Talk:Jordan/Archive 2

Color on map
Why is Jordan and Israel shown in the map in Red, while most other countries are shown in Green? Can we make all countries Green for uniformity? 31.210.176.97 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Links
What happened to the links for the flag and coat of arms???? Fry1989 (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC) HH of deputies? ==

The current text reads "The Senate has 55 Senators, all of whom are directly appointed by the King,[80] while the Chamber of Deputies/House of Representatives has 80 elected members representing 12 constituencies. Of the 80 members of the Lower Chamber, 71 must be Muslim and 9 Christians, with six seats held back specifically for women. The Constitution ensures that the Senate cannot be more than half the size of the Chamber of Deputies." 80/2<55 So, either the constitution is ignored, or one the numbers cited is wrong, or the constitution says no such thing. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.74.209 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Jordan
History of Jordan implies the state, not the area, since that would be the larger area of Eastern Mediterranean littoral, or more specifically the Jordan Rift Valley. There is no plausible connection between the Nabateans and the modern Jordanians who are descendants of Bedouin tribes from the Arabian Peninsula. Unless there is a convincing argument for retention, it seems to me the whole thing is unwarranted Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the Nabataeans had their capital at Petra, which is Jordan's most important landmark. I think the elements of Jordan's history that are unique to its core cities should be emphasized and expanded upon. Jordan's history is independent of the people that live there currently. In addition, I disagree with your assertion that modern Jordanians are solely made up of Bedouin tribes from the Arabian peninsula. Jordan is a diverse country with many ethnic groups, including Greek Orthodox and Circassians. In fact, many of the Arabs who live in Jordan today are descended from the Ghassanids, an ancient pre-Islamic Christian Arab tribe. The name al-Ghassasinah still refers to a tribe living in Jordan today. For this reason, we cannot discount the pre-Islamic history of Jordan; all of it is important.--Betarabbit (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Human rights: women, religious minorities, and converts from Islam
At 23:28 on 24 May 2011, 108.14.97.230 changed the list of human rights concerns with the explanation "there has been tougher sentences against honor crimes...perpetrated by individuals not the government...this article is in regard to government handling of human rights":

Before:
 * legal and societal discrimination and harassment of women, religious minorities, converts from Islam, and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;

After:
 * legal and societal discrimination and harassment of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community;

A similar change was made to the Human rights in Jordan article. I agree that the government has been working to reduce discrimination and harassment of women, but the rewording makes it seem that discrimination and harassment of women is no longer a concern, when in fact it is (see Human rights in Jordan). And similarly, while Jordan seems to have a good record with respect to Religious Freedom, there are still some concerns (see Freedom of religion in Jordan). Women's rights concerns are mentioned in the most current reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and in the U.S. State Department's 2010 Human Rights report for Jordan. Discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are mentioned in the U.S. State Department's report, but not in the other two.

So, some rewording seems called for. Do others agree?

Here is a suggestion: Add two new items as follows:
 * legal and societal discrimination and harassment of women remain a concern, although there have been significant improvements in recent years;
 * legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern, although Jordan is widely acknowledged as being a strong supporter of religious freedoms;


 * Jeff Ogden (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ I made this change and a similar change to the Human rights in Jordan article.
 * Jeff Ogden (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

the human rights section should be updated with the recent reforms that have been instituted like the new election law that ensure proportional representation for jordanian palestinians and the plans for a parliamentary government, also the new law that allows protests without the prior approval of the government, in addition to others. also, in regards to the statement "legal and societal discrimination and harassment of religious minorities and converts from Islam are a concern", i dont believe there has been one case where Christians or any other minority group has been harassed or discriminiated against. in fact, christians are over represented in parliament and the government. 108.14.97.230 (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A plea to include edit summaries
Please include edit summaries with your updates. They make it much easier for other Editors to understand the reasons behind the changes. This is particularly important when existing text and/or references are being deleted. If a change is too involved to be described in an edit summary, consider adding a longer summary here on the talk page. Jeff Ogden (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Article needs serious revision
The writer of this article does not appear to be a native English speaker and requires a major edit for grammar and proper English.

Yo 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoMenashe (talk • contribs)
 * What do you mean with 'a writer needing an edit'?


 * Do you rather mean that the article does?


 * Are you going to pay the writer English lessons or to improve his text?
 * Thanks to him for writing in a foreign language. --A Pirard (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A Picard,

It is very commendable that an individual, who is not a native English speaker, contributed so much to the article. However, the article requires some grammatical editing to reflect the quality of the information (which is very good). I shall address this issue respectfully and make the appropriate changes.Gregrium (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an obselete Coat of Arms.
This coat of arms is obselete, and should not be used! The new one could be seen here (Jordanian State Department's webpage). you can see a high res version of it here. Bakkouz (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Much welcome to mention the Arabic spelling of Jordan, but articles in English should even more indicate the English pronunciation of the English word. This is indeed the place anyone would look up to learn if the stress is on O or A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Pirard (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Life expectancy
Does not belong in the first paragraph. LRT24 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

wiki just voted to accept Palestine as a state. Since the map on the state of Palestine page shows it as existing next to Jordan, I have included Palestine as a possible neighbour to Jordan along with all the other neighboring states previously listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.21.236 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC) You mean the UN? I agree. As for life expectancy, where does it belong?--75* 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New neighbour?
wiki just voted to accept Palestine as a state. Since the map on the state of Palestine page shows it as existing next to Jordan, I have included Palestine as a possible neighbour to Jordan along with all the other neighboring states previously listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.21.236 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Syria-Jordan relations has been strained since the two nations fought terrorism and now they are willing to stop calling airstrikes in the Middle East Dromodary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:9D00:364:94F4:F15D:8D8A:A2E6 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

