[HN Gopher] Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years - now inc...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years - now incorrect flags
       are everywhere
        
       Author : axelfontaine
       Score  : 131 points
       Date   : 2023-05-29 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.catholicnewsagency.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.catholicnewsagency.com)
        
       | mistrial9 wrote:
       | Holy Roman Empire really doted on those heraldic signs, with
       | England and a few others, too. In German, the word for the
       | heraldry banner is "waffen" which is the same word for actual
       | weapons. In English, to say "Coat of Arms" says the same thing,
       | if I understand it.
        
         | ttepasse wrote:
         | The german word for coat of arms is ,,Wappen". Etymologically
         | that word is descended from ,,Waffen", although the difference
         | happened in the high middle ages.
        
         | maratc wrote:
         | "Arms" has the same two meanings as in German (see e.g. the
         | College of Arms -- hint: it's not a place where they teach
         | weaponry). "Coat" in this context refers to the actual coat
         | worn by heralds representing the sovereign. The modern word for
         | that outfit is "tabard" I believe.
        
         | bewaretheirs wrote:
         | That's because originally they _were_ arms - it 's how
         | combatants would identify who was who on the battlefield based
         | on what was painted on their shield and helmet.
        
       | chungy wrote:
       | Wikipedia is too often the final source of truth for people.
       | While I'm not saying it's intentionally wrong very often, but
       | accidental wrongs get repeated elsewhere. It happens especially
       | with things like the Vatican flag ("Surely Wikipedians haven't
       | fabricated some alternate version?").
       | 
       | Another example: The Windows Me logo (yes, seriously). At the
       | bottom of the stylized "Me" are the words "Millennium Edition";
       | Wikipedians like to recreate logos into vector format.
       | Unfortunately, someone had misspelled those words to say
       | "Millenium Edition" instead. I personally fixed that image, but I
       | still see the misspelled version crop up from time to time in
       | articles, YouTube videos, etc (how are they still getting the
       | wrong version? I don't know...).
        
         | cm2187 wrote:
         | This is of the level of Ron Burgundy and his teleprompter.
        
         | MortimerDukePhD wrote:
         | [dead]
        
         | Kwpolska wrote:
         | The fourth hit on Google Images for "Windows ME" (at least over
         | here) is this misspelled version:
         | https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=File:Window...
        
           | chungy wrote:
           | Oh my, there's a ton of the misspelled versions on Google
           | Images. That could explain a lot.
        
         | conradfr wrote:
         | I've been on a forum where from time to time we would put
         | harmless wrong infos in Wikipedia pages, mostly from inside
         | jokes.
         | 
         | Few remain but at least one that is still there is now in
         | multiple articles and actual books.
        
           | sitkack wrote:
           | Absolve your sins!
        
       | ricardobeat wrote:
       | To be fair, the wrong version is just a recolor and is more
       | visually pleasing. The "red disk" is the inside of the tiara and
       | makes the 3D shape more recognizable than the white version.
        
       | SoftTalker wrote:
       | Now read up on Gell-Mann amnesia, and ask yourself if you should
       | really trust anything on Wikipedia.
        
         | madars wrote:
         | Exactly. Aside, I don't think we can predict the full scale
         | effects of LLMs for citogenesis https://xkcd.com/978/
        
         | thih9 wrote:
         | Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-
         | Mann_amnesia_effect ;)
        
           | cm2187 wrote:
           | It used to have its own wiki article which was downgraded as
           | the result of the lack of reputable newspapers making
           | references to the Gell-Mann effect. Like if newspapers would
           | ever push that concept in their columns...
        
         | kibwen wrote:
         | Wikipedia itself says you shouldn't trust anything on
         | Wikipedia, a statement which, of course, you shouldn't trust:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
        
       | ummonk wrote:
       | They also have a really wrong shade of saffron for the Indian
       | flag, even though the Wiki article on the flag correctly
       | specifies the colors.
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_India#Colours
       | 
       | Can't really blame them though, since the Indian government does
       | the same. https://www.india.gov.in/india-glance/national-symbols
        
       | nologic01 wrote:
       | This raises deep philosophical questions about the nature of
       | truth as it pertains to flags in particular.
       | 
       | If everybody is using the wrong flag in real life (well, ok,
       | online) while the correct flag is merely a blueprint, a shadow
       | projected inside Plato's cave, what is true and what is wrong?
        
