Talk:Flag of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Heraldry and Vexillology
 Heraldry and Vexillology Portal

Flag of Israel is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To-do:

Contents

[edit] 2004

I'm doing a revert. Why? Because I put up a fact about something that is 'frequently alleged' and it was removed as 'imperialist nonsense'. OK, this allegation might be nonsense, but it is a widely held belief - I had never heard any other story about the origin of the Israeli flag until reading this entry. Having read the entry, it seems a more plausible story, but the other history is so prevalent in my experience, I feel there ought to be a note about it--XmarkX 09:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi -- it really is 'imperialist nonsense'. The canard originated with Yasser Arafat in a September, 1988 Playboy interview. It really doesn't have much credence outside similar circles. Jewbacca 21:13, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
If it helps, check out a google search. Look at the sources perpetrating this claim -- islamonline.net, aljazeera, and several anti-America, anti-Israel conspiracy sites.
sorry, but this doesn't really refute what I said, which isthat this is frequently alleged. I am putting the comment back,but with a proviso about who frequently alleges this.--XmarkX 00:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I cut a fair amount of stuff that had nothing to do with the claim that the stripes on the flag represent territorial ambitions and everything to do with claims regarding those territorial ambitions themselves. —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative proposals

Does anybody know of any alterntive proposals for the flag of Israel? The article states that these exist but does not back it up with any external links or references. What, if any, are they? Makaristos 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know of some, if you are referring to old 1948 proposals already linked. Otherwise no, and it would be within Wikipedia policy to remove the section about Arabic symbol proposals, due both to the lack of any reference and the seemingly policy violating use of it to assert an agenda. See the "Why original research is excluded" section of Wikipedia:No original research. The revision record claims that it was translated from "Hebrew wikipedia". So this thorn in the side section is being removed soon, hopefully not to return until policy can be followed. Samuel Erau 17:27 UTC, 29 July 2006
Humus sapiens removed the "Alternative proposals" paragraph yesterday, a few days after an anonymous user put [citation needed] at the end of it. - Samuel Erau 07:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It took us only half-a-year! ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nile to the Euphrates?

I have always thought that was what the two blue stripes represented, the explantion offered does seem more spiritual though. I can only think why the other explanation seemed plausible is because of Jewish presence in these areas long ago and what exactly constitutes the promised land. so is that the common consensus among Israelis of what the stripes represent just the spiritual colour? Zakaria mohyeldin 09:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The "Nile to Euphrates" myth is just that—a myth. It has no basis in history or reality. By far the vast majority of Jews have never claimed the entire Fertile Crescent as a homeland, though Jews throughout history have been extremely widely seeded and certainly present in all the places there. A few people, some noted in the article, do desire to claim the entirety of that area as a homeland, but most Jews and Israelis repudiate these ideas. The tallit was chosen as the model for the flag for the reasons stated in the article, and the article already explains the origins and propagation of the "Nile to Euphrates" myth. Makaristos 08:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Makaristos - it all depends on how you define myth...Genesis 15:18 states that Abraham was promised this land. Most Jews believe they are the rightful descendents of Abraham (after that whole Jacob, Eisav thing). Some Jews also believe that the Hebrew Bible is truth,not myth (depending on your definition of myth tho, myths can be true). Therefore, it follows that some Jews believe that they are the rightful descendents of Abraham and also that the Bible is truth. Since in Genesis 15:18, God promises between the Nile and the Euphrades to Abraham, it follows that some Jews (the ones who believe the Bible is truth) believe (or at least should believe) that they, as the rightful descendents of Abraham, are entitled to that land. Slubin 22:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That's why I said "most Jews and Israelis". --Makaristos 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessarily most Jews and Israelis that repudiate these ideas. It is only some, unless you have some polls or something.Slubin 22:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You're not serious, are you? --Makaristos 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am serious...Saying most as opposed to some is a serious logical fallicy. By the laws of formal logic, "most" denotes a majority while "some" can only be interpreted as at least one. To relate this to our discussion, instead of more than half of Israelis repudiating the ideas of Genisis 15:18, you can only logically say at least one Israeli repudiates the idea, unless you have opinion polls.Slubin 22:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lighter blue flag

Is it really necessary to have the alternate lighter colorization of the flag on this page? Nothing else links to it and it doesn't seem incredibly relevant. If we decide we want it, it should just be an altered version of the regular flag SVG image, so we avoid superfluous PNGs. Makaristos 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was not the one who added it, though. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need it. —Nightstallion (?) 12:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Right oh. It's history. Makaristos 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of 2 Stripes on Tallit?

In further discussion of the "nile to euphrades" debate, I'm wondering if anyone knows the origin of the two stripes on the tallit which Israel's flag was based on in the modern (maybe post-modern?) era. If the Torah commands that only one thread of the tallit be dyed, how exactly did it move to two once the snail died out? Are there any records? This might help settle the deabte over the meaning of the flag... Slubin 22:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Slubin

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. The tallis has had blue stripes for ages, which is where the original Zionists got the idea for the flag back in the late nineteenth century. All of this is well documented and there is no debate about the meaning of the stripes. You're making a big deal out of this when there really is nothing to debate. Good day. --Makaristos 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not been able to find anything regarding how the tallit developed two stripes as opposed to one (By the way, R.Akiva used black stripes instead of blue). Please enlighten me. Most things in Judaism have an inherent meaning...Since you didn't really answer my question, I'll ask directly: can you please describe how the Tallit went from having one blue thread (of the tassles), to two large blue stripes (on the main body...which, I agree, the flag was based on)? To clarify, I'm not asking about what the stripes on the flag are based on, I'm asking about what the stripes on the Tallit are based on. Slubin 22:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The talits have ranges of color strips from blue to black, which is perhaps the reason for the undefined official color of "dark blue" in the flag. The flag chose blue also because it's a more attributed color in Judaism - blue and white present purity, were the colors in the mishkan and of the cloths of the high priest. One string of blue on the talit is the mitzvah, and after the mass production it contained 2 or more strips, some say the strips on the talit also commemorate the divison of the dead red sea to two halves. Amoruso 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sea of reeds, but yeah, what you said. Much better than I seem to have put it. --Makaristos 15:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tekhlet

"The Israelites used an indigo colored dye called tekhelet; this dye is now believed to have been made from the snail murex trunculus. This dye was very important in both Jewish and non-Jewish cultures of this time, and was used by royalty and the upper class in dyeing their clothing, sheets, curtains, etc. (The dye from a related snail can be processed to form Tyrian purple called argaman.)" this is still a matter of intense debate. Furthermore the view that the source of the dye is murex Trunculus is one held by extreemist zionists only.

not aware of any dispute. it's based on the talmud and the chief rabbi of Israel is the one who made the connection. It is believed, like said, not positive. Amoruso 14:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the Nile to the Euphrates

I knew nothing of this discussion about the flag of Israel, but when I saw "geographical claim" and "two blue lines", I knew immediately what it was about.

That's because the claim "From the Nile to the Euphrates" is not some kind of paranoia by Arafat, it's central to Zionism.

It's in the Bible, God promises Abraham in Genesis 15:18 "To your descendants I give this land from the River of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates.". Moses promises his descendants in Deuteronomy 11:24 that "every place where you set the soles of your feet shall be yours. Your borders shall run from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea."

It's there at the beginning of Zionism - in 1898, Theodore Herzl (founder of Zionism) plans to ask the Ottoman sultan for a territory stretching from the Egyptian frontier to the Euphrates. Theodor Herzl and Isidore Bodenheimer regularily spoke of Jewish settlement in "Palestine and Syria,". So did the Jewish National Fund and the Zionist Congress. In 1902, Herzl spoke of settling Jews in Mesopotamia.

Jabotinsky is quoted in 1935 saying "We want a Jewish Empire", David Ben-Gurion in 1954 "the border of Israel will be where the army takes it", Moshe Dayan spoke of expansion to Babylon and the Euphrates after 1967.

Menachem Begin reminded Israelis that the Bible says the Israeli state will include portions of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait.

And some Western sources were open about the same thing, eg 1910 "the domination of Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs, who forced the Jews to build Pyramids, is part of the future heritage of Israel."

I don't know how to word the section in this article with a NPOV, but the topic cannot possibly be ignored!

PalestineRemembered 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The controversial paranoia of the late Yasser Arafat was not that Zionism (or at least certain forms it) have intended to expand to the two rivers, but that the flag was or is a portrayal of that Zionist ambition. Please reread the Controversy section so that you understand this point. Then come back here and explain what you might be proposing to contribute to the article. I would be happy to discuss the matter with you. - Samuel Erau 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that the encyclopedia should publish this 'factoid' and then publish the evidence proving it's a myth. The suspicion that the two blue lines refer to the two rivers must be strong. (I cannot tell you whether it's well established amongst the true believers, because I'd never heard of it. But from the discussion I've seen, quite a lot of people did believe it). The cause of Israel is not best served by pretending that people haven't heard of this claim, nor that it's some invention of a paranoid dillusional. Especially when it's provable that the Zionists had (and at least up until the 60s, still had) aspirations to make Israel 10 or 20 times bigger than it is now.
Which 'factoid' exactly are you suggesting be published? - Samuel Erau 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
While you're at it, we could discuss the folly of the blue and white flag that the US tried to impose on Iraq. Was that an attempt to link Iraq to Israel, or was it a piece of monumental crassitude? (Nations of the Middle East mostly have lots of green in there - I'm not sure any have blue). Earnest burrowers for truth want to know!
PalestineRemembered 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There are at least three separate controversies here:
  1. Does Zionism intend to expand Israel to the Nile and Euphrates?
  2. Does the Israeli flag symbolize those intentions?
  3. If so, did people consciously design it that way?
The Flag of Israel article, Controversies section, as it currently stands, describes in the first paragraph some as though they would answer yes to all three questions. The second paragraph and indented quote describes those who state that 3 is false and who then conclude that 2 is therefore false. But 3 being false does not require that 2 must therefore be false. It is just bad logic. And the opposing side uses the same bad logic in reverse. They state that 2 is true and then conclude that 3 is therefore true. If 2 were false, then that would force 3 to be false. If 3 were true, then that would force 2 to be true. For example, it would be illogical to state that the flag did not symbolize those intentions, and to state that it were designed in such a way that it did symbolize those intentions. The two statements would directly contradict each other. This begs the question, how could the Israeli flag symbolize those intentions without people consciously designing it that way? All that is required is the absence of one of three elements in question number 3. Those three elements are, people, consciousness, and design. If one or more of those elements were missing in the act of the Israeli flag being made to symbolize those intentions, then 2 could be true without 3 being true. So to assume that 3 being false must make 2 false or that 2 being true must make 3 true, is to assume that intention can only be symbolized by an act of designing done by human consciousness. That such an assumption is not logical has allowed many who are highly educated in mathematics and logic to invest greatly in the SETI project. That is not to suggest that such a project is worthwhile by any stretch of the imagination. Yet it helps prove my point.
I do not wish to comment on Iraqi flag proposals at this time. - Samuel Erau 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What? Makaristos 00:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Makaristos, to understand how I make a point about the bad logic being used by the two opposing sides, just read my paragraph about that slowly, making sure to understand each sentence (and the references to other text that each makes) before going on to the next. At that rate it will be very simple and self explanatory. - Samuel Erau 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your erudition and logic is impeccable. However, just because it's not (or may not) be true doesn't mean that the encyclopedia shouldn't mention it. PalestineRemembered 07:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe truth ought to be an important consideration in an encyclopedia. Makaristos 07:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If people believe something that isn't true or that is illogical, then an encyclopedia could quote them without agreeing with them outside of quotes. - Samuel Erau 10:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's quite important that an encyclopedia confront myths - alternatively (or as well) provides a nuanced discussion of widely believed theories. I don't know how this article should be written, but the Bible, the founder of Zionism, prominent other Zionists and several Prime Ministers of Israel most certainly deserve a mention!
PalestineRemembered 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Where's your evidence for all this? You "cite" a bunch of material up a few paragraphs, but it looks very sketchy and original research to me. How about some sources? --Makaristos 22:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to cut through all the abstract verbiage to some concrete information, there were some extremist Jabotinskyites in the 1930's who sporadically used "from the Nile to the Euphrates" as a slogan, but in the vast majority of cases when "from the Nile to the Euphrates" has been used in a political context, it has been used by non-Jews who attribute expansionist conspiracy plots and schemes to Jews. In any case, the Zionist flag was adopted before 1900 -- and those who really study the Bible are aware that nehar mitsrayim in Genesis 15:18 in fact does not even mean the Nile in the first place... AnonMoos 03:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The examples I picked up suggest you're wrong. And many modern Zionists want Israel to expand.
I'm not trying to say that this claim is true, only that it needs documenting.
PalestineRemembered 07:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Since your "Information" seems to be taken largely from tendentious pure propaganda, you're the one who needs to do some documenting... AnonMoos 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on Wikipedia's Brook_of_Egypt article, it is not so certain that nehar mitsrayim in Genesis 15:18 does not mean the Nile. - Samuel Erau 16:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's because User:Kuratowski's Ghost has free reign over that article as his own private sandbox. I strongly disagree, and the scholarly consensus (insofar as there is one) is actually somewhat against his position, but have basically given up trying to argue with him (see the talk page of that article)... AnonMoos 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the "Nile to Euphrates" section with a critical eye, and discovered serious errors that should be removed or corrected.

  1. all of the land The references cited do not quote anyone as talking about all of the land between the Nile and Euphrates. The quotes are less specific. The insertion of the word "all" is not based on facts given in the references. The second half of that sentence should therefore be removed also. Error number 1 would be corrected by making the sentence read, "Those making this allegation insist that the flag "secretly" represents the desire of Jews to conquer land stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers."
  2. debunked As I wrote above, the tallit being the human conscious reason for the original design of the flag does not prove that the flag does not for some other reason represent territorial ambitions. So it is improper for the article to matter of factly state that the claim was "debunked". It would be an improvement to change that word to "ridiculed" or "disavowed" or "denied" or "criticized". But to write that it was debunked is tantamount to stating that those trying to debunk the claim offered substantial proof that is sufficient for Wikipedia to agree with it as fact.
  3. demonstrates should be changed for the same reasons as written regarding error number 2.

Please offer opinions regarding these edit proposals. - Samuel Erau 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you base everything on abstract logic? AnonMoos 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Because this wiki is composed of zeros and ones. - Samuel Erau 06:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, with you trying to reduce everything to theoretical syllogisms, and the other guy cutting-and-pasting from tendentious propaganda, rather little useful suggestions for improving the article seem to have emerged from this discussion (in my opinion)... AnonMoos 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That's about the size of it. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to have any particularly serious problems, so that's not really a bad thing. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The responses of AnonMoos are worthless. By my writing, "Because this wiki is composed of zeros and ones.", I was making fun of AnonMoos by referring to the fact that Wikipedia runs on a binary computer system, therefore making all of my contributions to it based on "abstract logic". His question, "Why do you base everything on abstract logic?", was just a childish critcal question to begin with. So I answered it by making fun of it as it deserved. Then AnonMoos wrote that I was "trying to reduce everything to theoretical syllogisms." Those kind of comments are on the level of Talk page vandalism. There is no need to pay attention to them. AnonMoos is a prolific Wikipedia writer that apparently does not have the time to actually deal with the issues I raised, and thinks to brush them aside in the same manner as a demon possessed person would follow apostles around and state that they were preaching the message of salvation. The words of the demon possessed person may have been correct. But they were very irritating and distracting. So the aposltes put a stop to them by casting the demon out. See Acts 16:16-18. - Samuel Erau 13:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment seriously on my edit proposals? - Samuel Erau 06:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. "All of the land" is certainly implicit, and the accusation wouldn't make any sense otherwise.
  2. Unless you have evidence that the flag was designed based on territorial ambitions, then the conspiracy theory has been debunked. This is one of those "you can't prove a negative" issues. We also can't prove that the two stripes don't represent the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and yet any theory making that claim would be debunked by the material in this article as well. Claims can be "denied", but mindless conspiracy theories, without a speck of evidence supporting them, and much refuting them, are "debunked".
  3. There is no logical error in 2, therefore 3 is good as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, you don't explain why "all of the land" is certainly implicit. So I take it that you have not considered the actual geometry of the situation. "All of the land" between the two rivers would be any land that could be crossed by any imaginary line that is drawn from any location in the Euphrates to any location in the Nile. The Nile is one of the longest rivers in the world, and stretches about half way down Africa. The southern extreme of the Euphrates is where it drains into the Persian gulf. So, without explanation or quote, you claim that it is "certainly implicit" that the accusation of Arafat was about a territorial ambition for a southern border that stretches from the southern end of the Nile to the Persian gulf. How stupid! The references of what Arafat and his cohorts were saying does not imply such gross ignorance. I have seen extreme maps of ideas for the borders of Israel. But none of them have been that extreme. Another reason why it is not "certainly implicit" is because the Torah promise of Israel controlling land from the Euphrates to the Nile has already been fulfilled in history, though it was not simultaneous. During the reign of Solomon his rule stretched to the Euphrates. And there was a short time when the 1948 established state of Israel controlled the Sinai peninsula including land close enough to the Nile river delta and it's historical arms to fulfill Israel controlling land to the Nile.
Jayjg contradicts himself on point 2. He readily admits, "You can't prove a negative." I of course knew that some would see this situation as simply being a negative that can't be proven, because they would not admit some evidence. But what I did not anticipate is that some idiot would come along and basically state that since you can't prove a negative that it is therefore disproven. What an idiot! Ha ha ha! It is writers like that that make Wikipedia the laughingstock of scholarly culture. Besides that, in no sense was I proposing that any revision be made to effectively stipulate or condone any theory that the flag represents territorial ambitions. And in case "debunked" is not supposed to mean "disproved", why not then clarify that in the article.
No logical error in 2? Give me a break! There is this little note just below the edit window I am using. It reads, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." So if you can't prove a negative, why use words, that in the context, mean that the logic of their reasoning is verified? The only thing that is verified is that some people thought they won the arguement. Why not have the encyclopedia state just that? Why should that not be enough? - Samuel Erau 13:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think our time is being wasted.
There's ample, powerful, evidence that some Zionists did intend Israel to stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates.
I (currently) know of no evidence that the Israeli flag was based on the same thing. But I find it quite suspicious we've never been informed of when the flag came into being, and who first flew it.
I'm increasingly thinking there could be some truth in this theory about the rivers. Even if there wasn't, a discussion of it definitely belongs in this article.
PalestineRemembered 23:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There is an "ample, powerful, evidence" that wicked bloodthirsty Zionists are aiming to take over the world. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, the article does explain when the flag came into being and who first flew it. Have you read the article? As for the "theory about the rivers", it is discussed in the article, and thoroughly debunked as well. Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my understanding is that the stripes represent Katz's Deli and the Carnegie Deli, and that the Jews aim to control everything in between. They call it "Greater Manhattan". IronDuke 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of Church and State

The use of religious symbols (the Star of David in this case) goes against the separation of church and state concept.

Sorry, but the concept of separation of church and state is based on the United States Constitution, and so is not necesarily relevant to the other 195 countries in the world, many of which have official state religions. And the Star of David is actually not much of a religious symbol -- it didn't really start to be used as such until the late middle ages in Central Europe, and the early 19th century in Western Europe.
The question which might be worth asking (though it's not necessarily relevant to the Wikipedia article) is whether the use of Jewish symbolism on the flag makes non-Jewish citizens of Israel feel less part of or less identified with the country. Israel is far from alone in this, however... AnonMoos 10:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? There are crosses on just about every European flag - Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, England, United Kingdom and so on. Amoruso 12:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, civilised nations are all, to one extent or another, a synthesis of temporal and secular power. (Though I'm not sure about your conclusion on the flags, two out of three flags in the union jack are diagonal, nothing Christian there I know of).
However, no other nation on earth (since South Africa suffered a regime change) operates a policy of first and second class citizenship the way that Israel does, either based on religion or otherwise.
[1]Depriving Palestinians of rights over large portions of the West Bank has been based not on legal edict but on an unobtrusive administrative procedure of discrimination by which 'alien persons' are prohibited from building on or renting state lands. An alien person is defined as one who is not in one of the following categories:
(1) An Israeli citizen;
(2) One who has immigrated (to Israel) under the (Israeli) Law of Return;
(3) One who is entitled to the status of immigrant under the Law of Return - i.e. a Jew by descent or religion;
(4) A company controlled by (1), (2) or (3).
Hence virtually the whole of the population in the area occupied by Israel in 1967 and their descendants are defined as aliens. This is more discriminatory even than the Chinese in Tibet or the Russians in Chechnya or the Saudis in Mecca.
PalestineRemembered 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude,
(1) It gets rather tiresome rather quickly if you use every discussion on every issue to cut-and-paste your generic standardized boilerplate propaganda rant.
(2) The Flag of England (which is a part of the flag of the UK) in fact contains a historic Crusader emblem, whose original meaning was mainly that of Christian struggle against Muslims occupying the Holy Land. (It meant that more than it meant the nation of England, since exactly the same heraldic blazon was used as the emblem of Genoa and elsewhere...) AnonMoos 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a newby to all of this business. I thought I'd bring some good RS information to the project for the interest of editors, if not yet ready to spring it on the public (I forgot to say which group of Western observers wrote the above, but I'm getting the hang of references).
I put the information into talk first in order that serious objections to it could be raised - you've apparently confirmed there is no such objection.
I know that the flag of England is Christian, however, that of Scotland, Ireland (and Wales, technically a subject people with no contribution to the Union Jack) are not.
This mention was worth making since Amoruso seems to think that the Union Jack flag is indicative of it being Christian - it's not. (I cannot hope to correct Amoruso on everything he claims to believe, but I can do so on some subjects).
PalestineRemembered 11:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude,
1) Your "reliable sources" seem to be mainly generic anti-Israel propaganda sites, which display a tendentiously-chosen selective set of carefully-out of context quotes that don't prove what you claim that they "prove". At most, they establish that a few extreme radical Jabotinskyites in the 1930s used a "Nile to Euphrates slogan", and that other individuals from time to time occasionally harbored grand visionary dreams. They do nothing to establish the motivation for the creation of the Zionist flag in the last few years of the 19th century, nor what the flag means to Israelis now and for the last 58 years.
2) The flag of Scotland is known as the St. Andrew's Cross. It has nothing to do with Christians resisting the Muslim occupation of the Holy Land (the way that the English flag does), but it indeed has quite a lot to do with Christianity. The "Irish" component of the U.K. Union Jack flag has a somewhat obscure origin (and it's been doubted whether it's really an Irish symbol at all), but it was first made known in connection with the establishment of the Order of St. Patrick, so it's Christian in symbolism too. So all three components of the UK Union Jack flag are in fact Christian in symbolism. (Wales has nothing to do with it.)
3) The word is spelled "newbie".
4) If you don't like Genesis 15:18, how about 5:21? -- ادخلوا الأرض المقدسة التي كتب الله لكم AnonMoos 14:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
1)Some of my sources are properly WP:RS, others are not. But they were there to illustrate, not to persuade. Some of that material definitely belongs in the article, though with "equal weight" given to rubbishing the points claimed.
2)I'm bored with the flag argument. I didn't think the Union Jack had much to do with Christianity, and I'm not persuaded (I sincerely hope it's far less religious than are the flag of Israel or some Islamic nations flags).
3) & 4) You've lost me.
PalestineRemembered 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Any state that supports the separation of church and state should remove religious symbols from their flags. The same goes for Israel, but it appears they believe religion and religious rituals should be reflected in law. -- 00:26, 19 November 2006 141.213.196.222

Israel does NOT have have "separation of church and state" as one of its founding principles -- instead, it basically continues the old Ottoman millet system. Furthermore, the Star of David is NOT in fact used in any Jewish "religious ritual". You may think that Israel should "support separation of church and state", but it's simply a fact that so far the democratically-elected government of Israel has not seen fit to do so over the last 58 years -- and Israel is no different from a number of other nations in this respect. AnonMoos 03:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to correct Amoruso about the flag of the UK, but another part of what he's saying is quite correct. Almost nowhere in the civilised world has "separation of church and state" and almost nowhere is trying to bring it about (you'll note that Blair sacked most hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, but he didn't touch the bishops, their power was effectively increased).
PalestineRemembered 11:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
On the UK flag there's a cross that was the point. On muslim country flags there are actualy Quran words like in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. As to this silly polemic non encyclopedic WP:NOT allegations towards Israel, Israeli law is exactly the same as almost every country - in order to become a citizen you must become one through a process or be born in israel or qualify in a law of return customary for many countries. Israel is under no obligation to automatically grant citizenships to a hostile population during a defensive war that was inflicted upon it nor is that population interested in that citizenship - it can retain the original jordanian citizenship. Israel has already allowed self rule to all these residents as well but the reaction was terrorism and murder. Amoruso 01:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Shall we look to International Law for what Israel is required to do? We could start by examining the reasons for bombing Kosovo and prosecuting Milosevic. Or the lessons of Nuremberg, if you prefer.
Or will we be restricted to inserting misleading propaganda into these pages: "exactly the same as almost every country", "defensive war", "reaction was terrorism and murder"?
And your comment about the UK flag is so misleading as to be worthless, there are three crosses there, two of them are non-Christian, one of them is the (Christian) flag of a patron saint. I have no objection to your bringing such statements to the project (others take a virulent objection to such behaviour, of course, eg what's been said about "definition of an alien" above). But you and I could stick to accurate and educational material, don't you think?
PalestineRemembered 11:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we could please cut down on the general middle-eastern politics discussions?? The purpose of this page is DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FLAG OF ISRAEL ARTICLE, and nothing else. It is not a politics forum. You cutting-and-pasting your generic standardized boilerplate anti-Israel propaganda rant is completely irelevant and off topic, if nothing in your cut-and-pasted material is directly relevant to proposed improvements to the Flag of Israel article. Furthermore, it's your comments about the Union Jack which are in fact "worthless", since all three of the flag's components ultimately have an original Christian symbolism -- as you could have easily discovered by yourself by going to the Union Jack article and clicking on a few further links. AnonMoos 14:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not an angel, I'm the only one in here at the moment attempting to improve the Flag of Israel article, which most certainly needs some kind of NPOV explanation of this claim about the two rivers.
If you notice, it was another who introduced the Union Jack (and proceeded to introduce very POV material about it). I could be wrong about the saltire, though I suspect not. It may have been hi-jacked as another religious symbol, but I don't think it's generally accepted that way (and Saltire refers to very un-Christian behaviour).
PalestineRemembered 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AnonMoos. Indeed it's based on Christian crosses such as the Scotland cross in its flag - the cross of the Christian martyr Saint Andrew, the Christian St. Patrick's Cross of kingdom of Ireland and the familiar Saint George Cross, the English flag. It doesn't get any more christian than that. I've never heard any British Jew complain about the flag. Also, Palestineremembered is having some trouble understanding WP:NOT. We should help him by removing his political arguments from talk pages until he understands. Amoruso 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Blue lines, the Nile and the Euphrates? (bis)

I'm posting this new section into the article, but also placing it here. Editors dedicated to working within WP:NPOV and WP:RS will probably seek to improve my work, but the material itself will still be visible to them and available here. Some of the following is paraphrased from [2].

Many people in the Middle East (and others critical of Israel) believe that the two blue lines of the flag of Israel were put there to symbolise the two rivers, the Nile and the Euphrates. The following documents some of the reasons why they would believe this, though none of it indicates that the flag was actually designed for this purpose.