10. Religion
Eh... Something is quite wrong here. Either there are 92% muslims OR 30% christians. It can´t be both? I guess the correct number is 30% christian. Maybe more - do the numbers apply to ALL living in Jordan or to thoose with citizenship? //kindergarten math... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan&action=submit# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Växelhäxan (talk • contribs) 11:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Transjordan to Jordan
I tracked down the official story of the name change and inserted it into the article. However, despite the 1949 claim, the 1946 constitution as published said "Transjordan", not "Jordan". Maybe there is some history-changing here, but that's as far as I can get. Zerotalk 09:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sachar's page about this is misleading. It is referring to the union with the West Bank and what the greater nation would be called and not to the name change from Transjordan to Jordan. Admittedly this is not crystal clear, but that is due to the sloppy writing. There is no doubt that the change from Transjordan to Jordon was earlier than that. The quotation I brought from the Official Gazette of June 1, 1949, trumps it, and this was also reported in The Times of June 2 ("It is announced in the official Gazette that Transjordan has changed its name to The Hashemite Kingdom of the Jordan".) Given the official status of the Gazette and The Times' lack of time travel, this proves that the December 1 date is wrong. We can use The Times as a fine secondary source interpreting the Gazette primary source. Zerotalk 08:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is not quite accurate; two of us misread Sachar as referring to Dec 1949 while he really refers to Dec 1948. But he doesn't actually say the name was changed in 1948, only that a conference proposed it. Zerotalk 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times started calling it "Jordan" even 5 weeks earlier. The reason appears in an article of April 27, 1949 (p.20): "‘Transjordan’ Now Banned As the Name of Kingdom". AMMAN, Jordan, April 26— Foreign correspondents here have been informed officially that Transjordan is incorrect as the name of this country and therefore will not be passed by the censor. The correct name, as it appears in the Constitution, is Hashemite Jordan Kingdom. Plates for a new currency have been rejected because they bore the popular name. New plates will be made before the new currency replacing Palestine pounds is issued. The credentials of the new Minister to the United States accord with the constitutional name." This might not be a separate event, since 5 weeks could easily pass between a notification to journalists and publication in the Gazette. Zerotalk 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A tiny bit earlier, the armistice agreement signed with Israel on April 3, 1949, calls it "Hashemite Jordan Kingdom" throughout. Zerotalk 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So, the big question: can anyone find an example of the name "Jordan" before April 1949? Zerotalk 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The best proof that the name was not changed to Jordan at the time of independence in 1946 is that the country applied for membership of the UN under the name "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan" (UN Security Council, 57th meeting, 29 Aug 1946, records page 98). Zerotalk 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The section History needs to be trimmed
The section History needs to be trimmed, especially the subsection Independence. It's too specific. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

this is not a Jordanian flag.... to bad :(
the flag of Jordan have a star in the red area. Jordan is a very special place. you should put the right flag.

best regard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.214.110 (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Jordan
Since I proposed this for the Israel wiki-article, I thought I'd do the same for the Jordan article. There has been much discussion about Jordan's alleged ill treatment of Palestinian refugees, even going so far as to call Jordan an apartheid state. Should there be a section on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzaMeLove (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Typo?
"[...] until such time as they would be recognised as independent of the Mandatory.[21]"

Should that be "independent of the Mandate"?

National Anthem
The infobox plays Jordan's royal anthem, not the national anthem. The national anthem (or at least, the only version I can find) is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTfG-h5WWY Utahwriter14 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * sadly the royal anthem is actually the national anthem. The link you provided is something else with a wrong title. --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked it up. Apparently the "Ash-al-Malik" part is the first verse, but there's still another three verses, according to the article about the song. Utahwriter14 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhm all four verses are available, in the infobox.... --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I only got the first (the "Ash-al-Malik" section). Utahwriter14 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Its only music no vocals, but there are Arabic subtitles in the sound player in infobox. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Undoing all history from 4th/7th to 16th century? Bravo
Hi. You erased all between Romans and Ottomans. If that includes the Byzantines, you threw out all of Jordan's mosaics and famous church & monastery ruins, including Madaba and Al-Maghtas; but that I just added, can be seen as Roman continuation. But out go the first Muslim campaigns with the Battle of Mu'tah and the Battle of Yarmouk under the righteously-guided caliphs, the famous [Umayyad]] "Desert Castles" (Qusair 'Amra, Mshatta, Hallabat and As-Sarah, Qastal, Kharaneh, Tuba, even the qasr on the Aman Citadel. Then the Crusaders' castles at Karak, Shawbak (Montreal of the Franks), Le Vaux Moise and al-Habis castles at Petra, Raynald of Châtillon's affronts against Saladin which led in part to the Battle of Hattin - a MAJOR moment in history! -, also his campaign that almost reached Medina and Mecca + pirating on the Red Sea, the cave castle in the Yarmuk Valley, basically all what meant Oultrejourdain in the rise of the Ayyubids if nothing else, plus the complicated interactions between Crusaders-Ayyubids-Mongols-Mamluks in the 13th century. And I am already leaving out the remote Abbasids and the Mamluks, who didn't leave much traces in stone or in history inside Jordan.

How many % one rules in (Trans)Jordan has never been of much importance, only the less arid western strip played a part throughout history, so that's a non-argument.

