Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 6 January 2024

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion

@Makeandtoss: I am open to changing the title if it is a satisfactory solution.--Sakiv (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You haven't identified a useful topic for the article. The title is a secondary issue. Zero 12:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the whole article is definitely not a solution.--Sakiv (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Rename it to what? "A non-existent polity ambiguously advocated by one or two Palestinians"?

The problem is not with the title, the problem is with cherrypicking from primary and secondary source, coming up with a decisive conclusion from ambiguous content, and making an article on something that doesn't even exist. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of examples of such articles. See here Greater Mauritania, Greater Yemen, Greater Portugal etc. I propse to name it Palestinian irredentism.--Sakiv (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Irredentism: a policy of advocating the restoration to a country of any territory formerly belonging to it.

When has Jordan ever belonged to a Palestinian state? When has there ever been a Palestinian state?

As a matter of fact I could easily change this article into "Greater Jordan", the West Bank was not only created by Jordan, but remained Jordanian for 19 years! Makeandtoss (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am with you that there has never been a Palestinian state but that does not mean there was not a region called Palestine and significant parts of Jordan was Palestinian like Salt and Ajlun.--Sakiv (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Then if "Greater Palestine" nor "Palestinian irredentism" work, what will? You have to recognize first that this is a debate on content and not on the title.

What do you mean Salt and Ajlun were Palestinian? You just said there has never been a Palestinian state. And why did you mention only Salt and Ajlun ? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

According to this article: Demographic history of Palestine (region). A title of Palestinian irredentist claims would also work.Sakiv (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Scholch excluded Salt and Ajlun Qazas from the demographic history of Palestine Makeandtoss (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The proposed deletion has been removed as that process is only for uncontroversial cases. Andrew D. (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment*: I was thinking also the same about irredentism, but please check the mother article, it is denoted not just de jure or de facto territory formerly belonging but ...movement's members consider to be a "lost" (or "unredeemed") territory from their nation's past...that means it is enough to consider it, regardless it was factual (as it has been also discussed once by an irredentist issue of another country with zero connection to the Palestinian question.)(KIENGIR (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC))

That definition is unsourced in the article. And one or two Palestinian figures do not make up for a national irredentism. Furthermore the fact that it is indeed irredentist is: 1- unsourced 2- insignificant 3- ambiguous 4- controversial Makeandtoss (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

1- Encyclopedia Britannica Irredentism is the process by which a part of an existing state breaks away and merges with another, whereas in secession merging does not take place.

2- Merriam-Webster a political principle or policy directed toward the incorporation of irredentas within the boundaries of their historically or ethnically related political unit

3- Oxford dictionary A person advocating the restoration to their country of any territory formerly belonging to it.

@KIENGIR: Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. It is original research to name this irredentism as no such source exists that confirms the validity of this term relating to Jordan and its widespread use (not just dead Yasser Arafat and Ahmad Shukari). Makeandtoss (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sakiv: Did you seriously just revert me in favor of a source by this author? And did you seriously just accuse me of forwarding pro-Hashemite propaganda because you are unable to defend or even back your point of view with reliable sources? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion here has not yet been completed and you preceded the conclusion to impose your point of view on Palestinian geography articles to deny any link to East Jordan with Palestine. Your edits are not fair and there is many articles that contain your Jordanian nationalist rhetoric as Black September and Palestinians in Jordan. I did not say once that Jordan is part of Palestine, but parts of it. This is another source that confirms the link between West Jordan today and Palestine which is Palestine Exploration Fund. Jordan was called Eastern Palestine including Amman!--Sakiv (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion here is completely irrelevant to what is happening in Demographic history of Palestine (region). Stop playing the role of a historian, what are your credentials to look at primary sources and come up with your own conclusions? If you have a secondary source, place it forward here. Zero sources claim that "Palestinian irredentism" extends to Jordan. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not claim to be a historian or scholar but I know history more than many people and apparently more than you. I do not allow you to talk to me like that. Here is some of the "zero" sources , , ,

Lets see yours sources:

1-"By granting autonomy to the West Bank as part of the federation scheme Hussein also wanted to assure the East Bankers that any future Palestinian irredentism would be checked by the monarchy." It says "any future" and not existing nor continuous irredentism, and it doesn't even specify if the irredentism extended to Jordan.

