Talk:Emirate of Transjordan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2003 discussion[edit]

The map is not an accurate map of Transjordan. This is a map of the modern day Jordan. Transjordan was slightly different.

Most of this appears to be a simple rewrite of information that appears on [1] and [2]. Their copyright policies would not allow this information here, so this is a case of plagiarism that needs to be fixed. Geoffrey

I have not seen much response other than User:Branden's addition of a few paragraphs, with which, along with a tiny and possibly incorrect summary, I have replaced the page. Therefore, with modifications from the boilerplate text, I say this. -Geoffrey 01:20 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Removed possible copyright infringement. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from these webpages, which are exact copies:
To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our license or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this talk page. If there was no permission to use this text then please leave this page as a stub article.
It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does not have the express permission from the copyright holder is possibly illegal and is a violation of our policy. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily suspended from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you.

Removed "This likely explains why the lands east of the Jordan river were implicitly consdidered of secondary importance (being on the "other" side of it)." which is just an unimportant opinion. -- zero 08:40, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence. I guess it's only unimportant if etymology is unimportant. Ask yourself why the area *west* of the Jordan river wasn't called "trans"-Jordan. Or don't, I guess -- evidently you feel it's better to delete stuff out of the Wikipedia than improve it through analysis. Branden 05:17, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The primary European access to Palestine throughout history was from the coast. That's why the west is "this side" and the east is the "far side". No other speculation is required. As far as importance is concerned, as well as being more accessible the west side was more fertile, more populated, and more important economically. --Zero 10:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I just want to mention here that the word Cisjordânia (derived from Cisjordan) is used in Portuguese, instead of "West Bank". So, this word did catch on outside Jordanian circles. PMLF 22:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, in Romanian, West Bank is called Cisiordania.

New infobox[edit]

I have just added a new infobox. It contains some information from the Mandate of Palestine article (flag, high commisioners). If these are incorrect, please remove them (and insert the correct flag) - 52 Pickup 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed on the FOTW website that the Transjordan flag (1921-1946) is totally identical to the current Jordanian flag. I think it's right so I will change the British Mandate Flag with the Jordanian one.
Wikissa 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Transjordan & Transpalestine[edit]

I wonder what is the different between them? radiant guy (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

British representatives[edit]

Why are Kirkbride and Philby in the info box? They don't belong there. The British person with real authority was the High Commissioner for the Mandate of Palestine, starting with Herbert Samuel. Zerotalk 00:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


I may be blind but I am having trouble discovering who this Samuel idividaul is in the opening section.

"When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mandate for Trans-Jordan[edit]

The introduction to this article is not clear on the de facto creation of a "Mandate for Trans-Jordan", and the map is misleading. Sources below:

  • 1922 Transjordan memorandum
  • 1922 "Order defining Boundaries of Territory to which the Palestine Order-in-Council does not apply"
  • 1925, Hadda Agreement, "This Agreement will remain in force for so long as His Britannic Majesty's Government are entrusted with the Mandate for Trans-Jordan"[1]
  • 1928/29, United Kingdom and the Emir of Transjordan, independence agreement of 20 February 1928 see Bentwich, "The Mandate for Transjordan", X Brit. Yb. Int'l L. (1929) 212.
  • 1945, British High Court (in Jawdat Badawi Sha’ban v. Commissioner for Migration and Statistics): “Now, Trans-Jordan has a government entirely independent of Palestine – the laws of Palestine are not applicable in Trans-Jordan nor are their laws applicable here. Moreover, although the High Commissioner of Palestine is also High Commissioner for Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan has an entirely independent government under the rule of an Ameer and apart from certain reserved matters the High Commissioner cannot interfere with the government of Trans-Jordan... Trans-Jordan comes within the meaning of the word ‘state’ as used in Article 15 [of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order]... Trans-Jordan nationality is recognised and we know that Trans-Jordan can, as in this case, grant a person naturalisation, i.e. grant an alien or foreigner Trans-Jordan nationality which is a separate nationality and distinct from that of Palestine citizenship... Palestinians and Trans-Jordanians are foreigners and therefore Trans-Jordan must be regarded as a foreign state in relation to Palestine[2]

Whilst Transjordan was certainly including in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which as a legal document itself was not modified, it was in fact a de facto separate entity for its entire existance. In other words, there is currently confusion here between the League of Nations legal technicalities, and the actual situation in the territory. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What would you have us do? Is there a recommendation for a revised lead? Do you have a new map? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's an issue on a bunch of related articles - sowing confusion throughout wikipedia's telling of the 1920-47 period in the region. Need a solution across all the articles - I haven't got a good answer just yet. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Independence and establishment" subsection and other problems[edit]

Despite my hachet work, this section still contains quite a lot of very poor text based mostly on one source (US foreign relations publication) and not even report in that very well. I think it largely counts as WP:SYNTH. Also the "Status of the Emirate" contains only material that should be redistributed to other sections. Zerotalk 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"The British administration in Jerusalem only ever covered the area west of the Jordan."[3][edit]

