.12.116.138 03:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Drawing reasonable conclusions from information that has been presented to you is not original research. bob rulz 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that statement one hundred percent. 205.188.116.138 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Way to just reprint everything I said in a more long and drawn-out format. And CBS DID publish a road map of Jericho [4], it just happens to be innacurate and does not exist in the real world Phimu222 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That was intended as a summary, not a repeat. The entire community does not exist in the real world, and the CBS map shows the configuration of roads IN Jericho, NOT its location in the state of Kansas. There is going to continue to be speculation on the exact location of Jericho, so we can either prolong this discussion (notice we have a "page length" warning already) or acknowledge the obvious: that the speculation exists, and that from the "facts" presented in the series and the map, we have been given pretty good clues to where Jericho is located. (I'd E-mail the producers, and specifically ask them, but that would violate WP:OR, no? It might be worth it just to end this debate.) 205.188.116.138 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am taking the "roughly conforms" section of this paragraph out as I believe it is innacurate: According to the "official" map of Jericho posted on the CBS website, Interstate 70, State Route 83, and State Route 40 converge in Jericho, but in the real world, Interstate 70, U.S. Route 83, and U.S. Route 40 converge in Oakley, Kansas, 70 miles from the Colorado border. Oakley also (roughly) conforms to the distances from Wichita and Kansas City seen on the road sign in the pilot episode. Nevertheless, Jericho is fictional, and the map shown by CBS does not conform to any actual known road configuration. Oakley is over 250 miles from Wichita based upon Mapquest's driving directions "shortest distance" tool. I'm a doing a quick re-write and would ask that a fellow wikipedian edit. Phimu222 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you made the right call in removing that sentence. I tweaked the verbiage a little. 205.188.116.138 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is FICTION. Worrying about where it "really" is, is like the people who go up to a real house which was used as a location in a movie, knock on the door, and expect the character from the movie to answer the door, or an unfortunate lady who froze to death in real life while trying to find the bag of money left along the side of the road in the movie "Fargo," or who see an actor from a soap opera on the sidewalk and yells at them about the bad things their tv character is doing. Suspend the disbelief and enjoy the story. Edison 15:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's a little odd that this is the single largest section in the discussion area. Point of fact- it's a TV series, and while it shows something that may well be an increasingly possible event, the series itself, the town, and the people in it are not real. I'd rather see a section this large on "Lessons that can be learned from the series" or some such, not where a fictional town is located.--Breandán 20:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Jericho is located on Interstate 70 is inconsistent with the show. There is no mention of an interstate in the show. Jake clearly takes some smaller route to Jericho from Denver and back, even though I-70 is by far the shortest and quickest route from Oakley ( the only other possibility is route 40 and it is a 50 mile detour ). --Itinerant1 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

On the "official" map of Jericho shown at the CBS site, I-70 runs right through Jericho. That makes it official whether they've mentioned it on the show (yet) or not. As for Jake's route to Jericho, perhaps he just prefers the back roads. 205.188.116.138 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Interstate 70 has been established in dialogue as of the third episode, and we have another clue as to location: Goodland is established as being southwest of Jericho. This places Jericho further north and east in Kansas than had been previously speculated. Time to look at the little towns along I-70 again. 152.163.100.138 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If you look at I-70 in Western Kansas, the only point that one can call "northeast" of Goodland (and barely so) is near Colby, Kansas. The rest of I-70 dips south as you go east. So I'd say this vicinity is a good bet for the location of Jericho. 205.188.116.138 02:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the geometric map that has appeared on the page has got to go. First, it violates WP:OR. Second, the map ignores the fact that CBS has already released a map that shows Jericho sits on I-70 - the geometric map that has been added to the page puts Jericho no closer than 60 miles from I-70. I'm removing the map for these reasons. The geometric map I'm speaking of can be viewed here: Geometric location of Jericho. Phimu222 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC) . . . LOL! Looks like someone agreed with me because when I went to delete it, it was already gone :P Phimu222 12:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the geometric map is a work of art, but I agree completely with its removal. 152.163.100.138 08:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Location is a very popular subject among visitors of this article. The revert war will not end until there is a "location" section. I believe it's possible to have "location" section without engaging in original research or speculation. Listing the facts we're presented with is not OR, and neither is making obvious conclusions. --Itinerant1 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont list it in a trivia like sense then (You've just copied the bullets to a new section) reformat it into paragraphs and only include relevent cited information. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There will always be speculation about its location. In episode three we learned that the town is a bit further northeast than previously discussed (Goodland is southwest of it). I think the current paragraph in trivia is fine - it sticks to the facts, both real-world and "fictional" - but I have no objection to making it a new section. 205.188.116.138 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the information on where Jericho is should be placed on the Jericho, Kansas page, not the page about the television show. Isn't that a more logical placement? --Psiphiorg 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are several dramas/stories where fictitious locales are portrayed. Canticle for Liebowitz, Riddley Walker, several others and now Jericho. All of this is speculation, fun, and a little bit of personal pride. Don't be so hard on the speculators, since it is just a TV show!!! Personally, I enjoy this, and would really like to see some mapping from the speculators and those who are contrary. Be cool! --Anonymous 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Premiere date?

When does Jericho premiere? I haven't been able to find any authoritative statement on that detail. SnappingTurtle 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wednesday, 20th of September.. per theoffical website. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah... that official site. Got it. Thanks! I've changed the "Official Site" listing in the article. SnappingTurtle 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Links?

What's the policy re links? There are about a hundred news stories on the internet about "Jericho" (reviews of the show, visits to the set, etc.) and I will be happy to add these links if they are of interest. There is even an "official" MySpace site where, apparently, one character from the show will be blogging about what "happens" to the town. 205.188.116.138 01:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:EL for guidelines. Chances are that unless you use one of those articles in writing this article, they won't be appropriate. Anyone can review a show and put it online. Er wait, the official MySpace which is blogged by a character, if actually done by the company/producers/promoters (not some fan) seems like a good one to add. - BalthCat

Summary needed

Someone write a summary of the pilot episode. `84.234.110.198 09:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

See Pilot (Jericho episode). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

oh, I just watched the pilot. I merely love when americans get nuked. However, it is a bit unrealistic the fact that terrorist could gather that much nukes to bomb all America. 84.234.110.198 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic. --Mhking 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no indication (as of the pilot episode) that anyone was able to "bomb all America," just Denver and Atlanta - and it is still unclear exactly what happened in both cities. Future episodes should tell us more. 205.188.116.138 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me if Jake killed the other car's driver and passenger from the head-on. Someone at work suggested they were already dead, and their car crossed the road. But it seemed that both drivers were looking at the Mushroom. Just seems a weird way to set the lead character. He kills 2 people in the first episode because he wasn't looking at the road. Yes trivial. But given just how bad the pilot was - triva is all that will save this show. Which according to the TV guide is either being repeated tonight on Channel 10 here in Australia or is episode 2. 60.228.170.157 09:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC) SySy

um, I'm not sure what do you mean User:Mhking. The series is pathetic or the idea itself? 195.177.225.226 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on a careful viewing of this scene, it appears that the other car's occupants were looking at the nuclear explosion, veered out of their lane and into oncoming traffic, and then were killed in the collision with Jake's car. (Jake was also looking at the explosion, but they were in the wrong lane.) So I'd say the other car's driver was at fault. 205.188.116.138 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions

What about all the EMP from the Nuclear bombs? Won't all computer chip devices that are not EMP sheilded be rendered inoperational. So most modern cars with EFI won't run. (the old diesel bus will work)

How come they still have mains power? Isn't North America linked in a national grid and major power disruption will blow all the links. I'm thinking major strikes across North America will take out most power stations and transmission line links. Not every town has its own power station.

