Talk:Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008034126/http://www.tcgov.tc/national-symbol.html to http://www.tcgov.tc/national-symbol.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Nothing about this until well after the fact, and it appears to have grown, as folklore so often does, by a string of added assumptions being raised first as a possibility, then taken as fact. Qwirkle (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source saying it's a canard or fake (or at least saying something different)? If no, then it looks like original research. Brandmeistertalk   20:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely as an example, and picked for accesibility, consider the National Geographic Vol. LXVI no. 3 Spepember 1934. Flags of the World. From page 377: “With its three-masted ship under full sail, two salt piles, three baskets, and a native in a red jacket, the badge of these islands forms an interesting composition. It is used on the Blue Ensign.” Qwirkle (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like various sources treat it differently. Per this source, the "igloo" version comes from 1889 Admirality book and from a certain Jaumme. So the confusion did exist at some point, it seems. Brandmeistertalk   21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: PostWiki, it certainly does. Pre-wiki, a handful of sources, most of them remarkably lightweight. Looking at your particular claim here, a few points:A commercial source advertising flags for sale which gives space to a self-published writer is not, in itself, a particularly strong cite. (From what I’ve read of it, the guy does seem to have some expertise, though.)Referring to it as the “igloo” badge does not validate the fairytale this wiki page vectors, it may merely mean “the one some people claim look like igloos”. Note that it does not claim the Admiralty used this term.Igloos were “in” in the 1870s, everybody knew what they looked like…or at least what they outta look like. A proper round dome, with an arched tunnel covering the entry point.Finally, note the section’s title. Contemporaneous? Qwirkle (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Further points of dubiety:Cite after (modern) cite mentions “doors. Picture after picture shows a single black mark on oneof the salt piles, the right from the viewer’s point of view. So why do the stories have this wrong?Different (modern) cites claim the supposed change was made either formally by the Admiralty or by some unspecified civil servant, or by an equally anonymous flagmaker. Does this suggest actual knowledge, or the usual variances of folklore?No contemporaneous cites for igloos, one for “conical huts, most for “salt piles”. Why? Qwirkle (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you have one (scroll down to the "The Turks and Caicos Igloo Flag" section), the "igloo" flag kept at the National Museum (presumably, Turks and Caicos National Museum).  Brandmeistertalk   08:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. that’s a modern claim, and may, for all we know, be based on this article. Qwirkle (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How can the flag kept by the Turks and Caicos National Museum be "a modern claim"? You can always contact them to verify that flag. Brandmeistertalk   16:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, there isny any doubt that, since about 1983 a few people have believed a fairytale about unknown malfeasors in London - sometimes civil servants, sometimes flagmakers- changing a design from saltpiles into igloos. And there is no doubt at all, that, like most modern folktales, the internet has multiplied it. But before 1983 or so, no one seems to have spread the tale, at least not in writing, and this despite the fact that there were other speculations about it.The fact that the flag dates back doesnt bring the stories about how it came to look like that back in the past with it. Qwirkle (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you write to the Turks and Caicos National Museum about that to settle the issue once and for all, especially since they reportedly have that igloo flag. Brandmeistertalk   19:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Anf I suggest that you learn the difference between an object and contemporary commentary on it. The fact that an artifact dates to a certain period does not somehow drag modern commentary or speculation back to that earlier time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

text: And I suggest that you learn the difference between an object and contemporary commentary on it. The fact that an artifact dates to a certain period does not somehow drag modern commentary or speculation back to that earlier time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is absolutely no good contemporaneous sourcing for the “igloo” canard.