Talk:Transjordan (region)

Where do you intend to take this article?
I'm not quite sure where you intend to take the article (current stub) Transjordan (region). In particular, what would be new there that wouldn't exist elsewhere, other than perhaps a geographic definition?

It seems to me that this article would be most appropriately made into a slightly fleshed out list/disambiguation article, with the first three bullets under "See also" moved up to the main text within the current "Name" section, along the following lines:


 * Historical regions of same or similar name and extent have included:
 * Transjordan (Bible) (עבר הירדן, Ever haYarden) ...
 * Oultrejordain ...
 * Transjordan, the protectorate/state predecessor of modern Jordan

Then add a section about geographic extent (if you want) and you're done. I was a little reluctant to be WP:BOLD on this because subjects around here are so touchy. But I'm just not sure what more you want to do with this that isn't redundant. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on that after I get some sleep, I'm too tired to have this conversation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All those other articles are specialized articles about the region of Transjordan. Transjordan (Bible) is vary roughly what Land of Israel or History of ancient Israel and Judah is to Palestine. Oultrejordain is what Outremer is to Levant. Transjordan is about the former protectorate/state called "Transjordan", consisting of the region of Transjordan. Jordan is what Turkey is to Anatolia. None of these articles deal with the region in general, that's what "Transjordan (region)" is for.


 * See also Talk:Transjordan_(Bible). In particular the IP's oppose and Greyshark's original comment, showing that Transjordan is much more then a biblical term and worthy of a general article like Palestine, but that the "(Bible)" article is a specialized article. If anything it's the specialized articles that would be redundant to the main article, rather then the other way around. In my opinion, "Transjordan (region)" is just a stub that needs to be devolved.


 * On a related note previously East Bank was a redirect to Transjordan, but that was far from an ideal target, and it was misleading. The Emirate of Transjordan is not the same thing as the East Bank. After the Emirate annexed what we today call the West Bank into it's territory, the Emirate became the Jordan of 1948-1967, consisting of the new territory west of the Jordan river which Jordan named "West Bank", and the old territory east of the river, the former Transjordan Emirate, which Jordan named "East Bank". The East Bank is quite a separate concept then the old Emirate, probably worthy of it's own specialized article separate from the "Transjordan (region)" article. I should point out that the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was not internationally recognized and was considered to be an an occupation, so when possible we should refer to the West Bank as occupied rather then a legitimate part of Jordan. I've found that to be nearly impossible when trying to very briefly explain the relationship between the East and West Banks as I did on the captions if the West Bank/East Bank image at Transjordan (region) and History of Jordan tough.


 * As for expanding the article, I'm probably not the person to do that. I don't do much content creation, I'm more involved in more things like creating redirects and hatnotes, tiding up articles, and copying relevant content from one article to another, and merging articles, and technical matters. Creating and expanding articles (with non-coped content), not so much. You can see that in the article, the lead is little more then my description from the former broad-scope disambig, the name section was copied from Transjordan (Bible), and I found the maps in some related articles. This is the first article I've created, that's why I put the New unreviewed article in there. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes a lot of sense. Your Transjordan (Region):Jordan::Anatolia:Turkey analogy makes it quite clear.  Thank you.  I will copy and paste this discussion to the Transjordan (Region) talk page so that someone can take a swing at it.  StevenJ81 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

[End copy]

Merge proposal
With some developments in articles over the past few years, i would like to nominate Transjordan (Bible) to be merged here. Both articles are essentially small and describe different periods of the same region (i.e. Transjordan). The Biblical period (bronze and iron age) are to be mentioned in the history section as well as the Biblical references as part of ancient sources.GreyShark (dibra) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Request the opinion of participants in previous related discussions: .GreyShark (dibra) 15:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Transjordan (Bible) is not at all particularly short, and should be kept for its specificity. (For example, it has a discussion about status/theological significance.) Transjordan (region) simply needs to be improved as the overview article. StAnselm (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Perhaps merge the two article into a new one called "Transjordan" or incorporate both in History of Jordan. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - ask opinions of to finalize this long-overdue discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 11:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

East Bank
It is dirt easy to find tons of references to "East Bank" as a geographic descriptor, including explicit statements such as the Library of Congress Country Study for Jordan. Dirt easy. I'm not going to waste my time proving that the sky is blue. Zerotalk 09:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what type of logic is required to replace a supposedly unsourced geographic term with an inaccurate geographic term?? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved with opposition and evidence of other pages possibly being the primary topic. The discussion veered off into discussion on article content, so WP:IAR I'm intentionally closing this about half-way. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk ) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Transjordan (region) → Transjordan – Transjordan is a redirect to a disambiguation page – Makeandtoss (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Page Transjordan is now a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose disambiguated for a reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why should the original name be disambiguated? There's an article for Jordan and there's an article for Jordan (disambiguation), which makes sense. But Jordan isn't a disambiguation page, unlike Transjordan. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, but with careful thought as to the overall design. I don't think that the present Transjordan is a proper dab page as all the options there are just different aspects of the same region. Dab pages are supposed to help readers find articles for names with a variety of distinct meanings.  They are not supposed to be lists of articles that are already wikilinked in the main article. Zerotalk 23:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not the primary topic compared to the former state. StAnselm (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what you mean? Honestly, I don't understand. Zerotalk 00:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I mean that someone searching for "Transjordan" is at least as likely to be looking for the Emirate of Transjordan as for a general article about the region. StAnselm (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And for people searching for the region? Are they more likely to search Transjordan (region) than Transjordan? I don't think so. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's an irrelevant argument as far as disambiguation is concerned. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you are correct that many visitors will be looking for the emirate. But that is a minor dab issue that is easiest handled by a hatnote like
 * Zerotalk 09:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Zerotalk 09:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If anything, the Emirate of Transjordan is the primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Necrothesp. —  AjaxSmack   19:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Emirate of Transjordan is a contemporary entity that lasted for 20 years, Transjordan is a thousands year old name of a region. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Just as America redirects to United States, despite having been used for hundreds of years for a geographical area, the name Transjordan is more likely to be associated with a country, however, short-lived, than an area. In any case, we're not saying it should redirect to the Emirate, merely that there is no clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * United States is officially known as United States of America, and the name is commonly used interchangeably, and the name still exists today. Bad comparison. When the article was named, "(region)" was put since there was another article with "(bible)". But if the two articles are merged, the whole brackets thing becomes useless. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Continued discussion