If we need to discuss such basic things, then... we actually shouldn't. If you insist on being the more resilient editor, I leave you the field, do as you like, who says Wikipedia needs quality. Arminden (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything is relative. Kingdom of Jerusalem is nothing infront of Nabatean/Roman/Ottoman, I am not erasing history, I am only pointing out to the most notable parts of history. Unless you haven't noticed, it says 'most notably'. Plus its the introduction, supposed to be concise.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Motto translation is not in the source
The motto is mistranslated and I checked the source, it has no reference to that mistranslation [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan&oldid=prev&diff=694979745 you restored]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source needs to be changed..Makeandtoss (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And the mistranslation has to change. You noted that this was the used motto. Country means بلد; Homeland means وطن. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I know that Country isn't الوطن but thats what Jordanians use...Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Jordan invaded who?
I'm not in love with any particular wording, but one of the more notable things about the 1948 war is that fighting between Transjordan and Israel took place in the Arab part of the UN partition plan and in Jerusalem, neither of which were recognised by any state at the time as part of Israel. This was not only because of military exigencies but because of policy. To say that Transjordan invaded Israel in 1948 is factually incorrect. Zerotalk 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the borders of Israel were defined as a result of the 1948 war, which makes it impossible to say that Jordan invaded Israel.Makeandtoss (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.arableagueonline.org/las/arabic/categoryList.jsp?level_id=61
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/newsarchive/2011/02202011003.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/aboutjordan/er5.shtml
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.catholiccourier.com/cc/index.cfm/news/world-nation/iraqi-refugees-in-jordan-are-guests-with-few-privileges/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss
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)

''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) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Protection log for Jordan, discussion at
 * Sanction being appealed : Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

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 after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 '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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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 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.   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 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=31315
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110426042611/Jordan_working_to_achieve_comprehensive_reform_in_all_fields
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jordanembassyus.org/09262007004.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jordanembassyus.org/06252004001.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-638.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.jordanembassyus.org/08042006006.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130602134058/http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/previous/2010-11/FullReport_10-11.pdf to http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/main/previous/2010-11/FullReport_10-11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110428223136/http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/weekly01.asp?id=4663 to http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/weekly01.asp?id=4663

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

etymology
A few things to note. First the English name "Jordan" is derived from the Hebrew name "ha-yarden". The Arabic name is "al-urdun". Obviously related though whether the Arabic derived from the Hebrew is another matter (both might derive from a common ancestor and if nothing else the Arabic name probably derived from Aramaic which might or might not have come from the Hebrew). The Mercer dictionary gives three possibilities including an Indo-European one (yar-don meaning year river or a river that flowed all the time) which seems to me highly unlikely (when were Indo-European speakers in the region long enough at the time of the Bible or before to give a name to the river or any evidence that the word was a loan word into one of the local languages?). I did a search in the scholarly literature and didn't find much discussion (a lot on "yarad" though which not only seems to mean 'descend' (with cognates in other Semitic languages) but also sometimes 'south'). Whether this article should consider the debated origins of the river name is another matter (leave it for the Jordan river article). Perhaps note the English and Arabic names and that the country name comes from the river (via trans-Jordan) and also a short bit on Hashemite. Or perhaps merge into the history section and drop this section. Erp (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yarden was a semetic name with no 100% clear origin, while Al-Urdun is merely an Arabized version of the name. --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the book "Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents" by Shmuel Ahituv, the River Yārdon is mentioned in this Egyptian papyrus. It seems that the date of the document is uncertain but even the most recent possibilities are very old for Hebrew. Zerotalk 23:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can someone help in expanding etymology, I am sure there is more to this section. But I can't seem to find any sources discussing it on the web. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The country's name obviously comes from the name of the Jordan river's name, so that is the etymology. I think the etymology of the river's name probably belong in Jordan River article. Interestingly that article offers different guesses for the etymology of the river's name than this article offers, and all of them do not coincide with my own knowledge: That in Akkadian, "Yarhu" meant a stream or a pond (see for example ), and several streams in Israel have names with this prefix - the Yarden (Jordan River), the Yarkon River, the Yarmouk River. Nyh (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But why would an Akkadian word be attached to this river?  The local language was never Akkadian (an East Semitic language) as far as I know but rather various Northwest Semitic languages. I can see it as a cognate but not the origin.  Or do you have a scholarly source for the claim?  The section admittedly had a lot of junk in it (which I've just cut), and, I've just been looking for better sources.    --Erp (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Demographics
I would shorten (remember the demographics article should be used for more details) and make sure the 2015 census data is the latest data used throughout (if possible). I note some bits seem to use 2004 data and some don't give dates. Things I would emphasize Short, complete, and juicy is what we want. Other people might have other ideas Erp (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Current population and breakdown between refugees and other (especially considering the large percentage of the population that are refugees both old [Palestinian] and new [Syrian/Iraqi])
 * Increase in the population over the last century or so illustrated with a few key figures but I would drop the graph (many of the dots are just interpolations and not actual data and the base line is not zero). I'm also not sure how the loss of the West Bank affects things.  Was it included in any of the pre-1968 figures?
 * Decrease in average family size (or fertility rate)
 * Large cities (include 2015 figures)
 * Might want to move life expectancy from health to here.
 * I've done some rearranging. I have some concerns that for the current population of Amman we have that of the governorate and not of the city alone.  Also does the 2015 census contain info on the current percentage of the population that is urban and/or nomadic (since we have a percentage for nomadic in 1920 or so).  Erp (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The official data fails to mention the Amman city population rather than the governorate. I checked www.dos.gov.jo alot of times in the past weeks, they still haven't uploaded the new census data. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * May have to go for older referenced information then. However I couldn't find an English version of the 2004 census info on city sizes.  There is something at http://www.citypopulation.de/Jordan.html which claims to be using the census results.  Erp (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it claims to be census results for the governorates data which we already have, for the cities data it uses "calculation". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sports
I think a citation is needed to justify the claim that football is the most popular sport in Jordan. Also the phrase "from Khalda all the way to Al Hashimi Al-Janoobial" seems to be a quote and may not make sense to the average reader (Khalda I gather is a part of Amman, couldn't figure out where Al Hashimi Al-Janoobial is). Or is it a saying (a bit like saying from John O'Groats to Lands End to indicate the whole of the island of Great Britain)? I note that Jordan also has a women's national football team. According to the Jordan at the Olympics article, Jordan has participated in the Olympics but never won a medal (it did win two bronze medals for a demonstration sport); it might be worth mentioning that. Are there any sports popular in Jordan but not elsewhere (or not popular outside the region)? Erp (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressed the issues you mentioned. And no there's no sports popular only in Jordan --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Map
The Edom, Moab and Ammon map needs some slight modifications. Perhaps creating a new one that would focus on Jordanian territory and only label Ammon, Moab and Edom. Also Sela (Edom) was the name of the Edomite capital not Petra. Can you help with this? --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so.  I note that the location of Sela according to its wikipedia page is not the same as that of Petra.  Also do you have some good sources for boundary information? Erp (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm the boundaries are already identified? Yes Sela is further north to Petra. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation source concern
I have some concerns about using the kinghussein.gov.jo site for recent information since the site may be concerned about the previous ruler, King Hussein, and not about the current situation (i.e., I'm not sure it is kept up-to-date). Also citing a government's own web cite for the form of government is perhaps not best practices (though the CIA World Factbook also describes Jordan as a Constitutional Monarchy). --Erp (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions and comments
I promised a while back that I would give him feedback about the article and  has recently asked for my opinion. I've never edited a country article (not that I remember at least), but having looked through the History section, I will list some of my concerns and suggestions, and I'll try not to repeat the issues raised by the GA reviewer and other editors above. I know this page is getting a bit crowded.


