Talk:Religion in national symbols

message: Only anthems are listed, but there's a lot more that could be said... AnonMoos 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In what way does the national anthem of Israel incorporate religion? Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A Jewish soul still yearns... watches toward Zion..." etc. AnonMoos 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and? --132.73.20.118 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National anthem of Israel 

message: According to one particular interpretation, the Maple leaf could be depicting the Holy Trinity, i.e. God as is usually understood in Christianity. See for instance the Andrei Rublev painting, which in depicted in the same shape as the maple leaf. There are various traditional symbols such as the fleurs-de-lis, the shamrock and the Christmas tree that have the same basic shape and that have historically been used to represent the Holy Trinity in art and symbol. ADM (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence that when Members of Parliament chose the maple leaf flag they did so because of this alleged relationship? Or did they chose the maple leaf because it is common throughout many parts of Canada and has always been associated with Canada? Ground Zero | t 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's common in all parts of Canada. When I meet people from the West, the North or the Far East, they tell me that maple trees are not all that common in their respective provinces or territories. I think the symbol originates from 19th century Quebec, when it was used during the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parades, and became associated by the quasi-religious regalia of those ceremonies. ADM (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The maple tree was one of the most predominate and useful trees of central Canada and especially Quebec and its leaf was chosen as a symbol to represent Canada by the Saint-Jean Baptiste society in its infancy and was waved by the populace during the visit of Edward VII in 1860. Its use as a national symbol spread and was used on flags, money, posters, arms; just as today almost anything that needed identifying as being Canadian you just added the maple leaf. I don't find any credible evidence that the holy trinity had anything to do with the initial choice of the leaf as a national symbol and it certainly had nothing to do with its choice as the primary element of the flag. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The Christmas tree does not have the same "basic shape" as the maple leaf. Furthermore, anything with three branches or points can be used to represent any other thing with three branches or points in an artistic or symbolic representation, so you could say that the Star Wars Trilogy could represent the Holy Trinity. And the painting you cite has nothing to do with the Trinity maple leaves. Utter nonsense. --Makaristos (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The maple leaf was previously the Quebec national symbol, until it was replaced by the fleurs-de-lis. It happens that both symbols have the exact same shape and the same religious meaning, if you look up the history of the royal emblem of France, which clearly depicts the Trinity. See also the shamrock, Ireland's national symbol. Also, the generic term trinity is not the same thing as the artistic representation of the Trinity, this is a heresy called nominalism. ADM (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maple Leaf as used on the flag of Canada does not stand for the Trinity. --Makaristos (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of Canada

message: The Crescent and Star (Ay-Yildiz) is actually originally a national symbol of the Turkish Nation, not of Islam, and has been regarded as a symbol of Islam since it's inclusion in the Flag of Pakistan. The Pakistanis used it because they regarded the Ottoman Empire as one of the most powerful Islamic states, basically a symbol of the 'political' power of Islam. So yes, since the 1920's it's been regarded as a symbol of Islam, which is kind of ironic given that since the 1920's Turkey has been a very secular republic. But surely this Turkish symbol, which has become associated with Islam basically in an illegitimate way due to ignorance of some Muslims using it as such, cannot be on par with the use of the Christian Cross or the Jewish Star of David, can it, since those symbols are actually sponsored by those religions and thoroughly assumed, which the Star-and-Crescent is not by Islam.
So I think we should make this distincion somehow. Also some national flags using this symbol (such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the movement for independence of Eastern Turkestan) use it specifically because it is a Turkish national symbol, and certainly not in order to symbolise Islam. The same argument could go for Turkey itself and Azerbaidjan, although some people in Turkey and Azerbaidjan have since the 1920's become themselves confused on the issue (although certainly those confused are a minority).
So yes, we can safely assume that the Crescent-and-Star on the flags of Turkey, Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the movement for indedpendece of Eastern Turkestan DOES NOT represent Islam, but the Turkish Nation or A Turkic Nation and as such SHOULD BE REMOVED. Also the flag of the Ottoman Empire is based on a former flag of the Ottoman Navy and has been arbitrarily designated by the Modernisation Movement during Tanzimat Era (1830's) as the National Flag of the Ottoman Empire. It is MOST CERTAIN that at the time it did not represent Islam in any way (which would have seemed propostreous to the society of the time since Islam FORBIDS religious symbolism). If you are looking for sources just check out the sources in the Wiki articles for the Flag of Turkey and the Flag of the Ottoman Empire.
The Star and Crescent represents Islam ONLY on the flags of countries such as Pakistan, Malaysia or Mauritania. 
Also, on the flag of the former Kingdom of Egypt, as far as I remember, the three stars represent the three religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, so that should be a special case. I'm sure there is a sourced explanation on the Wiki page of the Flag of the Kingdom of Egypt... Let's check our own articles out before we write something that's not academically sound....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crescent-and-Star not an Islamic symbol. 

