Talk:Jordan Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Aqaba is not linked to sinai, but to eilat which is linked to sinai

I just drew a map of Jordan, but no regions have been decided yet, and I haven't been there, so I just guessed.... if anyone is familiar with the country, please comment about this division, and if you think certain provinces should be moved to different regions, regions renamed, etc. Here's what I'm thinking:

• Northern Jordan
• Eastern Jordan
• Central Jordan
• Southern Jordan

Thoughts? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 21:15, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Looks good, but I'd include Amman in the north , as most people will visit it with that area. Now it's a bit of a lone star in the eastern desert region.

I also think we could come up with some better names for the areas.

• Northern Jordan -> Not sure what to call this, I guess Northern Jordan is fine. Maybe "Amman and Jerash"
• Eastern Jordan -> Eastern Desert (as long as Amman is excluded)
• Central Jordan -> King's Highway
• Southern Jordan -> Southern Desert

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:16, 11 January 2010 (EST)

I like the new names, although I am ambivalent about the two options for Northern Jordan, and the division looks sensible from my relatively ignorant perspective. This also looks like it may never need further subdivision, which is always ideal for a country this small. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:39, 12 January 2010 (EST)

Moving Amman to the north looks right to me also. Othwerwise, this seems very good indeed. I think it should be taken live and the regionalisation done.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:05, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I'll just plunge forward and get this done :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:45, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Oh, it seems like the SVG file is missing! --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:47, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Just to inform that Jordan will be transferred to Jordan (country) to avoid confusion because there's also a city named Jordan in the Philippines. - (WT-en) SnappyHip 11:48, 14 February 2010 (GST)

Someone twice deleted the get in section today stating "Copyright issue with the visa information" [1], but it isn't clear where this info is believed to be copied from. A Google search turns up numerous sites with the same text, but the ones I looked at had all copied the information FROM Wikivoyage. If this really is a copyvio, please indicate where it was copied from and it will be quickly rewritten or removed. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:35, 6 May 2012 (EDT)

Data is copied from projectvisa.com. See archive.org if you want history.

Is there any good reason not to delete this list? Wikivoyage practice is to list embassies in the city where they're located, which in this case would be Amman. I'll wait for a day or so to see if there's any reasoned objection before I delete the list in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

All merged into Amman, accordingly. Many need basic contact info (street address, telephone number, etc.) to be added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is an article about Jordan, why does anyone around here think its OK for the article to be centered around Israel? Sorry, but the universe does NOT revolve around you/your country/your political aspirations. Mad facist Zionist political fantasies and fetishes have no place here. That mad propagagandic demeaning content has been online for a year, it won't last any one more second on this site. -Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I seriously doubt anyone wants the article to be inaccurate in any direction, but your edit scrubbed a lot of information from the article. If you think it makes sense to completely ignore the history of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in an article about Jordan, I would beg to differ. The "History" section should also mention the large number of Palestinian refugees who were welcomed in after the 1948 and 1967 wars and the "Black September" war. Your edits made the section into pure propaganda for the government of Jordan. The standard on this site is be fair. If you'd like to argue that x, y and z that were in the article were not fair, please do, though you'll be more persuasive if you tone down your rhetoric, but scrubbing so much information is not likely to strongly support such an argument. In other words, I'm suggesting that you both discuss and be open to some kind of fair compromise between what's there and what you'd like to delete. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Propaganda for the government of Jordan" very amusing.. Do you know that propaganda means the sharing of false information? Now lets see how I eliminated propaganda:

• "When Jordan came under British administration following World War I, it was at first part of the Mandate for Palestine, which meant that Jews were allowed to settle there."
  • Jews were prevented to settle in Transjordan by the Transjordan memorandum
• "Thus in a sense Jordan became the first "Palestinian state" and it did in fact identify itself as such after independence when it acquired the area that now comprises the West Bank in the 1948 war against Israel."
  • In what sense exactly? "identify itself as such" !!!! Are we rewriting history??? That never happened.
• The West Bank was annexed and treated as an integral part of Jordan, with East Jerusalem (and its holy sites) off limits to Jews and Palestinians often treated as second class citizens compared to Jordan's Bedouin ruling class."
  • " treated as second class citizens", they had seats amounting to half the parliament! Second class? Do we even have a source for that? Does this project even use sources?
• "a large internal Palestinian population,"
  • How large? Misleadingly vague.
• "While Jordan does not have to handle the sheer number of refugees from Syria that Lebanon has to deal with"
  • False
• "and the British influence is still strong"
  • When they don't speak English you call them ignorant, when they do, you call them a product of colonization. I have been living in this country for my entire life and I have never once heard a person speaking with a British accent. ::Its a "western influence", and it is certainly not standing from the times of British administration some 70 years ago.
• "the vast number of Caucasian immigrants that arrived during the early 1900s"
  • Whoever reads this would assume that the Caucasian immigrants are equal to the number of Palestinians.

• Most of the information here was added in a biased context, with zero historical accuracy. You are more than welcome to return key information about Jordan's history, such as the occupation of the West Bank. But the current state of the content, is a plain fictional spin-off. Not acceptable in any way. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I provisionally reverted all your deletions to the "History" subsection, unaware that you had given this response. I will add some of the points you made, but please, before you delete information again, detail what's wrong with it, such as that it isn't factual because of x, y and z, and if it's longer than can fit in an edit summary, post about it here first. Calling it "Zionist nonsense" and making remarks about fascism and all that other stuff is just likely to antagonize people who disagree with your point of view, and arguing about points of view on history is not what Wikivoyage is about, though whether content is fair or not is quite relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but the text in its current form is unacceptable. Its not my point of view, I have read lengthy books and analyses on the history of Jordan, and not once have I encountered something like this. They're fictional spinoffs. There is a difference between facts and opinions, for example, "identified itself as such" is not an opinion, it is presented as an indisputable fact, which is indisputably demeaning. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict] I just looked up the Trans-Jordan memorandum. It was passed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, the same year that Trans-Jordan was separated from the rest of the Palestine Mandate. So it looks like the current phrasing in the article is accurate. I think I will leave it to you to make piecemeal edits to the "History" subsection, but please be careful to be accurate in your edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am a new user here. Does this site use sources? Or is it open for anyone to add fiction? Is the site connected to Wikipedia? I have been editing the Jordan article there and its on the verge of becoming a Good Article, the history section is completely sourced, discussed and compromised. I can copy paste it here or copy paste concise parts. --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Jews were allowed to settle there". What is "there"? The boundaries of Transjordan and the boundaries of the British Mandate of Palestine were not even defined in 1922, not to mention them being defined between 1920 and 1922. Here's the proof. I am knowledgeable about every single piece of information about Jordan, I know what I am doing and I am not here for POV pushing or "working for the government". --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This site is a travel guide. It is a sister site of Wikipedia, not part of Wikipedia. You'll want to read Welcome, Wikipedians for some information about how the two sites are different. Sources aren't cited in articles but certainly can be cited on talk pages, as you just did.

