Talk:Jordan

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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 's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: *Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct.  Sandstein  11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title: Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss

message: 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  after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Statement by Makeandtoss

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Primefac

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by BU Rob13

message: :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)
replies: text: *Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct.  Sandstein  11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title: Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etimology 

message: 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)
replies: text: fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art and museum section 

message: Why are the maps microscopic?CountMacula (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Jordan]] for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well spotted,  - looks like you were right, so I fixed it (and added wikilinks). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ain Ghazal statues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sports in Jordan 

message: " 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)
thread_title:  Foreign relations during Gulf War - NPOV? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IP-hopping vandal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Include 1-2 sentences about climate change 

message: "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)
replies: text: Hahaha so true Nlivataye (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right, those dark-skinned, poor people, we call them migrant workers or immigrants. The rich from the beloved West - we call them expatriates.  

message: 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. Zerotalk 07:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't show any results when I tick "official newspaper" and search "886". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Zerotalk 10:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it but as you said it is not digitalized. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  1946 constitution 

message: 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. Zerotalk 06:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab League issue with the name? 

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Levant or Western Asia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crossroads of Asia, Africa and "Europe" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wiki standards