Talk:Jordan

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss

DO NOT ARCHIVE. THIS IS AN ARBCOM RULING

Note: I am placing this ArbCom clarification here for future reference, in case any requests are made about protecting this article. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus that Jordan is not reasonably construed to fall under the general prohibitions from the committee (30/500, 1RR, and the special restriction about restoration by the original author). Please note that this only is about whether or not this specific page as a whole falls under the general prohibitions authorized directly by the committee. Other pages about Jordan may fall under them, and specific edits to Jordan may also be subject to discretionary sanctions: those can be assessed on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement Protection log for Jordan, discussion at [1] Administrator imposing the sanction Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [2] Statement by Makeandtoss Edit notice template should be removed as the page is not protected as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The page should also not be protected to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it is illogical to do so. Jordan gathers around 6,000 views/day-it is a high level article. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it part of the conflict? If we want to apply the same criteria here then why aren't the United Kingdom and United States articles protected? The protection is intended to quell disruption, which does not exist on the Jordan page. The protection would only prevent IPs and new accounts from contributing to the article-which is what I am mainly concerned about. I was advised to take this issue here by @Alex Shih: after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Primefac In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC) In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose Maile66's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by BU Rob13 I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob13Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Makeandtoss Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'd decline the appeal, which I understand is directed against the existence of the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordan. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sandstein 11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct. Sandstein 11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Also, per Seraphimblade below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does. In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC) @Makeandtoss: I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC) A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC) I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC) I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc. There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN. At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included. On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on. I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) On reflection I would accept this appeal. Some edits to Jordan may still fall under ARBPIA DS and related articles (such as Israel-Jordan relations) should be subject to the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction, but Jordan should not. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Etimology

The name of The River "YARDEN" predates the Arab influence, and it is found in Hebrew QUITE A LONG TIME BEFORE... Therefore the meaning is more likely to be from the Hebrew

As stated - "Y R D" is the root for "YARAD" == "DESCENDED"...

The river descends from the heights of Northern Israel to the lowest point of Dead Sea...

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Art and museum section

The pic which is claimed to be for a military band is wrong; because it is just a band of festivals and has nothing to military affairs except the clothes, I am Jordanian and I know that very well. هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

@Erp: I was considering adding the information about the Emirate and the two successive names later in the history section, where we can further explain the context behind such changes. The official name is not mentioned in the etymologies of several featured articles I have viewed such as Germany. The etymology of the river is very relevant here, and it fills up the section. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

However I think the river's name's history belongs with the river not the country; it is veering too far from the article topic here. We could remove the etymology completely as a separate section and just merge the info about Transjordan and the later dropping of Trans into the history. The article is getting quite long and we'll need the space. Admittedly I've been trying to find recent reliable sources for the etymology with varying luck (especially when I started looking at reviews of some of the sources) --Erp (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Erp: The etymology section should be kept even if it is short. The country is named after the river so you can't really separate the two things. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the first known mention is Papyrus Anastasi I and is a reference to the river. So I'm not confident that the river named after the country. Zero^talk 13:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that we can date "Jordan" as referring to the country or even an area to the late 1940s, I think we can be completely confident that the river name came first by a few thousand years. --Erp (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, @Erp: Well I am lost to whether this is sarcasm coming from both of you. I deeeeeply think that it is better that we leave the naming of the emirate and the renaming of the kingdom to the history section where it will be contextualized. Example: was named to kingdom after independence, and renamed to Jordan to assure its sovereignty over the West Bank.. And we fill up the etymology with the river's information, which is completely relevant since it derives its name from it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a note pointing people to the Jordan River section on etymology to the section. I've also just edited the section there. I don't think we need a long etymology section given the name is from a geographical feature with its own extensive article (compare New York City#Etymology where the etymology does not give the etymology of York#Origin_of_the_name). --Erp (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Erp: But "etymology: is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history." Canada, Germany, Australia, Belarus and a whole bunch of other featured articles discuss the name's origin, meaning, and progression. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

But Wikipedia doesn't usually go into detail when the name is derived directly from another which also has an entry in Wikipedia that does cover the etymology. None of your examples are so derived. Another example would be New Zealand which states it is derived from the Dutch province of Zeeland but leaves it to the Zeeland article to describe the origin of Zeeland. We might want to concentrate on other areas of the article for the moment and perhaps ask the question of the reviewers on the next review (perhaps a review to bring this up to featured article?). --Erp (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Erp: Added an RfC until I get back into working on the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Rfc on etymology of Jordan

We are trying to decide whether or not to have the origin and meaning of the name "Jordan" in the etymology section. The first party favors removing it and placing it at the etymology of the Jordan River article, and the other favors keeping it or at least a brief explanation on it. Currently it is the first party's version, and this is the second party's version. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Split the difference in the middle (party one + one sentence (bolded) from party two) - Jordan takes its name from the Jordan River which forms much of the country's northwestern border.[17] While several theories for the origin of the river's name have been proposed, it is most plausible that it is related to the Semitic word Yarad, meaning "the descender", reflecting the river's declivity.[18] Much of the area that makes up modern Jordan was historically[when?] called Transjordan, meaning "across the Jordan", used to denote the lands east of the river. The Hebrew Bible refers to the area as "the other side of the Jordan".[18] Jund Al-Urdunn was a military district around the river in the early Islamic era.[19] Later, during the Crusades in the beginning of the second millennium, a lordship was established in the area under the name of Oultrejordain.[20] The modern country was established in 1921 as the Emirate of Transjordan, a British protectorate, before becoming the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 and finally adopting its current name, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in 1949. - Keeping one sentence for the Semitic origin of the name of the river (without expanding on various attestations of use).Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Helpful, thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure about the division; I'm not sure it matters too much. However, wherever the etymology appears it is we should ditch the Bible dictionary and find a better source. One that I found is the 2nd edition of Encyclopadia Judaica (p400) where an article by Abraham Brawer (geographer and historian) and Michael Avi-Yonah (famous archaeologist) appears. It says:

"The name Jordan is first attested in the 13th-century B.C.E. Papyrus Anastasi 1 (13:1). In the Septuagint the Hebrew form Yarden is transliterated Yordanes or Yordanos. Some scholars argue that the name is derived from an Indo-European root such as the Persian yar ("year") and dan ("river"), i.e., a river that flows the year round; others note similarly named rivers in Crete, Greece, and Asia Minor. The majority view, however, is that the name Jordan is connected with the Semitic root yarod ("to descend") or the Arabic warad ("to come to the water to drink"). The alternative Arabic name of the Jordan – Nahr al-Sharīʿa ("the water trough") – sometimes used with the addition al-kabīr ("the great") – has the same meaning.

I don't understand the Bible dictionary's distinction between "transjordan" and "the other side of the jordan" as their meanings are exactly the same. Zero^talk 11:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Where can I find the source so we can replace it? Also do you think we should add the information about that papyrus? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Both – (Summoned by bot) I see no policy-based restriction on having it in both places. While the New Zealand and New York City examples are somewhat persuasive, they are also examples where the etymology is given in the older, shorter article title: York, and Zeeland. In this case, it's the other way round, with Jordan taking after Jordan River. Given that that's the case, it might be counterintuitive for many readers to assume that the full etymology might be found in the article with the longer name. I think this could be covered by a manual section hatnote: For complete etymology, see Jordan River. Mathglot (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Why are the maps microscopic?CountMacula (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am going to revive this question. There is only one map at the top and it is a half-globe, not even the capital is visible. Fluoborate (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Jordan’s western borders

State of Palestine is recognized by 137 out of 193 nations. It is also a non-member observer state at the United Nations. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It is partially recognized, not a full state (a non-member), and more importantly doea not have soverignity - and in particular does not control the border (or anything close to it) with Jordan. West Bank is factual, and does not introduce politics and POV into what can be described in a factual manner.Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Both Britannica and the CIA Factbook - list the West Bank as a bordering entity. Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Then I will add both as middle ground. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not a middle ground as it has us endorsing SoP in the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

137 nations, more than two thirds of all states, already endorse that. The world does not revolve around the US, Western Europe and Australia. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So? This is clearly a contested view, and even a recognized SoP has contested borders. Other tietary sources, cited above, merely say West Bank - skirting around the topic which is of little relevance to this article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Makeandtoss: Even if we accept the premise that the State of Palestine exists—which is far from universally accepted—it still lacks any recognized (or controlled, for that matter) borders in the West Bank. Do you know that all these 137 countries recognize the borders claimed by the Palestinian Authority? I certainly don't. What I do know is that Israel exercises full civil and military control over the Jordan Valley (part of Area C), which is what the Kingdom of Jordan borders to the west. I am sure that this can and will be discussed further, but in the mean time, I will add Icewhiz's sources to the article and remove "Palestine". Light Millennia (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There are clearly reliable sources on both sides of this, so per WP:NPOV we need to mention majority and significant minority positions. But this article isn't about recognition of Palestine, and I believe that Makeandtoss's intent here (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to discuss the statement near the top of the article concerning bordering countries. If that's the case, then let's talk concretely about the different wording possibilities, rather than arguing about the political status of Palestine, which is off-topic here. Let's start with what we agree on. Can we all agree that filling in the blank in this sentence, is the locus of the content dispute?

Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south, Iraq to the north-east, Syria to the north and Israel and < what do we want to say here?> to the west.

Are we agreed on that? I.e., nobody here has a problem with what's lies to the south, northeast, or north, right? Furthermore, I don't think anybody is saying that Israel should not be listed; ie., the southwest border of Jordan and the far northwest border of Jordan touch Israel and we're all okay with that. Right so far?

Assuming we agree on that, here are some of the wording possibilities, culled from different versions of the article. The earliest one I could find talking about the western border, was from December 2003 (#1 below):

List of wording proposals for western border of Jordan

v. 1893373: ...and [[Israel]] and [[West Bank]] to the west. v. 32804507: ...and [[Israel]] and the Israeli-administered [[West Bank]] to the west v. 40892245: ...and [[Israel]] and the [[Palestinian territories]] to the west v. 872530140: ...and [[Israel]] and [[State of Palestine|Palestine]] to the west. v. 872538235: ...and [[Israel]] and [[State of Palestine|Palestine]] ([[West Bank]]) to the west. v. 872530140: ...and [[Israel]] and the [[West Bank]] to the west. (proposed) ...and [[Israel]] and the [[West Bank]] ([[State of Palestine|Palestine]]) to the west. (proposed) ...and the [[West Bank]], recognized by Jordan as part of [[State of Palestine|Palestine]], and [[Israel]] to the west.

There may be more wording possibilities; if so, please add them and what version they're from, and then we can pick one of the above (or a new version). Whatever is decided, it should be decided on policy grounds. Arguing about the number of nations that recognize a country is off-topic, except insofar as policy statements about reliable sources can be brought to bear on the argument.

My personal opinion here, is that reliable sources can be found for both cases, and that neither one is a fringe viewpoint. Since that is the case, policy requires both viewpoints to be stated. The NPOV section of Verifiability policy says: All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included. Regardless what wording we end up with, it's perfectly clear that both "West Bank" as well as "Palestine" are "significant minority viewpoints" at the very least; therefore, neither can be excluded.

Therefore, based on that policy statement, and the fact that both terms are in common use, my preference would be for either #5, or #7. The choice of which one to choose, would depend on whether "West Bank" or "Palestine" was the more common name, when searching reliable sources. Discussions of stable or unstable borders are not policy-based, and are therefore a red herring, and are not a reason to sway the choice one way, or the other. The same can be said of the number of countries recognizing or refusing to recognize one state, or the other. Stick to policy, please. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:Makeandtoss. Would you mind changing the section title of this section to something neutral, like perhaps What borders Jordan to the west, or Jordan's western border or something to that effect? I'm afraid with the title "Palestinian West Bank" it might make people with a different viewpoint dig in their heels more than necessary. Since you started this section, per WP:TPO I cannot change the section title you created, but you can change it (or anyone can, if you give the okay to do so). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

SoP existence is contested, and furthermore it lacks any actual control of the border area (as opposed to the inland cities in area A). #1 (West Bank) is factual, and avoids questions in an unrelated article on the status of SoP (and its control of territory). It also matches what other trietary RS chose to say. #3 can also work, but one would need to do "Palestinian territories (West Bank)" due to the disjoint Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, its existence is contested, that makes it a minority viewpoint. (Unless it's the majority viewpoint, which it might be, but at the worst, it's a minority viewpoint; wouldn't you agree?) It lacks control of the border area, true, but that is probably true of any weak country in the world; but more to the point, show me a WP policy that discusses this. If there isn't one, then this is a red herring, and plays no role in deciding the outcome of this discussion. You say it matches what other tertiary sources say, and you may be right, but please offer evidence, since this is the sticking point in this discussion.

Regarding the disjoint Gaza point: yes, I had thought of this as well, and I wondered how or if that plays a role here. I doubt there's a specific policy statement about it, which means we must rely on what reliable sources say. The situation is analogous to Pakistan before Bangla Desh, and it might be instructive to know what RSes said then, although it wouldn't be decisive, since this is a different situation. In any case, at this point I'm opposed to "Palestinian territories", although that's just my opinion, and I can't yet articulate why based on policy, so I'll have to think some more about that. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not such a minority (if at all a minority), and Israeli control of the border is obviously relevant to the border. Saying West Bank is factual (or a clear majority view) - as it is simply the COMMONNAME of the adjacent territory (and leaves the question of SoP's claims and Israeli de facto control out of the infobox).Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think you're making this a bit more complicated than it has to be. If we all agree that the relevant question here is what does Jordan border with?, then we can't write "Palestine" (state) since it neither controls, nor is recognized as being the sovereign of any territory bordering with Jordan. The "Palestinian territories" may be used, though I think it'd be a bit redundant since we'll still have to include the "West Bank" to specify the geographical location. The latter is also less politicized, making it more neutral. Finally, it constituted for >85% of all Google searches for the two terms during the last year. Light Millennia (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Jordan does recognize Palestine so from the Jordanian viewpoint one bordering state is Palestine so "the West Bank, recognized by Jordan as part of Palestine," could be part of the phrase. --Erp (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Light Millennia, given that this situation pretty much started in 1948 and has resisted a definitive resolution for 70 years, your comment about my "making this a bit more complicated than it has to be" gave me a good laugh, so thanks for that. But let's get back to the complex question. I do agree that the question "what does Jordan border with" is the relevant question, but I don't agree with your then-clause because your logic is flawed: your if-statement, while true, does not imply your assertion about writing Palestine. Furthermore, imho, the bulk ofyour last comment is a red herring irrelevant to this discussion; you talk about things like border control and sovereign territory, but you avoid, or at least have neglected so far, to say anything about Wikipedia policy. I tend to agree with your comment about "Palestinian territories" vs "West Bank"; but I think we need to firm that up with better data about what reliable sources say.

I appreciate your last comment, because it seems like an attempt on your part to tie this question to what the actual sources are saying, and that's where we need to be heading. However, the actual source you picked (Trends) does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, for more or less the same reasons that iMDB, Urban Dictionary, and even Wikipedia itself do not: since anyone can perform a search on Google and add data to Trends, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia. You could organize an online campaign on social media, and get Trends to say something different in a few days. Even worse, you cannot draw any conclusion about why someone is searching for a term: are people searching for "Moon landing hoax" because they think it's true, or because they think it's false? So, for both reasons, any data you have from Google Trends is irrelevant here for this question. Data from Google books, on the other hand, would be highly relevant. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Erp, I've added your suggestion as #8 in the list above. I adapted it to use structure parallel to the previous ones; please make sure it agrees with your intent; if not, feel free to change it or remove it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Heh, then let me make you and even laugh more as I would argue that the modern conflict started long before 1948. ;)

But seriously, I do think that this particular issue is really quite simple. We should just use the most WP:NPOV, WP:RS description for what Jordan borders to the west, which I'm arguing is the West Bank.

I don't understand what you mean by you talk about things like border control and sovereign territory, but you avoid, or at least have neglected so far, to say anything about Wikipedia policy. If an entity lacks both sovereignity and recognition of a claimed territory, how can another entity then have a border with it? And what Wikipedia policy are you referring to?

My link to Google Trends was not a source per se, but rather a reference to WP:COMMONNAME. Light Millennia (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be right about the earlier start date! WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to Google Trends. Common name applies to what's common in Reliable sources. Google Trends comes from free, unmoderated, user input; ipso facto not a reliable source. Google books generally turns up reliable sources (though you have to be careful, because some people write books entirely by copying Wikipedia, for example, and those are indexed by Google books, but are not reliable.) But citing Google books, for example, would be a starting point to see what the common name is. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"If an entity lacks both sovereignity and recognition of a claimed territory, how can another entity then have a border with it?" – see, the thing is, you're trying to logic your way to an answer here, and I grant you, that if we were in the debating society, you'd score some big points, and maybe win, with comments like that. But, this is not a debating society, and the exact things that work well there, are considered Original research here, and don't count at all. You're still relatively new here, and it's a real hill to climb at Wikipedia for a new editor, to realize it isn't about Truth with a capital T; all your opinions, and your best logic isn't worth a penny here; even your personal knowledge of a situation because you were literally present and witnessed an event, counts for zero. The only thing that counts, is what the preponderance of Reliable sources say; that's it, full stop. When the majority of Reliable sources get something "wrong", because you were there, and you saw it, and the news reporter got it wrong and reported it wrong and then all the other sources did the same thing—then Wikipedia is wrong; but that's still what the article must say. That's why I said that your logic about borders and sovereignty don't matter; because you're using your understanding of "border" to say, "not sovereign, therefore no border, end of story." Don't do that. Don't use your logic, just forget that approach entirely. That would make it OR or SYNTH; instead, just go to the Reliable sources, see what they say, compile the data, figure out the majority, minority, and FRINGE positions, use the first two in the article, and drop the third. That's literally it: that's what we do as Wikipedia editors. See WP:TRUTH. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It indicates the popularity of different search words on Google. That's hardly a form of "user input".

