# Talk:Nablus

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This article is pathetically biased. Can you name me any other article that lists the aircraft used for airstrikes? You list Apaches and F-16s when you could merely have said that Israeli airplanes and helicopters performed air strikes. This is the lefty tactic of making sure everyone knows that they are American weapons. I notice you whining liberals don't throw fits when Russian made AK-47s are used to kill people int erroristic attacks all over the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.143.33 (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) 

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 They are well out of date.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)

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)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Good, for the most part. See below for comments on Lead and length.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Extremely well reference, meets GA standards.
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.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
As always, good work in this area.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

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. Tiamuttalk 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. Tiamuttalk 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, Tiamuttalk 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)
Have corrected the incorrect location information in the first sentence.Fh1 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
The reason why I changed it is if you look at the templates for the Israeli cities they have hardcoded big for the Hebrew name and normal size for the Arabic name. Nableezy (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from the above "Shechem" discussion, the  Hebrew name does not belong in the article. Nablus is fully administered and secured by the Palestinian Authority, its population is an entirely Arabic-speaking one, and there has been no significant, if any, Jewish population in the city. Also, Arabic is an "official" language in Israel, but Hebrew is not an official language of the PNA. Now, if you can prove that Samaritans refer to Nablus as Shechem, then that's a different story. Until then, the Hebrew should be removed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I know from personal experience that Samaratans refer to Nablus by its Hebrew name. That undoubtedly won't satisfy you, but it's ridiculous that you expect anyone to find something so trivial online. Why would there be a source directly stating something so obvious? It's like demanding that someone find a source proving that Jews call Jerusalem by its Hebrew name. Unless you are disputing that Samaritans speak Hebrew, I will request that you leave the Hebrew name because it is clearly relevant. And if you are disputing this, I will be glad to find you a reference stating that they speak Hebrew. Samaritans who wish to refer to the city in question and who speak Hebrew obviously refer to it in Hebrew. If you won't take my word for it, will you at least accept common sense as a source?72.136.92.148 (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I apologize for being ambiguous, I meant do the Samaritans of Nablus speak Hebrew as opposed to Arabic? Also, personal exprience means nada on Wikipedia, see WP:Original research. I learned that when I first edited Majd al-Krum. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question. In the article it reads "country - Palestine". How can it be if Palestine is a region in the Middle East, not an independent country? Norum (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read Palestine and State of Palestine and the associated discussions at those talk pages and the WP:IPCOLL and WP:PALESTINE pages. There is an ongoing effort to better define these subjects. It is very complicated though.
Whether or not Palestine is a fully independent country is a side issue in this discussion though I think. It is a recognized entity on the international stage (see Palestine at the Olympics, Cinema of Palestine, etc.) Tiamuttalk 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Palestine is as much "independent" as Kurdistan. Norum (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Kurdistan is an independent region of Iraq. “Palestine” is a self declared and heavily disputed “country” in Israel. Stating that it’s in the “State of Palestine” is misleading and offensive  Helpfulguy101 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: a historical encyclopedia (pages 265-276) - note that it calls Nablus "the second city of Palestine" and descibes its history as dating back 4,000 years. It gives a broad overview of the history from ancient times to the present. Tiamuttalk 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

An About template has been added to the top of the article. Reason: the Hebrew language lacks a distinction between "Nablus" and "Shechem," and it would be helpful to make the distinction clear at the top of the article. Please comment here if you feel the template should be worded differently or is altogether inappropriate.—Biosketch (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

