Talk:Beit Nekofa

Misleading statements within the article
Has the geographical location of the mythical Nukveta been identified? The article does not make the point clear. The article is therefore misleading and inaccurate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly is inaccurate about the text? Can you please point to something specific that is incorrect? And do you have sources to back up your claims? Moreover, what changes do you suggest to the article? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Has the geographical location of Nukveta been identified?...yes the name Nukveta has been used in the Talmud but has a geographical local based on archaeological digs etc been located?...The reference is to a book in Hebrew, and referrers only to Nukveta being somewhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem, not necessarily at this geographical location...the article does not make it clear whether this is the site of or just a name pulled out of a hat and plonked on a new settlement near an empty Palestinian village with a name vaguely sounding like but with no actual connection to Nukveta...may I remind you that the plonking of spurious names near Palestinian villages was a pastime that the naming Committee commonly indulged in, for political purposes...ref Meron Benvenisti (2002) sacred landscape ...pp 1-340 end ref...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, again, where is the article incorrect? Does it say anywhere that Nukveta's location has been positively identified? Does it say anywhere that it was certainly in the location of present-day Beit Nekofa? The article says that according to HaReuveni, according to the Talmud, Nukveta was part of the Tribe of Benjamin, which means somewhere between Etzion and Qalqilya (more or less). It makes absolutely no assertion that Nukveta was in exactly the same location as Beit Nekofa is today. So, again, please answer my questions: Where is the article incorrect? And, what changes are you suggesting? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no specific issues with the article text were raised, I've removed the tag. Jayjg (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)