2-"However, the alliance between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood had not been broken since they both had common enemies: leftist forces and Palestinian irredentism." Again it doesn't specify if irredentism extended to Jordan.

3-"... if not the possibility of Palestinian irredentist claims to link with Palestinians in Jordan that might stem from an independent Palestinian state." The source doesn't deal with it as a fact and does not even specify.

4-Source 4 is inaccessible and apparently from a self-published source.

Now revert your last edit from the clearly biased "Israel news", and proceed to look for other sources that may support your view point.Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? You are not in a position that allows you to evaluate the sources because you are part of the conflict.--Sakiv (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to evaluate the sources? Do you want me to canvass editors? Again stop attacking everything but the point. As a Misplaced Pages editor are allowed to bring in secondary sources, evaluate if they are reliable and consistent, and show how they are relevant and deserving. Thats all that is asked from you as an editor. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You have only one goal here which is to whitewash the Jordanian government and create a Jordanian identity. I know exactly why I am here and what is my duties. Again you cannot evaluate the sources I brought because you are part of the conflict. There must be an administrator to decide if they are acceptable! It was you who began attacking.--Sakiv (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of the articles I contributed to have a Good Article classification (they have been checked by various editors for neutrality), and indeed opposing points of view are often represented. Rest assured, I am not on the payroll of anyone, I don't attempt to whitewash any government nor am I "creating a Jordanian identity". The time you could have saved defending your point of view instead of engaging in ad hominem could have ended this discussion a long time ago. I didn't attack you, I said you should not cherrypick primary sources and jump into your conclusions. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that the understanding between us is lacking and the discussion has reached a dead end. I will wait for more opinions to come.--Sakiv (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:, I know that WP is not a raliable source, the whole stuff was not about this, indeed, any reflection to your argumentation regarding the specific details of this subject I ignore, because what I said was just and only was in connection to the term, nothing else. In case you stick to that irredentism cannot hold for such cases when the claims for a territory is based only a hyphothesis (or it is believed only to the subjects, but has been never proved entirely) of posession, than please update and correct the Irredentism article accordingly. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC))

• Comment - sources clearly treat "Greater Palestine" (including Jordan) as mainstream PLO policy - at least in the 60s. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Your inclusion of Article 2 of the 1964 Charter is just embarrassing. Leaving aside that you didn't bother identifying the author of the source (not Karsh), and leaving aside that the source just makes an argument (based on a falsehood about the San Remo conference) about what the PLO could claim without giving any evidence that they did claim it, and leaving aside that everyone knows what "Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate" means except for some fringe authors who pretend they don't know, the 1964 charter itself makes the matter clear. If "Palestine" included Jordan, then the combination of Articles 2 and 24 would mean that the PLO claimed sovereignty over Amman but not over Nablus. An absurdity!! This rubbish cannot stand. Zero 08:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: In addition to Zero's comments, have you checked the credentials of the book's authors'? They are both extremely controversial revisionist writers who, for instance, blame the Palestinians for becoming refugees! You are going to need a better source, and if this is the quality of your sources then oh you will dozens of them to validate such an extraordinary claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The author is a tenured History professor published by a reputable publisher (Frank Cass). While the merits of the PLO's claims may be debated, the PLO had attempted to gain control of Jordan (e.g. Black September). Furthermore, the author of the chapter clearly states the the interpretation that the PLO can lay claim to Jordan (as pare of Mandatory Palestine) was "articulated in the course of the 8th Palestinian National Council in Cairo in March 1971, six months after the carnage of Black September. Indeed, one of the resolutions adopted by that session of the PNC refuted the distinction between East Jordan and Palestine, re-emphasized the territorial unity of the two banks, and implied the need to overthrow the Hashemite regime and substitute for it a national Palestinian one". The Palestinian claim may or may not be on dubious grounds - but it was made during the 60s and 70s by the Palestinian leadership. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Your beloved author calls the Arabs of Israel a fifth column and would like to see them in concentration camps. Your other beloved right-wing editor blames the Palestinians for becoming refugees and had his fair share of criticism. Stop defending the indefensible. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't love either one. It does seem Haaretz dislike one of his recent books. Both are tenured professors, and are published in a reputable publisher.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Does the Times of Israel dislike his book too? Come on, even the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League thinks this author is ridiculous. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