 * There's currently too much detail on Ain Ghazal. One sentence about it should suffice. Jordan has many ancient sites, Ain Ghazal has its own article and a lot of the same information about Ain Ghazal is found in the Amman article. Individual major sites should be mentioned, but ultimately, this section should summarize information about the ancient civilization(s) of the region that makes up modern-day Jordan.
 * The Prehistory and Bronze Age and Iron Age sections should be merged. Call the new section "Ancient period" or something along those lines.
 * The Muslim period section should be renamed something like Islamic era or Middle Ages to avert confusion because Jordan is still a predominantly Muslim country and might be still have sharia as the basis of its laws.
 * In the Muslim period section, it might be useful to mention that under the Mamluks, Jordan was divided between the provinces of Karak and Damascus. If info about Mamluk Jordan is needed, I have plenty of sources about it.
 * More pressing is the total absence of info about the ~400-year Ottoman period. The main themes of this era are the following (in no particular order): (1) Brief mention of Ottoman conquest of region (2) the Ottoman-Bedouin tug-of-war over domination in Jordan, with the Ottomans consistently trying to centralize their rule in the largely desert region, (3) the great importance of Jordan in the Hajj caravan route and the associated fortress towns along the route (4) relations, i.e. conflict and partnership, between the Bedouin tribes and the settled/semi-settled population (5) the major Bedouin tribes of the region, such as the Beni Sakhr, Anizzah, Sardiyah, Adwan (6) the last decades of Ottoman rule in which the central government was able to impose their authority in the country unlike the preceding roughly three and a half centuries. There are plenty of sources about Ottoman Jordan at google books and elsewhere.
 * The World War I and British Mandate period sections should be merged—it doesn't make sense that a roughly 30-year period is split between two sections. I don't know exactly to call the new section, but maybe it would be best combine it with the info about the Ottoman period and call it "Modern era" with the Post-independence section also merged or as a subsection of "Modern era". Again, not sure if that's the best solution, but in any case World War I and British Mandate should be combined.
 * The first two massive passages in the Post-independence section should be scaled down significantly (only summarize). Too many details for a four-year period.
 * The third passage should be reduced to roughly state the following: King Abdullah was assassinated by a Palestinian militant at the al-Aqsa Mosque in 1951 and was succeeded his son Talal. However, the latter abdicated in favor of his eldest son, Hussein, who ascended the throne in 1953." This reduced passage should then be merged with the fourth passage.
 * The style of the passages in the Post-independence section seems redundant and timeline-like. By that, I mean every passage starts out with a date as in "On 15 May 1948" or "In 1973". It's fine to start some passages that way, but there should be some variation in this style for the sake of good prose.
 * Passages 7, 8 and 9 should be merged into one passage.
 * I find the sentence "Jordan's economy has improved greatly since Abdullah ascended to the throne in 1999" to be a bit of an exaggeration. From what I've read over the years, Jordan's economy is not in great shape due to a variety of factors and largely depends on foreign aid. I could be wrong, but I think this should be checked.

