Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alaska and Hawaii?

Who's incontrol of them? Alaska produces 30-40% of US oil consumption.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia and China of course.--Aamin Maritza (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it has not said I would suspect in such a situation that Hawaii would become autonomous, perhaps return to tribal control, and Alaska would be autonomous as well, but would soon either become an independant country, be claimed by Canada, or be reaquired by Russia or China. Think of all the oil there, someone would try and claim it for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.68.40 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The (Disputed) Total Number of Bombs

I've decided to place this topic in its own section next to the map one, as they're both related in a sense. Below, I brought up the issue of the total overall number of nuclear weapons detonated on the show, but — as mentioned — the producers have been somewhat wildly inconsistent with that number, not only in terms of the number detonated, but in the conflicting reports of major cities destroyed throughout the series. This is simply an exercise in quantifying and sorting out the various contradictory inconsistencies in the canonical evidence seen onscreen — whether that be in dialogue, on the many maps glimpsed thus far, et cetera.

First, we can begin by providing a log of the various pieces of dialogue establishing the number of bombs detonated:

• In the episode "A.K.A.", Jake makes mention of "23 American cities" destroyed by the terrorists on that day.
• Likewise in that same episode, Victor Miller, one of Hawkins's bosses, gives a figure of "25 nuclear devices" created by the terrorists from the stolen Soviet fissionable material.

If we’re to accept these figures strictly at face-value alone, then we already have a major problem — we have Jake’s "23 cities," plus Hawkins’s Columbus, OH bomb, plus at least one bomb meant for NYC. An even 25, right? Wrong.

In that same episode, Hawkins outright establishes that there were a minimum of two bombs meant for the New York metropolitan area ("[The] New York bombs were intercepted"), plus Carol Barbee strongly insinuated in a recent interview that Albany, NY also took a hit. Even if we allocate one of Hawkins’s two (or more) bombs for NYC, and one for Albany, we're already up to 26 devices...and possibly even 27 or more.

You’d think that the writers would’ve been a bit more cross-communicative in their world-building.

Now, we come to the contentious issue — the differing, at-odds maps we see scattered in various places during the series. Some show cities like New Orleans destroyed, while others do not. Likewise, there are further continuity-nitpicks, such as St. Louis's presence on the main terrorist target-list (seen in "A.K.A."), but its absence from two of the maps. There was no mention made of the interception of the St. Louis bomb(s) — and if it was on the terrorists' final list a mere one day before the attacks were carried out en masse, then it's a fairly safe bet that they had a bomb waiting and ready to go.

There hasn't been any evidence suggesting that the city wasn't hit...and lest anyone bring up the St. Louis Air National Guard F-16s, keep in mind that such bases keep fighters in the air around the clock, and these jets were in the sky at the exact moment of the attacks, per the airline pilots' radio-chatter. They likely would've been among the last survivors of that base if the bomb detonated close enough to it, and would have had to re-divert.

There seems to be a fandom consensus at the moment regarding certain bombs — the lion’s share of them, in fact — and that is that they exploded, beyond dispute. The majority of these are the cities which recur between 2-3 times on the diverse, assorted maps we’ve seen (Hawkins’s basement map, the Black Jack fairgrounds map, and the map in the "Old Man"’s cabin). Others spring up in the dialogue (or onscreen by some other means) at least once, and are held as "question marks" for the moment; cities which may or may not have been attacked (Cincinnati, New Orleans, St. Louis).

We can break down the various bombs by rubric, according to the nature of their appearance in the show’s storyline:

• Undisputed Bombs (24)
• Possible Bombs (4)
• Intercepted Bombs (2-3)
• Retconned Bombs (1)

Going by the numbers:

Undisputed Bombs

• Boston, MA
• Hartford, CT
• Philadelphia, PA
• Pittsburgh, PA
• Baltimore, MD
• Washington, D.C.
• Norfolk, VA
• Charlotte, NC
• Atlanta, GA
• Miami, FL
• Detroit, MI
• Indianapolis, IN
• Chicago, IL
• Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
• Lawrence, KS
• Dallas, TX
• Houston, TX
• Denver, CO
• St. George, UT
• Phoenix, AZ
• Los Angeles, CA
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA

Possible Bombs

• Albany, NY
• Cincinnati, OH
• St. Louis, MO
• New Orleans, LA

Intercepted Bombs

• New York, NY (2 or more)
• Columbus, OH

Retconned Bombs

• Las Vegas, NV

Just examining the evidence to date onscreen, there were at least 28 devices in play (the 24 "undisputed" cities, plus Hawkins’s bomb, the two NYC bombs, and the St. Louis bomb), and that number jumps right up to 29, if we account for Ms. Barbee’s comments regarding Albany...and possibly 30, if Eric was correct regarding Cincinnati. So, why was Victor lowballing? Jake was lowballing too, if we assume that he (being stuck virtually incommunicado in rural Kansas) simply didn’t have access to the full picture with simple local radio broadcasts. There hasn’t been any official pronunciamento on this subject from the writers as yet, and it’s puzzling.