What will they do when the fuel runs out? What will thet do when the food runs out?

There will be no resupply from the big city. (They don't exist anymore). PaulM

I can only speak to the Denver explosion, which appeared to be a ground burst, but it takes an atmospheric burst of considerable megatonnage to cause major EMP. Modern cars may be grounded due to their rubber tires. I'm not sure about the electric power, which the dialogue has sort of side-stepped. As for your last two questions, I gather they will be part of the ongoing problems of survival, although it is still unclear how many big cities have been destroyed. 152.163.100.138 05:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Modern cars may be grounded due to their rubber tires." Grounding has nothing to do with EMP, AFAIK. The effect is caused by induced eddy currents in the circuitry, so shielding is the only thing that helps. And just BTW, rubber isn't a good conductor (unless it's a conductive rubber, and car tires generally aren't made of it). It's the exact oposite, in fact. 89.172.30.41 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two kinds of atmospheric nuclear explosions: low-altitude ( including ground bursts ) and high-altitude.
Explosions that take place in troposphere ( up to 10-15 miles above the surface ) do not cause a lot of EMP.
Explosions that take place in stratosphere can have devastating effects on electronics. A single megaton bomb detonated 250 miles above Kansas would destroy all unshielded electronics in the Continental United States. [5] But high-altitude nuclear detonations have very different appearance, they don't have mushroom clouds, and they don't cause fallout.
Thanks for the clarification on this. 205.188.116.138 07:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Character article names

Just in case people aren't aware - when naming articles, generally don't use disambiguation unless necessary. For example, Jake Green (Jericho character) should be at Jake Green, but Robert Hawkins (Jericho character) is fine at its existing title because there is already a Robert Hawkins article (about a Canadian politician). I'll move the pages affected by this now. -- Chuq 01:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't know who thought it amusing to replace the name of Jericho producer Carol Barbee with the name of alleged Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbee, but I have corrected this and put Ms. Barbee's name back where it belongs. 152.163.100.138 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

rofl. Raja Lon Flattery 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fitting. "This content is not viewable outside of the U.S." That's pretty damn horrid. -Emhilradim 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities hit (or not hit)

Where is the evidence for San Francisco being hit? I've been through the third episode with a fine-tooth comb, including going through the Chinese TV broadcast frame-by-frame, and can't find any proof. Is it in the spoken Chinese dialogue? 152.163.100.138 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether there is or not, please try to avoid putting spoilers in section headers - these show up in edit summaries and as a result in watchlists. I've changed the heading appropriately. -- Chuq 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the tutorial on that, I was completely unaware of it. I will be more careful with future postings. There is also a legitimate question as to whether or not New York City was hit, so this might as well be the "cities" section anyway. 152.163.100.138 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You can clearly see 3 dots along the west coast, wich are most likely Seattle, San Francisco and San Diego. The only city mentioned and not in the chinese broadcast is Kansas City. (this comment was not signed by the poster)

The red concentric circles in the northwest are definitely at Seattle - they're too far north for Portland. Emily (Jake's ex-girlfriend) also mentions other cities (Los Angeles, Wichita, Des Moines) that may have been attacked, but she is in a state of shock as she believes her fiance has been killed, and there is no other evidence for them, so I don't think they should be included. Someone keeps adding them to the article, and I keep trying to take them out, but most of the AOL proxy IP addresses are blocked at the moment. 152.163.100.138 22:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a better screencap where the second character of the city near New York is almost fully visible. Without any doubt, this is the character for "York". So I think we can pretty much establish as fact that NYC was hit, if this broadcast is considered valid proof (but if it isn't, then we should remove other cities as well). 74.56.173.109 23:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved this discussion to the "cities hit" section. If you've got a map with a target that looks like New York, and the Chinese characters for "New York" are present, then I think that's an established fact, and NYC should be added to the list, even if it hasn't been revealed in dialogue or to the characters in the series. The newscast got the rest of the cities right, and it IS a newscast, so I think we have to take it as factual, even with the possibility that they might not have data on all the cities that have been hit. The cities that Emily babbled in shock (Los Angeles, Wichita, and Des Moines) should be removed, there is no corroborating evidence for those. I'd do all this myself, but, those AOL proxy blocks again... 152.163.100.138 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I was finally able to get at the main article and have made the changes noted above. 64.12.116.138 06:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, the characters on the Chinese map read "Los Angeles," at the point that everyone has assumed was San Diego (marked on Hawkins' map). Also, we have Emily mentioning Los Angeles in dialogue and it occurs before she becomes hysterical. This appears to be two factual plot points, and so, I have added Los Angeles to the list of cities presumed to be hit. (Leave it to the producers to give us key clues in Chinese!) 205.188.116.138 07:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence from the article: "Of all the 'attacks', only Denver, Atlanta, Kansas City, and Dallas were seen or heard by eyewitnesses." The citizens of Jericho see an explosion which appears to be at Denver. Atlanta is heard on an answering machine (we're really not sure what happened there). Kansas City is heard in dialogue and Dallas is on the Chinese map. This sentence seemed to jump to conclusions and the issue of the "eyewitnesses" is still a bit cloudy. 205.188.116.138 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yo. I just wanted to point out that near the beginning of the fourth episode: one of the characters (Eric Green) speculates that the images that they were seeing on the T.V. in the bar was of Cincinatti. His evidence was "The Skyline". Now normally, I would say that he is just being stupid, but seeing as how Cincinatti's skyline is "famous" (Has a resturant named after it. =P), there might be a little proof to say Cincinatti was hit.