That's what I have so far. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. I added a paragraph on the Ottoman period, however I have too little info on this period. Not sure what info to add and their order. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that even the establishment date of Petra (312 BCE and that seems to be disputed) puts it in the Classical period, not where it is currently placed in ancient history though I'm not sure how to merge it into the first paragraph of the Classical section. The article should make clear whether the Nabateans were always independent of the Seleucids or not (or that it varied) since the Seleucids certainly controlled what is now northern Jordan. Erp (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

International Business Publications
A lot of citations are from this publisher, but, I note (a) that they are self-publishing and that (b) they just republish wikipedia or other online articles. In other words they cannot be used to support anything. See Republishers. I will be yanking all their citations from the article Erp (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a source for "Administratively the area of Jordan was in the provinces of Palaestina Secunda in the north-west and Arabia Petraea in the south and east in the Diocese of the East. Palaestina Salutaris in the south was split off from Arabia Petraea in the late 4th century. The Sassanian Empire was to the east and at times controlled part of the region and was always a threat." Makeandtoss (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I confess I was basing this on the maps and on the Sassanian Empire article elsewhere in Wikipedia; however, a source seems to be and in particular page 67 which has a map for the probable divisions circa 390 (it has Palestine I containing the east bank of the Jordan from just south of Scythopolis to the Dead Sea, Palestine 2 containing the region around the entire Sea of Galilee, Palestine 3 containing the region half way down the Dead Sea (on both sides) and heading south, Arabia the region to the east of Palestine 1 and 2). The atlas of Jordan also describes this at http://books.openedition.org/ifpo/4904.  The Sassanian Empire is a bit more tricky; it did capture Jerusalem in 614 (and held it for over 10 years) but checking that was from the north (but effectively completely surrounded Byzantine Jordan).   I did find some references to Madaba being taken but nothing scholarly. Erp (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review
Fixed issues. What's next? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think I should renominate or does it need more work? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would check the citations again and in particular whether the publisher is reputable. For instance "PediaPress" is just reprinting wikipedia articles and hence can't be used.  I've replaced it with citation needed.  Also the URLs if to google books should probably be (a) to the English version of google books and (b) use the page number(s) not a search pattern.  I'll try working through some.   Erp (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How would I know that? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, do you have any other comments on references/sections/prose/images/etc..? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On reputable publishers, I would search on the publisher's name and see what they do. Experience will quickly tell you the big name reputable publishers (various University presses, Routledge, etc).  Here is a list of some self-publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_companies_engaged_in_the_self-publishing_business  Note also that even reputable publishers differ between those that do peer review and those where fact checking on certain aspects may be less important (Oxford University Press versus Lonely Planet in regards to history).    I'll take a bit of time later this week to check over things.  Erp (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article still needs a lot more work. Copyediting for a start. I suggest seeking out further external opinions if editors here feel they cannot progress further themselves. CMD (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok.. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A copyedit was completed by a volunteer. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel it is GA ready, you may re-nominate it. I recommend however going through it very carefully beforehand. The article TOC is still quite long, and the prose has grown to 72kB, above the recommended amount, whereas I remember it being at a good 50kB when I first looked at it. Images are still far too numerous in some sections, clearly not "spread evenly throughout the article" like GA requires. They should also, loosely (if there's good reason not to don't feel you have to, for example the governates map probably should remain to the right, and eyes should face into the page), alternate left and right down the page. Furthermore you really need to go through the sources. Books should have page numbers, and replace/remove any sources that are not wp:reliable sources, and format dates consistently. Examples from the lead only: The first source in the article, "State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law: Towards a Right to Religiously Neutral Governance", says "pp. 87–.". "A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time" has no page number, and also isn't elsewhere in the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should have no information not based elsewhere, to the point where it shouldn't even need sources. "Jordan News Agency (Petra) |Jordan second top Arab destination to German tourists" should not have the news agency as part of the article title. "Arableagueonline.org" does not at all look like a reliable source. Good sourcing is vital, and the issues that have arisen in the past few months, plus still existing in the lead, indicate not enough time has been spent reviewing the sources in this article. CMD (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that necessary? For example Turkey is a good article and its prose its about 72kb..Makeandtoss (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria 3b is: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". I would not consider Turkey to meet that requirement (it also does not have a great lead), and at any rate, there is no reason not to aim to make this article better than the Turkey one. CMD (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be making sure that the article doesn't go into too much detail, check content and check the sources, then renominate the article. But what if I am not able to decrease prose below 68kb? Also anything else I should be doing? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You should definitely be able to reduce the prose below 68kB. You have reduced it to a mere 3kB to make the lead. You should be doing what I mentioned in my reply above, which still has not been done. (single example: " 338,000 of Palestinians live in UNRWA refugee camps" is sourced to the UNWRA home page, rather than a specific information page.) CMD (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried removing excessive details and I am not sure if less than 65 KB is possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible, it's a question of incremental steps. That said, having a read through now, this article is much much better than it used to be, and you have condensed well. You'd probably be fine simply keeping concision in mind as you do other work on the article. CMD (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Decreased it to 63kb, that was challenging. I have done all that is required, and I wonder if there's anything I missed.. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, no need to focus on it. Most reviewers will let 63kB pass I suspect. Your most important focus should be sources. Make sure every source is a WP:Reliable source, and that they support the information cited. If you check a source, update its accessdate to make this clear! CMD (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That should be done. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Citations have been brought up repeatedly by myself and others, and each time I look there are still issues. It is not done, and you really need to go through them yourself, rather than dealing only with examples others find when they mention them. It is not the job of the GA reviewer to identify a list of problems to fix, it is their job to see if there are problems or not. You should aim that they find no problems.
