Talk:Nablus

Comments on April 2008 version of article

The above discussions ought to be archived. They are well out of date.

The present article is in pretty good shape. Just a few points for your attention:-

• Population. I can't make sense of the population table in the Demographics section It seems to indicate a projected 2006 population of 29,930 when you have said the population is 134,000. Am I misreading? Also, as we're now in 2008 you shouldn't really be talking about "projections" for 2 years ago. And another thing: in the lead, having given the 134,000 figure, you say that the population has "dwindled drastically" ever since 599 CE. What on earth was the city's population in 599 CE?

I corrected the table; I copy and pasted it from Bethlehem without changing the 2000s figures. I removed 2005, but have decided to keep the projections for '04 and '06. I will try to find the projected population of 2008. As for the lead, what I intended to say was that the Samaritan population has "dwindled drastically [to 600 members today]". --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Check 1915 as date of British occupation of Nablus - was it that early?

I took care of it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The loss of the city to the British in WW1, and its proposed inclusion in a post-WW2 Arab state, are separate events which require separate sentences.

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Who speculated that Christianity was well-established in the city by 2nd and 3rd century CE? You say sources are vague, but you must have picked up the information from somewhere.
• Where you say "Armed conflict amongst the Christian population..." etc, the following paragraph starts by saying the conflict did not become a civil strife. Surely, if it was armed, it did? Do you mean that the conflict did not spread beyond the Christian community?

That's my mistake; The conflict was not armed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Petty point: it was Transjordan, not Jordan, that occupied, rather then "conquered" Nablus in 1948.

Fixed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not fixed, actually Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I fixed it in the lead and forgot to in the body. Its fixed now. Sorry. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the Modern day section, having outlined the difficulties the city faces because of restrictions etc, you should perhaps add a bit about how the city is surviving on a day-by-day basis, since its normal income sources seem to be largely suspended.

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This has the makings of an impressive article. Pity you didn't put it to peer review and get some general feedback - this might have been useful. I'm not doing a GA review this time, but I hope my comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. On a general point, though, what has Nebi Musa got to do with Nablus? (You mention the British ending the Nebi Musa festival). Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I got it from this passage:

The significance of Khan al-Tujjar also had a great deal to do with its central location, which divided the city in half, not just physically but also psychologically, between “easterners” and “westerners;” labels that are still used today.[18] For example, during the preparations for the Nabi Musa festival, held near Jericho every year for centuries until it was stopped by the British occupation in the late 1930s,[19] young men from the eastern and western parts of Nablus descended on Khan al-Tujjar, each shouting slogans praising their part of the city.[1]

I'd delete this mention of Nebi Musa. It's got nothing to do with the city of Nablus. Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi all, this is just a note that I'll be reviewing this article for y'all. Note, that it will take some time because you've got a lone one here :) Also, just curious, what do you think about moving some of the photos and having a link to Commons? Just a thought! Looks good so far. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I would also mention that this is extremely comprehensive. Great research and good job editors! Lazulilasher (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you dearly! Take all the time you need. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First, sorry for the delay. I've been busy trying to build Louvre and Pied Noir to FA (unashamed advertising for helpers :) ) and I wanted to give this article a good review. So, here I am.

Second, I noticed that the article did not have a map of Nablus' location. So, I edited the template:Infobox Palestinian Authority muni so that it now has parameter's for using a location map. I recommend using template:Location map Israel/Palestinian territories (although the coords are a bit off). You can use this map in the same manner on any page, so hopefully it will help you out a bit.

So, here we are.

I'll start with the boring GA list:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Good, for the most part. See below for comments on Lead and length.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Extremely well reference, meets GA standards.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article could benefit from being pruned a bit. The history section, especially, tend to be a bit too detailed for me. Overall, this is a fascinating article, however.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As always, good work in this area.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold...all issues are extremely minor. This article is excellent.

