Talk:Joshua
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Joshua is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Historical figure?
On what grounds is he claimed to be a historical figure? I think that requires some sort of historical record of his existance, no?
Josh can also mean "Josh Malihabadi" so a disambiguation page should be put up for the term
-- Amit 181 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Amit
[edit] Lets be more exact - "Captured" Jericho ??
The traditional text of Joshua concerning Jericho is no 'capture'. Capturing something implies that the captured is still living and there was strictly speaking nothing left alive in the city. The only capture was that of the precisious metals, if this is all the contributer of this article means by capture then they should be more explicit, e.g. "Jericho is the first city where precious metals were captured..." If someone is ashamed of the orginal text then they should not be contributing to the article, after all the book of Joshua is the primary resource in these matters.Paul diffenderfer 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- How? First they captured the city then they killed the inhabitants. Still a capture. Frikle 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yeshua?
I have seen the name "Yeshua" used to denote "Jesus". And yet, this variant of the name is not mentioned in either the Jesus or the Joshua article. Why?
--Richard 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned the form "YESHUA" and other "forms" of the authentic Name, Yahushua. Wikipedia deletes articles that contain more pertinent information, as they have recently deleted the article "YAHUSHUA", which anyone can see is in the Hebrew, yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin. Your observation that this variant of the Name is not mentioned in the article "JOSHUA" reveals that there is a conspiracy to conceal information; this information and more has been mentioned under the banned article, "YAHUSHUA", which wikipedia has deleted numerous times. If you would like to read the original article which wikepedia banned, google the words "Yahushua, blotted out". They may not like it if a direct link were place here! Lew White 11-29-06 USA
- I've read Mr. White's book Fossilized Customs (http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/). Personally I feel conspiracy theories aren't exactly the place for Wikipedia. Plus, the Yahushua article isn't "blotted out", it was redirected to here. Drumpler 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Accurate?
This entire article is simply a repetition of the Biblical account. What's worse is that it doesn't state so. It presents all this as simple fact. What does the scholarly historical literature say about all this? What is the archaelogical or other independent evidence? I'm not disputing the overall account. But let's just say that hagiography is not unknown in sympathetic accounts, such as the biblical one. 150.203.2.85 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken off the 'disputed' tag. I think the third paragraph gives adequate warning not to take this as historical fact. --Spondoolicks 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. I have moved the disclaimer to the first paragraph. However, that is not sufficient. The question is not whether the user is _warned_ about inaccuracies. The question is whether the article _contains_ inaccuracies. The latter is unacceptable, so I have replaced the tag. At a minimum, the writing should be made explicit throughout that this is simply a summary of the biblical account. Then, neutrality requires a presentation of critical or historical evidence on that account. Wikipedia is not the place for an article which simply summarizes the Bible. The tag indicates there is a problem with the article meeting Wikipedia standards, and I think that is beyond question. Derex 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion was that no intelligent reader could possibly miss the fact that it is by no means an established historical fact. I don't know what you want from this article. Maybe a big warning every other sentence saying "At least that's what it says in the bible but it might not have happened like that." The article was fine as it was. Joshua is a significant figure in the bible and the bible story is pretty much all there is to say about him so there's nothing wrong with the article being mostly a summary of the story. --Spondoolicks 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to believe that armies of scholars over centuries have nothing at all to say about Joshua besides summarizing the biblical account. Derex 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well said! There is ample scholarly discussion of the historicity of the Biblical accounts of Joshua and there is solid archaeological evidence for many of the events and locations (admittedly, not all events - and not all scholars concur - but enough to make clear that this article's POV regarding historicity and archaeology is severely biased).208.191.39.25 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I find it difficult to believe that armies of scholars over centuries have nothing at all to say about Joshua besides summarizing the biblical account. Derex 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion was that no intelligent reader could possibly miss the fact that it is by no means an established historical fact. I don't know what you want from this article. Maybe a big warning every other sentence saying "At least that's what it says in the bible but it might not have happened like that." The article was fine as it was. Joshua is a significant figure in the bible and the bible story is pretty much all there is to say about him so there's nothing wrong with the article being mostly a summary of the story. --Spondoolicks 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. I have moved the disclaimer to the first paragraph. However, that is not sufficient. The question is not whether the user is _warned_ about inaccuracies. The question is whether the article _contains_ inaccuracies. The latter is unacceptable, so I have replaced the tag. At a minimum, the writing should be made explicit throughout that this is simply a summary of the biblical account. Then, neutrality requires a presentation of critical or historical evidence on that account. Wikipedia is not the place for an article which simply summarizes the Bible. The tag indicates there is a problem with the article meeting Wikipedia standards, and I think that is beyond question. Derex 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge?