 * A list of what I've found in what I stress was not a thorough examination: The "Jordan second top Arab destination to German tourists" is displaying a formatting error. The iinanews.org source lists iinanews.org twice next to each other, "Guinness World Records" has Guinness World Records written twice, as does the UNESCO source after it and many other sources. "Hijaz Railway a reminder of old Hajj traditions" shows the names "The Jordan News" and "The Jordan Times", it should probably only have one (there are also other sources from this site which display those names differently), and the author for that article is names as Cordu N’Diaye and that should be in the citation. "KIRK H. SOWELL" should not be in all caps, and its link should not link to the comments section. Other sources also have all caps when they shouldn't. "FT.com" should probably be spelt out fully as "Financial Times". I do not see how the "ICT. USAID" source shows what is being cited. The UNRWA source does not seem to have the number 338,000 anywhere I can see, but "nearly 370,000". The "No Place to Call Home" citation is incomplete, it should have page numbers among other things. The "European Forum for Democracy and Solidarity" page is titles "Jordan" not "Jordan country update". The "Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, الجزء 3" source has multiple editors, and I can't tell why there's Arabic in the title. "The Legacy of Solomon" is not a reliable source. CMD (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well after putting so much effort in this article, mistakes somehow become invisible.. I needed fresh eyes and I will recheck all the sources tomorrow. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How should the Jordan Times sources be treated? Or sources in general? I have been using "publisher=The Jordan Times, work=The Jordan News".. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand invisibility. Sometimes it helps to take a break, go work on something else for a week or two before coming back. For citations take a look at the examples at Citation templates. For The Jordan Times I'd suggest just putting "The Jordan Times" as publisher and not use the work field. Most importantly be consistent, some sources have parenthesis, causing "(The Jordan Times)". CMD (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the sources again. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding graphs for statistics
Is there any reason why should the article of Jordan be any different to other articles showcasing visual methods of statistic representations, also known as graphs? Of course not. I see no reason to remove statistics regarding its demographics, using both these well-known sources: 79.177.137.186 (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pew Research
 * CIA - The World Factbook.
 * If anyone has any later statistics he can update these Wikipedia-template graphs. But removing them altogether would count as vandalism. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes because Jordan is not as diverse as others. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree and that is exactly why showing people that Jordan isn't diverse, as you've just admitted, is an unbiased showcase of it. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * People can read that in lead/religion section. 0.1 percentages in a graph is undue, against consensus established previously on the talk page and redundant . Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on Talk page regarding this topic, and data from 2013/2010 would always be better than no information at all. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is on 'demographics' subsection of 'section by section concerns' section. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely similar or has anything to do with this specific graph, hence you just lied about consensus. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "I'd remove the religion bar chart, it doesn't help much given there's only three bars and one completely dominates the others." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just said that's not the same graph. Mine has 5 bars, mentioning even smaller religions.
 * Moreover, you were literally the only person to vote on that. You can't decide consensus all by yourself.
 * You aren't the sole dictator of this article. Are you aware of that? 79.177.137.186 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The graph on religion (as opposed to the actual numbers which I haven't checked) contributes no useful information since one religion is so dominant the others aren't visible so should go. Erp (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go only with the Pew statistics http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/jordan#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2010&region_name=All%20Countries&restrictions_year=2013 which come from the as the CIA statistics don't list their source.  The Pew statistics are estimates rather than from an actual poll or other records.  However the articles doesn't seem to have a source for the statistics it currently has.  I would not use a graph since that conveys no extra useful information.  Erp (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that CIA.gov's "The World Factbook" along with "Pew Research" are the most well-used sources for all of the demographic articles of Wikipedia. Estimates are also used whenever there is no census. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well used is a lot different from reliable and I have caught the World Factbook out on an error with the religious figures for another country. The CIA depends on other sources to gather information though only rarely cites them (which is why I prefer using more reliable sources when possible) and in this case probably drew from the same source as Pew given the numbers seem to be the same. I would go with the Pew figures or go to the original source especially since the current article phrase "Muslims make up about 92% of the country's population" is not supported by the citation given (at least I couldn't find it in the citation).  I also note that for Jordan there is a difference between recognized religions and unrecognized (such as Bahai or Hindu or the non-religious or for Protestant Christians other than Anglicans) and also that in the estimates the very large refugee population may not be included (see http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2014&dlid=238462#wrapper).  --Erp (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 92% Sunni Muslims not Muslims... Plus the source used in article is 2012. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source in the article? The one immediately adjacent (http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-1-religious-affiliation/) has 93% of the Muslims saying they were Sunni and 7% saying they were just Muslim.  It doesn't say what percentage of the total population was Muslim.   Erp (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So it should be 97% instead of 92%. But what do we make of the exclusion of millions of mostly Muslim refugees.. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Be up front with the problems with the data. I note that Syria also has/had a fair number of Christians so the refugees might not shift the overall percentage much, but, frankly we don't know.  Do you happen to know whether the census that took place last year asked about religion? I haven't seen any results that mention religion, but, they may not have released those results yet.  Just be glad we aren't doing Lebanon which hasn't asked the question since 1932 though there have been surveys. Erp (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The census included religion; Muslim/Christian/Other.. I checked the census report last month and found nothing. I also emailed the department and they didn't reply, so idk. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Tribes
Per your previous suggestion on expanding the content relating to the Ottoman era and the tribes in the history section, if you could provide suggestions.. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Makeandtoss, for sources, at first thought, I'd recommend "". It's a very valuable source, though google books only offers limited previews. Maybe we could find a way to acquire the book for free. When I think of or find more sources, I'll post them here or at your talk page. As far as suggestions for content in this article about the Ottoman period, it would be a summary of the 400 years of Ottoman history in Jordan.
 * 1) It begins with the Ottoman conquest and the initial (relative) prosperity of agricultural villages in the 16th century
 * 2) Then the virtual absence of Ottoman control over the region until the mid-19th century. During this period, Bedouin camel and sheep-herding tribes like the Bani Sakhr, Sardiyah, Adwan, Sirhan and others ruled the area. The settled, farming population did not pay taxes to the government, only khuwwa (tribute i.e. "protection") payments to the Bedouin in return for not raiding their fields. The only real Ottoman role in Jordan at the time concerned the 2-3 month period of the Hajj caravan during which the Ottomans would bribe or fight off the Bedouin to prevent their raids on the pilgrims (see 1757 Hajj caravan raid). The main populated places were the string of fortified towns on the Hajj caravan route i.e. Ma'an, al-Karak, etc.
 * 3) Renewed centralization in Jordan began with the rise of governor Rashid Pasha (1866–1871) and his successors. These efforts were a mixed success from the standpoint of the Ottomans because although taxes were now beginning to be collected and the Bedouin were largely subdued/co-opted, it was still difficult to control the country, parts of which continued to rebel, such as during the 1910 Karak revolt.
 * 4) Then of course the British-backed Arab Revolt drove out the Ottomans in 1916/17. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