called 

Nablus is the first jewish city from the time of the bible in the book of Genesis. פארוק (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
What are the facts here, this muddy crap is being called history.  An encyclopedia containing revisional wishful thinking becomes garbage quickly. Nablus was Egyptian for 4000 years so why ignore the facts, or perhaps it just doesn't
fit your agenda.64.180.192.216 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Like Emperor Hadrian's Roman name Syria-Palestina that replaced Judea, editorial defenders of Wikipedia’s Nablus narrative open their article with this disclaimer; “This article is about the city of Nablus in the northern West Bank, and its predecessor, the Roman city of Flavia Neapolis. For the biblical city of Shechem, at the same location, see Shechem.” From here on the authors deny Shechem a place in their Nablus narrative, suppressing its Biblical and prior archaeological importance, in order to deliver the indoctrination of Roman origin. The Nablus Wikipedia narrative denies the city its Israelite origin and promotes the perpetual suffering their denial imposes.
Copytopic1 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At the same location is erroneous. 'In proximity to', would be preferable. Reliable sources, historians and archaeologists, state this. Nablus is not, as we have it, or in the Roman version, an "Israelite" city, and any 'perpetual suffering' is, like Joseph's tomb, a result of self-induced mental confusion.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Copytopic1: while I agree with your actual content suggestion, I should remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, and thus the appeal regarding "perpetual suffering" is out of place (and inappropriate) here. We're here to relate what reliable sources say, and not engage in polemics or apologetics. That being said, you have hit on something. The fact that the earlier history of the site isn't included in the article is rather bizarre, and at variance with nearly every other on Wikipedia. That it's essentially "POV-forked" into a hatnote, and not even covered in brief in the article, is somewhat inappropriate. I have no provebial dog in this fight, and as an outside observer, without passing judgement or assuming motivations, it is fairly obvious that this has been done deliberately. Nishidani, I'm not sure why you brought up Joseph's Tomb, as it wasn't even mentioned; I assume you two have had some previous interaction in which that was an issue, or at least I would hope so (given that otherwise, it would likely be a bit uncivil). Regardless of that, Flavia Neapolis is Schechem; while it was ritually re-founded, redesignated, and laid out in a grid-plan as a Roman city, the city centre was simply relocated, which is what "in proximity to" is referring to. While not inaccurate, saying that Mabartha is a 'village' is a bit misleading, as patristic authors are referring to a Roman "vicus", which could be more properly glossed as a 'neighbourhood'. It's technically only a few blocks away, and was still within the city proper. There would be obvious logistical concerns in building over the most densely populated part a ruined metropolis that would necessitate such accomodation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
'it is fairly obvious that this has been done deliberately'. By whom? I don't know why I'm called in here. I wrote the article on Joseph's Tomb, which I alluded to precisely because it shows how complex these topological identifications are and how pointless the complaint made by this editor - who seems to confuse Samaritans/Jews/and Israelites- is. It also illustrates how the reportorial chaos of scholarly opinion and sour ces over sites referred to as Sychar/Sichem/Shechem and anywhere else in Nablus is, and how contradictory are traditions concerning them.
I see you give precedence to patristic literature, rather than either Josephus or Pliny:
ὅθεν διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ παρὰ τὴν Νέαν πόλιν καλουμένην, Μαβαρθὰ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, καταβὰς εἰς Κορέαν. Josephus, BJ, 4:449
intus autem  Samaria; oppida  Neapolis, quod antea Mamortha dicebatur.' Pliny,N.H.  5.69
Of course you get in later patristic writings the equation of Sichem and Nablus,
Sichem, non ut plerique errantes legunt Sichar, quae nunc Neapolis appellatur. Jerome Ep.86)
However archaeologists sort this out, oppidum/polis is what the most ancient sources state for Mamortha/Mabartha/Neapolis, and neither is a vicus except in the primary meaning of 'village' in those two contexts.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That said, I find both he certainty in and source for the statement 'the new city lay 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) west of the Biblical city of Shechem which was destroyed by the Romans that same year during the First Jewish-Roman War.[7][8],' unsatisfactory for obvious reasons.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
One needs a modern secondary book source from an historian on the archaeology for such a statement.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Boulder and Nablus have begun a sister city project so this should be added. http://www.bouldernablus.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statsteph (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) 