  1. "From the Nile to the Euphrates" is partially justified by the Bible. God promised Abraham (Genesis 15:18) "To your descendants I give this land from the River of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates". (However, from Brook of Egypt and other sources, this passage refers to a water-course near the Nile, within modern Egypt, and not the Nile itself).
  2. Moses promises his descendants in Deuteronomy 11:24 that "every place where you set the soles of your feet shall be yours. Your borders shall run from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea."
  3. In 1898, Theodore Herzl (founder of Zionism) planned to ask the Ottoman sultan for a territory stretching from the Egyptian frontier to the Euphrates. Theodor Herzl and Isidore Bodenheimer regularily spoke of Jewish settlement in "Palestine and Syria,". So did the Jewish National Fund and the Zionist Congress. In 1902, Herzl spoke of settling Jews in Mesopotamia [1]. However, at this stage, the new Israel might have also been in Uganda, Madagascar or Argentina.
  4. Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." [3] (Though from this source and others, the Brook of Egypt may be another lesser waterway about 100 miles East of the Nile].
  5. The British ambassador in Istanbul, in 1910 "the domination of Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs, who forced the Jews to build Pyramids, is part of the future heritage of Israel."[2]
  6. At least one of the inter-war founding Zionists intended an Israel bigger than the one we know. Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of Revisionist Zionism, precursor of Likud) was quoted in 1935 saying "We want a Jewish Empire" [3].
  7. Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the UN Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon." [4]
  8. David Ben-Gurion in 1954 "the border of Israel will be where the army takes it", [5] when ex-Iraqi Jew Naeim Giladi meets his (by now) ex-Prime Minister and asks why Israel does not have a constitution.
  9. According to the then President of Syria, Hafiz al-Asad, the Israeli general and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan visited the Golan Heights shortly after its capture by Israel in 1967 and announced that "the past generation established Israel within its 1948 borders; and you have to establish a Greater Israel from the Niles to the Euphrates."[4]. (Assad died in 2000 after 30 years in power - his informant was the Jewish Polish communist author Robert Gessner, referenced above at #6).
  10. Sa'd al-Bazzaz in his book "Gulf War: The Israeli Connection" [5] claimed something along the same lines: "We have taken Jerusalem .... and are now on our way to Yathrib [Medina] and Babylon". (Cities in Saudi Arabia and Iraq). 22 years later, Yitzhak Shamir called Syrian leader's Hafiz al-Asad talk on the subject "sheer nonsense." [6]).
  11. Menachem Begin (Israeli Prime Minister 1977-1983) was quoted by American television evangelist Jerry Falwell as saying that the Bible predicts the Israeli state will eventually include portions of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait.[6].
(The last 3 of these clips would not normally be included, as they do not meet normal Wikipedia Reliable Source - they are included in order to illustrate that "From the Nile to the Euphrates" is still believed, by Zionist and anti-Zionist, to be a national aim of at least some Israelis).
A further catalogue of Zionist and Israeli statements on this topic appear in the (out of print) book by Ass'ad Razzouq, Greater Israel: A Study in Zionist Expansionist Thought (Beirut: Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center, 1970), especially pp. 83, 87-90, 92, 96-97, 99-103, 144-45, 167-69, 178-81, 187, 209, 212-14, 230, 234, 240, 243-45, 249-52, 264, 278-82, 286, as well as Maps 3 and 4. (reference provided by the Zionist Daniel Pipes [7]).
The claim that Zionists still want "From the Nile to the Euphrates" first came to the attention of many people when Yasser Arafat stated it in an interview in 1988. Several times in 1990 (including in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in Switzerland) he went round waving an Israeli coin, the new 10 agora piece, claiming it showed a map of of "Greater Israel" (it doesn't) and that there'd been an inscription to "From the Nile to the Euphrates" in the Knesset for many years (there hadn't).
Other accusers of Israel simply make unsourced statements such as: "By guile, treachery and bloodletting, the Zionists plot to annex all of Jordan, virtually all of Syria, half of Iraq and a large part of Saudi Arabia and all of the rich cotton lands of the Nile Valley. It would be a simpler matter then to grab Yemen, Aden, Muscat, Qatar and Oman with their rich oil development. Israel is already well advanced in the development of its first nuclear warhead" [8].
PalestineRemembered 19:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. "I" would also love if the country was "From the Nile to the Euphrates" - what does it mean ? Did I design the flag ? Does this say anything about the flag ? I like cheerios. That means my round table in the living room was designed as a cheerios in purpose ? this is not a debate whether Israel is evil, it's not a debate whether Israel wants to expand its territories, it's a debate what the flag actually is. Proving that Israel wants to expand its border "From the Nile to the Euphrates" has nothing to do with the flag. I'm sure you can understand it, it's pretty basic in logics. It's basically like bringing citations that Islam is envy of Judaism and therefore has its flag in Green, or that two red lines in a flag depict two veins of blood because of the cruel nature of the state. It's all very creative, but useless. If you had a citation that says the flag represents it by those "zionists" it will make sense. Since you obviously understand it from what you wrote, I fail to see why you want that section included here - it will seem not only undue weight but just weirdness. Amoruso 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything in what you've posted me that is informative in any regard?
Was there anything in the section of the article you reverted that wasn't good WP:RS?
PalestineRemembered 13:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
See above -- most people are probably not impressed with your "sources", since they seem to be mainly cut-and-pasted from generic anti-Israel propaganda sites, in order to display a tendentiously-chosen selective set of carefully out-of-context quotes that don't prove what you claim that they "prove". At most, they establish that a few extreme radical Jabotinskyites in the 1930s used a "Nile to Euphrates slogan", and that other individuals from time to time occasionally harbored grand visionary dreams. They do nothing to establish the motivation for the creation of the Zionist flag in the last few years of the 19th century, nor what the flag means to Israelis now and for the last 58 years.
Furthermore, your habit of engaging in broad political discussions -- ranting tirades which are not directly relevant to any proposed improvements to the Flag of Israel article -- does little to advance constructive discussion, or gain goodwill for yourself here. But of course, you know what I always say: المتبرجة خير من الإرهابي المنتحر . AnonMoos 14:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from my user talk page to here, where it belongs

You've reverted a long, carefully written and well-sourced edit - would you care to say if there is anything in there that does not belong?

You've reverted this article, please tell me which parts you think don't belong.

Do the two blue lines represent "Nile to Euphrates" territorial ambitions? Many people in the Middle East (and perhaps some elsewhere) are convinced that the blue stripes on the Israeli flag represent the rivers Nile and Euphrates, and that the Zionists wished/wish Israel to expand to these rivers.

The following quotes are some of the reasons why they would believe this. None of these clips indicate that the flag was actually designed for this purpose, nor that Israel has such a "national intent".

  1. God promised Abraham (Genesis 15:18): "To your descendants I give this land from the River of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates". ("River of Egypt" may not be the Nile, see below).
  2. Moses promises his descendants (Deuteronomy 11:24): "every place where you set the soles of your feet shall be yours. Your borders shall run from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea."
  3. In 1898, Theodore Herzl (founder of Zionism) planned to ask the Ottoman sultan for a territory stretching from the Egyptian frontier to the Euphrates. Theodor Herzl and Isidore Bodenheimer regularily spoke of Jewish settlement in "Palestine and Syria,". So did the Jewish National Fund and the Zionist Congress. In 1902, Herzl spoke of settling Jews in Mesopotamia [7]. Note that, at this stage, colonising Uganda, Madagascar or Argentina were under consideration, so not all these claims necessarily refer to an enormous Israel.
  4. Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." [1]. (Brook of Egypt and other sources imply that this passage refers to a water-course near the Nile, within modern Egypt, and not the Nile itself)
  5. British ambassador in Istanbul, Gerard Lowther, in 1910 "the domination of Egypt, the land of the Pharaohs, who forced the Jews to build Pyramids, is part of the future heritage of Israel."[8]
  6. At least one of the inter-war founding Zionists intended an Israel bigger than the one we know. Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of Revisionist Zionism, precursor of Likud) was quoted in 1935 saying "We want a Jewish Empire" [9].
  7. Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the UN Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon." [2]
  8. David Ben-Gurion in 1954 "the border of Israel will be where the army takes it", [3] in answer to "Why does Israel not have a constitution?".
  9. According to the then President of Syria, Hafiz al-Asad, the Israeli general and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan visited the Golan Heights shortly after its capture by Israel in 1967 and announced that "the past generation established Israel within its 1948 borders; and you have to establish a Greater Israel from the Niles to the Euphrates."[10]. (Assad died in 2000 after 30 years in power - his informant was the author, Polish Jew Robert Gessner, referenced above at #6). 22 years later, Yitzhak Shamir called Asad's talk on the subject "sheer nonsense." Global Security.
 10. Sa'd al-Bazzaz in his book "Gulf War: The Israeli Connection" [11] claimed something along the same lines: "We have taken Jerusalem .... and are now on our way to Yathrib [Medina] and Babylon". (Cities in Saudi Arabia and Iraq that once had significant Jewish populations).
 11. Menachem Begin (Israeli Prime Minister 1977-1983) was quoted by American television evangelist Jerry Falwell as saying that the Bible predicts the Israeli state will eventually include portions of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait.[12].

A further catalogue of Zionist and Israeli statements on this topic appear in the (out of print) book by Ass'ad Razzouq, Greater Israel: A Study in Zionist Expansionist Thought (Beirut: Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center, 1970), especially pp. 83, 87-90, 92, 96-97, 99-103, 144-45, 167-69, 178-81, 187, 209, 212-14, 230, 234, 240, 243-45, 249-52, 264, 278-82, 286, as well as Maps 3 and 4. (reference provided by the pro-Zionist commentator Daniel Pipes [4]).

The claim that Zionists still want "From the Nile to the Euphrates" first came to the attention of many people when Yasser Arafat stated it in an interview in a 1988 Playboy Interview Yasir Arafat. Several times in 1990 (including in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in Switzerland) Arafat produced from his pocket a new Israeli coin, a 10 agora piece, claiming it showed a map of of "Greater Israel" (it doesn't) and that there'd been an inscription to "From the Nile to the Euphrates" in the Knesset for many years (there hadn't). See also: [13] and [14]

Other accusers of Israel simply make unsourced statements such as this one at: MediaMonitors reprint "America-firster" John Henshaw 1968:

   "By guile, treachery and bloodletting, the Zionists plot to annex all of Jordan, virtually all of Syria, half of Iraq and a large part of Saudi Arabia and all of the rich cotton lands of the Nile Valley. It would be a simpler matter then to grab Yemen, Aden, Muscat, Qatar and Oman with their rich oil development. Israel is already well advanced in the development of its first nuclear warhead".

(There is more, which I think I only lightly editted, not changed).

If you've got no genuine objection to this material, then the honourable thing would be for you to put it back. -- 15:32, 19 November 2006 User:PalestineRemembered

Did you read any of my comments above (which were added here before you added this cut-and-paste dump to my user talk page)?? AnonMoos 15:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You didn't make any comments, claiming only "most people are probably not impressed with your "sources", since they seem to be mainly cut-and-pasted from generic anti-Israel propaganda sites".
The project doesn't run on "most people", it runs on WP:RS.
Or are you now telling me that the Bible doesn't count as a Reliable Source?
Jabotinsky is memorialised in Israel with a street named after him in every medium-sized town. - So not only is the clip from him WP:RS - it's actually an indication that the National Policy of Israel is this expansion.
Are you so afraid that people will think that Israel plans to smash it's way through to the Nile and the Euphrates - or afraid that people might think they'd done half the job already?
PalestineRemembered 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
PR, it's hard to know where to begin with what you've done. I'll just keep it simple and say it resoundingly fails WP:OR, no need to even get to how it fails WP:RS. Please, don't reinsert it. The article already grossly overstates the importance of the Nile/Euphrates nonsense. IronDuke 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Two of those quotes are from the Bible - are you going to tell me that's no longer Reliable Source either?
Furthermore, right or wrong, this listing most certainly does belong in this article. It's information that people will come looking for and expect to see.
Nor is there any reason to call it Original Research - the words of President Assad, David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, Jabotinsky et al are perfectly proper.
PalestineRemembered 07:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Bible is not a reliable source for what people believe today. Just as people like to cherry-pick quotes from the Qu'ran to smear Muslims, cherry-picking Bible verses to insinuate modern beliefs won't work here. Also, just to be sure we're on the same page, can you tell me what your understand of OR is? IronDuke 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm astounded you can make this claim about the Bible - it's the most influential book ever, and (at least) 10s of millions of people believe every word it says. 100s of millions of people consider the Bible very influential, and several billion people look to it for guidance. You'll get us all lynched if you tell people the project rejects the Bible as Reliable Source.
I don't dispute what you say about "cherry-picking", there's a lot of that going on from the Bible. But it's misleading to suggest that's what I'm trying to do here. I'm saying that these texts need to be recorded here, because they're the kind of things that sustain a certain (by no means irrational) belief.
If I may be allowed an analogy (but it is fairly close), somewhere in this project belong the words of Leviticus, "cherry-picked" from the Bible to incite hatred (but carefully not used in a way that would actually do so or encourage violence). If a gay-tolerant person wishes to leaven and balance these specific nasty Biblical passages, one of his possible responses will be to balance the hate-inciting with the other laughable passages in there, such as the injunction against shellfish and wearing cotton and polyester. (Another tactic might be to claim that the Centurion was gay). It's called Neutral Point of View, whereby the reader can find both sides of the argument, "fairly" presented and of equal weight (assuming we're talking about a mainstream belief, as we are here).
And this is what you should be doing over these "Nile to the Euphrates" clips, balancing my erudition by pointing out the flimsy veracity of some of these clips (I even got the ball rolling for you a little bit), and the extremism of some of those calling for this expansion. What you should not be doing is lending your undoubted intellectual skills to a crude attempt at censorship.
PalestineRemembered 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Every Israeli could want these borders and it will still mean nothing in relation to the flag's design. What you need is to have a source of a Jewish leader/person which says that the flag was designed for this purpose. There are none like that - what does it tell you ? It's all a big hush conspiracy that nobody even suggested the idea ? Ever ? Btw, not even in the original talit - see above - such an explanation was never ever given by any Jewish figure. That's why the whole section should be trimmed as much as possible and there's no place to talk about these actual borders because it's a different issue. It's quite a basic logical fact to grasp. I do believe that if I were drawing two rivers, I would definitely use curly or squiggly lines btw :) Amoruso 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) .

I reject your assertion that only if a Jewish people makes this claim can it be put into Wikipedia.
And I'd be near enough certain you're wrong anyway ...... still, you've elegantly explained your attitude to editting in here.
PalestineRemembered 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
PR, it is your attitude that is the problem. See WP:NOT and stop misusing WP for extremist propaganda. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
PR, seriously: if you have a sec, could you tell me how you interpret WP:OR? For me, that's the central issue here. IronDuke 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PR, if a non Jewish person was involed in creating the design for the flag etc or if he has testimonies regarding such a design then he can also be quoted of course, it's not the jewish nature that's important of course. Amoruso 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Agorot coin

By the way, that's another piece of propaganda nonsense which is rebutted at article 10 Agorot controversy. AnonMoos 15:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My edit includes the statement: "Arafat produced from his pocket a new Israeli coin, a 10 agora piece, claiming it showed a map of of "Greater Israel" (it doesn't)".
Which means that you reverted the edit without reading it, and you've now passed up 4 opportunities to discuss the content of this edit.
PalestineRemembered 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever read the Wikipedia:No original research policy? I'm serious, have you? Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have. "The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)".
I've summarised a whole bunch of existing "Well Known Facts". What I've done is not Reliable Source, but neither is it Original Research. It's providing one half of (a section of) an article that needs to be made Neutral Point of View, with the good offices of other editors who are more familiar with the sources that (presumably) prove my case to be more nuanced than I'm really giving it credit for.
The alternative is not to discuss this widely believed and rather important "urban myth".
You have my word that I'd not interfere with the "opposing point of view" (in fact, I'd consider sitting down and write the opposing point of view). Why are you interfering with what I've done so far?
Or could it be that the pressure of doing 20,000 edits a year (one every 10 minutes, 10 hours every day, with no lunch breaks, no weekends and no holidays) means you don't even have time to read what's been put in place, let alone provide useful feedback?
PalestineRemembered 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please recall that this article is about the Flag of Israel, not the 10 Agorah coin, that Wikipedia does not allow original research, and please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You have my word that I'd not interfere with an opposing point of view. However, the material I've brought to the article is clearly very relevant to one section of the people visiting the encyclopedia. They deserve to have this information collated. Some of it is very Reliable Source indeed, some of it may be less well so. Summarary reversion is no way to advance the encyclopedia.
Although I can appreciate that someone under such a heavy editting schedule as yourself will find it difficult to provide proper consideration to each and every occasion you decide to revert and remove good well-sourced information.
(I'm also puzzled why your contributions don't seem to indent reliably to the discussion).
PalestineRemembered 22:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
None of the original research you brought in actually mentioned the Flag of Israel. Please recall that this article is about the Flag of Israel. Feel free to read the WP:NOR policy as many times as is necessary. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective validation

I'm sorry that I could not link to Wikipedia's article that the term subjective validation redirects to. I chose to link it to an article that fairly explains the concept before distracting the reader with paranormal or occult topics, because those very distracting topics are not necessary for understanding subjective validation as it applies to interpretation of the Israeli flag. If someone would write a specific Wikipedia article for subjective validation in general, that replaces the current redirect for it, that would probably (depending on its quality) be a good reason for this article to link to it. The Forer effect is too specific of a form of subjective validation for it to apply in this context. - Samuel Erau 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What relevance does this abstract metaphysics have to the article at all? If no one before you has made such a connection, then it doesn't belong in the article... AnonMoos 12:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought it would be beneficial and within your preferences for readers to relate the common malady of that particular aspect of human psycology to the weakness of the Nile to Euphrates arguement. But if making the connection is too sharply original for Wikipedia policy guidelines, in your opinion, then I need not debate you on interpretation of policy. But what I don't understand is how you did not understand it. Did you read the first couple of paragraphs at about.com regarding subjective validation? P.S. I was not involved in the reversion of reverts of my recent edits to this article. Yet it is nice to know that someone appreciated my contribution. - Samuel Erau 04:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the topic of the article; Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You are quite correct - Wikipedia is the place for good information (even if there are contra-indications, as over this case, the significance of the "From the Nile to the Euphrates").
Repeated reversions of the material bolstering this claim might make it appear that the Zionists have nothing to respond, and the claim is probably true after all.
PalestineRemembered 23:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it's true. You uncovered it. There's a famous conversation between David Wolffsohn and A. D. Gordon on this subject. Wolffshon is quoted as saying: "Curly Squiggly lines, they have to be curly squiggly I'm telling you... or it won't look like rivers". It should be mentioned. Amoruso 23:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I thin you're leaving out the part where Gordon replies "Hello? It's called abstract. That way we can always deny it. Duh." IronDuke 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Talk%7EFlag_of_Israel_b611.html"