But it is your article, and entirely up to you guys... 67.142.130.43 00:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put in as a possiblity, or questionable since it isn't confirmed through TV, morse code, or any other way other than a possible person knowing the skyline. Just my thoughts.--Kranar drogin 00:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yeah, I knew it would be a "Questionable"... Not to mention our secretive friend (Forgot his name too XD) rolled his eyes when Eric said it. But here is another possibility: Wright Patt. Air-Force Base is in the "General Vicinity" (IE: At least in five counties of Cincinatti)of the city. So perhaps the Nuke was detonated at or near Wright Patt. And the images they are seeing are pictures of the mushroom sweeping through the city, or of like the looting or pandemonium the detonation caused. 67.142.130.43 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved this discussion to the "cities hit" section. As was said in the fourth episode, "Cincinnati is a question mark," and I think that stands just fine as stated. 205.188.116.138

Regarding the word "possibly": the section is called "Cities believed to have been attacked and/or destroyed," the word "confirmed" is not in there, so I think "possibly" is redundant and I am removing it. We have two relevant plot points each for New York and Los Angeles, so I think we can take those two as confirmed. 205.188.116.138 05:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got more. A map seen in the fourth episode shows Minneapolis and St. Louis as hit (you can see St. Louis before and after Mary, the bartender, marks Cincinnati, and Minneapolis after, as well as Denver). I am taking this as a factual plot point (since they are clearly marking the cities attacked) and am adding these two to the "cities" section in the main article. Detroit and Minneapolis are also seen with pushpins on Robert Hawkins' map (upside down) in the fourth episode, so I'm counting them both. 205.188.116.138 08:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of Chuq's excellent work on the "locations table" (see below), I have gone to the "notes on cities" section, cleaned it up and started from the pilot episode, with the context in which each piece of evidence for a city being attacked presented therein. I hope this is helpful. 205.188.116.138 09:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside US?

As the CBS 'innertube' site mentioned for watching episodes is only viewable from inside US, is there anyway around this? i.e. some software that routes an internet connection so the episodes can be watched from other countries.220.245.137.174 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You could, in essence, using a proxy. Either way, it's tacky and in my opinion absolutely ridiculous to host content that only US citizens can view. -Emhilradim 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Copyright, sales and legal issues. (not that I like them) 205.188.116.138 02:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
A bit tricky with proxy.... javascript on the page now won't work.... :( --Kvasir 06:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese vs Mandarin

Get with it people! A CHINESE person can speak Mandarin, Shanghainese, Cantonese, etc. In this sentence: "During a Mandarin news broadcast intercepted..." The language is to be emphasized, just as the characters were trying to figure out at first. Why not clarify that right in the beginning? Afterwards the NATIONALITY can be used interchangeably. Yes, one can be 95% certain it was a Chinese person, and to the trained ear one can even discern it is the Mainland accent. But it is certainly no original research that it was identified correctly by Hawkins that the LANGUAGE was Mandarin. --Kvasir 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So, is the phrase "Mandarin Chinese" accurate? And what was being said in Mandarin by the newscaster? 152.163.100.138 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be accurate, if not a little redundant itself. However, it would be clear to those who are unfamiliar with the Chinese languages situation and with the language family to which Mandarin belongs. --Kvasir 06:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Chinese Newscast

Do we have a more accurate translation of what the Chinese newscaster was reporting? On the talk page for "Fallout", someone had commented that they had heard one phrase translated as "our attack was successful". Can anyone who is fluent in Mandarin or whatever dialect was being spoken confirm/deny this?

Cleanup of talk page

There were some comments about trivia and location at the bottom of this page. I moved those comments to the sections on trivia and location; no sense in having redundant sections. I also renamed the latter section to simply "Location of Jericho," since that's really what the debate is about (the longest debate I've ever seen on Wikipedia, although I'm sure there must be longer ones). Not sure about the policy on editing talk pages but I did not remove any comments, just moved them to the appropriate sections. 152.163.100.138 21:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all with moving discussion to appropriate sections - thanks! -- Chuq 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Blood sucking bugs?

This paragraph seems to be getting out of hand and has no known relevance (yet) to the storyline of the series. I am removing this paragraph from the section "notes on cities" (it has nothing to do with the cities) and depositing it here on the talk page until its future relevance, if any, is determined. 152.163.100.138 08:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese characters seen below the map on the broadcast （血吸虫 他。。。) translate to "schistosomiasis (blood fluke) he..." Others have translated these characters as referring to "blood sucking insects," or "blood sucking bugs," which is essentially correct as some flatworms cause the disease in question. The rest of the statement, which appears at the bottom of the screen, is obscured by the newscaster. It is not known if this particular reference has any relevance to the storyline.

Was this possibly a crawl with a different news story, as how CNN Headline News handles the short, two-line news blurbs while the main news story gets related by the talking head on the screen? If so, then this may have just been a story about schistosomiasis being found in some Chinese village's inhabitants thanks to a contaminated water supply. Sure would have been easier on us if they'd just simply been running a baseball score between the Bejing Maoists and the Hong Kong Cavaliers.

SOS?

In the opening of the shows (when "Jericho" is displayed) is the sound in the background SOS in Morse Code? Paulvil 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's different morse code messages in each episode. In the third episode, it was "Jericho Three", which may have simply referred to the episode number. The fourth episode's morse code was "He knows Rob", which was a little clue about the refugee from Denver for those who stopped to figure it out. Unfortunately, I don't have the first two episodes anymore, so I don't know if they had messages over the title screen or not. The morse code mentioned in the second episode's page is from later in the episode, over the radio. Can anyone help with this data? --Psiphiorg 05:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, InnerTube came in handy. The first two episodes were "Jericho Pilot" and "Jericho Fallo" (short for "Fallout", the title of the episode). So really, the fourth episode was the first one that held a clue, rather than a description of the episode. --Psiphiorg 06:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that under FCC regulations, it is illegal to broadcast a Morse SOS call over any airwaves unless an actual distress call is being made. This has caused some problems in the past with war and/or disaster movies where such a distress call has been made, and the movie was being aired on network for the first time. Some of these films had the Morse calls edited to meet the FCC rules. In recent years they've backed off a bit on this, but the rule is still on the books.

Digital Storyline

Just wanted to put my two cents in here regarding the briefly-appearing-then-disappearing digital storyline (d-story). Even to those of us here at CBS.com who maintain the site, the reasons we were told to take down the d-story weren't entirely clear (it may have had to do with the actor's guild issues), but it may be making a return at some point on the site. Keep an eye out for it! - Kevinmooney 03:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for taking the time to post that information. Many of us were wondering what the heck happened. I appreciate your answer. 205.188.116.138 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A new digital storyline should be appearing on the Jericho website the week of October 25th. -170.20.96.116 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As a former video engineer for the local See-BS affiliate, I contacted the programming director and got a confirmation that the "webisodes" are "on hold" until the WGA issue is either settled or the network decides to call their bluff. There has been significant pressure from fans to the official website to ignore the WGA and put the existing web eps up, citing SciFi's doing as such with the BSG "Resistance" web eps, and my contact says that one or two more eps are "in the can" and may be put online before the end of the month. This confirms what the last poster has added.
The current plan is for the original d-storyline ("Beyond Jericho") to be abandoned, and for a new d-story (final name TBD) to appear on the Jericho site. The new webisodes are "prequels" in that they take place before the first explosion, but each webisode appearing weekly on the site will relate somehow to that week's tv episode. The first webisode is scheduled to be released in conjunction with episode 6 on 10/25, and then at some later date episodes 1 through 5 are also scheduled to be released on the site. Stay tuned... - CBS.com Webmonkey

