Talk:Jordan

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss

DO NOT ARCHIVE. THIS IS AN ARBCOM RULING

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

There is consensus that Jordan is not reasonably construed to fall under the general prohibitions from the committee (30/500, 1RR, and the special restriction about restoration by the original author). Please note that this only is about whether or not this specific page as a whole falls under the general prohibitions authorized directly by the committee. Other pages about Jordan may fall under them, and specific edits to Jordan may also be subject to discretionary sanctions: those can be assessed on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement

      Protection log for Jordan, discussion at 

Administrator imposing the sanction

Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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 @Alex Shih: after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac

In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose Maile66's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob₁₃^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#500/30 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sandstein 11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, per Seraphimblade below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does.
    In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Makeandtoss: I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc. There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN. At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included. On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on. I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• On reflection I would accept this appeal. Some edits to Jordan may still fall under ARBPIA DS and related articles (such as Israel-Jordan relations) should be subject to the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction, but Jordan should not. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2025

I believe we should specify that the West Bank borders Jordan. Yes, the Golan Heights and the West Bank both border the Kingdom, but Jordan lacks a border with the Gaza Strip. Just stating 'the occupied Palestinian territories' infers all of them, which is factually incorrect. OldBayLiberator (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. It's factually correct to state that Jordan borders the occupied Palestinian territories. It's an objectively true statement. Jordan lacks a border with several of the spatial objects, governorates for example, that make up the oPt in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Saying it has a border with the oPt doesn't imply it has a border with all of the subunits, just like Canada's border with the US doesn't imply it has a border with Hawaii or Texas. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Sorry if my request was redundant then. OldBayLiberator (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The article should specify that the entirety of Jordan is "Jordanian Occupied territory". Jordan officially became a country in May 25, 1946. Jordan captured samaria in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and annexed it, occupying it illegally. Jordan attempted to rename samaria to the "West bank" instead of Samaria, in an attemp to rewrite history. Later on, on the 1967 war, when 5 arab countries illegally attacked Israel in flagrant violation of the geneva conventions, Israel bravely acted in self defense and in the process regained control of Samaria, regaining ownership of a critical portion of land which is part of this ancestral land of the jews. The Jews have been natives of the land of Israel going back further than the Romans. 108.175.227.7 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2025

Jordan have borders with Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian authority. The previous need to be changed to reflect that. Rational: Jordan occupied the west bank until the 1967 when Israel occupied it from Jordan. After the peace agreement at 1994 this situation was settled and part of this area became Palestinian authority and Israel territory 46.117.72.63 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Anthem English Translation

• What I think should be changed (format using {{StringDiff}}):

−

"[[The Royal Anthem of Jordan]]"

+

"[[The Royal Anthem of Jordan|Peace to the King of Jordan]]"

• Why it should be changed: English Translation of: السلام الملكي الأردني

LoneShadow42 (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What is your source for this translation? Day Creature (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Jordan - The World Factbook

Here the CIA puts "Long Live" the King of Jordan. But if you cross reference it with As-salamu alaykum and As-Salam al-Amiri it is more accurately "Peace to the King of Jordan" LoneShadow42 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sentence appears twice, cannot correct

Maybe someone with edit rights can pick this up:

Early Arab chronicles referred to the river as Al-Urdunn.[18] Early Arab chronicles call the river Al-Urdunn (a term cognate to the Hebrew Yarden).[18] ~2025-37497-86 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2025

- !Map !! !! Governorate !! Capital !! Population Okrxdi (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: It's unclear what change the user is requesting. Please be more specific. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

50,000 Peacekeeping troops?

Is there a source that can verify that there are 50,000 Jordanian troops working within the UN in peacekeeping missions? This number seems off; I am a HS student researching this for MUN and other sources say around 100-300 personnel total. ~2026-43673-6 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, 50K is impossibly high. Moreover, neither source in that paragraph gives that number and both are 14 years out of date. An authoritative recent source is here and I will fix the article. Zero^talk 02:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Archaeologists Discover 9,000-Year-Old Hunting Shrine in Jordan

The Ghassanian (or Ghassanid) Neolithic, dating to approximately 7,000 BCE in Jordan's southeastern Badia, was a specialized, mobile hunter-gatherer culture rather than a sedentary farming society. They are defined by their use of "desert kites," the earliest large-scale animal traps, for hunting gazelle. Key findings include unique, nearly intact, 9,000-year-old ritual sites containing human-like stone statues and models of these traps Mml786 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

References

The subject of Jordan's government label

This is something that has been discussed here previously, but on other pages, the issue of what to call Jordan's government has come up again. To summarize: Jordan's monarchy, despite being constitutional, has more powers than the average constitutional monarchy, and as such, it lines up more with other countries such as Kuwait and Bhutan, where the label for it is semi-constitutional monarchy. Despite the previous consensus being that Jordan should be labeled as a regular CM, I would like to open the discussion again regarding changing it too a SCM.

Literally every other country with a similar system of extra monarchical power in a CM is labeled as a SCM, and having Jordan being this weird exception is a glaring issue. Unless we completely overhaul the idea of a SCM and change all other countries to match Jordan's, I think the easiest solution is to just change Jordan's so that this debate can be finally laid to rest. ICommandeth (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I note that semi-constitutional monarchy just links back to a section of constitutional monarchy which is subtitled "Executive monarchy versus ceremonial monarchy" (and doesn't actually use the term "semi-constitutional" there); it is unclear how much the term is used in scholarship. These aren't distinct categories but rather shades of gray ranging from Japan/Sweden where the monarch has no official power through systems like the UK where the monarch still officially assents to acts of parliament and has theoretically other Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom to countries like Jordan where the monarch has and uses real power or Bhutan where the constitution is still quite new and then places like Kuwait where the current ruler has the power to suspend the legislature and does (it is currently suspended). This type of government doesn't necessarily indicate how democratic it is or how much it respects human rights. Erp (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest organising on how much reliable sources use "constitutional monarchy" and "semi-constitutional monarchy" in a wikitable so that we can see on how much sources use what term more.

Something like Talk:Basra Federal Region#Requested_move_26_April_2026 if you want to see an example. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Jordan is not bordered by “Palestine”

The description of Jordan's borders are incorrect.Israel is on it’s western border. ~2026-28999-83 (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what map you're looking at because you're simply wrong. Palestine's West Bank does actually border Jordan on Jordan's western border. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)