 * One option is to merge the content of Transjordan (region) with Transjordan (Bible) and make Transjordan a CONCEPTDAB with a brief description of where Transjordan is and links to articles on the biblical region, Oultrejordain and the Emirate of Transjordan. —  AjaxSmack  00:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oultrejordain is a lordship, rather than just a region. While Transjordan (bible) is simply Transjordan (region) with emphasis on biblical history, so yes they should be merged. The question is what should the new article be called? If there is only one Transjordan article, I fail to see why it should be "Transjordan (region)" rather than just simply "Transjordan". Makeandtoss (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An issue is that "Transjordan" does not seem to have been used widely throughout history as a name for a region. Except for the biblical region and the two other short-lived polities, there really isn't much else to talk about that wouldn't be better dealt with in, say, the History of Jordan article. —  AjaxSmack   14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I initially thought.. But I assume that this content would be too detailed to be in History of Jordan. Transjordan was used to describe modern-day Jordan throughout history and not intermittently. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It always awkward to have a dab page when the term in question is not in fact ambiguous. Such is the case here. The only thing that changes is who is governing Transjordan, but what it is is always the same: the land across the river Jordan from a Mediterranean perspective. I agree with the proposal to merge the "bible" and "region" articles and I would support making that a main page CONCEPTDAB. A hatnote can get the reader to the medieval lordship and the modern emirate. Srnec (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I support Srnec's suggestion.. Makeandtoss (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If the bible article is merged, then it's not a CONCEPTDAB. It would thoroughly cover one aspect of the topic and not the other two.  For Transjordan to be a CONCEPTDAB, the bible article should remain separate. —  AjaxSmack   14:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If kept separate, it should be retitled to "Transjordan in the Bible", because that's all it is. It's not some other Transjordan. It's the same one as always. Srnec (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The biblical content is better off at History of Jordan than at a stand alone article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Transjordan in the Bible is a big improvement. However, moving the content to History of Jordan would provide a level of detail for that period the is not reflected in other periods and would weigh that article too heavily toward that one period. —  AjaxSmack   13:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree, there's nothing much for this content to have a stand alone article. History of Jordan already discusses this, when we move the content from Transjordan (bible) there, we would just add detail. And no it wouldn't be too much detail, its a history page after all. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have boldly moved the Biblical article. The question of whether it should be merged can be kept separate from the issues in this discussion. Srnec (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted - you need a much broader agreement that post-discussion of a failed move.GreyShark (dibra) 11:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was moved during not after the discussion. It was not directly relevant to the discussion of either the move of this article or the merger proposal. It was a simple move to a better name that I though uncontroversial. I still think so. You should revert yourself. Srnec (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, no. You moved it boldly, because you thought it was uncontroversial. But it wasn't, so you need to use WP:RM instead. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comment here is the first sign that it was controversial. GreyShark was merely performing some ill-informed lawyering. Anyway, the RM has begun. Srnec (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - there are very differing opinions mentioned above. I suggest the editors to be much more specific in their suggestions and not doing WP:BOLD moves without a comprehensive discussion. I would like to point out that merger proposal is still in tact and it is better first closing it (whether yes or no) and then deciding about CONCEPTDUB page.GreyShark (dibra) 11:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion took too long. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is it? Definition?
The crux is: for some reason, the upper Jordan River is often disregarded, i.e. seen as distinct from the river south of the Sea of Galilee, see Jordan Valley; the lake (Sea of Galilee) itself also has its own character, distinct from the river. So the question is much more legitimate than it looks at first sight: across/east of what exactly?
 * 1) Just the lower course of the river (lake to Dead Sea)?
 * 2) The entire course of the river (upper Hula Valley to Dead Sea)??
 * 3) The entire course of the river plus the Arava Valley?

1. means: Transjordan = biblical Gilead and Ammon north of Dead Sea.

2. means: Transjordan = Golan + Gilead and Ammon n.o.t.D.S.

3. means: Transjordan = Golan, Gilead, Ammon, Moab, Edom.

Golan = more or less Bashan, but see also Trachonitis and Hauran, parts of the Tetrarchy of Philip.

No definition = no article, as always. Arminden (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)