FYI, I've taken "CBS.com Webmonkey's" post above and used it and some additional info I've gotten from the local CBS affiliate here to update the "Beyond Jericho" section of the main "Jericho" entry. Hopefully we'll have more info on what happened to the original storyline shortly. 24.242.138.81 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

April Parker as Darcy Hawkins

If at some time Darcy can get get own entry, please fine some information on the actress, April Parker:

April Parker at the Internet Movie Database

"A native of Durham, N.C. Parker's stage work includes: Darleen in "Fool's Gold," Lynn in "Mercedes," and work with The Chamber Theatre Touring Company. She has done a number of independent films, her most recent being Joy. Along with the new abundance of inspiration she houses in her one-year-old daughter, she is excited to grace the theatre and screen world with a greater passion and motivation. " - Short bio info from her role in the 2002 film Joy [6]

Tony Hecht 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Locations now in table format

I have decided to be bold and change the format, due to all the notes, question marks and talk page comments regarding it. There is now a list of "confirming evidence" and "supporting evidence" though these may not be the best words for it. Of course, technically only the Denver one is "confirmed" - its the only one that has an eyewitness account. I don't know if the bar map should be "confirming evidence" because they seemed pretty unclear about some of them, and after the Chinese broadcast they mentioned cities that were not on the broadcast. Does anyone see any problems with this layout? -- Chuq 07:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuq, I think that is terrific. And it beats all the speculation as to which cities are "confirmed," etc. All of this depends on what we're going to consider as "factual" for the purposes of the series storyline. For example, in episode four, we see that Minneapolis is pinned on the map in the bar, and also pinned on the map in Robert Hawkins' basement (shown upside down). That's two plot points, so I'll take it as factual. The problem is that the producers are always giving us subtle clues, some of which may be intentionally misleading. New York is on the Chinese map (location and characters confirm) but this has not yet been revealed to the characters in the show, so do we count it? I think we do, but your table hedges the bets on some of these cities, which is good. I discounted Cincinnati, as Hawkins rolls his eyes at Eric's statement, as if he doesn't know what he's talking about. I also discount Emily's ramblings about Wichita and Des Moines being gone, for reasons given elsewhere on this page. There are going to be a million subtleties like this with which we are going to have to contend over the course of this series. Anyway - nice work on the table! 205.188.116.138 08:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, Seattle is also seen as concentric circles on the Chinese map. I had to walk through that scene frame by frame to see that - it appears early and through static, but it's definitely Seattle - and I think this can be listed as "confirming evidence" in the table. 205.188.116.138 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Just want to second the kudos on the chart. Excellent layout! However,as far as what sites are really confirmed, when you get down to it only Denver, Atlanta and Kansas City have clearly been confirmed by dialog from the outside of Jericho. The mushroom cloud seen over Texas hasn't been 100% linked to the D/FW area so far. Of course, the *real* question is why DC hasn't been shown as having been hit.
Dallas is shown on the Chinese map, and "south, somewhere in Texas" is said by the pilot on the flight recorder, so I think we have two plot points there, even if the last one isn't too specific. "Confirming" cities hit has been a sticky wicket - just read this page. As to your DC question, I don't think it's a coincidence that these attacks came just as the President was addressing an emergency session of Congress, so I think it is probably just a matter of time until we discover their fate. Thanks - 64.12.116.138 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Kudos to the table! Thanks. --Kvasir 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding table updates: Should we update per episode, or only when we're informed of actual and presumed targets? Ergo, should there be an entry for Ep. 5 that has "none" for cities hit or presumed? 24.242.138.81 21:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, at least two more cities will get nuked by the ICBMs seen at the end of episode 5. Do we put those in as "Unknown City 1, 2 etc" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.125.143.139 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that the chart should only be updated when new information is received. If three or four episodes go by with no new cities being named, it may look silly seeing several "none" entries. Better, IMHO, for it to just list episodes where something is learned.
As for the just-launched missiles, I'd say they should be added only when we learn where they strike. Though we should probably add a notation as to when each city was hit; presumably, all of the first round of U.S. cities were struck at roughly the same time, but this counterstrike and any further strikes will add new dates.
--Psiphiorg 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Common Links Between Cities That Were Hit

So, has anyone else noticed that all of the cities hit had professional baseball teams?

I hadn't noticed, although "major" cities have sports franchises so I'm not sure if that is sinificant.
Dont those cities all have soemthing more important though? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Golly, Matthew...the observation wasn't too trivial for you, was it? :P
I should have specified that by "major" city, there is the implied "large population". Those cities all have a large population. For any enemy tryi to break the will of the US to fight, what more would they want? It is intereting that Washington, DC, and Colorado Springs, CO (NORAD HQ) have not been mentioned as attacked yet in the show.
On a side note, the fact that Washington, DC hasn't been hit makes me think it was an orchastrated attack as a prelude to war, rather than terrorism. You never want to kill the people that have to surrender to you, otherwise, people never give up. Kind of the logic behind bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not Tokyo. I also find it interesting that many of the nation's largests ports were not hit. Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Boston are not reported as destroyed. One would figure that being ports, these would be the earliest reported (by international shippers). It is interesting to me that so many inland sites are being reported as struck to foreign media. I live in New Orleans, and for us to get adequate information on the city 3 days after Katrina was a challenge. 159.53.78.141
It should also be noted that if there were ever an initial nuclear attack directed against cities first, It would likely be an attack by "terrorists" and not state governments. If a country were to attack the United States, the thousands of warheads in ICBM's and Submarines around the world would obliterate the defensive cababilites of the country responsible. The First Strike Doctrines of ourselves and Russia were always to target ICBM facilities and the air above them, with air bursts, to try to suppress retaliatory ICBM's. Its also why we have created so many... If the Enemy were to strike first, It would ensure that at least some ICBM's would get through the initial attack to create an overwhelming counter attack. Attacking cities first and leaving our military assets intact would be tautamount to suicide for any government in the world.

The Most Important Question This Series Raises

Q: Since Denver was apparently nuked, how long will it be before Trey Parker and Matt Stone show us how South Park was affected, and whether or not it was Cartman who caused it all?

OMG They nuked Kenny! Those bastards!
Thelastemperor 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Running Time

In the basic facts box, the show's running time is listed as being 60 minutes. Shouldn't this be the average of ~43 minutes, which is what each episode would run w/o commercials? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.138.81 (talk • contribs).