Notes:

• The lead: while extremely well-written, it is too lengthy. The lead shouldn't exceed four paragraphs. Remember, we are trying to entice the reader to continue on the article.
• Length: This is a matter of debate--so it is not a criterion for pass/fail of GA. However, I note that the article could be pruned and shortened a bit to eliminate unnecessary detail.
• Section Neapolis: These sentences: "Sources are vague, but Christianity is speculated to have been well-established in Neapolis during the 2nd or 3rd century,[1] however, some sources say Christianity was predominant by 480 CE.[3] It is certain, however, that the city had its own bishop in 314 C.E." perhaps would be better recast like this: "Although it is certain that Nablus had a bishop in 314 C.E., it is speculated that Christianity was dominant in the 2nd or 3rd century, with some sources positing 480 C.E." Also, could we specify to whom we are speaking of with "some sources"?

Again, fantastic work by all contributors! Lazulilasher (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing this article; sooner than I expected I may add. I think I took care of Neapolis section per your suggestion and we will take care of the lead in a jiffy. As for the length of the history section (I think you're talking about the Ottoman and Egyptian sections), I will try to trim some of the content thats very general, but hopefully nothing necessary will be accidently removed. I'll be sure to notify you when everyting is taken care of. Sorry btw, for responding so late; I haven't been active for the last two-three days. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at copy-editing the lead, paring it down just a bit and merging sentences and paragraphs where possible. It probably could use a little more. I'm unsure as to why Muhammed Ali's brief sojourn into the city should take up so much space in the intro and recommend cutting that down even further. Good job everyone. Tiamut^talk 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut it down further as suggested above. If I removed too much detail, feel free to revert, but I think it's better this way, since the details are covered in depth in the section on Muhammed Ali later on. Tiamut^talk 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your revisions are all good. This article is very good. I'm tempted to promote it to GA now, but I'm going to wait a bit and see what you guys do with it, if that's OK. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback and the encouragement to do more. I've given the entire article a good once over, section by section. I've changed a lot of sentences tht began with "Nablus" so that the flow is improved. I've combined some sentences and taken out minor repetitions too, and sdded a few wikilinks and clarified language where needed. For now, I think my improvements are finished (that is, until we decide to go for FA status). I hope the article now meets with your (and Al Ameer Son's) approval. Warm regards, Tiamut^talk 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tiamut. You did a wonderful job in copyeditting the article with such detail. I wasn't expecting it, so it came as a lovely surprise. Hopefully we'll get it to an FA, but that means much more expansion. Thanks again! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I forgot to actually PROMOTE the article....consider it done...great work! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to the editors

I must say I don't understand why this article hasn't been promoted to GA by now, and I assume this will happen very soon. I'm looking at it as a likely FA candidate in the not too distant future, and so I'm a bit alarmed by Al Ameer's assumption that the article needs "much more expansion" to qualify for FA. It has nearly 6,000 words of readable text at present - what will "much more" take it to? I would see the step-up from GA to FA as qualitative rather than quantitative, requiring no great expansion of the text. When the time comes, I'd like to help it towards FA if the editors want to take that step. But good luck with GA first. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, I guess "much more" was exaggerating a bit. However I don't think I put enough in the "Transportation" and "Economy: Modern-day" sections and I think there could be more in the "Education" section. Comparing the article to Jerusalem (a city FA), the only section missing is one on sports if there is any sports teams in Nablus. I'm very excited that you guys think Nablus could make FA! And yes, speaking for myself, I would definitely like to take that step, but I can't promise any substantial contribs for the next two weeks (I got exams and a crap load of school work to do ): Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No hurry. Take your exams (good luck!), then when you're ready can think about getting the article ready for its peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooops...it wasn't promoted because I forgot to promote it...consider it done. This article clearly meets GA requirements. Now, FA is a different process, it's longer and more arduous, although it is a LOT of fun and its a great feeling of accomplishment once it gets promoted. My recommendations actually fall along Brian's suggestions, which would be to clarify and reduce the text. Ideally, the prose should be as distilled and clear as possible. I've struggled with this, myself, as I tend to write in a meandering, adjective heavy style. Anyway, I'm promoting now. Sorry about the wait... Lazulilasher (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting the article and thanks double for your encouragement and advice. Happy editing! It's Always great to converse with you! --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Railway to Nablus

Just noticed that this article got GA status. Congrats to all those who worked on it! Reading the article, I have noticed that there is no mention whatsoever of the railway which connected Nablus with Afula and the Hejaz railway. I think it's a pretty big deal, as railways at the time were possibly the most important form of transport, as there were no private cars to speak of. The railway also formed a part of the Turkish war railway in WWI. Can someone please insert this information? Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, because I was saying in an above conversation, that the "Transportation" section needed to be beefed up. I'll ad the information, but do you have source that mentions Nablus as being a part of the railway? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Shechem

I think we should add (Hebrew: שכם, Shechem) to the article because of its importance to the Samaritan people that lives primarly in Nablus (maybe it's an important town for non-samaritan jews as well, I don't know that).