       | yongjik wrote:
       | It becomes worse as you move further away from Anglosphere:
       | according to Wikipedia the ancient Korean kingdom of Goguryeo has
       | a forked red/yellow flag, but AFAIK that's total fabrication,
       | based on a single mention in the record that said "Some troops of
       | Goguryeo used red flags."
       | 
       | If I were still in my 20s I might have fought Wikilawyers on
       | this. Now I'm old and I have enough shit to take care of. :/
        
         | slacka wrote:
         | Did you find sources and make the edit? Or just assume it would
         | be rejected?
         | 
         | In my experience, the vast majority of my edits were accepted
         | when properly sourced, especially on esoteric topics like this.
         | Yes, there are exceptions and bad apples in the community.
         | Those get a all the attention and media coverage but I've only
         | encountered them on heavily edited and visited pages, not the
         | more rare academic or historic pages. While it's anecdotal, I
         | just checked and I've clocked nearly 800 edits in the past
         | decade.
        
           | yongjik wrote:
           | Who knows? Maybe the edit will stay, maybe it won't, but the
           | very fact that the flag has been staying for years doesn't
           | bode well for my effort. There are millions of Koreans who
           | can write passable English: if it were that easy to remove
           | the flag, someone would have done it.
        
             | kemayo wrote:
             | I suspect there's a much smaller number who affirmatively
             | know that there's _not_ a specific flag for a kingdom that
             | ceased to exist 1,335 years ago. Particularly since the
             | article presents both a pure red flag and the red /yellow
             | flag and claims they were used at different times.
             | 
             | Thus I'd imagine that of the small number of people
             | intimately familiar with Korean history who even noticed,
             | very few could say with sufficient certainty that the flag
             | was never used.
             | 
             | (For that matter,
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_flags has a
             | third variant...)
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | Your experience is much different than mine. It has been so
           | often a waste of time that I've given up editing (or reading)
           | Wikipedia.
        
       | lolinder wrote:
       | This feels like the author jumped to the conclusion that
       | Wikipedia was at fault because it's a common enough story and
       | sounded good, but it doesn't add up. See addaon's comment for an
       | explanation of why heraldry here isn't as cut-and-dry as we're
       | used to for, say, the US flag.
       | 
       | But even aside from that, the author neglected to check the full
       | edit history on the Wikipedia file: the _very first_ version of
       | the flag (25 Nov 2005) had the red tiara that the article
       | decries, citing Open Clip Art as the source [0]. That suggests
       | the  "wrong" version was already highly circulated before
       | Wikipedia got the image.
       | 
       | The caption on the main photo goes so far as to suggest that the
       | Vatican itself is using Wikipedia as a source for printing its
       | flags. Indeed, the UN has a photo of the flag of the Vatican
       | shortly after it was raised there in 2015, and _that flag has the
       | red tiara_ [1]. It 's hard to imagine the flag flown at the UN
       | being done as a rush job from a Wikipedia article.
       | 
       | It's a cute story, but it looks like the simpler truth is that
       | the Vatican doesn't particularly care about the coloring of the
       | tiara.
       | 
       | EDIT: Kudos to zokier for finding a Twitter thread with more
       | examples [2]. Apparently the flag _taken to the moon and back by
       | Apollo 11_ had the red tiara.
       | 
       | [0]
       | https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of...
       | 
       | [1] https://dam.media.un.org/asset-
       | management/2AM9LO46AB5A?FR_=1...
       | 
       | [2] zokier's comment:
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36118232
        
         | adhesive_wombat wrote:
         | > It's hard to imagine the flag flown at the UN being done as a
         | rush job from a Wikipedia article.
         | 
         | Maybe the UN has their buttons on, but at the Olympics,
         | displaying the wrong flag, an incorrect flag or the right flag
         | upside-down happens now and then.
        
           | lolinder wrote:
           | I imagine so, but in this instance the flag is a big stinking
           | deal because the UN had just allowed the flags of Palestine
           | and the Vatican (Observer States) to be flown for the very
           | first time. This wasn't a case of "we've got to print out
           | flags for every single country and fly them all at once",
           | these two flags were given special attention.
           | 
           | Also note my edit: the Twitter thread zokier found shows
           | Benedict XVI seated next to a red-tiara'd flag in 2005, as
           | well as the one that was sent to the moon in 1969.
        