Done. If anyone knows exactly what the run time is sans commercials, please adjust accordingly. --Ckatzchatspy 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Each episode runs slightly different, but averages out to about 43 minutes. Most likely when the DVD release arrives we'll be able to determine actual ep lengths and adjust each entry. However, most CBS affiliates get this info e-mailed to them, so if anyone who works for the network can provide these, they'll be appreociated. 24.242.138.81 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually watch the show through a local cable company's on-demand service. The description page says that each episode runs 43 minutes, but there are also about two minutes worth of promos in it, so that might not be as accurate. alt_trav 00:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Good job on providing the ratings data and the chart. This shows that the important demographic - the young who buy products advertisers love to foist on them - is remaining rather stable. Also, the ratings dip seen is common for most new shows, including successful ones, as viewers tune in initially to see if the hype lives up to the show or vice versa. Some viewers wander off after a few eps of most arc-based series, as they lack the attention span to keep up with the sub-plots. That the dropoff angle is this shallow is a good sign, and justification for the show getting greenlighted for a full season. Which, of course, increases the chances that we'll actually get all our questions about how Cartman blew up the US resolved without having to squeeze it all into one half-baked final episode :) 24.242.138.81 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ratings question
Where do these ratings come from? Are they from Nielsen or another group of that sort? --Zeph1 22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Could whoever posted the ratings cite source, and especially whether these were the Nielsen official stats, or the "overnights" which generally are based only on quick samples from a few of the major markets. Also, it would be interesting to see a geographical breakdown of the ratings, especially to see how the series is being received in the areas of the country that are "depicted" in the events portrayed. 66.90.151.114 03:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Those have to be overnights as the next "book" comes in November. But ratings are not as reflective to the overall viewership of the show. That's due to CBS's decision to offer the episodes on the web and through other on-demand services this season. the trav 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ICBMs or No ICBMs

I have watched and re-watched the scene in question, and it seems impossible to me to determine with any kind of confidence the exact nature of the objects observed flying overhead at the end of the episode.

I noted this in the article, as someone had previously made the assumption that these were ICBMs. While this might seem logical, it is also speculatory, so I noted the alternate possibility. However, someone then changed the wording around to further endorse their original presumption. Now I have reedited this again, drawing out the possibilities and fully noting that it is, at present, UNKNOWN. Here is what I put:

"At the end of the fifth episode, there is a rumbling and people rush outside to see at least 2 unidentifiable objects moving through the sky accompanied by a loud roar. The objects appear to be Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), but could also be some sort of air craft. As the shot of the objects is brief, it is difficult to identify these objects definitively. Their trajectory may imply that they are missiles, or air craft at a high rate of climb, but visual perspective makes this difficult to determine. Their single engine plume, further implies these objects are missiles, though they could be any of numerous aircraft with a single contrail (from a single engine). Also, the amount of time that elapsed from the time of the shaking to the observance of the objects was too short for the take off of an ICBM from its underground silo, depending on the distance of the launch origin. This could be an instance of the TV show condensing time, a minor oversight, or could simply be relative to Jericho's location in relation to the missile silos. However, it should be noted that the shaking could have conversely been caused by a sonic boom from a super-sonic jet. If the objects were ICBMs then it is very likely that they were part of a retaliatory nuclear strike against those responsible for the attacks on the United States. Such a response would have likely occurred sooner after an attack, however. If this line of reasoning is correct, it has significance: A) it makes it very unlikely that Denver and the other cities were attacked via ballistic missiles, because NORAD would have detected them and responded immediately (this also makes it unlikely that the culprit was North Korea, China, Russia or another major state, unless they used asymmetric means of attack). Thus, either the U.S. early warning systems were compromised (or the chain of command interrupted, thus delaying any response), or it can be assumed that the attacks were made via unconventional means (this corresponds with other clues that suggest a ground detonation took place in Denver). B) If the objects are ICMBs, this also strongly suggests the U.S. is retaliating against one or more nations, probably due to their involvement in the attacks. As the objects were far off, and only briefly shown, it will be impossible to identify them exactly until the next episode."

Now, seeing as how I gave a fair rundown of both possibilities and the related premises and arguments, I should hope that no one feels the need to go back and again assert the supremacy of their theory, no matter how obvious they might think it seems. Thanks.Thelastemperor 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The above text has been removed. No offense to Thelastemperor (and apologies for misspelling your ID in the summary!), but it is far too long, involved, and speculative. This article is not intended to be a forum for debate about all the possibilities if this were a real-world event. Instead, it should summarize what impression the viewer is left with. --Ckatzchatspy 23:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, having contracted for ATK Thiokol in the past I've been witness to test firings of solid-fuel rocket motors, and the roaring sound effects on the show sound spot-on. There are no active ICBM silos in proximity to where Jericho is supposed to be, but there are Minuteman silos a few hundred miles northwest in CO, NE and WY. dziban303

Neat. And loud, no doubt. Hope you're not put out, but I edited your text as well in an effort to keep the length of the note under control. I think the three listed points (trajectory, plume, and vibration) are verifiable because they are in the show. Sound could be considered somewhat speculative, simply because it is very likely that the noise we heard is a combination of several different effects, some or all of which may not have anythnig to do with missiles... --Ckatzchatspy 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not put out at all. I'm new to contributing and appreciate the feedback. And yeah, the noise is incredible! From miles away your guts quake like you just ate in Mexico. dziban303 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: 70.33.33.165 made a change saying there are no ICBM silos in Colorado. This person is mistaken; Warren AFB is located in southeastern Wyoming, and also occupies southwestern Nebraska and northeastern Colorado. Minutemen missiles are based here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_AFB,_Wyoming dziban303

  • UNANSWERED QUESTION: Was anyone able to determine the direction of the two "presumed" ICBMs? The direction would no doubt give a major clue as to who was about to receive significant payback for the attacks.
Belay that. Someone already did the analysis based on the CBS website map and a cap of the show. If the trajectory is eastward, and the missiles were launched from Colorado, then that would be the shortest ballistic trajectory to targets in the Middle East. Were the ICBMs headed to Russia, they would have been a more northward direction, and while possibly seen to the West near the horizon by the inhabitants of Jericho, they probably would not have been heard. Had China been the target, the missiles would have gone Westward and would neither been seen or heard.

Juust to put in my 2 cents. I showed Ep. 5 to my father who was stationed in Nevada in the 40's-50's and he said they appeared exactly as Minuteman missles would look at night from ~50 miles away. He said he's seen enough test fires to have a good idea of what they'd look like. He also said that in all likelihood there would be a minimum of 10-15 in each regional grouping (of the missles), so either not all were fired, or the producers just decided to use two.Satmaster12 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Federal Response

Excellent addition re: the Federal Response Chart!

Thank you. And thanks to the person who re-organized the chart better. (I'm new here) ;-)
And of course, someone reverted the chart back to something less read-able.
Matthew Fenton at work again, perhaps?

USA/GSA Passport

I understand how analyzing the frames may cause someone unfamiliar with a USA passport to mistake the character for a G. However, On a USA passport the script in that region is highly stylized and over a mesh of blue. Yet, there is a void in the pattern in the middle of the U that could easily be mistaken for the interior return of a G. Mythdraug 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Month/time of year

Does anyone know/remember what time of year/month the story so far is taking place? My best guess is perhaps late summer butdoes anyone have any other clues? Ferd Blivid 13:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Ferdblivid

Its probably not too far into fall since noone has made any statements regarding needing to get to the farm to harvest... Kyaa the Catlord 13:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
that may be because they realise that this years harvest can't be used. I believe Hawkins informed them of that already if I'm not mistaken. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
They celebrate Halloween in an upcoming episode. I would say the show roughly corresponds to our current calendar dates - although there is speculation in the main article about the show being set in 2009, q.v.. 64.12.116.138 06:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton: Vandal?