To address your specific point: Was there any British law or regulation preventing Jewish settlement on the East Bank of the Jordan before 1922? If you know of any such law or regulation, please share that information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The text is still inaccurate. Transjordan was separated in 1922, the West Bank and Gaza were separated in 1948, 26 long years. The Mandate was not divided into Transjordan, West Bank, Gaza and Israel all at once.. Palestinians were stripped of Jordanian citizenship in 1988, so? Palestinians in Israel have Israeli citizenship.. It is mentioned in a way that is intended to say that Jordan and Palestine are identical. Jordan did not annex the West Bank, stance was stressed during an Arab league meeting in 1951. " a de facto state within a state" that is a spinoff of historical sources, which mention that the paramilitary fedayeen were threatening Jordan's rule of law becoming a state within a state not a "de facto state". --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict] By the way, I did make some edits that were an attempt to improve the "History" section. Copying from Wikipedia wholesale is probably not advisable because it will likely be too detailed for a travel guide, and also because we don't use footnotes on this site, but some summarizing or paraphrasing from the Wikipedia article, with a mention in your editing summary that it's from there, would be fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please go ahead and edit any of the things you're referring to immediately above which are false or misleading. However, unless you have evidence that Jewish settlement of the East Bank was prohibited by the British prior to 1922, please concede that point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia content is definitely much better than what we had here before, but it definitely needs to be summarized, and please remove the footnotes. Thank you very much, and I think that in the end, the results of your edits are likely to be universally agreed to be a big improvement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Now I am trying to stay out of political debates on this wiki and hope they stay the exception rather than the rule and I am especially weary of debates on the topic of Israel as they tend to both incite passions and draw unsavory aspects of the internet. That being said, our sister project Wikiquote (and I have heard this quote/statement/narrative elsewhere) makes it appear as if King Hussein himself had called Jordan a/the Palestinian state: it's the only quote. That is the main thing I wanted to add to that debate, I have had too many pointless political debates elsewhere on the Internet and I appreciate WV being mostly politics-free, but that does not mean we should endorse blatant propaganda by any side. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh really? What about the Jordanian-ness of Palestine? West Bank is almost annexed by Israel, we can also say that Israel is Jordanian? Please. The quote is with zero context. How about some context? He did not mean what you are so eager to hear, it was exploited by right-wingers to advocate horrendous fantasies. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The context that you link to explains why he stopped saying that. I think it's inessential for a travel guide to get into that, so it's best to avoid the quote entirely.

However, I would also say that "Jewish settlement was limited to the part of the Palestine Mandate west of the Jordan" is purely factual and the statement of that fact doesn't "victimize" anyone. The current version is not as clear and I'm not sure how many readers, especially those for whom English is a second or third language, will understand it completely. Let's look at it:

In September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations recognized Transjordan as a state under the British Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan memorandum, and excluded the territories east of the Jordan River from the provisions of the mandate dealing with Jewish settlement.

For people who don't already know, doesn't that sentence beg the question of what the provisions of the mandate dealing with Jewish settlement were?

Since you strenuously object to using the word "limited", what form of words that makes clear that Jewish settlement to Transjordan was off-limits would you be OK with? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Makeandtoss, I am not a right winger of any kind - quite the opposite. And the fact that Jordan was part of the initial mandate and only in 1922 was it declared off-limits for Jews is indeed very much something readers might want to know. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

What mandate?? I just linked a map to the borders of the region in 1920, there were nothing defined to be "limited". Syria and Lebanon were under one mandate too, for faaaaaar longer than Jordan was in the same mandate as Palestine (1920-1922). Transjordan was administered under Mandatory Palestine for 2 years, but that doesn't mean in any way they had any form of a unified borders or centralized government or shared the same fate (as seen in Transjordan memorandum). Now, 90+ years after a short-lived (2 years) meaningless unified administration, why does it matter? Just because Zionists would find it perfect to just settle all them "Ayyyrabs" from "Judea and Samaria" into "Jordon; the Palestinian nation". --Makeandtoss (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Makeandtoss, I appreciate the excellent edits you've made to this article and other articles about places in Jordan, but you need to assume good faith and stop being paranoid. The sole purpose for mentioning that Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River was made off-limits is because it's significant background information that helps prospective visitors to understand the differences between how Jordan and the areas to the west of the Jordan River developed. Only a lunatic fringe would ever want to retroactively open Jordan to Jewish settlement, and if you really think such a desire is motivating any editors on this site, I can only suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree, to put it very mildly.

So let's return to my question: What form of words indicating that in 1922, Jewish settlement east of the Jordan River was prohibited would be acceptable to you? Because if the answer is "none", I think you are going to lose this argument, and I will tell you in advance that edit warring is not tolerated on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, yeah lunacy, no surprise there. Yeah I am paranoid, definitely. [2], [3], [4], [5]. This sentiment is alive and well, as you can see in these pictures. I will not tolerate the advertisement of this lunacy by a respectable website.

"In September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations recognized Transjordan as a state under the British Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan memorandum, and excluded the territories east of the Jordan River from the provisions of the mandate dealing with Jewish settlemen" This statement is more than enough to describe whatever it was regarding "Jewish settlement". Its a travel article and a history section should be kept concise.

