Jump to content

Talk:Jordan/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Jordan’s western borders

State of Palestine is recognized by 137 out of 193 nations. It is also a non-member observer state at the United Nations. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It is partially recognized, not a full state (a non-member), and more importantly doea not have soverignity - and in particular does not control the border (or anything close to it) with Jordan. West Bank is factual, and does not introduce politics and POV into what can be described in a factual manner.Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Both Britannica and the CIA Factbook - list the West Bank as a bordering entity. Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Then I will add both as middle ground. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not a middle ground as it has us endorsing SoP in the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
137 nations, more than two thirds of all states, already endorse that. The world does not revolve around the US, Western Europe and Australia. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
So? This is clearly a contested view, and even a recognized SoP has contested borders. Other tietary sources, cited above, merely say West Bank - skirting around the topic which is of little relevance to this article.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Makeandtoss: Even if we accept the premise that the State of Palestine exists—which is far from universally accepted—it still lacks any recognized (or controlled, for that matter) borders in the West Bank. Do you know that all these 137 countries recognize the borders claimed by the Palestinian Authority? I certainly don't. What I do know is that Israel exercises full civil and military control over the Jordan Valley (part of Area C), which is what the Kingdom of Jordan borders to the west. I am sure that this can and will be discussed further, but in the mean time, I will add Icewhiz's sources to the article and remove "Palestine". Light Millennia (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There are clearly reliable sources on both sides of this, so per WP:NPOV we need to mention majority and significant minority positions. But this article isn't about recognition of Palestine, and I believe that Makeandtoss's intent here (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to discuss the statement near the top of the article concerning bordering countries. If that's the case, then let's talk concretely about the different wording possibilities, rather than arguing about the political status of Palestine, which is off-topic here. Let's start with what we agree on. Can we all agree that filling in the blank in this sentence, is the locus of the content dispute?

Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south, Iraq to the north-east, Syria to the north and Israel and < what do we want to say here?> to the west.

Are we agreed on that? I.e., nobody here has a problem with what's lies to the south, northeast, or north, right? Furthermore, I don't think anybody is saying that Israel should not be listed; ie., the southwest border of Jordan and the far northwest border of Jordan touch Israel and we're all okay with that. Right so far?

Assuming we agree on that, here are some of the wording possibilities, culled from different versions of the article. The earliest one I could find talking about the western border, was from December 2003 (#1 below):

List of wording proposals for western border of Jordan
  1. v. 1893373: ...and [[Israel]] and [[West Bank]] to the west.
  2. v. 32804507: ...and [[Israel]] and the Israeli-administered [[West Bank]] to the west
  3. v. 40892245: ...and [[Israel]] and the [[Palestinian territories]] to the west
  4. v. 872530140: ...and [[Israel]] and [[State of Palestine|Palestine]] to the west.
  5. v. 872538235: ...and [[Israel]] and [[State of Palestine|Palestine]] ([[West Bank]]) to the west.
  6. v. 872530140: ...and [[Israel]] and the [[West Bank]] to the west.
  7. (proposed) ...and [[Israel]] and the [[West Bank]] ([[State of Palestine|Palestine]]) to the west.
  8. (proposed) ...and the [[West Bank]], recognized by Jordan as part of [[State of Palestine|Palestine]], and [[Israel]] to the west.

There may be more wording possibilities; if so, please add them and what version they're from, and then we can pick one of the above (or a new version). Whatever is decided, it should be decided on policy grounds. Arguing about the number of nations that recognize a country is off-topic, except insofar as policy statements about reliable sources can be brought to bear on the argument.

My personal opinion here, is that reliable sources can be found for both cases, and that neither one is a fringe viewpoint. Since that is the case, policy requires both viewpoints to be stated. The NPOV section of Verifiability policy says: All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included. Regardless what wording we end up with, it's perfectly clear that both "West Bank" as well as "Palestine" are "significant minority viewpoints" at the very least; therefore, neither can be excluded.

Therefore, based on that policy statement, and the fact that both terms are in common use, my preference would be for either #5, or #7. The choice of which one to choose, would depend on whether "West Bank" or "Palestine" was the more common name, when searching reliable sources. Discussions of stable or unstable borders are not policy-based, and are therefore a red herring, and are not a reason to sway the choice one way, or the other. The same can be said of the number of countries recognizing or refusing to recognize one state, or the other. Stick to policy, please. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:Makeandtoss. Would you mind changing the section title of this section to something neutral, like perhaps What borders Jordan to the west, or Jordan's western border or something to that effect? I'm afraid with the title "Palestinian West Bank" it might make people with a different viewpoint dig in their heels more than necessary. Since you started this section, per WP:TPO I cannot change the section title you created, but you can change it (or anyone can, if you give the okay to do so). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
SoP existence is contested, and furthermore it lacks any actual control of the border area (as opposed to the inland cities in area A). #1 (West Bank) is factual, and avoids questions in an unrelated article on the status of SoP (and its control of territory). It also matches what other trietary RS chose to say. #3 can also work, but one would need to do "Palestinian territories (West Bank)" due to the disjoint Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, its existence is contested, that makes it a minority viewpoint. (Unless it's the majority viewpoint, which it might be, but at the worst, it's a minority viewpoint; wouldn't you agree?) It lacks control of the border area, true, but that is probably true of any weak country in the world; but more to the point, show me a WP policy that discusses this. If there isn't one, then this is a red herring, and plays no role in deciding the outcome of this discussion. You say it matches what other tertiary sources say, and you may be right, but please offer evidence, since this is the sticking point in this discussion.
Regarding the disjoint Gaza point: yes, I had thought of this as well, and I wondered how or if that plays a role here. I doubt there's a specific policy statement about it, which means we must rely on what reliable sources say. The situation is analogous to Pakistan before Bangla Desh, and it might be instructive to know what RSes said then, although it wouldn't be decisive, since this is a different situation. In any case, at this point I'm opposed to "Palestinian territories", although that's just my opinion, and I can't yet articulate why based on policy, so I'll have to think some more about that. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Not such a minority (if at all a minority), and Israeli control of the border is obviously relevant to the border. Saying West Bank is factual (or a clear majority view) - as it is simply the COMMONNAME of the adjacent territory (and leaves the question of SoP's claims and Israeli de facto control out of the infobox).Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I think you're making this a bit more complicated than it has to be. If we all agree that the relevant question here is what does Jordan border with?, then we can't write "Palestine" (state) since it neither controls, nor is recognized as being the sovereign of any territory bordering with Jordan. The "Palestinian territories" may be used, though I think it'd be a bit redundant since we'll still have to include the "West Bank" to specify the geographical location. The latter is also less politicized, making it more neutral. Finally, it constituted for >85% of all Google searches for the two terms during the last year. Light Millennia (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Jordan does recognize Palestine so from the Jordanian viewpoint one bordering state is Palestine so "the West Bank, recognized by Jordan as part of Palestine," could be part of the phrase. --Erp (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Light Millennia, given that this situation pretty much started in 1948 and has resisted a definitive resolution for 70 years, your comment about my "making this a bit more complicated than it has to be" gave me a good laugh, so thanks for that. But let's get back to the complex question. I do agree that the question "what does Jordan border with" is the relevant question, but I don't agree with your then-clause because your logic is flawed: your if-statement, while true, does not imply your assertion about writing Palestine. Furthermore, imho, the bulk ofyour last comment is a red herring irrelevant to this discussion; you talk about things like border control and sovereign territory, but you avoid, or at least have neglected so far, to say anything about Wikipedia policy. I tend to agree with your comment about "Palestinian territories" vs "West Bank"; but I think we need to firm that up with better data about what reliable sources say.
I appreciate your last comment, because it seems like an attempt on your part to tie this question to what the actual sources are saying, and that's where we need to be heading. However, the actual source you picked (Trends) does not meet the criteria for a reliable source, for more or less the same reasons that iMDB, Urban Dictionary, and even Wikipedia itself do not: since anyone can perform a search on Google and add data to Trends, just like anyone can edit Wikipedia. You could organize an online campaign on social media, and get Trends to say something different in a few days. Even worse, you cannot draw any conclusion about why someone is searching for a term: are people searching for "Moon landing hoax" because they think it's true, or because they think it's false? So, for both reasons, any data you have from Google Trends is irrelevant here for this question. Data from Google books, on the other hand, would be highly relevant. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Erp, I've added your suggestion as #8 in the list above. I adapted it to use structure parallel to the previous ones; please make sure it agrees with your intent; if not, feel free to change it or remove it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Heh, then let me make you and even laugh more as I would argue that the modern conflict started long before 1948. ;)
But seriously, I do think that this particular issue is really quite simple. We should just use the most WP:NPOV, WP:RS description for what Jordan borders to the west, which I'm arguing is the West Bank.
I don't understand what you mean by you talk about things like border control and sovereign territory, but you avoid, or at least have neglected so far, to say anything about Wikipedia policy. If an entity lacks both sovereignity and recognition of a claimed territory, how can another entity then have a border with it? And what Wikipedia policy are you referring to?
My link to Google Trends was not a source per se, but rather a reference to WP:COMMONNAME. Light Millennia (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
You might be right about the earlier start date! WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to Google Trends. Common name applies to what's common in Reliable sources. Google Trends comes from free, unmoderated, user input; ipso facto not a reliable source. Google books generally turns up reliable sources (though you have to be careful, because some people write books entirely by copying Wikipedia, for example, and those are indexed by Google books, but are not reliable.) But citing Google books, for example, would be a starting point to see what the common name is. Mathglot (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
"If an entity lacks both sovereignity and recognition of a claimed territory, how can another entity then have a border with it?" – see, the thing is, you're trying to logic your way to an answer here, and I grant you, that if we were in the debating society, you'd score some big points, and maybe win, with comments like that. But, this is not a debating society, and the exact things that work well there, are considered Original research here, and don't count at all. You're still relatively new here, and it's a real hill to climb at Wikipedia for a new editor, to realize it isn't about Truth with a capital T; all your opinions, and your best logic isn't worth a penny here; even your personal knowledge of a situation because you were literally present and witnessed an event, counts for zero. The only thing that counts, is what the preponderance of Reliable sources say; that's it, full stop. When the majority of Reliable sources get something "wrong", because you were there, and you saw it, and the news reporter got it wrong and reported it wrong and then all the other sources did the same thing—then Wikipedia is wrong; but that's still what the article must say. That's why I said that your logic about borders and sovereignty don't matter; because you're using your understanding of "border" to say, "not sovereign, therefore no border, end of story." Don't do that. Don't use your logic, just forget that approach entirely. That would make it OR or SYNTH; instead, just go to the Reliable sources, see what they say, compile the data, figure out the majority, minority, and FRINGE positions, use the first two in the article, and drop the third. That's literally it: that's what we do as Wikipedia editors. See WP:TRUTH. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
It indicates the popularity of different search words on Google. That's hardly a form of "user input".
Anyway, in addition to Britannica and CIA Factbook (as already provided by Icewhiz), we have Encyclopedia The West Bank refers to the territory situated west of the Jordan River, MidEastWeb The West Bank is the area west of the Jordan river, Merriam-Webster area of the Middle East west of the Jordan River, Oxford Dictionaries region west of the River Jordan, etc.
Edit: I posted the above before I read your last reply (which could be useful for me in future scenarios, so thank you), but my answer here pretty much still remains & applies in the same way. Light Millennia (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's user input, because you can search for whatever you want, and it will get published by Google (they probably strike certain libelous or illegal things, but barring that). You can't get your words published by McGraw Hill or Elsevier, until you've met a certain bar; but when they do publish your words, your words will be a reliable source. (Plus, you'll get paid for them.) So, no, Trends is useless as far as determining common name, as anybody can go get their favorite words published there. Try books.google.com instead. Mathglot (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've transposed the West Bank/Palestine and Israel in the last suggested phrasing so it is clear that we are not intending Palestine as recognized by Jordan to include Israel (Jordan also recognizes Israel). --Erp (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing the part that Jordan recognizes Palestine just complicates the prose. I think the most suitable term is the Palestinian territories. First of all it is used by the European Union, which mainly does not recognize the State of Palestine. So they clearly see that as a neutral wording. This may be the only non-biased wording: one that reaffirms the Palestinian character of the West Bank and yet one that recognizes the controversies behind the borders of the territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Struck comments by indef-blocked sock. Mathglot (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As of this date, Option 5 in the #List of options above is used in the current version, and hasn't changed for a while (perhaps due to this discussion?). Is that our consensus, then? Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe just the West Bank is fine. Just like the statement "Occitania borders Catalonia" doesn't take a position on the Catalan independence movement, the statement "Jordan borders the West Bank" does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I understand this statement goes against previous consensus, but consensus can change. RomanHannibal (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The motto in the coat of arms still says in Arabic “Al-Hussein bin Talal” instead of “Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein” 178.135.11.111 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The motto of the coat of arms is not mentioned in the article. RomanHannibal (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the issue is that perhaps the coat of arms in the article is not the current coat of arms. However what seems to be official has "Abdullah I ibn Al Hussein Bin Aoun" https://kingabdullah.jo/en/page/about-jordan/coat-arms Erp (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Levant or Western Asia?

I recently changed the region that Jordan is in from Western Asia to the Levant. I did so because Western Asia contains the entire Middle East plus more while the Levant refers to the specific region that Jordan is in. See www.worldatlas.com/articles/where-is-the-levant.html. While verifiability is a key pillar of Wikipedia, there is no need to use the exact language of the sources. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is both. Western Asia is actually smaller than the Middle East, including the Caucasus but excluding Egypt. Levant is just a traditional name for an area of the Near East (also a traditional name). Western Asia is a modern, formal name. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
How about “the Levant region of West Asia” as a compromise? Western Asia instead of West Asia in that phrase is also fine by me. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Once again, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that sources should be paraphrased. Every point should be verified, but not necessarily paraphrased by sources. @Iskandar323, please respond before undoing my edit. RomanHannibal (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't undo it, I changed it. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe my proposed compromise should be kept. To give another example, Cordoba is in the autonomous community of Andalusia, Spain. Most sources would just mention Spain (whether tourism, short pieces or passing mentions of the city). However, the article lists the autonomous community before the country. Same here with the Levant and Western Asia. RomanHannibal (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not the same. Cordoba is a city. Jordan is a country. "Levant" is not an official region of any kind; just a historic, sometimes useful area nickname. Western Asia is an official, defined region, and the Levant is not a sub-region of it. If you look at Levant page you will notice that in the past, some definitions of this have included Egypt, eastern Libya, Turkey and Greece, among other geographies. These are not equal terms, and only one is used by the UN, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
There are various definitions for Western Asia too. WorldAtlas excludes Iran, while Iran itself and the Wikipedia map includes it. The UN map of Western Asia doesn’t include boundaries. RomanHannibal (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I made it clear that the modern definition (Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel-Palestine and perhaps Iraq and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula) is being used in a footnote. How about that for a compromise? RomanHannibal (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'm afraid your version of the lead simply duplicated the use of Levant twice, so not ideal. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Until consensus is formed, how about "Country in the Levant, Western Asia" as a compromise? RomanHannibal (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? What's the problem now? I haven't touched your version. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Levant could either refer to Greater Syria (Bilad Al-Sham), a commonly used informal terminology in Arabic and in Jordan, or to the broader Turkey-Cyprus-even Egypt region. Throwing a footnote won't be helpful to clarify what that entails. Keep out to avoid confusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

West Bank or Palestinian West Bank?

See Jordan's western borders section above. There is no overwhelming consensus that Palestinian West Bank should be used. In fact, some editors were arguing just West Bank due to common names and NPOV and there was no overwhelming majority to counter it. I also added a new argument stating that not explicitly writing Palestinian does not take a position on the conflict. My comment:

I believe just the West Bank is fine. Just like the statement "Occitania borders Catalonia" doesn't take a position on the Catalan independence movement, the statement "Jordan borders the West Bank" does not take a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I understand this statement goes against previous consensus, but consensus can change. RomanHannibal (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear if there even is a previous consensus. The previous discussion is a mess. Maybe we should request mediation however Makeandtoss, the defender of Palestinian West Bank, or some of proponent of the Palestinian West Bank, should at least summarize the alleged consensus and respond to my argument as a reply before reverting. RomanHannibal (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I propose changing into "the Palestinian territory of the West Bank", as this includes two widely used terms. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
That’s still contentious among those who don’t recognise the State of Palestine, which comprise a significant minority. Anyone who follows to the West Bank article will realize that the majority considers it a a Palestinian territory and the minority considers it either a disputed territory and/or part of Israel. Rejecting the significant minority, especially when there is a way not to reject either side, is a violation of WP:NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
A minority viewpoint that has zero basis in international law and UNSCR resolutions. Western countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine consider the West Bank to be part of Palestinian territories. If Israel says the sky is red and not blue, then that it is its own problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter what you think about the minority viewpoint. Every proponent of the majority viewpoint in any dispute disagrees with the minority viewpoint(s), and vice versa. The rules of Wikipedia state that articles must stay neutral relative to all majority and significant minority viewpoints.

Considering the West Bank as disputed/part of Israel is very significant. The US recently declared the settlements weren’t illegal. Israel is a very powerful geopolitical player. More than half a million people live in the settlements. Many non-profits in the settlements receive tons of donations from foreign supporters (Yeshivat Har Etzion is a good example). In conclusion, Israel’s position has significant support both in
Israel and abroad. Therefore is a significant minority viewpoint for WP:NPOV and cannot be rejected by the article. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If you want reliable sources who promote this minority viewpoint, take a look at the Jerusalem Post, JNS, and the semi-reliable Arutz Sheva. Yes, reliable sources do promote the viewpoint that the West Bank is a disputed territory and/or part of Israel. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Putin has said "there is no Ukraine", do you find Wikipedia saying in the Poland article that it is "bordered by Ukraine to the east, but this is refuted by Russia."? It is a significant minority viewpoint after all according to this logic. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is talking about a significant minority of reliable sources, not a significant minority of people. There are reliable sources that support the minority position (see above for examples), which amount to a significant minority. There is no significant minority of reliable sources that support Putin’s claim to all of Ukraine.
Additionally, many reliable sources that support the majority position state it as the opinion of the vast majority of the international community and not as absolute fact. This is not done with the controversy about the existence of Ukraine. RomanHannibal (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss and @Tombah, I invite you to go onto WP:DRN and state your side of the story there. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: Due to the lack of a timely response, I edited the article to replace "Palestinian West Bank" with "West Bank". In my opinion, I removed non-NPOV content. With Tombah (talk) thanking me for that edit, the interim consensus is now 2-1. Unless the "Palestinian West Bank" version can gain a majority (without canvassing and meatpuppetry, of course) please do not change it back to "Palestinian West Bank." Thanks, RomanHannibal (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. This edit or variants of it now appears in various places, WP is not the place for engaging in personal crusades. If there is an issue that needs a central discussion then do that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
How? How do I start a site-wide discussion on this topic? RomanHannibal (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Which topic? If State of Palestine, then there, else Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I just started a discussion there. RomanHannibal (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
It's on WikiProject Israel-Palestine Collaboration. RomanHannibal (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So the question is if and how to adjust "Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south and east, Iraq to the northeast, Syria to the north, and the Palestinian West Bank and Israel to the west." in the lead (and possibly the similar sentence in the Geography section). I note these are all political entities but "West Bank" alone isn't. We could go with "occupied West Bank", "Palestinian West Bank", or "Palestine". I note that Palestine does have non-member observer status in the UN and a certain amount of self-governance. Also the West Bank prior to 1968 was controlled by Jordan, the subject of this entry, but that Jordan has since recognized Palestine. I'm inclined to go with the current status. We could go with "Palestinian/Occupied West Bank" since almost every country recognizes it as either Palestinian or Occupied or both. --Erp (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m willing to compromise on “Israeli-occupied West Bank.” Should Israel annex the West Bank, we should change it to Israeli-annexed West Bank.
This may be controversial among the Israeli right. However, the definition of an occupation is when one country controls territory without formal annexation. Should Israel annex the West Bank, the term occupation will be used only by those who don’t recognise the annexation. Then, the term occupation will be a POV. RomanHannibal (talk)12:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus here for any such change, nor at the related discussion at State of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I walk back the comment I struck above. No descriptor of West Bank is the most conforming to NPOV. RomanHannibal (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
No consensus for that either. It's perfectly fine the way it is now. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I note that User:RomanHannibal seems to have been blocked indefinitely as a probable sockpuppet. Is anyone else suggesting we make a change from what we have now in regards to Palestinian West Bank in the intro? --Erp (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a change is a must. The current wording is problematic for two main reasons:
(1) While it is true that the majority of the world community sees the West Bank as part of the "Palestinian territories," describing the area as "Palestinian" is not a true reflection of the West Bank's far more complex current situation. The Jordan Valley is part of Area C, which is governed by Israel in accordance with the Oslo Accords, which acknowledged Israel as the entity (until final agreement is reached) in charge of the West Bank and Jordan borders, both de facto and de jure. The current wording completely ignores the current state of reality.
(2) Using the term "Palestinian" to refer to the "State of Palestine" rather than the "Palestinian Territories" implies that Wikipedia has endorsed a political entity that is largely unrecognized in English-speaking countries (and this is English Wikipedia after all). Moreover, those that recognize Palestine could or might not agree on its boundaries (For instance, the Palestinian embassy in Tunisia portrays Palestine as entirely replacing Israel). The "State of Palestine", as opposed to the Palestinian Authority that governs areas A and B of the West Bank is an entity with no clearly defined borders. The current wording suggests that English Wikipedia has chosen sides and even established the boundaries of the "State of Palestine" on its own.
I believe the best course of action is to simply leave it as "West Bank" without any additional qualifiers. To understand more about its complicated and contentious position, readers can jump to the relevant article. Tombah (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The Oslo Accords specified that administration of Area C was to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority within a few years. Given that Israel shows the Accords nothing but contempt, why should we care about them? As for maps, it is actually the Israeli Government and all its branches all the way down to schools that most commonly erases the Green Line. In fact erasure of the Green Line from official maps has been Israeli policy since 1967. Zerotalk 07:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
the West Bank's far more complex current situation. Twaddle. This response is nearly the same as written here, the promoter of this hasbara being currently blocked as a sock that attempted to push this to various pages and in this particular case, was "thanked" by Tombah, as can be seen in the mutual back scratching here. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Your argument does not make sense. You say the West Bank is Palestinian territory but then reject the label Palestinian because Israel is in charge of Area C. Even if Israel is in charge of Area C, doesn't change the fact that the West Bank is part of the Palestinian territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
There probably is no wording that everyone or even an overwhelming majority would agree is neutral. We could have "Israel and Israeli occupied West Bank (once part of Jordan now recognized by Jordan as part of Palestine)". Which gives the current de facto status "occupied" and a pocket summary on how Jordan sees/saw it. For this article it is very relevant that this area was once part of Jordan and how Jordan perceives it now. Erp (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This should be a brief sentence about borders, not a geopolitical and historical analysis, which is provided in the second lede paragraph anyway:
Any omission of the word Palestine from the sentence on borders and West Bank is unacceptable in any form as it does not reflect overwhelming majority of sources, that at the very least call the West Bank part of the Palestinian territories, including western countries who do not recognize a Palestinian state and vehemently oppose attempts at annexation and changing facts on the ground through expansion of settlements (see very recent US and EU condemnations in that regard). Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the WB is an area claimed by State of Palestine ("Palestinian" refers), a claim recognized at the UN by way of numerous resolutions. The arguably contentious part is the claim that there is a State of Palestine, not the claim itself, since Israel is in a minority of one in disputing East Jerusalem. Israel has not claimed sovereignty over the occupied area other than EJ so who is the sovereign? Israel sometimes says the reversioner is Jordan, yet another dubious minority opinion. Jordan transferred all its claims, whatever they were, to the Palestinians.
Since we cannot explain the whole thing in the lead, just saying "Palestinian" seems reasonable, the only thing that one might argue with is the wikilink to SoP. It could be linked to Palestinian territories instead but since the OPT are the same areas as that claimed by SoP there is no real difference. Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
It was a very clear sockpuppet but with no evidence I hesitated to make that accusation. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chad which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads of Asia, Africa and "Europe"

Jordan is nowhere near Europe and is not transcontinental. I wouldn't even consider Israel the crossroads between Asia, Africa and Europe. Even Africa is a stretch. Why are we not allowed to change this to just West Asia? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's silly, except perhaps in the tenuous sense that the Middle East is the crossroads for traffic from the three continents and Jordan is a county in the Middle East. But in that sense it fails to characterize Jordan specifically while giving the impression that it does. Even if the cited source calls it that, surely we can distinguish between assertions of objective fact and overblown, flowery language of a subjective nature. Largoplazo (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan/Archive_3&oldid=1273488842"