I'm considering flagging this article as being vandalized considering Matthew Fenton's censorship activities of late. Comments are welcome on this one. 24.242.138.81 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've restored Matthew's yet-again removal of the Trivia section entries. Until further notice, I personally will be monitoring this section for any further acts of vandalism. This is totally unacceptable. 66.90.151.114 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You seriously need to learn what vandalism is and read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are vandalizing. Based on the concensus of those participating in the discussion, you are in the wrong. The trivia section will be restored each and every time you make a wanton deletion of the topic and/or any sort of removal or attempt to reduce the size of the section without good reason. *None* of the changes you've made were of any benefit whatsoever. We have no problems with you making tweaks and changes of a positive nature - i.e., your addition of the link for the Minuteman missiles - but will not tolerate any sort of "Wiki Nazi" attitude with this topic. 66.90.151.114 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, not to pick nits or anything, but he didn't add the link for the Minuteman missiles, I did.199.79.222.119 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Who is we? Where is your invisible consensus? Have you read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Invisible concensus? Have you bothered to read what's listed in the discussions far up this page, up in the Trivia discussions, where you were informed by several people that your actions were unacceptable? I suspect you didn't bother, based on your current obstinance. 66.90.151.114 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section - Matthew Fenton, Read & Heed

  • NOTE: This section was moved for clarity WRT Matthew Fenton's unwarranted editing/deleting of the Trivia section.

Whaa? Deleted the trivia section completely? Isn't that just a little heavy-handed? I thought there was some rather useful information in there, although I was not too keen on some of the later additions. I have restored some of the relevant material. 152.163.100.138 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed the list of types of handheld radios seen in the episode. This seemed to me to be entirely too overeager. 152.163.100.138 18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. It should have been put in its own section on errors or what not on the show. The whole EMP thing could go there too. I had just noticed that the handhelds used by the convict deputies were radio scanners. The radio in the car was a CB radio. The scanner cannot receive from the CB radio. The CB radio cannot transmit to the PR 400 radio used by Jake. Definately doesn't really affect the story line of the show, just a trivia thing. Perhaps I should have left in the part about they wouldn't work together, would have made the inclusion seem more obvious. Mcmillen76 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Errors or oversights in this particular show would be a long list. Perhaps it would be more like a list of improbabilities. Honestly, I don't even want to go there. 205.188.116.138 07:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section was getting a little messy again with additions. I did not remove any information, but organized it a little differently and cleaned up the grammar and language in several places. 64.12.116.138 08:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the stuff about Morse Code? There are a lot of people out there trying to research clues to figure out what comes next. Why keep the Mandarin stuff and lose the Morse Code stuff? I'm new to Wikipedia, so if someone could explain if there's a reason to remove that 'trivia' I'd be grateful. If not, then I'll restore it. It could always be removed after the relevant plotlines resolve. (this comment unsigned by the poster)

Someone deleted the (fictional) population counts for Jericho, past and present. I believe this is highly relevant to the series (in terms of survival, supplies, shelter, etc.) and have added this information back into the trivia section. 205.188.116.138 07:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this is current event-ish but this is still meant to be an encyclopedia and the last bit of this in trivia doesn't sound appropriate. The building could have been refurbished etc - suggest removal

The inscription above City Hall reads MCMXXII, suggesting that the town of Jericho (or at least City Hall) was founded in 1922. The building itself (including the basement fallout shelter) is too new, indicating that the town itself dates to that year.

Tried to rid the page of insignifcant trivia before.. will run annother cleanup soon to purge the page of the unneeded stuff. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence is an assumption. I agree, the first part seems to be sufficient as a "historical fact" for the trivia section. One would think that Jericho might even have predated 1922, it could be a pioneer town for all we know. 205.188.116.138 02:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a pain, but the 1922 inscription above City Hall is not WP:OR, it's clearly visible in episode two, and it appears to mean what it means. I have reinserted this piece of information into the trivia section. 152.163.100.138 20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It has no relevancy to the artile, it provides nothing meaningful. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but this provides the date of the establishment of the town, which seems to be a point of information that is worth including in the article. I re-worded this slightly to make it less speculative. 152.163.100.138 20:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Matthew, I know you don't like the trivia section, but it is of value to others, and this repeatedly deleting the entire section seems to me to be excessive. Please assume good faith and accept that some of us are trying to add useful or interesting information. I have restored most of this section, and intend to do cleanup on the "Rally Point" and "Beyond Jericho" sections (which are much more pointless in my view), but, tomorrow is another day. 205.188.116.138 08:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles - If you can cite you trivia please do, but it will still be removed if: a) provides nothing meaningful except uncited facts, b) has no relvance to the article as a whole, c) Could be integrated into text (ie. location trivia shouldnt be here it should be in teh Jericho location article). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Provides nothing meaningful" is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia is full of trivia sections (good and bad), and the trivia section in this article provides backstory either on the series or the fictional town of Jericho. If there is a Jericho location article, please direct me to it. You are also welcome to call to my attention any points of trivia that are not based on "facts," either those in the real world, or in the fictional world of the series, but deleting the entire trivia section is not helpful to anyone and seems to reflect your personal preference that there simply should not be any trivia sections, anywhere. "Avoid" is one thing, "delete" is another. 205.188.116.138 09:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's very hard to have a discussion with you if your IP keeps changing, please sign up. Secondly the article is here. Thirdly, if trivia can be avoided the it should, its already been purged a number of times, and unless it is required then it shouldnt be there. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether I have signed up or not (or choose to or not) is irrelevant to the discussion and at best is a red herring. I read the Jericho, Kansas location article, and it's full of speculation and ends with the erroneous conclusion that Jericho is in fact Oakley, Kansas. This has been disproved by evidence presented in the series itself, which was also presented in the trivia section before you deleted it. The actual location would be closer to Colby, Kansas. Another piece of deleted information in the trivia section, regarding the population of Jericho, was a key plot point in the second episode. As far as I can tell, the only person purging the trivia section is you. I believe you simply want it your way, and won't assume good faith on the part of the other contributors. Also I don't think it is your duty to define what is "meaningful" in the context of the article since you have already taken out one key plot point without regard to its relevance to the series. In a similar way, "required" is also in the eye of the beholder. Now, I would ask that you back down and permit those who wish to add, rather than subtract, useful information to do so. Thank you. 205.188.116.138 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's original research/uncited and will be purged as it has no relevance in this article. - and population information does not belong here either. If text can be brought into context then it should be, which your trivia can be in Jericho, Kansas. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, I would much rather post useful information than argue, but I think your purging has been excessive (you have purged the ENTIRE trivia section AT LEAST twice) and I don't think that is helpful. You have said yourself on this page that you don't like them ("Trivia sections are bad, sorry") and others have disagreed with you. When I have the time, I will repost the relevant pieces of information in the Jericho, Kansas article and put a link in this article to direct people to it. Some of the information (such as where the pilot and series are filmed, which is clearly relevant here) belongs in this article, not the one on the (fictional) town. Finally, noting on-screen information which is presented to us for the purpose of further understanding the plot and background of the series is NOT original research, it is careful observation. NONE of the cities mentioned or seen on the show have, as yet, been proven to have been attacked. All is presumed from the information presented, some of which is highly nuanced or only suggested. I realize that there are standards and policies at Wikipedia, but I find the constant "hall monitoring" and what I'd call "slavish adherence to rules" (without regard to common sense) makes it extremely discouraging to contribute. It is a waste of time to have one's work and contributions constantly reverted or deleted based solely on someone else's opinion or interpretation. Off my soapbox now. 64.12.116.138 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Kids, the answer's simple. If Matthew wants to be a Trivia Nazi, then simply restore the section each time he removes it, and then file a vandal charge against him. It's clear he's just being anal-retentive, and he'll either get over it or wind up blocked from Wikipedia.