On a slightly separate note, I've been working on articles about the Bedouin tribes of the Levant and Mamluk/Ottoman history of the Levant. I'll keep you posted about any future edits on the history of Jordan and its tribes from that period as I go. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Are these suggestions conclusive or were they randomly picked as an example? When I expanded the history section in this article, I simply expanded the existing information.. But on this Ottoman period there's nothing to expand which I found hard to build upon considering that there are almost no sources on the internet discussing concisely this time period. Did the caravan raid occur on modern-day Jordanian lands? Or Hejaz? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I listed above is my suggested structure for a summary section on the Ottoman history of Jordan. The 1757 raid, which happened in what has become modern-day Jordan (and Saudi Arabia), was just an example for your own knowledge and doesn't need to be linked in this article. The source I linked to above will be helpful to you. There's plenty of sources out there, I'll link some more as I think of them. might have some sources on the Ottoman history of Jordan as well. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I found two sources, page 14, page 17. I would like to hear your opinion on the Ottoman history era after modifications. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I should also add information about the short-lived 1800s Egyptian rule? Or is that too much detail? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly take a look at the changes you make to the section and will help out soon. I don't know much about the Egyptian period in Jordan other than it lasted about 10 years and included the destruction of al-Karak because its Majali clan harbored the rebel Qasim al-Ahmad. I think as-Salt was destroyed too for participating in the peasants' revolt. Maybe we could mention "as-Salt and al-Karak were destroyed by Ibrahim Pasha's forces during the peasants' revolt". --Al Ameer (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Refugee strain
It would make sense that Syrian refugees are a current event, but surely the other current refugees, such as those from Iraq (mentioned in the source), as well as those who have been in Jordan for a long time now such as Palestinians also make an impact? CMD (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the strain is specifically due to Syrian influx because; -they came in very large numbers -they came between 2010-2016, this era has a more developed lifestyle, more strain on different services than Palestinians -Iraqi refugees were wealthy unlike Syrian, they didn't settle in camps -Syrian crisis coincides with the peak of Islamist extremism; more strain on security services -Iraqi refugees stayed for a relatively shorter period of time, while with the Syrians there's no indications that they will be returning anytime soon -Syrian crisis also coincides with major turmoil in the region, adding further strain on economy -Demographics of the Syrian group where the percentage of women, children and the elderly account for the overwhelming percentage unlike Iraqis -And primarily since its the current ongoing event Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there sources highlighting these differences? Also the Iraqis are going back to Iraq at the moment? The lead should not be written for WP:Recentism. CMD (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are sources that highlight these differences. There were 1 million Iraqis in Jordan following the 2003 American invasion, and that number decreased today to just 130,911 people. We could mention that the flow of refugees had historically added strain to the country, especially the Syrian influx. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a rewrite based on the above conversation, noting that the refugees were mostly Syrian, instead of all Syrian. I think it read a bit better. CMD (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It does. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nabataeans
I am having trouble organizing the events both chronologically and logically about the Nabataenas in the first two paragraphs of the Classical period. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Makeandtoss - This article doesn't belong to you
This article belongs to Wikipedia. On behalf of non-Jordanian editors. Even though you are passionate about your own country, you can't just revert and destroy the work and time of other Wikipedia editors, only because it doesn't fit your style/ideology. 79.181.6.32 (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not the dictator of this article.
 * Use talk page to get consensus prior to reverting additions by other Wikipedia editors.
 * Count all your own repetitive replies as 1.


