Talk:10 agorot controversy

pattern

This coin was patterned after what coin from 37bce? would be nice to know to be able to compare. Joe I 21:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We are rather provided with a contour of something and not with the display of an item that can be recognized as a coin. So this is sort of unambigously ambigous, leaving it open and thereby is a provocation against Palastenians as we may rightfully assume that there is a mystic message conveyed, which is btw. common practice in Jewish Kabbalah tradition.

Here, I added the image of the coin. Now you may rightfully assume that this whole so-called "controversy" was just a propaganda made by some Palestinians and nothing more. --TheYmode 13:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image of the old coin was apparently deleted and delinked; it would be nice to have another comparable photo for the article. AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Israeli 10 Agorot.gif

Image:Israeli 10 Agorot.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added [1]. -Reuvenk_{T C} 09:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bank of Israel logo.png

The image Image:Bank of Israel logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blood Libel

This entire section is a bood libel against Jews and needs to be immediately removed from wikipedia. Yes, the entire "Greater Israel" or The Nile to the Euphrates" is a ridiculous, and DANGEROUS peice of propaganda designed to set Jews up for eventual death and execution, like the Blood Libel... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, no it doesn't. WP:DONTLIKE Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Greater Israel controversy

While it's entirely possible that Arafat was wrong about this coin, it is totally misleading of us to imply that "Greater Israel" or "The Nile to the Euphrates" is some ridiculous concept that he invented. (I placed what I thought was some evidence here expecting to discover some of it would be debatable, distorted or false - in the event none of it was challenged).

And it's appalling to cite the notorious Daniel Pipes's article "Imperial Israel: The Nile-to-Euphrates Calumny". Mr Pipes is the author of "... Mr. Haq's actions are a clear instance of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," whereby normal-appearing Muslims unpredictably become violent. His attack confirms my oft-repeated call for special scrutiny of Muslims. Because the identity of the next homicidal jihadi cannot be anticipated, Muslims generally need to come under heightened observation. I regret writing this as much as you dislike reading it, but it needs to be said and operated upon." We make ourselves look reckless associating with that kind of thing! PR^talk 11:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate habit of Arab political spokesmen and propagandists that they frequently try to call attention to something which may be a legitimate concern (e.g. Israeli irredentism) by using "evidence" which is very often pathetically transparently fraudulent or quite obviously 100% historically bogus (e.g. the stripes on the Israeli flag, the "map on the wall of the Knesset", the 10 Agorot coin, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam maximam). These techniques may be very persuasive within the closed opinion echo-chamber of Arab societies, but among significant groups in the West they have the effect of producing more emotions of contempt and disdain than they do any kind of sympathy for the Arab cause. The fact that certain types of Arab propagandists never seem to learn from their past failures, but keep on unabashedly repetitively reiterating past failed propaganda strategies, reminds some of the "Big Lie" technique, and is one contributing factor to the relatively low opinion which many in the West have of Arab political culture.

That said, I don't really care very much about the Pipes link in the context of this particular article, and so won't be reverting. However, your personal subjective list of Pipes' alleged grievous sins (in your eyes) is actually quite irrelevant to whether the Pipes link should be included in this article. Pipes is not a universally-respected authoritative scholar, but on the other hand, he's also far from being some random blogger. His writings have a certain subjective component (and my opinion of him has certainly gone down with his stupid tangents on Obama over the last year or so), but he's still a million times more reliable than the aforementioned Arab propagandists (whose lies you have so gullibly and uncritically swallowed on the subject of Jenin). AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Th link is clearly relevant, as it directly discusses the controversy, in detail. It was published in a scholarly journal, so there's really no reason to remove it, let alone doing so with an edit summary that is a a serious violation of WP:BLP. NoCal100 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much undue weight

I've just seconded a prod because this is essentially based on one sentence from Arafat. This is more appropriately covered in the agorot article, or - better yet - merged into a Coinage of Israel article detailing the design and history of the coins issued/circulated by the Israeli government. If there is abundant cited information on the design and history of each individual denomination (more than three paragraphs, please!), then an article for each circulated denomination would be appropriate, with 10 agorot controversy incorporated into 10 agorot. I would also recommended a similar setup for Currency of Israel (which is currently a redirect to a disambiguation page with two entries). B.Wind (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether this should survive as a separate article, but do NOT merge with any "currency of Israel" article, because in reality it has fairly little to do with the currency of Israel -- rather, it has to do with propaganda claims and controversies in the Arab-Israeli conflict... AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Image of the ancient coin

This image would be very appropriate in this article. A file with the same name existed on wikimedia at some stage but was deleted on the grounds of lack of source. Does anyone know can a properly licenced image of this coin be obtained ? There are a few CC sources on the net, but they seem to be copied from wikipedia, which gets us back to the grounds for original deletion. @Jameslwoodward: do you by chance recall what were the source details of the original image you deleted ? “WarKosign” 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There was no source or author information at all:

|Description=יצירתה עממית

|Source=

|Date=

|Author=I

|Permission=

Which is the reason it was deleted. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Do you know the username that uploaded it originally ? I'd like to ask them, maybe the problem with only with the entered information and the uploader was actually the photographer and had the rights to upload it. “WarKosign” 08:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Bank of Israel logo.png

File:Bank of Israel logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This article must say

what did the ancient coin depict. Otherwise we still don’t know what the drawing is of. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)