In my view the gist of the sentence is correct, but I think the wording could certainly be improved. Prior to the meeting at salt in August 1920 Britain had zero presence in Transjordan. If you look at the terms that Samuel laid out at Salt (and the correspondence between Curzon and Herbert) it is clear that Tranjordan is not being brought under the Samuel's Palestine administration. In any case the arrangement that is made at Salt only lasts a few months until Abdullah and his army march into Transjordan and occupy the whole territory unopposed. If you look at the timeline, there is in fact no time when Transjordan is administered directly by Samuel's administration in Palestine. The only issue is how to express this in a clear and encyclopedic manner. Dlv999 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if indirectly, it is clear that Britain ruled the area in some fashion. e.g., "Transjordan remained under British control until the first Anglo-Transjordanian treaty was concluded in 1928. Transjordan became nominally independent, although the British still maintained a military presence and control of foreign affairs and retained some financial control over the kingdom." Scott Illini (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No one is disputing that. The key word in the sentence is "Jerusalem". Oncenawhile (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The wording definitely can be improved. With such poor grammar, it is hard to know what the intended meaning is, regardless of its validity or lack thereof (and I don't find it or anything like it in the cited source.) How about "...exercised authority over only the area west of the Jordan"? Hertz1888 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This is all unsupported synthesis. Again, "ever" is quite sweeping. Scott Illini (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The article is full of sources that support it, including the one linked to the title of this discussion. If you think "ever" is sweeping, please provide a source that suggests otherwise. I would be fascinated to know what dates you believe the Jerusalem administration might have covered Transjordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced it with a much clearer paragraph. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the term "no mans land" in this instance, I think it gives the wrong impression. There was a certain ambiguity over the sovereignty of the territory, but it was not uninhabited, the population to a large extent carried on as normal. Apart from that I find the edit is agreeable. Dlv999 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it implies uninhabited. It's a direct quote from Bentwich "The High Commissioner had ... only been in office a few days when Emir Faisal ... had to flee his kingdom" and "The departure of Faisal and the breaking up of the Emirate of Syria left the territory on the east side of Jordan in a puzzling state of detachment. It was for a time no-man's-land.". Oncenawhile (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I would be very careful about adopting the language of British officials and zionists of the 1920's and 30's for the Wikipedia voice without attributing or citing the source. In the language of Zionists and British officials of the time there can often be seen a blank negation of the indigenous population of Palestine and Transjordan, and at worst the language would today be regarded as racist. In my opinion this use of "no mans land" is a perfect example. In the eyes of the British administration and Zionists the native inhabitants were irrelevant, to them, if the territory was not part of the British or French Empires it was a "no mans land". But I see no reason why we should be adopting this outdated imperialist mindset for the Wikipedia voice without attribution. The territory was not a "no mans land" although British Imperialists and Zionists of the time may have perceived it as such. Dlv999 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
One thing not mentioned (?) is that the High Commissioner for Palestine was also the High Commissioner for Transjordan; I think this arrangement lasted until 1946. This doesn't contradict the claim that Transjordan wasn't administered from Jerusalem, but it does allow for some confusion. The Peel Commission report (p60) put it like this:"The British High Commissioner for Palestine retained such ultimate powers as the continuance of the Mandate with its international obligations implied; but the function of the British Resident at Amman and his handful of British subordinates was to advise, not to govern, and the departments of the administration were headed by the Amir’s Arab ministers and staffed almost entirely by the Amir’s Arab officials." Zerotalk 12:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This was only the case from after the Cairo Conference (as Transjordan was not part of Palestine before). And after that it was a technical position under the Emir. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The High Commissioner was not under the Emir, where did you get that idea from? Zerotalk 14:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right. My understanding is that the High Commissioner had two titles (for Palestine and Transjordan) as you said, and he appointed the Chief British Representative (later the British Resident) to Transjordan. The Resident was the administrative advisor to the Emir. In other words, the administration was headed by the Resident, who was under the Commissioner and the Emir. The Commissioner and the Emir were not over or under one another. See below for how it apparently worked in practice:
For reasons of administrative convenience it has been found necessary to place the Chief British Resident under the High Commissioner, because the High Commissioner is the representative of His Majesty the King in the whole mandated territory of Palestine, that is to say, in Trans-Jordan and Palestine together. This does not mean that the Trans-Jordan Government is in any way under the Palestine Government. It is not. They are separate administrations altogether. It is true that for administrative convenience again, various heads of Departments in Palestine have assisted the Chief British Resident and the Trans-Jordan Government in regard to technical matters in which they are experts. For instance, the Palestine auditor overhauled the whole financial arrangements of the Trans-Jordan Government, and gave them a decent accounting system and a set of financial regulations, and the Palestine Postmaster-General lent them an officer to get their Post Office into order. But all these people came to Trans-Jordan as advisers, and on temporary Missions.[4]
Oncenawhile (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Separately, if anyone wants a really detailed source on the period, here and here is the PhD thesis of the former British Ambassador to Oman. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Great source! Incidentally from 1928 to 1946 the role of the High Commissioner and Resident were prescribed by the 1928 treaty that is reproduced starting at page 282 (pdf page 289). In quite a lot of matters, Transjordan was supposed to act on the advice of the British government as provided via the High Commissioner and the Resident. Zerotalk 05:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

TransjordanEmirate of Transjordan – The rationale for this move is that usually upon referring to former states and entities we use the full title, while using short descriptives for the geographic regions - for example Emirate of Nejd (entity) and not just "Nejd" (region). Transjordan in modern usage is mostly referring to the region, rather than to the Emirate, and hence since there is no existing Transjordan we should use "Emirate of Transjordan" for the geopolitical protectorate, to differ from the geographic concept Transjordan (region); If accepted we can also rename Transjordan (region)->Transjordan, but that is another story.GreyShark (dibra) 18:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC) GreyShark (dibra) 18:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Land exchange[edit]

A land exchange between Jordan and Saudi Arabia took place.. [5] We should add Saudi Arabia to the infobox.--Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ [6]
  2. ^ [7]