Anyway, in addition to Britannica and CIA Factbook (as already provided by Icewhiz), we have Encyclopedia The West Bank refers to the territory situated west of the Jordan River, MidEastWeb The West Bank is the area west of the Jordan river, Merriam-Webster area of the Middle East west of the Jordan River, Oxford Dictionaries region west of the River Jordan, etc.

Edit: I posted the above before I read your last reply (which could be useful for me in future scenarios, so thank you), but my answer here pretty much still remains & applies in the same way. Light Millennia (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's user input, because you can search for whatever you want, and it will get published by Google (they probably strike certain libelous or illegal things, but barring that). You can't get your words published by McGraw Hill or Elsevier, until you've met a certain bar; but when they do publish your words, your words will be a reliable source. (Plus, you'll get paid for them.) So, no, Trends is useless as far as determining common name, as anybody can go get their favorite words published there. Try books.google.com instead. Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've transposed the West Bank/Palestine and Israel in the last suggested phrasing so it is clear that we are not intending Palestine as recognized by Jordan to include Israel (Jordan also recognizes Israel). --Erp (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing the part that Jordan recognizes Palestine just complicates the prose. I think the most suitable term is the Palestinian territories. First of all it is used by the European Union, which mainly does not recognize the State of Palestine. So they clearly see that as a neutral wording. This may be the only non-biased wording: one that reaffirms the Palestinian character of the West Bank and yet one that recognizes the controversies behind the borders of the territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Struck comments by indef-blocked sock. Mathglot (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As of this date, Option 5 in the #List of options above is used in the current version, and hasn't changed for a while (perhaps due to this discussion?). Is that our consensus, then? Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe just the West Bank is fine. Just like the statement "Occitania borders Catalonia" doesn't take a position on the Catalan independence movement, the statement "Jordan borders the West Bank" does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I understand this statement goes against previous consensus, but consensus can change. RomanHannibal (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Jordan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jordan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Ain Ghazal statues

There seems to be a typo in the caption relating to the Ain Ghazal statues. It states that they date from 725 BC while the article for Ain Ghazal states around 7000 BC, which seems more likely.--Muirofsara (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted, Muirofsara - looks like you were right, so I fixed it (and added wikilinks). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Sports in Jordan

Taekwondo is one of the kingdom’s favourite sport along with football and basketball. I will work on the section get the resources needed> --Tarawneh (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Foreign relations during Gulf War - NPOV?

" During the first Gulf War (1990), these relations were damaged by Jordan's neutrality and its maintenance of relations with Iraq." Of course, you could equally say "these relations were damaged by the US and UK's war against Iraq". Would it be better to change this to something more neutral like "These relations were damaged during the first Gulf War (1990), where Jordan remained neutral and maintained relations with Iraq."? Iapetus (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

There's an IP-hopping vandal at 2001:8F8:1341:4C44:EDB2:57A6:EC7D:BE85/48. This article may need semi-protection. Mathglot (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Include 1-2 sentences about climate change

I think the article ought to include at least 1-2 sentences about how climate change is affecting Jordan already now as Jordan's climate change vulnerability is high, in particular with regards to water resources. We could take information and references from this article and wikilink to it (it's not yet a great article but we can work on it further): Climate change in Jordan.EMsmile (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Right, those dark-skinned, poor people, we call them migrant workers or immigrants. The rich from the beloved West - we call them expatriates.

"There are around 1.2 million illegal, and 500,000 legal, migrant workers in the kingdom." "American and European expatriate communities are concentrated in the capital." 178.5.75.246 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha so true Nlivataye (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No! Jordan is still a parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy

"I saw on the information box today. When I look at Jordan's infobox, the government system in the infobox says it's a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Jordan is still a parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy because the King is still executive, not ceremonial." (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you on that? But do you have a source for it? I shouldn't comment. I can't commit time to investigate. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the Jordanian Constitution, "CHAPTER FOUR

Part I

The King and His Prerogatives

Article 28

The Throne of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is hereditary to the dynasty of King

Abdullah Ibn Al-Hussein in a direct line through his male heirs as provided hereinafter:

(a) * The Royal title shall pass from the holder of the Throne to his eldest son, and to the

eldest son of that son and in linear succession by a similar process thereafter. Should the

eldest son die before the Throne devolves upon him, his eldest son shall inherit the Throne,

despite the existence of brothers to the deceased son. The King may, however, select one of

his brothers as heir apparent. In this event, title to the Throne shall pass to him from the

holder of the Throne.

• As amended in the Official Gazette No. 1831 of 1/4/1965

(b) Should the person entitled to the Throne die without a male heir, the Throne shall pass

to his eldest brother. In the event that the holder of the Throne has no brothers, the Throne

shall pass to the eldest son of his eldest brother. Should his eldest brother have no son, the

Throne shall pass to the eldest son of his other brothers according to their seniority in age.

(c) In the absence of any brothers or nephews, the Throne shall pass to the uncles and their

descendants, according to the order prescribed in paragraph (b) above.

(d) Should the last King die without any heir in the manner prescribed above, the Throne

shall devolve upon the person whom the National Assembly shall select from amongst the

descendants of the founder of the Arab Revolt, the late King Hussein Ibn Ali. 115.84.94.70 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

(e) No person shall ascend the Throne unless he is a Moslem, mentally sound and born by a legitimate wife and of Moslem parents. (f) No person shall ascend the Throne who has been excluded from succession by a Royal Decree on the ground of unsuitability. Such exclusion shall not of itself include the descendants of such person. The Royal Decree of exclusion shall be countersigned by the Prime Minister and by four Ministers, at least two of whom shall be the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Justice. (g) The King attains his majority upon the completion of his eighteenth year according to the lunar calendar. If the Throne devolves upon a person who is below this age, the powers of the King shall be exercised by a Regent or Council of Regency, who shall have been appointed by a Royal Decree by the reigning King. If the King dies without making such nomination, the Council of Ministers shall appoint the Regent or Council of Regency. (h) Should the King become unable to exercise his powers on account of illness, his powers shall be exercised by a Viceregent or Council of Viceregents. The Viceregent or Council of Viceregents shall be appointed by Royal Decree. Should the King be unable to make such appointment, such shall be made by the Council of Ministers. (i) Should the King wish to leave the country, he shall, before his departure and by a Royal Decree, appoint a Viceregent or a Council of Viceregents to exercise his powers during his absence. The Viceregent or Council of Viceregents shall observe any conditions which may be prescribed in the Royal Decree. If the absence of the King is extended to more than four months and the National Assembly is not in session, the Assembly shall be summoned immediately to consider the matter. (j) Before the Regent or Viceregent or any member of the Council of Regency or of the council of Viceregents assumes his office he shall take an oath, as prescribed in Article 29 hereof, before the Council of Ministers. (k)In the event of the death of the Regent or Viceregent or member of the Council of Regency or of the Council of Viceregents, or should he become incapable of performing his duties, the Council of Ministers shall appoint a suitable person to replace him. (l) A Regent or Viceregent or member of the Council of Regency or of the Council of Viceregents shall not be less than thirty years according to the lunar calendar. However, any male relative of the King who has completed his eighteenth year of age according to the lunar calendar may be appointed to any such office. (m) In the event of the King being incapacitated by any mental illness, the Council of Ministers, on confirmation of his illness, shall immediately convene the National Assembly. Should the illness be definitely confirmed, the National Assembly shall by resolution depose the King, whereupon title to the Throne shall devolve upon the person entitled thereto after him according to the provisions of this Constitution. If the Chamber of Deputies stands dissolved at the time or if its term had expired and no new Chamber had been elected, the former Chamber of Deputies shall be convened for the purpose. Article 29 The King shall upon his succession to the Throne take an oath before the National Assembly, which shall be convened under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the Senate, to respect and observe the Constitution and be loyal to the Nation. Article 30 The King is the Head of the State and is immune from any liability and responsibility. Article 31 The King ratifies the laws and promulgates them. He shall direct the enactment of such regulations as may be necessary for their implementation, provided that such regulations are not inconsistent with the provisions thereof. Article 32 The King is the Supreme Commander of the Land, Naval and Air Forces. Article 33 (i) ** The King declares war, concludes peace and ratifies treaties and agreements. (ii) Treaties and agreements which involve financial commitments to the Treasury or affect the public or private rights of Jordanians shall not be valid unless approved by the National Assembly. In no circumstances shall any secret terms contained in any treaty or agreement be contrary to their overt terms. * As amended in the Official Gazette No. 1380 dated 4/5/1958. ** As amended in the Official Gazette No. 1396 dated 1/9/1958. Article 34 (i) The King issues orders for the holding of elections to the Chamber of Deputies in accordance with the provisions of the law. (ii) The King convenes the National Assembly, inaugurates, adjourns, and prorogues it in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. (iii) The King may dissolve the Chamber of Deputies. (iv) * The King may dissolve the Senate or relieve any Senator of his membership. * As amended in the Official Gazette No. 2523 dated 10/11/1974. Article 35 The King appoints the Prime Minister and may dismiss him or accept his resignation. He appoints the Ministers; he also dismisses them or accepts their resignation, upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Article 36 The King appoints members of the Senate and appoints the Speaker from amongst them and accepts their resignation. Article 37 (i) The King creates, confers and withdraws civil and military ranks, medals and honorific titles. He may delegate this authority to any other person by special law. (ii) Currency shall be minted in the name of the King in pursuance of the law. Article 38 The King has the right to grant a special pardon or remit any sentence, but any general pardon shall be determined by special law. Article 39 No death sentence shall be executed except after confirmation by the King. Every such sentence shall be placed before the King by the Council of Ministers accompanied by their opinion thereon. Article 40 The King shall exercise the powers vested in him by Royal Decree. Every such Decree shall be countersigned by the Prime Minister and the Minister or Ministers concerned. The King expresses his concurrence by placing his signature above the said signatures. 115.84.94.70 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Debatable points