It may be that once the "Project Red Bell" nuclear material jumped off the CIA’s radar screens, the terrorists under Valente’s guidance managed to construct more than the number quoted by Victor in the briefing — he may simply have been going by a conservative estimate based upon the perceived capabilities of "domestic" militias and anarchists (who would very probably have next-to-zero knowledge of how to assemble a working bomb without guidance), and was sadly short of the actual quantity. Too, we know that Thomas Valente himself was the director of the Department of Energy’s nuclear-materials program prior to his stint as Homeland Security chief (per his bio on Hawkins’s laptop), and would likely have the hard technical know-how to maximize the number of devices the conspirators could manufacture, which might away explain the CIA’s intelligence-estimate shortfall in this case. Victor believed there were 25 nukes in play, when in actuality that number was closer to (or exceeding) thirty.

Admittedly, this whole theory isn’t confirmed in any way, shape, or form in any official source, but in view of the massive evidenciary contradictions present on the show, it’s quite clear that Victor was way off in his estimates — and as the military adage goes, there's no such thing as a "nuclear miss." --The Bandsaw Vigilante 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The map, again

● Los Angeles

● San Francisco

● San Diego

● Seattle

● Phoenix

● Denver

● Lawrence

● Houston

● Dallas

● Atlanta

● Miami

● Charlotte

● Minneapolis

● Chicago

● Indianapolis

● Detroit

● Boston

● Hartford

● Philadelphia

● Pittsburgh

● Washington, D.C.

● Baltimore

● St. George

● Norfolk

● New York

● Columbus

● Jericho

● Attacked city

● Unsuccessful attack

● Jericho

It seems the map has once again been replaced with another poorer quality, JPG format, copyright status unknown map.

I've developed another one at Template:Jericho TV series map.

Pros:

• SVG format
• Public domain map
• No unnecessary info on map - less cramped
• Cities are marked with text links, therefore anyone can update it and keep the format consistent
• Includes attacked cities (red), unsuccessful attacks (blue), Jericho (green)
• Names are readable without zooming in (though see below).

Cons:

• New federal capitals not marked - it was too cramped, this could easily be fixed by:
  • Using a separate map in a different part of the article
  • Showing only coloured dots, not city names
• "Possibly" attacked cities not marked - this is probably good since it is speculation, and anyway we already know that 25 cities were targetted, 23 were successful and two weren't, so it appears that all are accounted for anyway.

From testing this template at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Jericho2, it looks like 600 pixels wide is the smallest it can go without becoming too cramped, but this shouldn't be a problem since the city names are not readable on the existing 500px map. Note that I do not live in the United States, so I'm not completely familiar on the location of some cities so the dots may be a bit off. Some of these are intentional (such as Indianapolis and Columbus) to prevent the names from overlapping. Any other suggestions? -- Chuq (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please for God's sake replace the new map on the main page (the one with the unreadable city names, the bright blue oceans and the lat/ long lines). I'm all for Chuq's new map!! 68.54.240.28 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated the map! But I have also noticed another irregularity; St Louis was in the list on Hawkins' computer, so it is undoubtedly an intended target. Assuming Hawkins' groups intelligence is accurate, there were twenty five targets. However the map already includes 23 attacks and 2 unsuccessful attacks, NOT including St Louis! So something is amiss - either the 25 total is wrong, or the list of 23 attacks we have is wrong. -- Chuq (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this, Norfolk, Virginia appears to have evidence that it was attacked, and is also not on the map. -- Chuq (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

correct me if I'm wrong, but the map Hawkin's showed Jake he said was projections of weapons strikes in the US based on data in the 50's. Considering 1.) the map couldn't have been printed post-EMP (I doubt Hawkins would have worried about a printer and paper supply that large) 2.) the map could just be a rehash of data from megaton explosions (the fallout trails are much, MUCH too big for 20 kt devices, which should only be a few dozen miles at best) 3.) the map was based on worst case scenarios (Norfolk of course would be a target of a state-sponsored terrorist network b/c of the Atlantic Fleet). So I would be more inclined to dismiss this map and rely on the one from "Black Jack." Also, I hesitate to say that these cities were "destroyed." Again, if all the devices were 20 kt explosions, the peak overpressure rate (over 2 PSI) falls off dramatically after a 2 mile radius from the explosion. Downtown LA might be gone, but Hollywood, Anaheim, etc? Not likely, unless they're detonated upwind of these cities and are relying on the fallout to empty them out. The worst that's going to happen is weak structural collapse, lots of broken windows, etc. I know- the last bit was off topic, but reality nonetheless. 68.54.240.28 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The map referred to isn't the blast projection map - it is the regular map with push-pins which has been seen in many other episodes. I agree the blast projection map is irrelevant in this case. -- Chuq (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The new map leaves off Norfrok or Virginia Beach, VA. One of those two cities was clearly see as marked on Hawkin's map in A.K.A.

