Jump to content

Talk:Rainbow flag/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removed

Removed the following:

Outside the United States, the rainbow flag has been seen as representing the international peace movement since the 1800s. Use of the rainbow flag by the peace movement world wide has increased as part of the popular opposition to war on Iraq.

That simply is untrue. The rainbow flag is recognised internationally as a gay flag. Where it is used in peace demonstrations, it is used to represent the gay community's support for the marches. It is not used as a peace flag, any more that in pro-war people in the US fly the stars and strikes an article on wikipedia should claim the stars and strikes was a 'pro-war' flag. This flag was specifically created for the gay community and is used by the gay community. It is no-one else's. A rainbow flag is sometimes used by peace demonstrators, but not this one. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:31 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me that, if the distinction is between "a rainbow flag" and "the rainbow flag", perhaps the rainbow flag should be at Rainbow Flag instead? Since it sounds like it's being used in a way that suggests a trademark, even if it doesn't actually have one? If it isn't capitalized, I'd think other rainbow flags would count just as much as the gay pride one, for inclusion in this article. -- John Owens 23:26 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

The flag representing gay pride has been flown in Africa, especially South Africa, Australia, throughout Europe and in the Americas. On gay pride week in Ireland, the City Council in Dublin flies the flag on flagpoles running right the way down on each side of the River Liffey celebrating gay pride. The peace flag symbol is not used in the same context and is declining in use, particularly in Europe where it is now overwhelmingly seen as a gay flag. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:11 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I dunno about that. I've definitely seen more, generic, rainbow flags (often with seven stripes) in coverage about European peace protests. (Saw a big one in front of the Vatican the other week - made me double-take). I'm going to take a crack at rewording it. - Montréalais 00:42 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

From what I hear about the Vatican from a priest-friend working there, the gay rainbow flag should replace the yellow and white as its official flag. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:02 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Peace flag

I couldn't find any indication that the peace flag was used before about 1961. Before that, there were some colorful flags in use by pacifists, but they were not rainbow flags. It wasn't until 1961 (in Italy) that it was made into an actual rainbow flag (plus a few non-rainbow colors, but that's okay), see the comment on [1] under 'Original flag'. The gay pride flag seems to be a separate development, although Baker may have been inspired by the same colorful (though not rainbow) flags.

The two flags (gay pride and peace) were maybe inspired by the same kind of flags, but were to my knowledge completely separate developments. I therefore wrote in the introduction that they are unrelated.

To make clear what kind of flag is meant by rainbow flag, I put that into the introduction as well. There are several regional flags that have rainbows in them, but they are more like municipal seals or logos put onto flags. Also, in my opinion, a flag should actually show most of the rainbow's colors in that order to be considered a rainbow flag. That is, a red, yellow, green flag should not qualify and neither should one with a dozen colors in random order.

-- Kimiko 12:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to add some more links:

-- Kimiko 12:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Muentzer

Can someone find out what the flag used in 1525 by Thomas Muentzer in the Peasants' War looked like?
In 1953, a play was written by Friedrich Wolf titled Thomas Münzer: Der Mann mit der Regenbogenfahne. I'm thinking that that book/play may have influenced the development of modern day rainbow flags, and Müntzer's may actually have been the first rainbow flag in history. It seems unlikely though that this flag was actually a full-fledged rainbow flag due to the limited availability of such brightly colored textiles at the time. -- Kimiko 11:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Loop the loop

Um - I notice that the link for Gilbert Baker is pointing to this page, so clicking it brings you to the top of the page it's on. Should the link just go, or is someone going to write an article on Gilbert? Have good days!—Chidom talk  23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls

The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls had used the 7 striped flag for decades. Not only was the design stolen, it is acknowleged that their flags were sold for use for gay pride flags. The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls is a Masonic organization for teenage girls. Confusion from this theft of their flag has caused concern in countless parents when approached concerning their pre-teen and teenaged daughters. The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls was forced to change their flag to another design. 71.153.40.73 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple Computer?

There is no mention of Apple Computer's original logo which features the same six colours in the same sequence as this flag, though the six colour version was dropped in the late 1990s in favour of a blue, red or gray "glossy" logo. Is there a connection? Coincidence? Seems to me unlikely given Apple's roots, and Steve Jobs' former existence as part of the hippy movement. Deserves at least a footnote. Graham 23:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to this article, the colors are in a different order (starting with green) and stand for the Apple II's color abilities, not anything related to homosexuality or peace. -- Kimiko 07:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, but there is a perception out there. Consider this, which I dug up after a brief search: "Alan Turing committed suicide by poisoning an apple with cyanide and taking a bite from it. The original Apple logo was designed as a mark of respect to Turing. The rainbow is the universal sign of gay freedom, the bite from the apple representing the bite that Alan took."Graham 00:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I doubt it is much more than a perception, though… And no evidence has been presented what so ever. But no-doubt the Apple logo contains a lot of symbolism…There is the association with the biblical apple from the knowledge tree — with a bite taken from it. There is also the homonym byte <-> bite. And, as Kimiko points out, the Apple II's multiple abilities. — David Remahl 00:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[meanwhile, 1.5 years later...] It's most likely coincidence, as the obvious connection is Sir Isaac Newton. The apple falling on his head supposedly inspired his theory of gravity, and the colors spectrum from his experiments with prisms. What's more, Apple's logo is not a flag, and never has been one to my knowledge. I have doubts whether the logo belongs in this article. MFNickster 03:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't really belong, not with the obviousness of Newton though. See also this thread --Belg4mit 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Someday we'll find it, the 'rainbow connection.' :) MFNickster 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Eight stripes is current?

I seriously doubt it - that seems to be a claim of a single web page. Before reading this page (and subsequently that site), I'd never seen or heard of the 8 colour version. If you asked the "common person" to identify the gay flag, I'd bet of those who could, 99 out of a 100 would pick the 6 colour.

