Talk:Abdullah II of Jordan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image

This picture is really biased. A picture of the King of Jordan in front of an American flag should not be the lead into the article. Surely there are pictures of Abdullah with a neutral background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.52.9.23 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is always the star trek one SGGH ^speak! 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Conteversy / critisism

i have looked at all 3 sources and they dont exactly say what was wrtieen which lead to me deleting the whole section . because it was obvious it was political rather than neutral. the israeli general didnt quite say that and later opologized adthe writer from the los angeles times doesnt have enough credibelity to advance such a claim. discus this issue further before puttting it on there please.

profit descendent

i have looked at the official cite, and he is a hashemtite. and great grandson of sharif hussein and there is the family tree and proof of the descendency. so i think the phrase claimed to be is not acurate in the article

Rewrite

i have collected all the up to date neutral infrormation and i would like to rewrite the articl, the page violates acording to the administrators the wikipedia standards. so if you want to discuss it go ahead. im going to do some major enhancement to the page. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

LOCK

i see a page attacked by negative ideas and many false aligations. i also see a political motive for some things. this whole page needs to be rewritten.. before i edited some it didnt even name one of the achievemenats i t was all negative stuff. we are talking about a head of state who is respected world wide. i want to ask about how to get this page to be protected or locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandilism

there is a great deal of vandilism.. negative wise. the article is under attack by by someone with a clear negative agenda. i tried adding objective information. the page needsto be COMPLETELY REWRITTEN clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 05:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Queen Noor

I thought that Queen Noor is American, not British. Am I right? -- Zoe

You're right, but the article is wrong, since Queen Noor is not Abdullah's mother, who WAS British. I'll change the thing so it's correct. -- Someone else 20:34 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Something else. -- Zoe

I think its still wrong! How could his mother be "Princess"? Isn't she wife of king Hussen, she should be Queen! I didn't change that because I'm waiting for someone who could confirm this. If that is true then this article must be changed too (Princess_Muna_al-Hussein). Eshcorp 15:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, although Princess Muna (King Abdulla's mother) was married to King Hussein (King Abdulla's father), she was never official given the title of Queen, only Princess.

"To be determined" is kind of ominous, isn't it? —Mulad 02:06, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Photograph

Surely a better photograph can be procured for a head of state?

I think we should add the Star Trek photo to the infobox. :D--Senna27 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Expand tag

The article is more or less empty, isn't it? I mean, King Abdullah has made lots of structural changes to Jordanian culture and economics, hasn't he? I believe the article could be a lot longer, or possibly a "Jordan under King Abdullah" article could be created. Kapil 02:20, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol this is funny..my country wants edging towards democracy?? theres a bigger chance of me believing that harry potter is based on a true story..it wont be a kingdom anymore and i doubt we will ever be allowed 2 criticize the government in public without being thrown behind bars..for gods sake people..dont get me wrong i love my country i can critisize any other country as well,but sometimes i feel a kid like me can run a country and be true to my words better than any other messed up politician(s) out there..once again thats my opinion,if u gotta problem with it ignore what i said

Ancestry

The article is skeptical of the Hashemite claim to descent from Muhammad. Is there serious controversy over this point? If I don't see a citation, I'll take it as read that their descent is what they say it is, and remove the ambiguous language.

The completely irrelevant section questioning Abdullah's descent from the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is deleted. I deleted it because it was factually incorrect--incredibly wrong, actually. The book cited was Mary Wilson's “King Abdullah, Britain and the Making of Jordan" and the argument was that the book disputes the argument about biological descent. I own this book. The book is a historical account of King Abdullah I's reign in Transjordan, from 1921 until his death in 1951. It is a historical work that focuses on the economic and political context of the young emirate's interaction with its colonial power until its independence in 1946; it is aimed at history students and makes primary use of archival and diplomatic records. It makes NO argument about genealogy, regarding the Hashemite (the family's name) house's claimed descent from the Qurayshi Tribe, the tribe of Muhammad, and indeed that is not Professor Wilson's intention.

In contrast, the subject of this article is Abdullah II, the current ruler of Jordan, was took power in 1999 after the death of his father, King Hussein, who began his tenure in 1953, the year after the abdication of his mentally ill father, Talal, and the death of his grandfather, Abdullah I. This can be verified by any cursory glance through this popular history book, which is available in any university library, or reading any of the myriad reviews of it online, through a Google search.

