Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13[edit]

Vexillology Question[edit]

Here is an odd question for someone, just out of curiosity. Can someone provide a proper blazon for the six-stripe rainbow flag (that is, the version that is traditionally used as an LGBT flag)? I am aware that any of the versions of the rainbow flag violate the rule of tinctures because they place colour adjacent to colour, but it serves its purpose.

I have also seen this flag with a "union" that is that of the United States flag, but the blazon for that would seem to be straightforward enough, because that would be 'canton azur, fifty mullets argent'. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some description could be cobbled together, but the standard basic terminology doesn't go any further than three color blocks placed side by side -- i.e. "tierced per fess". More usually, blazoning proceeds by having things be on other things, not side by side (so the mullets argent are on the canton azure which is on the field). AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a field with several horizontal stripes ("bars") is described as "barry". According to that article, "The arms of Eyfelsberg zum Wehr provide a perhaps unique example of barry of four different tinctures that do not repeat". Don't know what the heraldic term for "hot pink" is though! Alansplodge (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the 6-stripe flag, no hot pink is needed. It's the 7-stripe flag that requires that special knowledge. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In standard basic terminology, "barry" refers to stripes which alternate between two colors. I don't think it could be used to describe stripes of six different colors without going significantly beyond standard basic terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it can describe four, surely it can describe six or seven? Note that the ancient College of Arms in London solemnly instructs government offices (presumably including themselves) to fly the Rainbow Flag during Pride Week unless when "there is only one flagpole the Armed Forces Flag will in most cases take precedence" because it's also Armed Forces Week in the UK. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boring answer, judging from the coat of arms of 246TH Field Artillery Regiment is that's it's probably something like "barry of six in the colours of the rainbow proper" (which also means it can violate the rule of tincture, since proper colours are the exception to the rule). Smurrayinchester 07:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry is usually of two tinctures, but there are exceptions. The flag of Hawaii, for example, is barry of eight argent, gules and azure [...]; sorry I can't think of an Olde Worlde example at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a few. —Tamfang (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rohingya people not turn violent like other discrimated Muslim groups?[edit]

With many problems in Arab world, many discrimated Muslim groups like the Uighur people in China and the Malays in Thailand/Philippines turn violent, some join ISIS. Rohingya people in Myanmar are even most discrimated but why they not turn violent and join ISIS? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The spread of violent Islamic fundamentalism can be modeled like the spread of a disease. Thus, certain random events, like if a person so infected moves into the heart of the community, can account for such differences. As far as having been discriminated against, that doesn't seem to be a requirement, as those trying to spread it are happy to lie and claim there's a global effort to exterminate all Muslims, if it gets them more recruits. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meta discussion on reference desk conduct. Probably not useful, but we can hope.

Do you ever have any intention of providing references for any of your statements, or do you intend to just keep typing the first thing to come into your head? --Jayron 32 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever intend to stop lying ? A review of my contributions will point out thousands of sources, as you well know. Here's a couple I provided about an hour before your post: [2], [3]. I don't always include sources, but then neither do you. But I do at least attempt to keep bickering off this page, unlike you, who often instigate it. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

When you hear the same complaint, from many different people, over a period of several years, you may consider that they might have a point about a problem with your conduct, and it just maybe, it might not be the case that everyone is out to get you for totally unfair reasons. Just some food for thought. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

It's human nature to pick a scapegoat for any evil you want to name, especially if you engage in that evil yourself, and for everyone to pile on whatever available scapegoat they can find (see Wikt:jump on the bandwagon). If I see an analysis of my edits versus everyone else's that proves I provide useful refs less often, then I might believe it. Otherwise, when Jayron or others claim that I never give refs, that's an obvious lie, so such claims do nothing but lower their credibility. Indeed, lies and exaggeration are essential to setting up a scapegoat. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict) The question as written is unanswerable. That is because the OP has made statements which are unproven, and has assumed they are true. This is called the Complex question fallacy, and is best exemplified by the question "When did you stop beating your wife?" Since that presumes some concept which has not yet been shown to be true (that you ever beat your wife), the actual question (when did it stop?) cannot be answered. Likewise, the OPs question contains many presumptions which they have not demonstrated are true, such as the general violence of Muslim groups. --Jayron 32 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The many Muslims I've known have not been violent. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Muslims in general are violent. There are violent persons in all religions. The OP's premise is fundamentally flawed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see them state that Muslims in general are violent. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see them provide their definition of "many", either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also have Muslim friends that not violent. Agree there are violent persons in all religions. Discrimated groups likely to turn violent, example Tamil Tigers. Muslim groups that not discrimated (like in Singapore) do not turn violent. Question is why the very discrimated Rohingya people do not turn violent? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: the Rohingya people. I don't know much about this, but the article discusses several episodes of unrest and possible violence stemming from discrimination. "The 2012 Rakhine State riots were a series of conflicts between Rohingya Muslims who are majority in the northern Rakhine and ethnic Rakhines who are majority in the south. "

So at least somewhat recently, some Rohingya have been involved in riots. Our article seems pretty good, I'd recommend reading it and some of the references cited there if you want to learn more about those people. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Rohingya insurgency in Western Myanmar and Harakah al-Yaqin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]