Maybe one day the 8 colour will catch on (I can't see it, it's hideously ugly compared to the 6 colour one, but I could be wrong), but at the moment, shouldn't we report how things are, not how some people wish them to be? Shane King 14:19, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

As indicated in the article the eight stripes certainly are real, but, as is now confused in the article, they are past, not current, having been pushed aside by the cheaper and simpler six. Perhaps a revert is in order? Hyacinth 20:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure about a revert, I wouldn't want to lose something else from the article by doing that, but reworking to make it clear that someone is attempting to have it make a comback could be in order. I'll try to do that now. Shane King 12:31, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
I am aware that the originator of the flag wants us to use the eight striped version. I would reject this outright and I'm sure most GLBT would aswell. The 6 striped flag is now our international banner and I see no benefit to confusing this. Enzedbrit 09:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Eight stripes was the original but pink and turquoise had to be dropped for production reasons (there simply weren't standard colors in fabric, dyes or thread in the volume needed for those two colors). Gilbert baker would insist on the eight colors whenever possible but reality dictates when that is possible. Benjiboi 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Pink - sexuality
  • Red - life
  • Orange - healing
  • Yellow - sunlight
  • Green - nature
  • Turquoise - magic
  • Blue - serenity
  • Violet - spirit

LGBT boxes

Do we really need both boxes? They take up a hell of a lot of room and are somewhat redundant. I should think the rights one ought to be adequate. Particularly since "gay studies" doesn't seem to really include vexillology. --Belg4mit 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing instance

Meher Baba lovers (as followers of this sect are apt to call themselves) use an inverted rainbow flag. I also recall seeing a variant which includes brown and black stripes on the bottom. --Belg4mit 07:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it may not have had anything to do with Baba and just be a variant of a peace flag as I've since seen flags similar to what I recollect, but with a large image of the Earth in the middle surrounded by the text "peace for all" in multiple languages. The 9 color bands are, top-down:
--Belg4mit 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link (http://www.jaibaba.com/babaflag.html) on the history and appearance of Meher Baba's flag. DeanaG 04:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Split this article

I think Rainbow flag should be a disambiguation page, linking to Gay Pride flag, Rainbow Peace flag et al. For comparison, Flag of Indonesia and Flag of Monaco are two distinct pages for flags with very similar designs but unrelated meanings and usage. jnestorius(talk) 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Kat, Queen of Typos 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. --Belg4mit 07:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. - Montréalais 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I put the "No to the Bush Agenda" flag photo up and that should be under the Peace flag. --DavidShankBone 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It's going to be an extremely confusing dabpage and there's nothing preventing separate articles with the current format. The analogy to the similarity of the flags of Indonesia and Monaco is hardly comparable since the design is so much simpler. That identical flags of two or even three basic colors exist is one thing, but the rainbow colors is something else entirely. I think the concept deserves its own article.
Peter Isotalo 20:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should it be confusing? A thumbnail of each with the name is clear and compact enough... Besides the advantages of clearer single-topic pages, and separating non-related content, it will help to not read in one paragraph that "blue represents the ocean" and then in the next "blue represents serenity" or "bleu represents the cheese." --Belg4mit 03:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
heh... "the cheese" ^_^
Again, separating content does not mean you have to gut the page and turn it into a bare-bones dabpage. That so many flags with such vastly different symbolism have still chosen pretty much the exact same design tells me that the concept of a rainbow flag itself deserves a proper separate article.
I'm not trying to obstruct here, btw. I'm just trying to suggest that the concept in of itself merits separate treatment.
Peter Isotalo 08:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So you're not anti-split, you're anti-gut to a minimalistic disambig. That's fine, call a spade a spade :-P Of course that's probably going to be hard to do (depending on your perceptions). As to "deserves a proper article", probably (as the body of the disambig page?), but unless you can find any research on the matter there's not much more to include other than the fact that it's common besides speculation (it's the light spectrum, something everyone can see; diversity in unity [white light] blah blah blah) or the evil "orginal research." --Belg4mit 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and indicate support for the split. The current page design is stupid and unclear. Considering the two major uses (peace and queer rights) are so different (well potentially anyway...), it is stupid to have them both together. That said, if I hear no objections, I may go ahead and split the article in the next while. ~AFA pony. 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Belg4mit's objections to Peter Isotalo's argument. In any case, if there are generic symbolic qualities of the rainbow, they might better be discussed at Rainbow#Rainbows in culture rather than here.
On a separate point, comparison with other flag pages might provide food for thought:
  • red flag deals with only one variety.
  • green flag is a short disambiguation;
  • black flag I've just changed to refactor out list of black flags, which is a bit more than a disambiguation;
  • white flag is most similar to this page in spirit, but none of the sections there is very long; I reckon the initial section on the surrender flag is about long enough for a separate article from the rest.
I think on reflection that the Gay pride flag and the Rainbow peace flag each deserves its own article; wiphala already has one; the others could be enumerated via a disambiguation page if each gets its own article, or as a list or gallery (to allow for references) if they are just one-liners. jnestorius(talk) 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Create separate articles for Gay pride flag, Rainbow peace flag, etc that have enough to support an article and have a summary paragraph that directs to the full articles. A gallery of all the flags would be helpful as well. Benjiboi 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of the colors

Once I heard that the gay flag starts with the purple stripe, which would be a way to differ it from the flags of Peruan indigenous movements (like this and this). Could someone confirm it? We may check that it is true, indeed, by the pics inserted in the article... --Tonyjeff 22:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is not appropriate for turning into a disambiguation page because the different flags discussed are not different uses of the term "rainbow flag." The suggestion to split the article has been posted for 7 months and there has been no consensus. I am removing if there are no objections. Tommytocker 14:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say there's no consensus, but rather that's there no overwhelming need, so nobody has spoken up nor gotten around to doing it. I know that I certainly feel something ought to be done. --Belg4mit 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The pride flag goes both ways, but it's more commonly hoisted with the red stripe at the top. The Wednesday Island 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of sections

