Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A fact from Battle of Nablus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,908 times (disclaimer)(check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
We seem to have lost information that is absolutely central to this article, and for no reason that I can see. Look up Dresden and Hiroshima or even Berlin and there is close attention to the damage caused by the attack on these cities.
Without the following information (and indeed more), even a POV tag is inadequate, and we need an AfD.
A preliminary report on the destruction in Nablus made by the Palestinian NGO Emergency Initiative in Jerusalem listed damage to the cultural heritage of Nablus as follows:
1. Al-Khadra Mosque, over 1000 years old, 85% destroyed. Beautifully sculpted and inlaid mihrab destroyed. Bulldozers with drill and other attachments used.
3. Al-Satoon Mosque, 1600 years old, formerly Byzantine Church, 20% destroyed and windows shattered.
4. Greek Orthodox Church in the Yasmin quarter, 400 years old, 40% destroyed. Alter, chandelier, pews, bibles and windows. Cracked walls render the structure unsafe to be used. Outside rooms belonging to the Church heavily damaged.
5. At least 60 houses of different historical periods (1500 AD - 1940) totally destroyed. Over 200 houses partially destroyed.
6. At least 80% of the renovated stone-paved streets of the Old City severely damaged.
7. Al-Shifa Turkish bath, 400 years old, hit by three rockets, causing 50% damage to the bath. The more important historical section of the baths destroyed by apache gunship firing.
8. The eastern entrance of the Khan (old market), 220 years old, completely destroyed.
9. Many supporting arches and arcades above the streets severely damaged.
10. 2 soap factories (300 and 500 years old respectively) completely destroyed. The one belonging to the Kanaan family destroyed by bombing from an F16.
11. 3 soap factories between 300 and 500 years old partially destroyed.
12. 7 Roman water sources completely destroyed.
The Engineers Union of Nablus estimated the destruction in the Old City at $80 million on 21 April 2002.PRtalk 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have looked up the articles you've linked. None of them go into such detail on particular buildings destroyed, including percentage. Some statistics on property damage would be appropriate, as long as it is provided encyclopedically, not like an insurance claim. Last but not least, I'm not sure how reliable Gush Shalom is as a source. Cheers, -- Nudve (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It is wholly and completely inappropriate to remove the information we have on the very severe damage suffered by a 2000 year old city in the event that this article supposedly documents. If we can't treat a story in recent memory properly, then we should not claim to be doing so. I'm sorry if you have difficulty with what a long-established and world-famous Israeli source (founded by a Holocaust Survivor) publishes. It's called a secondary source, as it is policy for us to be using. PRtalk 09:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added some info on the damage, citing more mainstream sources. -- Nudve (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou indeed. So you don't dispute what UNESCO say: "the cultural heritage of the Old City of Nablus has suffered extensive losses, first in April 2002, further to military operations: hundreds of buildings were affected, while sixty-four were severely damaged, seventeen of which had been considered of particular heritage significance through an inventory prepared by the Graz University in 1997-2002. Four buildings were completely ruined, and their sites turned into heaps of rubble or cleared away, creating open and dusty scars in the historic urban fabric. ... Another military operation from 15 December 2003 to 6 January 2004 brought further damage, especially in the Qarioun District of the Old City, resulting in the complete destruction of three residential houses, while another thirty-five buildings were rendered [un]inhabitable. The Abdel-Hadi Palace was also hit by mortars and affected by explosions.".
But you have some unexplained objection to the damage actually being listed - may I ask why? Is there an objection to saying that some of this damage was not due to operations, but was carried out with a bulldozer and a drill? PRtalk 12:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said, It's too much detail, and the source is questionable. I appreciate your concerns, but this is not an assessing report. Also, there's no need to fork long quotes from sources unto talk pages. Links would do. -- Nudve (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand - are you saying that UNESCO is not an acceptable source? Clearly, unless you can provide some good reason to treat damage to Palestinian towns "in war" differently from those of any other, there is a need to document the damage - particularly so because, unlike Warsaw or Berlin, much of it will never be restored.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites tells us that the municipial estimates of the cost (Old City only) was US$41.5 million. The NGO report says $80 million and the UNDP at "tens of millions". UNESCO say that Norway and Japan contributed over four million dollars, and the EU and UNESCO provided some - but they also tell us that this shortfall and the "immediate humanitarian needs of the population" resulted in the repairs being carried out with "little consideration for the heritage values of the historic urban fabric".
The ICOMOS details cover many of the same items as the above:
"The Old City was hit by rockets, shelled by tanks and then huge drills and military caterpillars went on to make further destruction from the ground."
"Governorate (security and civil offices) ... Six tanks shelled the building for a period of thirty minutes.
"Tariq al Mahaba FM Station ... station was targeted as there is no fighting in this area.
Al-Khadra Mosque - The oldest mosque in Nablus, Grade 4 damage. ... Large parts of the mosque ... destroyed by Israeli tank fire followed by a bulldozer.
Hosh al-Shubi - Ottoman-era traditional extended family building, Grade 5 total damage. ... three children, three women and two men died when Israeli bulldozers tore down the buildings at night
Al-Kannan soap factory site - Ottoman-era building, Grade 5 total destruction. ... Two other soap factories were partially demolished: ... Explosives were also placed inside the buildings.
Al-Jadedeh (al-Shifa) Hammam - Ottoman-era Turkish bathhouse (built in 1720), Grade 3, partial damage.PRtalk 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If I thought UNESCO was not reliable, why would I cite them as a source myself? Information about architectural landmarks and the reconstruction attempts belong in the Nablus article. I believe it has a section on the Second Intifada too. -- Nudve (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As I thought, you know all about this damage, but you have some inexplicable objection to documenting it in the article. Mention of reliability of sources seemingly bore no relation to your removal of information essential to an undestanding of this affair.
So I'm still waiting to hear what the real objection is - unless Palestinians somehow don't deserve the common courtesy we'd extend, for reasons of both decency and a respect for evidence, even to such victims of overwhelming attack as the Germans and the Japanese. (Sorry to any Germans or Japanese reading this, I'm sure you have no difficulty understanding the point I'm making!). PRtalk 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This attitude will not make your wait any shorter. -- Nudve (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm still waiting to hear the policy-based objection to documenting the damage done to this city, as has been done in every other case I can think of. PRtalk 22:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:PIJ emblem.png
The image File:PIJ emblem.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check