We also have a Book of Joshua. Editors there have taken the effort to actually add some historical and critical content. The top of the article makes the distinction that this article is about the Hebrew Bible character whereas the other is about the Biblical Book. I don't know how to parse that. Does Biblical Book mean Christian Bible, and is that distinct from the Hebrew Bible in the Old Testament? Or is the distinction simply character versus book? If it's the latter then there is an extraordinary amount of repetition between the two articles, and the other article is far superior. In that case, I would suggest a merge. Derex 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I don't see any reason to have two articles and it seems much more sensible to have them merged. --Spondoolicks 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll ask the editors over there what they think. Derex 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "character" should be merged over to here. However the "biblical book" should stay there. --Haldrik 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- My issue is that the majority of this article basically says "Joshua led his followers in X", particularly in Conquest and part of the introduction. That X is generally covered in the Book article. If we are to have a distinct article, at least the redundancy should be removed. That would satisfy some of my objections about the historicity as well, as there would be fewer claims about historical events. Derex 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I dont think this article needs to reinvent the wheel. I think it's enough to say the info on Joshua is problematic because much of the information about the Exodus is problematic. And then give a link to the Exodus article that already describes the difficulties in detail. By the way, most archeologists do believe the Exodus happened for logical reasons. They doubt any nation would celebrate having been a slave unless it was true. The problem is that no reconstruction of the biblical descriptions have matched the archeological evidence (yet) and there is no consensus. --Haldrik 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well that's fine. I have no axe to grind here. But that ought to be said and cited. This article is to a great extent simply a copy of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article. Surely we can do better than that, given the benefit of another full century of scholarship. Derex 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I dont think this article needs to reinvent the wheel. I think it's enough to say the info on Joshua is problematic because much of the information about the Exodus is problematic. And then give a link to the Exodus article that already describes the difficulties in detail. By the way, most archeologists do believe the Exodus happened for logical reasons. They doubt any nation would celebrate having been a slave unless it was true. The problem is that no reconstruction of the biblical descriptions have matched the archeological evidence (yet) and there is no consensus. --Haldrik 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- My issue is that the majority of this article basically says "Joshua led his followers in X", particularly in Conquest and part of the introduction. That X is generally covered in the Book article. If we are to have a distinct article, at least the redundancy should be removed. That would satisfy some of my objections about the historicity as well, as there would be fewer claims about historical events. Derex 22:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "character" should be merged over to here. However the "biblical book" should stay there. --Haldrik 22:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll ask the editors over there what they think. Derex 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at the Book of Joshua article, I oppose merger. That article is about the book. This article is about the person called Joshua. Regarding the historicity of Joshua, it's a separate problem. It resembles all the legends about Alexander the Great, which the historians must sift thru for claims that seem historically plausible. --Haldrik 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- How do you feel about greatly shortening Conquest with a pointer to the Book article? It covers the material in greater detail, and has links to existing or proposed subarticles about battles. A great many of my historical neutrality and accuracy objections center on that section. Derex 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I just boldly did it. It could use a bit more about his specific role as leader, as distinct from the general conquest and activities of the Hebrews. But, it's easier to start fresh than to edit down that mass. Tags removed everywhere. Derex 07:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] protection
The vandalism/nonsense on this page is almost daily. Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply semi-protect it? --Shuki 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joshua in Islam
I've read that Muslims say it was alright that Muhammad did what he did because Joshua did it too. Maybe we should have a section on the Muslim view of Joshua? They claim all Old Testament prophets as Muslims don't they? KittyHawker 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you ask over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. Derex 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mythology
There is no proof that the Torah is mythological. It should say "In the Jewish Bible, In the Torah, In the Hebrew Bible, etc", not "In Jewish Mythology". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.19.102 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Yahushua?
I'm interested as to why the search phrase Yahushua redirects to this article. If one wants to include it, it would probably be best to make a disambiguation article so that one can link it equally to Yeshua (name), Yahshua and Joshua. Likewise, make the Joshua article linkable to other people who may use the name (with this article on another page, such as Joshua (saint). It just seems that "Yahushua" is more of the pet child of the Sacred Name Movement and not the OT hero. Drumpler 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also, why is this on WikiSaints? Joshua is common to quite a few religions, not just Christianity (or in this case, Catholic Christianity). Drumpler 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CRITICISM OF JOSHUA
I wonder why there's no CRITICISM OF JOSHUA like there's Criticism of Muhammad even though Joshua unlike Muhammad committed genocide and slaughtered both women and children in the name of "god"
-Amro Gaber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.50.176 (talk • contribs).
- A good question. Possibly because Joshua was not the sole direct founder of Judaism, like Muhammad was of Islam, and is thus in a sense less important? However, I can see how a section could be added. John Carter 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