~Acsmith3

P.S. On CBS Innertube, it can be seen at 4:47 in Part 1 of 5. It goes fast so you might need to pause it as soon as they show it.

Agreed, I missed this one. I will fix it up soon, but the benefit of this map is that anyone else can also do so without requiring access to a graphics editor - simply go to Template:Jericho TV series map and add a new line at the appropriate spot. (You don't really need to understand the coding, just copy and paste an existing line and change the names/numbers - use trial and error, and PREVIEW a lot!) The main thing to remember is if you stuff it up by mistake, simply revert yourself and no harm is done.. -- Chuq (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe this or not: the regional capital in the northeast is supposed to be Rome, New York, not Albany. See the interview with executive producer Carol Barbee here [1]. That's a bit of a surprise. Someone wanna change the map again? 209.247.22.62 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a great find and certainly a reliable source. I have updated the map - the dot was closer to Rome than it was to Albany anyway, so I didn't change the location, just the name - don't forget as I said above, anyone can do it now! -- Chuq (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just having the two colors, have more to indicate who's map the information came from. Val42 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be difficult, as almost all cities have come from more than one source. I don't know how it could be done without cluttering the map. -- Chuq (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the map and the info about it? Zoli Elo 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the map on the main series page omit Norfolk and Indianapolis, but include Kansas City and St. Louis? It's quite confusing to have conflicting maps on the main and location pages. Craig R. Nielsen 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, the location marked "Miami" is way off -- the dot is where Tallahassee would be, not Miami... Groupthink 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what's going on, that map is just displaying wacky for me (all of the cities appear to be shifted) Groupthink 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.67.40 (talk) 17:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

One other thing we seem to be overlooking:

During the "Project Red Bell" briefing, Victor Miller mentions that "25 bombs" were produced from the stolen Soviet nuclear material, and earlier in that same episode, Jake gives a figure of "23 U.S. cities" as having been destroyed. However, also in that exact same storyline, Hawkins then gives us an interesting piece of information: "[The] New York bombs" (plural) were intercepted, which would then put us up to a total of at least 26 nukes in play, prior to the mass detonations. As a matter of fact, when you add in the Columbus, Ohio bomb and just one NYC bomb, you're already up to 26...and Hawkins explicitly mentions more than one New York device in the dialogue.

Now, considering that we've seen the various attack-maps (with the destroyed cities) fluctuating so wildly throughout the series's run to date, it's entirely conceivable that even cities like St. Louis, New Orleans, and/or Albany (per Carol Barbee's recent remarks) might be added to this overall total, if Victor were giving an approximate, rounded ballpark figure during his briefings. Cincinnati might now be plausible under this analysis, as well. Too, the only piece of evidence suggesting that St. Louis wasn't bombed is Hawkins's map....and we've seen cities on other maps (like the Black Jack one) not showing up on Hawkins's, and vice-versa.

There's this big incongruity in the onscreen evidence that needs to be sussed out, if not by the fans, then at some point in the second season — we're looking at at least somewhere between 26-28 bombs, rather than the 25 posited in "A.K.A." --The Bandsaw Vigilante 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reruns--July 6

OK, first off, quit edit warring. It pains me. If someone wishes to challenge your edit, don't just put it back, use this page. It's why we have this page at all, otherwise we woul all have flame and edit wars to decide wiki policies. Secondly, I do think that the information belongs...somewhere. Perhaps not under the save Jercho movement, but somewhere. Perhaps under the table of broadcast dates. Give me some feedback. --Fshy 01:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, this isn't TV Guide. There is no encyclopedic value in listing the fact that a series is being rerun, as stations and networks do it all the time. It is also specific to the United States, whereas the article tis aimed at a world-wide audience. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Have you warned the offender? --Fshy 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't TV Guide, perhaps the line "CBS repeated the first three episodes on the Saturday nights following their original airings, as did Australia's Network Ten" has no place in the article as well. :P 24.99.231.40 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Canceled vs Cancelled