Why do the sections of this article appear in reverse order from history? For instance the most recent form is fist, then the older, then the older still, and so on? This seems reverse from how articles generally go. This should be reversed. Cott12 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with the contents of the article but yes, after the lede (introduction) history or early representatives should follow working down through to modern events. Each section should try to reference dates (years is fine) so the average reader can sense the progression over time. In this way new events and newly created flags would logically go at the end of timelines or histories. Deference should also be given to the "average" reader, make the article flow and section titles convey the information so one could quickly scan the Table of Contents and skip to information they are looking for. Benjiboi 23:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have made an attempt to clarify the order of sequence as mentioned. I removed some of the images that appear on the Main Articles that are linked to in order to create more clarity and generally simplify the page. The images are still seen on the main articles when you link to them. I put the PACE flag at the top because it has the actual seven colors of the rainbow so is most representative. Cott12 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done a bit myself trying to clean up the lede, The "Non-white groups and cultures" section needs to be renamed and probably broken up. If the Incans used rainbow flags then they may be the first documented ones. Benjiboi 05:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates and refs

This article will be greatly helped for all concerned to document dates of uses for timeline purposes and finding references to support the text as well as general references. Benjiboi 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pride or Racism?

This article has a decidedly Eurocentric layout, listing European and American rainbow flags first in order of their creation, followed by "non-anglo" flags regardless of when they were brought into use - as if belonging to second class world citizens. The Inca, Buddhist and Meher Baba designs all are from at least the early 1920s. See Inca Empire#Controversies. Tommytocker 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add dates (presumably with a reference as well to verify) so that all the sections can be brought into a meaningful chronological order. Benjiboi 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried to do what was just suggested. I think the order is okay. I changed the opening section name to European History, and the lower to South American and I don't think it seems racist. Also the Inca version's date is not without controversy as you can see, though there seems to be a lot of weight on the argument that it is a 'rescued' pre-columbian design, at least from the articles I could find that discussed the debate. There is a lot of archeological evidence. To read the Spanish article on the topic of its origin, that is scholarly, I suggest using http://babelfish.altavista.com/ It does a very clean translation of the page. Cott12 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the sections into chronological order, future researchers may be able to source more accurate information or even to see if there is connections from one use to another. I think in addition to the gallery each section should have a representative photo so we have an idea of the similarity and differences. Benjiboi 15:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Much gratitude. A much better article. Tommytocker 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag baba.jpg

Image:Flag baba.jpg 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist flag

This in no way appear to be any more of a rainbow than the Olympic or Mauritian flags, and unless I'm convinced otherwise I intend to remove it from the page. --Belg4mit 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Olympic symbol
Buddhist flag
I don't know why anyone would want to eliminate part of this article or break it into a disambiguation page. I find the article very informative and enlightening, and it cleared up a lot of confusion for me about the background on the various apparently similar flags. So this article has information on 'rainbow flags" that wouldn't necessarily be clear in simply sub-articles. There is a precedent for an article on the overall category as well as sub-categories. For instance dog and Gray Wolf. Maybe that's not a perfect analogy, but it makes the point. I also found it interesting to see the Buddhist flag mention, as I would not have thought of it. I don't think the Buddhitst flag is like the Olympic flag. One has stripes reminiscent of a rainbow and the other doesn't. Cott12 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither is in anyway rainbow-like other than by the inclusion of several colors, which is true of many flags. --Belg4mit 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree completely. Firstly, the fact that others editors included it and have incorporated in the first place indicates that at least some people expect its inclusion so removing it seems pointless as it would simply be added again although that alone is not the best reason for anything to be in an article. Secondly, there may be a way to address a "second tier" of flags that fall into the category of those not explicitly rainbow-like but which still have multiple rainbow colors so their inclusion on some level would seem appropriate. I think, however, since the article is still developing that simply following the current format for now makes the most sense. The article doesn't have an expert who's fully vetted the rainbow flags concept and it's usage and development over time, each section and the main articles spin-offs for a few all need work. If I were to wave the almighty magic wish wand each section would be more fully vetted for references and history, usage, etc. Links to each section's main articles (if they exist) included and overall references found for studying the history of flags for those who are seeking the information. At this point this article is simply a touchstone for information and there are mighty gaps of knowledge but it's a good start, I think pruning is premature. Benjiboi 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Belg4mit. In looking at the article for the first time, I was struck by inappropriateness of including the Buddhist flag. It isn't rainbow-like at all, although one or more editors may see it that way. For an object to reasonably be considered rainbow-like, several colors that are adjacent in hue should be present, and all colors present should be arranged sequentially in order of wavelength. The Buddhist flag depicted fails to meet these criteria either with its large blue-yellow-red-white-orange sequence or its small blue-yellow-red-white sequence. In the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, I'd like to see us move toward consensus for removing the section. Rivertorch (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Thirty days have passed since I posted this comment, and I am removing the section. No one has spoken up in favor of keeping it. No one has spoken against it, either, but it's demonstrably not rainbow-like, so I'm deciding to be bold. Away it goes. Rivertorch (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Actual"