message: Why do we have a section with this title and associated content in an article supposedly about 'Religion in national symbols'. Seems patently off-topic. Will remove unless a reasonable case can be made for retention. RashersTierney (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. RashersTierney (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Non-religious symbolism'

message: I think that the article has confused the two a bit.  A religious symbol is something that is objectively religious, possibly the most obvious example for this would be a cross.  Something like the color red, while perhaps intentionally included in order to depict an aspect of a particular religion, is not inherently religious.  A distinction between these two would be appropriate. 67.87.168.207 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Symbols vs. Symbolic of Religion 

message: I don't see it. Kokoo (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on the current Spanish flag, unless you count the tiny Globus cruciger on top of the crown.  However, a famous historical/military flag of Spain is the Cross of Burgundy... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the cross in the Spanish flag? 

message: Why does this article take such a superficial (and almost entirely unsourced) approach? It seems to focus overwhelmingly on trivial, unevidenced interpretation of a long list of cute little flag pictures, and yet these are only a tiny part of national symbolism. There's no mention of coats of arms or epic poetry or oaths or patron saints or any of the other assorted totems which have been fetishised by nation-builders; only flags, and perhaps a handful of anthems &c because it's easy to scan through a national anthem looking for a mention of the word "god". Even obvious, easy-to-cite religious references such as Pahonia have been omitted despite the article being over six years (and well over a thousand edits) old. Instead we get a table of flagicons. Why has so much effort been spent on a placeholder article which does such a great disservice to readers? Why isn't there even a single paragraph of prose based on a reliable source? bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the tables are a poor substitute for referenced prose. Hopefully other editors will take a similar view and we will begin to see radical change here. It is long overdue. I don't mind spending time on this, but am not prepared for a solo run given the article's history. RashersTierney (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also a heap of patent nonsense here: how are the Pan-Slavic colors or the pan-Arab colours related to religion when they were defined by modern, decidedly secular movements? Come to that, how are a zebra's stripes, a wreath, the frigatebird, or stars with rays representing tribes "religious" symbols? Not to mention some other more sneaky errors, such as Albania's double-headed eagle having nothing to do with Christianity... Constantine   ✍  22:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you might ask! So who is going to wield the axe? RashersTierney (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: RashersTierney brought this issue to WikiProject Religion, today.This article is most definitely in need of clean up. Unfortunately, wielding an axe will not do enough. This article needs a rewrite. Much of the article is unreferenced and poorly structured in addition to being wrong and irrelevant to the topic. As a start, I've gone through the page's tags and rated it.—Sowlos (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One axe, coming right up! I'll get rid of all those flag entries which don't have a source and where the original "flag" article doesn't have a source (such as Belgium, which according to the article doesn't have any religious meaning, or France, where the flag article claims two of the colors refer to saints, but the only source, which probably isn't reliable anyway, says they symbolize the three estates). I'm not sure how much that will leave. Huon (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Swinging an axe is relatively easy (I've already made some cuts). Alas, writing good quality sourced content will be harder... bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Thematical, possibly historical. Various Islamic flags arose at the same time, for example, and could be covered in one go with just a few examples. Huon (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll sit on the fence unhelpfully, and say that either could be good - it may be better to start building proper content and see which direction sources lead us in. bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the fish. An explanation of where I erred would have been useful. Huon (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Undeserved 'trouting' from what I see. RashersTierney (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave him a trout, RashersTierney 99.229.41.79 (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop trolling around, 9.229.41.79 NewFranco (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Apparently I have to justify every single entry I removed or 99.229.41.79 will simply re-add them without providing a source. The newest he re-added: Malta doesn't have a Christian cross, but a depiction of the George Cross, a British decoration that was awarded the island. That's not a reference to religion, but to the island's inhabitants' gallant conduct during WW2. And while there are theories which attribute (conflicting) Christian meanings to the Swiss flag, there is also theory which says it's an adaption of the Holy Roman Empire's war flag - apparently nobody knows what that cross is supposed to mean, and the first use in battle seems to have been prompted by a rather irreligious and symbol-free need to easily distinguish the Swiss troops from their opponents. Huon (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: And the flags with crowns are re-added without a source about their supposed religious symbology. Yes, the crowns do incorporate crosses. But the one flag which did give an explicit description of the crown's symbolism, that of San Marino, said it symbolized sovereignty. I'd like to see a source linking the crowns on the flags to a religious meaning. (The globus cruciger that's part of the crowns is indeed a religious symbol, but we begin to play six degrees of separation.) And while I'm at it, the explanation that Nepal's flag is a representation of a pagoda seems to be made up in whole cloth. Rather, it's the combination of two prior triangular flags. Huon (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I believe by now I've explained my reasoning for almost half the "Christian" flags I removed. For exactly one flag you re-added have you presented a source. I also thought about the other half, and about the non-"Christian" flags I removed. I can provide my detailed reasoning for every single one, but to be honest, "they were unsourced" should be a rationale sufficient not to re-add them without a source. To me it seems disruptive to re-add unsourced stuff immediately after it has been removed for being unsourced. The burden of evidence is with the editor who wants content included. If you think I was wrong about some of them, please either present a source or provide your rationale here on the talk page instead of just re-adding it. Huon (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 99.229.41.79, you cannot simply revert edits in compliance with Wikipedia policies and justify your lack of sourcing your own decisions. You can revert and ask all edits to stop pending discussion if you have an argument. However, you must cite your 'facts'.—Sowlos (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superficial 