I don't wish to start an edit war, but...we've used two l's in almost all other instances, and while the dear dictionary recognizes both, I feel we ought to use all in one way or the other. And, I'm almost certain that the U.S. standard is cancelled; I've seen it used that way all my life here. --Fshy 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled appears to have supremacy according to Google -- most Americans I've communicated with use two as well. Thus I agree the article should use "cancelled". Matthew 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't notice this discussion. Both spellings are technically correct in American English. One L is the more "proper", but like many words, if people spell it incorrectly enough times, soon the misspelling becomes correct as well. Realistically, it doesn't matter which one is used, I originally changed the spelling because I went in to add the cites for Cagney and Lacey and Designing Women and noticed the two l's. The last one was just because I decided to do a spell check on the article and the other one came up. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... there's either correct or incorrect, frankly there's no inbetween. By your own admittance the spelling was quite correct. Matthew 23:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Not in this case, both spellings are correct.[2] Basically the equivalent of using "you're" versus "you are". "You're" is a correct spelling, but "you are" is more proper. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A contraction is informal, but it doesn't make it any less proper. Now, even if both spellings are correct: that isn't good enough rationale to change it to your personal preference. Neither word is more proper, it's the natural evolution of language. Matthew 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, informal does make it less proper.;) It just doesn't make it less correct. Proper English is a more formalized style of English and tends to be the preferred style in scholarly articles. Linguistic drift is natural, yes, which is why there is an American English, Australian English, British English, Canadian English, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. A contraction is a shortcut so that one doesn't have to write/say the whole word/phrase. Two spellings are quite different. Now, from what I gather(yes, this is OR) from checking out internet postings from yahoo and others, I think that "cancelled" was the original British spelling. The U.S. then made it "canceled" during the language importation. However, in the U.S., the spelling "cancelled" is coming back into favor, hence the google search Matthew points to. So its really up to us; both have equal weight, and neither is more proper. I honestly don't care what we use, as long as we use it throughout. As it is now, we have "cancelled" some places, and "canceled" in others.--Fshy 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, doing a Google search on both variations: canceled = 22,800,000 and cancelled = 51,400,000 - Bevo 16:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been using "canceled" in my article edits, simply because Firefox doesn't give me a red underline (as it does for "cancelled"). As long as we're consistant within each article, it doesn't matter. -- MisterHand 16:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I just popped into this page and found this entertaining discussion. If you want to talk about what is "more proper", then the Queen's English (RP & associated spellings) should prevail. I've never understood the American proclivity for spelling words oddly. j/k

But, seriously, as long as the word's variant is correct, consistency should be maintained throughout a specific page. --- Taroaldo 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

This article needs a better introduction. Right now there are only details about who produced the show and a whole lot of detailed scheduling and viewership history. There is nothing in these introductory paragraphs about what the show is actually about. - Bevo 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NUTS for Jericho article?

I'd like to float this trial balloon: I'm of the opinion that the "NUTS for Jericho" campaign was of sufficient notability and novelty so as to deserve its own article. Thoughts? Groupthink 21:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It was original, but not notable enough outside the circle of fans of Jericho and regular online news readers, if you ask me. And even if you consider it notable enough, it's not encyclopedic in the least manner. Besides, what're you going to say in a whole article about it? Count all of the nuts that were sent? » byeee 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In a (pardon the pun) nutshell, how about "Direct fan action rose to unprecedented heights and expressed itself in novel fashion, causing a major television network to change its mind on a cancellation with never-before seen rapidity, which is perhaps a bellweather indicating technology now allows for previously unheard of levels of fan control/dictation over programming, and is also perhaps an indicator that the Nielsen model of TV ratings does not adequately capture the true quantity and quality of viewership"? All backed with sources, of course. Besides, why be so quick to dismiss regular online news readers? Not to mention that the "Nuts!" story did attract coverage by non-Internet (offline?) news sources. Groupthink 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say, give it some time. If Jericho ends up being cancelled after the next shortened season, then it will become less and less noteworthy. If Jericho ends up with a decent run of seasons (at least three or four), and other shows follow this method of audience reaction to cancellations, then it will be noted as a "first". No need to push it out as something special at this point in time when it seems noteworthy only in such a narrow context. - Bevo 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It has been difficult enough keeping the section in this article from getting overrun. An entire article would be a sitting duck for all sorts of hyperbole, unfortunately. (Just look at the history of articles like Jericho, Kansas (fictional town) or Jericho Sheriff's Department (fictional agency).) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The campaigns were indeed impressive, but I'm not sure about the 'never-before seen rapidity'. Jericho was original enough to have a second season- the only reason for its cancellation were the low ratings. It took CBS some time to realize that Nielsen ratings aren't a clear indication of viewership. And on top of that, CBS went back on the cancellation for two other series, so it's not that unusual for them. On the other side, look at the Sci Fi Channel, that has a reputation of cancelling shows: first Farscape, then Andromeda, and now Stargate SG-1. I also agree with Ckatz: there's enough editing as it is, and there's nothing to put in a whole article regarding the 'Nuts!' campaign. » byeee 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode observations

• Episode 3, "Four Horsemen":
  • Jericho has been established in the series as being on Interstate 70 and northeast of Goodland, Kansas. This would place it near Colby, Kansas, the only location on I-70 northeast of Goodland, but this location has not yet been definitively established. Despite the similarities in numbered routes, the map shown by CBS does not precisely conform to any known actual road configuration.
    See also Mapping observations below.

