Jump to content

Talk:Nabulsi soap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNabulsi soap has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 8, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that since as early as the 10th century, Nabulsi soap, a traditional olive oil-based soap, has been exported across the Arab world and even to Europe?
Current status: Good article

Survey

[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

Sure. Tiamuttalk 12:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Political analysis, fiction (in my spare time), copy-editing and linguistic reviews for academic publishers. Tiamuttalk 12:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

Not the style, but definitely the choice of what subjects to write about is influenced by my involvement in Wikiprojects. Tiamuttalk 12:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Comments

  • The segment in the lead that says ...since as early as the 10th century, Nabulsi soap has been exported across the Arab world and even to Europe. is missing from the article's body. Surely, it should be mentioned somewhere in the "History" section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Apologies for not getting down to this review sooner. I have a few comments to make, after having reviewed this article according to the good article criteria:

  • I think the image in the lead is a bit too large, too overwhelming.
  • "Nabulsi soap has been exported across the Arab world and even to Europe." Why even to Europe? Europe's not that far away from Palestine.
    • Done. Removed "even to".
  • The ordering of sections doesn't work for me. I think it should be History, Production process, Today.
    • Done. That was the original ordering. Al Ameer Son changed it and I have changed it back.
  • I'm not happy with the Physical description section, and what's informative there would be better in Production process I think. I'm particularly not happy with the apparent favouring of the Al-Jamal brand. Does the other manufacturer also hand-wrap its product in crinkly white paper?
    • Done. Merged the physical description section into the Production process section. Also made the sentence on the wrapping non-specific, but I'm not sure that the other factory does individually wrap its bars.
  • Following on from that, the Al-Jamal factory is named, but the other surving producer is simply described as "operated by the Touqan family". So are the two surving brands called Al-Jamal and Touqan?
    • I will try to find out the name of the Touqan family factory and get back to you.
      • It doesn't seem to have a name besides Touqan soap factory. The family is very well known in Nablus so it makes sense that the factory would be named after them. (See Ibrahim Touqan for info on one of the family's more illustrious members.)
  • "By the early 20th century, Nablus was the largest soap producer in the whole of the Fertile Crescent." "Whole" is redundant". Fertile Crescent should be briefly explained, not just linked to.
  • "The two powder mixtures (the qilw and sheed) are combined, together with hot water from a copper vat, in fermentation pits" There is no fermentation involved in soap production, so why "fermentation pits"?
  • "The soap is commonly used with a loofah in local homes ..." Homes local to where? Nablus? Palestine?
  • "Despite the hardships, Nabulsi soap continues to be sold in shops throughout Nablus and the West Bank ...". I'm not comfortable with "despite the hardships"; seems POV.
  • "... the solution is carried in wooden barrels to a large frame made of one-inch wooden planks ..." Is that one-inch long, or one-inch thick? If it's thick, is that in some way significant for the manufacturing process? Needs a metric conversion in any case.
  • "Soap factory owners often brag about this fact, wondering how etc. ...". This seems like peacock language. The point needs to be made in a more encyclopedic way.
  • "It is in the city of Nablus, however, that the tradition of olive oil soap-making evolved into a major industry and an art." OK, I'll buy major industry, but art? Peacock language again I think.


I'm putting this article on hold to allow time for these issues to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll get to fixing things right away. I do have a question however: the lead picture size was placed at 300px per the MoS. Should we ignore the MoS or is there a coding issue making this appear too large? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 16:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of the MoS on this point is that generally image sizes should be left to default to the user's preferences. Where there is some compelling reason to specify an image size – which I don't think is the case with this article – then it should be at least 300px so as to comply with those users who have that size set as their preference; otherwise they'd see the image at less than 300px. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I've removed the 300px. Tiamuttalk 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've responded to the concerns raised and await further feedback on how to proceed. Tiamuttalk 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so quickly. I'm going to list this article as a GA now. Just one thing remaining though, I'd like to see an explanation of who "Rawan Shakaa" is. Such as "According to Rawan Shakaa, owner of the ...", or whatever. Nice work, and thanks for taking the time to write on a subject that not too many of us, myself included, would previously have been aware of. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, thank YOU! I notice you made a lot of cleanup edits of your own there. Happily will add a description of Rawan Shakaa as requested and I very much appreciate your prompt attention here and the encouragement. Happy happy editing! Tiamuttalk 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The article is being re-written at Talk:Nabulsi soap/Temp. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Nabulsi soap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
  • This article has been extensively (and in my opinion ably) rewritten following the discovery of copyright issues and a rewrite of same. While it may still be a good article (and I hope it is), it seems like a good idea to reassess, since the content now is very different than the content when it passed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want this to go through community reassessment or would you rather do an individual one? AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    My main concern was broadness given the size of the article. However nothing struck me as missing and a google search did not turn up any major unmentioned issues.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  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:
I've now replaced the problematic image with File:Tristram142a.jpg. Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passed (or re-passed) AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please update number of factories

[edit]

Please update the number of existing factories producing Nablus soap. I could find at least four operating in 2016. Roches (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nabulsi soap. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I removed this for discussion:

The traditional formula for Nablusi soap has been present in Israel for thousands of years. To the Israelites, the ashes from barilla plants, such as species of Salsola, saltwort (Seidlitzia rosmarinus) and Anabasis, were used in soap production, known as potash.[1][2] Soap made from potash (a concentrate of burnt wood or vegetable ashes mixed with lard or olive oil) is alkaline. If animal lard were used, it was heated and kept lukewarm (not boiling hot; neither cold). Lard, collected from suet, needed to be rendered and strained before being used with ashes (with the recommended consistency of 1 cup of lard to 3/8 cup of concentrated ash water). Traditionally, olive oil was used instead of animal lard throughout the Levant, which was boiled in a copper cauldron for several days.[3] As the boiling progresses, alkali ashes and smaller quantities of quicklime were added, and constantly stirred.[3] In the case of lard, it required constant stirring while kept lukewarm until it began to trace. Once it began to thicken, the brew was poured into a mold and left to cool and harden for 2 weeks. After hardening, it was cut into smaller cakes. Aromatic herbs were often added to the rendered soap to impart their fragrance, such as yarrow leaves, lavender, germander, etc. Nablusi soap is one of these aromatic, alkaline soaps. Zerotalk 11:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarcademan123456 replied:
Just because nationalistic, why not just reword description then? Especially if the sources are good.

I am not trying to promote viewpoint here; I usually try to edit (and love) by “less is more” concept. But again, if sources are good, I believe commentary on sources should be rephrased, rather than altogether omitted Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible mention of Israelites is in the Hebrew source, as the other sources here don't mention Israelites. I checked. I can't fix text based on a source I can't access, and it can't stay like it is because it says "were used in soap production, known as potash" which is simply false (potash cannot be used as soap). Soap production in the Middle East long predated Israelites anyway, so why is this insertion here at all? It looks like a standard type of nationalistic push. If the ancient history of soap making is to be covered, it should be done in a balanced fashion. Both of the other sources (Abu Rabia and Cohen, which are good and should be cited) are about soap production in Islamic Palestine but the text makes it sound like Israelites are still being discussed. The last five sentences are unsourced. In summary, this section needs work before it is ready for inclusion. Zerotalk 11:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, shouldn't we have an article on the Hebrew University's Amnon Cohen? Presently, he tends to get mixed up with the politician Amnon Cohen, Huldra (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Your claim about potash not being able to be used as soap is patently untrue. Potash was one of the main ingredients in soap production for as much as 1200 years in Europe alone. It's one of the only things it was even known for prior to the Industrial Revolution. I can understand being cautious about biased perspectives in these matters but at the same time you have just as much of a responsibility to be factual in your actions. Secondly, no one is claiming that the Israelites invented soap for Christ's sake, the fact that soap predates the Israelites is just as much a valid point against its inclusion in the article as the fact that the steam engine existed before the railroad is a valid support for the deletion of locomotive. Zhomron (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhomron: Is your first language English? No matter, the phrasing "used in soap production, known as potash" means that the soap was known as potash. I expect it is a wording mistake, since it is easy to rearrange the words of the sentence to say something correct, but that would be original research since I can't access the source to check if it agrees with the rearrangement. Do you have the source? If it doesn't tie Israelite soap production to "the traditional formula for Nablusi soap" then such a connection cannot be stated. (According to Encyclopedia Judaica 2nd edition, Israelites used a form of liquid soap, but Nabulsi soap is solid.) The other source (Abu-Rabia) attached to that sentence does not mention Israelites so it doesn't help. The rest of the paragraph has no context so we don't know what "traditionally" means and we don't know what time periods are under discussion. I'm not proposing to throw it away, but it can't go into the article like it is. Cohen's book has a huge amount of material about soap production in Ottoman Palestine, with some information about the earlier Islamic Middle East. Abu-Rabia's book describes bedouin trading in soap ingredients in relatively modern times. Zerotalk 02:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Zohar Amar, Flora of the Bible, Jerusalem 2012, s.v. ברית, p. 216 (note 34) OCLC 783455868.
  2. ^ Abu-Rabiʻa, ʻAref (2001). Bedouin Century: Education and Development among the Negev Tribes in the Twentieth Century. New York. pp. 47–48. OCLC 47119256.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ a b Cohen, Amnon (1989). Economic Life in Ottoman Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 0521365511.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nabulsi_soap&oldid=1208423055"