Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

catholicnewsagency.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#121

Post by kixiQu »

addaon wrote: post #38
Someone wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 propo…

> 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.

Intentional in context, though – gold and silver allowed on each other for the Church and Jerusalem... and green frogs on red for Satan! (https://old.reddit.com/r/heraldry/comments/dd39tj/arms_of_sa...) (arguable, if you'd rather blazon the frogs as "proper", but...)

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#122

Post by quickthrower2 »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #104

On the one hand, yes, it's incorrect. On the other, claiming malicious intent is pretending the little flood fill is FAR more important than it really is. It's not the era of the crusades anymore, and realistically if this bothers anyone, the easiest solution is to just remove that flood fill from the official flag because a speck of red makes zero difference in recognizing a flag. We're not carrying them into war, a…

Unofficial US flags use different blues and reds too

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#123

Post by wombatpm »

operatingthetan wrote: post #76
ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the Olympics have done worse but your link isn’t Olympic-related.

Whoever is downvoting this please ask yourself when the last time Kuwait hosted the Olympics was...

That was right after Nelson Mandela died in prison

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#125

Post by crazygringo »

ForOldHack wrote: post #117

Wikipedia had Brigham Young University listed as Michael Jackson's Alma mater for a year. The article on George Galloway, lists more lies and propaganda than a German speech, and they have NO plans to remove any of it. Wait until you see the article on the IBM PC. Wow. "Wikipedia was at fault." They are never at fault. They just host the largest collection of loud mouth opinionators on the planet: I have absolute an…

What happens when you just change the articles, and include a supporting citation?

In the case of genuine errors, is there anybody actually arguing on the other side?

I understand debates about whether or not things are worthy of inclusion (like unproved accusations), and there's a whole separate category of controversial viewpoints, but I've never come across meaningful pushback on unambiguous factual errors. You should just be able to fix things. I've certainly done so many times in the past, and I've never gotten anything "shot down" at all. In my experience, factual corrections get zero pushback because why would they?

I don't really understand complaining that people aren't fixing errors on Wikipedia if you aren't fixing them yourself.

Also, what are the dates that Brigham Young was added and then removed from the Michael Jackson article? Vandalism happens all the time but I'm pretty shocked that could stay up for a year. But I can't find any reference to it on the internet aside from your comment here, and WikiBlame isn't finding it either (looking up "Brigham" starting from Jan 2001 yields "Your search term was not found at all. Check the settings and try again." but maybe it's broken?)

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#126

Post by marc_abonce »

There's a similar issue with the Mexican coat of arms in Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia eagle has black claws and red eyes but the official one doesn't. [1][2][3]

One time I tried to fix it but I don't know how to use Inkspace and it turned out to be trickier than it looks. I naïvely hoped I could just fix it with a bucket tool but it's not as simple, lol.

[1] https://wrmx00.epimg.net/radio/imagenes/2019/09/16/nacional/...

[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/EP...

[3] https://diario.mx/jrz/media/uploads/galeria/2022/09/01/20220...

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#127

Post by renewiltord »

Entirely wrong and hallucinated article.

There's a flag in the Vatican Museum https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_rocks_and_a_Vat...

Many other photos.

OP seems to have performed the common human error of confidently asserting wholly fabricated things: a thing that we call "hallucination".

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#128

Post by renewiltord »

ForOldHack wrote: post #117

Wikipedia had Brigham Young University listed as Michael Jackson's Alma mater for a year. The article on George Galloway, lists more lies and propaganda than a German speech, and they have NO plans to remove any of it. Wait until you see the article on the IBM PC. Wow. "Wikipedia was at fault." They are never at fault. They just host the largest collection of loud mouth opinionators on the planet: I have absolute an…

I have drive-by-fixed many articles, including controversial ones like the George Floyd one. What I did was fix it, then post on Talk page with details. Looking through, it appears that most of the fixes remain. For the ones that don't, the precise language no longer appears but the article has since been written over the years since, and the fix is no longer necessary since it is correct.

I've noticed that I easily succeed at things many other people have real trouble with, this kind of thing included. It's a pity it's not particularly monetizable at a good rate, or I could simply launder other people's solutions through me. Maybe I, or a friend, can take a look at Galloway some time this week.

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#129

Post by acqq »

lolinder wrote: post #73
wolverine876 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are backing up Wikipedia's claim with Twitter evidence. Not even Wikipedia would accept that.

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.…

This one from the archives is from the October 1998 visit, more than 2 years before Wikipedia existed.

https://twitter.com/scheeko/status/1639673883719618562

It's one of the 139 images linked from here:

https://archivio.quirinale.it/aspr/diari/EVENT-002-021416/pr...

Named:

ASPR_SG-USC_09-SCALFARO_f2603_0094_ST.jpg

On the right from the Pope John Paul II and the flag with the red detail is Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, the president of Italy from 1992 to 1999.

Noted in that discussion by Francisco Feijó Delgado, @scheeko Mar 25, 2023.

Re: Wikipedia had wrong Vatican flag for years – now incorrect flags are everywhere

#130

Post by IIAOPSW »

Someone wrote: post #26
addaon wrote: post #2

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…

> 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 propo…

You've heard of the black and blue dress, now get ready for the gold and white flag!
Post reply on HN