 * I'm not Jordanian and I happen to agree with him on not having the graph (or maybe he agreed with me). --Erp (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You and your WP:SOCKPUPPET has the same exact opinion in every discussion? How odd. 79.181.6.32 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, not interested in wasting my time with you. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Instability
"historically managed to keep itself away from terrorism and instability", doesn't 'historically' mean in this context that it has managed to keep itself safe now and in the past..? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To my mind "historically" refers just to past events, whereas a wording in more present tense implies an ongoing state of affairs. CMD (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The current wording is a bit tricky, maybe something around "and has since its inception avoided terrorism and instability" --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be misleading to state such an absolute, given Jordan has faced terrorism and instability in the past. It's current stability is in reference to the period since the Arab Spring, and even then there have been some incidents. CMD (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Relatively. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Few more issues with lead:
 * "The Emirate of Transjordan was established in 1921 by the then Emir Abdullah I and became a British protectorate" also sounds tricky, shouldn't it be "and the Emirate became a British protectorate"?
 * "The country is a constitutional monarchy, where the king holds wide executive and legislative powers" Constitutionals monarchies don't usually have monarchs with wide powers? Shouldn't it be "but the king holds wide.."? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your first bullet, but the second makes sense. CMD (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the first bullet I am referring to "and became a British protectorate", it is unclear if the Emirate or the Emir became a British protectorate, obviously the Emirate, but I feel that the wording is tricky?
 * I can't think of a re-wording for the terrorism and instability part.. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, the "and" indicates that the preceding and subsequent comments refer to the same subject. There is nothing to "and" to regarding the Emir. CMD (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, the "and" indicates that the preceding and subsequent comments refer to the same subject. There is nothing to "and" to regarding the Emir. CMD (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no 'Palestine' that Jordan can have a border with
Wiki, yet again, is a propaganda outlet rather than an encyclopaedia. And then you wonder why people use the phrase "You found it on Wiki?" to mock someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.219 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you specify which statement in the article you are referring to? It's not clear from your comments what you are actually objecting to.  Deli nk (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

About possible Bundeswehr ("Tornado") deployment in Jordan. And Shariat. Search for an acceptable compromise for foreign soldiers and officers Christian faith.
and ...E Skobjik (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know much about Shariah. But. In every criminal law there are modalities. Penalty; Money as a substitute. These possibilities are still to be investigated by the House of Representatives of Jordaneen. Replacement as in Germany. From the Hourlohn or Soler very dependable. Yes . The Bundeswehr is still to pay 100,000,000,000 euros (10 years, according to US Plaan ) utiliser.Maryia maryia maryia (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing of Al-Maghtas image caption in #Tourism section
Regarding the caption text of the Al-Maghtas ruins image in the #Tourism section which had stated without qualification that the ...

... while in fact the linked Al-Maghtas article itself states in the #Historocity section ...

In light of such, it seems that some sort of more neutral qualified encyclopedic phrasing would be appropriate which both recognizes the long held opinion of various Christian groups while avoiding stating as a fact that which has not been historically confirmed. Perhaps something like, (A)...

... or, (B) ...

... or, (C) ...

... or, (D), one might simply skip going into such, leaving it to readers to follow the given Al-Maghtas link for elaboration ...

I've put option (A) in place presently, but am open to replacing it with an alternate (or some other phrasing which still avoids stating church tradition as historical fact).

p.s.— The text in the body of the #Tourism section, "Biblical sites include: Al-Maghtas where Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, ...", needs similar adaptation. Perhaps as, "Biblical sites include: Al-Maghtas—purported to be the site of Jesus' baptism, ...".

--75.188.199.98 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Purported" means to claim falsely. The designation is contested but not entirely false. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

""Purported" means to claim falsely." , no, it generally doesn't. More so perhaps 'to claim regardless of having proof or not'. purported,, , , , , , ,. Though it may take on negative connotations sometimes through context and/or intonation, the term may also be used neutrally to simply indicate that a claim is being made without accompanying proof being presented.

Regardless, as I stated in my edit summary – in which one may note I also previously offered a link to purported; a link which you apparently failed to follow, in one manner or another – I'm fine with using "considered" as a synonym. However, I notice that you've now changed the caption to read, (E) ... Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River. The site is considered by UNESCO and all Christian denominations to have been the location for the Baptism of Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist. ... whereas UNESCO's own documentation states ...

... and ...

I.e., UNESCO—via ICOMOS—considers most Christian groups to consider it so (rather than UNESCO making any such overt claim itself).

In light of such I put forth, (F) ...

... as a more accurate and encyclopedic option.

, please accompany any further suggestions or changes regarding this with supporting citations so your fellow editors may feel better assured that your assertions are in some manner backed by some effort invested in research.

Thanks for your time and attention, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said its a contested claim, "These archaeological structures testify to the early beginnings of this attributed importance which initiated the construction of churches and chapels, habitation of hermit caves and pilgrimage activities." Unesco could have easily dismissed the Christian denominations views if it correlated to zero archaeological or historic evidence. My latest edit should be acceptable. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you started out well but then overworked it a bit. I'll trim it a bit both for brevity and to avoid the appearance of puffery. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll go ahead and adjust the text in the section body in a similar fashion. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Went brief to avoid redundancy with info already covered in the image caption and to avoid giving undue weight in relation to the other sites wikilinked afterwards. --75.188.199.98 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://web.dos.gov.jo/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20171019205734/http://web.dos.gov.jo/ on http://web.dos.gov.jo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160328114309/http://census.dos.gov.jo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/Census_results_2016.pdf to http://census.dos.gov.jo/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/Census_results_2016.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160802171231/http://www.csbe.org/publications-and-resources/urban-crossroads/the-domination-of-amman/ to http://www.csbe.org/publications-and-resources/urban-crossroads/the-domination-of-amman/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160924072503/http://www.ucc.org/news_middle_east_delegation_refugee_families_04292015 to http://www.ucc.org/news_middle_east_delegation_refugee_families_04292015
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930075539/http://www.europeanforum.net/country/jordan to http://www.europeanforum.net/country/jordan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)