Talk:Flag desecration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heraldry and Vexillology Portal

Flag desecration is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

Contents

[edit] POV title?

This has been listed on cleanup as POV, but it looks fine to me. Andrewa 12:02, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The title is inherently POV because it assumes that a flag, a piece of cloth, is "sacred" and can therefore be "desecrated." Adam 12:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To some people a flag is sacred and can therefore be desecrated irregardless of whether you or I think a flag is sacred. I think that the claim that this title is POV is nonsense -- just like claiming the title "evolution" is POV. Just my 2 cents. Stewart Adcock 22:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most nations and people around the world regard their flag as significant / important. The use of the term 'desecration' with a flag is common. This comes from the theory of a government only having that power which God has delegated to them (a theme common in many constitutions). There is a link between State and God in many cases. Perhaps 'desecration' is nonsensical term for e.g. the French tricolour, but it's common usage. Zoney 18:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say the usage was uncommon. I said it was POV. Adam 18:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the term desecration is an unnecessary link between State and God. Good point. Bensaccount 18:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The link between State and God is often official and recognised, even regardless of whether the country is Christian or Muslim. In fact, there's even the concept in secular states of the govt's power being vested in them by a 'higher authority'.
But this term is the one to use. It's well known. It's silly to be so overly PC about it all.
Zoney 19:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I suppose you could call it "flag abuse". But I agree that desecration is the normal term, including among agnostics etc., in which case changing the title to one that is less commonly used would be an expression of POV. I suppose you could say that the flag of Papua New Guinea or Brunei can be desecrated while that of Turkey or the USA can't be, on religious and socio-political grounds. Not convinced. Is the title the only problem with the page? Andrewa 19:35, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The title did make me blink - I wondered about flag burning as a title, but of course that's too narrow. I guess if we have host desecration, flag desecration is not hideous, but it does express a degree of POV, certainly, which our neutral point of view policy frowns at. Probably (and sadly) unavoidable, though.
In a way, the title is too narrow, because most people will not consider the use of a flag for commercial purposes to be "desecration", but it clearly should be within the scope of this article, as it is heavily intwined with relevant legislation and popular feelings. Martin 21:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
It appears you've got two neutral words (or at least more in that direction) in the first sentence: "defacement" or "dishonoring". Defacement is probably the best to go with as it more properly describes the act without the connotation associated with "desecration." Forgive the poor editing skills, new at this.
Way wrong. See "Deface", below.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this page is fine. I did edit the paragraph comparing the Janet Jackson incident to wearing the flag as a poncho. I think that will soon be outdated, so I tried to express the same sentiment in a more time-independent way. Uranographer 10:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Editing mistake

There is a mistake in the third paragraph of the United States section: "... under the same September 11, 2001 attacksreasoning...". I'm not sure what it should be changed to. Betelgeuse 16:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops! That was a cut-and-paste artifact I think. Thanks for getting rid of it. Uranographer 23:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] UK sport

This is perhaps a little off-topic, but does cover deliberate defacing of a flag and may be of some interest: here in Britain, it's quite common for spectators at sporting events to plaster the name of the team they support across the Union Flag, Flag of England etc. For example, you might see "MANCHESTER UNITED" printed across the horizontal red stripe of the flag; this is generally considered entirely unremarkable. Loganberry (Talk) 03:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds on topic to me.--Greasysteve13 11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps... but - to touch on something mentioned in another context above - "desecration" would be a ludicrous word for it. Loganberry (Talk) 01:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Flag desecration in the United States to this article

I've looked at both Flag desecration in the United States and the appropriate section here, and the other article seems barely longer than this section. Unless it can be expanded considerably I see no reason for having a separate article for examples in the US. MartinMcCann 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel/Iraq

This is a biased statement so I deleted it: Interestingly, Iraq launched numerous missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, but not a single Iraqi flag was burned by the Israelis.

I wrote that paragraph, and I'm not putting it back, but I still think it is worth noting that mostly barbarians burn flags. The flag is a symbol of civilization, and is supposed to be respected. If you see a flag burning, it is usually either barbarians showing their utmost disrespect to their opponents' flag, or pseudointellectuals trying to catch the public eye. By the way, I oppose to the former and support the latter. --Gabi S. 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's also totally unsubstantiated! What proof do you have? Fool.

[edit] Weasel Words?

I inserted a weasel-words tag with regard to this line - Some judge the burning of the flag of their own country as illustrative of the impotence of the burners and an act of marginal significance. Which seems to be a classical example of an unsourced, controversial statement, per the weasel words page. Perhaps a source citation for that could be added? - I also removed the word draconian from the phrase Quebec's draconian language laws, as it seems POV to me. I also corrected a few small errors (majuscule C for Congress, for example). Beobach972 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one provided a source for the sentence, and it's been a month, I'm going to delete the sentence and, of course, the tag. --Tjss(Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upside-Down?