I'm not understanding what "the actual basic colors" in the intro means, nor "the actual rainbow colors" in the intro image caption. Isn't the division of the color spectrum entirely arbitrary? I'm not having a problem with "the traditional rainbow colors", because those are attributable to Newton, but if we are to use "the actual basic colors", we really need proof of contemporary scholarly agreement. The link provided (to Color#Physics of color) certainly makes no case for the seven colors listed here (and shown in the PACE flag) being intrinsically "basic". -- Jao (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording probably could be better. The phrase "actual basic colors red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue and violet" apparently refers to the primary and secondary colors of the common color models (with "violet" being sort of a weasely catch-all term used to encompass any hue of a purple, violet, or magenta persuasion). While the division of the color spectrum may indeed be arbitrary, there traditionally has been some agreement, at least in the developed world and certainly in the West, about the approximate locations of the divisions, I'd say. As to the caption, I think the intent may be to indicate that the graphic attempts to depict the colors actually found on the flag. Again, the wording could be better. Please have a go at clarifying. Rivertorch (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well, just wanted to make sure there was nothing I had missed. I had a go, please give your opinion on the new wording. -- Jao (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Much better! Perhaps the order of color in the captions should be reversed to read from top to bottom. Think I'll do that now. Rivertorch (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! -- Jao (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Banner_of_the_Inca_Empire.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Banner_of_the_Inca_Empire.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jrtman (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Biblical reference

I think I get what is being stated here but it infers that what is written in the Bible is factual which I don't think we want to do here. Can anyone fix this so it actually is more NPOV and refers to the Biblical story or ? Also those refes for it seem less than stellar, they may be fine but surely there is a more academic book. -- Banjeboi 10:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should lose it; neither of the references given actually tell you that Christians use the rainbow flag, never mind that it has a "long history" of use based on the Noah story. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Throw another log on the fire..."

The International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (IORG) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_girls , a Masonic Youth Organization dating from April 6, 1922, also uses a rainbow flag and banner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OronoAssemblyBanner.jpg

Tadchem (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Patriotsofrussia.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Patriotsofrussia.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 September 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Left side?

The section about the LGTB flag contains an unclear statement: "it .. should always be displayed with red on top or to left." This is unclear because a flag on a flagpole does not have a left side. Does the statement refer only to flags pinned on a wall?

This is not at all unclear. It refers to a flag hung vertically rather than its usual horizontal position. The Pride Flag is always hung on the vertical with the red stripe to the left, just as the tri-color U.S. flag is always hung with the red "to the right", meaning the color order is blue-white-red when hung vertically. Djathinkimacowboy 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow imperialism

The flag in modern times has been associated with cultural imperialism and colonization. (See: "Impossible Desires: Queer Diasporas and South Asian Public Cultures", "Finding space in gay Japan" [dead link])

Petey Parrot (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. They lgtb movement has its colors: pink and purple and shouldn't want to appropriate more and more colors or symbols as this would provoke the reverse of what they want to achieve: acceptation, integration, others talking about lgtb in a positive way, versus taking away the symbol of tolerance, universality, amazement for the variety and abundance in nature. The rainbow flag is a very open flag and age old symbol that allows many others to add their colors. That's where the mistake comes from. Very often the pink-purple colors are carried with the rainbow flag, meaning being lgtb - pink and purple - is natural - the rainbow colors and people should be marvelled iso shocked at it, and be more tolerant to it. --SvenAERTS (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing original flag, circa 1500's

There's also a Roman Catholic flag, possibly the first use of the rainbow flag, that is common in RC communities and ritual yet is missing from the article. It was first used by a monk I forget the name of in the late 1500's. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

English please

"Some specialists suggest that there are chronicles and some references that support the idea of a banner attributable to the Inca. In 1534 during the invasion and occupation of the city of Qusqu today Cusco, the Spaniards found the first resistance of qhishwa-ayrnaras and saw between the multitude, objects similar to the flag of strips and pictures of seven colors of the rainbow. The existence and the use of this emblem probably has been from the same creation of Tiwanaku for more than 2000 years." Can someone please rewrite this so that it actually makes sense? --Khajidha (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That claim is spurious, in the 1500's only two countries had (very limited) access to three of those colours in dye form, in fact, two cities, not countries, Paris and Milan. Outside of those two cities if you wanted a rainbow you were SOL. And I don't think they'd be trading guarded pigments and dyes with foreigners when they could apply them themselves and charge a mint for the end product, which is what they famously did. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Armenia flag

The colours in the graphic example are not the same as the actual design. They are too dark, and the bottom colour is completely different from the actual design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.46.96 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Propose to delete items on list

For now I propose to delete most content from this page for the reasons listed below, including these flags not existing, lack of sources, or the flag not being rainbow. If I do deletion then it will be one flag per edit so that the removal is easier to see and discuss, but for now, I wanted to share thoughts on why some of this should go.

Check out special:permalink/1068693728 for the current version of this article. Starting from the top I review the flags.