TOI is re-reporting Haaretz - but yes - I would agree they dislike this as well. However this is criticism of a book well after his retirement - what people write they are 82 years old can be different from when they were 68. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I don't really care -nor does Misplaced Pages- about his age or his retirement or if old age got him confused. I know one fact for certain: that both authors and editors are too controversial (especially among those with the same point of view) to be sourced here. I just continued reading the book and it is quite honestly one of the most one sided books on the Arab-Israeli conflict I have read. The burden to demonstrate that this is reliable to other editors lies on you. I have done my share of research here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You are contrasting a non-academic ((publisher - Eliyahu Gabai - perhaps would even count as self-published) 2017 book with earlier academic works by Israeli - which are fairly widely cited - google scholar - Israeli has an h-index of over 20. Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: TOI says: The book, “The Arab Minority in Israel: Open and Hidden Processes” by historian Raphael Israeli. I don't know who is Gabai or how he is relevant as he didn't write the book. Being cited is a criterion and not the only criterion. Furthermore, claims with this significance would appear elsewhere and not only in a book whose authors and editors have dubious credentials. It is very convenient that this POV only exists in a pro-Israeli source. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

But we aren't discussing use of the 2017 book, which being publish by Gabai, does not seem to be a reliable source. As for the resolutions of the 8th Palestinian National Council in Cairo in March 1971 - this seems as a factual assertion, not an editorial POV.Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: That is primary sourcing. Even if you had the actual resolution you will need a secondary reliable source to explain its significance. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

No, we have a secondary source - Israeli in an academic book. It also seems multiple other sources make the same assertion - e.g. this source from 1979 (not sure regarding RSness), or this 2005 source (tenured professor, academic publisher). The resolutions of the 8th Palestinian National Council in Cairo in March 1971 are a matter of fact, not opinion. Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Facts indeed, but why are these facts placed here? You can't take put a quote out of context and just place it there, you need a reliable secondary source that interpretes it. And sorry, the pro-Israel "tenured" professor and "academic" publisher is controversial and is discredited by both left and right pro-Israel sources. Find another source.

The editor Efraim Karsh was criticized during his academic career, if that matters to you.

Not going to endorse a source from this guy. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, good editors avoid using sources with a reputation for fanaticism, even if they are tenured at a university. Since you and I know exactly how you would react to a Polish professor who wrote that Jews should be kept in camps, your failure to apply similar standards here just shows yet again why you shouldn't be editing. Zero 09:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I will hold you to that statement whenever a source whose author delegitimizes Israel as a state or supports violence against Jews is put forward as source. A good editor, when seeing a source challenged, looks for other corroborating sources. In this case - Bukay - - has a similar blurb on the March 1971 conference. This book edited by Ayoob references several Arabic articles in relation to "Palestine of East Jordan" and the PLO - . Friedlander, Robert A. "The PLO and the Rule of Law: A Reply to Dr. Anis Kassim." Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 10 (1980): 221. refers to a 1974 PLO Ten Point program laying claim to Jordan as part of a "Greater Palestine". Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The PLO also originally considered Jordan to be a part of greater Palestine and did not remove this claim from its charter until the 1980s in Mitha, Farooq. "The Jordanian-Israeli relationship: the reality of" cooperation"." Middle East Policy 17.2 (2010): 105-127. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no editor in the I/P section with a higher sourcing standard than me, but still I didn't expect you to respond with such a clear proof of my claim. "A good editor, when seeing a source challenged, looks for other corroborating sources." -- No, that is what pov-pushers do. Good editors look for the best sources on the topic whether or not they confirm the challenged source. The fact is that the literature is so vast and varied that searching with the right search terms can "corroborate" almost anything.

Now concerning your sources. I can't see Bukay and won't comment. The second book refers to an opinion article by a PLO researcher, which should not be confused with PLO policy. Friedlander is worth a longer look. He gives two sources, one of which, "Myths & Facts", is well known to be trash and I'm not even going to look at it. The other source is Bernard Lewis, who quotes the text of the resolution that Friedlander claims "threatens the destruction of King Hussein's Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which would be merged into a Greater Palestine". Here it is, as Lewis brings it: The PLO will struggle together with patriotic Jordanian forces for the creation of a Jordanian-Palestinian patriotic front, the object of which will be the establishment of a patriotic, democratic regime in Jordan which will make common cause with the Palestinian entity which will arise as a result of struggle and conflict. Not only does this not refer to a Greater Palestine that includes Jordan, but it explicitly distinguishes between Jordan and the "Palestinian entity". It calls for common cause, not unity. What is Friedlander doing bringing a source that disproves him? The article of Mithra does support your thesis, though it would have been nice if its sources traced back to things said by Palestinians rather than only to things said by Israelis. The best thing here for you is a fiery speech by Shukeiri in the midst of a crisis in Palestinian-Jordanian relations. No Palestinian source about the charter here, or in its sources or its sources' sources. Zero 05:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, @Icewhiz:, if this so-called 'irredentism' is true, you would have seen multiple reliable and significant sources discussing it in great detail. What we have here now, is less than a handful of sources (whose reliability is questioned, some are inaccessible and others ambiguous and conflicting), and are sources that have an inferior quality when compared to books and journals discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a number of sources (of rather different POVs) referencing the PLO's aspirations in the 70s of a "Greater Palestine" with Transjordan. Here's a modern essay (2005) by a Palestinian author advancing the same notion - Elmusa, Sharif. "Greater Palestine: Matching demography, geography, and heart." The Arab World Geographer 8.3 (2005): 156-60. - "Greater Palestine is the only viable alternative for the three major ethnic communities that live in it: East Jordanians, Jews, and Palestinians, and enumerates 8 million Palestinians in "Greater Palestine" as "Roughly 2.7 million in the West Bank, 1.3 million in Gaza, 1.3 million in Israel, and 3.25 million in Jordan (or 60 % of the total population, which is the commonly cited ratio). ". Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thats an opinion article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep I refuse to read the hairball above. Notability is the criterion for the deletion, which is not cleanup (otherwise you fix pages you have issues with, rather than deleting them -- in case anyone forgot). Here's some RS using the term:

• : according to him, that both sides are willing to give up their dreams—the Israelis the dream of a greater Israel, and the Palestinians the dream of a greater Palestine].
•  : But Palestinian Transjordan can only be the first step towards Greater Palestine, insofar that it will be a base for our expansion west of the River . (yes this one has a different POV than the previous one -- POV is irrelevant to notability however)

*  : Greater Palestine, a single political entity encompassing the lands of both Mandatory Palestine and the current territories controlled by Jordan

Notably some sources use it in a non-political context, like a neutral and accepted geographical term ] (some like Elmusa here ] for likely POV reasons, others not as much) ] etc. Clearly notable, IDLI aside. --Calthinus (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to add that you guys are using a very bizarre definition of irredentism. The "original" irredentist episode-- i.e. Fiume/Rijeka -- concerned a Yugoslav territory that Italy had never before owned, so under your definition the original irredentist movement is not irredentist...--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Your first source does not mention Jordan at all. The author of your second source calls Israeli Arabs a fifth column and would like to see them in separate camps (who is condemned even by the pro-Israel anti defamation league), and the editor of the source is a controversial right wing figure. The third source is inaccessible.