I noticed someone restored part of the trivia section, but it seems a few entries short. Could someone restore the complete section before Matthew got a little heavy-handed with his attempts to mold this entry unto his image? 24.242.138.81 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ehem? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting quote, "to mold into his own image". I expressed the same sentement on the Talk:List of Jericho episodes talk page. Mr. Fenton seems to have ownership issues with these Jerico articles.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
From my own encounters with Matthew's ego today, it's obvious that his success with the Lost pages has gone to his head. When time permits, I'll probably go surf those pages - even though Lost isn't a show I'm one iota interested in - and see whether or not he's encountered the same derision and rejection for his rather heavy-handed actions there as well as here.

It would be nice if some of the anon users calling Matthew Fenton a vandal here actually registered accounts so that we know who we are talking to. I know I shouldn't discriminate between registered and unregistered users, but if we could link your comments to your edits and see what kind of editor you are, it would really help a lot in determining if you are really a bunch of concerned users who co-incidentally are almost all unregistered; or a group of trolls. Not that I'm saying you are trolling, but no-one can really tell if you are or aren't when you are anonymous. -- Chuq 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to speak for others, but for myself, although I do have a registered account, I don't like logging onto it at work, so I just do all my editing anonymously when at work. Ironically, I get more time to play on the interwebs at work than I do at home. Go fig.  :\ 199.79.222.119 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions Section?

As other episodic arc-based shows have entries listing the major unanswered questions, should we consider adding one for each Jericho episode? To date, the major unanswered questions that come to mind are:

  • How many cities were actually destroyed?
  • Who was responsible?
  • Why was the "State Department" update abruptly cancelled?
  • Where are those missiles fired in Ep 5 headed to?
I'd like to add a follow-up for this one. Was Mecca or Terhan one of the retaliation targets?
  • What happened to the crew & passengers of that 757 Jake found? The reason he came back was that a bridge was down. Another scout (Shep) seems likely to have been killed. Has someone quarantined Jericho?
  • Where has Jake been since he left Jericho?
  • Why did Jake leave Jericho in the first place?
  • Who is Hawkins *really*?
  • Who/What is the group Hawkins is part of?

And those are the main questions of the series off the top of my head. Each ep will have those lingering questions specific to that ep, so what might be best is to keep a list of major unanswered questions on the main Jericho page, and the episode-specific ones relegated to each ep's separate page.

Comments? Preferably w/o Matthew's attempts to claim ownership of the process, please.66.90.151.114 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would advise not adding these - they classify as complete Original research and are not accepted on Wikipedia. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
After reading the section on "Original Research", I disagree that these guidelines are applicable in this case. The issue isn't to answer the questions, but to simply make the questions a bit more obvious. There's a lot of pieces to this puzzle the creators are weaving, and by asking the questions themselves we may just find the answers.

On a side note, based on the comments you just left in my talk page, please make sure that your outright rejection of my proposal isn't blind support for Matthew and his actions of late. Thanks.

Website from episode 5

Note: I've taken the liberty of copying this section over to the Talk page for Ep 5. 66.90.151.114 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

15 min into episode 5 we see Hawkings accessing a web site on his laptop. This web site is rather peculiar.

  • Three words we see in big capital letters are Russian. One of them ( "весточка" ) can be loosely translated as "a message" / "a bit of news".
    • I've had a bit of Russian transliteration. The word essentially translates into simply "news". I've also called a good friend who's Russian, who also added that if the producers meant "message", they should have used "сообщение" instead.66.90.151.114 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The rest of the web site is apparently in Turkish! There's a big ad on the top that says "Kişisel bilgilerinizi koruyun!", some other phrases I can identify are "yeni insanlarla tanışıp sohbet", etc. ( I don't know Turkish, so I can't translate them ) The site looks a lot like http://www.msn.com.tr/Default.asp --Itinerant1 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that neither of these phrases come up as anything translatable using what few online Turkish-English resources there are on the Web, including foreignword.com. Even the individual words fail to translate. This has me wondering if either this is a "faux turkish", or another language that we've mistaken for turkish, or if due to video artifacts the lettering isn't being interpreted properly. As I don't have a cap of this ep, can anyone grab a cap of this particular frame, blow it up, do a contrast enhance and see if what Itenerant1 has described is accurate? 66.90.151.114 02:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually if you Google "Kişisel bilgilerinizi koruyun", you get several hits for individual words, including one at Turkish version of microsoft.com web site [7] so it's probably a real Turkish. --Itinerant1 04:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a cap of the frame: [8] Compare with http://www.msn.com.tr. --Itinerant1 05:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've added some observations regarding languages native to the Turkish regions, including translations of the phrase "Personal Data Protected" into Turkish. The translation Itenerant1 provided for the phrase "Kişisel bilgilerinizi koruyun!" is close, but I'm still working on "yeni insanlarla tanışıp sohbet"

  • If you make a post over on WP:RD/L, someone there can probably translate it for you easily. --Aaron 05:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to get a good quality, contrast-enhanced screen capture posted over there ASAP. Anyone have the tools, such as VirtualDub and Photoshop, who can post this?

Emergency Alert System

(Note: this talk section copied from the Episode 5 talk section)

According to the FCC's official Emergency Alert System website, and the Part 11 rules governing the EAS, there are currently no plans or procedures in effect to implement the type of EAS "lockdown" on the Internet as seen on all the computer screens in Jericho. As it can be derived from Jake's age and his date of birth on his driver's license, it can be argued that by 2009 such capabilities would be in place.

