Talk:Jerusalem cross

Georgia flag

No one mentioned the Georgia flag? Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.80.89.26 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[1] ctrl-F Georgia? Constistently mentioned in the article since its creation back in 2009. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Christian nationalism

Possible connection to Christian nationalism not mentioned. 2601:87:4280:BC20:1098:FFE8:FCC5:CD95 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Christian Nationalism or Extremism?

Why is there no mention in this article about the Jerusalem Cross being regarded by the United States military as a potential sign of Christian nationalism or extremism? It clearly needs to be added to this article, either as part of Modern Usage, or as a criticism of its modern use. If not categorized as such, it does need to be included as a consideration. It takes on more importance recently as a feature of Trump's proposed new Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegspeth, who wears it as a tattoo, and Donald Trump's fondness for, and associations with extremist thinking. Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Because that is politically motivated drivel and likely qualifies as bigotry. Definitely unencyclopedic. Up until one week ago this wasn't a thought going through anyone's heads, talking about it here would be WP:UNDUE. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It was an issue for Biden's inaguration in 2021 and led to Hegseth leaving the Army. To say it only came up a week ago is not accurate.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/11/15/pete-hegseth-trump-defense-secretary-inauguration-national-guard-tattoo/76335443007/ 173.79.199.65 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. It was discussed back in 2020 when a Tom Steyer drew it on his hand. "Banners depicting the Jerusalem Cross, along with the term "Deus vult" (God wills it) that was associated with the Crusaders, were deployed by the far-right during a violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017." [2] Remember (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an international topic. Two left-wing U.S. sources discussing the symbol in this context in recent years does not mean it should be prominently featured in the lead. It can be mentioned in one or two sentences in the section "Modern Use". See WP:UNDUE. I feel like User:Semmendinger might want to chime in here too after the recent article expansion. -- 77.22.105.99 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to have other people discussing this topic. Please stop reverting before we get other editors to discuss. Also, it is easier to have conversations with people that are not anonymous IP addresses. Lastly, Fox news is hardly a "left wing" news source. I specifically included a right wing source on Hegseth to avoid accusations that it was based on left wing sources. Remember (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The symbol is used all over the world. What "some white supremacists in the United States" do with it is completely irrelevant to the rest of the world. This is an international topic. You made a controversial change and have been reverted 3 times. It's now on you to find a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.105.99 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

First, it is notable and the fact that this is an international symbol doesn't mean that describing its current usage in the US is irrelevant. Second, it is odd to be lectured to about rules by an anon IP that appears to have only 8 edits in its whole history that all occurred today on this wiki when I have been hear for about 20 years. Remember (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I may be notable. That means it can be mentioned in the text somewhere. What it does NOT mean is that this fringe view should make up a sizable portion of the lead section. 77.22.105.99 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it belongs in the lead either, although it does warrant a mention in the article body. We are talking about a symbol that is on a national flag. It must be in millions of homes and churches around the world; personally, our advent candle holder is a Jerusalem cross. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It is currently featured very prominently in the section "Modern use" after User Remember's recent addition. 77.22.105.99 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it's on the flag of Georgia. No one outside of the U.S. has ever used the flag in the context of white supremacy or similar. 77.22.105.99 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the article as it currently stands. I wouldn't want the paragraph about US politics to get any longer, but as it stands it isn't undue IMO. StAnselm (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think the current version is alright. My main issue was the seperate subheader and the lead expansion. 77.22.105.99 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should not have a separate subheader and that the lead should cover all modern uses. I've proposed something below). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the issue that the anon and me were disagreeing about was this edit [3]. I see no reason not to include the issue in the introduction and I see no issue in not having a separate header. The intro is supposed to summarize the article and the subheading lets people find notable information. Remember (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the anon. There is a lot of stuff I would put in the lead ahead of that (national flag of Georgia, Episcopal Church Service Cross, etc.) StAnselm (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with people adding more. Please add more. But I don’t think that’s a reason to delete information. Remember (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, but removing content from the lede is never deleting information since it is (or should be) already in the article body. StAnselm (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged by Remember, whom I haven't interacted with before to this conversation. I agree with StAnselm that if we're to include a sentence or two on modern uses in the lead it should not solely be about the white nationalist use, but it would be fine listing it is as one of many uses.

For example, I think the following fairly summarizes the body content: Use of the Jerusalem Cross and variations by the Order of the Holy Sepulchre and affiliated organizations in Jerusalem continued until modern times. Other modern usages include on the national flag of Georgia, in various awards including the Episcopal Church Service Cross, and as a white nationalist symbol. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Certainly we should note all major uses of the cross in the lead. Remember (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church Service Cross isn't an award, of course. StAnselm (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Added sentence given no ones objection and removed the misdescription of the Episcopal Church Service Cross. Remember (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of symbol by white supremacists "rare"

I removed the following sentence and related citation because the citation didn't support the assertion of the sentence: "However, this use of the symbol is rare.". Additionally I don't think aleteia.com is a reliable source (but happy to be proven wrong if someone can point to that fact). That being said, I am not adverse to someone adding that sentence expressing that the use among white supremacists of this symbol is rare if someone can find a reliable source that supports this assertion. Remember (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)