You too assume good faith, stop hinting I will be edit warring. Double standards. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You _are_ edit warring! And you will be blocked if you continue. Conciseness yes, obfuscation no. This site works by consensus. Consensus doesn't mean a minority of one can get his own way just by speaking in more extreme language in arguments. Either you concede on this and do other editing that would really help travelers, such as for example by posting information about Jordan's climate, or you have the choice of not editing or continuing to edit war and getting blocked. Your choice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Where is your argument? You are not interested in reaching consensus, you haven't replied to a single point I mentioned. --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your argument is that referring to the "provisions of the mandate dealing with Jewish settlement" and assuming all readers know what those provisions were is sufficiently clear. No-one else on this site seems to agree with you. Whereupon I ask you what form of words clearly stating that Transjordan was made off-limits to Jewish settlement in 1922 are acceptable to you, and you refuse to consider or propose any. And your overheated rhetoric in your arguments here and your edit summaries in your edit war weaken your argument. I'm really uninterested in having a debate about Zionism and in fact refuse to do so. Readers of this article don't need to know what Zionism is, anyway, but the fact that Jewish settlement was forbidden east of the Jordan River is a very significant historical fact, and pointing it out is neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist, nor is it pro- or anti-Jordanian, pro- or anti-Arab or anything else — merely factual. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

"In September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations recognized Transjordan as a state under the British Mandate for Palestine and the Transjordan memorandum, and excluded the territories east of the Jordan River from the provisions of the mandate dealing with Jewish settlement" it was simultaneous.. When Transjordan was determined to be under Mandatory Palestine, a decision was made simultaneously to prevent Jewish settlement. In other words, it was not promised to the Jews and then reconsidered, it was not promised at all because it had not been recognized yet by the League of Nations, concerning the Balfour declaration.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I get your point, but you didn't make the point clearly enough in the article. It needs another sentence to the effect that "This meant that Jewish settlement to Transjordan was not allowed". Why is that statement a problem for you? You recognize that it's true. So shall we agree on this and move on? You've improved the "History" subsection greatly, and thanks for also adding information on climate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

"it was not allowed" implies that it was expected to be allowed, it was just simply underlined. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't get that implication from those words. But the truth is, some people expected it to be allowed and others didn't. Are you saying there was an informal prohibition before that? If that's true, then fine, we can use a form of words to the effect you just posted, such as "meaning that what had been an informal prohibition on Jewish settlement in Transjordan was made explicit" or something like that. But why don't you propose a wording that would be clear and also acceptable to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Balfour declaration promised Jews a homeland in Palestine, but what exactly is "Palestine"? That question was answered right then... There was nothing promised to be prohibited, it was just to clear any potential confusion as Transjordan became under Mandatory Palestine. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Despite this being (kind of) besides the point, many Arab states (Jordan not among them IIRC) had sizable Jewish minorities up to the 1940s who were expelled upon the foundation of Israel. So in that sense Jordan being declared "no place for Jews" in 1922 does fit into a tragic and all-too often repeating narrative. At any rate neither the British nor anybody else ever explicitly outlawed Muslim, Christian or Arab settlement in any of those states - at least to my knowledge. The crusaders might have done some forced converting in their day, but that is centuries ago. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, my friend, that really is beside the point and the type of remark that you should anticipate being likely to provoke damaging off-topic debate.

So let's please get back to the topic. Does anyone object to the following form of words?

In September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations recognized Transjordan as a state under the British Mandate for Palestine and the Trans-Jordan memorandum. The memorandum clarified that the territories east of the Jordan River were excluded from provisions that allowed Jewish settlement in the Mandate.'

If there is some kind of problem with the accuracy of this statement, once again, Makeandtoss, I would ask you to please propose another phrasing. This discussion is taking up a disproportionate amount of time, and you could really help by explaining what form of words you'd be OK with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I should not have gone there. This topic tends to push all sort of buttons, which is why it is wise trying to avoid it on WV as much as possible. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your phrasing is almost identical to the previous phrasing in the article, and with the slight modifications I did, I have no objection.