           | msla wrote:
           | Oh, the Olympics has done worse:
           | 
           | https://www.npr.org/2012/03/23/149244038/ceremony-plays-
           | bora...
           | 
           | > Kazakhstan won the game but lost the award ceremony. A
           | parody of the country's national anthem was played by mistake
           | after a Kazakh athlete won a gold medal. Organizers of the
           | shooting competition in Kuwait are apologizing for playing
           | the Kazakhstan anthem from the comedy movie _Borat_.
        
             | ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
             | Maybe the Olympics have done worse but your link isn't
             | Olympic-related.
        
               | operatingthetan wrote:
               | Whoever is downvoting this please ask yourself when the
               | last time Kuwait hosted the Olympics was...
        
               | msla wrote:
               | The next time it does, it has the opportunity to do
               | something extremely funny.
        
               | irrational wrote:
               | No idea, but I'll guess the answer is never?
        
               | msla wrote:
               | Oh, damn. I Googled for Olympics wrong anthem and that
               | came up.
               | 
               | It's a meta-screw up. Apt.
        
               | [deleted]
        
         | TeMPOraL wrote:
         | > _It 's hard to imagine the flag flown at the UN being done as
         | a rush job from a Wikipedia article._
         | 
         | I imagine, given enough time, graphical equivalent of
         | citogenesis[0] might kick in. Even assuming that, and that in a
         | hypothetical reality, the Internet somehow confused both the UN
         | and Vatican officials as to what the Vatican flag was, at some
         | point you're better off just making it official and letting
         | kids 50 years later have a laugh when learning about it on
         | history lessons.
         | 
         | --
         | 
         | [0] - https://xkcd.com/978/
        
         | msla wrote:
         | Yeah, this looks like "Wikipedia is wrong because it's
         | Wikipedia" as opposed to the encyclopedia actually being wrong.
        