I added a citation to the offical website of King Abdullah that lists his genetic relationship to The Prophet Muhammed. I'm not aware of any actual dispute on the topic of the overall Hashemite Clan's claim of decent from Muhammed nor any specifically related to the Jordanian Royal Family. There are other websites that provide the same geneaological material but I find the one listed on the offical website easier to navigate and it contains links to a more extensive family tree. 76.105.150.19 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Queen Brandissima

Abdullah II's successor?

As of now ,the position of Crown Prince is vacant. What if King Abdullah II suddenly died or was assassinated, who'd become King? My theory is, Prince Hussein (Abdullah's eldest son), would become King and as a minor, one of his uncles (Abdullah's brothers) would be regent. Does anyone else have theories on this topic? Mightberight/wrong 18:53 ,10 November 2005 (UTC).

The scenario you outline seems a likely one. According to the Washington Post [1] "by the terms of the Jordanian constitution Abdullah's ten-year-old son Hussein would automatically inherit the throne" but would not be King until 2012 when he turned 18. As for the process for appointing a governing figure or authority to take charge until Hussein turns 18, the article goes on: "In the interim, Jordan would be governed either by a single regent or a regency council. It is the king's prerogative to name the regent or the regency council as a precaution in the event of his death; if none is named, then the responsibility falls to the Jordanian cabinet. At the moment, it is not known whether Abdullah has privately taken steps to prepare for this constitutional void; no public announcement has been made." Nick Fraser 08:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

St Edmunds

The article refers to St Edmunds, Hindhead, Surrey (correctly) but link takes you to St. Edmunds Canterbury. Don't know how you fix this.

I removed the link for now, as there is no article for a St. Edmunds in Surrey, nor could I find any listing of such a school in the articles on Hindhead or Surrey. I found some vague mentions on the web, but if you are familiar with the school, perhaps you would consider creating a stub or an article? - Cybjorg 15:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Done Jonzo 14:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Move Monarchical Style Box

I moved the Monarchical Style Box to make it look a bit better - it is still not very satisfactory. Styling is not my strong point. Could someone improve the look of the page by moving the box elsewhere? Nick Fraser 08:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Page restructured to accomodate the box. - Cybjorg 11:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Jordanian Royal Family Table

I find this addition fairly annoying and pretty useless. Not only is it overly large, but it also screws up the format quite nastily. I would like to see the template retooled and replaced, or removed. - Cybjorg 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Truthroom.com in external links

I have been actively removing all external links to WWW.TRUTHROOM.COM A discussion with the person adding the information is taking place here. If the user continues to add the link, I will request arbitration to settle the matter. - Cybjorg 09:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Washington Declaration (link)

I moved the link to the Washington Declaration to the Foreign relations of Jordan page. The Declaration was not influenced by King Abdullah. - Cybjorg 03:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have again removed this link. The article in no way mentions how Abdullah is committed to honoring the declaration signed by his father. - Cybjorg 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

King Abdullah has said that he is commited to the Peace Plan that his Father started. This is a FACT, again stop censoring this information. Censors like you do not belong in a dicussion of truth. (unsigned User:24.4.196.90 )

Not only would it be nice if you would register (especially since it appears you have taken a desire in Wikipedia), but also if you would reference an article to bolster your statement. I'm sure the king plans to uphold the Washington Declaration, but the article mentions nothing of the sort to back up your claims. The article has been properly listed on the appropriate page (see above). This is a case of appropriateness, not censorship. (unsigned User:Cybjorg)

External link

I was recently involved in a similar issue on another page. External links are permitted, if they are on topic, and follow on with further information related to the article. A stonger case can be made for notable sources, that plug a reader into a larger store of information, or to journal article, lets say, Biblical studies on Jordan as a whole, and the role of a Monarch. So in my third opinion, while this Truthroom is interesting it fails these tests, and should be removed. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This link points to an article about King Abdullah and his commitment to the peace process. This section is going through the arbitration process. Please do not remove any links. You are free to add your name to the arbitration process. If you continue to censor this information you will be added to the complaint against censorship.

Please link a page to the "arbitration process". So far I saw third opinion, not Arbcom. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please show how this article is in conflict. You are nothing more than a censor. How can you live with yourself. Hidding information from the general public is unacceptable. Make your point or back off.