"tragic and all-too often repeating narrative" :), always the victim. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm very relieved we are now in agreement on an acceptable form of words and have inserted them into the article. We can't change history, but it's good to at least agree on what it was, to the extent sufficient for background information for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

While the wording is a bit too roundabout for my tastes, I can live with it. Glad we can agree what the facts are. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The "Climate" subsection of "Understand" is empty. Would anyone like to try their hand at it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If information about Nabateans checks out, why not add something to that tune? Even if it was apparently added by a long standing vandal. Maybe someone should have a look at WP and then decide what to put there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

(I moved the following from my talk page to draw more eyeballs, this is the edit we're talking about) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thank you for your continuous help. :-) Regarding the following warning under Jordan:

	WARNING: due to the ongoing civil war in Syria, it is strongly advised not to travel to/from Syria at this point in time

This seems a little arbitrary to me. For one thing, the war seems to be kind of won for Assad with the fall of Aleppo and the support from Russia. Also, I never had the impression that anything between the Jordan border and Damascus is really dangerous because the war mostly takes place in the north and northeast of Syria. There are some attacks on Damascus but it is not a war zone.

I believe we shouldn't just amplify here what mainstream media is teaching us. If you have anything more profound and maybe some links, I think this would be helpful. Also, the decision is on everyone's own side. It might be important to say, that there is a civil war going on and travelling there is dangerous, if this is really the case between Jordan and Damascus, but apart from that anything else should not be our decision. Also, we don't want to indicate that anyone still in Syria must be crazy, which is what this kind of sentence might suggest.

Maybe we should just write something like for Iraq in the first sentence, because this travel guide really concerns Jordan not Syria. Also, this is the chapter where advice on coming in to Jordan from Syria is given, hence, one already must be there in the first place.

What do you think?

Ceever (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I will move this discussion to the pub to draw more eyeballs. I hope that's okay with you Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite follow. A warning box does not make a decision for a traveller; it provides advice. At least, that is how I interpret the phrase "it is strongly advised not to". A traveller can choose to accept or ignore that advice. As far as I can tell, the civil war is still going on, and I think this is a reasonable warning. Ground Zero (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I guess I would delete the warning, since it's placed in the "Get in" section, so the reader is presumably already in Syria and is now entering Jordan? --ButteBag (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think we should simply replace the whole section with something like "due to the ongoing civil war, normal travel routes between Jordan and Syria are likely not operative, while refugees are leaving Syria to get to Jordan, keep in mind that you traveling this route might conceivably deprive a refugee of the opportunity to get to safety". Also keep in mind that most of our "get in" content is written in a way as to be applicable for the reverse trip (That's why we don't rehash it in "go next") Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I just wanted to avoid too many warning signs, because then we also have to have one for Iraq, and so on. This article concerns Jordan not Syria. "Words create reality" ... but everything is fine with Jordan so far, so let's not deter travellers with shocking images, even though it concerns Syria. Also, interesting way to see it in WikiTravel: "However, due to the current status in Syria you are unlikely to be able to travel from Damascus to Amman via taxi, as anyone out in the open is at risk of being shot by either government-controlled powers or the rebels." :-D Ceever (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to the article, the currency is commonly denoted by "JD", so why does Wikivoyage use "JOD"? Our policy is to prefer the common notation over ISO codes. Any objection to me changing it? Ground Zero (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Ground Zero. According to which article? However, I checked some hotel website in Amman and their tour and room prices; there is actually a tendency to put the currency after the numbers. However, I have found that more hotels are using "JOD" instead of "JD". Furthermore, on my (official) Jordan Pass it states "JOD", though after the numbers again. So, should we move the notation after the numbers and keep it "JOD"? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