       | bertil wrote:
       | I'm really surprised that Father Becker thinks this is a
       | meaningful difference. I'm as detail-oriented as it gets, but
       | symbols on flags and coats of arms are a notoriously hard thing
       | to get "right" and I'm not sure they should.
       | 
       | Noble houses had lions, dolphins, elephants, and unicorns on
       | their coat of arms at a time when people (bored monks who never
       | left their monastery) drew them like a confused alcoholic
       | toddler, a dried-out octopus, a Shar-Pei with a snake for a nose,
       | and nothing like a rhinoceros, respectively. (The last one was
       | never really fixed and we stole the horn of a narwhal and made up
       | a whole imaginary animal rather than admit we got it wrong. Still
       | pissed that Scotland doesn't have rhinoceros as a symbol because
       | it would suit their nightlife so much better than a unicorn.)
       | 
       | This was so bad that people, at least those who cared about
       | heraldry, had to agree that the difference between a lion and a
       | leopard was that one was looking straight at the viewer and the
       | other looked right (which famously is left because of how shields
       | work).
       | 
       | This long introduction to say: Symbols have to be recognizable,
       | but their specific design isn't part of what makes a flag a flag.
       | Yesterday, someone asked r/vexillology which one among 10(!) was
       | the proper flag for the Isle of Man. If you haven't seen it, it's
       | red (gules) with the symbol of the island, the triskele: "three
       | legs in armour flexed at the knee and conjoined at the thigh, all
       | proper, garnished and spurred". I can't imagine a more specific
       | description, and yet: 10 different armours, feet extension,
       | spurs... All valid, all different. Anyone who cares about
       | medieval armours will tell you: the complexity of protecting a
       | fighter in battle with 15th-century forging techniques makes
       | vexillologists look like children playing with Duplo bricks in
       | comparison. We are never getting a photo-exact triskele, not
       | without going beyond what that symbol is meant to be:
       | recognizable.
       | 
       | This hits personally because my family colours are extremely
       | simple but impossible to draw: it's "silver (white) with a
       | brewer's pole." Sound simple? Yeah, if anyone knew what a brewer
       | pole is meant to look like. I won't bore you with emails with my
       | uncles, but let's say there's a new version every time anyone
       | responds. We've seen anything from a club, a broom, a rake to
       | something that is best described as an old-school TV antenna.
       | 
       | I think some creative license is welcome in that case.
       | 
       | Since Pope Francis has rejected the heavy triple crown for a more
       | symbolic tiara (a silver mitre with three connected golden lines,
       | like this: Wang ). It makes sense that the flag has adapted, and
       | some flags and some coats of arms in Rome have that design. But
       | that (much bigger and symbolically enormous) inconsistency isn't
       | raised by Father Becker, who prefers to point out that, while
       | every Papal vestment is coated in white, while personal effects
       | are velveted in red, as the tiara is part of a sacrament... Sure,
       | technically true, but this is a conversation about papal
       | underwear----literally.
       | 
       | More generally the design of the keys, the flowing of the stole
       | even the motif embroidered on it, all can be adapted without
       | betraying who the Pope is. The only real things that matter are:
       | having three crowns (or a liturgical equivalent) and that the two
       | keys are of different colours.
       | 
       | For example, I've even seen one very committed designer change
       | the colour of the stole based on the liturgical calendar (for the
       | miscreants who are inexplicably still reading: stoles can be
       | green, white, red, or purple, depending on the day or the
       | occasion ---- and nerds will add blue to that list). As absurd as
       | the idea of a flag changing colour every day can seem, it makes
       | sense. Can you imagine if the flag of your country had the
       | tiniest difference if you were in mourning?
       | 
       | The carpet in the Oval Office has the Great Seal of the United
       | States: the Eagle with the start-spangled shield. Famously, the
       | Eagle looks left, towards the olive branch, to symbolise the
       | country's historical preference for peace. There's a rumour that
       | the carpet has another version: one where the Eagle looks right,
       | towards the arrows, and that the carpet can be switched if the
       | country is at war. I like that idea. Wikipedia editors might not
       | appreciate the extra work, but I think that nuances like those
       | make symbols more powerful. We didn't just send a carrier battle
       | group to your shores, we switched the carpet. This is not an
       | exercise. It's not technically true says Snopes [0] but if West
       | Wing, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill like the idea, who
       | could possibly disagree?
       | 
       | All that to say: you have the Great Seal in mind, right? Can you
       | tell, without looking and with certainty, whether the nails of
       | the talons (the "claws") are yellow, black, or red? Would you
       | consider that a mistake? Well, that article argues something
       | similar and I'm not sure that it's fair. I think we would be
       | better served by an article asking if the Pope is king in Rome.
       | 
       | [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/presidential-seal-
       | change-w...
        
         | ttepasse wrote:
         | > There's a rumour that the carpet has another version: one
         | where the Eagle looks right, towards the arrows, and that the
         | carpet can be switched if the country is at war. I like that
         | idea.
         | 
         | In recent decades every president get's his own rug with his
         | own design [1]. It's even more amusing, if you imagine a
         | storehouse somewhere with the unused "wars rugs" of past
         | presidents.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.ahs.com/home-matters/resources/the-evolution-
         | of-...
        
       | x3874 wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
       | addaon wrote:
       | One of looking at this is that European banners, coats of arms,
       | etc, are traditionally defined in writing (often using a domain-
       | specific language called a blazon), and then compiled to a visual
       | form by a banner maker. This compilation is intended to be
       | reversible -- one goal is to be able to look up the written form
       | in a book of heraldry based on the visual appearance -- but, just
       | like compiling code, is not a one-to-one process; the same blazon
       | can result in various visual representations, and which one is
       | selected is often an aesthetic consideration.
       | 
       | Not speaking Italian, and not having done the historical digging,
       | I don't know the original written definition of the Vatican flag,
       | but it looks like it's something like "banner divided in yellow
       | (towards the flagpole) and white, with the white part centered
       | with the crossed keys surmounted by the tiara," where the
       | "crossed keys" and "tiara" are imports of external symbology. In
       | this case, the question concerns the tiara [1] -- which, like
       | most physical tiaras, has a hole running through it that appears
       | neither red nor white when viewed as it is represented on the
       | flag.
       | 
       | While it is certainly reasonable for the Vatican to have
       | preferences on the detailed representation of this flag, both as-
       | drawn versions are faithful representations of the blazon, both
       | allow looking up the blazon from the visual representation, and
       | both are, frankly, fine.
       | 
       | [1]
       | https://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/do...
        