@Makeandtoss and @Jessica Bodhaine We seem to be having the beginning of an edit war with the following points being debated

• "Country in Western Asia" or "Country in the Middle East" in the short description. I would be inclined to the latter as clearer
• "Unitary constitutional monarchy" or "Unitary Islamic Semi-constitutional monarchy" - need to check
• 1946 name as "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" or "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"
• use of "has been repeatedly referred to as an "oasis of stability" in a turbulent region of the Middle East" or not

I've reverted the linking of east since that is overlinking. Constitutional versus Islamic semi-constitutional, I note the section of the article linked to doesn't actually contain the words "semi-constitutional" but instead "Executive constitutional monarchies". However there are no references cited. The map in the article has "Parliamentary constitutional monarchy" for Jordan. Erp (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Jordan has a state religion but it isn't an Islamic state. Zero^talk 07:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• After a second look, Western Asia seems to be the common characterization, see Lebanon, Syria for example.
• There's no such thing as a semi-constitutional monarchy. A monarchy either has a constitution or doesn't. A monarchy that has a constitution can still be authoritarian, and that is why elaboration on the king's powers immediately after "constitutional monarchy" label are given in lede and body.
• There is nothing "Islamic" about the Jordanian state. Despite having a state religion, Islamic Shari'a is not considered a source of legislation. The Parliament of Jordan is not called a Shura council. And most importantly zero sources refer to the Jordanian state as an Islamic monarchy.
• The country was never called the "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan", a terminology that is both difficult to translate to Arabic and non-existent in Arab sources, and most importantly non-existent in the 1946 independence declaration.
• The "oasis of stability" is both the image the country cultivates for itself, and by international community. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Makeandtoss (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jessica Bodhaine: Unwillingness to discuss on the talk page is blatant edit warring.

Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" is ok in Arabic, why isn't "Hashemite Kingdom of east Jordan" ok? Isn't "east [of] Jordan" the Arabic phrase traditionally translated as "Transjordan"? Also, did you check the writing in the original document rather than the transcription below it? And, most importantly, can you find the original constitution published in 1947 (Official Gazette No. 886, 1 Feb 1947)? Not the 1952 one but the original. Zero^talk 13:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Because in Arabic the name is المملكة الأردنية الهاشميةAl-Mamlaka Al-Urduniya Al-Hashimiya which is literally the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom. A Transjordan equivalent, Transjordanian Hashemite Kingdom, would be المملكة الشرق الأردنية الهاشمية Al-Mamlaka Al-Sharq Urduniyah Al-Hashimiyyah; which not only sounds totally ridiculous in Arabic, but also not mentioned in any Arabic source. Most importantly, it is not mentioned in the 1946 constitution. As for the independence declaration I read directly from the document image line 4 which says king of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan ملك المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية Makeandtoss (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not the 1946 constitution but only a brief summary. In the Arabic wiki there is a different spelling of Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan: المملكة الهاشمية لشرق الأردن. It gets quite a few google hits but I can't judge them. Anyway, your document and some other things I found gives me a new theory that explains all these observations: Theory: Between 1946 and 1949, the country used "Jordan" in Arabic and "Transjordan" in English. I have very strong evidence for the English usage which I'll present shortly. Zero^talk 01:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't really matter if the Arabic never changed; the fact of the matter is the name in English (and this is English wiki) did change. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, judging by the Arabic names in official sources, it is 100% certain that 1946 onwards the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom named was used in Arabic. It gets tricky here if it was referred to differently in English, considering that Jordan does not officially recognize the language. Thus, we are left with either indirect official Jordanian referrals (stamps, banknotes and correspondence for example), or League of Nations/UN referrals.

For the former, the first banknote was issued in 1950, which makes it irrelevant to our question. The first postal stamp issued in 1946 after independence refers to Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom in Arabic and Transjordan solely in English. Same thing to a stamp in 1947. A 1948 stamp has no English. However, a postal stamp in the very next year, 1949, refers to the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom in Arabic and the Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan in English.

For the latter, the 1946 Treaty of London is not useful, considering it still referred to the country as Emirate. The League of Nations archive is not useful either, considering it ended on 18 April 1946, just a few weeks before Transjordan's independence. I could not find any official documents relating to the first Jordanian-Israeli cease-fire on 11 June 1948; there were two more ceasefires in August and November 1948 if I am not mistaken. The 3 April 1949 Armistice agreements, sponsored by the UN, called the country the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom in English, a lousy translation from Arabic it seems. The UN archive meanwhile is interesting. The UN 1948-1949 year book refers to the country in English as Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan twice, Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan once, and Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan once. In Jordan's application to the UN on 6 February 1950, the UN refers to the country in English as Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, while the country's own foreign minister refers to the country in English in the second page as the Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan. Note this was just after the December 1949 Jericho conference in which both banks unity was determined.

Summary:

Fact #1: After 1946 independence Jordan called itself in Arabic the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and never the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

Fact #2: Jordan may still have named itself Transjordan (but not Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan) following the 1946 independence, as seen in 1946-1948 stamps, but not 1949 stamp.

My argument: Considering English is not an official language of Jordan, and the discrepancies in both referring to itself and by others, it would seem most appropriate to follow the official Arabic language name and translate it to English. The mess above can be summarized succinctly in the etymology section, but not in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This question has bothered me for years. Makeandtoss changed my mind about the solution by finding the 1946 Declaration of Independence that has "Jordan" not "Transjordan". Now I can confirm that, and can also confirm the bizarre use of one name in Arabic and another name in English. It was not a matter of Jordan calling it one thing and outsiders calling it something else, since the Jordanian government itself used "Transjordan" in English. Here are a few things I collected. In translating Arabic versions, I'll write "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" regardless of whether it is literally "Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan", "Hashemite Jordanian Kingdom", or whatever. My Arabic barely exists and the important point is whether it has "Jordan" or "Transjordan".

• Recall that the declaration of independence was on 25 May 1946. On 26 June 1946, Jordan applied for membership of the United Nations. The formal application from Minister of Foreign Affairs Shurayki was written in English and uses "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" throughout. (Official records, S/SUPP/1946/2ND SERIES/4, p50.) It is hard to think of a more definitive proof that the Jordanian government wanted this to be the English version of the name. The same name appears multiple times in UN records, including two Security Council resolutions (S/RES/8(1946) of 29 August 1946 and S/RES/29(1947) of 12 August 1947).
• The first constitution was published on 1 February 1947. I am aware of two independent English translations. Both use "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" even though one of them was provided by an official of the Jordanian government. After the government announced in 1949 that "Transjordan" was obsolete and everyone should use "Jordan", the latter translation was published again with only that change, despite the fact that the constitution had not changed at all. In the light of the other evidence given here, the explanation is that before 1949 the preferred translation was "Transjordan" and after 1949 it was "Jordan".
• The Treaty of Brotherhood and Alliance between Iraq and Jordan of 14 April 1947 has "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" in Arabic. This confirms the Arabic name. (UN Treaty Series Vol 23, p153)
• In the Israeli State Archives there is a letter dated 5 January 1948 from the Jordanian Government to the Palestine Government written in both English and Arabic. The address of the sender is both in the letterhead and in the body of the letter. In each case the English is "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" and the Arabic is "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".(ISA-MandatoryOrganizations-MandateFishery-000brac).
• The Treaty of Alliance between Jordan and the UK of 15 March 1948 has both English and Arabic versions of equal validity. Both versions would have been approved by both parties before signing. The English version uses "Hashimite Kingdom of Transjordan" and the Arabic version uses "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan". (UN Treaty Series, Vol 77, p77.) (Makeandtoss, please check the Arabic at page 91)
• During the 1948 war, Jordan communicated frequently with the UN in English. All the examples I can find use "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan". For example, on 18 July 1948 the Foreign Minister F. Mulka wrote "I have the honour to inform you that the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, complying with the resolution of the Security Council, accepts cease-fire..." (S/SUPP/1948/7-OR/SC/1948/7)
• The first case I can find where the Jordanian government approved "Jordan" in English was in the armistice agreement with Israel of 3 April 1949. It uses "Hashemite Jordan Kingdom", which is also the version in UN documents of the following months. The earliest UN documents I can find with "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" are from October 1949. (A/C.1/SR.280)
• The Jordanian Official Gazette No. 984 of 1 June 1949 has this (US State Department translation): "It is to be remembered that the decision of the Houses of Parliament which was taken on May 25, 1946, and which declared the independence of this country said that the name of this Kingdom is the "Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan." The Jordan Constitution, published at the beginning of February, 1947, approved this decision. However, it is noticed that the name of "Transjordan" is still applied to this Kingdom, and certain people and official institutions still use the old name in Arabic and foreign languages, which makes me obliged to point out to all who are concerned that the correct and official name which should be officially used in all cases is 'Al-Mamlakeh Al-Urdunieh Al-Hashemieh' and in English 'The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan.'" (Muhammad Khalil, The Arab States and the Arab League, a Documentary Record, p53) This was reported in major newspapers and in a State Department bulletin. After that, use of "Transjordan" died out.