Should there be some reference to the use of the US flag in protests through turning it upside down and writing on it? I've seen this happen but there's no reference to it on this article (I believe). I'm sure it won't be too hard to find a photo of on the Commons either, although I could be wrong.

[edit] Picture NPOV

I think that, at the moment, the picture Image:Anti America.jpg (seen under the heading of 'The United States') is displaying a point of view - that is, those who burn the flag are burned themselves. It is also slight POV to show a man of Arabic origin burning the flag. Either the picture should be removed, or a new one should be found. OkamiItto 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

POV, What a stretch ... this was an actual news item that was caught on camera. It fits this page perfectly. The guy pictured is an 'Arab' only because flag burning seems like 'the thing' for the 'Arabs' to do to gain media attention. Duke53 | Talk 16:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Lord, do you actually listen to yourself when you type this? The picture is essentially sending a message that says "people who burn the flag get punished", which does not fit the encylopedia tone of the Wikipedia at all. I'm going to remove the image and request Admin assistance on this issue - your own pro-America stance aside, I believe that you yourself barely have a leg to stand on when it comes to this.OkamiItto 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that 'Arabs' don't use the act of burning the AMERICAN Flag to get on camera? Your vandalism of the image was according to Wkipedia policy? The picture might convey that message to a moron, but normal people realize that flag burning most times has one casuality ... the flag. Essentially, anybody getting a different message isn't very bright; no sense 'dumbing down' Wikipedia for them. Duke53 | Talk 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, don't argue here. The [i]current[/i] picture shows a man; his skin looks tan and he seems to be standing on a basketball court; and he's smiling while burning a flag. So, that doesn't seem to be POV to me. It wouldn't anyway. The picture is supposed to depict the act of "flag desecration," although in order to "desecrate" it, most people just burn it. But the picture was serving its purpose. What would you say if there was a white man holding up a burning American flag?

  • Not that unsourced info from an anon counts for much, but I know the person in that photo personally. He is of mixed white/Japanese heritage and is burning the flag on the site of American college student housing. 128.32.112.233 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ironically, he's burning the symbol of his right to burn it. Wahkeenah 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cronulla Riots Guy

The part of the article about this guy is not entirely correct. The october referred to was in this year (2006), not 2005 as is indicated - the riots occurred in December '05. Also, he was not sentenced to carry the flag, he was invited to by the president of the NSW RSL (read the article, guys!), and the march in question is in 2007. Eu neke 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above person is right. He wasn't "sentenced" he was invited by the RSL. It's just wrong and I have edited it accordingly144.132.250.160 11:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons, Motives

Some of the motives given for flag desecration need support. I've never heard of anybody burning a flag and claiming it was to express hatred for the people of the country. I have also never heard of anybody burning a flag and claiming it was merely for pleasure (although people can do just about anything for pleasure). I have never heard of anybody defacing a flag as a religious statement. I have never heard of anybody defacing a flag to protest ideals or lifestyle. I've never heard any reason given other than as statement of free speech or objection to government policies. What is the source for all these other claims? It is also a bit loaded to say that flag desecration "dishonors" a flag, since it makes some assumptions that are part of the debate (such as that a flag is something that can have honor, rather than a symbol of something that can have honor).Bsharvy 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Flag-burning of this type is done strictly as political protest. The other stuff is either a different way of saying that, or is POV-pushing. You can't "dishonor" an inanimate object. But you can make the people who consider it a "sacred" symbol feel that it's an attempt to "dishonor" them, hence the term "desecration". Wahkeenah 15:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "should" here needs to go; it is taking sides: "In Canada, the National Flag should be burned privately when it is torn or faded. Only new flags or ones in good condition should be flown in Canada." Is it a description of the law? The recommendation of some group? Convention or custom? The author's opinion of morality? What is meant by "should"? I propose deleting the entire paragraph.Bsharvy 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Presumably it has to do with the official flag code or flag etiquette. If so, that point needs to be made clearer. Wahkeenah 07:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The guy in the picture

He appears to be an American burning his own flag "for fun" with no clear political message. Can you please replace it with another picture. 70.59.4.210 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted an aside

I deleted the aside comments about Florida confederate flag statutes and about the Yale instance where people were charged for setting fire to other people's private property (i.e. flag they did not know). Revert if there's strong disagreement, but they struck me as trivial asides. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The word "Deface"

The word "deface" is wholly misused in this article. In vexillology, "deface" means to create a flag by adding something to a pre-existing flag. The Flag of Australia is the British Blue Ensign defaced with the Southern Cross and Confederation Star. The state Flag of Germany is the national flag (Schwarz-Rot-Gold) defaced with the Bundesschild. These are not acts of flag desecration. See how the word is used here: Blue_ensign#Defaced_blue_ensign. Some other word should be used.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of something better, please make the changes yourself. OkamiItto (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)