Population Figures Outdated

The urban population of Nablus should be updated from the current number cited in the article (126,132 in 2007) to 214,903 in 2016. The population of the Nablus municipal area (excluding urban centers attached to the city) was 153,061 in 2016. The source of this updated figure is the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_Rainbow/Documents/nabls.htm). 7andala (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I would add a sentence to the article about the traditional identification with the biblical Sechem and omit the extra reference in the title.
The name would be Nablus (Arabic: نابلس‎‎ Nāblus [næːblʊs], Hebrew: שכם‎ Šəḵem, Greek: Νεάπολις Νeapolis) and something along the line of "Nablus has traditionally been identified as the biblical Sechem in Samaritan and Jewish writing" would be added to Classical antiquity.
Speaking of this identification, the article lacks information on the January 1546 earthquake which laid waste to Nablus. The only primary sources are, to my knowledge, two letters in Hebrew. One was found in the Cairo Genizah (accessible in the Friedberg Genizah Project with a transcription by Oxford) while the other was captured by the Inquisition. The former speaks of "over three hundred gentiles" and "three or four Jews" killed in "Sechem;" the latter tells of some 560 Ishmaelite (Muslim) and 3 Jewish residents that were killed in "Sechem" and speculates that many more may lay buried in rubble in surrounding villages. It also tells of lesser damage to other cities, including the collapse of the Dome of the Rock and death of twelve Muslims in Jerusalem, destruction in Hebron, Ramla and Damascus. --ארינמל (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So far the arguments presented in favour of separating the two topics are utter nonsense. Much better ones could be given, but merging the two would be by far more honest in scholarly terms.
A city is the result of many factors. In the Middle East the main factors are access to a water source, one or more important roads, agriculturally usable lands, and sometimes religious significance and topographical features good for defense. Sichem and Nablus are two phases of the very same city. All relevant factors are the exact same. Much like Jerusalem, Banias, Tiberias, Caesarea Maritima, Sebaste, Capernaum etc., so Sichem/Nablus, too, was reestblished after becoming part of a different state, or being destroyed during war (or by earthquake in some cases), at a just sligtly different location. Continuity for the locals in terms of location (between Mts Ebal and Gerizim), population (here: Samaritans), religious significance (near Mt Gerizim) between AD 70 Sichem and AD 72 Colonia Flavia Neapolis, is undeniable. Aelia Capitolina was also built 60 years after destruction of its predecessor, Jewish Jerusalem (and not just 2 years later, as is the case with Nablus), north of the main area of pre-70 Jerusalem, leaving out the area of the royal palaces of the Hasmoneans and of Herod I, the Temple Mount, the "City of David", most of the Western Hill etc. And still, nobody doubts this city being just a period in the history of Jerusalem.
Relevant question: did the main stakeholders, the Samaritans, stop calling the city "Shechem" after AD 72? N.b.: the Arab Conquest occurred almost 6 centuries later and is not relevant here. Arminden (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please copy the Elevation (550m) as stated in the Geography section to the "Elevation" field in the "Infobox" for consistency of style with other Wikipedia articles. MWchat (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Unfortunately, the infobox (Template:Infobox Palestine municipality) does not currently support the use of elevation as a parameter. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As is, Shechem has barely a passing mention in the article and it currently may very well give people the impression that the city was founded in 72 CE with no previous habitation. Jerusalem isn't split into Jerusalem and Iliya (Original Arabic name for Jerusalem, before Al-Quds, a corruption of Aelia Capitolina just like Nablus is of Neapolis), so there is no reason to split this article into Shechem and Nablus. --93.172.106.82 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Should the infobox not list both Israel and Palestine as the country, due to the disputed status? I.e. how Sevastopol, Cimrea lists both Russia and Ukraine?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishLinguist (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) 

Could someone add Boulder, Colorado, to the list of Nablus' twin cities?  NaturalSoundsYEAH! (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Done! Huldra (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Add Nablus City Web Site as one of Nablus external links
https://www.nablus.city Alhanaa2016 (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The website seems to a news website Lightoil (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Update the population number census 5.43.209.210 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

hi, I found a typo in the Economy section, in the following sentence: "The city is widely knwon for sweets like kunafah, olive oil, soap and ice-cream." - could someone fix the word 'known'? Thanks :) Toadheart (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi I noticed that at the top it does not list the Hebrew name of Nablus which is Shkechm שכם. Can a moderator please add this? I see it's a footnote but seeing as it's Jewish history is important it should be listed along with the Arabic and Latin names. Thanks  1Rudster (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Shechem is the first stop of Abraham when entering Israel, and the resting place of Joseph. But revisionist history of Wikipedia omits the thousands of years of Jewish history of the city before Roman and Arab colonialism?
Makes sense 209.87.169.125 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read this page you would have noticed it says "the new city lay 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) west of the Biblical city of Shechem..." Adam Bishop (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A new city has been twinned recently with Nablus. This is Sheffield. In October 2024. 
Add Sheffield, United Kingdom in the International Relations twin cities section. Keierharper (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Add this section to the information box.
Second establishment event:
Municipality,
Second establishment date:
1869: source Ismail04 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Can you use the dif tag to show what you are looking for Dahawk04 Talk 💬 22:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Add after line 48 in the source for the article

| established_title2 = Municipality
| established_date2  = 1869

the source is the municipality's official website: source.
In the first paragraph it says "At the beginning of the second half of the nineteenth century, specifically in the year 1869, the Nablus Municipality came to light, headed by Sheikh Muhammad Tuffaha al-Husseini". Ismail04 (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2025 (UTC)