Talk:Yaquq
Appearance
Palestine Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Requested move
It has been proposed in this section that Yaquq be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
- Yaquq → [[:]]
– 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 [1]. 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. Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 17:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is no confusion about the site of the ancient town. Jodi Magness [ is digging there this summer.[http://jodimagness.org/#(scroll down) The Ottoman village stood on top of the ancient village. If you think the Biblical identifications are disputed, qualify the language.WmTyndale (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)