In summary, (1) the official Arabic name was "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan" from May 1946. (2) Until 1949, the Jordanian government promoted and itself used the name "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" in English usage. (3) After June 1949, the recommended English name has been "Hashemite Kingdom of [the] Jordan". The remaining question is "why?". Zero^talk 12:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I started writing I assume just before you published the reply. It is a bit funny that we used a similar methodology and presented our arguments in a similar structure. Please read mine as I had looked at things slightly differently, so maybe we can reach a common ground.

As for the why two simultaneous reasons: Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan does not sound good in Arabic, and they probably decided to rename Transjordan to Jordan (in English) to match the Arabic name and to reflect realities on the ground after 1948 war. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Yes, our analysis is very similar and reaches compatible conclusions. I had even intended to ask you about those stamps before I found other things I could read more easily. As for the explanation, in 1946 it would have been very easy to start using "Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan" in English to match the new Arabic name, but they decided not to. It must have been a deliberate conscious choice, so we can ask why. The only thing I can think of is that Abdullah did not want to advertise his ambition to expand across the Jordan. Due to his deep British connections, he would have known that the British were planning on leaving Palestine within a few years. Concerning the application to the UN, the first two attempts (1946 and 1947) were vetoed by the USSR. In that period the USSR vetoed all applications from countries that didn't recognise the USSR. It is interesting that the 1950 application to join UNESCO used "Jordan" but was reported by the UN as "Transjordan". Nearly always the UN uses the country names chosen by those countries. I guess that this exception was all about the non-recognition of the annexation of the West Bank. Jordan finally became a UN member in December 1955. Zero^talk 03:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

When Israel and Jordan signed the armistice agreement in Rhodes in April 1949, the UN mediator gave a prepared speech. The Palestine Post commented: "he called the Trans-Jordanians the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordania, which may be interpreted as U.N. recognition of King Abdullah's claim to Eastern Palestine." (PP, April 4) Zero^talk 06:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the name, might I suggest "In 1946, Jordan became an independent state officially known as 'Al-Mamlakeh Al-Urdunieh Al-Hashemieh' (in English, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan usually shortened to Jordan; though until 1950 it was often referred to in English as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan or Transjordan for short)." Ideally we want a good secondary source as a reference for this (the State Department bulletin might be a choice). I also note the lead for this article is getting a bit long and a lot of the info could be moved to the appropriate later section. Erp (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I reads like "Transjordan" was a mistake after 1946, but actually it was a deliberate choice of the Jordanian government. I'll try: "In May 1946, Transjordan became an independent state with the new official name "Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan" [give Arabic here].[1] However, the state and others used the name "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" in English until early 1949, when "Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan" was declared to be the correct English name.[2]" Reference [1] can be the declaration of independence and the 1949 announcement. Reference [1] can be the 1946 UN application, and the 1949 announcement. In both cases adding secondary sources would be easy. Zero^talk 03:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

As cited above, Jordan never referred to itself in English as "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan", but only as "Transjordan". What others referred to it, officially, is not of great importance as evidenced by the remarkable inconsistency (for example three very different names in the very same document; the 1949 UN yearbook).

After all, this mess lasted barely 2 years and in an unofficial language of the state; I don't think it would be appropriate to elaborate in the lede.

I would propose the following:

Lede:

In 1946, Jordan gained independence and became officially known in Arabic as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

That statement would be entirely true and uncontroversial, but with a note afterwards elaborating: "However, the country still referred to itself in English as Transjordan until 1949, when it dropped all mention of Transjordan, in the wake of its annexation of the West Bank in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and became known in English as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."

Same thing would be repeated in the post-independence section. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, please read my examples. Jordan referred to itself as "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" on many occasions. That is precisely the name it used in English to apply for UN membership. Zero^talk 14:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is just drop that whole thing as unnecessary detail. The lead sentence works perfectly fine as "In 1946, Jordan became an independent state." Shift the existing detail, and add some of the sources found above, either to History or to Etymology. CMD (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My bad. In that case an inconsistency still exists with the 1949 armistice agreement for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is inconsistent. Jordan decided to stop using "Transjordan" in January 1949 (see the press notice below, there are others like that), and the armistice agreement was in April 1949. The problem we have is that many sources think this was a change to the official name of the country, but now we know it was only a change in usage. In the body of the article (not in the lead) we should give enough detail and enough sources so that editors not familiar with this discussion won't endless try to put the incorrect version back in. Zero^talk 00:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would you support this in the lede: "In 1946, Jordan gained independence and became officially known in Arabic as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan"? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and we can attach some undeniable references to deter edit-warring. (1) The 1947 constitution at http://www.lawjo.net/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1749&d=1300132538, (2) The 1949 notice from above (quoted in full in the reference), (3) Federal Research Division, Library of Congress (1991). Helen Metz (ed.). Jordan, a country study. p. 29. Zero^talk 11:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There used to be a citation to a book of Sachar (not my favorite historian) that the Transjordan-Jordan decision (for English usage, presumably) was made at a Jordanian-Palestinian conference near the end of 1948. Now I found the following in the Palestine Post of 25 January 1949. Despite the quaint "Jordania", it is probably a correct statement of when the Jordanian government decided to stop calling itself Transjordan. "AMMAN, Monday (AFP): The Trans-Jordan government has decided to alter the name of the country to the 'Jordania Hashemite Kingdom'. This is the official ratification of the decision reached at the Jericho and Nablus conferences." Makeandtoss: If you have access to any Jordanian newspapers of that time it would be interesting to hear how they reported it. Zero^talk 06:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

1946 constitution

To editor Makeandtoss: Please go to http://adlibweb.nl.gov.jo/adlibweb/search.aspx . Select "official newspaper" issue "886". You will come to a page where the 4th item is الدستور الأردني . Click on that name and will go to a page for the original constitution. There I see a message اضغط على الصورة لتكبيرها(9 صور) but I can't see any images to click on. Can you see a way to view it? That document is more important than the declaration of independence for establishing the official name, so if you can see it that would settle the matter permanently. Zero^talk 07:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't show any results when I tick "official newspaper" and search "886". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Try search for الدستور الأردني instead. Alternatively there is an advanced search page where you can specify the issue number. On that site different pages don't have their own urls so I can't give you a direct link. Zero^talk 10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I found it but as you said it is not digitalized. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This claims to be the text. Unsurprisingly, it has المملكة الاردنية الهاشمية . Unfortunately we can't cite facebook pages. Zero^talk 09:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What about this site? Is it reliable enough to cite? Zero^talk 10:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The site is the official access website for lawyers. I saw it but couldn't be sure if this is the actual version due to the preview. But it probably is. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here is another one. http://www.lawjo.net/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=1749&d=1300132538 . lawjo looks like a reputable law firm and the url at the start of the pdf file is to a government site, even though it doesn't work any more. The first two Articles are divided in different ways in the 1946 and 1952 constitutions, and this file matches the 1946 one. Also the number of Articles is correct at 79; the 1952 constitution has 131 Articles. It also matches that facebook copy. So I'm confident this is the right one and propose we cite it. Zero^talk 11:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Arab League issue with the name?

I found the following in the Palestine Post of 3 March 1949. I don't know if it is important, but at least it is amusing.

WHO IS FIRST?

A problem of precedence is now exercising the member states of the Arab League, and a sharp dispute has broken out between Trans-Jordan and Syria — or, as the Arab League, especially Syria, would say, Syria and Trans-Jordan.

Ramallah Radio reported yesterday that an official spokesman in Amman "had made it clear beyond any doubt that Trans-Jordan would never agree to give up its leading position at the sessions of the League Council" — and certainly not to Syria.

The dispute broke out when the League announced that according to the Arabic alphabet, Trans-Jordan would come after Syria at the sessions. This was the case before 1946, when Trans-Jordan was an Emirate and was called "Shark et Urdun" (Trans-Jordan).

With Abdullah's coronation, the state's name was officially changed to "El Mamlaka el Hashemiah el Urdun" (Jordan Hashemite Kingdom). The first letter of this name is Alef, the first in the alphabet, putting Trans-Jordan at the head of the list at the Bludan Conference of 1946 and all succeeding sessions of the Council.