message: I've gone through the state flags (not the sub-state flags, the former state flags, or the anthems and mottos) and removed whatever was ill-sourced. I'd like to make a few points:
* Not every cross is a symbol of Christianity. For example, the various flags flying a Union Jack in the canton don't do so because of any religious significance but as a symbol of a historical connection to the UK. Arguably, the UK flag doesn't have any religious symbols either, but symbols of England, Scotland and Ireland; I've left that one alone for the moment.
* I expect the same rationale holds for most Northern Cross flags (except Denmark and Sweden), but those articles all had (the same) sources claiming that the Northern Crosses in all cases represent Christianity. Until I find a better source, I left those flags in the list.
* The same is true for the star and crescent. That may be a symbol of Islam but just as well a symbol for something else; the precise symbolism depends on the specific flag.
* The pan-slavic colors seem to have no special religious significance, but the green of the pan-arabic colors is usually interpreted as symbolizing Islam. There are some exceptions, however; Oman's green stands for the Green Mountains.
* The only "traditional" flags with an apparent religious symbolism were Argentina's and Uruguay's with the Sun of May, supposedly a depiction of an Inca god. Again I doubt the source (an Argentine encyclopedia); Uruguay, for one, would never have been part of the Inca realm and would be extremely unlikely to use Inca religious symbols. But again I don't have a better source.
I'd suggest to remove the flags of sub-state entities and of historical states outright; we might use some of those flags to describe the development of religious symbolism, but we're even more unlikely to find sources on those flags, most of which don't have articles. 
If I've been too thorough in removing flags, please feel free to trout me. Huon (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fish. An explanation of where I erred would have been useful. Huon (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Undeserved 'trouting' from what I see. RashersTierney (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just gave him a trout, RashersTierney 99.229.41.79 (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop trolling around, 9.229.41.79 NewFranco (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Apparently I have to justify every single entry I removed or 99.229.41.79 will simply re-add them without providing a source. The newest he re-added: Malta doesn't have a Christian cross, but a depiction of the George Cross, a British decoration that was awarded the island. That's not a reference to religion, but to the island's inhabitants' gallant conduct during WW2. And while there are theories which attribute (conflicting) Christian meanings to the Swiss flag, there is also theory which says it's an adaption of the Holy Roman Empire's war flag - apparently nobody knows what that cross is supposed to mean, and the first use in battle seems to have been prompted by a rather irreligious and symbol-free need to easily distinguish the Swiss troops from their opponents. Huon (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: And the flags with crowns are re-added without a source about their supposed religious symbology. Yes, the crowns do incorporate crosses. But the one flag which did give an explicit description of the crown's symbolism, that of San Marino, said it symbolized sovereignty. I'd like to see a source linking the crowns on the flags to a religious meaning. (The globus cruciger that's part of the crowns is indeed a religious symbol, but we begin to play six degrees of separation.) And while I'm at it, the explanation that Nepal's flag is a representation of a pagoda seems to be made up in whole cloth. Rather, it's the combination of two prior triangular flags. Huon (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I believe by now I've explained my reasoning for almost half the "Christian" flags I removed. For exactly one flag you re-added have you presented a source. I also thought about the other half, and about the non-"Christian" flags I removed. I can provide my detailed reasoning for every single one, but to be honest, "they were unsourced" should be a rationale sufficient not to re-add them without a source. To me it seems disruptive to re-add unsourced stuff immediately after it has been removed for being unsourced. The burden of evidence is with the editor who wants content included. If you think I was wrong about some of them, please either present a source or provide your rationale here on the talk page instead of just re-adding it. Huon (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 99.229.41.79, you cannot simply revert edits in compliance with Wikipedia policies and justify your lack of sourcing your own decisions. You can revert and ask all edits to stop pending discussion if you have an argument. However, you must cite your 'facts'.—Sowlos (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Axing

message: I'm afraid that article needs deletion for unsourced material. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be necessary if there were insufficient sources to make the topic of religion in national symbology non-notable. We currently don't have any general sources on the topic, but did you try to find some? Where did you look? If such sources do exist, the way to go is removal of the unsourced material and the rewriting of the article on better sources. For example, this one from the Scandinavian flag article deals with the topic and gives examples of flags using religious symbology:  Huon (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Look the Union Jack is composed of St George, St Andrew & St David's crosses. The Malta flag contains St George slaying a dragon. There are cross on crowns on flags. There is a Greek cross on the Swiss flag. 'Look Carefully. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide reputable citation and everyone here would be more than happy to see an entry for Malta.—Sowlos (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian symbolism on flags 

message: I'm very skeptical about many of 99.229.41.79's unsourced additions. Not every cross is Christian, the Cypriot dove is not a symbol for the Holy Spirit but for peace, I don't have the faintest idea why the Lebanese cedar or the Bangladeshi water lily are considered "religious", and above I explicitly argued the Swiss and Maltese flags just to see the same unsourced justifications return for the respective coats of arms. The claim that the US motto of "In God we trust" is Christian is in conflict with Supreme Court opinions calling it non-religious "ceremonial deism". I don't see how the Qing dragon flag contains either Confucian, Taoist or Buddhist symbols, much less all three. In short, I feel 99.229 hasn't necessarily provided instances of religion in national symbols but has produced a list of "national symbols sorted by the country's majority religion". Unless there's a good reason not to do so, I'm tempted to blanket revert them all - right now it's unsourced original research, and it's only getting worse. Huon (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 99.229.41.79 removed Malta while I wrote the above screed, but my other objections remain valid. Huon (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mass additions of unsourced content have long been a feature of this article. I removed just one recent edit, but am highly sceptical about others. I'd allow a short period to provide references and then cull radically.  RashersTierney (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And another two highly dubious, unsourced additions by 99.229.41.79, with no attempt to explain his reasoning on the talk page. That's it, I'll start removing unsourced entries I consider dubious. Huon (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is becoming ever more of an unsourced mess, and I'm tired of doing other people's research. I'll wait a few days for objections and then start removing all the unsourced content, whether or not I find it dubious. I doubt much will remain. Huon (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added sources to most of the national flags, removed those where sources did not support any religious meaning, and removed all entries which had neither a source nor a link to an article that might have a source, in particular the flags that weren't national flags and the mottos. Huon (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why sources on this article? Keep the motto section. Don't remove it, it contains religious words. The German anthems too, they contain the word "faith." NewFranco (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wrong on several levels. Firstly, the Deutschlandlied does not contain the word "faith". And while one translation of Auferstanden aus Ruinen does contain the word "faith", another translates the same German term as "confidence" - "that a free new generation, faith in its own strength beget" simply is not a reference to religion, and definitely not to Christianity. And that's precisely why we need third-party sources: Is what you call the national motto indeed the national motto? Sometimes I have doubts. If it mentions "faith", is that a reference to religion? If it contains clearly religious wording, what specific religion (if any) does that refer to? That part of the article is pure original research, and if no third-party sources discuss the religious significance of those mottos and anthems, neither should we. Huon (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced additions 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should the U.S. great seal be included in the coats of arm section? It has an "eye of providence" on it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little ambiguous -- to many people in the U.S. in the 18th century, the Eye of Providence symbolized a kind of generalized Deism, more than any specific relgion... AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. great seal 

message: I checked a few sources for the meaning of the blue strip in the Colombian flag. According to the Cancillería website, it represents the sea and the two oceans of the country. Couldn't find any source claiming it represents "God" as stated in the article. The source used (Alfred Znamierowski's World Encyclopedia of Flags, 1999) is just plain wrong. JoselínDoom (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colombian flag 

message: What constitutes symbolism being considered "traditional"? The Icelandic coat of arms features landvættir, figures from Norse mythology. Could that not be considered traditional in the same sense as the eagle on the Mexican flag? 2A01:6F02:30B:C971:996B:992A:4FD4:626E (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icelandic coat of arms