Nothing wrong with providing a link to a page relevant to the topic of the article, but please do not remove the POV template. Kurt Weber 01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine, but some seek to hide information from the general public. Censorship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

As another wikipedian has stated it is a question of appropriateness not censorship. This article is not sufficiently relevant or appropriate to merit inclusion. I don't know for certain but I'm fairly sure that this is the majority view of interested editors of this article. Could others please comment, either to agree or disagree with my view on this. Nick Fraser 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to read a valid point to be made as to why the peacemaker link should be removed. So far all I read is that is a pov. If there is a scholar among you let them speak. Stop removing valid content, you are showing yourself to be biased.

I have no particular interest in this page; I simply came across it while on RC patrol (as a matter of course I check ALL edits made by anons). However, I do agree that the site in question is in fact relevant to an article on King Abdullah, a fact that becomes quite clear when you read further down the page. Kurt Weber 01:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (someone with no particular interest in this page, although admittedly he does consider himself a friend of the late King Hussein, having communicated with him over ham radio a few times)

I will continue to oppose the inclusion of someone's pet theory. It violates No original Research, when it is published in a peer reviewed journal as an astonishing fact, though controversial, then come back. Yes we do censor Wikipedia. Non-notable minority views are not going to appear here, as this is not a linkfarm, nor is it a place to make such unknown research to be well known. I live very well with myself, knowing Wikipedia can be a reliable source. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The peacemaker link refers to an article that is significant in showing the dedication that King Abdullah has had for many years to the peace process. It also has one of the best photos I have seen of the King in his formal dress. I am sorry to know that "we do censor wikipedia". It is a minority of you that take part in the censoring of information and this is the very reason rules have been setup against the practice.

External Links Debate

I'm coming into this because we've had a request for an Advocate at the Association of Members' Advocates page and I've been reviewing the page for some pertinent info. The person requesting the advocate is an anon but I believe has since registered an account.

Honestly, I don't understand why this link to Truthroom.com has to continually be removed. Looking at George W. Bush you can find similar links to mudslinging sites such as toostupidtobepresident.com, dubyaspeak.com and Michael Moore's website. Not that the GWB article should be the shining example of Wikipedia (I personally think it's a steaming pile of manure) but clearly there's precedent out there for "rogue" or "fringe" websites critical of a particular world leader. If you look outside of GWB there's a massive article regarding the moon landings being faked and if that's not fringe or just plain wacko I don't know what is.

Simply including the link isn't inferring any particular POV and, like I said, GWB's article is chock full of derogatory external links so what's the big deal? In fact, I think it should probably be addressed in the article. --Wgfinley 07:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal theories like "prophecy" are not external links that meet the criteria. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What or who's criteria? Like I just said, there's an entire article devoted to faking the moon landings. I think that's a great example -- it's there to debunk a myth that's out there, why not use it the same way here? If we were to remove references to "personal theories" and "prophecy" then I suppose Nostradamus and Bible code shouldn't exist at all yet they do. Like I said, I don't understand this desire to purge the link. --Wgfinley 14:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia criteria forces editors to make a judgement call. Every minority view doesn't get a place here. Even worse, a prophecy about a living person needs to be looked at even harder. The other sites you mention with "crackpot" theories are notable, and have their own life apart from Wikipedia. They were published or discussed in journals, newspapers, or national magazines. If this was a subject of wide scholorship of any sort, or even the idea of a large group and not ONE person's interpretation of a difficult to interpret part of the Bible, then we would have more reason for inclusion. People don't have the right to link anything they like, and they can't circumvent the ban on original research by creating a web domain and linking to it. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

there's one person who keeps adding the truthroom.com link, so i would assume it's their personal website or they have some vested interest in promoting it. i would strongly oppose using wikipedia to promote one's own website.--Alhutch 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a side issue, but yes you are right. I keep losing the link, it keeps appearing like a bad penny. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mudslinging aside, a lenghty discussion concerning my objections to the link can be found here. According to Wikipedia standards, this link is not a neutral point of view, amounts to libel, cannot be verified, and is an example of what Wikipedia is not (see especially Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball). Thus, according to the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia, and especially considering the recent accusations of character assasination in Wikipedia, I think it is wise to not include referrences to Truthroom.com. - Cybjorg 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

When do we consider inclusion of the link vandalism? Dominick ^(TALK) 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now, 69.228.118.115 is violating WP:3RR Dominick ^(TALK) 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick...you should not call King Abdullah the Antichrist. Changing the wording of my link from Peacemaker to Antichrist is not accurate. That title is reserved for the person who fulfils that role in the future. Currently King Abdullah is fulfilling the role as Peacemaker and I hope that is as far as it goes with him. As you requested there is truth for you! Please stop editing my link and please stop removing my comments in this section. As I stated earlier, this section is experiencing an inquisition of its own. Whatif

From your site:

He will confirm a seven-year peace covenant with the Jews, be honored by the world, and will be hailed as Messiah. But at the mid point of the seven years he will turn on them, break the peace covenant, end their sacrifice and offerings, and kill any who do not bow to him as God.

I am sorry, the future genocidal maniac. This does not merit inclusion. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you make personal attack they will be removed. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

A request has been made to The Cabal about issues on this article. I'm told that there is a dispute over certain "External links". What I'd like to here from everyone involved is a short statement on what they feel the situation is, and what they'd like to see happen to the article. Once we've established everyone's position and feelings, we can go from there. Dan100 (Talk) 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I assumed comments go here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 12 2005 King Abdullah of Jordan Dominick ^(TALK) 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess they can, but I've always preferred to keep discussion about articles on the talk pages! Doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Dan100 (Talk) 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Crikey you lot have been busy! I'll read through (my) tomorrow. Dan100 (Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Many of my thoughts on the subject can be found on this page. - Cybjorg 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Prince Iman?

Abdullah II & Rania have 2 sons & 2 daugthers NOT 3 sons & 1 daugther. Iman is a girl, it should be Princess Iman ,in the info box. GoodDay 22:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just saw your comment. Went ahead and corrected it. Prsgoddess187 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Raina Comments

What's with the Raina comments (not to mention: "neopostism"?) being so inflammatory? I don't see anything similar on her own page, so it's slightly discontinuous. --MKV 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Yes.i think it is wrong to accuse her of neopotism and besides..a lot of people are disrespectfully jealous of queen rania and her family.If any one claims she is owner of 17 corporations,please cite a refrence ..wikipedia is not a place for rmuours..I would suggest that all people be rspectful to King Abdullaha and his family... --Yahoo 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek?

I'm not saying its wrong, but don't you think an article about a king and leader of country should include things related to this country and its politics? I mean when about 10% of an article about a king is actually about star treck.. that's not good! It would be better if we left links to the voyager articles:

"King Abdullah is an acknowledged fan of Star Trek. In 1995, while he was still Prince, he appeared as an extra in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Investigations." Abdullah's role was not given any speaking lines because he was not a member of the Screen Actors Guild."

and the other one under "see also", but remove the picture, I really think it is undermining for a king, don't you? Eshcorp 15:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it shows him as a human being. Its not offensive to the King so I think it should stay. Jamezcd

Dito, it is in no way undermining or offensive, and quiete unique for a monarch. -- Imladros 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article that was removed should be reinstated. Even though there isn't any other articles to support his role on ST:Voy, he's on film and on film credits.If it was "beneath" him to do it, he wouldn't have done it to begin with. He was a prince at a time and as it was previously and it would be good to show that he has interests that shows a more human side. I propose it should be reinstated. --Hourick 15:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with my fellow editors - the material should stay as it is well-sourced and humanizes the king. If it were negative in some way I would feel differently but it's rather endearing that he is a big fan of a fictional show and universe, something with which many people can relate. --ElKevbo 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal house

I am unfamiliar with Arabic naming conventions, but shouldn't the King's royal house (Hashemite) appear somewhere in his name?

For example: King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud (Saudi Arabia)

--Soviet Canuckistan 20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism?

Why is the War on Terrorism box tacked on to the end? Seeing as the other world leaders don't get the box it seems out of place here.

Kevink 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What's with the Future section?

The "Future" section does not adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, in that it is unsourced and potentially libelous.

141.140.120.176 21:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)JB

I just removed soem of the unsourced and irrelevant stuff, but left the Haaretz and LAT sourced stuff, although it also looks poor. MKV 16:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality and Scope of Material

Please do not add opinions or factoids. Keep the information to biographical material. This is an encylopedia type article. Please use Encylopedia Brittanica as a model. This is a not an opinion page from the latest newpapers. I have removed much of the article which is not neutral or simply factual information. Azalea_pomp

I'd go further. Someone needs to tear down and completely re-write this entire entry. IfGeorge W. Bush's page claimed he was a Nazi people would rightly be outraged. Yes, this page is that bad. It's embarrassing. It's really, really embarrassing. --Wgbc2032 10:37 PM (MT)

NPOV template

Can someone please point me to the NPOV discussion that the template says is here on the Talk page? I don't see any active or even recent discussion of this issue so I'm probably just missing or overlooking it. --ElKevbo 05:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I always wondered why I thought he looked so familiar.

And now I could clear my mind and come up with it: Jimbo Wales. Haha, just check it out. :) --84.249.253.201 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hashemite coat of arms

Can anyone please change the Image:Coat of Jordan.png with Image:Jordan coa.png?

King of Jordan's fashion

I know this might sound inappropiate, But the King of Jordan dress very well. Does any know where get his clothing? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

There is poverty in Jordan, I do know that. But saying that citizens have difficulties obtaining drinking water is not true. Some citizens have no access to medication, proper food, yes. But the way the phrase has been put does not sound right at all.

I am also not sure what is exactly meant by it. It could mean:

1. Jordan is one of the poorest countries in terms of water
2. Jordanian citizens are living in so much poverty that they can't even obtain drinking water.

There is no way you can misinfer the above considering it is actually written the way it is written in number one... lets be realistic. And yes, there is a huge water problem here, and clean water isn't always available to everyone. If you don't live in the poor area please don't comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.125.194 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If #1 was what was meant by the phrase, then I have no problem with that, and it should be cleared up. But if it was the latter, then this is definately inaccurate. Eshcorp 17:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Jordan is one of the top-10 water hungry nations in the world, but as has been mentioned, Jordanian citizens aren't having trouble obtaining drinking water. The cooling for any proposed nuclear power solution will most likely come from the Red Sea/Dead Sea water pipeline. - Cybjorg 09:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Eshcorp's advice, i corrected the format of this sentence.hope that this info will clarify and correctly describe jordan's internal situation from all perspectives.Grandia01 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Fuels in Maan

The article says that "Geological surveys in 1980s have indicated that Jordan’s most southern department, Ma'an, has untapped sources of fossil fuels". I'm trying to find on the net something that proves the existence of fuel in Maan, but until now I've found nothing, can anyone please refer to the source of this statement, or even better, provide a link to these geological surveys? I think the statement needs a reference.

POV, rewrite needed

I've made a few changes in the "Politics" section and tagged the "Achievement" section. There's a lot of weasel words in Politics, and I've only dealt with the most obvious. There are also some info that does not seem relevant or does not seem to reflect anything about his policies. The entire achievement section is quite inappropriate. As a head of state currently in power and only in the 1st decade of his reign, words like "achievement" shouldn't been thrown around carelessly. These are all policies he has taken, of which the long term effects has yet to be seen. The whole section should be rewritten and put into appropriate places in the Politics section. I am not knowledgeable in the subject, nor am I particularly interested on the topic. I simply came across this article by chance, but even then I felt immediately that this article was very unbalanced. I've refrained from slapping on an POV tag, but that wouldn't have been too far from the reality. I read the news, and I know Jordan is under a fair bit of criticism internationally on various issues, especially human rights. But with exception of the "Controversy" section, the whole article is quite unreservedly positive toward the king, with most of the stuff reading like PR material. Skimming through the discussion, however, it would seem that only the devotees and dissenters actively editing this page. I hope there'd be more less interested people here to balance the views. O not 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• * the arguments in the achievements are valid and well sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the sourcing; these so-called "achievements" are really ongoing policies and their effects. It's not a matter of balance on this point; it's simply too early to call these things achievements. Furthermore, with regard to the "military achievement", there really is no achievement at all; so he had a military reform, but since his military has yet to be put to the test, how could you call it an achievement?o 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• * the military arguments are very valid, im an expert on these maters. i have writen the pages of several generals. the military reform can be concidered as an achievement. check the sources, from 16 F-16 fighters in 99 to around 64 today.. any how. i feel a bias in this whole article.. there is a big controversy section that is very disputable but every ahievement i have listed is valid.. if you want we can change the name from achievement to reforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "reforms" would be a much better term. "Achievement" implies something done, in the past, as oppose to something that is still very much ongoing. Still, I don't see how this whole section should be separate from the "Politics" section; they are all the King's policies after all. I agree that there is bias in the whole article, but in the opposite direction. Controversies are, by definition, disputed, so there is nothing wrong with a "disputed" controversy section. Parts of the controversy section could be better written, but over all I do not see a big problem there. Like I said, I am no expert on the subject, but simply from my reading of international news, I know that Jordan's government comes under a fair bit of criticism internationally. I do not agree nor disagree with these criticisms, but having criticisms is very normal especially for countries under transformation such as Jordan, and these issues deserve to be mentioned. I don't question your experties on the military matter, but perhaps the fact that you've worked for Jordanian armed forces (if I understand you correctly) reveals your own POV. Perhaps you should be all the more careful with NPOV when contributing. o 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• * i have not worked with the rdanian military or any jordanian governmental agency, im a politcal and military anylist and i specialise in the middle east. im mostly interested in jordan and i believe there are things that could be done ithis article to make it as nuetral as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about the misunderstanding. Clearly the article can be improved both in terms of NPOV and overall, hopefully it will be.

Yes, "reforms" is a better section title, but I still think this section should be fit under the Politics section; perhaps expanding the Politics section and separating it into subsections. But that's about as far as I can suggest on this article. o 00:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally Whitewashed

This article glosses _waaayy_ too much over the nastier aspects of the King's reign in Jordan. Monarchial democracies are dictatorships when the King is there for life _and_ is the absolute ruler. This article is obviously written with a pro-Jordanian POV and needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.38.137.32 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

..... i dont belive you have the facts about this article. this article has a very aparent anti-jordanian aspect. you should have seen it before it was made alittle nuetral. i concider my self an expert on the jordanian kingdom, and i believe the POV is of an anti jordanian perspective —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) I Agree the nuclear program makes him out to be King Abdulllah And How He Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb .If any country is a neutral country in the middle east its Jordan .---- Nate Riley 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

rewrite

there is alot of vandilism going on. and alot of the page is not neutral and is anti jordanian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue with references

Thanks much to those who have been putting good work into the article!

I have an issue with this sentence:

Criticising Islam is punishable by short-term imprisonment and/or minimal fines, and criticism of King Abdullah, the Hashemite family, or the Jordanian government in general, is severely punished typically by imprisonment that violate the major principles of U.N's Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to Human rights watch

because the cited references don't say the things that the sentence says they say. It's kind of a complicated sentence, and I think we're going to need to find three separate references for each claim:

1. Criticising Islam is punishable by short-term imprisonment and/or minimal fines
2. criticism of King Abdullah, the Hashemite family, or the Jordanian government in general, is severely punished typically by imprisonment
3. this imprisonment violates the major principles of U.N's Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to Human rights watch.

I couldn't find substantiation for any of these claims in the references cited. It's very important that if we cite a ref, it must say what we say it says.

Another issue is that the sentence doesn't really explain what this has to do with the subject of the article. Did he make these laws? How have they changed since his predecessor? I think for now it might be best to pitch this sentence until we can find better refs to back it up. The current refs talk about deplorable prison conditions, so a more general statement like "Human Rights Watch has criticized Jordan for failing to comply with international standards and treaties with unhealthy prison conditions and violent treatment of prisoners" or something would be acceptable with just the refs we have now. The only problems with that are that it still doesn't explain what this has to do with Abdullah, and Human Rights Watch may not be the most reliable source, though I think it's probably OK since it's a reputable organization.

Thanks again folks, the article's improving! delldot talk 07:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I'm going to go ahead and make the changes I think need to be made, because it's of utmost importance that the references we use are accurate. I'm adding material on criticism of Abdullah with references, and I'm taking out the unreferenced material and the material that was not in the references cited. I took out the mention of Toujan al-Faisal, because the sentence didn't really say what happened or what it had to do with Abdullah. We can include it if there's a reference for it though (we could use one from her page if there's an appropriate one). If there's any problem with my edit, please don't hesitate to let me know about it, we can discuss it here and figure out a compromise. Thanks, delldot talk 12:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit, let me know what you all think! delldot talk 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Toujan al-Faisal

I was asked to weigh in on this edit. I do have a few comments about it and more general comments:

• Since I've been editing the page, I think it would be improper for me to take any admin actions with regard to editing of this page (other than with blatant vandalism, and I'm talking "John has a big butt" type stuff). Not to mention that I'm a human rights activist myself, and so might be biased here. I'm glad to help get other admins involved if people think admin actions are needed and want my help, though. But as far as editing the article, I'm just another editor.
• I read the article used as the reference in the above edit, and I notice that it didn't mention Abdullah, just the general democracy in Jordan. It would be better if we could find a source that criticized or described criticism of Abdullah himself (this info might be better in human rights in Jordan or something).
• Amnesty International, while a reputable organization, is not really a reliable source; it's an advocacy group, after all. You could maybe use it to show that he's gotten criticism from human rights groups, but better would be a reliable source discussing the criticism, IMO
• I'd remove the 'illustration' wording. I think there might be a WP:OR problem with saying that "such and such is an illustration of this and that;" it reads to me like the writer is making that analysis. I think it would be better if we could quote someone as saying that was the case. We could say that Amnesty has said that, but again, it seems like a reliable source would be better. Also, currently it says 'illustration of this claim', so it's not really clear what claim is being illustrated here.
• I recommend a one sentence summary of what did happen to her to go with this sentence.