What is being claimed by this article is unsourced at worst and fringe at best. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Your list has less than zero bearing on a discussion about deletion. Wide usage of the term merits notability hence an article. Deletion is not cleanup. If there are issues, you (probably) waste your time discussing how to fix them and mayyyybe you'll get somewhere (but this is PIA -- doubt it), rather than surely waste your time on a doomed deletion proposal of a notable topic.--Calthinus (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, a source doesn't need to mention Jordan to exemplify relevant usage of the term, as the term has multiple definitions. Indeed, another definition supported by literature is political Palestine plus Israel without reference to Jordan. This is something that could be added to the page, rather than being twisted into some pseudo-argument for deletion.--Calthinus (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This article's very existence depends on Jordan's inclusion as part of "Greater Palestine". Because if Jordan is not mentioned in this article, it would be simply a duplicate of Palestine (region). "greater+palestine" The sources you talk about, mentioning "Greater Palestine", are referring to the Palestine region. The Palestine (region) article by the way includes portions of western Jordan in some definitions. And that is not incorrect since it is tackling the matter geographically. But to include Jordan as a political entity (which had land exchanges with Saudi Arabia decades ago for example) in this "Greater Palestine" term, is not only not notable but completely unsourced. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope it doesn't, and Palestine (region) also bears no weight here as there is indeed a difference still. Greater Syria is essentially geographically synonymous with the Levant but the two have a different political meaning. And that is what we are talking about. --Calthinus (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Greater Syria did exist as a Hashemite Kingdom for a very short time. Meanwhile, an Arab Palestinian state on the borders of mandatory Palestine (to the east of the river) never existed. This is clear from a simple google search. All the sources are talking geographically. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: You haven't given out any source on "nope it doesn't". Makeandtoss (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources? Two Unrelated Concepts?

I am struggling to understand this article:

• I cannot find any sources that show the term Greater Palestine is used politically
• The question of whether the PLO saw Jordan as part of "Palestine" is entirely unrelated to the "river to the sea" modern slogan. These are two separate topics.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest this article is split into two:

• From the River to the Sea could be an interesting article on the modern slogan
• PLO and Jordan could be an interesting article, covering the 1970s and 1980s, based perhaps on https://www.jstor.org/stable/3991757

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving the article is possible. A term such as Palestinian irredentism may be a better and more comprehensive option than PLO and Jordan, since it was not only the PLO that viewed Jordan as part of Palestine but also the British and the Zionist leaders. Dl.thinker (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know of any sources which consider the two forms of irredentism together - the Jordan topic was specific to a time and place, whereas the desire to recreate Mandatory Palestine has been a core (the core) part of Palestinian nationalism from pretty much the beginning. The Zionist interest in Jordan is also a very different topic from a very different time and place. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The Jordan and PLO history would be 1967-1988, from Black September until the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This would probably be better than the current title and scope of unclear prevalence. The Jordanian overlap with Palestine seems like a function of A) the biblical connection and B) the move by the Romans to create Palaestina Salutaris, which at one point encompassed part of Jordan. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the error here is assuming that the territories of the Ottoman Empire and then Mandatory Palestine were coherent national identities. As is well known the relevant identities emerged in the 20th century. There was never an independent Arab state in Palestine.

It would be like declaring that Pakistan has an irredentist claim to India or vice versa; it sort of assumes that what existed prior is represented by one group of people when that one group of people's identity formed in relation to the interests of an another group of people in the same region PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There were coherent boundaries in the region from the time of the interventions of the Mesopotamian empires in the region onwards. All polities have delineated the space. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this article still exists. The term "Greater Palestine" and "Palestinian irredentism" in google results refers to everything but the PLO and Jordan; the article does not have enough sources, and the sources that are present are either primary sources or biased Israeli right-wing sources. The lede says something and the body is about something entirely different. The slogan is even more off-topic. The entire thing is poorly written, sourced, structured and the scope is undefined and ambiguous. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we merge the remaining content with either Jordan–Palestine relations or Palestinians in Jordan? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The former could be the most suitable place for it I think. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Former is preferable, but still don’t see the relevance of this information to either, or even to any Misplaced Pages article. It’s basically a collection of quotes for opinions that were held for a very short period of time. I think it’s undue. Notability is yet to be demonstrated by one reliable secondary source. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not like Jordan–Palestine relations is stretched for space. It's almost empty. The strained relations between Jordan and the PLO is a pretty notable/critical historical angle. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Makeanddtoss: I can give you tons of documented sources that confirm that Jordan formed part of Palestine, or Canaan as it was known. You need to stop this hunt for every piece of information that only points to this fact. It is also true that Israeli historians and politicians say this, but this is not limited to them at all. Dl.thinker (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If any political entity belonged to any political entity, it was the Palestinian West Bank that belonged to Jordan, and never the other way around. Please read original research guideline and stop using primary sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Konrad Adenauer Foundation, even an Arab president acknowledged this. Dl.thinker (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