There is an article called Shechem that states Shechem is in "Tell Balatah" but Hebrew Wiki as well as all maps of the area as I have seen calls Nablus Shechem.--Fipplet (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but what Jews refer to Nablus is irrelevant since they have no population nor any recent history of population there and I don't think Hebrew is an official language of the PNA. However, the Samaritans are a different story. If you could present a source that says that Samaritans refer to the modern city they live in as Shechem, than adding the Hebrew (which is what Samaritans speak, right?) is justified. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, although jews lived in Nablus until 1929 I think, it is perhaps irrelevant. I found sources saying Samaritans live in Nablus and that Shechem is the Hebrew (which they speak, yes) name for Nablus, but I haven't, so far, found sources that directly says that they themselves refer to the city as Shechem. But I'll look into it a little more. Fipplet (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Big" names of various languages

Nableezy, if you look at articles of other cities in Israel, or even the country Israel itself, you will see that your guidelines are incorrect. If you have a problem with this and feel that only one name should be big, the "main" language, then go ahead and sort through all these articles to remove the big tags from the Arabic names of every city in Israel. As it stands, every other article I have searched has both the Hebrew and Arabic names big. Until then, I am reverting your edit. Furthermore, you keep leaving a bracket in your edits. Use the preview function before you save so that you don't make mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• And? Nablus (or Hebron) are not in Israel. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, really? What country are they in? I think it would be best for us to leave it at disputed and not get into this here. It is irrelevant to the topic. I was explaining the reason that his edit was unnecessary. Your point doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your argument did, and does, not have anything to do with the issue. It is not "disputed" internationally that Nablus and Hebron are not in Israel. Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It is most certainly disputed internationally. I'll ask again: if you insist that these cities are not in Israel, what country are they in? Similarly, out of curiosity, I'd like to ask you the same question in regards to Jewish cities in Judea and Samaria, such as Ariel and Maale Adumim. While you may believe that some (or hell, even all) of the aforementioned cities should in the future be part of a theoretical Palestinian state, the current status is as disputed as any other topic imaginable. The fact that you and I are disagreeing attests to this dispute. I will point out once again though, that this discussion doesn't belong here. This section is about the issue of whether or not "big" tags should have been applied in the article, hence the title of the section. I'm not proposing any changes to the article that warrant a discussion about the status of these cities. It's very simply a matter of keeping articles in line with standards seen across other Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, and I have already explained this quite clearly in the above comments. Thanks for the discussion though; I had fun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.92.148 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

they are in the occupied state of Palestine. Nableezy (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • No such state (I am using the term state very precisely here) exists. There is currently no internationally recognized country known as Palestine. Hey, look, we're on Wikipedia so let's use that as a helpful guideline. Look up "Occupied State of Palestine" or "State of Palestine". These articles do not exist. I find your statement that even Ariel and Maale Adumim are part of this non-existant "state" pretty humorous and quite telling into your unwillingness to be objective here. Anyway, this is getting slightly childish to be honest. I don't see the purpose of arguing this topic with you here, especially since it has nothing to do with the original topic. So I'm going to leave it at that and stop fueling the fire. Have a good night. 72.136.92.148 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Jerusalem article, not only is the Arabic not big, it is small. Nableezy (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• While I will concede that the Jerusalem article is different from most others that I found, your statement was not accurate. The Arabic is not small, only the tooltip for the audio is small (and so is the one for Hebrew). As for the actual city names, both have no tags, meaning they are both normal. This isn't consistent with other articles that I have looked at (Tel Aviv just to provide you with one example to look at), so if you feel that it would be better to change both the Hebrew and Arabic to "big", I would agree with that decision. 72.136.92.148 (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did not notice where the /small was. Nableezy (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. Can we just leave this alone now? Something so minor isn't even worth arguing in my opinion.72.136.92.148 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)