Sorry to be so picky about everything! Everyone's working hard and doing a good job! I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback on all of this. Thanks, delldot talk 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CUA category

Ok, the king made a speach at the Catholic University of America. I don't think that really qualifies his inclusion in the Category:The Catholic University of America. Gentgeen (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As no one defended its inclusion in a week, I've removed the cat. ciao. Gentgeen (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, sorry I didn't see this earlier or I would have said so before. delldot talk 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

I've made small changes to the Reforms section, but I think it needs more work. It contains vague and POV-sounding wording such as "Abdullah's policies have attracted business to Jordan." Better would be examples of precisely what he did and what happened. Also, the statements should be sourced to reliable sources; a lot are unsourced, and one that I noticed was an advocacy website.

I think some of the reforms section and some of the criticism sections could be merged into other sections like the military and democracy sections respectively. Criticism sections, for example, are generally discouraged in favor of integrating the text.

Could the person who tagged the article with NPOV and BLP tags explain exactly what the problems are? This will make it them easier to fix. Thanks, delldot talk 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• any uncorced statements in the reforms section will be sourced, just give an example, as far as the pov on critisizm, many of them are not about the king, they are about laws and political things that have many sides and the king is not part of, and the sections refers to the incidents as if they were the only side of the story and 2 cases it sources and speaks about opinions rather than facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

adding new things

the controversy has POV on ot so im removing opinions and things that dont have to do with the king himself and add it to the politicsection, same with the reforms section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for watching out for the POV of the article, Topsecrete. I also appreciate the good use of edit summaries, e.g. here, and would appreciate it if you'd do that every time. I'd also appreciate it if you'd state here which things you're removing and explain what exactly is POV about them. Also, if you're going to remove something because it should be in another article rather than this one, you should actually put that info into the article, otherwise you're just removing it (though in this case, there's no Democracy in Jordan. Maybe Politics of Jordan?). Sorry, that's a lot of stuff. Ok, I'll leave you alone for now, good work. Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

heres what i did POV + controversy/reforms

they both belong in the politicas section. some of the things in contreversy talk about incidents in jordan and the government, not the king himself, they belong in other articles ans also removed some of the pov way the article was written. we should be neutral and not pro or con hre on wikipedia. if you disagree with what i have done PLEASE DISSCUSS here and dont just go and ruin all ive done. after removing the pov . i believe the page has no significant unsorced info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work Topsecrete, I think it's indeed an improvement to have the criticism merged into the politics section.

I made a couple of grammar, punctuation and spelling fixes. I also removed this sentence because it was not clear what it meant, employed weasel words, and was poorly sourced, to the Jordanian embassy (reliable sources are independent of the subject):

Though many political leaders argue that both cases are diferent and argue that some tend to make any problems seem larger, also showing Jordan as a beacon of tability [2]

I fully agree that we should try as hard as we can to remain neutral. I would further suggest discussing changes before removing properly sourced material.

I think there are still some problems with the article. Some material does remain improperly sourced, and some is still POV or too vague, such as the following:

Jordan's economy has improved under Abdullah - better would be to state what changes have occurred and let the reader decide whether they think it's an improvement.

Like his father, King Abdullah pushed forward a policy of reform - this is too vague, again it would be better just to state what he's done.

We don't want the article to read like it's trying to convince anyone of anything.

I'd further recommend that we be very strict with sources, including only reliable, independent ones (so the Washington Institute would have to go, although what it's used to cite is not controversial). Additionally, it would be good if we could use full citations rather than inline external links or raw URL's. If anyone needs help with the cite.php formatting, I'm glad to offer it.

Thanks to all who have worked hard on the article, it has come a long way! delldot on a public computer talk 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work finding a reliable source and replacing the Amnesty one, Topsecrete. One last thing, though: It's of utmost importance to represent the sources we cite accurately. We can't have info in a sentence cited to a source if the source does not contain that information. We can put it in a separate sentence, or better, find a source for it. Thus, in this edit, I removed stuff that was not in the article. We have to be careful when replacing references that the new reference says the same thing, or we need to change the information to reflect the new one. delldot on a public computer talk 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should discuss the articles claim about the relation between king abdullah and the shah of iran, ive asked some historians and political scientists here my university and non agree with the contrast between the two saying both are different situations. reza was unpopular and was not part of the original iranin monarchy, on the other hand king abdullah has strong support from the jordanian tribes "transjordanians" and also have progressed jordanian from palestinian origin, i dont think any two people would disagree on that. also the hashemite dynesty has been stable in Jordan for 80 years or so, i read the source, and im honestly not convinced and niether are my proffesors, it seemed like an opinion..... Any thoughts anybody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to include info from a reliable source covering the opposite viewpoint, I think that would be fine. It wouldn't, of course, be appropriate to put the info in without a source, per WP:NOR, or with a poor source such as an advocacy site or a site involved with the subject. I think if you want to make a case for removing the existing content, you would have to show that it's such a minority viewpoint that it doesn't even merit mention. That article makes it sound like it's not that uncommon of a view, but I don't know. It does sound, from the rest of the article, like a bunch of people have concerns about his stability. The best thing would be if we could find a source saying how commonly held these concerns are, like an article about a poll or something, though we'd be lucky to get something like that. delldot talk 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

well, i have found online sources from the U.S department of defence talking about the high stability and popularity of the king. and the writer of the los angelous piece, i did some reearch on him,k he has extreme biases in those cases, which makes his remarks not very dependable, i have also asked my professors and done extensive research. and found out that the analogy is not acuratly based. any how. i will wait for a responce for 2 days, if i dont get any oposing views with good evidence, i will change it and redo that small part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

ok i will be deleting that last part about the contrast with shah of Iran, if you have a probelm discuss it here before undoing my deletion, i will also be able to provide you with links and sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) any one who re-edits without disscusion will be unfair and i will report them to an administration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsecrete (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:King Abdullah on Star Trek.jpg

The image Image:King Abdullah on Star Trek.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Date and place of birth

On the 17th Dec. 2008, an alteration was made to Abdullah's place and date of birth.

It seems that the person has wanted to taint the head of state by altering his date of birth (30th Jan) and place (Amman) to link it with a prophecy of the anti-christ supposedly born in Jerusalem on the 4th of Feb. 1962.

The place of birth has already been corrected.

Unless there is reason to suspect that the official Jordanian sites are incorrect with regards his dob, I suggest this be corrected.

Jmdavid (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the birthdate in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Daily Show Appearance

King Abdullah recently appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I was wondering if this was worth mentioning. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:00pm • 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like everything an encyclopedia shouldn't be.

Really, the writing in this article is terrible. Someone please rewrite it: it's actually embarrassing to read. Lines like "Healthcare is now easy to receive even in rural parts of Jordan," and the "Interests" section are really cringeworthy, and the POV is anything but neutral. Some of the article is okay, but a lot of it was clearly written by someone who either does not understand how an encyclopedia is written or does, and is simply entirely incapable of reproducing that; it's somewhere between a middle school essay and fan fiction. Just rewrite the whole thing and I'll pretend I didn't say any mean words ^_^ 64.254.164.95 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear

nuclear section needs to be updated. For example they are moving the location to the city of Mafraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.200.154 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab Spring

The authors of this article seem to be caught in a historical time warp in which history ends before 2010. You should check the material on the Google pages with the following sets of keywords:

jordan arab spring

Jordan Protests King Abdullah II

Jordan Protesters King Abdullah II

That information needs to be incorporated into this article.

Dagme (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free file problem

File:King Abdullah on Star Trek.jpg was removed from this article because it either does not have a Non-free use rationale or there are problems with the existing rationale. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the applicable policy and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for how to fix the problem. If further input or help is needed, questions can be directed towards Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or my talk page. Thank you. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated Photograph

I'm currently watching Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN, and a recording of an interview during the World Economic Forum between Abdullah II and Fareed Zakaria is being played. I'm noticing that Abdullah's hair is greyer than in the picture in this article, and also, his facial hair is shaven. His skin tone also looks different. The article's photograph is obviously outdated based on these observations. While it is a good picture, it should be updated. Thanks. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Done! The World Economic Forum photostream at Flickr is a gold mine. Surtsicna (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks, fellow Wikipedian. You are an excellent citizen. This article's even better now! Again, thanks. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:King Abdullah on Star Trek.jpg

File:King Abdullah on Star Trek.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:King Abdullah on Star Trek.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)