Talk:Jordan/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
- @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)
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)
- 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.
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: 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)
- 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: 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)
- 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 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)
- 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: Is that necessary? For example Turkey is a good article and its prose its about 72kb..Makeandtoss (talk) 22:29, 13 June 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: A copyedit was completed by a volunteer. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok.. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:30, 17 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)
- 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)
- Also, do you have any other comments on references/sections/prose/images/etc..? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Erp: How would I know that? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 11 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
Adding graphs for statistics
Is there any reason why should the article of Jordan be any different to other articles showcasing visual methods of statistic representations, also known as graphs? Of course not. I see no reason to remove statistics regarding its demographics, using both these well-known sources:
79.177.137.186 (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- There is on 'demographics' subsection of 'section by section concerns' section. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:30, 7 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes because Jordan is not as diverse as others. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 5 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®ion_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)
- 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)
- I would go only with the Pew statistics http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/jordan#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2010®ion_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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 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.
I hope to review this article soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- 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.[3]
- 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);[4]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[5] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- 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: [7]
- (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.[8]
Review
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) |  Pass | |
| (b) (MoS) | Pass |
| 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 |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Pass | |
| (b) (focused) | The article is focused. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| All viewpoints are presented neutrally. | Pass |
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| A look at the article history shows some reversions, but not an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Pass |
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | Pass | |
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All good here. | Pass |
Result
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
|
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)
- 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:
- I'll wait and listen to what s/he says first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 31 August 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)
- 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,
- 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)
- I assume the density of citations in the lead is now suitable ? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Update: The image is suitable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 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)
Additional notes
- Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