These sources are getting worse and worse. A political party's foundation, and a trivial mention of a suggestion by Tunisia's president in 1973? Not serious sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not notice that the institution is independent from the party, so it is valid to use it as a reference, and also the president’s statement is not considered an unreliable source. What is happening now is a disregard for the encyclopedia's policies and a rejection of any meeting point to end this dispute. Dl.thinker (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources are dismal and the conclusions drawn the very picture of editorialization. The Tunisian president suggested sth., he acknowledged nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, what do you want? Dl.thinker (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As discussed above, Jordan–Palestine relations is a good home for the material that can actually be reliably stood up by the sources supporting it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

An article on the "Jordan Option" would be interesting. It has a number of different meanings in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict, meanings that are often conflated. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Convenient option. Hussein bin Talal said that Jordan is Palestine and that the two peoples are in fact one people. Dl.thinker (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A disambiguation page on the Jordan Option topic would be a good start. Two of the concepts it refers to are: Three-state solution and King Hussein's federation plan.

The ngrams chart is interesting too. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The ngram's peak in 1987 can be attributed to the war criminal Ariel Sharon and his Likud party's spearheading of the idea, which abruptly fell out of the debates after Jordan's disengagement from the West Bank in 1988. The Jordan Option in the literature refers to this Zionist right-wing idea that Jordan is the Palestinian state: a diversionary tactic from the occupied territories; resentment that Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism that considered Transjordan to be part of the land of Israel stopped being realistic; and an attempt to annex everything that was left of Mandatory Palestine. In the last two decades, it was used marginally to refer to Jordan adopting a security role in West Bank cantons. My point is: the Jordan Option as a term was never used to refer to the misled point of view (the Palestinian one) that Jordan once belonged to the Mandate of Palestine, and that both Transjordan and Mandatory Palestine form one Palestinian state. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Also worth noting that an article of the sort (the fringe Palestinian POV that is barely discussed in any reliable secondary source other than it being a mere mention here and there) would contradict both WP:Notability, WP:SIGCOV and WP:DUE which states “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.” Makeandtoss (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Is Hussein bin Talal also biased when he literally said that Jordan is part of Palestine and that the Jordanians and Palestinians are one people with one destiny? Dl.thinker (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

So first you cited Manchester Conservatives website and now you are citing Benjamin Netanyahu. I don’t have time to waste on such a discussion. Please read Misplaced Pages guidelines on notability, due weight, original research, and reliable sources. Also read Misplaced Pages definitions on primary and secondary sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like Misplaced Pages:IDONTLIKEIT. Think carefully before you make this statement. I have a lot of citations. Dl.thinker (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Manchester conservatives website as a reliable source? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really know what to say about that. Bizarre. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Will the name of the article be changed? There is considerable information that Jordan as a state did not exist in any period of history before 1946. Its towns and villages were always attached to the cities west of the river. Balqa was a part of Nablus District. Ajlun was a sanjaq of Palestine during the Ottoman rule. Sakiv (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The name should be changed, yes. Regarding the rest of your comment, you are describing only a very small part of modern Jordan. Suggest also reviewing File:Arab Kingdom of Syria.png and File:Table of Ottoman Administrative Divisions 1905 (Tableau des circonscriptions administratives).png - the area you are describing was part of the Sanjak of Hauran. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How is it a sliver, and did Jordan have cities and civilization other than that area located to the west? It is also important to address the bond between the “Jordanian” and the Palestinian. Have you seen the demonstrations that took place in Jordan to know that what links the Jordanian to the Palestinian is more than just neighbourhood? Sakiv (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A large part of the population of Jordan are descendants of people expelled from Mandatory Palestine-Israel in 1948 and from the West Bank in 1967. You are mixing topics. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There were no clear boundaries between the countries. A large part of what is now Syria, Iraq and Jordan did not belong to the Ottomans. This is because most of that land was uninhabited except by nomads. Sakiv (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Palestine-related pages
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Redirect-Class politics pages
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles