Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

message: Is the article name really descriptive? I know there was multiple discussions regarding the name. But now I am feeling the article scope does not fit the title. Occupation 1948-1950, annexation in 1950, and then what about 1950-1967? Some sources use "Jordanian administration of the West Bank", "Unification of the two banks". Any suggestions? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was called an annexation by many sources, including the Arab League, making that a common name. There is a subsidiary argument that it was not really an annex but a Jordanian trusteeship and indeed eventually Jordan's rights were handed to Palestine. All the material previously in this article post 50 was moved to West Bank iirc because people felt this article should only deal with events around the annexation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then if this article specifically deals with the 1950 annexation act (with a 1948 background and up to 1988 aftermath), then shouldn't we have an article on the history of Jordan and the West Bank as a unified state? If so, what would that article be called? There are many things that could be included in such article. 1953 Qibya massacre, 1956 Suleiman Nabulsi democratically elected government, 1958 Arab Federation with Iraq, 1966 Samu incident, even the 1959-1966 Miss Jordan beauty pageant. Basically a history of Jordan and the West Bank. , , , ,  and other active editors here, what do you think? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A major problem would be the name of course..? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with your suggested Jordanian administration of the West Bank, maybe with dates? Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I never liked the name "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank", the name only covers the period after 1950. I suggested Jordanian rule of the West Bank (or Jordanian rule over the West Bank, or Jordanian' West Bank (1948-1967) etc); then we could have it all in one article, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordanian rule sounds more descriptive than administration. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; "rule" just about covers everything; administration, annexation, occupation, etc. I think, in general, this is a bit of a problem for Wikipedia; we try to be as accurate and precise as possible. But some situations/events/states cannot be described accurately (at least not in terms everyone agree to.) As I said here, using a more "vague term", or "broader" term, could solve the conundrum. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We are only talking about the post annexation period, not changing the title of this article, I'm fine with rule as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is no need to spin off the 1948-50 era into a specific article  (unless someone feels like it, of course), Huldra (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it does not really make much sense to create a million articles. One article dealing with everything seems just about appropriate. Hence, I would propose expanding the scope of this article and renaming this to "Jordanian rule of the West Bank". Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: Map in infobox is horrible to look at. Any alternatives? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  Colonestarrice (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordanian annexation of the West Bank →  – More than a renaming, I propose an expansion of the scope of this article. It was previously named "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank", which didn't make sense since the occupation lasted 1948-1950, but the entirety of Jordanian presence lasted 1948-1967, so it was renamed "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank". However, this also doesn't really make sense, as it limited the scope of the article to the 1950 annexation act. So, instead of creating a new article dealing with the scope of the Jordanian 1948-1967 presence, why not just rename this article to "Jordanian rule of the West Bank", where the 1950 act of annexation would have a dedicated and detailed section. It should be noted that this would prove a controversial renaming/repurposing, as it would lent arguments to rename Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. So, it might be better after all to create a new article named "Jordanian rule of the West Bank" instead. These are two options the discussion should focus on. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 January 2023 

message: Thanks  for acknowledging good faith. Your revert was also in good faith. The text we are disputing is below:
Much of it was added in this edit in 2010, with non-RS sources, and other sources have since been added. But they don’t quite say what it says here. And the “Letter Dated 68/03/05 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General” is certainly not WP:RS in wikivoice.
A couple of years ago a good exchange of sources on part of the above was held at Talk:Islamization of Jerusalem#Evacuations and Destruction of Synagogues.
The paragraph is not fit for purpose in its current form.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I altered it a bit, how about? Selfstudier (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy sites 

message: Can someone add a link to Jordan in the first prargraph? thank you! דג ירוק (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be absent because there is a link in the infobox and the infobox comes before the lead (maybe...). I don't know the norms, so I await with interest someone who does. I agree a link there would be better than no link there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also be unlinked because MOS:OVERLINK says country names generally shouldn't be linked. I think there's a strong case for making an exception for Jordan, which could easily be misinterpreted as a person, the river, etc. However, given that it's in the title of this article it might be reasonable to assume that readers are familiar. Jamedeus (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2024