         | ttepasse wrote:
         | Additional: Blazons mostly concern themselves with the
         | distinguishing element, the coat of arms on the escutcheon,
         | with the external devices described mostly by reference - the
         | papal tiara, an Earl's coronet, a naval crown, etc. Mostly
         | because in the heraldry of a European country these coronets
         | were somewhat standardised - "everybody" knows that a duke's
         | coronet has acanthus/strawberry leaves - and for well-known
         | crowns of sovereigns like the St. Edwards/Tudor crown, the
         | Crown of St. Stephen, the Holy Roman Emperors Crown and of
         | course the Papal Tiara developed over time well known
         | depictions after their real likeness.
         | 
         | Pius XI didn't bother to specify the tiara (the "triregnum") in
         | writing.
         | 
         | > La bandiera della Citta del Vaticano e costituita da due
         | campi divisi verticalmente, uno giallo aderente all'asta e
         | l'altro bianco, e porta in questo ultimo la tiara colle chiavi,
         | il tutto come al modello, che forma l'allegato A alla presente
         | legge.
         | 
         | > Lo stemma e costituito dalla tiara colle chiavi, come al
         | modello che forma l'allegato B alla presente legge.
         | 
         | > Il sigillo porta nel centro la tiara colle chiavi ed intorno
         | le parole << Stato della Citta del Vaticano >>, come al modello
         | che forma l'allegato C alla presente legge.
         | 
         | Translated by Google:
         | 
         | > The flag of the Vatican City is made up of two vertically
         | divided fields, one yellow adhering to the hoist and the other
         | white, and in the latter bears the tiara with the keys, all as
         | in the model, which forms attachment A to this law.
         | 
         | > The coat of arms consists of the tiara with the keys, as in
         | the model which forms annex B to this law.
         | 
         | > The seal bears in the center the tiara with the keys and
         | around the words "State of the Vatican City", as in the model
         | which forms annex C to the present law.
         | 
         | From [1] - where the models in the annexes are printed in black
         | and white.
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://web.archive.org/web/20131217230421/http://www.unirom...
         | 
         | Getting pixel-perfect representations from textual descriptions
         | seems like a fool's errand. The original sin, of course, was
         | depicting the coat of arms on the flag, although that seems to
         | be long practice for the preceding flags of the Papal States
         | and institutions, as seen in the linked digital book on Vatican
         | Flags [2] in the article, which features a multitude of
         | different ancient depictions of the flag, often displaying the
         | Papal Tiara's inner lining in ... red.
         | 
         | [2] https://nava.org/raven-volume-25
         | 
         | (Edit: fixed quote formatting)
        
         | maratc wrote:
         | While widely used symbols like "eagle displayed" or "lion
         | passant guardant" are really well defined, the more you get to
         | the esoteric stuff the more you find there are really no
         | standards. Try "importing" such thing as "octopus proper".
         | 
         | Heraldically speaking, it really makes no difference, as nobody
         | would mistake the "wrong" flag of Vatican to represent some
         | completely different entity. But TLA is not implying that --
         | just asking for some more standardization of a widely-used
         | symbol.
        
           | dehrmann wrote:
           | > nobody would mistake the "wrong" flag of Vatican to
           | represent some completely different entity
           | 
           | Compare that to Australia and New Zealand. If you don't know
           | what do look for and aren't aware the other's out there, you
           | could easily mix them up.
        
             | ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
             | NZ came pretty close to changing to an original flag but
             | ended up sticking with that "we're not Australia, really"
             | flag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015-2016_New_Zealand
             | _flag_r...
        