About 9:45 into this episode, you can clearly hear Emily say "I'm going with you. I have to find Roger and Goodland is on the way to Wichita." That would absolutely not place Jericho near Colby. Colby is 40 miles directly East of Goodland, which means that Goodland would be the exact opposite of "on the way to Wichita." The statement from the episode places Jericho to the North or West of Goodland, much closer to the Colorado border than Colby. It's also established near, not on, I-70. BlueGold73 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The Air Traffic Control system collapsed during the attacks, and thousands of planes were forced to land with no assistance, on highways and in fields. With "10,000 planes in the air, and no place to land" (according to the Robert Hawkins character), some would have crashed, while others may have made emergency landings. The fate of most flights is still unknown. However, the airplane carrying Emily's fiancé landed safely in a Nebraska field, and he arrives in Jericho with other refugees at the end of Episode 11.
  • In the beginning of this episode, Hawkins is seen moving a barrel that appears identical to the nukes deployed by the terrorists from a storage unit into a truck. He is later seen securing it in his basement. Given the information provided in episode 12, that he was a driver intended to deliver a device but failed to do so, it is likely that this barrel is in fact the device he was supposed to deliver but never did. This is supported by "Sarah" using a Geiger counter on the device in episode 14.
• Episode 4, "Walls of Jericho":
  • Hawkins learns from a co-conspirator that there is a traitor among their group—people who seem to have known about the nuclear attacks in advance and prepared for them. He then warns other members of his group through a secure computer in his basement that "We have a traitor. The rally point is no longer secure."
• Episode 5, "Federal Response":
  • It is highly probable, based on the trajectory, that the ballistic missiles were launched from somewhere nearby, although it is not known if this is a retaliation for the initial attacks, for the EMP, or for some other purpose. (In reality, the closest ICBM sites are Minuteman silos in western Nebraska and eastern Colorado, less than 150 miles northwest of the supposed location of Jericho and controlled by F. E. Warren Air Force Base.) Judging from the video and using the Jericho map provided by CBS, the missiles are headed eastward, since the people viewing the missiles are looking northward down Main Street and the missiles are headed to the right.
  • Hawkins accesses an information repository with the seal of the U.S. Department of State and a reference to the NSA. He looks at an "America Express" credit card before typing in his access code, "87oij9r". Hawkins learns Jake's passport has been flagged and that he made several trips between 2003 and 2004 to Central America, South America, and the Middle East; destinations visible on screen include Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Qatar, Colombia (again), Peru, and Guatemala.
  • The first three octets of the IP address that Hawkins types are "29.203.39". The 29 network is assigned to the United States Department of Defense.
• Episode 6, "9:02":
  • An electromagnetic pulse at the start of the episode damages most electronic devices in the town (as well as in neighboring Rogue River). Hawkins' laptop computer survives; he later tells his daughter that it is "ruggedized" for protection from such pulses, a design issued by the government. (Hawkins never specifically says he works for the U.S., or any other government.)
  • Hawkins is told by a co-conspirator using the secure connection that the conspirator has been "compromised."
• Episode 10, "Red Flag":
  • 1970s-era Russian-built Antonov aircraft flew over Jericho, dropping food, supplies, medicine, and a generator from China. The parachutes used for the drop were later discovered to be modern US Air Force-issue, prompting questions as to who would be using such a combination of equipment. The aid packages contained leaflets with slogans like "Do not fight", and "China is your friend", and a picture of a smiling Chinese family.}}

I'm going to integrate these with the individual episode articles, which is a better place for them. Moving section here for now. I believe a discussion about this section was had before. Matthew 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Side note, I did do a copy and paste of the "new" content to Jericho (season 1). There's a lot of crap in that article, but a season synopsis article is probably a good thing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC) turned back into redirect. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cities destroyed in Jericho TV series.svg

Image:Cities destroyed in Jericho TV series.svg either needs to be replaced or updated. I noticed some of the cities on the map were not matching the list of cities destroyed on the other maps and Locations in Jericho (TV series). Here's the list of mismatches:

Not on map, but on list	On map, not on list
Indianapolis, Indiana	Tuscon, Arizona
Norfolk, Virginia	Kansas City, Kansas
Phoenix, Arizona	New Orleans, Louisiana
	St. Louis, Missouri
	Cincinnati, Ohio

Anyone able to update the map, or should we just plug one of the many other images there? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to that really nice map that was up a few months ago? — Acsmith3

Need a dictionary

This week I added the following information:

All full 22 episodes are available to view (videos not viewable outside USA)

After this site:

• Official site

I thought it would be helpful for others to know that all of the episodes are on CBS.