By "this article", I mean the article for which this is the talk page, not another article. See Jordan#Money. The Jordan Times newspaper uses "JD". Expatistan uses "dinar", which is something we should consider, following precedent in Thailand, Morocco and other countries since the currency name is short and there is no accepted short form or symbol. Ground Zero (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I never heard people there say "dinar", rather they opt for JD when speaking. However, would we then have to put it after the numbers? Which is what they do. Ceever (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, are we agreed on changing the WV:$ standard to "100 JD"? Ground Zero (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fine with it if all is changed at once. Ceever (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not able to run a bot to do this, so it will take some time. I don't think "all changed at once" is ever an expectation in Wikivoyage. We are volunteers here. Ground Zero (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's done. Ground Zero (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Top! Ceever (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles. Do you agree with these proposals? If you have direct knowledge of what is most commonly used in the country, please let us know. Ground Zero (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

We have a list of 10 cities. Which are the 7+/-2 that are the most important for travellers, per the wv:7+2 policy? Ground Zero (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Since no-one has commented, I will propose to remove the following three cities from this article, based on their articles suggesting that there is little for a visitor to see or do in them. These will still appear in region articles.
  • Mafraq - only one point of interest
  • Azraq - two points of interest
  • Zarqa — this suburb of Amman has a zoo, and no other listings.

Any comments? Ground Zero (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since we can have as many as 9 cities listed and there are 10, only 1 has to be removed. I'd suggest keeping Zarqa since it's the kingdom's 3rd-largest city. I'm not sure about the other two, but if one of them is kept, there's more content in the Azraq article than in the Mafraq article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

But we don't have to have 9, either. 7 is a good number to have. In fact, that is the recommended number. (wv:7+2 says: "Studies show people find it easier to handle lists of around seven items, so we have the 7±2 rule of thumb.") We should focus the readers' attention on the places that are of most interest in the whole country. If there are only 5 interesting places, we should list those 5. I don't think a place is interesting just because it has a large population. Zarqa's article doesn't make it sound interesting. Ground Zero (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

True, though it does have 3 universities. I surely wouldn't try to insist on keeping any of them in the list. (I have a vague memory that those studies were called into question at some point, but be that as it may, your point stands.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with GZ. Having seven cities in the list means that somebody having worked on a city article or think some city otherwise is worth listing here, they can add it without getting reverted. I think that isn't unimportant. –LPfi (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

RSCN (The Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature) is a very important tourism organisation in Jordan. Although its primary Goal is to conserve Nature, it is very active in Tourism by providing guided tours through their nature reserves and building lodges for tourists to stay. Therefore, it is would be very beneficial for a traveler to know this organisation. My idea was to add it to the Jordan page, but it might be considered advertisement, which is not allowed. What do you think about the issue? --Der graue Reisende (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like it is worth mentioning. I'm not entirely sure where, but you might try writing something under "Do". If it sounds like advertising, I will edit it to to tone it down. Ground Zero (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like an industry convention to me. Undoubtedly, its work is useful to visitors, but how is the meeting itself relevant to non-industry travelers? And if readers are already members of the industry, they wouldn't need to or be likely to look here for information on the convention. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking that the tours and lodges would be useful to our readers. I know we generally don't include tours, but this might be an exception, given the nature of the tour and the country. Ground Zero (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I somehow misread this as being about a meeting. Yeah, sure, it's an official organization and can be listed in "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow wikivoaygers. I had the idea of establishing a help desk for travelers. Visitors who wish to come to Jordan could pose questions there and editors could help them. I think this would be very helpful for travelers. We would have to confirm that with wiki voyage as a whole, I would assume, but what do you generally think of such an idea? Does anyone want to help me in my cause to advocate for this idea? --Der graue Reisende (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You could be a docent for Jordan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are we still promoting this? I mean Wikivoyage talk:Docents does not really seem to be active. Also, there are more reasonable alternatives, e.g. groups on Facebook with a huge community available. Why would we carry along something that just causes work but not much extra value?

Also, on OsmAnd (using Wikivoyage) such features are not supported, and also on Wikivoyage I doubt someone will look for an active discussion (beyond editing) group.

But I might be wrong ... Cheers Ceever (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can someone give local information about the Covid-19 situation in Jordan? Governmental dashboard [6] and rules published [7] on the Web indicate that the country is in total lockdown. Right or wrong? --Ppso (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply