Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arab Liberation Army.svg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arab Liberation Army.svg

• Personal artwork, not in scope : this is not a drawing of the real Arab Liberation Army flag. Sources are not provided.
• Not used : it has been removed from different articles on wp:he, wp:en, wp:fr for 2 months now because it was a fake
• Abuse : googling images for "Arab Liberation Army" gives this picture in the top results. It acquired a false notoriaty on the topic of the Arab Liberation Army due to the name it was given in commons. It is propaganda : a dagger stabbing the Magen David brings the false message that Arab Liberation Army (read Arabs) would have entered in war in 36-39 and 48 to kill/stab the Jews.
• Fake : all in all, this is not a the real flag of the en:Arab Liberation Army and it should be at least renamed and at best deleted as a "fake". Noisetier (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier -- "Special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted from Commons merely for being special or fictional or proposed or hypothetical, and we have many hundreds of them here on Commons. However, malicious and intentionally deceptive hoaxes are something quite different, and generally are deleted, so you should try to present evidence that this is a deliberate hoax. And one of your statements is completely and utterly false -- if the Arabs had won the 1948-1949 Israeli-Arab war, the treatment of the Jews would almost certainly have been quite harsh -- at an absolute minimum, there would have been several additional incidents comparable to the Etzion massacre, and the vast majority of Jews would have been expelled, other than a few old Sephardi Jerusalem families kept for purposes of making a public display and parading show for international consumption which would supposedly demonstrate how "tolerant" the Arabs were... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know the history of that period and you just report here propaganda too.

I cannot help you. Just read books about that period. There are too many information to tell you. I would suggest you start with en:Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948.

This flag is not real and there is not a single source to attest this. Anybody who would not agree to change this name is just a progandist. Commons now have the information.

Noisetier (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It would really be better all around if you would refrain from officiously telling me what my motives are, when I know what you say to be false, and to refrain from telling me I'm doing something, when I know I'm not doing it. Considering that around January 1948, the two main contenders to be ruler of an Arab state created from British Palestine were Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who had distinguished himself chiefly by a 25-year career of ideological extremism and calls to violence against Jews, capped by a shameless collaboration with Adolf Hitler (none of which prevented him from remaining the single undisputed leading Palestinian political personality down to 1964, of course), and Abdullah of (Trans)Jordan -- a country which had a constitutional provision preventing any Jews being citizens, and which supervised the destruction of all the synagogues in Jerusalem which had not already been destroyed in the 1948-1949 fighting -- my speculations were reasonable and realistic.

What is more relevant for the current discussion is that "special or fictional" flags and emblems are not usually deleted merely for being "special or fictional", unless there's some additional aggravating factor, as explained in my previous comments above. So what's the aggravating factor here? AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't try to give your motivations. I wrote that you didn't know this topic and what you reported was the propaganda that you believe in because you don't know the topie of the '48 war. You mix everything : Al-Husseini, Abdallah of Jordan and hte Arab Liberation Army are not the same entities ; the alleged motivations that you report for the Arab here above have nothing to deal with your concern and they are not reported by historians but by propaganda only.

I answered to your argument even before you gave it : there is no source for the origin of this flag and it is a fake but given the name this image have received, it comes immediately in google researches and therefore it should be deleted or, if people thinks this fictious picture should be kept, it should be renamed.

Noisetier (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

PROBLEM: Original image uploader User talk:Valleyofdawn has not been informed of this deletion discussion. -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of the process. Sorry for this. Where was this explained. I assume you informed him now. Noisetier (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you didn't inform him. So I did. Noisetier (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was really solely and exclusively your obligation to do so, if you wanted your deletion nomination to be valid -- as was explained in the following text on page Template:Delete, which would have been displayed as you went through the deletion process: Notify the item's uploader or the creator of the page by placing the following code on the user's talk page: {{subst:idw|Template:Delete|}} ~~~~. And you did not ask for help in any meaningful or specific way on Commons:Village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You require the respect of netetiquette and you harash me as if I was a slave and even more you write that I would be a liar ! What is your problem ? Game over.

Netetiquette means that you could have informed him even if it was my task to do so. I asked support here, and before here and after here again. I also informed the user here when I noticed you had not.

Instead of focusing on procedures to keep a fake image that was used to try to make pov-pushing in articles, you should focus on the topic. Whatever my quality of my mistakes, we discuss here about the image and the reasons why it should be kept, removed or renamed.

Noisetier (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

With the big Star of David in this flag, it look like the main or only concern of this "Arab Liberation Army" were to liberate from the Jews; as if the Ottoman, the British, the Mubarak, the Al Khalifa etc. did not exist. Or maybe they are all jewish puppets? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the history of the period, or are confusing the "Palestine Liberation Army" with the "Arab Liberation Army". In 1948 and the second half of 1947, the British were already clearly withdrawing (and were therefore not the main enemy), the Ottomans were defunct for 30 years, and the coming war was clearly to be Arabs vs. Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You do not know the topic. The en:Arab Liberation Army, known as the Jaish al-Inqad al-Arabi and under the leadership of en:Fawzi al-Qawuqji fought the British during the en:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine too.

But this is not the issue : this picture is a fake and without source. This personnal work should not receive any credit by wikipédia by the name it is given because that makes this image come immediately in google reseraches on the words "Arab Liberation Army".

Noisetier (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arab Liberation Army.svg

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Out of scope: Apparently a false flag or hoax. Reason presented to keep in last deletion request is invalid: It is not in use (the instance shown as "in use" is merely someone showing to the uploader in his talk page that the file was successfully uploaded last October. Darwin ^Ahoy! 04:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

While I am still trying to find information about this flag (or at least any flag during this conflict), the symbol is real. If you look at http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02022009/2084252/12-Zklarts_043_a.jpg (or at http://www.ynet.co.il/Ext/App/Thumbnails/CdaThumbnails_OpenWin/1,9788,L-2084251-2084252,00.html?CapField=article_images.name&TabSelect=article_images,images&WhereCls=article_images.image_id=2084252%20and%20article_images.article_id=3749700%20and%20article_images.image_id=images.id&DescField=images.credits) this is the marking used on the ALA trucks and tanks. So that part is right. As for the flag itself, really not sure yet, but I don't feel comfortable having this deleted at all.  Keep User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Keep For the reasons outlined in the last deletion nomination above (which would be sufficient in themselves), but greatly strengthened by what Zscout370 has turned up... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Zscout370 has turned out a faked picture (and a bad fake at that). The symbol was digitally pasted over the original picture of the truck, covering shadows and all. This looks more and more like some obscure propaganda operation, and Commons is dully cooperating in that, unfortunately. If this has no credible source and is not in use it should be deleted as out of scope, it's not Commons role to serve as a whitewash for this kind of stuff.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The handle of the knife in the photograph does not have the detail of the handle we have in our image. I will have to look at the website again to see where even these photographs come from, since the link I provided does not mention an author of the image, other than just All Rights Reserved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The photographs came from an album of a certain Eliezer Sklartz (the complete article is here. That particular picture represents a Canadian C15TA of British production - you can see a nice picture of it here. The big shadow below certainly is from the high rear mirror mounted at the front of the vehicle (out of the picture), and the shadow above seems to derive from the mechanism used to hold the front cover, immensely deformed due to the Sun position. Both shadows are superimposed by this symbol, showing that the photo was doctored. The symbol is also in a whiter tonality, and does not show signs of wearing, as opposed to the rest of the picture. The detail in the dagger handle is also utterly quaint, looks like a 3d image painted in the truck. As for the truck itself, those models were left behind when the British left their former possessions and mandates, and were used both by the Zionists and by the Arabs, it's impossible to tell from this model to which army it belonged to, though one thing is certain: This rather awkward symbol was not originally in the photograph.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just refound the link right as you were writing that. I have no reason to believe that Sklartz would have faked the image at all. We know he was in the area because he was awarded by King George with a British Empire Medal in 1937 and Sklartz was used before in history books for information about this time period. I see no reason why we should believe these photographs are photoshopped. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, when armies take over vehicles during combat, some armies will paint over the vehicles. If not giving it a new paint job, they will erase old markings and put new ones, so that can explain the white paint. Take a look at http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-armor/sherman-76-02.html to show an example of what I am talking about. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said Sklartz faked the picture (he died in 1994, by the way), even more as this seems to be some lame fake made by digital software rather recently, probably using as a base a legit photograph by Sklartz of the C15TA truck. However, there can be no doubt that it is faked, as the symbol covers the shadows of parts of the vehicle, defying the laws of physics. I'll rather believe my eyes than any source that would say that this photo with the symbol is legit. If the British Museum shows a picture of Moscow with the Kremlin and says it's Berlin 1933, what would you believe, the BM or your own eyes? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Image captions can be wrong (just like with the Bundesarchiv). But until we know for sure this image is faked (like if we have the negatives to Sklartz) I don't feel comfortable calling this a fake (though it is a silly question to ask why an Israeli paper would fake an image, but there has been several instances with issues related to Israel that photos were doctored on both sides). Plus, as mentioned before, having "fake" images is something that we on the Commons. We do not need to follow any sort of NPOV requirement and many people have done images (logos, flags, maps, anything) that are faked. In this case, we know that a flag for the ALA is speculation, yet this is not named as a flag. This is just a graphic symbol from the images that are found. With the last DR, there was concerns about this being a flag (I would ask a person who is well versed in this topic, but he is deceased). I personally think sources within Syria and Israel should at least be looked it, and perhaps photographs, since we just can't go with what is just online. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see if I can be more clearer. I cast no doubts over the good faith of the newsite who published it nor over Sklartz. However, whoever supplied the photos to Ynet newsite supplied among them this particular faked/doctored photo. I fail to understand why you do not feel "comfortable" calling it a fake when it is such an egregious one. Would you rather believe that it is possible to paint things over sunlight-cast shadows in real life? -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We have no total proof that it is a fake. Sure, we can say something is shopped, but maybe the lighting was bad, maybe it was a new paint job, maybe the vehicle is in piss poor shape, maybe there was a shade or some other thing we just don't know. We know it is a not a flag, but we know it is a marking. We do not know what circumstances the photo was taken, so everything now it just an academic exercise. The logo should be kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Academic exercise"? For heavens sake, just look at the picture. If it was not enough that it is the unique instance of that symbol ever appearing, it's rather obvious that it was painted or pasted over the original photograph. If this spurious symbol is to be kept here, at the very least it should be renamed to something else. In any case, I do not see why it should be kept, as it's not in use and does not represents anything meaningful or with any educational use, therefore is out of scope of this project.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a marking used on a vehicle, so it can be used as as that in articles about this conflict (so in scope, but everyone keeps removing the image because people think it is a flag, even though we both agree that it is not a flag of any kind). It is already named Arab Liberation Army.svg, so I think it does not need to be renamed at all (because you and others might think it is fake, me and others don't think so, and who knows what is floating around offline). But even if they are just userpage only, they are still technically in scope when it comes to Commons policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is that it do not seem at all to be a "marking used on a vehicle", but rather a marking that some revisionist pasted over an historical picture of a vehicle to advance some obscure point. I wouldn't die if this thing remains here on Commons, though I still think it's out of scope. In any case, I've already advised about the fake "source" on the talk of the file, so people will use it at their own risk, in case it remains here.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Zscout370 said: "But even if they are just userpage only, they are still technically in scope when it comes to Commons policy." - It's not in use, see my opening sentence. It's out of scope.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is still used on a Hebrew userpage, so still in scope, even if it is just for pure decoration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not decorating anything, and it's not even in an userpage. It's a tiny thumbnail placed by someone on the talk page of the uploader last October to notify him that his upload of that very image to Commons was successful. I don't believe that it qualifies as "in use".-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In my experience as Commons admin, it does. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If it does, it's an utterly stupid habit, I must say. How come something like "See, your file was uploaded at Commons" qualifies as "in use"? It's impossible to get rid of garbage if such quaint interpretations of "in use" come to prevail.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ain't my rules. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they written somewhere or is this more of an habit?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE#File_not_legitimately_in_use is what is written down. Yet, if I look at this from an admin point of view, it says files that could not realistically could be used at all on one or other Wikimedia projects. I see what you are getting at, but if I take this case and put it to the link I just showed, this does not meet it (it is not a LQ image, it has a realistic use and there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel). I am more of the symbolic guy (in a literal sense) because I usually get involved (or get asked about) fake flags and symbols. We know this is not a flag, the main reason for the first DR. Now since we know it is not a flag, but a marking/logo, we sidestepped the main issue of the first DR. The file name does not mention anything about a specific symbol, so I think rename is not needed. I think we just need more outside opinions either way, because the three of us should not really decide this DR. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that more opinions are needed. However, I'm not willing to make this case into a true dispute in order to get them, and it can be revisited in the future in case the file is kept. I didn't understand, however, your affirmation: "there are not many images like this of units from the 1948 war against Israel". This is not a representation of the C15TA armored vehicle (which would be very desirable, even with the fake symbol and all), but rather a reproduction of what seems to be a forgery made upon an historical photograph, reproducing only the forgery bit, unfortunately - if that was indeed a reproduction based on that photograph, that is, we don't know that, really, despite the link someone added to the image source quite recently.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of emblems of units or armies from this conflict. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's circular logic. What seems to be a doctored photo can't serve as source for a symbol of an army. Even more, the caption of the Ynet photo doesn't even clearly states that the symbol has anything to do with the Arab Liberation Army, it says something like "Armored rescue car (Qawukji)". All the rest is original research.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 18:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is where further digging in book sources could really help us out. I am not a military buff, and when I focus on history and politics, it is not related towards Israeli issues (mostly towards Soviet and Japanese). My library at my school does not have much that I saw on Israel, but this is also final exam time for my classmates, so I am not sure what even is going to be there. I would try Google Books, but not sure exactly what can be found. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"And this is where further digging in book sources could really help us out." - Yes, indeed, and doing that I believe I finally have found the source for this awkward mysterious symbol. Apparently it dates from 1977 during Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, and represents the deformed vision of the Israeli party of an original drawing from a Palestinian participant, where the dagger was initially a cross. See here and also here ("s they saw it, the symbol represented Israel (the Star of David), encircled by the Arab world (the crescent), with a dagger (the cross) piercing its heart.") The Israeli vision of the symbol was made into a case study, and it was probably from there that it migrated to the status of "Arab Liberation Party symbol". With those sources I wouldn't oppose to keeping the image there, but it would have to be renamed, of course.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, spot on Darwin. I think the DR could be closed, and this discussion could be moved to figure out what to call this image and allow for more research and time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here, again, though it's impossible to know what was the context in which the image appeared. You may close it and move the discussion to an appropriated place (I don't know what), but the image should indeed be renamed, as it's association with the ALA seems to be all but a parasitic one.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I voted keep, I won't close it. I will find someone who can, or we can just have it sit here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I happen to have found as well what seems to have been the real symbol of the ALA, which is indeed close to this image, but with some important differences: A curved dagger dripping blood thrust into a star of David. Sources are Benjamin Balint and this other book, they both say the same. There is no mention to the circle, and the dagger is dripping blood.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

At last, from the book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Ben Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "The [Syrian] troops, well-dressed and well-equipped, ran hither and thither between the houses and in the alleyways and in the nearby fig groves, alone and in groups, and tried to fire back...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" -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

---

DarwIn -- we have whole categories of Category:User images, Category:User logos, Category:Coats of arms of users , etc. which are considered to be in scope mainly because they're used on a user page. AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This image is not in use in an userpage, as has already been said, therefore that rule can't apply.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I said userspace (and that does include talk pages). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I asked to a specialist of this period from wp:en to come and give his mind about this flag/logo. Let's not close the discussion before he can come and give his mind.

You made a great research job. Many thanks for this. The fact that we find a fake picture with this logo digitalized in it is really appealing but sources that are provided (such as Morris) are reliable.

@Zscout370 : we are not linked to NPoV on commons we are linked to reliable work of quality. If somebody would upload flag of different countries (X) with blatant mistakes or propaganda in these we would not agree they would be names "flag of X" or even "X"

Noisetier (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am a specialist on flags and from what I can tell and find, this is not a flag, but just either a logo or vehicle marking. But when it comes to images of flags that, lets say, might not look great, this is where I come in and fix them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Although source has been presented showing that the sign is a dagger in a star, this SVG file is not following the source, there are clear differences, see for example the distance between the star and the circle and the design/color of the grip of the dagger and that there is no line on the blade and the differences in the thickness of the lines of the star here:[1] and there are no sources supporting the colors used, and based on that it should be deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Colors can be fixed, and since it is an SVG file, I can do that myself. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only colors, but several other inaccuracy's as I have pointed out above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am working on it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier: If you were referring to me as the expert, I am flattered :) Here are some pictures:

• 
• 

Further commentary: The rationale for deletion was that the image is a hoax, which it clearly is not. If there are specific problems with the image, they can be fixed, including transforming it from a flag into an emblem. High-quality SVGs should not be deleted because of minor problems. Therefore keep and fix if necessary. —Ynhockey (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ynhockey.

I agree with your conclusion.

Anyway, I have other concerns. Darwin here above proved with 100% confidence (whatever Zac thinks) that the image he had found was a fake and I think the second one you scanned (the armoured car) is a fake too (in the book). Could you check carefully in your book and confirm or not that the emblem is painted on two sides/faces of the armoured car : one part is next to the door and a another part of the emblem is on the front side of the armoured car.

Noisetier (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the second is clearly a fake, the vehicle bends but the symbol and the writing below remains straight. I don't know what's going on with this symbol, but there's clearly something very fishy here, with all those forgeries. In any case, every picture provided as "source" fails to show the symbol as it is described in the reliable sources, a dagger dripping-blood.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the camouflage painting tricked me on this one. I've identified the vehicle and it does not bend, indeed.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I know the details of the images are not great, but I could not recall or seeing in them dripping any sort of blood, but I know the book sources says so. I got finals coming up, so I will fix this image, but I just request time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just clarifying one point here—both pictures I provided were scanned from a book published in 1950, which I have a copy of (original, not any kind of reprint). Therefore, the chance of it being fake is practically non-existent, and of course Photoshop didn't exist in 1950. As for the blood issue, the original caption for the image does not mention blood, which probably means that there's no blood (seems like it would be an important thing to note). —Ynhockey (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is a bit strange, since both sources I mentioned above detailed that part. One refers to buses carrying Syrian troops passing by and displaying that symbol, the context of the other is two Israeli vehicles captured by the ALA and then recaptured by the Zionist forces, which were found painted with that symbol. Both mention the dripping blood dagger piercing a shield of David.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ynhockey : faking could have arouse in 1950 (in the book from which you took this). Anyway, I think we don't have enough facts to claim it is a fake. That is just suprising that historians claim the intents of the Arab armies are unknown. I would have excpected the symbol of Palestine, not this one.

@Darwin : indeed - I was troubled too but that was due to the camouflage. What follows is wp:or but I can understand that soldiers after seeing this emblem (with the dagger inside the Magen David) remember this as bleeding even if it didn't. That is why historians should always use documents. This picture is the one of an Otter. The ALA should not have had such vehicules so I assume this is one of the armoured cars that was captured by the ALA when it attacked the Yechiam convoy. Noisetier (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was any "symbol of Palestine" convenient for that purpose at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

See en:Palestinian nationalism. Noisetier (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- however, what specific "symbol" did you have in mind? (There's none given on the article you linked to.) The 1917 Arab revolt flag certainly would not have been too practical as a monochrome armored-car emblem, and I'm not sure that there was any other "symbol of Palestine" in use by Arabs at that time. AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't understand that you was wondering about a symbol to be used as an emblem for the vehicules of the Arab Liberation Army. I don't know they had any so I am not sure too that there was another one. Anyway, for a flag, there is the one of the Palestnian movement since 1920. Noisetier (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then why did you say "I would have excpected the symbol of Palestine, not this one." when you in fact didn't actually have any such specific symbol in mind? AnonMoos (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I was talking about a flag. I didn't understand that you was wondering about a symbol to be used as an emblem for the vehicules of the Arab Liberation Army. I don't know they had any so I am not sure too that there was another one. Anyway, for a flag, there is the one of the Palestnian movement since 1920. Noisetier (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The darkroom techniques of the 1940s could easily fake a photo like this, but I don't see a compelling reason to suspect it is fake. The apparent disappearance of the shadow when it hits the white paint looks odd, but it doesn't prove forgery. The paint is shiny, so it reflects ambient light such as the light of the sky more than the body of the vehicle. This means that the shadow should appear weaker on the white than on the vehicle. As well as this, photographs of the period compressed extreme brightness ranges, so anything more than a certain level of brightness would come out pure white (similarly for pure black). The combination of these two things might erase the shadow. So the proof of forgery is not convincing. However, I'm less convinced about the ALA connection. If this was an official emblem, why do I not find it mentioned at all in the book and several academic papers that I have about the ALA? Also, the emblem does not match the description of Morris. More importantly than the lack of blood, the dagger is not stuck into the Magen David, but sits in front of it as if the star is holding the dagger rather than being threatened by it. Zero0000 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your observations. Indeed, I've already noticed the incongruence of the drawing with respect to the "piercing" part, though my gasp of the English language was not enough to understand if there really was a difference between "piercing" and what the drawing shows. Indeed, my first thought while looking at the drawing was that it looked quite a lot like a symbol that the Zionists would use themselves (if I well recall the IDF used swords in front of the shield of David, this one has a dagger).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How would either of you propose to visually represent the concept of "stabbing a star of David" by means of a design which is to be painted with white paint onto slightly-curving metal surfaces by people who do not necessarily have great artistic talents? The design under discussion doesn't have any fancy perspective tricks like a 1970's corporate logo, but it shows the dagger going into the center of the star of David and coming back out, in keeping with the traditional conventions of artistic interlacing (see the majority of images in Category:Knots in art and decoration. AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't overwrite files!

I gave repeatedly a standard notice {{Dont overwrite}} to Zscout370 at his discussion page but he repeatedly removed it instead of answering it and respecting standard conventions. New work (a derivative version which is not only a minor, uncontroversial correction) should be uploaded allways under a new name. A decision about delete request about the original file should be indepentent on the fact whether there exist some derivative versions at Commons. --ŠJů (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As this stage, I suggest :

• we keep the new black version of Zscout in a new file with the name "Arab Liberation Army Emblem"
• we delete all the green versions.

Noisetier (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The green version was probably intended to look like white paint on on a background color chosen to blend into vegetation (which may have been the predominant use, judging from the photographs). It's only wrong if someone interprets it as a flag, or Islamic green, or something like that. AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The green version was of course a political choice and it must be removed. Noisetier (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that it wasn't intended to represent WW2-era tank paint and/or military uniform dark green? AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to be green, since those vehicles were generally brown to blend with the landscape colours (Palestine is not exactly la Provence française to use green as camouflage). Survival vehicles in museums of the region generally are brown or caki to reflect it's original use. As Noiseter, I also believe that the choice of green was rather political. In any case, the background colour should be changed into something more factual or at least more neutral, such as black/white.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@AnonMoos : what evidence do you have that it was intended to this ? None. The charge of the proof is to the one who wants to add something. Noisetier (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

New image

Have a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE1YUNF2LTE . Doesn't that look like a real dagger? Look at the shadow of the dagger handle. I think the vehicle has a small loop of metal there. A circle and Magen David had been painted around it. Now a dagger has been placed there. Does that explain why the dagger in the first photo looked 3-dimensional as someone commented? I bet that the painting is of Jewish origin. Zero0000 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that image is pretty much identical to the one in the vehicle which I presumed to be faked, and it sure looks like something three-dimensional,either the real thing or an elaborate artwork, not something one would expect to find out painted in haste in the doors of vehicles by troops in the middle of a war. But that TV spot is Palestinian, and I really do not understand what that image is doing there. :S -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If some variant of the logo is faked (or hypothetical), the image should be described as faked or hypothetical, not deleted. Btw., Commons is not Wikipedia, discussions about historical problems and proofs of falsification or historical authenticity belong rather to Wikipedias or to discussion page of the file than here. --ŠJů (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When we are trying to understand what this image is, and if it has a place here in Commons, those discussions belong here. It is yet to be clearly shown what this thing is, really.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero0000, if I follow you well, you make the hypothesis that the ALA militiamen fixed a dagger of the armoured car that they captured. Am I right ? I think this is in contradiction with the 1st picture given by Ynhockey where it is on a motorcycle.

I am still convinced the 1st picture found by Darwin is a fake. I deduce this from the disparition of the shadow that we should find on the Magen David.

Whatever, I suggest we remove the green color from the picture and that we rename this.

Noisetier (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this new image is on Palestinian TV because they consider it to be Zionist. I agree that the motorcycle picture complicates the issue. Obviously there is some story behind all of this that we did not yet uncover. 220.253.67.199 00:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please translate what the caption of the motorcycle picture says? My Arabic is very basic and doesn't allow for that, if no one here can translate it, perhaps I could fetch someone in the wiki-ar Village Pump.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's rather blurry... I recognize قي هذه towards the end. -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The caption of the motorcycle picture says: «شعار مدرعات جيش الإنقاذ .. النجمة الصهيونية يطعنها خنجر عربي .. كما ترى في هذه الصورة». Literal translation: «The logo of the armored vehicles of Salvage Army [إنقاذ literally means salvage not liberation] .. the Zionist star is stabbed with an Arabic dagger .. as seen in this picture». For me it looks that the logo both in this and the other picture is of a superior quality compared to the newspaper photo overall. It looks superimposed over the 'original' picture by a non-professional: the logo is in one plane, it does not fold according to the armored vehicle nor according to the motorcycle. Well, the next photoshop-treated image will probably be better, thus hoax will be harder to detect :) --Abanima (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation! You mean that an Egyptian newspaper supposedly misprinted the name of the ALA? And such a detailed (and rather emotional) description in the caption for something so elusive as this logo, which seem to have been used very seldom, if at all? If it was fishy, it is now fishier. I also agree with your observations on the logo quality compared to the rest of the image.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My Arabic dictionary defines the word in question as "deliverance, salvation, saving, rescue; salvaging, recovery; relief". It's not the word most commonly equated with English "Liberation" since Nasser's day (which may have surprised Abanima), but the use of Nasserite terminology in 1948 would actually make things more suspicious, not less... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I think we're losing sight of our legitimate role here. It's generally not the place of people participating in Wikimedia Commons deletion discussions to become historical document sleuths, in cases where such sleuthing has no possible implications for copyright status. If this is a hoax, it's a hoax of many decades standing which has seen publication in a number of print sources -- it is definitely NOT a hoax on the part of the image uploader, or a meme recently originating on the Internet (things which would actually be relevant for a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion). Therefore its ultimate historical veracity is somewhat irrelevant here -- we provide the image, and it's then up to each individual language Wikipedia to weigh the historical evidence and decide whether or not to use the image on articles there. It's really not the role of Wikimedia Commons to come down on one side of legitimate historical controversies, or act as some kind of advance filter to pre-decide issues which should be settled on the various Wikipedias. REITERATE MY KEEP VOTE ABOVE -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would happily vote for keep as well, though I really would like to know what it is before doing that. I understand, however, that most probably it's not relevant to know what something is to decide that it should be kept here. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kept per discussion above. Even if this is a hoax, it is old enough that we may now want to discuss the hoax in an educational context. If the description or filename can be improved through further research, go for it. If the colours are in dispute, we should keep all variants of the files until we are confident that one is wrong. If the shape can be proved to be wrong, feel free to change it, but remember that some symbols are only roughly proscribed, and there may be many variants in exactly how it was expressed historically. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)