The League's new decision would put Trans-Jordan second on the list, just behind Syria. Decisions on precedence are made by the Secretary-General of the League, Azzam Pasha, an Egyptian. Syria and Egypt are opposed to Abdullah's plan for a "Greater Syria".

Meanwhile, the League Council session has again been postponed, for the third time this year.

Zero^talk 06:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

the debate around if “semi-constitutional monarchy”

I should have probably taken this to here before I did that back and forth, so apologies.

But yeah, about the term. It's used on other pages of countries that have active monarchs in constitutional monarchies. It's also used on the page for "list of countries by system of government", so it has established usage outside of just this page. I think therefore that it has merit. ICommandeth 21:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC) ICommandeth 21:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I have a few points:

1-List of countries by system of government does not seem to use a unified source for the countries, i.e. different criteria against to different sources, which makes it original research at best, and inconsistent characterizations at worse.

2- The term "semi-constitutional monarchy" is not very commonly used, and in any case not properly sourced for Jordan. More sources exist for the "constitutional monarchy, but.." phrasing.

3- The common dichotomy in political science is the constitutional vs absolute monarchy, which indeed is binary and over-simplistic, that's why immediately after the "constitutional monarchy" label is made in the lede, I included a short explanatory sentence on the monarch's expanded powers. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should overhaul that page and any other pages that use the term semi-constitutional monarchy then? ICommandeth 08:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ICommandeth 08:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If no source exist detailing what countries are constitutional vs absolutist vs semi-constitutional, then it would make sense to stick to the "traditional" definition. Personally, I find semi-constitutional to be a great term and distinction in describing the situation in Jordan, where practically the king exercises all powers as opposed to the ones present in the constitution theoretically. But until that becomes a popular term, in academia and public discourse, is a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Would something like "Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy with an active monarch" work for the info box? ICommandeth 12:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC) ICommandeth 12:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Too long; undescriptive; original research. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The term "semi-constitutional monarchy" refers to a constitutional monarchy with an executive monarch. 115.84.96.239 (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be useful if the link to semi-constitutional monarchy actually used the term and justified it (though whether it is there or not probably depends on the last editor and the section is marked as not having any sources). Until what is being linked to is more stable and sourced, I think we need to use just "constitutional monarchy". The CIA World Factbook uses "parliamentary constitutional monarchy" for Jordan. Erp (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The State Department seems to contradict itself, labeling it as a constitutional monarchy but stating "the constitution grants the king ultimate executive and legislative authority", which would effectively make it a semi-constitutional monarchy. See also sources that describe the country as a semi-constitutional monarchy or executive monarchy: here, here, here, here, and here. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction since this is an abstract and subjective definition. Generally speaking, the defining feature of a constitutional monarchy is a system, "in which the monarch exercises their authority in accordance with a constitution and is not alone in making decisions". Jordan obviously fulfills this defining feature and is accordingly described as such by most RS. On the other hand the king does exercises widespread powers (practically more than in theory), so as a middle ground solution, a caveat was added throughout the body elaborating on that. Some RS, a minority, choose the not so prominent description of semi-constitutional monarchy. In either case, semi-constitutional is a subcategory of constitutional monarchy. The overall defining description of the Jordanian monarchy remains a constitutional monarchy. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically yes, but the two systems differ in that in one the monarch retains executive power whereas in the other they do not. Not including that description here would also break consistency with other countries considered semi-constitutional monarchies, all of which include that description. There are also plenty of sources (see above) describing Jordan as such. There also exists a semi-presidential system, which is described as such different from both the pure presidential and parliamentary systems of governance. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The monarch always retains executive powers. In the UK, all government decisions by the prime minister have to be countersigned by the monarch. The difference in the two is that the monarch's signature is purely ceremonial. There are more RS describing Jordan without the "semi" label, which is, again, a subcategory. Also no such consistency is possible due to the variety of RS describing each country in different ways and numbers. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That is the exact difference between a constitutional monarchy and semi-constitutional monarchy as previously described: in the former the power of the monarch is ceremonial, whereas in the latter, it is not. There are RS describing Jordan as the latter (see my prior message above). Also in this instance volume of sources also does not on its own necessarily mean one description is "more true" than the others that also have sufficient references, especially when it appears on preliminary search in a lot of those sources it only replaces the concise term "semi-constitutional monarchy" with the essentially equivalent description of a state in which executive authority is vested in the monarch. My previous point on consistency with other country articles also still stands, as you would likely be able to find sources stating the same for them as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: I think it would be more appropriate to self-revert and seek consensus via an RFC per WP's dispute resolution processes. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Jordanian form of government

Is Jordan a constitutional monarchy or semi-constitutional monarchy? See discussions above and in other sections. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• (summoned from Yapperbot) I really want to say yes, but sadly I think that this has to rely on original research as at least through my searches I have been unable to find numerous other reliable sources that officially say constitutional monarchy. So because of WP:NOR, I have to say No. If sufficient sourcing is able to specifically say that Jordan is a semi-constitutional or executive monarchy, then I'm willing to change my position, but I have not been able to find such research yet. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • To start I have included five sources in one of my prior comments in this thread. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

    What I'm looking for is a majority of RS's to say that it is specifically a semi-constitutional monarchy. Maybe if enough reliable pundits say that Jordan is semi-constitutional, I'd be willing to find a middle ground where it says "Jordan is a constitutional monarchy but some, including XXX, have argued that it's a semi-constitutional monarchy due to the political influence the monarch has". But I have yet to see those sources. Could you specifically mention to me which ones you think would back up the point of Jordan being a semi-constitutional monarchy that specifically mention the phrase being attributed to Jordan? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Once again, we cannot lose sight of Wikipedia's major direction: We go by sources. We need to provide references to sources designating Jordan as either a constitutional or a semi-constitutional monarchy.

For the record, here is how social sciences scholar Carsten Anckar makes the distinction, and it's a robust one:

I have chosen to apply a generous criterion for inclusion in the category semi-constitutional monarchies. Accordingly, all democracies where the monarch has held executive powers, legislative powers, powers over domestic policy, or powers to dissolve the legislature are defined as semi-constitutional monarchies and the rest of the cases, where the monarch is powerless on all dimensions, are conferred to the category constitutional monarchies.

See Anckar, Carsten (2021). "Constitutional monarchies and semi-constitutional monarchies: a global historical study, 1800–2017". Contemporary Politics. 27 (1): 23–40. doi:10.1080/13569775.2020.1824360. Retrieved 19 October 2024. -The Gnome (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Let's look at the sources @HapHaxion has provided. Note we need to look at how good a source it is and what position it supports. My comments are by no means exhaustive

• Campelli, Enrico (2023-04-24). "Una monarchia "esecutiva". L'evoluzione della forma di governo giordana e gli emendamenti costituzionali del 2022". DPCE Online. 57 (1). doi:10.57660/dpceonline.2023.1798. ISSN 2037-6677. Retrieved 2024-10-18. Looking at this it contrasts "parliamentary monarchy" with "executive monarchy". The body of the article is mostly in Spanish though it does reference C. Anckar, Constitutional monarchies and semi-constitutional monarchies: a global historical study, 1800–2017, in 27(1) Contemporary Politics (2021).
• Hamid, Abdul Ghafur; Mohd Kamal, Mohd Hisham; Lallmahamood, Muhannad Munir; Areej Torla (2021-12-23). "Superior responsibility under the Rome statute and its applicability to constitutional monarchy: an appraisal". IIUM Law Journal. 29 (2): 115–145. doi:10.31436/iiumlj.v29i2.670. ISSN 2289-7852. Retrieved 2024-10-18. As far as I can see according to pages 130-132 they are using Constitutional Monarchy vs. Absolute Monarchy with a possible subdivision of Constitutional Monarchy being Parliamentary Monarchies (citing Max PlanckEncyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law, January 2016, 2) but also a comment that "some commentators" would split off "semi-constitutional monarchies" (citing Anckar again).
• anonymous (2008-02-07). "How governments handle the news". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2024-10-18. A single reference to Jordan as a 'semi-constitutional monarchy'. Unclear whether semi-constitutional monarchy is a subset or separate from constitutional monarchy (the latter isn't mentioned at all).
• Corbett, Jack; Veenendaal, Wouter; Ugyel, Lhawang (2017-06-07). "Why monarchy persists in small states: the cases of Tonga, Bhutan and Liechtenstein". Democratization. 24 (4): 689–706. doi:10.1080/13510347.2016.1212019. ISSN 1351-0347. Retrieved 2024-10-18. (with a web link to a pre publication version at https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2886176/download) Side reference to Jordan as semi-constitutional. Semi-constitutional and constitutional monarchies are contrasted; however, it also states "The ensuing political system has been characterized as a constitutional monarchy" in regards to Liechtenstein before the author says it should be semi-constitutional (page 15 preprint).
• Taffoni, Gaia (2020). "Supporting rule of law from abroad: a comparative assessment of two post-Arab Spring judicial reforms". Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica. 50 (1): 70–86. doi:10.1017/ipo.2019.17. ISSN 0048-8402. Retrieved 2024-10-18. (with weblink https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10103299/1/RISP.pdf) Describes Jordan as a "presidential monarchy" (this is in the published article)

My own view is there are a variety of schemes for categorizing governments (not to mention they change over time) and the boundaries are fuzzy so the question seems to be which scheme should Wikipedia use or should articles describe the variety of opinions. I also note that Encyclopedia Britannica states

• "constitutional monarchy, system of government in which a monarch (see monarchy) shares power with a constitutionally organized government. The monarch may be the de facto head of state or a purely ceremonial leader. The constitution allocates the rest of the government’s power to the legislature and judiciary. Britain became a constitutional monarchy under the Whigs. Other constitutional monarchies include Belgium, Cambodia, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand." (Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "constitutional monarchy". Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www-britannica-com.stanford.idm.oclc.org/topic/constitutional-monarchy. Accessed 18 October 2024.)