  • 7, 10, and 12 stripe rainbow flags - these are imaginary flags, perhaps made for Wikipedia, with no evidence of use anywhere
  • Reformation (1525) - this is a cloth banner depicting a rainbow and with Latin and German text to read. There might be a place for this symbol and text at Rainbows in culture or Rainbows in mythology, but this is not a conventional flag
  • Buddhist flag (1885) - this is a multicolor flag. Neither are the colors rainbow, nor is the arrangement of colors present in the order of a rainbow. We have no evidence of sources calling this a rainbow flag.
  • Armenian Republic proposed flag (1919) - This might be a rainbow flag, but the Wikipedia sourcing says that colors represent traditional textiles with no mention of rainbow. No one ever used it as it was a proposed artist design. We have no source evidence of anyone engaging with this. There is only one source presented here, and I cannot find it, but here is its archival record - https://web.archive.org/web/20190110183506/http://echmiadzin.asj-oa.am/4639/
  • Cooperative movement (1921) - This is a rainbow flag used from 1921 - 2001. The only description we have of its use is self-published branding material of the organization. Inclusion in Wikipedia requires sources and we have none independent of the publications of the Cooperative Movement organization itself.
  • Meher Baba (1924) - not a rainbow flag. The image in Wikipedia was seemingly made for Wikipedia, so even though someone choose to make it look like a rainbow flag, we have no evidence of accuracy. We do have evidence that this is not intended as a rainbow flag but actually as multicolor. On the Commons file description commons:File:Meher Baba's flag.gif the designer is said to have invited anyone to use whatever colors they like for the flag. It need not be rainbow.
  • Peace movement (1961) - This is a rainbow flag. However, we do not have sources attesting to its use other than self-published sources. Also the cited source (in Norwegian) mysteriously said that before 2003 the organization had orders for 1,000 flags a year. Suddenly in 2003, orders jumped to 2 million. They give no explanation, but I find this source to be misleading because it suggests that their flag became popular as a symbol of the peace movement when it is a lot more likely their customers thought they were ordering gay flags.
  • Bene Ohr Jewish movement, U.S. (1961) - not a flag, this is a shawl with a rainbow on it. Put it in Rainbows in culture
  • Andean Indigenism (1973), (2009) - two works here: The Flag of Cusco is a rainbow flag and we have sources describing it as such. The Wiphala is said to be a emblem, and although the Wikipedia image has rainbow colors, the sources say that the color of the middle stripe varies. It is said and shown to be made sometimes as a square patchwork banner that one may carry as a flag.
  • Basque nationalism (1978) - rainbow colors, but not arranged as a rainbow nor called a rainbow flag in sources. Not being used, and was only used for a while. Sources lacking.
  • Jewish Autonomous Oblast (1996) - The source information says that the designers made the flag colors and stripe placement different from a rainbow so that it would not violate local anti-gay laws.
  • Patriots of Russia political party (2005) - from 2005-14 this organization had a banner which presented their name and an image of a rainbow. The design shown in the English Wikipedia article could not be on a conventional flag; it is not a simple image and requires modern printing to put on media. It is a non-free image only because of the complexity of the digital rainbow design. We have no sources attesting to its use.
  • Support for the Equality Act (2012) - just an incident with the gay flag?
  • Support for the NHS (2020) - bizarre story. The sources say that Gay Pride 2020 was canceled because of COVID, so marketers got the government to sponsor a rainbow campaign to support health workers but with gay pride merchandise. So customers bought gay rainbow flags, and people drew rainbows everywhere during pride time, but also there was a public health campaign that said this year the rainbows mean COVID healthcare workers not gay. Whatever this is, this is not a sustained alternative use of the rainbow flag.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Any mass-deletion of content from this article should be done after reaching consensus among editors. Some editors who have contributed to this article have it on their watchlist -- others might not. Regarding your opinion: I suggest that you ping editors who have been involved in the editing of this article to make them aware of this proposal. To see the list of editors for this article:
Wikipedia Page History Statistics
Go to: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl
project > select: en.wikipedia
page > type: Rainbow flag
scroll down to "User statistics"
Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree with point #1. I don't have enough knowledge on the other flags to comment, but the points you make seem fairly reasonable. I would dispute the NHS angle though – the rainbow flag has been repurposed as part of Britain's "Thank You NHS" campaign during the pandemic (notice the rainbows used on the images there). The sources in the article do state that the flying of these flags is "to support the NHS". And there's this from the British Psychological Society: However, as I saw more rainbow flags, in person and in the media, I quickly realised that these were not intended as support for the LGBTQ+ community, but rather as support for the NHS. Opinion piece by HuffPo and The Independent also mention the specific use of the six-colour Pride flag to indicate support for the NHS, as with the sources in the article. I grant that this may all seem a little unusual to a non-British reader, and RS may be lacking on this point as it's fairly new, but I think most British editors can probably attest to seeing the rainbow flag being used to support the NHS in a fairly sustained and alternative manner. So I'd object to it being removed on those grounds. As the controversy seems to be the use of the specific six-colour Pride flag, it could v. easily be merged into that article. It may be quite recentist to include this though. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you see both the six colour pride flag, and designs with a curved rainbow; often they also have the NHS logo on them. Here's an example I found in a quick image search.
It may not yet be a sustained use (it's only been two years!) but I am fairly confident that it can at least be supported with reliable sources discussing it as a rainbow flag, which is apparently more than can be said than some of the other examples... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As this is not an LGBT-related article and the Gay pride flag is one of many flags created that use colors of the rainbow (it isn't even the first to do so), making an announcement in WikiProject LGBT studies is very narrow approach. If you truly seek a consensus from the Wikipedia community you need to post the "more review requested" in MOS:IMAGES and WP:MOS, where more than those already interested in LGBT subjects will also see it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: I pinged those two projects.
If you like, I can also post to Wikipedia:Reliable sources or after we get some comments set up an Wikipedia:Requests for comment for even more opinions. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: closed for wrong venue special:permalink/1077518848#What_defines_a_"rainbow_flag"?
Did you have a style issue in mind? I just asked for general feedback.
I can arrange an RfC or seek comment elsewhere, but if I were to do that, could we review the issues before?
Do you support any content removal at this point? If so, what? I could ask at reliable sources noticeboard, but perhaps you agree that sources are lacking for some of this. Content without sources should go, right? Bluerasberry (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Citation needed}} exists precisely for alerting editors to add sources. The template is used in innumerable articles throughout Wikipedia. As WP:CITENEED states: "A "citation needed" tag is a request for another editor to supply a source for the tagged fact: a form of communication between members of a collaborative editing community....Is the information probably factual? (If it is not, then it needs deletion or correction rather than citation!) Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all? (Some things do not.)" If material is tagged and after a thorough search no sources are found to support it, then it should be removed.
Among the flags you want to delete from the article is the Cooperative movement (1921) flag section – yet two editors below found sources for the Co-op flag. Why didn't you search for sources for the Co-op flag before proposing its deletion?
You want to use the Gay Pride flag as the image that defines this article -- so why did you word your request for comment as "What defines a "rainbow flag"?" – I would have worded it "Should an LGBT symbol be used as the relevant image of an article that is not LGBT-related?" In any event, the closer wrote: "...WP:3O, or an RfC seem the best choices." – as venues for a consensus discussion.
I am a lesbian, but I don't see the world through LGBT-colored glasses ... which is why I do not support making LGBT the focus of this article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: There are two issues in two sections here: the flag at the top and the text list. I see them as distinct. Do you agree? I ask, because this section reviews the body of the article, and you are raising the issue of the lead image.
I would prefer to lead the discussion where there is agreement. There is not consensus about the co-op flag right now. For some of the others on the list, there is some agreement. Is there any reason to delay the deletion of content where there is agreement? Of course we can revert if someone has a rationale to keep.
Alternatively, would you like me to request a third opinion on anything? Bluerasberry (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
"There are two issues in two sections here: the flag at the top and the text list. I see them as distinct. Do you agree?" No. Because you're the editor that created each issue, and the first section was the prelude for the second.
It has often been the case that new and better sources appear on the web after material has been added to an article, and editors who want to delete a flag because the existing sources are outdated or unstable — but haven't made an effort to find additional sources — need to roll up their sleeves and try doing the dirty work first before putting any content on the chopping block. The Buddhist, Armenian Republic, Peace movement, Andean Indigenism (Wiphala), Basque nationalism, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and Patriots of Russia flags should not be deleted until it's determined that sources on the web, in a newspaper/magazine, or in a book, do not verify their having used colors of the rainbow. "rainbow colors, but not arranged as a rainbow" is also not a legitimate argument for deleting a flag (there is no rule that a flag using rainbow colors must arrange them in the same order as the rainbow). After all, the Gay Pride flag may have colors inspired by the rainbow, but the colors are not exact (purple is not a rainbow color, and it doesn't include indigo). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Anything unsourced can be removed. Articles like this gather a lot of cruft. We specifically need a source using the word "rainbow", and preferably a lot more detail than that about the significance of the rainbow in that particular flag. I support Bluerasberry's proposed change. — Bilorv (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the following sections, per Bluerasberry's arguments: Buddhist flag, Meher Baba, Bene Ohr, Patriots of Russia, Support for the Equality Act.
I don't think we need to be too pedantic about the difference between a flag and a banner, or about whether the flag contains the traditional rainbow colours; as long as sources describe it as being based on or inspired by the rainbow, I'd say it merits inclusion in this article. For this reason, I disagree with the proposed removal of the following sections: Reformation, Andean Indigenism, Basque nationalism, Jewish Autonomous Oblast.
On the rest: I found a couple of independent sources which mention the Co-op flag (eg. 1, 2), but none that discuss it at any length, so whether it's significant enough to include in this article I'm not sure. For the Peace flag, however, lots of independent sources can be found through Google (eg. 1, 2), and this is definitely a historically significant flag. I oppose the removal of the NHS section for the reasons discussed by others above. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Co-operative Movement: From a speech at a British Co-operative Day event in 1931 - "PEACE ON EARTH ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND OF CO-OPERATION - The International Co-operative movement, continued Mr. Tomlinson, had a flag which they saluted beyond each one their national flags. That day they flew not the French tricolour, not the German flag, nor the Union Jack of Britain, but a flag with seven colours of the rainbow, which was simply the emblem of God's covenant with man." [Western Morning News, Plymouth, 6 July 1931]. Davidships (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
And don't forget that primary and self-published sources are not banned, provided they are reputable. They may be used appropriately, especially as a source about themselves. Davidships (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
As it has been over a week since the most recent comment on which flags should be included, I have gone ahead and boldly removed all of the sections mentioned by Blueraspberry which I don't see anyone speaking up in support of. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
A week is composed of seven 24-hour days. Seven 24-hour days before the date of your above comment (21 March) is March 14, with your comment being posted and bold edit made on the seventh day before the day had completed its 24 hours. But there are comments in this discussion posted on the 16th, 17th, and 18th of March. So your "bold" edit should have been made on 26 March after 12:00 a.m. (when seven 24-hour days had completely passed after 18 March). Details matter. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I misread the date of your comment on the 17th. Mea culpa. The comment on the 18th I carefully worded my last to exclude. Nonetheless, blueraspberry made their initial suggestions on 30th January, so I stand by the actual merits of the edit – if nobody has spoken up for those flags being included in seven weeks, then I don't think it's unreasonable to remove them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Which flag in lead?

LGBT flag

I think the LGBT flag should be featured in the lead because it is the rainbow flag with the most cultural significance in terms of popularity, recognition, and Wikipedia page views.

Pyxis Solitary, you reverted my use of this flag in special:diff/1068070869/1068346440. How do you think we should select lead images? Bluerasberry (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The article contains a section for the Gay Pride flag: LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Pride (1978). It links to the individual article about the flag: Rainbow flag (LGBT). Additionally, the lead section singles out the Gay Pride flag as "the most recognized use of the rainbow flag". That's THREE prominent highlighting of the Pride flag in this article.
However, the Gay Pride flag is not the first flag created that used a color scheme composed of rainbow hues, and this article is about all the flags that use rainbow colors. The general files that illustrate rainbow flag colors are relevant for the reason why this article exists, and to give more importance to the Gay Pride flag does a disservice to the purpose of this article and the many flags contained in it.
And if you didn't know about Wikipedia's image use policy, WP:IMGCONTENT states: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 19:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: I think that the flags you restored to the lead are not real flags. How do you think we should select lead images? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I think Bluerasberry's version was better. We do not need to list every single iteration of a rainbow flag in the lead (one image should be enough; the current version looks cluttered IMO), and the LGBT flag is the most popular representation of this. Although I will admit this is coming from a Western viewpoint. But the current flags in the lead are self-created (i.e. "not real flags"). Even if we choose a non-LGBT flag for the lead, I think it ought to be one that is in actual use and not WP user creations. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The current lead images don't illustrate the concept of a rainbow flag, they just illustrate the colour spectrum. The lead image should represent a real flag which is actually in use. In my view, a photo of a flag in action would be preferable to a computer-generated image. File:Rainbow flag breeze.jpg is a good one. Yes, it's a Pride flag, but there aren't so many good images of other types of flags; the best non-Pride flag photos I could find were File:Rainbow-flag Roar.Johansen.jpg (Cusco) and File:Peace-flag-en-at-japan-001.jpg (Peace), but neither of these are good enough for a lead image. Anyway, it does make sense to feature the Pride flag in the lead, since that is the most well-known. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the accompanying images, the Lead itsef is awful - most of it is about Newton's vision, not flags (if it belongs anywhere it is in an explanatory footnote (for a better model look back at the Lead in 2007! Davidships (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • It strikes me as almost comically silly to have some sort of hypothetical rainbow flag as the lead image when there are so many actual examples to choose from. I would therefore suggest as WP:COLLAGE image be created specifically to serve as the lead image in this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
OTOH a hypothetical image saves arguments about which flag should take precedence (see above), and avoids the problem with a collage of having to include all the examples listed (and already illustrated) here, and any examples that are added in the future. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Patriots of Russia

I notice this section was deleted, then re-inserted, because of Pyxis of Solidarity's defence of it in the talkpage discussion: I'm not clear where that was, but the PoR banner appears to be a two-tone brown, not a rainbow flag at all. Do we need to keep it? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume that edit summary refers to this comment by Pyxis Solitary: The Buddhist, Armenian Republic, Peace movement, Andean Indigenism (Wiphala), Basque nationalism, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, and Patriots of Russia flags should not be deleted until it's determined that sources ... do not verify their having used colors of the rainbow. I don't think this is a reasonable argument; per WP:BURDEN, the editor who wants to keep the material should find sources to justify its inclusion, rather than challenge other editors to prove the non-existence of sources. In the case of Patriots of Russia, it seems they did use a rainbow logo until 2014 (File:Patriotsofrussia.jpg), but a logo is not a flag, so I think it's out of scope for this article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
By all means, let bureaucracy be your guiding light. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
So, what are we saying; that the PoR did use a rainbow image after all, but they put it on a logo, not a flag: So where does that leave the section in the article? In or out? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I say out, as do Bluerasberry, Bilorv and Caeciliusinhorto in the section above. Pyxis Solitary is the sole objector, and doesn't seem willing to offer any particular reason for objecting except that "sources might exist". If you (Moonraker12) agree with removing the section, I think we can call that a consensus to remove. Dan from A.P. (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
To reply, (belatedly); I concur with the changes made on 9 April to resolve this. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Rainbow flag is symbol of peace

Rainbow flag is symbol of peace. 87.0.8.192 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

National Varieties of English

  • Current state of the article conspicuously contains inconsistent use of both English English (eg "colour") and offshore dialects (eg "color"). MOS:RETAIN guides us to consider the very first revision of this article which was written exclusively using the "colour" standard spelling. Applied consistent dialect. Added template. by me was reverted with:
  • Undid good-faith revision 1201749010 by 49.180.106.148 (talk) Your change of 41 uses of 'color' to 'colour' while leaving dozens of other American spellings unchanged leaves this article in a highly inconsistent state. Both MOS:TIES (San Francisco) and even MOS:RETAIN ("there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another") argue against this. Please take it to Talk if you disagree. by Mathglot

I do disagree. The article was in an inconsistent state before I edited it which is why I edited it to make it consistent. This is not "no valid reason", nor was the previous inconsistent state acceptable: MOS:CONSISTENT. I preserved wikilinks containing "color" and the titles of references which contained "color" because I believe that's the proper way to do it. Had the earliest non-stub version of the page to select a regional dialect selected American, I would have changed all the current instances of "colour" to "color". However, the earliest revision was written with "colour", so that's what we stick with. If some contributors haven't abided by that, that's what has led to "a highly inconsistent state" and their edits could have been reverted.

MOS:TIES on an article about flags from Peru, Bolivia, Italy, Germany, Armenia, Switzerland, the NHS, et al shouldn't trump MOS:RETAIN. The usage of the rainbow representing queer lifestyle is a global phenomenon no one country has exceptional claim over.