         | progbits wrote:
         | Constitution of Nepal has precise drawing instructions for
         | their flag.
         | 
         | See page 221: https://ag.gov.np/files/Constitution-of-
         | Nepal_2072_Eng_www.m...
         | 
         | Now of course you can't draw keys and tiara with Euclid-style
         | instructions (in practice), but maybe countries should
         | standardize their flag by publishing a canonical SVG file.
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | > but it looks like it's something like "banner divided in
         | yellow (towards the flagpole) and white
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Vatican_City says _"A
         | vertical bicolour of gold and white"_.
         | 
         | I would have thought that should be gold and silver
         | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry)), but (https
         | ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(heraldry)#Other_tinc...)
         | _"The heraldic scholar A. C. Fox-Davies proposed that, in some
         | circumstances, white should be considered a heraldic colour,
         | distinct from argent"_ , so who knows? Maybe it is gold and
         | white.
         | 
         | Edit: https://www.vaticanstate.va/it/stato-governo/note-
         | generali/b... says _"un drappo bipartito di giallo (verso
         | l'asta) e di bianco"_ , so the Vatican itself says it's yellow
         | and white.
         | 
         | (Interestingly, there's a convention for converting those
         | colors to monochrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tincture_(h
         | eraldry)#Monochroma...)
        
           | addaon wrote:
           | > Maybe it is gold and white.
           | 
           | Yeah. In general, the first rule of heraldry ("metal should
           | not be placed upon metal, nor color upon color") trumps the
           | convention of "use standard heraldric colors." Gold touching
           | silver violates the first rule; gold touching white violates
           | only convention.
        
             | bboygravity wrote:
             | k thanks, now I want to know what official flag
             | breaks/broke the most of those rules and conventions :p
        
               | addaon wrote:
               | Eh, rules are meant to be broken. And keep in mind these
               | are at best European rules -- and even then, certain
               | areas (England!) took them more seriously than others.
               | 
               | There's also a lot of rules lawyering possible. e.g. red
               | doesn't touch black on the German flag, because that
               | would violate the first rule; instead, the field
               | (background) is half black and half gold (color touching
               | metal, fine), and the red stripe is on top of this field,
               | totally legal, wink wink.
               | 
               | That said, trying to follow these rules has led to some
               | strange decisions; e.g. it's interesting to look into
               | (some unverified stories about) why the US flag has white
               | (silver, metal) stripes on a red background, while the US
               | seal has red stripes on a white background.
        
               | labster wrote:
               | I thought that red didn't touch black in the German flag,
               | it touches sable, which is a fur. And furs can be placed
               | on metal or color. ... yeah, rules lawyering.
        
               | addaon wrote:
               | Yeah; in most of Western Europe sable is a color, but
               | apparently in Germany and parts east it's considered a
               | fur...
        
             | grt_thr wrote:
             | For secular states. The coat of arms of the Kingdom of
             | Jerusalem used gold on silver. The coat of arms of the
             | papacy on the other hand is not the flag so they can do
             | whatever they feel like there.
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | You're citing Wikipedia as a source on this issue?
        
           | ttepasse wrote:
           | > _"The heraldic scholar A. C. Fox-Davies proposed that, in
           | some circumstances, white should be considered a heraldic
           | colour, distinct from argent"_
           | 
           | I took a look, just because Fox-Davies can be absurdly and
           | amusingly pedantic about that stuff:
           | 
           | He only postulates White as tincture for labels of cadency -
           | as in the CoA of the Prince of Wales. The idea is to
           | difference it from argent. The supporters of the PoW's CoA
           | are a lion or and the unicorn argent - both with a label. If
           | the label was argent it would be a violation of the rule of
           | tinctures for the lion and without distinction from the
           | unicorn.
           | 
           | https://archive.org/details/completeguidetoh00foxdrich/page/.
           | ..
           | 
           | But I don't think heraldic rules apply for flags. For banners
           | and standards, which are CoAs in flag form, but the general
           | flags are not CoA.
        
             | labster wrote:
             | Heraldic rules should apply to flags, insofar as it is
             | centuries of graphic design knowledge about what can be
             | distinguished from a distance, and in low-light.
             | 
             | Politics aside, the white-blue-white flag is simply a
             | better design than the current flag of the Russian
             | Federation, because color on metal is easier to
             | distinguish. But the French tricolor looks great, because
             | it follows the rules.
        
           | dragonwriter wrote:
           | > I would have thought that should be gold and silver
           | 
           | The Vatican City flag (when also referencing the descriptions
           | of elements imported from the coat of arms) uses yellow and
           | white _and_ gold and silver (and the gold and silver are on
           | the white.
        
         | melagonster wrote:
         | wow, this is very interesting, I never heard to this before.
        
         | dragonwriter wrote:
         | > While it is certainly reasonable for the Vatican to have
         | preferences on the detailed representation of this flag, both
         | as-drawn versions are faithful representations of the blazon
         | 
         | It obviously has an actual color (which might be red or white,
         | but: (1) the tiara is not a unique physical object, there are
         | multiple of them, and they may differ on this point, (2)
         | weirdly, while there are lots of photographs, including of them
         | in displays where that angle would be visible in person, I
         | can't find any actually photographed of any iterations showing
         | the actual color, and (3) while stock art of coat of arms
         | design (without the field) also has the red just as debated
         | flag design does, the actual coat of arms does not specify red
         | as a feature of the tiara and the red shown in the actual coat
         | of arms there is the red of the field (which would not be
         | visible if the field were a physical background and the tiara a
         | physical object, but armorial designs aren't constrained by
         | physical representation.)
         | 
         | So I suspect both the flag image in question _and common stock
         | art of the Vatican Coat of Arms design without the field_ are
         | importing part of the _field_ of the coat of arms (which is,
         | explicitly, red [ _gules_ ]) as if it were part of the tiara.
        
       | hexo wrote:
       | Mmmm, the Prime Example of color space hell. I'd bet these people
       | never seen it correctly on monitor since I don't think any single
       | of them ever had calibrated display (if i'm wrong i apologize).
       | Pointless and priceless until it gets serious and then, wait for
       | it, printed! Which is whole another step of brain-melting-
       | difficulty in getting it correct. (wikipedia reverters [in this
       | scenario] are) Laughable at least, thanks, made my day. The
       | difference in versions from 2014 (compared to later ones) is
       | completely hilarious. Enjoy while you can!
        
       | fatfox wrote:
       | I bet there's a special place in hell for that Wikipedia editor.
       | :>
        
         | bob_theslob646 wrote:
         | This was quite funny. Thank you for the laugh =)
        
       | omnibrain wrote:
       | When our local fire department got a new fire engine the
       | manufacturer placed the coat of arms of the town on the door. But
       | instead of getting it from the municipality they used a
       | grotesquely wrong version from Wikipedia.
        
       | queuebert wrote:
       | I think this is a well-played, long-term Vatican conspiracy to
       | use internet virality to get the entire world to recognize its
       | flag.
        
       | 10g1k wrote:
       | Sadly, far too many internerds confuse a brief look at Wikipedia
       | with actual knowledge.
        
       | ldehaan wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | shlubbert wrote:
       | A similar scourge of mine is Wikipedia contributors helpfully
       | "tracing" company logos so they can be uploaded as vector
       | graphics (great in theory!) but introducing all kinds of mistakes
       | in the process or using the wrong fonts... also causing the wrong
       | logos to spread all over the internet.
        
         | dheera wrote:
         | That's the punishment companies get for not providing their
         | official logos for download in an easy format without fuss.
         | 
         | If you have a startup, have a "media kit" page with all of this
         | stuff. Logos for black and white backgrounds in open vector and
         | raster formats, founder photos, bios, company intros, product
         | photos, video clips of your product that you're okay with media
         | cutting up and using.
        
           | drowsspa wrote:
           | Ideally, your logo in your website should also be a SVG or at
           | least a transparent PNG. I definitely pick it up from
           | Wikipedia when I go do a presentation if it's not there.
        
           | kevinmchugh wrote:
           | If you want it to be usable on Wikipedia, how do you assign
           | the IP?
        
             | someotherperson wrote:
             | A lot of companies release press kits for proper usage of
             | their logos without necessarily transferring the IP. I
             | imagine in a lot of cases (including Wikipedia) it falls
             | under fair use -- ultimately the logo is still trademarked.
        
             | brewmarche wrote:
             | IIRC a lot of logos technically don't meet the threshold of
             | originality so they're not even copyrightable
        
             | wizzwizz4 wrote:
             | Release it under a CC 4.0 license. Section 2b2:
             | 
             | > Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this
             | Public License.
        
             | amenghra wrote:
             | Wikipedia lets you specify the license. E.g.
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#/media/File:Tux.svg has
             | three permission details, including Creative Commons CC0
             | 1.0.
        
       | zokier wrote:
       | Just highlighting this twitter thread where people are finding
       | all sorts of pre-wikipedia examples of Vatican flag, like this
       | one from 1970:
       | https://twitter.com/VinSlashLopez/status/1639478301885599745...
       | 
       | So its obviously not just wikipedias invention, but a wider
       | phenomenon.
        
         | wolverine876 wrote:
         | You are backing up Wikipedia's claim with Twitter evidence. Not
         | even Wikipedia would accept that.
        
           | lolinder wrote:
           | You didn't even bother following the link to the Twitter
           | thread.
           | 
           | The photo of the Apollo 11 display shown in the thread was
           | _taken_ from Wikimedia Commons, uploaded in 2008 [0].
           | 
           | The other one, with Pope Benedict seated next to a red-
           | tiara'd flag comes from archivio.quirinale.it, the official
           | archives of the Italian presidency [1].
           | 
           | [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vatican_City_
           | lun...
           | 
           | [1] https://archivio.quirinale.it/image-h/Ciampi/grandi_immag
           | ini...
        
             | wolverine876 wrote:
             | [flagged]
        
               | octernion wrote:
               | ideally you realize you are being flagged as you are both
               | annoying and wrong
        
               | underratedbug wrote:
               | Stop posting on the internet. Maybe your time is valuable
               | but your comments are not.
        
       | wolverine876 wrote:
       | Accuracy is hard. As with many things, the first 90% takes 10% of
       | the time, the last 10% takes 90%.
       | 
       | Wikipedia seems filled with <90% accurate information, which is
       | _misinformation_ (or BS). I could imagine an obvious reason, that
       | these volunteers with limited expertise and facility with the
       | information (i.e., they aren 't experts in the field who know all
       | the sources well) write what they know. Also, it is up to
       | Wikipedia's standard _de facto_ , and most people don't go beyond
       | that norm.
       | 
       | Instead of lots of people providing <90% accurate misinfo, we
       | need a few people producing 99.999% accurate info. (Seriously, if
       | you are producing <90% accurate info, stop. The Internet has
       | infinite amounts of it, if there was ever a marginal benefit to
       | it, we don't need more now.)
       | 
       | It's easy to copy and share accurate info, in theory, rather than
       | creating or sharing more BS. The other problem is that such info
       | is often placed behind paywalls; the intellectual elite get it,
       | but not the public. If you want an accurate science info, look at
       | McGraw-Hill's AccessScience (the decendent of their leading
       | Encyclopedia of Science and Technology), "written by world-
       | renowned scientists, including 46 Nobel Prize Laureates" - not
       | exactly Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you'll probably need an
       | institutional subscriptioin. Who cares if high school kids (or
       | anyone else) have accurate info?
        
       | Prickle wrote:
       | edit:
       | 
       | For whatever reason, my computer is rendering the wrong shade of
       | yellow.
       | 
       | You can see the previous edit/revert war that was happening on
       | the image itself here:
       | https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Vatican_...
       | 
       | Previous text: ->Unfortunately, the correction to the flag has
       | been reverted, and the vatican flag on wikipedia is now
       | incorrect. Again.<-
        
         | mjg59 wrote:
         | Wikipedia currently shows me the version with the white disk in
         | the papal tiara, which the article asserts is the correct one.
         | https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Vatican_...
         | suggests it's been that way since the 1st of January this year.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | silisili wrote:
         | Your first link shows the correct flag for me, FWIW.
        
         | lolinder wrote:
         | I see the correct one, and it hasn't changed since 1 January.
         | 
         | Regardless, that edit history is interesting because it
         | suggests that the mistake (if it is one) goes back _way_
         | further than Wikipedia. The very first upload (24 Nov 2005) had
         | the red tiara, and was added with this comment:
         | 
         | > Flag of the Vatican City from the [http://openclipart.org/
         | Open Clip Art] website. {{PD-OpenClipart}} Category:SVG flags
        
       | cxy7z wrote:
       | I was hoping they'd say that the incorrect version had made it so
       | far as to be shown by the Vatican itself.
        
         | cshimmin wrote:
         | Well the article does show a photo of the wrong flag flying at
         | (or very near to) the vatican. TBH I think the incorrect design
         | looks better! But I suppose that's beside the point...
        
       | SrslyJosh wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-05-29 23:00 UTC)