In response, a wikiuser wrote this:

rv to last encyclopedic version -- the "additional info" is unreferenced, trivial, and non-encyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not JerichoWiki

No, it is not relevant info, it's spam. If you revert again, I will request semi-protection for this page.

Removing irrelevant info -- let's try to avoid spam, please

As per Wikipedia:Spam:

There are three types of wikispam:

1. advertisements masquerading as articles,
2. wide-scale external link spamming, and
3. "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting").

Adding one sentence that explains the website is not "spam" unless this wikiuser feels that the official jerico site is "spam".

Second, by writing "non-encyclopedic" is completly false. It is simply explaining in a breif sentence what is on the website. No one can argue that it is not factually accurate.

Third "unreferenced" is also false, simply click on the link this sentence is next too, and it will clearly show that, indeed "All full 22 episodes are available to view". For months the sentence:

(videos not viewable outside USA)

...was not removed, yet it is just as encyclopedic as this statment.

Please abstain from nasty threats of semi-protection for something so trivial: one sentence. There has been zero discussion about this here.

Please see WP:OWN and WP:LAME. Then please refer to several other webpages which have detail discriptions in their external links. WP:LAME. 69.153.81.232 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC) — 69.153.81.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So let's see: you spam anonymously, then you criticize the editor who reverted your spam, and to support your position, you cite a policy that doesn't apply and an essay marked at its top "not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." Well here's a link to a relevant essay that you should read: don't be a dick. Struct 11:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ffs, you guys, the guy obviously wasn't spamming deliberately. He added something that may or may not be encyclopedic, but he did so with good intentions. It is inappropriate to label him a spammer, as from what I gather, he did so only once. Chill out. --Fshy 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC) — Fshy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Stop doing that Sruct. Read this over at Wikipedia: Single Purpose Accounts:

Attempts to engage in "astroturfing" or "vote stacking" by single-purpose accounts in Wikipedia:Project namespace discussions can be tagged with:

— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC)..

Please note that any other use of this tag is highly discouraged as it can be interpreted as a personal attack that may lead to action being taken against you.

I bolded the section that should be useful for you. I do not wish to have action taken against you, as I am clearly not astroturfing or vote stacking, so please desist from using that tag. I am not going to take that tag off; you will, as it only makes you look like a fool. And read the don't be a dick as well. It might do you some good.--Fshy 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Fshy and Struct. Let's all try to calm down here.

Now I hate to say this, but Fshy, you're engaging in some pot-calling-the-kettle-black behavior here. Taking a look at your contribution list, I see that you have edited two articles in mainspace, this article and List of Jericho characters. That means that Struct has a point, and probably spa-tagged you in good faith.

I also note that you are promising "action" against Struct on his talk page. You are certainly free to request moderation, but I have to advise you that you will probably be the one admonished (see this article for more information) if you do so.

Now I'm going to assume good faith and hope that you're here to work on the Jericho article, not to engage in personal attacks. If you are, then I hope that you'll shift the focus of your commentary to constructive criticism. Otherwise, no matter what your intentions, you run the risk of being branded a troll and ignored, or worse, banned. Groupthink 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I probably went overboard. So be it. It happens. Still, the page itself strongly recommends that you do not use that tag for any other purpose, as it may, and I do consider it a personal attack; as the implication is that I am a sock puppet or an asto-turfer. Also, I had to create a new account(this one is fairly new) as my old account is well...long story. But anyways, I disapprove of that kind of implication. At any rate, looking at Struct's archives, it seems that he always edits in a abrasive manner, attacking contributers and not their content. --Fshy 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his edits, so I can't agree or disagree, but I'd like to shift the focus of this discussion away from who's done what and back to the content of this page. Let's talk about the issue at hand: I reverted some anonymous edits. I say "spam", you say "not". Would anyone else like to chime in? Groupthink 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, lets get back on topic; we completely forgot about what on earth we were doing in the first place. Now, as for the spamming accusations, is it clear whether or not the anon did so with malicious intentions? If the answer is no, I feel the spamming accusations are inappropriate by Struct. However, I do feel that the person who reverted his edit was correct as well, as it is unencyclopedic.--Fshy 18:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but IMHO it doesn't require malicious intent to create spam. An edit made in good faith can nonetheless violate policy. I made my counter-edits because I saw a pink-and-meaty substance that needed to be removed ASAP, so I decided to revert first and asked questions about intent later. Groupthink 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what we have here is a difference in definitions; I feel spam must be done with malicious intentions; otherwise it is merely unencyclopedic content. At any rate, I think we probably mean the same thing, but have different definitions. For the record, I feel it is unenclopedic content because other shows don't bother mentioning their online sections either. Now if the Anon wishes to create an article about Innertube and then make a brief mention that Jericho is available(appropriately!) on Innertube with an internal link, I wouldn't mind as much. --Fshy 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that spamming has to be malicious. For example, an editor may genuienely believe something thay are adding is useful but if they are continually adding something against consensus especially if they add it to multiple pages it's still spam. Similarly messaging multiple people via their talk pages for research purposes and the like is usually considered spam even though there is no malicious intent there. Having said all that, it is better to avoid the word all together when possibly because it is too emotive. Just say it is unencylopaedic and unnecessary. Sure when someone is clearly spamming, e.g. continously adding a like to a site which is clearly theres even despite repeated admonitions then it's fine to call it spam but in cases like this were it might be spam but it's less clear, just avoid calling it spam all together. Otherwise people start arguing whether or whether not it's spam which is missing the point Nil Einne 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

