Talk:Badge of shame

Third paragraph

The third paragraph is confusing. It makes it sound as if the Nazi's invented the Star of David as a symbol of Judaism, in the same way the pink triangle became a symbol of homosexuality. Wasn't it used a a symbol on gravestones prior to the Holocaust? Wouldn't it have been a logical symbol for the flag of Israel regardless? -- Kendrick7^talk 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nazi's tried to make the Star of David into a badge of shame, but ultimately failed. I didn't think this was controversial, but will try to cite the ref. Dhaluza 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not the confusing part. It's like if I said "the word cat takes on an opposite meaning when not referring to Jazz musicians (i.e. cool cats), and instead refers to a four legged mammal." The use of the Star of David on gravestones and the flag of Israel has nothing to do with an intervening use of the yellow star as a badge of shame. You're putting the cart before the horse. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at your sources more closely. I'll concede the yellow badge was used on head stones, but you've misread the source about the Israeli flag and are making a connection to the yellow badge that isn't there. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think you are taking the reference out of context. The Nazi's tried to make the Star of David into a badge of shame, and the Israelis later used it as a symbol of pride, not unlike the pink triangle. There is no reference to gravestones for the Star--the triangles were used on a group memorial. Dhaluza 12:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You own original source made clear advocates of Zionism were using the Star of David as a symbol in the 1890s. You were only telling half the story. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   good number of refs from good sources but check ref conventions WP:REF/ES

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the main reason I'm failing this article with no hold. Apart from a couple of paragraphs, it only concentrates on the wars. I'm sure if you look deeper much could be found about uses in history, off the top of my head I can think of the pirate brand 'P'. Also consider other cultures apart from Europe - the bit about Bangkok is on the right track. Finally, what about badges of shame today? You mention ones which are no longer of shame but what about ones which still are?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Any questions Nengscoz416 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was able to expand the history, and broaden the scope somewhat, but I was not able to find any RS for "the pirate brand 'P'" outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie context. Also no luck finding any more non-European or current usage examples (other than one minor tidbit). I can only take the content where the sources lead to, not where we may wish they would lead. Also, I don't understand the comment on reference conventions, since I am using the {{cite}} templates. Dhaluza (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Still no RS for the "pirate brand" in reality, but I did find enough material on human branding to tie it to the Mark of Shame, and therefore introduce the fictional "pirate brand" used in the movie. I did find a few discussion boards that were generally skeptical of existence of the "pirate brand" outside the fictional storyline. Dhaluza (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very impressed, I never expected you to be able to add so much information in such a short space of time. A definate pass.

Current Examples

Thai police are using a badge of shame these days apparently. Here's a link (first I found; I know there are better/more stable sources for this same story). http://travelhappy.info/thailand/lawbreaking-thai-police-to-be-publicly-shamed-by-wearing-pink-hello-kitty-armbands/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.57 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Afghan Hindus

The yellow clothing for Afghan Hindus cannot be considered as a badge of shame, need opinion of other editors. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources are unanimous that the Taliban intended the clothing to distinguish Hindus from Muslims in order to identify them so that Islamic laws would not be applied to them, the intention of the Taliban wasn't to create a badge of shame as is clear from the sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

is this the best name for this article?

sorry to be a stickler, but the "markers for shame" concept that many human cultures have had from time immemorial and the literal phrase "badge of shame" are two different things. I think the lede and article should make a distinction between what things were literally called (like for instance, when did the usage "badge of shame" become current, and has anything historical literally been called a badge of shame?) and what we have later decided to call them. This article makes it seem like there is this "one thing" when in fact shame is a very nuanced human emotion and sociological phenomenon. As it is it's written like a primary school class discussion. "Can anybody else think of a badge of shame? Jimmy has his hand up..." 96.250.224.171 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Badge of shame. 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/20041225063824/http://www.rfmh.org:80/whps/images/03-04.2001.pdf to http://www.rfmh.org/whps/images/03-04.2001.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508191615/http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/08/10/4376798-thai-police-too-macho-for-hello-kitty-armbands to http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/08/10/4376798-thai-police-too-macho-for-hello-kitty-armbands
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://adisney.go.com/disneyvideos/liveaction/pirates2/games/gameshell.html?bp101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)