Please would you list here the "dozens of other American spellings" which I missed? My spellcheck dictionary missed them too which is concerning. 49.180.106.148 (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit changed more than it retained. It looks to me like this article has used American spelling since its creation. Newly-added sections have used "colour" in some cases, but the spelling of the lead hasn't been changed. (Not sure if it's dozens, but you did leave Oxford spelling such as "organization", "popularized", "symbolize", "recognized") Wracking talk! 16:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
The article was created saying "six coloured stripes", "he removed that colour. Later, the rainbow colours were", "Each colour has", "one of each colour," "coloured rainbow," "with rainbow-coloured elements"; I am puzzled how this represents "American spelling since its creation". MOS:RETAIN says "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." and in this case, the first such revision is the first revision (not that we had stubs in 2002). It used English English. Since then, contributors have added content in different dialects leaving the article inconsistent.
So I would like to return the article to a state of consistency and template the talk page to help it stay consistent in the future. If {{Use Oxford spelling}} is more familiar / palatable to American readers, that sounds ideal. I hope Mathglot doesn't consider -ize words to have been regionalized exclusively to America, but I appreciate your suggestion as that would explain their claim, if so. Thank you.
If there is a policy concerning changing more than is retained, I'm unaware of it. 49.180.106.148 (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, just to go through some points:
That link is not post-stub.
Yes, -ize (in conjunction with -or for color, -er for center, etc.) is generally considered to pertain to American English. This isn't about palatability to American readers, I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in your changes.
Again, your edit changed more than it retained. An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. (MOS:RETAIN)
That being said, this isn't really all that constructive, I don't care that much, and I don't intend to continue discussing it. Wracking talk! 23:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
You were saying "this article has used American spelling since its creation" so I linked the edit which created this article. I don't believe your statement is accurate.
I believe we started using stub template in 2004 and this article was created in 2002.
Again, if there is a policy concerning changing more than is retained, I'm unaware of it.
I am clearly and consistently promoting collapsing the inconsistency into consistency. Mathglot cites "changing from one acceptable option to another" and you cite "should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety" but neither are related to this discussion. An inconsistent state is not "one acceptable option", and "switch from one variety" would apply only if the article presented only one variety.
I'll await Mathglot's reasons. 49.180.106.148 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I've already given my reasons, you quoted them at the top (thank you for that) and I don't wish to repeat myself. There's little more to add; not mentioned previously, perhaps, is that TIES beats RETAIN (see the first paragraph there) but both apply and militate against your change. If you believe neither TIES nor RETAIN applies, or that RETAIN somehow applies in the reverse direction, you are misinterpreting the guideline, imho. But most important is that you do not have consensus for this change, and consensus is policy. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:STYLEVAR > "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." ... enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable."
MOS:RETAIN > "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another."
This article was created on August 13, 2002. In the 22 years that it has existed, having both British and American styles of spelling has not made the text difficult to understand, nor has its purpose suffered because of it. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with all three of your points there.
  1. MOS:STYLEVAR: inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another. Agreed. I am not suggesting changing the article "from one style to another". Mathglot is not suggesting changing the article "from one style to another". Wracking is not suggesting changing the article "from one style to another". Pyxis Solitary is not suggesting changing the article "from one style to another". I agree with MOS but it is unrelated to this discussion. Therefore repeatedly invoking it accomplishes nothing. Rather than fixate upon a point we all agree on, can we please discuss the reasons for Mathglot's reverting my contribution and cooperate on improving the article?
  2. MOS:RETAIN: should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. Agreed. I am not suggesting changing the article "from one variety of English to another". Mathglot is not suggesting changing the article "from one variety of English to another". Wracking is not suggesting changing the article "from one variety of English to another". Pyxis Solitary is not suggesting changing the article "from one variety of English to another". I agree with MOS but it is unrelated to this discussion. Therefore repeatedly invoking it accomplishes nothing. Rather than fixate upon a point we all agree on, can we please discuss the reasons for Mathglot's reverting my contribution and cooperate on improving the article?
  3. spelling has not made the text difficult to understand, nor has its purpose suffered. Agreed. Be that as it may, it is inconsistent. I believe it should be MOS:CONSISTENT and so I contributed an edit to improve consistency. My edit also has not made the text difficult to understand; it simply brought the article in line with established policy. That's all. Despite that it was reverted and discussion directed here, yet discussion has so far avoided engaging with my rationale at all. Hopefully now everybody can agree nobody is or should propose changing from one NVoE to another NVoE, we can put that tangent to bed and cooperate on improving the article.
Objections voiced so far are:
User Objection Validity
Mathglot leaving dozens of other American spellings unchanged invalid: Oxford spelling: "the belief that ‑ize is an exclusively North American variant is incorrect."
leaves this article in a highly inconsistent state. invalid: it was internally inconsistent prior to my edit and consistent (with Oxford) after my edit
TIES beats RETAIN (see the first paragraph there) but both apply and militate against your change. this is the crux of the issue which is why I addressed it in my first Talk message here
you do not have consensus for this change valid: consensus can only be reached when collaborators acknowledge and engage with the problem my edit resolved; that hasn't happened yet
Wracking Your edit changed more than it retained. potentially invalid: possible personal preference, not policy
this article has used American spelling since its creation invalid: it was created with the spelling "colour" used consistently
That link is not post-stub. subjectively invalid: WP:STUBDEF suggests "more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub" and "1,500 characters in the main text" both of which are satisfied by the first version of this article

My process is:

  1. notice that the article does not comply with MOS:CONSISTENT
  2. check whether the article lede or the Talk page is templated with a dialect
  3. figure out whether MOS:TIES applies
  4. find out the earliest dialect differentiated as per MOS:RETAIN
  5. adjust the article to be internally MOS:CONSISTENT
  6. apply the appropriate template in the Talk page

That all looks constructive and in line with policy to me, so the opposition to unrelated tangents fielded here has me genuinely bewildered.

  1. is patently true, as emphasized in my initial change summary: Current state of the article conspicuously contains inconsistent use of both English English (eg "colour") and offshore dialects (eg "color").
  2. it isn't
  3. if the article were "the Rainbow flag designed in San Francisco", TIES would apply. Likewise "the rainbow Gay Pride flag" that's designed in San Francisco; it has TIES. But given that this is an article about more than ten different flags from more than ten different countries, TIES doesn't apply
  4. fortunately, the first revision of the article is both dialectically differentiated and is longer than stub threshold, so this step is easy
  5. given the confusion and misunderstanding of -ize words, I propose a new revision of the article which:
    • represents one and only one style of English with internal consistency
    • uses colour as per MOS:RETAIN
    • avoids -ize endings
  6. pending resolution of the previous step

Please let's focus on constructive collaboration improving the current problem with the article. 49.180.106.148 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rainbow_flag/Archive_1&oldid=1232008421"