International Broadcasters

I'd like to propose the removal of the International Broadcasters section. What value does it add to the article? Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Groupthink 06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't add any value -- it's simply article fluff. It's not fully cited, either. Matthew 07:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is there a Wikipedia standard policy on this?

I hate checking this article every day only to see that the changes are mostly adding broadcast dates in alphabets which are cool but irrelevant to me nonetheless. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#DIR, of which the latter I would say provides the strongest argument for removing the section... Groupthink 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing the section now as silence equals consent. Matthew 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. That's definitely addition by subtraction, thanks for the excisions. Groupthink 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it was useless. Needed to go. --Fshy 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I really miss the International Broadcasters List. It's really useful for people, not living in the US to get to know where (in which country) they can whatch Jericho on which station. Please bring it back... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.217.182 (talk • contribs) — 84.154.217.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's still posted in a place where it's appropriate to be, here. Groupthink 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In my country Sweden the serie now send.Wolfmann 20:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to put it back in, but I won't revert if other editors feel it should be re-included. Groupthink 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If it gets returned (this isn't a request to do so, BTW) we should strip out the "Weekly schedule" column. The broadcaster may or may not be encyclopedic information, but the "TV Guide" listing certainly isn't. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the column "Alternative title" must be deleted. We have only 2 entries and usually this "alternative" title is only Jericho written in another language. -- Magioladitis 05:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the re-introduction, there's no consensus to re-add it. Wikipedia is not a TV guide and most television shows that have these sections are being cleaned up now (see also this). Matthew 10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Why there is no soiler warning inside the document, nor in the episodes plots documents? --Jose piratilla 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you're reading an article on the television series and therefore, a description of the events taking place in the show is to be expected. Adding a spoiler warning is equivalent to picking up a knife and requiring someone to say "Careful, that's sharp". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true Bobble, but that's the way it goes around in all movie articles and the like. I may find that it serves as a warning to those with an IQ below 5, but I suppose Wikipedia is designed to be understood even by those users. I say we put it in, to conform with the standard.--Fshy 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's virtually unheard of to include spoiler warnings on Wikipedia. {{Spoiler}} has 5 main space transclusions and {{Endspoiler}} has 3. They should only be used to warn someone in situations where they would be generally not be expected. Say someone is reading the article on Denver, Colorado and someone feels the need to reveal that Denver was destroyed on Jericho, that's when a spoiler warning would be created. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think when a practice like that has completely changed, and used to be widespread, the words "virtually unheard of" aren't exactly correct. How about "We used to do this all the time, but it's changed now and we hardly ever do it; you might want to review the relevant guideline pages."? 135.214.40.162 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked we're talking about using the spoiler tag now, not "historically". Things change and this is one of the things that has changed. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was changed by a determined anti-spoiler cadre, who pushed through a change to the spoiler policy and removed tens of thousands of spoiler warnings in the space of a week using automated tools. Jose, if you think this article should have a spoiler warning, feel free to add it back in. Personally, I think deleting spoiler warnings has made Wikipedia a less useful encyclopedia, but I don't want to rehash the argument here; if the local consensus is for a spoiler warning, there should be one, and otherwise not. You certainly shouldn't be afraid to add a spoiler warning just because the guideline changed in June. --Jere7my 02:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TV assessment

After reviewing the article, I believe that this is presently B-Class, Mid-Importance. My comments:

• See featured article television programs for a general idea of what this article ought to look like—e.g. Lost (TV series), The Wire (TV series).
• Give a little information on each character. The section could be put into prose, but a list for characters is common. Sometimes the characters are listed by the order in which the actors are billed in the opening credits—e.g. actors are billed in alphabetical order in the opening credits of Lost.
• Get (reliable) references for the Web-based tie-ins section.
• Research information on the show's production. Info like the two-sentence section Filming locations would go in the Production section.

