Talk:Teqoa

Spelling

Is there a source that shows that the road sign is misspelled? or an official source for the Arabic spelling? gren グレン 09:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Tekoa shows the same sign as directing motorists to the Israeli village of Tekoa, not the Palestinian Tuqu'. That would explain the difference in spelling. Unless someone can verify that that sign actually directs people to the Palestinian town, I'll remove it from this article. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a very complex situation. Tuqu' is the name used by the PCBS (that's it). Other sources cited in the article use Taqu', Taqua', Teqoa', Thacua, Tequ' and Tequa'. I would think that the sign refers to the Palestinian town since there is a "q" used instead of a "k" and it ends in an apostrophe. I also noticed the Israeli CBS spellings differ from the spellings of Arab towns on signs in the Galilee. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source of the picture is certain that the road sign was photographed at the junction of the Jewish village, not the Arab one which is further south. Israeli signage most often uses the q in the middle of words though the vast majority of prefer use of the k for those sounds. Petach Tiqwa is one unpopular official spelling for instance. --Shuki (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll remove the image. Thanks for clarifying! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

politics

The last paragraph about local elections. Can more information about the 'Hamas-backed Reform list' be provided? Is there an article about this party that could be linked here? Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a political party itself. In the Palestinian local elections, candidates from political parties like Hamas, Fatah, the PFLP, PPP, FIDA and others did not list the names of the parties they belonged to or sympathized with. Instead they joined lists representative of, backed, promoted, and funded by their actual parties. Reform and Reform and Change were basically Hamas, Brotherhood and Development and Abnaa al-Balad were the PFLP, Future Palestine was Fatah, Construction and Development was the PPP, Our Country was the DFLP, and so on. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Were these local parties (even if only an organized group) to Tuqu and surrounding area, or other areas also had these parties? --Shuki (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The other areas generally had these parties as well, but lists in some cities and towns used names like Martyrs of Kafr Rai or United Bethlehem, etc. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

location and history

The town of Tuqu is located to the north and north-east of Khirbet Tuqu, which is an ancient site. I cannot identify anything 2km to the west in archaeological sources. Actually it seems that ancient Tekoa is identified with Khirbet Tuqu in some sources. So it is a bit confusing. I'm not confident that "This Week in Palestine" is an adequate source. Zero^talk 03:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Kh Tuqu can be seen here, areal photo, p. 6 being in the southern part of the village. An editor started Tekoa (ancient town), and simply moved stuff that had previously been in this article over there. Including the 1596-data. But the HA-info (grid: 170/115) clearly is Kh Tuqu. Same with the Pringle-ref:The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem SWP, 1883, p. 368 wrote that "it is still inhabited by a few persons ling in the caves". I cannot find it in the 1922, 1931 or 1945-data. At the time of SWP, they seem not to have been completely sure that this was ancient Tekoa, see p. 314. But from what I can see of the snippet view of Pringle, newer excavations have confirmed that Kh Tuqu was ancient Tekoa. I´ll ask the editor who did the split to join the discussion, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Church of St Amos", is grid 1701.1157, as given by Pringle, p. 348. That is clearly Kh Tuqu. Huldra (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I support remerging the articles. And I suggest not mentioning the "2km west" unless a source better than This Week in Palestine is found. Zero^talk 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have remerged the articles, will add the SWP-stuff, etc, Huldra (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)  

Agree about the merge, the article should have never been split. For the record, Khirbet Tuqu' is under the local jurisdiction of modern Tuqu'. About the This Week in Palestine source, would argue that the author, Mitri Raheb, is a reliable source. I think the info should be reinstated, and if necessary attributed to Raheb. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree that the article never should have been split. As for the This Week in Palestine source; reinsert if you like, but I just did not understand "relocated approximately two kilometers west of the ancient site", or rather, I do not get that to fit with the areal photo, p. 6. From the areal photo, it more looks as if the "new" village is to the north and east of the ancient site (The ancient site marked (3) Khirbet Tuqu) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a chance that Raheb is using a source which indicates the ancient Tekoa as being at a place other than Kh. Tuqu. The problem is that I don't see any archaeological site at all in the required place, in catalogues or detailed maps. It would be nice to understand this better. Zero^talk 03:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, not sure about the situation and researching it is a bit frustrating because of the numerous spellings of the place. I guess we could hold off mentioning Raheb's designation of the old site, but still use other information from that article. Sorry for the late reply by the way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Prescience?