Q: should this observation be included on the the main article page, or is would this be another of Matthew's little "no-no's"?66.90.151.114 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd say don't add it. It's purely speculative with regards to how the plot will unfold, and it's just not true at all in reality. There is no "master switch" for the Internet sitting in some government office somewhere just waiting to be pushed, nor could there be; it's just not physically possible given how the Internet is set up. Now, the Defense Department, if they wanted to, could attempt to seriously mess it up in a time of war (and much of that would entail having troops physically occupy the offices of major ISPs and backbone sites all over the nation and order them to be shut down by hand, at gunpoint, which would take time), but they'd never be able to totally turn it off for everyone everywhere. Even having a mere EAS activation on the Internet is impossible right now, since EAS compliance by computer networks is purely voluntary (which means nobody has bothered to sign up), and there's no set standard so it wouldn't be of much use even if they did; what good is your ISP being able to take over your web browser if you're only using your Internet connection to run an IM program? Or iTunes? Etc. As for being able to simply make everyone's laptops start blinking "EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM" at the snap of a finger, that's just yet another one of the Jericho writers' many embarrassing plot loopholes examples of "creative license" that they could have written around if they'd only known better. Actually, everything about this EAS angle, and just about everything else regarding the lack of communications into and out of Jericho, is a giant plot loophole. Practically every example of how the writers have used radios, televisions and Internet connections thus far on the show is just completely out of sync with reality, and I must admit I find it really annoying. --Aaron 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Your observations negate your conclusion, Aaron. The fact that it is *not* possible for the Federal Government to shut off the Internet "with a switch" as seen on Jericho, mention should be made on the main page of this fact. However, from my understanding of the EAS - and especially first-hand operational experience with it's predecessor, the Emergency Broadcast System, as well as the original plans for CONELRAD, the total government takeover of all terrestrial and satellite TV broadcast systems is not by any means out of the question. In the case of Jericho, keep in mind they are receiving a signal from apparently one or possibly two satellites, and with most - if not all - commerical uplink sites most likely disabled by the attacks for any number of reasons - loss of power, lack of operational personnel due to evacuation, EMP damage to equipment, outright annihilation of facilities due to being way too close to Ground Zero, etc - it's quite probable that a Federal Government uplink would have the capability of sending a signal coded for simulcast over all active downlink frequencies available on a particular satellite. 66.90.151.114 06:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New York City Wasn't hit, the original hits

New York City wasn't hit. The map shows the hit in Philadelphia. Remeber the second episode, Robert Hawkins' map has Philly hit.


BTW- Any ideas of the delivery of the initial hits? The president was on the air when it happened, so I think any airborn raid, be it ICBM or whatnot, can be ruled out.

  • We don't know that NYC wasn't hit. Hawkins could be getting incomplete information. "No honor amongst thieves" and all that. --Aaron 05:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath Subheading

Kudos to CKatz for the change to the shorter word. That was the word I was initially looking for, but didn't grasp at the time.66.90.151.114 06:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Morse Code Section

I've added a section dealing with the Morse Code messages received in the series. . -. .--- --- -.-- / ..--.. / 66.90.151.114 07:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to Change "Trivia" Sections to "Observations"

Here's a proposal to settle this dispute between Matthew, myself, and several others over the Trivia section debate. Instead of "Trivia", we change this to "Observations", which should be acceptable as the entries would, in fact, be direct observations of things and events seen on the series. This would allow for minor tidbits that may actually be clues to the various mysteries the series that, if added to the episode synopsis, would arguably unnecessarily fatten those synopses. I personally would not object to such a reclassification, and it would be a logical compromise that would settle the matter. 66.90.151.114 08:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone clarify this to me?

Why do they just sit around (I've only watched one episode, skipping quickly in one minute and read synopses) and do nothing? If they HAVE electricity and FUNCTIONING cars why don't they just go to some city, give a cellphone call, or please ANYTHING to Europe or some place or even Washington, D.C. and find out: what is really going on? --84.249.253.201 18:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest watching then other four episodes. In summary: (a) They have electricity ONLY from generators (the electricity grid only came back up in ep 5) (b) They have functioning cars but not a fuel source (c) They did send out four cars to explore a couple of episodes back - one (Jake) has returned, one has been stolen, other two haven't returned. (d) Communications in or out are jammed. -- Chuq 01:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Shows like "I Married Dora" or "Turn-On", or the XFL notwithstanding, condemning a show based on one episode isn't giving the series a fair chance, especially an episodic, arc-based one as "Jericho". Since CBS is providing all five episodes so far aired as streaming videos, I suggest the following:
  • Disconnect the phones and schedule ~5 hours plus change for bathroom breaks.
  • Get a big stove-top pan of Jiffy Pop - not the microwave, but the old-fashioned stove-top kind our foremothers bought for us and our forefathers, and pop it fresh.
  • Get a 2 or 3-liter of your favorite carbonated beverage, preferably caffinated as it helps the surprises jolt you a bit better.
  • Start with the first episode, even if you've seen it before, and watch them back-to-back. Pausing for bathroom breaks and/or surfing to the Wikipedia pages for explanations/clarifications is acceptable and encouraged, so as to better your experience getting caught up in the show, its settings and events.
  • Brainstorm and see if we've missed anything important on those pages, and most especially if we happened to actually get something wrong, and contribute!

Note that if you follow my suggestions, when you come back there might be a test after the show :) 66.90.151.114 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode Numbering

Q: should we be numbering episodes with a single or double-digit sequence number, as we're doing now, or should these be listed instead in the more familiar shorthand of SxEE, where "S" is the season or series number, and EE is the episode number?66.90.151.114 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A: Do series with only one season also follow this shorthand? Until the show is renewed for a second season (and I am hopeful that it will), I think it would be premature to add "1x" (or even just "1", as I've more often seen) to all of the episode numbers. --Psiphiorg 03:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I did some quick searching, and series that have only one season appear to be listed by single or double-digit and not the shorthand. However, if the ratings trend persists, a second season has a good chance of happening, and we'll most likely "retcon" the listings accordingly. I'll consider the issue tabled for now if no one objects. 66.90.151.114 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Official Title Of Pilot Episode

Per CBS, and as reported on Kryptonsite's Jericho forums, the official title of the pilot is "The First 17 Hours". The links need to be updated accordingly if someone more versed in that high a level of change would care to make them. 66.90.151.114 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can find a citation otherwise, the first episode's title is "Pilot". The CBS Jericho web site lists "Pilot" as the title, and so do most web hits - the only one I found with "17 Hours" is Kryptonsite. --Ckatzchatspy 08:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Per Kryptonsite's admins, they claim they received this from a CBS press release, but haven't provided the actual text. I can contact someone at the local affiliate and see what they can dig up on Monday. I've also fired off a follow-up RFI to the site's admins, requesting cite of source. 66.90.151.114 09:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what Kryptonsite has, though. As long as CBS is currently referring to the episode as "Pilot", its title is "Pilot". Episode names can (and do) change very frequently during the production process, and what was correct at the time of a press release or an affiliate briefing may not be accurate today. --Ckatzchatspy 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to get into a war with you on this, but if the press release is dated on or after the date of the pilot episode's airing, then the title would be correct. Again, once I get an answer to the RFI, we'll know whether or not what they've reported was correct or not. 66.90.151.114 09:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The Futon Critic shows the CBS press release for the pilot episode, which does not include anything about "The First 17 Hours".
--Psiphiorg 09:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/Talk%7EJericho_%28TV_series%29_Archive_1_0c71.html"