Cliff smith 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Article upside down

Show synopsis should be first, not show success/failure etc. Thanks Kidshare 06:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jericho inconsistency

Hello, I was curious if anyone wanted to add critical views on how various unexplained events happened on the show. Such as the eventual fallout rain that did nothing, the weak facts that it was slightly radioactive but left soot. As well an approximate yield of the Denver bomb looking to be in the megaton range not kiloton range. Based on the shows exposure of the non detonated device, it appears to be for a fireball to be seen from Bern Kansas would have been at it's height of 11-14 miles of fire to be viewed from 250-300 miles. A fusion bomb wouldn't make that much of a fireball but plenty of radioactive debris and depending on size could reach to 11-14 miles but no fireball. One ongoing detail is the fact that there are walking radiated wounded, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands roaming about as well as metal taking doses of radiation. Only a Teller-Ullam device would be capable of taking out all of Denver as suggested in the show or any other subsequent city from the Russian subverted munitions stockpile. However a simple bomb was exposed, not anything that may appear complex to match the intended fireball. It Would it be constructive being that it is a TV show that a citation would be added to clarify what type of Bombs where used other then the explained vanilla bombs. Totenkray 08:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

However, unless these things are mentioned in the context of the series or a reliable source, we can't include them here because they would be original research — Val42 04:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

season 2 leaks

today the first 3 episodes of season 2 were leaked online, i thought i'd add it in the article because i've seen other articles ie. Weeds (TV Series) mentioning leaks.

Morse Code of the leaked Episodes

S2E1 we're baaack

S2E2 boxcar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.67.169 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Amusing realism

Is there any notable mockery of this series? I mean, the moral of the story is that when Americans get nuked, they hold parties, stay up all night playing cards, occasionally pausing to shoot or punch each other or play in fallout, very rarely filling a gas tank and leaving things like power and clearing the debris off the road to unknown Responsible People who take forever to show up and eventually turn out to be foreign terrorists. (Oh, yeah, and the city's transportation network consists of one kid touchingly grabbing the food off the freight train in the middle of the night as a friendly surprise). If it hadn't been for Hurricane Katrina I'd have thought this was unrealistic... 70.15.114.2 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

I believe that the title "Allied States of America" should redirect to the Jericho page or someone should create it's own page. I don't want to do it because first of all, I don't know how to, and second, I don't want to screw up Wikipedia. So please tell me what you think. R3445v (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected it to United States government in Jericho which is probably the best article for now. -- Chuq (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

season 2 airing on english tv

can anyone tell me if any english station will be showing jericho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.103.225 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By "english" do you mean English, as Mother England, the United Kingdom of Britan, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, Or do you mean english as the language, cause there are many nations where english is the spoken language, and this show is on the air.

SubmittedTherubicon (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I meant mother england,as in the tyranical country,OCCUPIER OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND THEN LEAVE THEM IN CIVIL WAR .Yes good old mother england

Jericho's first season was shown on the Hallmark Channel (UK). Not sure if the second series is on the same channel. It's no wonder that people resort to downloading torrents when people in the UK have to wait so long so see American shows. It's nice to see that in return the BBC make the USA wait so long for Doctor Who and other British programmes. Why haven't the TV studios realised that the reason that people download via torrent sites is because they refuse to wait for a show to be broadcast at a time or channel that suits them. 217.200.200.53 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought TV was cancelled, and the broadcast spectrum sold to the telephone company. I've been downloading torrents rather than watch the TV since last year. I watch a lot of TV shows, no TV. I live in the USA 67.49.8.228 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

Does anyone have any sources for the ratings of the second season? A Lone Gamer (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tvbythenumbers.com/ Lighthope (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ARG

There is an Alternate reality game currently being played on the net, Tom Tooman. This should be detailed under the web-based tie ins section of the article. (google Tom Tooman and you will find a wiki devoted to the game, and a forum at unfiction.com. {Edit} I guess it should go without saying, but yes, this ARG is related to Jericho.

96.227.78.91 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jericho (2006 TV series)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is far from a B rating, it resembles an opinionated essay, whereas an ecyclopeadic article must be neutral and factual. Information and claims need to be cited and the paragraphs/sentences need better structuring. I like the show, and so, presumably, do most people viewing this article, so try not to hype it up and advertise it to potential viewers, this is supposed to be an informative article. Specific examples please, so we know where you are coming from. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)