Erp (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Its a monarchy and there is a constitution. I get that you can theoretically slice the thing by degree of monarchical power but then why not quarto constitutional or some other arbitrary division other than semi? Seems an unnecessary refinement and most sources don't seem to bother doing it.Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose because as mentioned in the discussion above: (1) semi-constitutional is not the label that is mostly used by RS (2) semi-constitutional is a subset of constitutional. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• constitutional monarchy seems to be best supported by the sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The motto in the coat of arms still says in Arabic “Al-Hussein bin Talal” instead of “Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein” 178.135.11.111 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The motto of the coat of arms is not mentioned in the article. RomanHannibal (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue is that perhaps the coat of arms in the article is not the current coat of arms. However what seems to be official has "Abdullah I ibn Al Hussein Bin Aoun" https://kingabdullah.jo/en/page/about-jordan/coat-arms Erp (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Levant or Western Asia?

I recently changed the region that Jordan is in from Western Asia to the Levant. I did so because Western Asia contains the entire Middle East plus more while the Levant refers to the specific region that Jordan is in. See www.worldatlas.com/articles/where-is-the-levant.html. While verifiability is a key pillar of Wikipedia, there is no need to use the exact language of the sources. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is both. Western Asia is actually smaller than the Middle East, including the Caucasus but excluding Egypt. Levant is just a traditional name for an area of the Near East (also a traditional name). Western Asia is a modern, formal name. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How about “the Levant region of West Asia” as a compromise? Western Asia instead of West Asia in that phrase is also fine by me. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Once again, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that sources should be paraphrased. Every point should be verified, but not necessarily paraphrased by sources. @Iskandar323, please respond before undoing my edit. RomanHannibal (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't undo it, I changed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe my proposed compromise should be kept. To give another example, Cordoba is in the autonomous community of Andalusia, Spain. Most sources would just mention Spain (whether tourism, short pieces or passing mentions of the city). However, the article lists the autonomous community before the country. Same here with the Levant and Western Asia. RomanHannibal (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not the same. Cordoba is a city. Jordan is a country. "Levant" is not an official region of any kind; just a historic, sometimes useful area nickname. Western Asia is an official, defined region, and the Levant is not a sub-region of it. If you look at Levant page you will notice that in the past, some definitions of this have included Egypt, eastern Libya, Turkey and Greece, among other geographies. These are not equal terms, and only one is used by the UN, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There are various definitions for Western Asia too. WorldAtlas excludes Iran, while Iran itself and the Wikipedia map includes it. The UN map of Western Asia doesn’t include boundaries. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I made it clear that the modern definition (Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel-Palestine and perhaps Iraq and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula) is being used in a footnote. How about that for a compromise? RomanHannibal (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid your version of the lead simply duplicated the use of Levant twice, so not ideal. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Until consensus is formed, how about "Country in the Levant, Western Asia" as a compromise? RomanHannibal (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? What's the problem now? I haven't touched your version. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Levant could either refer to Greater Syria (Bilad Al-Sham), a commonly used informal terminology in Arabic and in Jordan, or to the broader Turkey-Cyprus-even Egypt region. Throwing a footnote won't be helpful to clarify what that entails. Keep out to avoid confusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

West Bank or Palestinian West Bank?

See Jordan's western borders section above. There is no overwhelming consensus that Palestinian West Bank should be used. In fact, some editors were arguing just West Bank due to common names and NPOV and there was no overwhelming majority to counter it. I also added a new argument stating that not explicitly writing Palestinian does not take a position on the conflict. My comment:

I believe just the West Bank is fine. Just like the statement "Occitania borders Catalonia" doesn't take a position on the Catalan independence movement, the statement "Jordan borders the West Bank" does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I understand this statement goes against previous consensus, but consensus can change. RomanHannibal (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear if there even is a previous consensus. The previous discussion is a mess. Maybe we should request mediation however Makeandtoss, the defender of Palestinian West Bank, or some of proponent of the Palestinian West Bank, should at least summarize the alleged consensus and respond to my argument as a reply before reverting. RomanHannibal (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose changing into "the Palestinian territory of the West Bank", as this includes two widely used terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s still contentious among those who don’t recognise the State of Palestine, which comprise a significant minority. Anyone who follows to the West Bank article will realize that the majority considers it a a Palestinian territory and the minority considers it either a disputed territory and/or part of Israel. Rejecting the significant minority, especially when there is a way not to reject either side, is a violation of WP:NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

A minority viewpoint that has zero basis in international law and UNSCR resolutions. Western countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine consider the West Bank to be part of Palestinian territories. If Israel says the sky is red and not blue, then that it is its own problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter what you think about the minority viewpoint. Every proponent of the majority viewpoint in any dispute disagrees with the minority viewpoint(s), and vice versa. The rules of Wikipedia state that articles must stay neutral relative to all majority and significant minority viewpoints.

Considering the West Bank as disputed/part of Israel is very significant. The US recently declared the settlements weren’t illegal. Israel is a very powerful geopolitical player. More than half a million people live in the settlements. Many non-profits in the settlements receive tons of donations from foreign supporters (Yeshivat Har Etzion is a good example). In conclusion, Israel’s position has significant support both in

Israel and abroad. Therefore is a significant minority viewpoint for WP:NPOV and cannot be rejected by the article. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want reliable sources who promote this minority viewpoint, take a look at the Jerusalem Post, JNS, and the semi-reliable Arutz Sheva. Yes, reliable sources do promote the viewpoint that the West Bank is a disputed territory and/or part of Israel. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Putin has said "there is no Ukraine", do you find Wikipedia saying in the Poland article that it is "bordered by Ukraine to the east, but this is refuted by Russia."? It is a significant minority viewpoint after all according to this logic. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is talking about a significant minority of reliable sources, not a significant minority of people. There are reliable sources that support the minority position (see above for examples), which amount to a significant minority. There is no significant minority of reliable sources that support Putin’s claim to all of Ukraine.

Additionally, many reliable sources that support the majority position state it as the opinion of the vast majority of the international community and not as absolute fact. This is not done with the controversy about the existence of Ukraine. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss and @Tombah, I invite you to go onto WP:DRN and state your side of the story there. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: Due to the lack of a timely response, I edited the article to replace "Palestinian West Bank" with "West Bank". In my opinion, I removed non-NPOV content. With Tombah (talk) thanking me for that edit, the interim consensus is now 2-1. Unless the "Palestinian West Bank" version can gain a majority (without canvassing and meatpuppetry, of course) please do not change it back to "Palestinian West Bank." Thanks, RomanHannibal (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. This edit or variants of it now appears in various places, WP is not the place for engaging in personal crusades. If there is an issue that needs a central discussion then do that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

How? How do I start a site-wide discussion on this topic? RomanHannibal (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Which topic? If State of Palestine, then there, else Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just started a discussion there. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's on WikiProject Israel-Palestine Collaboration. RomanHannibal (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So the question is if and how to adjust "Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south and east, Iraq to the northeast, Syria to the north, and the Palestinian West Bank and Israel to the west." in the lead (and possibly the similar sentence in the Geography section). I note these are all political entities but "West Bank" alone isn't. We could go with "occupied West Bank", "Palestinian West Bank", or "Palestine". I note that Palestine does have non-member observer status in the UN and a certain amount of self-governance. Also the West Bank prior to 1968 was controlled by Jordan, the subject of this entry, but that Jordan has since recognized Palestine. I'm inclined to go with the current status. We could go with "Palestinian/Occupied West Bank" since almost every country recognizes it as either Palestinian or Occupied or both. --Erp (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m willing to compromise on “Israeli-occupied West Bank.” Should Israel annex the West Bank, we should change it to Israeli-annexed West Bank.

This may be controversial among the Israeli right. However, the definition of an occupation is when one country controls territory without formal annexation. Should Israel annex the West Bank, the term occupation will be used only by those who don’t recognise the annexation. Then, the term occupation will be a POV. RomanHannibal (talk)12:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for any such change, nor at the related discussion at State of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I walk back the comment I struck above. No descriptor of West Bank is the most conforming to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus for that either. It's perfectly fine the way it is now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I note that User:RomanHannibal seems to have been blocked indefinitely as a probable sockpuppet. Is anyone else suggesting we make a change from what we have now in regards to Palestinian West Bank in the intro? --Erp (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a change is a must. The current wording is problematic for two main reasons:
(1) While it is true that the majority of the world community sees the West Bank as part of the "Palestinian territories," describing the area as "Palestinian" is not a true reflection of the West Bank's far more complex current situation. The Jordan Valley is part of Area C, which is governed by Israel in accordance with the Oslo Accords, which acknowledged Israel as the entity (until final agreement is reached) in charge of the West Bank and Jordan borders, both de facto and de jure. The current wording completely ignores the current state of reality.
(2) Using the term "Palestinian" to refer to the "State of Palestine" rather than the "Palestinian Territories" implies that Wikipedia has endorsed a political entity that is largely unrecognized in English-speaking countries (and this is English Wikipedia after all). Moreover, those that recognize Palestine could or might not agree on its boundaries (For instance, the Palestinian embassy in Tunisia portrays Palestine as entirely replacing Israel). The "State of Palestine", as opposed to the Palestinian Authority that governs areas A and B of the West Bank is an entity with no clearly defined borders. The current wording suggests that English Wikipedia has chosen sides and even established the boundaries of the "State of Palestine" on its own.
I believe the best course of action is to simply leave it as "West Bank" without any additional qualifiers. To understand more about its complicated and contentious position, readers can jump to the relevant article. Tombah (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Oslo Accords specified that administration of Area C was to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority within a few years. Given that Israel shows the Accords nothing but contempt, why should we care about them? As for maps, it is actually the Israeli Government and all its branches all the way down to schools that most commonly erases the Green Line. In fact erasure of the Green Line from official maps has been Israeli policy since 1967. Zero^talk 07:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

the West Bank's far more complex current situation. Twaddle. This response is nearly the same as written here, the promoter of this hasbara being currently blocked as a sock that attempted to push this to various pages and in this particular case, was "thanked" by Tombah, as can be seen in the mutual back scratching here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your argument does not make sense. You say the West Bank is Palestinian territory but then reject the label Palestinian because Israel is in charge of Area C. Even if Israel is in charge of Area C, doesn't change the fact that the West Bank is part of the Palestinian territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There probably is no wording that everyone or even an overwhelming majority would agree is neutral. We could have "Israel and Israeli occupied West Bank (once part of Jordan now recognized by Jordan as part of Palestine)". Which gives the current de facto status "occupied" and a pocket summary on how Jordan sees/saw it. For this article it is very relevant that this area was once part of Jordan and how Jordan perceives it now. Erp (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This should be a brief sentence about borders, not a geopolitical and historical analysis, which is provided in the second lede paragraph anyway:

“ The country captured and annexed the West Bank during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War until it was occupied by Israel in 1967. Jordan renounced its claim to the territory in 1988, became the second Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and since supports Palestinian statehood within a two-state solution. ”

Any omission of the word Palestine from the sentence on borders and West Bank is unacceptable in any form as it does not reflect overwhelming majority of sources, that at the very least call the West Bank part of the Palestinian territories, including western countries who do not recognize a Palestinian state and vehemently oppose attempts at annexation and changing facts on the ground through expansion of settlements (see very recent US and EU condemnations in that regard). Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the WB is an area claimed by State of Palestine ("Palestinian" refers), a claim recognized at the UN by way of numerous resolutions. The arguably contentious part is the claim that there is a State of Palestine, not the claim itself, since Israel is in a minority of one in disputing East Jerusalem. Israel has not claimed sovereignty over the occupied area other than EJ so who is the sovereign? Israel sometimes says the reversioner is Jordan, yet another dubious minority opinion. Jordan transferred all its claims, whatever they were, to the Palestinians.

Since we cannot explain the whole thing in the lead, just saying "Palestinian" seems reasonable, the only thing that one might argue with is the wikilink to SoP. It could be linked to Palestinian territories instead but since the OPT are the same areas as that claimed by SoP there is no real difference. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It was a very clear sockpuppet but with no evidence I hesitated to make that accusation. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chad which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads of Asia, Africa and "Europe"

Jordan is nowhere near Europe and is not transcontinental. I wouldn't even consider Israel the crossroads between Asia, Africa and Europe. Even Africa is a stretch. Why are we not allowed to change this to just West Asia? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's silly, except perhaps in the tenuous sense that the Middle East is the crossroads for traffic from the three continents and Jordan is a county in the Middle East. But in that sense it fails to characterize Jordan specifically while giving the impression that it does. Even if the cited source calls it that, surely we can distinguish between assertions of objective fact and overblown, flowery language of a subjective nature. Largoplazo (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to Edit

Smalletter (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

|answered= Sorry for the confusion. Please change:

"Amman, the capital and largest city of Jordan, stands as the country's economic, political, and cultural center, as well as the largest city in the Levant."

to

"Amman, the capital and largest city in population in Jordan and in the Levant, stands as the country's economic, political, and cultural center."

Existing citation no. 9 is accurate and should cover the source requirement.

The purpose of the change is to paraphrase and clarify that the information is related to the population and not geographical size. Amman is not the largest city in Jordan nor Levant.

Hope this is acceptable. Thanks Smalletter (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As you can see in List of largest cities, "largest" is used to described most populous cities. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I reworded to to "most populous" for clarity, although it feels like an oddly placed bit of trivia. CMD (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I added another comment that might be helpful and informative as well:

Then maybe we can link the word to that page? I don't think regular readers would be able to differentiate. If I may suggest paraphrasing to: "Amman, the capital of Jordan and largest city in the Levant, stands as the country's economic, political, and cultural center."

If it's the largest in Levant, then that includes Jordan.

This is also informative as to introduce the term "large city" to the unfamiliar readers. Smalletter (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

One more suggestion please in order to clean up the sentence a little bit and avoid confusion, I'm trying to limit the use of "largest" while defining it, as well as define "Levant"

"Amman, the capital of Jordan and largest city in the Levant, stands as the country's economic, political, and cultural center."

Thanks! Smalletter (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe we can link the word to that page? I don't think regular readers would be able to differentiate. If I may suggest paraphrasing to: "Amman, the capital of Jordan and [largest: hyperlinked] city in the Levant, stands as the country's economic, political, and cultural center."

If it's the largest in Levant, then that includes Jordan.

Thanks Smalletter (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep it as is to avoid talking about Jordan then Levant then Jordan. Definition of largest and Levant is present in the linked article: List of largest cities in the Levant region by population. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! May I suggest the following change to make the sentence brief, straightforward and less redundant?

"Amman, the capital of Jordan and largest city in the Levant, stands as the country's economic, political, and cultural center."

Will leave it to you to decide. Thanks! Smalletter (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki standards

English Wikipedia generally applies the transliteration and spelling standards developed by English-language scholars and academics. This is certainly the case with historical terms, while current terms may be spelled according to official policy in the respective country. The scholarly norms have evolved over time and are well founded.

The common academic name spelling in English requires the definite article (al, etc.) and "son of" (ibn) to be written small, unless it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. The article must be followed by a hyphen. Examples:

• Omar ibn al-Khattab, not Omar Ibn Al Khattab
• Dumat al-Jandal, not Dumat Al Jandal

I know some perceive it as irreverential, but it's not meant to be and it is the common practice. If administrative units (national governments, regional or municipal authorities) decree a different English spelling as normative, this concerns only the individual names to which the decrees apply, and the modern administrative units, not the historical or archaeological sites.

Thank you. Arminden (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Better map please?

The article only has one map in the main infobox, it is a half-globe with Jordan highlighted. I consider these a reference mainly to orient the reader within the entire world, it's insufficient as a map of Jordan, it doesn't even show the capital.

I think an appropriately large "political map of Jordan" should be added to the main infobox, with the names of the bordering countries and the names of multiple cities visible. Ideally. I don't know where to find CC-licensed maps. Fluoborate (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's one that's already on the Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jordan_Base_Map.png

I've no skill adding images to articles. You're welcome to add it yourself. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

AD

@Arminden: Pretty sure AD is used after the numbers, and not before. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite: it's "anno Domini xyx", 'God's year xyz'. It's common practice to use "Xth century AD", but for years it's wrong. Arminden (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: "The abbreviation “A.D.” was originally placed before the year number (e.g. A.D. 145); then “B.C.” often placed after the year number (e.g. 145 B.C.). Nowadays it is more usual to put both abbreviations after the numbers (e.g. 145 AD; e.g. 145 BC)" [8] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Which makes me old-fashioned and etymology-fixated :)

Or, put differently: for me, meaning comes first. A.D. is anno Domini, God's year in Latin, and B.C. is before Christ, in English. If you read out in full, A.D. only makes sense before the number, and B.C. only after. Once you know the meaning of the abbreviations, that seems natural, but we tend to know and understand less and less. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: it's my Weltschmerz observation, isn't meant for anyone in particular. Arminden (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)