Talk:Yaquq

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME This is a very ancient (Bronze Age) village site, now uninhabited. It has had many names. The archaeologist Jodi Magness leading the did now underway prefers Huqoq. Some recent scholarly articles have used Hukkok the difference lying in the choice to transliterate using q or k.  The current name gets only a fraction of the hits on google that the older name Huqoq/Hukkok receives.
 * Yaquq → Huqoq -

Per WP:COMMONNAME This is a very ancient (Bronze Age) village site, now uninhabited. It has had many names. The archaeologist Jodi Magness leading the did now underway prefers Huqoq. Some recent scholarly articles have used Hukkok the difference lying in the choice to transliterate using q or k.  The current name gets only a fraction of the hits on google that the older name Huqoq/Hukkok receives.}}

– PLEASE REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH YOUR OWN MESSAGE. WmTyndale (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it seems "Hukkok" is more commonly used to reference the biblical or ancient site, with 3,940 hits in google books compared to "Huqoq",1,460 hits.The association of ancient/biblical Hukkok/Huqoq with Yaquq though generally accepted, is disputed . Perhaps in light of this, a page on Hukkok/Huqoq that presents the biblical info and the findings from current digs would be preferable?
 * The most common spelling in English for the acutal village of Yaquq, which existed for centuries under that name until its depopulation in 1948, seems to be "Yakuk" with 2,160 hits in google books compared to the current title's 474 hits. I think a page move to "Yakuk" should be proposed and discussed.  T i a m u t talk 15:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hukkok and Huqoq are transliteration choices. Hukkok is old-fashioned (you find it in the older books) but, as I said, some contemporary scholars do use it.  Yakuk/Yaquq alters both the the vowels and the initia l lettter.  but, certainly, all the names should be included.


 * I do not think that there should be separate pages. This is one place.  An agricultural village inhabited for the better part of the region's history, but depopulated in the late Byzantine/early Islamic period and again in 1948.  Under the older name Huqoq/Hukkok, it was and is a place of some historical significance, significant archaeological finds, and a significant pilgrimage site.  The pilgrimage used to be for Muslims, Jews and Christians.  In recent decades, it has become primarily a Jewish pilgrimage site.
 * Caution is advisable in google counts. Lots of the hits on all these names are for other stuff entirely. Many are from old texts.   Experts in the field really are a better guide than google.   What I propose - Huqoq - relies on the judgment of the distinguished archaeologist Jodi Magness who is running the current dig and, frankly, I cannot think of anyone on whose judgment it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia to rely.WmTyndale (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Experts in which field are preferable? Historians like Benny Morris and Walid Khalidi use Yaquq. I don't see why we should prefer Magness and the field of archaeology over Morris and Khalidi and the field of history. As I said before, the identification of Huqoq with Yaquq is contested in some circles. It would perhaps be better to discuss the biblical and ancient history and archaelogical theories in an article on Hukkok/Huqoq.  T i a m u t talk 16:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also here, where an alternate location for biblical Hukkok is given as Khirbet el-Jumeijeh, and there are two Hukkoks listed, one under the name Hukok, which was in the tribal territory of Asher rather than Naphtali. I don't think mixing the biblical/ancient town with the modern one which is attested in modern censuses is necessarily wise given the confusion over where the ancient town was located.  T i a m u t talk 17:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion about the site of the ancient town. Jodi Magness  is digging there this summer.(scroll down) The Ottoman village stood on top of the ancient village.  If you think the Biblical identifications are disputed, qualify the language and explain the alternative interpretation on the page.  There were 2 Bethlehems in ancient Israel.  Perhaps there were two Huqoqs.  It's not a reason to separate a short article about a single small village into 2 pages.WmTyndale (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose In cases like this, if in doubt go for the modern name. Presumably there is no single "ancient name" since it would have had names in different languages, there are also transliteration issues.  Do I detect POV pushing? PatGallacher (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - why does English wp need separate articles for the pre-1948 Arab-depopulated Yaquq and modern Jewish-populated Hukok in the first place? Apart from the political uncomfortableness, Yaquq and Hukok are evidently the same name and place. Why not just merge the two? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was called Yaquq in the 1596 daftas and ever since (and probably earlier too).  There is no cause to use an ancient name.  Also oppose merging Yaquq and Hukok.  Despite what both articles say, the two sites are not close.  They are 2km apart.  Actually the site of Yaquq is closer to Kadarim than to Hukok.  Zerotalk 02:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Palestinian Arab or acient Jewish village ?
Currently the lead describes the village as Palestinian. All the evidence proves it was an ancient Jewish village before that. Why not describe it as both everywhere, such as its description in the lead as ancient Jewish village that was later populated by Palestinians, mention of Iudaea (Roman province), ? The lead should link to modern Hukok as well since the two places are closely related if not exactly the same. Here is a source saying that the village was populated by Jews until at least the early Roman period.

Is there any doubt that the location of the village is current Israel and not any of the lands claimed by State of Palestine? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I took the picture in the article. In Hebrew wikipedia we have 2 seperate articlesabout the arab village and about the Jewish ancient village. I wrote the 2 articles.  Hanay (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 3 settlements with more or less the same name that exist(ed) on more or less the same spot, replacing one another. We could have 3 separate articles, or could have them all in the same article, I'm not sure what's better. Suggestions ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Hukok  is mentioned under "current localities", but I would not object to having it in the lead, also. If you see the discussion above, the two locations are about 2 km apart. Should we have 3 articles? We really have to study the locations here, but if the ancient synagogue is a different location  from Yaquq and Hukok, well, then it sounds sensible to have three articles. I´m  -ing; he has good knowledge of maps.
 * And no, there is no doubt that Yaquq is in present Israel. I would have liked to have the co-ords in the article, though. Huldra (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are only 2. the new settlement Hukok is near by but not in the same place.
 * In Hebrew wikipedia we have:
 * Hukok - kibbutz in Israel.
 * Yaquq - Arab village
 * Hukok (ancient settlement) - Jewishe ancient settlement.
 * Every article mention the others, They are realy connected by the place and by name Hanay (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The settlement Hukok is near by...what? At the moment en.wp have two articles, and they both mentions each other.  Huldra (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The coordinates of the ancient Huqoq excavation site (32.88575°N, 35.47945°W) and what I just found for Yaquq(32.88471°N, 35.47893°W) are nearly identical, Modern Hukok (32.8799°N, 35.4958°W) is 1-2 km apart. The dates also match the distance - the kibbutz was founded in 1945, near Yaquq which was depopulated in 1947–1948, so is makes perfect sense for them to be nearby but not on the same spot. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am from Israel and I visited the Huqoq excavation, it is in the middle of the place of the arab village. The buildings of Yaquq were builded on the ruins of ancient Huqoq. The kibbutz is near by, not in the same place but very close. Hanay (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So what should it be, one big artile, one for both historic villages and one for the Kibutz, or one for each of the three ? Lod for example has a single article for all 3 periods - ancient, Arab and modern Israel. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lod is not the same because people lived there all the time. But there was a gap of time between ancient Hukok and Yaquq. The kibbutz Hukok should be seperate, but if there is one article for the 2 others the beginning of the article should mention the ancient Hukok. I myself prefer 2 seperate articles as I did in Hebrew wiki. Hanay (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

One article for each period makes it easier to keep things separate, and there are different templates applicable to a Palestinian village and an anciend Jewish one, but I'm afraind it might become WP:POVFORK. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the co-ords, but is it possible to convert them to this form: 33°3′20.23″N 35°29′27.53″E (taken from Alma, Safad): then we can add pushpin_map=Mandatory Palestine, and get its relative position?
 * About the position, thanks both of you. On the other places, it is normal to have an article for each of the geographically different places. As such, I agree with the above, we really have just 2 options; either (like now): one on Hukok and one on Yaquq together with the ancient synagogue. OR: 3 articles, that is: dividing  Yaquq and  the ancient synagogue into 2 articles. I understand  Hebrew WP have one article each, for  Yaquq and the ancient synagogue? I have no strong opinion on the matter, but I do see a problem with the name, if there are only 2 articles....if the ancient name was Hukok, and the present one is Yaquq; expect endless bickering about what an article about both of them will be called.  So yeah; 3 articles makes some sense. Huldra (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can convert the coordinates here.
 * I'm ok with 3 articles too. Note that it's not only about the synagogue, it's about the ancient village and findings from the village in the modern archeological dig site. I'll wait a couple more days for objections and then do the split. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I´m fine with that. Note also that there are a few newer sources in Hadashot Arkheologiyot; I´ll try to copy them into the Biblio-section, so you can copy them over. And yeah; synagogues were rarely isolated places.....Huldra (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We discussed the village but this article included also a section about the "Tomb of Habakkuk". This also near by but not in the same place.
 * Another article should be about Hukok spring. This spring was being used by the people of ancient Hukok an also by Yaquq.
 * I suggest 5 articles:
 * Hukok - kibbutz in Israel.
 * Yaquq - Arab village
 * Hukok (ancient settlement) - or maby it is beter to call it Huqoq - About the jewishe ancient settlement. See in Hebrew wiki here and it should include the history from the ancient time, the reference from the bible and ofcourse the archaeological site that the synagogue is part of it.
 * Hukok spring. See in Hebrew wiki here
 * Tomb of Habakkuk. See in Hebrew wiki here
 * There is information in english also in Huqoq Dig the Jodi Magness site about the dig. And  you can also translate from Hebrew wiki.
 * Hanay (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For Hukok (ancient settlement), remember to use:
 * The refs are in the article now, but have not been used. And I agree, since Magness use the name Huqoq, that should perhaps be the name on the article about the ancient village. Huldra (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The refs are in the article now, but have not been used. And I agree, since Magness use the name Huqoq, that should perhaps be the name on the article about the ancient village. Huldra (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The refs are in the article now, but have not been used. And I agree, since Magness use the name Huqoq, that should perhaps be the name on the article about the ancient village. Huldra (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Done the split. You're welcome to look at Huqoq and improve upon my incomplete work.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you WarKosign. Hanay (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)