Last paragraph in the "Archaeology"-section starts with: "Various ruins were seen at the site in around 1875. These included .." This is then referenced to a book...published in 1865. Well done! Huldra (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

A map was deleted on the assertion that it had to relate to archeological evidence. I see no such requirement. The map relates to the text. Which relates to the history from the Bible. There is no requirement that it be based on archeological evidence. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, it shouldn't be labeled as if it is a factual map. It should be labeled as someone's interpretation of the bible. Zero^talk 06:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And that being so, the case for inclusion in the article is pretty weak. Wikipedia is not supposed to look like a bible commentary. Zero^talk 14:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to any suggestions on the label. But the bible is part of history, and text and images re the bible naturally accompany all manner of biblical persons and places at the project. Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The bible as a book is part of history, but the bible as a text has a difficult interaction with history. Artists' impressions of what the bible might mean are not part of history at all. The time has come for you to stop inserting this material without consensus. Also see WP:BURDEN. Zero^talk 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche: should we replace History of the Earth with the Bible 7-day version? Seriously; modern Israeli archaeology clearly indicate that the Bible-version of Rehoboam's Kingdom of Judah is not correct. In other words; to create a balance with your map, we would have to include that, too. But that would make most of this article (and many, many others) to be about this controversy, and not about the village/town. Which would be rather silly, don´t you think? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's of course an absurd example. But we should not -- as you and Zero wish to tag-team your edits to effect -- delete any reference to the history here that is not to your liking due to your POV. (Zero's argument that the Bible has a "difficult interaction with history" would not I am certain gains consensus support at a board discussion -- where, as here, the RSs are providing the support ... that I am fairly confident of.) There is a direct RS-supported reason to reflect this. I can only think of blatant improper exercise of POV by you and Zero that would lead to the deletion. Your responses fail to explain another reason. And, since Zero is a sysop, he has a special obligation not to engage in POV-editing, per wp:admin. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not "deleting any reference to the history here that is not to your liking due to your POV"; I am pointing out that the map you wanted to include is a highly contested one. By just putting this one-sided view into the article, we are not fulfilling WP:NPOV. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Merged ancient information to article Tekoa (ancient town)

Since Tuqu' is actually an Arab resettlement of 1948 from a tribe, making it "family land", the history of that vicinity is shared also with Tekoa, Gush Etzion and Khirbet Tekua, for instance, today.

So #1st I did ad the appropriate infobox contend, aming at representing the arab town from 1948 rather than the ancient historicity of the vicinity (changed picture).

And #2 , the article had the tendency to replace names like Khirbet Tekua for instance out of the 'Palestine Exploration Fund's Survey of Western Palestine in 1883' document with the term Khirbet Tuqu' , thus reclaiming the name/term "Tekua" and incure the history of the vicinity to the palestinian town "Tuqu'".

1. 3 Therefore I tried to merge the history from the articles Tekoa, Gush Etzion, Khirbet Tekua and Tuqu' and represent the common shared history in the appropriate - already existing - article, namely Tekoa (ancient town).

No offense intended, please try to improve my shortcomming instead of justy using 'reverting powers', like respected user User_talk:Huldra#Refurbished_article_Tekoa_with_info_box_.27Israeli_village.27 did, unfortunately. Please do not lure me into an edit war by speaking disrespectfull in the edit summary line or revert on allegations or rude commentry, seen so often used in wikipedia users revertings (hmm, what is the right term here) -- Really No(!) offense or edit war intended, cheers --85.179.30.244 (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: your editing here is rather disruptive, as you are breaking the 1RR rule on several articles: please self-revert, and get consensus on the article-talk pages *first*. (Btw: I *am* following the 1RR rule, otherwise I would have reverted you immediately.)

Secondly: this has been extensively discussed (see above). Tekoa (ancient town) and Tuqu' are in the same location, with the modern town to the east and north of the old site. Look at p6 in Tuqu’ Town Profile: #3 there, "The Archeological site of Khirbet Tuqu'" is what is generally considered by archeologist to be Tekoa (ancient town) today.

Tekoa, Gush Etzion has nothing to do with Tekoa (ancient town), except that it has taken its name. (It is north of Tuqu', I believe)

We normally have one article for one geographical place, the exception is if the articles grows rather large (though even Eleutheropolis is now a redir to Bayt Jibrin). There is nothing to indicate that Tekoa (ancient town) and Tuqu' and should be two different articles. The Byzantine baptismal font, first described by Guerin in 1863, is still, today, the "pride" of Tuqu'.

I agree that we should use the original name used in sources, I normally do it (though sometimes I´m sloppy); but others do not agree with me and change it into the modern "standard" name.

Your statement "Tuqu' is actually an Arab resettlement of 1948 from a tribe" is not the whole truth. The places on the southern West Bank were typically settled, abandoned (due to attacks from Beduin. Or taxes too large. Or heavy conscription to the army. Or any combination), then resettled again. This cycle occurred again and again. See Al-Ubeidiya#Ottoman era for just one example.

All in all: your edits are completely unacceptable; the one edit which could possibly pass it the "village-template" on Tekoa, Gush Etzion. Please ask User:Ynhockey, or User:Number 57 about it; they are two editors who are far more experienced than me on Israeli templates. If they ok´s it, then it is ok. For your other edits, for the nth time: please revert. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The settlement Tekoa is about 3km from the site of the ancient town and has no connection to it except the name. Pretending otherwise is not acceptable. Zero^talk 00:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the IP. We should just follow the RSs. At the same time, I would urge the IP to reference all additions to RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Since all RSs I can find, including the standard archaeological references, identify the ancient site as Kirbet Tuqu, which is not where the Israeli settlement is, following RSs is exactly what Huldra and I are doing. On the other hand, IP is trying to co-opt the history of one place for a settlement in another place, based on what? Zero^talk 12:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

But Khirbet Tekua (newest named Khirbet Tuqu') is not Tuqu', I explained it with source that it came under Tuqu' administration rather late... So why allow to capture all of the history of the vicinity by the one town of a tribe from Gaza settled there after fleeing in 1948 independence war? It seems to be a takeover of historicity to 'proof' ancient heritage! While it is good to come with might along, but what would you do about reasoned edits, logical information not comfortzone palestinian newscript, could they be placed in again? P.S. And why iswas there an article Tekoa (ancient town) in the first place, which could be filled easily with tons of infos which are now beeing captured by the article of an arab town from 1948? Good for Palestinian business, maybe, but real information?? --78.55.195.167 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the buildings of Tuqu overlap the ancient site and most are within a few hundred meters. It is open to discussion whether the ancient and modern settlements at the place appear in separate articles, but the most common practice is to cover them together. Tuqu is the latest of a long line of settlements on the same hill. Tekoa is not, it is far away. In fact Tekoa is closer to Herodion than it is to Khirbet Tekua. Zero^talk 09:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Tekoa (ancient town) was started by an editor, who apparently was misinformed, and who thought that Tekoa (ancient town) was located approximately 2km east of Tuqu. (See the history of that article). He was asked to join in the discussion (see above) about merging the two articles, but never turned up. Also, the sources make it abundantly clear that there were Arabs living in the place also before 1948, see the SWP-source and the 1596-daftar. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tuqu'. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bethlehem.ps/cultural_sites/natural_heritage/tqoa.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"[See] also" tags for archaeology

The articles about the modern Arab town, and about the Israeli settlement, both also deal with the wider area - Wadi Khureitoun, caves, etc. It makes no sense whatsoever to put one's head in the sand and to remove even such "innocent" means of linking the info, for the user's benefit, as are the "(see) also" tags under the respective headings. This doesn't change the Oslo Accords or the future of the Middle East, but it sure does help the user get a maximum of info and the easiest access to it. Thanks and cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Save Tuqu': separate archaeology, history away from this article!

Too much past for such a new town ("The modern town of Tuqu' was established in 1948 during Jordanian rule."). Now the real town gets drowned in (very important) information, which has little to nothing to do with the modern Palestinian town. Suggest separating the archaeology and history onto a different article about Tekoa, properly linked to this one. Now it looks like any old West Bank article written by Israeli settlers, with one single focus: the remote past. My opinion. Arminden (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tekoa(h), biblical and otherwise ancient, has nowhere to link to properly and sensibly. Se discussion started at that DAB's talk-page for more reasons to separate the two. Arminden (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I see this discussion isn't new, which is not surprising - see "Location and history" above. Back then even the "Week in Palestine" (!) argument has been practically discarded. The editor who wrote "Tekoa (ancient city)" didn't participate and wasn't pinged; maybe he wasn't active anymore, but still. So there was nobody here to support the "don't merge" position.

I suggest a solution very similar to the split at City of David: the ancient site is not the same as the modern Jewish settlement, and both aren't the same as the neighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (itself a western extension of Silwan). Similar to me arguing against changing the age of Jerusalem because of even older findings discovered in Shuafat: how far a modern municipality is expanding its boundaries qua administrative decree or even actual expansion has no bearing on archaeological considerations. Even more so when a settlement moves, taking along the old name; once that happens, there's a discontinuity. Archaeologists speak of a new city even when reconstruction happens at the same place, after destruction or abandonment they count cities, not just layers or strata. The more so as here we have a modern town, founded in the 20th century, much like the Israeli settlement. Neither has a claim of "being" ancient Tekoa. Tuqu' has administrative authority over the khirba, no discussion there, so it should be primarily wikilinked to Tuqu', not the settlement, as are the other nearby archaeological sites. Beyond that, just look at the article: total disconnect between the 2 topics! Fact. All formal efforts to integrate have failed, and it's only natural. Arminden (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The Ta'amreh Wiki mystery

See Talk:Palestinian Bedouin#Ta'amreh tribe deserves mention. These 'Arab al-Ta'amireh or whatever version of the name & spelling you prefer are hidden away on Wiki, and they have an important presence in the Bethlehem area. Arminden (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Wrote a section only based on Wikilinks, plenty of them. You can add refs if you want. Created redirects for every spelling variant I came across. Arminden (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)