Talk:Arab Liberation Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

By the way, the Arabic word إنقاذ doesn't mean "Liberation" in the ideological/political sense (unlike the word تحرير in the name of the PLA), so the English translation might be a little misleading... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.L.A. emblem[edit]

The emblem was reinstated following a discussion in wikicommons. Further discussion and resources in the Hebrew Wiki here.

Valleyofdawn (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctored image[edit]

Removed File:Qawuqjis armored vehicle.jpg. It has been suggested by Graphics Lab editors that the dagger and star emblem in the photo was added at some point after the photo was taken. It is likely doctored image. The image File:The army of liberation works wonders al mussawar 19480403.jpg appears similarly doctored, but as it's simply presented as a "propaganda poster" I left it. If and when it is specifically presented as a photo showing an emblem painted on a vehicle, it becomes a hoax. – JBarta (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If it is supposedly a fake, it should not be in the article. However, It is rather strange, why should someone fake an emblem, while the real one was about the same. e.g. book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Benny Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" Ykantor (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than some hunches there is zero evidence that these 2 separate images are doctored.Here is a third image showing the emblem. From a respectable Israeli paper.
To those of you who read Hebrew, here are 3 separate quotes from books and papers from 1959, 1963 and 1980 describing the emblem as depicted:
To disregard these 7 separate pieces of evidence (3 images and 4 books) would require believing in a vast trans-generational conspiracy to defame the ALA.
I therefore reinstate the emblem. Valleyofdawn (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ynet is not a WP:RS source.
There is no need of a "trans-generational" conspiray to make a mistake based on a data that was doctored at the basis.
For exemple see Azzam Pasha quotation that is reported in dozens of books to justify that the Arabs would have wanted to exterminate Jews in May 1948.
Pluto2012 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's another newspaper article from 1950 discussing the emblem. Please provide a counter source claiming the the emblem looked differently. Repeating a false claim is one thing, but describing different instances of seeing a flag or an emblem in 4 different news-sources and forging 3 images to appear in 3 different places does require a conspiracy.Valleyofdawn (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't change anything to the point. 2 different debates already concluded that this picture may be a fake, which is enough not to use this. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of adding yet another pesky wrinkle to this issue, since it was Wikipedia editors who came up with the idea that the pictures may have been doctored, doesn't that constitute original reseach? If reliable sources (and what are reliable sources here is another discussion) present them as real photos, isn't that how we should present them? Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Pluto, here are 4 new textual data and one new image whose authenticity you need to refute. This constitutes new evidence, doesn't it? Valleyofdawn (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The emblem description appears in more sources:
  1. book: "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Benny Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David"
  2. Martin Gilbert - 1998, "Israel: A History" , Page 236
  3. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict in history and civics ... - Page 76; Ruth Firer, ‎Sāmī ʻAbd al-Razzāq ʻAdwān, ‎Falk Pingel - 2004
  4. "the Army of Liberation emblem — a dagger thrust into a David's Shield. " Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editors are familiar with many cases where RS report information that is either problematical or superceded. The case of the widely reported figure of 250 odd Palestinians killed at Deir Yassin is a notable instance. Many RS report 250 massacred (here and here) when we know that it was in the range of 107-120. The Azzam Pasha quotation circulates in hundreds of RS, totally twisted and dated several months after it was first published, until one of our editors looked into it and dug up the story. While this is not quite an 'extraordinary claim' requiring extraordinary evidence, it has the shape of a meme, and requires, esp. given the suspicions of photoshopping, detailed investigation before it is asserted to be true. What one needs is evidence either that an official decision was taken or that it was customary for all vehicles of the ALA to bear such an emblem. I don't see on the Menachem Mendel Schneerson page or the Chabad page any show that the Rebbe made any one logo an indispensable emblem on his Mitzvah tanks. Anyone who has had occasion to see several will know that there is considerable variety in the logos, notwithstanding the fact that in this case the Rebbe actually commissioned a formal blazon (Samuel Heilman, Menachem Friedman,The Rebbe: The Life and Afterlife of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Princeton University Press, 2012 p.175). Compare also this:
No one of my generation can forget the film Reach for the Sky and its hero Kenneth More, uh, Bader. Well, he belonged to the RAF's 242 squadron, whose official emblem was a moose's head erased badge. Douglas Bader's Hawker Hurricane group in it had a flying boot kicking Hitler in the arse. All it would have needed for a German to deduce that the cartoon was the 'official' emblem, rather than the moose's head, was for two of Bader's planes to be shot down with the cartoon intact.
Given this obvious possibility, the provisional solution should be to cite Morris with attribution. He is scrupulous on source-checking, and other imitative sources should be ignored.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to Nishidani: Personally I believe that this emblem was indeed the ALA emblem, because it does not make sense that all 3 photos are doctored. A 1950 book, written by a journalist (not a Rs) says: "In Cairo hotel fronts and billboards were plastered with posters of a dagger dripping blood, on its handle the Star of David emblematic of Zionism". So this emblem was used during those days (not necessarily by the ALA). Anyway, I phoned the Haganah archive in Tel Aviv and they said they have photos with this emblem. Unfortunately they are not prepared to email it, so I have to go there, which is not what I would like to do in my spare time.
As you pointed out, mistakes happens everywhere. But what is the reason to suspect it? we need a source (not necessarily an RS) as a reason for being suspicious. Ykantor (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. An emblem on any military vehicle is not, ipso facto , proof that it is the chosen blazen, badge or emblem of the army to which that group is attached. These things are determined by an official decision, and carried out over all vehicles, planes, etc. A photo of one, even two, is not evidence of an official decision.
Personally, I find absolutely nothing troubling about such imagery (compare this, where Jews are devoured by Russian serpents and this, where Arabs are eaten by a Zionist crocodile. Describe any conflict, already difficult to do, by citing such stuff helps no ones. In all wars, governments and organizations devise cartoons, emblems, etc. to incite and encourage violence in their own. In the Cairo hotel note, a poster of a dagger dripping blood, with the magen on its handle, means Zionism's dagger is killing Arabs (see this modern variant, the first cartoon), not, as you take it, confirmation of the ALA photo, which shows a sign indicating Zionism, an ideology, (Shield of David) was to be killed.
The first thing you learn if you ever do research in an academic field, is that most scholars copy each other. It's a terrible truth, and applies to all sides.
We have no proof as yet that the ALA officially adopted this as its badge. That is why it requires attribution to Morris, who hasn't documentary proof, but is an excellent witness for the inference being made.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos recent attempts to restore the image and a caption, Ykantor, please see WP:Burden. The burden lies on your shoulder to show this is an authentic image, one that has not been doctored, and that documentary proof exists that the ALA used this emblem as its own official badge.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is already discussed and written. e.g. Morris: "armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David". The image page include links to the previous discussions and previous image and link to the image page of the U.D.F archive (text only, hebrew). Ykantor (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the links here that resulted in your restoration of the image to the article ? You said in your edit summary 'The image is probably not doctored. look at the graphic lab'. Someone reading that will assume it is the consensus of the discussion and that there was general agreement that the images can be used. Is that the case ? I hope so, because if it isn't the case that would not be good. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are threatening me. One of the 5 pillars is wp:civ, and everyone, including you, should obey them. Please apologize, otherwise I will have to complain.

Please read again my reply, which clearly states that all links are here and in the image file. The consensus is not mentioned, so you have to read it again for better understanding. BTW Although you are not obliged to, do you have even one single source that negates this emblem ( a dagger stabbing a shield of david) ? note that I have cited plenty of sources. Ykantor (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I threaten you it will not look like that. I will say something simple and clear like "if you do not do X I will file an AE report and recommend that you are topic banned". There is no reason for me to apologize and there is no reason for you to ask for an apology. If you would like to complain, just do it, you don't need to tell me in advance. Aggressive editing in the topic area by editors who try to impose their preferred content on others without engaging in discussion and finding consensus is unacceptable. That style of editing has to be brutally crushed because it is rampant in ARBPIA and causes conflict and disruption. Editors must explain themselves and justify their actions whether they like it or not. I have no interest in the content issue at all but I can't allow you to ignore your obligation to constructively collaborate with editors here to find consensus. You must do that. If you can't do that don't edit in the ARBPIA topic area. There are millions of articles to edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a tip for you. Personally attacking editors as you did here is an example of how not to resolve issues in ARBPIA. So if you want to see what a threat looks like, here you go. If I see you do that again anywhere I will file an AE report and recommend that you are topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a favor and report me. You have to understand the difference between calling Pluto a liar (which is a personal attack) and saying the Pluto lied at specific events, which is stating a fact.

Concerning yours: "That style of editing has to be brutally crushed ". This is a personal attack too, since it implies that my editing is really wrong . However, I try to keep a high standard of support to my editing, while Pluto is busy deleting those well supported sentences, which is against a Wikipedia rule (Although it seems that no one care about it).

It is a mistake to define consensus as the majority of the talk page editors. The majority can not decide that black is actually white, and can not ignore a well supported sentence, although it can of course decide the due weight of the sentence. However, Pluto has his own policy, independently of Wikipedia, and does not allow sentences he does not like, and it does not matter whether that they are well supported. Unfortunately, the wp:drn volunteers are not attracted by the Arab Israel conflict articles (actually this is an understatement) so no one tell him that he is wrong.

I am still holding for your apology. Ykantor (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. link us to the discussions on wikipedia by the photolab lads, where it was contended these images might have later additions, and the resolution of doubts on wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own protocols and standards on the inclusion of material. If our internal process has raised doubts, then the images cannot be included, as far as I understand (personally I don't care one way or another: the images, faked or not, seem perfectly innocuous. But I am deeply interested in source verification because so much false information circulates in this area, even in good sources).Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As said, everything is here and in the image file, written clearly and properly linked. I have verified it just now (and added a direct link which saves one click). Why will not you try? Ykantor (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been three discussions: an April 2011 analysis on Commons (inconclusive, skeptical), an October 2013 graphics lab review (inconclusive), and a December 2013 graphics lab review, based on a new high-resolution photo (ongoing). – SJ + 07:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

confusion[edit]

Just to add some confusion: nobody seems to have noticed that the emblem does not show a dagger "stuck into the heart of a Magen David". If you stick a dagger into a heart it doesn't lie flat on the chest with the blade mostly outside the body. What the emblem actually shows is a dagger in a sheath, with the sheath or the backdrop for the sheath in the shape of a Magen David. I think that someone presented with this emblem, with no preconceptions as to its meaning, would see it as Jewish. Zerotalk 01:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As often happens, historians let us down on things like this, or at least haven't apparently got down to running down the origins of something. I think it now looks like there is a complex history behind the image (whatever uses the ALA or some of its men might have put its image to).
Ykantor originally mentioned this

  • (a)'In Cairo hotel fronts and billboards were plastered with posters of a dagger dripping blood, on its handle the Star of David emblematic of Zionism.' Kenneth W. Bilby,New Star in the Near East, Doubleday, ‎1950 p.7

That means that Arabic posters in Egypt associated the dagger as Jewish, and not, as Ykantor takes it, as an Arab dagger stabbing at the heart of Zionism. The image as recounted suggests that some propagandist was conjuring up to the eyes of Cairene folk the idea that Zionism was stabbing the Arabs.
There is a precedent, from antisemitic literature, for this (i.e. associating the dagger in the heart with the so-called Jewish world conspiracy). A Republican leaflet in 1943 for example.

  • (b)'A GOP leaflet in Philadelphia featured a cartoon of a hook-nosed Jewish caricature labelled “Hillman” with a book, covered with hammers and sickles and a Star of David, under one arm, his other arm raised with a dagger in hand about to plunge it into the chest of a slumbering Uncle Sam, with the caption, “Will Uncle Sam Wake Up in Time?”.’John J. Abt Advocate and Activist: Memoirs of an American Communist Lawyer University of Illinois Press, 1993 p.107.

Compare also:

  • (c) 'A 1968 Egyptian translation of the Protocols of Zion has an ‘original cover shows a book representing the Talmud on top of which sits a skull and a dagger bearing the Star of David,’ Kenneth R. Timmerman Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America, ‎Crown Publishing 2004 p.345 n.3

In all these propagandistic, antisemitic instances, the dagger and the Star of David are identified by Israel's adversaries as what Jews/Israel/Zionism is about, in their hectic imaginations. In this context, having the same image on an ALA tank as if it were what the Arab struggle was about (plunging a dagger into the heart of Zionism) would have to be taken as inverting the traditional meaning of the image.
So it's worth keeping one's eyes pricked (like Murakami Haruki's dreamreading hero in Hard-Boiled Wonderland, and ears peeled here.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem colors[edit]

I reverted the emblem to white on green. There are several sources in Hebrew stating that the background was green. Here for example. The armored vehicle image shows it in white on the background of some dark, non-black background. It being a camouflaged vehicle it's likely brown or green. Green is also a popular color in Arab flags (representing Islam), and is the background of the flag of the Arab League, who formed the ALA. Valleyofdawn (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not source for any flag. It was painted in white on the camouflage of vehicles. The background was the colour of the vehicle.
In chosing "green" you falsely associate this with a flag.
So I reverted his. We would need a colored picture.
Nb: you link is directed to a newspaper (?), ie a primary source without refenrece. That is not a source. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link is an article in "Davar" from 11/01/1950 describing the flag as it is presented in an exhibition dedicated to the war fought 2 years earlier. Why isn't it a valid source? There are no color photos I know of from that war. Valleyofdawn (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag[edit]

Why was the Israeli flag removed? It and other flags appear in infoboxes about related subjects in the topic area? I personally hate MOS:FLAG after seeing it come up so many times in soccer articles (it is almost always a waste of time discussing) but it looks like it as used properly.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono! What a surprise! You showing up here right after I edited the article... imagine that. Flag was removed because it gives to much attention to one country, per WP:MOSFLAG. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being weird. It is not a surprise and sarcasm isn't helping anybody. The flag is used on other articles in the topic area about closely related subjects along with other national flags. It does not give prominence lower in the info box. One could argue that it helps the article (I don't like flags in general so I won't go that far). Using it in such a benign fashion is also uniform with similar articles across most topic areas. Removing it comes across as petty to a seasoned editor and likely comes across as strange to the random reader.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should only one country have a flag and not Damascus (Syria) and Palestine? WP:MOSFLAG says we should not have any flags. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Why do Damascus (Syria) and Palestine not have their flags there. I think it is the Arab Army page in a similar time frame that has all sorts of them. If there is reason to not have those two flags (does a flag exist for that time frame?) it doesn't limit the use of the Israel flag.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being foolish. Unless you want to put the flag of Syria next to where it says Damascus and the flag of Palestine where it says Palestine then you are here simply to cause trouble. The flag doesnt belong, and in an article on the Arab Liberation Army that being the only flag in the infobox is just stupid. Move along. nableezy - 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop commenting on my motives andstay focused on the issue. We dont have the best history and I'm not keen on putting up with any shit.Cptnono (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syria's reasons for developing the ALA - too long[edit]

Is it okay if I trim it down? it looks like a text dump from a highly-specialize book, not a Wikipedia entry. Valleyofdawn (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would improve the article indeed. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syria's reasons for developing the ALA - Personal opinion[edit]

Even though Joshua Landis is considered an expert on the topic of Syria, but this section seems more of a personal opinion that is making too many controversial claims with hardly any evidence. Even the original page that this section is taken from make many claims with hardly any evidence.--Crazyketchupguy (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag issue[edit]

Just for information and related to the current pov issue with this topic. (@user:Zero0000)

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem[edit]

The conclusions of the different discussions here above in 2013 were there was no enough evidence to state this drawing was the emblem of the ALA. At best it was painted on some vehicles but nothing reliable (except Morris, 1948 single source) indicates it could be the flag (!) or the emblem of the ALA. The problem is that it is now viral on the internet and that wikipedia created the information. I suggest to remove this "emblem" for the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's embarrassing that we let this stay up for so long. It kept being added back by single-purpose accounts, e.g. [1][2] Onceinawhile (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple period photographs showing this painted on equipment.Icewhiz (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this [3] is a RS, as are [4], [5], and [6] - all not written by Morris, and predating Wikipedia (and for some of them, the internet)Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: please provide the quotes you are referring to (and ideally English translation).
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a spurious discussion - as this has already been discussed at length in multiple wiki projects in 2011-3 - which is where I pulled these sources from at random (and there are more - Gelber, some Arabic sources as well, and a few more in the long walls of text). But here:
  1. Davar 1950 under subsection "Kawoji army flag" - "And what is the feeling of the watcher when he sees between the exhibits the flag of the liberation army.... Green bakcground with Magen David in it is struck an Arab dagger".
  2. Hiking trails 1980, "now carrying the the symbol of the liberation army a curved dagger, dripping blood, stuck in a magen david"
  3. Toldot 1959 - "Liberation army (Dagger dripping blood stuck in hearth of magen david".
  4. Maarchot 1963 "Both armored cars... painted on them them the symbol of the liberation army: A dagger dripping blood stuck in the center of a magen david".Icewhiz (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the emblem from ynet (https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3749700,00.html) is clearly fake. The white circle does not change color even when it is under the shadow. Mcdruid (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Liberation_Army&oldid=1218183525"