Talk:Jordan/Archive 2

Archive 1

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#Women's rights). 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)

 Done 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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. Zero^talk 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 [1]. Zero^talk 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So, the big question: can anyone find an example of the name "Jordan" before April 1949? Zero^talk 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). Zero^talk 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.[2][3] 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)

@Utahwriter14: 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)

@Utahwriter14: 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)

@Utahwriter14: 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

@Makeandtoss: 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

@Makeandtoss: The motto is mistranslated and I checked the source, it has no reference to that mistranslation 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. Zero^talk 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 external links on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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)

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 [4] Administrator imposing the sanction Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [5] 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. ~ Rob13Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Makeandtoss 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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 one external link on Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to review this article for GA status, and will do so very soon. I hope the long wait for a reviewer has not diminished the enthusiasm of editors here. CMD (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

First impressions

This article has clearly had a lot of work put into it, however it has a variety of issues impeding GA status.

Prose

The prose feels somewhat stilted. This may be a language issue, and I am happy to help with this if requested and other issues are fixed. In terms of wider structure, this article contains a large number of short paragraphs (some only a single sentence) and very short subsections (some only a single paragraph). To me this indicates an excess of details not suited to such a high level article, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

References

While the article has many sources, quite a few are deadlinks or have other issues, such as missing parameters or being directly copy and pasted from another article as visible text. This needs to be fixed for the article to be considered a GA. Additionally, the reference archive changes made by CyberbotII listed on the talkpage should be checked.

Coverage

GA articles should be focused on the topic but not too detailed, going back to the summary style guideline. This article is focused on the topic, but appears over-detailed. Its table of contents, for example, is longer than my screen. It is on the high end of recommended article size, but is not too long.

Neutrality

This article gives of the impression of wp:puffery, and would need to be rewritten to avoid this.

Stability

No long-term edit wars visible, although I encourage greater use of edit summaries.

Images

There are a lot of images on this page, and they are not well integrated into the article. Images should enhance the text, but not overburden it. While not required for GA status, I recommend reducing the number of images, and positioning them at clear points throughout the article. The gallery should be removed completely.

CMD (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Looking nice and I'm willing to help (admittedly my experience of Jordan is as a tourist). I noticed the use of the unit dunum or dunam. Jordan uses the metric dunum (1 decare or .1 hectares) so I added the conversion to km2. I might suggest merging the administrative units section into the geography section. Also I'm not sure why File:Jordan governorates named.svg isn't used since it has the names actually on the map (if there are errors, I think I can correct the map)? Erp (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Erp: Its correct. But it would be great if its some colors are changed. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So what color scheme? I note that the Governorates of Jordan article mentions that the country is divided into three regions (North, Central, South) though I'm not sure this is official. We could three color the map. We might want to make this an image map template so that clicking on a governorate takes one to the appropriate article (though some might be too small). See Template:Jamaica parishes imagemap. I think I should be able to get the SVG image to disgorge the necessary info to make the imagemap. Erp (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Erp: I created this map of Amman a while ago File:Districts of Amman Template 3.png, its color range is good. I don't think the governorates of Jerash and Ajloun would be too small. they are noticeable enough as 400px as seen now currently in the article. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've put up a clickable map and colors will be easy for me to change. On a slightly different topic, I note that the beginning of the politics section talks about "elected from 12 constituencies"; are these the same as the governorates? If so this should be made clear. In addition do the governorates and small units have their own local (elected or appointed) governments? Also the phrase "These are further divided into neighborhoods or subdivided into towns and villages", why the distinction? Are neighborhoods for urban areas and the others rural? BTW the article on nawahi state there are 52 but this article says there are 54. Erp (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the map. Yes constituencies are from governorates, I just edited it. Yes governorates have an elected local councils and governor. And yes neighborhoods are for urban and the others for rural. I changed 54 to 52. --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've rearranged the beginning of the Political section and moved the map (with what use to be the administrative section now in its caption) up there so readers can immediately get an idea of what a governorate is. I'm having a bit of difficulty in getting the House numbers to add up. There are 108 from the governorates (seats proportionally allocated to each? If so we might want to include how many for each in the table in the governorate article). 27 at large but that adds up to only 135 leaving 15 unaccounted for. Is the 15 the quota for women (I noticed the BBC reference says that prior to 2013 there were 12 for women and 12 for ethnic/religious minorities but now 15 for women (but no mention of any remaining quotas for minorities, I couldn't see a supporting reference for the statement of a quota for 9 Jordanian Christians). Might want to include a statement on how long parliament lasts (6 years or until dismissed?). On another point someone needs to go through and update any citation that is using a google book search URL; instead a book citation should list the relevant page(s) and have at most just the top level book url (or one that explicitly links to the page). Erp (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Passing comment

There is a good deal of information here, and those involved are to be commended on the work so far. However, the article would benefit from tidying up. When articles are poorly laid out, and the prose doesn't follow WP guidelines, they don't inspire confidence, as the assumption is that the content has been assembled in a similarly poor manner. Some articles evolve with editors putting in random information until the article gets so large that people feel it must be worthwhile. Size by itself, though, is not an indicator of quality. Evidence of careful selection and organisation of material is a good indicator - and this article lacks signs of good organisation. Evidence of following guidelines, and of decent quality prose is a good indicator - prose in the article doesn't quite meet MOS:CAPS and WP:Numbers. The layout doesn't quite follow the advice in WP:Layout. I have resolved a few obvious and easy errors, though there is more work to be done. I would recommend a good copyedit - Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be able to help. Reduce the number of small sub-sections such as in the Culture section (a sub-section per paragraph is inappropriate). Some parts of the article have very short paragraphs - sometimes just one sentence. This gives a poor impression, and impedes reading flow. Where appropriate group information into more comfortably sized paragraphs which allow the reader to digest the information in context before moving on to the next paragraph. Casual language such as "A successful mezze must of course have ..." should be replaced with neutral encyclopaedic language such as "A typical Jordanian meze would contain ..."

Jordan is a large, complex, important subject, and is a high profile article with over 2 million readers a year. As such we need to ensure the sources used are of decent quality. Currently the article mainly uses newspapers such as the Daily Mail (not regarded as a reliable source), travel guides, and dubious websites such as peashealth.com and kinghussein.gov.jo. A period spent researching into the full range of available sources, which might involve a visit to the local library or ordering some books from Amazon, would benefit the article and inspire greater confidence in the general reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I fixed the dead links and removed a couple of pictures, I hope they are all good now? Kindly place your concerns as bullet points so that they can be dealt with and crossed out. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Why should the gallery be removed? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:Gallery. They should be used when they add information in a way text can not. In this article it does not add information. Regarding images in the rest of the article, they should be positioned in away that it is clear to the reader which part of the text they refer to, and they should enhance that text somehow. It is much better now, although a couple of sections (early history, religion, geography although geography text could be longer) remain slightly overfull. Consider alternating images left and right throughout the article per WP:SANDWICHING.

I am not going to bullet point concerns right now, given the nature of the ones I have. I summarised some of my concerns above, and SilkTork has added some useful thoughts as well (Erp's suggestion that you add names to the Governates image, although not a GA issue, would definitely improve the article). Working to address or at least alleviate those concerns should be the aim for the moment. CMD (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I addressed some of your concerns. --Makeandtoss (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You have indeed done so, and it is much improved. However, many concerns still stand. The article still contains many very short paragraphs, and seems greatly oversubsectioned. If you want a couple of more specific things to work on amid the general cleanup, I will suggest two. The lead is full references that do not exist in other areas of the article. This is expressly against WP:LEAD, as the lead should not have information not contained in the rest of the article, which is where citations should be. Consider as well perhaps shortening the lead to cover only essential information. For example, Is it essential to the understanding of Jordan to know that is troops were the most effective arab troops in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war? My other suggestion would be to review the flow of the Economy section. It has quite a few paragraphs that are far too short. Meanwhile some parts seem excessively detailed, whereas other parts seem uninformative. Examples of excessive detail include a statement by John Kerry, details of individual nuclear power plants (in two separate parts of the article), and details of what individual airports cover. Uninformative parts include sentences like "Jordan has nightclubs, discothèques and bars in Amman, Irbid, Aqaba, and many 4 and 5-star hotels", and frankly much of the main tourism section. The Economy section also has a large deal of redundancy, eg. "Science and Technology is the country's fastest developing economic sector... In fact, the Information and Communications Technology sector is the fastest growing sector in Jordan's economy with a 25 percent growth rate." Have you considered SilkTork's suggestion of asking for copyediting help? CMD (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Did more improvements. The copyediting help requests take about a month, isn't that too long? Makeandtoss (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyediting requests would take awhile, but perhaps you'd want that time to further work on this article? I have not written out a detailed review, but the concerns I and others have raised so far remain unaddressed. As it is, I find that his article meets only 2 of the 6 GA criteria, and fixing those will take time too, likely much longer than the seven day normal GAN span. As an aside, I encourage you to when removing excessive detail from this article, to add it to subarticles where such detail would be more appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"the capture of the west bank..." statement is quite necessary. Jordan was initially including the West Bank, and at one point was formally annexed. When Jordan lost the territory in 1967, it was a severe blow to the economy since most of the businesses were stationed in the West Bank. Also, the average person's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict is that the Arabs always lost the wars they had waged against Israel, Jordan is probably the only state that didn't. Its quite worth mentioning. About Kerry statement, its quite remarkable and deserves to be in the subsection. No? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the information you have just listed about the west bank is remotely conveyed by the text under discussion. If you want that information to be conveyed, the text needs to be rewritten so it conveys that. (It also needs to be in the body rather than exclusively in the lead, per WP:LEAD, like much of the lead of this article.) Furthermore, this article is not meant to dispel the average person's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, however that has been determined, but to give the reader an understanding of Jordan. (At any rate Egypt also scored military successes in those wars.) As for the Kerry comment, I do not, personally, find it remarkable that good air conditioners are in use in the United States, nor that Kerry commented on this. More relevantly, what does that sentence say about Jordan, and if it is necessary to convey an appropriate level of information about Jordan, could it be written more concisely? That sort of question pops to my mind a lot while reading this article. CMD (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mean that. I meant that it should be mentioned that the West Bank was part of Jordan in its earliest stages, the military successes is just a side note. Anyway, can you please point out to a few concerns so I can address them? Because I have read this article too many times and so it has become difficult for me to locate anything inappropriate. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Addressed almost all issues mentioned. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Section-by-section concerns

This doesn't cover everything due to length concerns, for example most copy-editing concerns and some source reliability concerns are not covered, but hopefully it provides a useful guide. The overall comments I noted above about structure still stand. I again recommend when removing information from this page to put it on subpages to help improve those articles.

Lead

The lead still contains references and information that is nowhere else in the article, as opposed to the guidance in WP:LEAD. Specific issues:

• "Since the dawn of civilization, the country's location at the crossroads of the Middle East has served as a strategic nexus connecting Asia, Africa and Europe." is a long, wp:puffery sentence saying very little, and cited to a source SilkTork noted as unreliable above. The dawn of civilisation, whenever that was, occurred long before the concepts of Asia, Africa, and Europe even existed.
• "Archaeologists found evidence on inhabitance dating as far back as the Paleolithic period" is an example of unnecessary attribution common throughout this article. Sources can be mentioned if there is a need to, but there's clearly none here. Easily made more concise through something such as "Inhabited since the Paleolithic, ...".
• Is there anything special about Ammon, Moab, and Edom that leads to their being mentioned while former and later kingdoms are not?
• Similarly, the Nabataean kingdom seems out of place in a list otherwise consisting of the Roman and Ottoman Empires.
• No mention that Transjordan was established as a British protectorate.
• Is "The" part of the official name? If not it shouldn't be italicised, if so it should be in the infobox.
• The change to the King's title is not given context and doesn't seem very important given the change in the country name is already noted.
• The theme of the third paragraph is unclear (and it probably shouldn't start with "it")
• How is Jordan especially popular? Compared to what? Is the presence of western expats important enough to be in the lead at all?
• The claim to be the "safest" country is hugely subjective, reads as very puffery, and blows the citation way out of proportion.
• Noting "great hospitality" is again puffery. Safe refuge is also puffery, as well as being wrong. There are many safe refuges for Iraqi Christians. Pope Benedict's statement is highly out of place and unduly prominent being mentioned in the lead at all.
• There is no information about the wider demographics in the lead text.
• Similarly Tourism is especially mentioned out of all economic areas, despite tourism providing only 10% of GDP according to later on in this article, with the rest of the Economy summed up in one sentence. That this sentence, along with a second on tourism, are in a different paragraph is odd, reflecting a lack of structure in the lead.
• The reason given for Christian decline is in complete opposition to the source cited (whose reliability I question).
• Having "advanced status" in the EU ENP seems unimportant. I'm also unaware of the Euro-Mediterranean FTA being of any major importance.
• "Although Jordan has very few natural resources, like being the second poorest country in the world in terms of water resources per capita, it has large investments" is poorly worded and the point of it is unclear.
• "Highly skilled workforce" is an inherently relative term that needs a lot of context to be used, which this lead does not (and should not) provide.
• The anthem .ogg file partially obscures the English translation.
• The reason for the selection of cities in the infobox picture is unclear. It doesn't appear to be the top in population per List of cities in Jordan.
• The Independence box in the infobox should mention the UK.
• As with the text lead, consider whether information in the infobox would be better cited with more context elsewhere in the article.

Etymology

• Can't access the source, so I don't know what it's citing, but I very much doubt one source covers all the information here.
• 1921 was the establishment of the Emirate, not a renaming
• Just as the meaning of "Jordan" is explored, it may be worth giving short mention to the meaning of "Hashemite", if any.

History

• Here, and in a couple of other places, you use "See Also" notes which should be "Main" notes
• Instead of saying "One of the oldest human statues ever made by human civilisation" say something more useful like "Statue X is from the Y period, Z000 years ago".
• Details of archaeological digs seem out of place in the history section.
• Can't access Kleiner et al. source, but it lists pages "11-2" which is obviously wrong.
• The ancient kingdoms aren't kingdoms of Jordan, they're kingdoms in what is now Jordan. The picture chosen may not be the best one, as it is Israel/Judah-focused, with the colouring being irrelevant without that specific context.
• Again there's a lot of attribution of where information comes from, which is useful on more specific pages, but seems undue on a high-level article such as this one.
• The text says the Nabateans established Petra, but the image shows Petra as the capital of the earlier kingdom of Edom.
• Petra being a tourist attraction is information for elsewhere. More relevant would be something like "carved out temples including Al-Khazneh" (i.e. information about the cause of the attraction, rather than information of it being an attraction).
• Information about the Greek period lacks citations.
• The text goes from Hellenistic rule to Roman rule, and then in the next paragraph begins Roman history again.
• Information about the "spectacular Hellenistic site" (which would be better written as "best-preserved" or similar rather than "spectacular") fits in Tourism if it should be in this article. This also applies to the list of Roman ruins.
• It reads like there's a gap between direct Imperial rule and autonomy under the Ghassanids.
• No context provided for what the "Abbasid movement" is.
• The timeline of rulers should be integrated with the more detailed information about certain periods in the next paragraph.
• Considering the length of Ottoman rule, it's surprising that there's no mention of any effects it had on Jordan. The Jordanian government source used says it was mostly a period of stagnation, if other sources agree just mentioning this will be useful.
• The Muslim period subsection probably needs more sources.
• T.E. Lawrence information probably too specific this article, the mention of wider allied support is enough (although perhaps the French deserve specific mention along with the British).
• It'd be good to have a sentence indicating how Abdullah I was chosen to rule Transjordan.
• The text notes restrictions on sovereignty were removed by treaty in 1948, but does not give examples of what those were.
• Context as to why King Hussein sacked all his British soldiers and terminated prior agreements with the British would be useful.
• Details on specific battles are undue in this article.
• It would be worth mentioning explicitly that Jordan's agreement that the PLO represented the Palestinian people meant it had given up all claims on the West Bank (currently explicitly stated in geography).
• When mentioning the ascension to the throne of Abdullah II, the additional information about Prince Hassan is confusing without further information, and information about the namesake seems implicit enough due to the Roman numerals.
• The last paragraph seems outdated and unspecific. Rather than announcements, a very concise summary of the effects of the Arab Spring would be better.
• Understandably, the History section skews to having more content in recent history. More concision in independent history would however be favourable.

Geography

• Mention 34°E instead of 35°E if it's not bounded by 35°E.
• The Rift Valley is not "of" the River. If anything, it's the other way around, considering the valley goes all the way to the Red Sea while the river doesn't.
• The first paragraph should be split up, with the geographic boundaries and extremes in one part, and human geography such as cities in another.
• Perhaps move the Human Geography information to demographics to prevent duplication. Either way, human geography could use some expansion as well; information discussing the concentration of population in the west as opposed to the desert in the East for example.
• I'd personally move boundary changes to history, keeping this focused on present geography.
• The BBC link is dead, and the replacement page doesn't seem to have the information it cites here.
  There's a lot that seems lacking in this section. Some of the background from the existing Natural Resources section, for example (eg. sunlight and forest cover), could fit here, leaving the Economy section to deal more specifically with economic effects. Potential examples of information:
• Overall land area, north-south distance, perhaps west-east distance although due to Jordan's shape this isn't as useful.
• Major topographical features. Geography of Jordan is full of detail, but unfortunately lacking in sources. It could still provide inspiration for here.
• Mention of water features aside from the River Jordan.
• Note that the Dead Sea does have exiting flow. (Other information about the dead sea could be appropriate here, perhaps taken from current Tourism subsection.)
• A quick summary of Jordan's ecosystems and the biota they support.
• A quick summary of environmental pressures. Water pressure and desertification come to mind as possibilities, especially given the current drought in the Middle East.

Politics and government

• Information about subdivisions should be present in the text, not just in the caption.
• Information about Jordan's peace treaty should be in the foreign relations subsection.
• Does the King pick senators/governors from a pool of people or from anyone he knows?
• How are the independent politicians chosen?
• Are the Prime Minister and Cabinet taken from the Legislative bodies or are they separate?
• What is the length of the election cycle? Explicitly note as well that 2013 was the last election.
• The name of the Prime Minister would be good, as well as the date of appointment.
• Perhaps also mention the current crown prince.
• More detail on the power of the King and of the executive and legislative branches would be good.
• General information on the constitution should be mentioned here rather than in Crime subsection, as it deals with more than just crime.
• The first paragraph of Foreign Relations is dangerously close to the original text, I would suggest it falls afoul of WP:COPYVIO. Generally, this is more easily avoided through a greater variety of sources.
• Rather than a detail of the specific Likud proposal and Jordanian reaction, a general statement noting Jordan's support of Palestinian independence would be preferable.
• It is also probably worth noting here something about Jordan's monarch's role in Al-Aqsa.
• Arab League and OIC membership should be noted here and possibly discussed if either plays a major role in Jordan's foreign relations.
• Perhaps mention possible GCC membership?
• ENP info needs a source. The source from the lead would probably do.
• Mention of Syria is conspicuously absent here, including strikes against IS.
• "Jordanian Armed Forces field hospital in Afghanistan has since 2002 provided assistance to some 750,000 persons and has significantly reduced the suffering of people residing in areas where the hospital operates" is an oddly out-of-place sentence, which is very wp:puffery.
• "In some missions, the number of Jordanian troops was the second largest, the sources said" is similarly out of place, and doesn't carry much meaning or information. It is also another good example of unnecessary attribution.
• Information on the Judiciary in Crime and Law Enforcement lacks sources
• The text mentions three branches of courts, but then goes on to only discuss two, leaving "special" courts unexplained.
• What is the "Family Law"?
• Again, there is a lot of factors that contribute to safety, and numbers are better than vague statements such as "one of the safest countries in the world".
• "Female police officers are leading the way in Jordan" is similarly puffery, the information is delivered just as effectively with that phrase simply deleted.
• A lot of the rankings here are compared with other countries in the region, which is useful, but they should also be put into a global context. The mention of Jordan as 1st in Arab states and 78th globally is a good example, regional comparison first followed by a global comparison.

Economy

• The Economy section starts with notes about being in upper-middle income and having a growing GDP, but then immediately throws in a statistic of poverty. The poverty sentence should be moved to after GDP history, and perhaps context given for decrease over time? 2% isn't much, but presumably it was higher and decreased with increased GDP?
• Rather than simply saying Jordan has advanced status with the EU, explain the effects of that on the Economy.
• "The government employs between one-third and two-thirds of all workers" shows a huge range. Why the large range?
• There is a lot of repetition in this section.
• "Growth was expected to reach 3% by the end of 2012 and the IMF predicts GDP will increase by 3.5% in 2013, rising to 4.5% by 2017.[117] The inflation rate was forecast at 4.5% by the end of 2012.[117]" Very out of date.
• "The proportion of skilled workers in Jordan is among the highest in the region" is unsourced and is given with no context. Skilled in what industries?
• Unskilled labourers, including the many foreign ones, could perhaps be mentioned.
• "Jordan has hosted the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa six times and held it for the seventh time in 2013 at the Dead Sea" -> "Jordan has hosted the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa seven times."
• If there is a list of the largest five Jordanian companies, it should all come from one source. Personally I'd simply remove the list as overdetailed, unless a particular company completely dominates some industry or is otherwise unusual in importance, I wouldn't think it worth mentioning in this article. This applies to the entire Economy section.
• "In the past several years, demand has increased rapidly for housing and offices of foreign enterprises based in Jordan to better access the Iraqi market" has an old citation, and seems odd now. Is the Iraqi construction industry still a big draw?
• I'd remove the huge picture and UNESCO box in favour of one picture, so the tourism section fits in with the rest of the article.
• "Tourism accounted for 10%–12% of the country's Gross National Product in 2006" is uncited, and surely there are more recent figures? The last sentence of the section notes a drop in income, but gives no baseline figure to put that drop in context.
• Much of the tourism section reads like an advertisement rather than an encyclopaedia article.
• Why is Jordan's oil shale non-commercial? Too expensive to extract or refine? Combine all the shale information into one paragraph rather than split between paragraphs.
• Why is Jordan a transit country for Iraq? Iraq has its own ports.
• Why does Lloyd's List consider Aqaba so great? Capacity? Infrastructure?
• Rather than giving such detail about individual airports, stick to a summary.
• Information about terrestrial transport infrastructure is lacking. Presumably there's a large road system, is it restricted mostly to the west? Is there a rail system?
• As an example of duplication, nuclear industry is mentioned in Natural Resources and in Science and Technology.
  I feel that thought needs to be put into the structure of the Economy section. Are the current subsections the best way to arrange it? Do they reflect relative importance within the Jordanian Economy?

Demographics

• The city of Al-Salt is called "Al-Salt" in the rest of the article, but "Salt" here. It doesn't matter which one is used, so long as its consistent throughout the article.
• The Immigrants and Refugees subsection contains information about Jordanian citizens as well.
• Do many refugees obtain citizenship? The 1948 Palestinian refugees are mentioned as often having citizenship, but not the others.
• More context needs to be provided for the Palestinian citizenship/yellow card/green card situation. Presumably the revocation was on Palestinians living in the West Bank. How can the yellow card grant all the rights of Jordanian citizenship, but prevent resettlement into Jordan?
• When did various Iraqi refugees arrive?
• How many people is a "relatively large" western expatriate population?
• Jordan paid for 63% of the cost of supporting the refugees within its borders, not of the entire refugee crisis.
• Does the census include the illegal immigrants?
• Does Jordan have Shia, Ibadi, or other Muslim minorities, or are the Amahdis the 7% of non-Sunni Muslims?
• I'd remove the religion bar chart, it doesn't help much given there's only three bars and one completely dominates the others.
• What does it mean for a language to be "acknowledged widely"?
• Are there any rare minority languages?
• Consider adding information somewhere about how citizenship is obtained/passed down.

Culture

• The opening paragraph feels incongruous. If society is both "relatively traditional" and "cosmopolitan", this contradiction needs to be explained.
• More detail on what these traditions are would be good, as well as an explanation of the effects religion has on the culture.
• Rather than note the institutions that represent art, a short summary on the current state of art would be better. Is there a normal style?
• State the language of the musicians, presumably it's Arabic music.
• Is there anything special about any of these musicians? A list of museums does nothing to help the reader, or say anything about Jordan.
• Is much of the media state owned or privately owned? What factors lead to its position as 120th freest?
• How much internet penetration is there in Jordan?
• "Jordanian food can vary from extremely hot and spicy to mild" is a pretty meaningless statement.
• Meze/Mezze is spelt two different ways and is split into two separate paragraphs.
• How does the national Football team do in the AFC Cup?
• How good is the women's team?
• Numbers or other quantification is preferable to statements like "most popular", "gaining popularity", and "many people".
  Is the structure of the culture section reflective of importance within Jordanian culture? There definitely needs to be more information on the generalities, such as influence and history, than what is presented in the current first paragraph.

Health

• Why is the health service the best in the region?
• What are the figures for male/female life expectancy?
• What are the leading causes of death?

Education

• Comparisons to Turkey and Syria seem odd. Why those two? Why compare at all?
• Why the ranges in % of people in secondary/higher education?
• Is the compulsory education free? How many children go through primary education?

CMD (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can address these issues. But if I want to add information, I don't seem to find inclusive sources. Aka I spend a lot of time googling for sources and more time adding these sources. How exactly should I do this? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Information simply can not be added without reliable sources, as covered by wp:reliable sources. In fact, there are a few questionable sources in the current article, and you should replace them if you find better ones, or remove information cited to them. If necessary, although English sources are preferred, you can use arabic sources if they are reliable and you are unable to find an English one. CMD (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean, for example in education section. I can't seem to find a source that discusses all of this, so I will be forced to add a source for each point I want to add... Makeandtoss (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be marking the issues I have addressed with red.. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having a source for each added point. There's absolutely no limit on total source numbers per article. If anything it helps mitigate the risk of copyright violations. CMD (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Issues addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't checked throughout the whole list, but since the first line, "The lead still contains references and information that is nowhere else in the article, as opposed to the guidance in WP:LEAD", has not been addressed, that is not promising. There also remain throughout the article paragraphs that are far too short and subsections a paragraph long. When making your changes, you did not format your references. The above list is was not exhaustive, and as I said before fixing it would lake a lot of work. The fixes also need to move the article forward to GA status, and you should do more than the bare minimum to try and address concerns. CMD (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't looked fixed to me. How do you feel it has been fixed? CMD (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I formatted the refs, removed kinghussein website, added refs from lead to rest of article, fixed size of paragraphs. Did I miss something ?Makeandtoss (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There's still one citation in the lead not in the body. More importantly, it's not about the citation per se, but about the information content. For example, the Palestinian refugee number does not seem to be explained in the article. Furthermore yes, there are still multiple short paragraphs and short subsections throughout the article. CMD (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Fixed the citation. Palestinian refugee number is in fact discussed in the first paragraph of the immigrants subsection. I honestly don't think there is more to be done to the short paragraphs and subsections; I can't add combine two irrelevant content/expand them/place them somewhere else. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually think the situation of the Palestinians may need its own subsection since it seems to be quite complex and different than the other groups. Also cover how Jordanian citizenship is acquired (I gather that by birth it is only through the paternal line [does this apply even if the father is unknown?]). I put together some potential sources at User:Erp/Sandbox Jordan/Palestinians though I haven't yet evaluated them or started to synthesize something. If at that end it isn't long enough, reintegrate it with the whole. Erp (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead states that 2 million Palestinian refugees live in Jordan. The body states that there are almost 2 million Palestinians, but says most are citizens. It then says granting citizenship is rare in recent years (which isn't in the source cited). Are the citizens included in the 2 million refugees in the lead? Are they refugees despite being citizens? Your comment of Erp's subpage explains a bit, but it's not obvious from the article.

Short paragraphs and subsections can be dealt with. Numerous country articles have dealt with them. A couple of exceptions could be admissible with good justification, but this article has quite a few. CMD (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I have removed the word refugees from the Palestinians in the lead. Example; in the 2015 census, there were about 600,000 Palestinians (no Jordanian citizenship) we can mention that the 1,400,000 are Palestinians with a Jordanian nationality, but that would be original research.. As far as I have looked, there's nowhere discussing this aspect in a detailed depth . Makeandtoss (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing the word refugees doesn't fix the problem, its still in a sentence that's about refugees. Regarding the body text, I'm unsure as to where all the current information is sourced from as it stands. Following through onto the specific Jordan link in the cited webpage, this page states that all non-Gaza Strip Palestinian refugees have Jordanian citizenship. This source also has some interesting info. CMD (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The following are the notes from above. I've noted what I don't see as fully addressed, or don't understand how they've been addressed.

Extended content

"Since the dawn of civilization, the country's location at the crossroads of the Middle East has served as a strategic nexus connecting Asia, Africa and Europe." is a long, wp:puffery sentence saying very little, and cited to a source SilkTork noted as unreliable above. The dawn of civilisation, whenever that was, occurred long before the concepts of Asia, Africa, and Europe even existed. Still quite puffery, and quite close to the source. "Archaeologists found evidence on inhabitance dating as far back as the Paleolithic period" is an example of unnecessary attribution common throughout this article. Sources can be mentioned if there is a need to, but there's clearly none here. Easily made more concise through something such as "Inhabited since the Paleolithic, ...". Attribution removed, but I was not suggesting simply adding "Inhabited since the Paleolithic." as a standalone sentence. Is there anything special about Ammon, Moab, and Edom that leads to their being mentioned while former and later kingdoms are not? Remains unclear Similarly, the Nabataean kingdom seems out of place in a list otherwise consisting of the Roman and Ottoman Empires. Remains unclear No mention that Transjordan was established as a British protectorate. Unaddressed Is "The" part of the official name? If not it shouldn't be italicised, if so it should be in the infobox.  Done, although I think it may have gone the wrong way, given the UN notes the official English name lacks the starting The [6]. Conflicting sources would be welcome. The change to the King's title is not given context and doesn't seem very important given the change in the country name is already noted.  Done The theme of the third paragraph is unclear (and it probably shouldn't start with "it") Better, but still both it and the final paragraph cover similar topics in the Economy. How is Jordan especially popular? Compared to what? Is the presence of western expats important enough to be in the lead at all? Unaddressed The claim to be the "safest" country is hugely subjective, reads as very puffery, and blows the citation way out of proportion. Unaddressed Noting "great hospitality" is again puffery. Safe refuge is also puffery, as well as being wrong. There are many safe refuges for Iraqi Christians. Pope Benedict's statement is highly out of place and unduly prominent being mentioned in the lead at all.  Done There is no information about the wider demographics in the lead text.  Done Similarly Tourism is especially mentioned out of all economic areas, despite tourism providing only 10% of GDP according to later on in this article, with the rest of the Economy summed up in one sentence. That this sentence, along with a second on tourism, are in a different paragraph is odd, reflecting a lack of structure in the lead. Unaddressed The reason given for Christian decline is in complete opposition to the source cited (whose reliability I question).  Done, although a mention of Jordan being mostly Sunni I think would do well in the lead. Having "advanced status" in the EU ENP seems unimportant. I'm also unaware of the Euro-Mediterranean FTA being of any major importance. Unaddressed "Although Jordan has very few natural resources, like being the second poorest country in the world in terms of water resources per capita, it has large investments" is poorly worded and the point of it is unclear. Unaddressed "Highly skilled workforce" is an inherently relative term that needs a lot of context to be used, which this lead does not (and should not) provide.  Done The anthem .ogg file partially obscures the English translation.  Done, creative solution. The reason for the selection of cities in the infobox picture is unclear. It doesn't appear to be the top in population per List of cities in Jordan. Unaddressed The Independence box in the infobox should mention the UK. Unaddressed As with the text lead, consider whether information in the infobox would be better cited with more context elsewhere in the article. Etymology Can't access the source, so I don't know what it's citing, but I very much doubt one source covers all the information here. Discussion of English naming would do better from an English source. The French crusader name definitely isn't in that Arabic source. 1921 was the establishment of the Emirate, not a renaming  Done Just as the meaning of "Jordan" is explored, it may be worth giving short mention to the meaning of "Hashemite", if any. History Here, and in a couple of other places, you use "See Also" notes which should be "Main" notes  Done Instead of saying "One of the oldest human statues ever made by human civilisation" say something more useful like "Statue X is from the Y period, Z000 years ago". Still somewhat puffery without context on statue timelines. Details of archaeological digs seem out of place in the history section. Unaddressed Can't access Kleiner et al. source, but it lists pages "11-2" which is obviously wrong. What are the page numbers? The ancient kingdoms aren't kingdoms of Jordan, they're kingdoms in what is now Jordan. The picture chosen may not be the best one, as it is Israel/Judah-focused, with the colouring being irrelevant without that specific context.  Done, although I'd suggest adding colour names to the caption Again there's a lot of attribution of where information comes from, which is useful on more specific pages, but seems undue on a high-level article such as this one. Some parts of the history section still seem far more detailed than others without much reason. The text says the Nabateans established Petra, but the image shows Petra as the capital of the earlier kingdom of Edom.  Done Petra being a tourist attraction is information for elsewhere. More relevant would be something like "carved out temples including Al-Khazneh" (i.e. information about the cause of the attraction, rather than information of it being an attraction). Still out of place in the main text. Understandable in image caption. Information about the Greek period lacks citations.  Done The text goes from Hellenistic rule to Roman rule, and then in the next paragraph begins Roman history again. One really out of place sentence remains. Information about the "spectacular Hellenistic site" (which would be better written as "best-preserved" or similar rather than "spectacular") fits in Tourism if it should be in this article. This also applies to the list of Roman ruins.  Done, although I feel that such information is better in Economy (Tourism) altogether. It reads like there's a gap between direct Imperial rule and autonomy under the Ghassanids. Still no information on the rise of the Ghassanids No context provided for what the "Abbasid movement" is.  Done The timeline of rulers should be integrated with the more detailed information about certain periods in the next paragraph. Unaddressed Considering the length of Ottoman rule, it's surprising that there's no mention of any effects it had on Jordan. The Jordanian government source used says it was mostly a period of stagnation, if other sources agree just mentioning this will be useful.  Done. Still seems sparse, but it's better than before. The Muslim period subsection probably needs more sources. Unaddressed T.E. Lawrence information probably too specific this article, the mention of wider allied support is enough (although perhaps the French deserve specific mention along with the British).  Done, could use copyediting to combine replicated information. It'd be good to have a sentence indicating how Abdullah I was chosen to rule Transjordan. Done, but incorrect. The kingdoms were not divided into four states, one per son. It was much more complicated. Best to just focus on Transjordan. The text notes restrictions on sovereignty were removed by treaty in 1948, but does not give examples of what those were.  Done Context as to why King Hussein sacked all his British soldiers and terminated prior agreements with the British would be useful.  Done Details on specific battles are undue in this article.  Done, more or less. Much cleaner at any rate. It would be worth mentioning explicitly that Jordan's agreement that the PLO represented the Palestinian people meant it had given up all claims on the West Bank (currently explicitly stated in geography).  Done When mentioning the ascension to the throne of Abdullah II, the additional information about Prince Hassan is confusing without further information, and information about the namesake seems implicit enough due to the Roman numerals.  Done The last paragraph seems outdated and unspecific. Rather than announcements, a very concise summary of the effects of the Arab Spring would be better. Unaddressed Understandably, the History section skews to having more content in recent history. More concision in independent history would however be favourable. Geography Mention 34°E instead of 35°E if it's not bounded by 35°E. Unaddressed The Rift Valley is not "of" the River. If anything, it's the other way around, considering the valley goes all the way to the Red Sea while the river doesn't.  Done The first paragraph should be split up, with the geographic boundaries and extremes in one part, and human geography such as cities in another.  Done Perhaps move the Human Geography information to demographics to prevent duplication. Either way, human geography could use some expansion as well; information discussing the concentration of population in the west as opposed to the desert in the East for example.  Done, but unsourced I'd personally move boundary changes to history, keeping this focused on present geography.  Done, removed from Geography although not in History. Probably fine. The BBC link is dead, and the replacement page doesn't seem to have the information it cites here. Unaddressed There's a lot that seems lacking in this section. Some of the background from the existing Natural Resources section, for example (eg. sunlight and forest cover), could fit here, leaving the Economy section to deal more specifically with economic effects. Potential examples of information: Overall land area, north-south distance, perhaps west-east distance although due to Jordan's shape this isn't as useful.  Done, but sources needed Major topographical features. Geography of Jordan is full of detail, but unfortunately lacking in sources. It could still provide inspiration for here.  Done, but sources needed Mention of water features aside from the River Jordan.  Done, but sources needed Note that the Dead Sea does have exiting flow. (Other information about the dead sea could be appropriate here, perhaps taken from current Tourism subsection.) A quick summary of Jordan's ecosystems and the biota they support.  Done, but could use a bit more detail. A quick summary of environmental pressures. Water pressure and desertification come to mind as possibilities, especially given the current drought in the Middle East. Politics and government Information about subdivisions should be present in the text, not just in the caption.  Done, but sources needed Information about Jordan's peace treaty should be in the foreign relations subsection. Unaddressed Does the King pick senators/governors from a pool of people or from anyone he knows?  Done, but sources needed How are the independent politicians chosen? Unaddressed Are the Prime Minister and Cabinet taken from the Legislative bodies or are they separate? Unaddressed What is the length of the election cycle? Explicitly note as well that 2013 was the last election.  Done The name of the Prime Minister would be good, as well as the date of appointment.  Done Perhaps also mention the current crown prince.  Done More detail on the power of the King and of the executive and legislative branches would be good. General information on the constitution should be mentioned here rather than in Crime subsection, as it deals with more than just crime.  Done The first paragraph of Foreign Relations is dangerously close to the original text, I would suggest it falls afoul of WP:COPYVIO. Generally, this is more easily avoided through a greater variety of sources.  Done, better. Rather than a detail of the specific Likud proposal and Jordanian reaction, a general statement noting Jordan's support of Palestinian independence would be preferable.  Done It is also probably worth noting here something about Jordan's monarch's role in Al-Aqsa.  Done Arab League and OIC membership should be noted here and possibly discussed if either plays a major role in Jordan's foreign relations.  Done Perhaps mention possible GCC membership?  Done ENP info needs a source. The source from the lead would probably do.  Done Mention of Syria is conspicuously absent here, including strikes against IS.  Done "Jordanian Armed Forces field hospital in Afghanistan has since 2002 provided assistance to some 750,000 persons and has significantly reduced the suffering of people residing in areas where the hospital operates" is an oddly out-of-place sentence, which is very wp:puffery.  Done "In some missions, the number of Jordanian troops was the second largest, the sources said" is similarly out of place, and doesn't carry much meaning or information. It is also another good example of unnecessary attribution.  Done Information on the Judiciary in Crime and Law Enforcement lacks sources  Done The text mentions three branches of courts, but then goes on to only discuss two, leaving "special" courts unexplained.  Done, although it could use a little more detail. What is the "Family Law"?  Done Again, there is a lot of factors that contribute to safety, and numbers are better than vague statements such as "one of the safest countries in the world".  Done "Female police officers are leading the way in Jordan" is similarly puffery, the information is delivered just as effectively with that phrase simply deleted.  Done A lot of the rankings here are compared with other countries in the region, which is useful, but they should also be put into a global context. The mention of Jordan as 1st in Arab states and 78th globally is a good example, regional comparison first followed by a global comparison.  Done Economy The Economy section starts with notes about being in upper-middle income and having a growing GDP, but then immediately throws in a statistic of poverty. The poverty sentence should be moved to after GDP history, and perhaps context given for decrease over time? 2% isn't much, but presumably it was higher and decreased with increased GDP?  Done Rather than simply saying Jordan has advanced status with the EU, explain the effects of that on the Economy.  Done, although I note it's export with fewer restrictions, rather than simply export. "The government employs between one-third and two-thirds of all workers" shows a huge range. Why the large range? There is a lot of repetition in this section. "Growth was expected to reach 3% by the end of 2012 and the IMF predicts GDP will increase by 3.5% in 2013, rising to 4.5% by 2017.[117] The inflation rate was forecast at 4.5% by the end of 2012.[117]" Very out of date. Add GDP figures in infobox "The proportion of skilled workers in Jordan is among the highest in the region" is unsourced and is given with no context. Skilled in what industries?  Done Unskilled labourers, including the many foreign ones, could perhaps be mentioned. "Jordan has hosted the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa six times and held it for the seventh time in 2013 at the Dead Sea" -> "Jordan has hosted the World Economic Forum on the Middle East and North Africa seven times."  Done If there is a list of the largest five Jordanian companies, it should all come from one source. Personally I'd simply remove the list as overdetailed, unless a particular company completely dominates some industry or is otherwise unusual in importance, I wouldn't think it worth mentioning in this article. This applies to the entire Economy section.  Done "In the past several years, demand has increased rapidly for housing and offices of foreign enterprises based in Jordan to better access the Iraqi market" has an old citation, and seems odd now. Is the Iraqi construction industry still a big draw?  Done I'd remove the huge picture and UNESCO box in favour of one picture, so the tourism section fits in with the rest of the article. Large whole-page image still out of place "Tourism accounted for 10%–12% of the country's Gross National Product in 2006" is uncited, and surely there are more recent figures? The last sentence of the section notes a drop in income, but gives no baseline figure to put that drop in context.  Done Much of the tourism section reads like an advertisement rather than an encyclopaedia article. Better, but could still use work Why is Jordan's oil shale non-commercial? Too expensive to extract or refine? Combine all the shale information into one paragraph rather than split between paragraphs. Still no reasoning provided Why is Jordan a transit country for Iraq? Iraq has its own ports.  Done Why does Lloyd's List consider Aqaba so great? Capacity? Infrastructure? Expansion by itself not a good reason, and text is far too close to source Rather than giving such detail about individual airports, stick to a summary. Unaddressed Information about terrestrial transport infrastructure is lacking. Presumably there's a large road system, is it restricted mostly to the west? Is there a rail system?  Done As an example of duplication, nuclear industry is mentioned in Natural Resources and in Science and Technology.  Done I feel that thought needs to be put into the structure of the Economy section. Are the current subsections the best way to arrange it? Do they reflect relative importance within the Jordanian Economy? Demographics The city of Al-Salt is called "Al-Salt" in the rest of the article, but "Salt" here. It doesn't matter which one is used, so long as its consistent throughout the article.  Done The Immigrants and Refugees subsection contains information about Jordanian citizens as well.  Done Do many refugees obtain citizenship? The 1948 Palestinian refugees are mentioned as often having citizenship, but not the others. More context needs to be provided for the Palestinian citizenship/yellow card/green card situation. Presumably the revocation was on Palestinians living in the West Bank. How can the yellow card grant all the rights of Jordanian citizenship, but prevent resettlement into Jordan? When did various Iraqi refugees arrive?  Done, although none from the recent conflicts? How many people is a "relatively large" western expatriate population? Unaddressed Jordan paid for 63% of the cost of supporting the refugees within its borders, not of the entire refugee crisis.  Done Does the census include the illegal immigrants? Does Jordan have Shia, Ibadi, or other Muslim minorities, or are the Amahdis the 7% of non-Sunni Muslims? Unaddressed I'd remove the religion bar chart, it doesn't help much given there's only three bars and one completely dominates the others.  Done What does it mean for a language to be "acknowledged widely"?  Done Are there any rare minority languages? Consider adding information somewhere about how citizenship is obtained/passed down. More needed, such as passing through paternal line but not maternal line. Culture The opening paragraph feels incongruous. If society is both "relatively traditional" and "cosmopolitan", this contradiction needs to be explained.  Done More detail on what these traditions are would be good, as well as an explanation of the effects religion has on the culture. Unaddressed Rather than note the institutions that represent art, a short summary on the current state of art would be better. Is there a normal style? Unaddressed State the language of the musicians, presumably it's Arabic music.  Done Is there anything special about any of these musicians? A list of museums does nothing to help the reader, or say anything about Jordan. Still overly listy Is much of the media state owned or privately owned? What factors lead to its position as 120th freest?  Done How much internet penetration is there in Jordan?  Done "Jordanian food can vary from extremely hot and spicy to mild" is a pretty meaningless statement.  Done Meze/Mezze is spelt two different ways and is split into two separate paragraphs.  Done How does the national Football team do in the AFC Cup?  Done, more context at any rate. How good is the women's team?  Done Numbers or other quantification is preferable to statements like "most popular", "gaining popularity", and "many people". Is the structure of the culture section reflective of importance within Jordanian culture? There definitely needs to be more information on the generalities, such as influence and history, than what is presented in the current first paragraph. Health Why is the health service the best in the region? Claim still feels unsupported What are the figures for male/female life expectancy?  Done What are the leading causes of death?  Done Education Comparisons to Turkey and Syria seem odd. Why those two? Why compare at all?  Done Why the ranges in % of people in secondary/higher education?  Done Is the compulsory education free? How many children go through primary education?  Done

Progress is being made, but many questions still remain. CMD (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up:

• Ammon, Edom and Moab are mentioned because they are unique due to the fact that they were almost the only form of self governance in Jordan rather than being occupied by some distant empires. Also they are very popular in the old testament and are often attributed to Jordan.

• Nabatean kingdom is also unique, a form of self Arab governance that had left remarkable ruins in Jordan that now form an overwhelming share of its identity.
• How is saying that Jordan is safe being puffery? Its true... Arab countries dealing with ISIS affiliates include; Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan. Arab countries dealing with suicide bombings include; Lebanon, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries. Jordan is at the midst of all this, and most importantly have a large amount and share of refugees unlike the others...
• Tourism is mentioned in the lead because it greatly contributes to the economy, not necessarily in terms of GDP but in terms of hard currency. Also I can't seem to find recent statistics.
• The cities chosen by the map provided by the CIA factbook, are the most influential governorate centers.
• The Arabic source does in fact mention Oultrejordain and discusses the naming in English too.
• Being one of the oldest human statues to be ever made is referenced to many sources, it really isn't puffery.
• Not sure how to find a timeline on region's rulers.
• The BBC link is alive and well.
• I don't really know what to search for here "environmental, water pressures and desertification".
• Independent politicians nominate themselves ?
• Can GDP growth rates be added to infobox?
• There are no statistics on the exact figures of expats.
• Passing of citizenship through paternal line rather than maternal line is due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now if we mention this then we have to elaborate further on why only citizenship is passed paternally, which would require a large amount of coverage. Wouldn't it be easier to avoid mention of it?
• I can't find sources of effect of religion on culture in Jordan

Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Regarding the kingdoms, it's very well that there are reasons, but they should come out in the text.
• Text being puffery is not just about facts, it is about the presentation of facts. It could be a copyediting issue. For example, the third paragraph discusses refugees coming into the country. In it, the phrase "safe refuge" is used, a phrase which is tautologous. Simply "refuge" would suffice. Another example is that the fourth paragraph throws in another sentence with no connection to the surrounding text saying Jordan is safe again,
• I'm not saying Tourism shouldn't be included in the lead, I'm saying it shouldn't be included divided into two portions (now fixed) and separated from other Economy information.
• I'd prefer it if the map is used, it explained this criteria with a caption or something. Possibly a good subject for wider discussion among knowledgable editors.
• It doesn't seem to mention the word in its Latin letters. My worry is that transliteration often leads to confusion when discussing words.
• I can't find the note that they are some of the oldest large-scale statues on either of the two web sources that I can access cited in this article.
• My note about timelines was about how the history section as currently written jumps back and forth a bit every now and then, with lists and details separated.
• Apologies, my unaddressed referred to the source not supporting the cited text, not to it being dead.
• With regards to water pressures and desertification, those are just issues I assumed may be prominent in Jordan, given its geographical location.
• I was wondering why the independent politicians have seats uncontested by parties. The way it was written I assumed that was due to a legal framework.
• I'd add base GDP figures to the text, not growth to the infobox.
• The census doesn't have expats? Interesting. No estimates? Any number would be better than "relatively large".
• Mentioning it passes through the paternal line doesn't require going in depth into the background if that is undue for this article. That said, it would be good if that information was somewhere in wikipedia, and could be linked to from here. I go back to my previous urging that good information you remove from this article should be used to improve more specific articles.
• There must be sources about it somehow. The source currently cited implies there's a conservative rural culture linked to Islam, while Amman is more liberal.

CMD (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up:

• Added caption to map.
• Check british museum link for ain ghazal statues
• Not sure what to do with timelines in history
• BBC link mentions wet climate in west but i cant find source on inhabitance on west
• Desertification mentioned in natural resources
• Independent politicians prefer to nominate themselves independently because the chances of their winning in parties is lower than independently
• Where do i find recent data on gdp?
• No expat info yet. Census detailed study is yet to be published. I will add them as soon as they are out
• Mentioning that citizenship passes only paternally will mislead people into thinking that Jordan is some extremist theocracy that discriminates upon women. (While true in some cases), here its solely for one reason; minimizing the amount of Jordanians from a Palestinian origin so that far right Zionist nut jobs could stop advertising that Jordan should be a Palestinian state because it has a Palestinian majority living under a bedouin minority dictatorship. Long story short, lets avoid mention.
• Cant find sources on cultural differences between Amman and rest of Jordan.

The rest is addressed Makeandtoss (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can't actually access the British Museum source, there's an error message instead. Still, the current wording is already better than the initial wording when I made the comment.
• Integrate the timelines with the main prose. Perhaps look over history articles in other articles for ideas.
• The BBC link is used to support more text than that.
• Why don't the parties contest all seats?
• The GDP data in the infobox seems fine to include in the main prose.
• While I don't know how reliable RT is considered, it provides a start for some slight rewording.

At any rate, this GAN has gone past the advised 7 days, and as I don't see its issues being resolved in very quick manner, so I'm afraid I have to close this GAN as not passed. It retains copywriting issues throughout, and needs a comprehensive run-through. I also have concerns about the sourcing, in addition to those that have been raised recently here and in edits to the Jordan page. Some text is unsourced, or is before a source which only supports some of it. I am unsure of the reliability of some sources. Some of those unreliable sources have been mentioned or removed already, but others, such as BiblePlaces.com and mafhoum.com. Others are incomplete, such as "Morris, 2008, p. 214, 215", or the Brandt Travel guide cited three times separately once without a page number. One source is even attributed to wayback machine. Many sources lack access dates. I recommend checking sources to make sure they're reliable and that they support the information cited, and then updating the accessdates while this is being done. I also recommend going through various MOS guidelines and making sure this page matches them as best as possible. On the specific advice of structure, short paragraphs should be combined with surrounding paragraphs as best as possible. Furthermore, I would suggest that if a topic does not merit within WP:SUMMARYSTYLE at least two, preferably three, paragraphs on this article, it should not have its own subheading.

I would like to clarify that this is in no way a bad article. It is informative, and has improved greatly over the course of this GAN, and it looks like it continues to improve. I hope editors continue to improve this article, and I am happy to give further advice if wanted. Best regards, CMD (talk) 13:11, 18 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. Zero^talk 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 [7]), 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

• 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.

Short, complete, and juicy is what we want. Other people might have other ideas Erp (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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[8]. 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. @Erp: 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 @Makeandtoss: a while back that I would give him feedback about the article and @Erp: 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)

@Al Ameer son: 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 Wikipedia:Republishers. I will be yanking all their citations from the article Erp (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Erp: 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 Mayerson, Philip (1988). "Justinian's Novel 103 and the Reorganization of Palestine". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (269): 65–71. doi:10.2307/1356951. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) 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

@Chipmunkdavis: Fixed issues. What's next? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Erp: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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 Wikipedia: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)

@Chipmunkdavis: 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:

• Pew Research
• CIA - The World Factbook.

79.177.137.186 (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

@Al Ameer son: 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 "Rogan, Eugene L.; Tell, Tariq, eds. (1994). Village, Steppe and State: The Social Origins of Modern Jordan. London: British Academic Press. ISBN 1-85043-829-3.". 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)

@Al Ameer son: 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)

@Makeandtoss: 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. @Zero0000: 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. @Al Ameer son: 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)

@Makeandtoss: 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. @Chipmunkdavis: Makeandtoss (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Makeandtoss - This article doesn't belong to you

This article belongs to Wikipedia.

• 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.

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope to review this article soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	This article isn't always clear or concise. Just from the lead "The capital, Amman, is Jordan's most populous city as well as the country's economic and cultural centre" and "What is now Jordan has been inhabited by humans since the Paleolithic period". Sorry to fail this.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The lead is cluttered with citations, which should be moved to the main body of the article if possible. The layout of the article is good though, except that it mentions in the lead about medical tourism and well developed health sector and their no subsections for these. It also appears to be free of weasel words.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	I translated the titles in Arabic and added a {{subscription required}} tag. Furthermore I repaired 1 and tagged 2 external links using Checklinks. Other than that no problems were present.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources appear to be reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	It appears to be all cited.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	It passed Earwig's Copyvio Detector as provided, but could go through rewrites to appear less like these texts.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The concern from 1(b) applies here too.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
All viewpoints are presented neutrally.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
A look at the article history shows some reversions, but not an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	A possible problem here. Please look in the discussion section for more information. Update: Solved.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All good here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	It looks like a fail here, but I'm a newcomer so I'm going to get a 2nd opinion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC) After the 2nd opinion and having some work done I feel this article is now good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Images

• 
  This image isn't avaible for use as the source tag is incorrect and non-free. As per Flickr This issue has also been brought up at Commons.

Comments

To be concise doesn't mean to remove important details like the status of Amman/inhabitance date.

The picture of King Abdullah has an ORTS ticket..

Perhaps @Chipmunkdavis: would be willing to give a second opinion as he had reviewed the article previously. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait and listen to what s/he says first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Given my previous review of this article and subsequent increased involvement on it, I do not want to make a final call on this GAN and thus do not want to be the official second reviewer, although I believe Emir is free to withdraw the request for a second review if they wish to. I am however happy to comment on the issues raised:

1a) The first example of wording I don't see an issue with, the second I agree is clunky, but not imperfect. A better elaboration on this would be appreciated, especially given this has been copyedited by multiple people in recent months. There's of course always room for improvement, which your explanations or suggestions would help with whatever the outcome of this GAN.

1b) I agree that the lead is very cluttered with cites; I noted a similar situation in my GAN. However, in the intervening time, the article has been edited such that majority of the cites in the lead already occur in the body, and could if you feel it important, simply be removed from the article with no other actions needed. I'm sure Makeandtoss would be able to look over the remaining few in a matter of minutes, and should be offered the chance to do so if this is all that holds back the article.

1b/3a) Broadness is not determined by subsections, but by content. Country articles have even been promoted to FA with no subsections. At any rate, there is in this case both a Tourism subsection and a Health & Education subsection, with medical tourism and health covered, so I do not think this is a coverage issue. Anyway, if you wish, subsections can be added, although personally I would disagree with this as I feel the article has too many subsections already.

6a) Clarification would be good here as to the issues identified with the image, as it has an OTRS tag. At any rate, an issue with a single image is not a reason to immediately fail the article, as editors should be given a chance to replace it, or just remove it if there's no appropriate replacement.

In summary, from my reading of your issues Emir, the only one that may take substantial time to solve is prose. GAN allows reviews to be put on hold for an agreed amount of time, a week by default, so if you think Makeandtoss can fix the issues within a week, I would suggest putting the GAN on hold and providing a fuller listing of your issues with the article for them to work over. If you think they could not do it in a week, or if after a week you feel the issues have not been fixed, then when failing I would also suggest adding a comprehensive explanation to base future work off. Best, CMD (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As CMD notes, it is typical—indeed expected—that if the issues raised in the initial review could reasonably be fixed in a week's time, that the article is put on hold. After that week, it is up to the reviewer, but if good progress is being made, further time is often allowed. This article does not seem, based on what's written here, to meet the conditions given in the GA criteria for an immediate failure. As the criteria page says, In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have put this article on hold as the problems are minor. Furthermore I have mentioned the image concern at Commons, and am waiting to hear their reply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: The image is suitable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume the density of citations in the lead is now suitable ? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep it is suitable and looks much better now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Update. I have listed the article as good as I think sufficient improvements have been made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 1 September 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)

@Chipmunkdavis:.

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)

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 <2 are 2 are2 >) 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 ...

“ Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River are the location for the Baptism of Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist. ”

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

There is no archaeological evidence of Jesus ever having been baptized in these waters; however, the Jordanian, eastern side of the traditional baptism area of Al-Maghtas has been accepted by various Christian denominations as the authentic site of the baptism of Jesus.

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)...

Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River. The site is purported by various Christian denominations to have been the location for the Baptism of Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist.

... or, (B) ...

Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River considered by various Christian denominations to have been the location for the Baptism of Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist.

... or, (C) ...

Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River purported to have been the location for the Baptism of Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist.

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

Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River.

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." Makeandtoss, no, it generally doesn't. More so perhaps 'to claim regardless of having proof or not'. Wiktionary:purported, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. 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 wikt: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 ...

ICOMOS further notes that historical structures associated with the baptism of Jesus exist on the western banks of the Jordan River. However, it seems that pilgrimage of most churches is focused on “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” [...] ICOMOS considers that the evidence provided in the nomination dossier does not doubtlessly prove that the archaeological structures of Jabal Mar Elias and the churches near the Jordan River are indeed related to the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth, while also noting that several locations along the Jordan River have historically made similar claims.

whc.unesco.org/archive/2015[emphasis added]

... and ...

The Baptism Site “Bethany beyond the Jordan” (Al-Maghtas) is considered by the majority of the Christian Churches to be the location where John the Baptist baptised Jesus.

whc.unesco.org[emphasis added]

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) ...

The Al-Maghtas ruins on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River – long considered by many Christian groups to have been the location for the Baptism of Jesus and the ministry of John the Baptist.

... as a more accurate and encyclopedic option.

Makeandtoss, 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[17] but then overworked[18] 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[19] 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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