Talk:Rainbow/Archive 1

older entries
The following article was copied from an E-newsletter for the New Mexico Academy of Healing Arts:

/ Why you can never see the end of a rainbow? It doesn’t have one. Theoretically, the light continues to bend into a complete circle—a circle we can’t see because it is cut off by the horizon.

Most people know the colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. But few have been fortunate enough to see some of the rare manifestations of this natural phenomenon. Some rainbows are all purple, all red or even all white. Purple rainbows are only seen before or at sunrise. They can be formed by high clouds that scatter the blue and violet light, which raindrops reflect back to the observer. At sunset, when the sun is low in the sky, a rainbow may be a dramatic red arc, because the shorter wavelengths (blue, green and yellow) have been dispersed during their relatively long trip through the atmosphere.

White rainbows can appear in daylight or moonlight, but for entirely different reasons. During the day, rays of sunlight may be reflected from very small droplets of moisture—so small that the emerging bands of color are close enough to overlap, creating white light. But a white rainbow seen by moonlight is not white at all. It only seems so because the eye cannot detect color in light as weak as what the moon is reflecting. However, a photograph of a lunar rainbow, taken at the correct exposure, will be full in color.

The "rainbow" article should address some of the other colored rainbows that, though, rare, can happen from time to time.

Last night I saw the strangest and maybe the most rare form of rainbow. I have never heard of this but I can only describe it as a black rainbow. It was late in the evening and the sun was far below the horizon. The light was a very deep red and reflecting off of the clouds. In the east against a dark background of clouds appeared a very faint purple rainbow. I guess, since only red light was present, the resulting spectrum appeared only purple. Has anyone else seen one of these? How can I find out more?

Very nice diagrams of refraction (with the red lines). Very good at explaining the phenomenon.

---

I think that a rainbow is visible only when the sun is at a low altitude- mornings and late afternoon/ evenings. Isn't there some specific angle for this? KRS 15:33, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I added: Hence there is no rainbow if the sun is at a higher altitude than 42°: the rainbow would be below the horizon. --Patrick 23:30, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is not true, as sometimes one can look below the horizon. For example, if you are looking down from a mountain, or - as mentioned in the article! - from an aeroplane.

I've deleted the incorrect reference to glories from the aeroplane comment. Glory is a different optical phenomenon from rainbow and it is incorrect to state that a full-circle rainbow is a glory. This error needs to be removed from the page Glory_(rainbow) and I've put that on my task list, but I'm not sure how to fix the problem that the error is incorporated into the page title. Advice welcome. --Richard Jones 13:45, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to Glory (optical phenomenon). ––wwoods 18:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Added: Even more rarely is a triple rainbow seen and a few observers have reported seeing quadruple rainbows in which a dim outermost arc had a rippling and pulsating appearance. - Sounds fantanstic, but I saw this, and I was not the only one - Leonard G. 03:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Angle derivation
The article does a clumsy job about what is special about the  42° or the 52° angle. The picture lead me to correctly see that light can be refracted-internally.reflected-refracted.again at a large range of angles, its just that 42° is where the largest intensity of refraction occurs. The page http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/Rainbow/rainbow.html has a much better explanation for the angle. 129.42.208.182 21:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the comment offered above: I think the crucial part of the linked article is where it says "The rainbow is actually a disk of scattered light, but it is brightest at the edge; the disk for different wavelengths is a different size, and that is why we see the color effects there." In other words, the difference between the rainbow and a pure spectrum made by a prism lit from a slit is this: In the prismatic spectrum, each color has just one line position (if the slit is narrow), and the result of adding all those together is a sequence of approximately pure colors. But in the rainbow, each color has not so much a line, but rather an arc of light, with some thickness, it is brightest at its outer edge, but it also has brightness at distances away from that outer edge, fading away inwardly as one gets farther from the edge. So the rainbow color palette results from superimposing all those bright colored edges along with their adjacent areas of fading intensity for each color. This makes the resulting rainbow colors actually impure, compared with pure spectral colors resulting from a slit and prism. Another way to visualize this is to think of the rainbow as a chromatically-dispersed caustic: A caustic is like the curve of light that can be seen on the surface of a cup of milky coffee when it is lit from the side -- the lighted area has a sharp bright edge, but it's not purely a bright line, it has thickness, and its brightness gradually fades away from the maximally-bright curved edge. Every spectral color makes one of those caustics, but with slightly different diameter; and when they are superimposed on each other, there you have the rainbow.

Moonbow
I'm not clear on this section: ''In a very few cases, a moonbow, or night-time rainbow, can be seen on strongly-moonlit nights. As human visual perception for colour in low light is poor, moonbows are perceived to be white.'' In Hawaii, we see moonbows all the time, and it's possible to make out many colors. So, what does the editor (or author) mean by "in a very few cases"? --Viriditas 12:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Triple Rainbows
The article states: Even more rarely is a triple rainbow seen and a few observers have reported seeing quadruple rainbows... These things are not rare in Hawaii. I've seen triple rainbows many times and a quadruple rainbow only twice. --Viriditas 12:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * More importantly we could use a scientific explanation of how they are possible. I've seen a 3+ rainbow and know that the additional bows cannot be explained using Descartes' internal reflections in a rain drop. -- Solipsist 08:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have personally seen a triple-banded rainbow that looked very much like the "supernumerary" rainbow pictured in the article; the colors in the rainbow I witnessed were red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, green, blue, violet, green, blue, violet. When I turned around, I saw that two small dense clouds close to the sun were extremely bright (almost as if I was seeing a reflection of the sun off an icy lake). I theorize that either those two clouds acted as second 'suns' bright enough to produce two more rainbows that overlapped the one from the sun itself, and that the combination merged into one supernumerary rainbow, or else that the supernumerary bands of the rainbow became visible due to the increased intensity of the sunlight from the reflections. It is extremely unlikely that the raincloud under which I saw that rainbow was producing raindrops all of a fixed size, as some web sites propose to explain supernumerary rainbows. The primary explanation may be wave interference as Thomas Young said, but I think there must be other requirements to explain why they are rarely seen. (I reverted my first entry here before anyone replied to it, when I realized it was a foot-in-mouth mistake). Aumakua 15:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Im no expert on the subject of rainbows but have on occasions observed tripple rainbows over the coast, but once, around trwenty years ago, I had observed no less than twentyfive at the same time. These were much smaller than any bows i had prieviously observed. Each seemed to occupy its onwn space and at different angles; they were also very faint and hard to count. The time of day was an evening, about 5.30pm, late winter/spring, mostly overcast and after a good rainstorm. The location was England, cromer(a coastal town on the east),direction looking north-west to north over the sea horizon. I have read only once of someone observing the same atmospheric condition but have no knowledge as to the cause of this particular phenominon or the rarity of it. Sadly no images of it though.Maybe you guys that do understand these thing could spread some light of knowledge. The only explanation i can find so far is that of supernumerary rainbows.

Mnemonics
The main mnemonic described in the article is 'Richard of York...', given the subject am I right in thinking that this is only commonly used in the UK?

Another editor has also added 'Roy G. Biv' saying it is more common. I haven't heard this one, is it common in the US? -- Solipsist 08:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the US, but it is common in Australian schools. - Jeff Parsons (sorry, no account yet)
 * Yah, it's common in der Staes Flip Merav 21 10:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's what we use in Australia.
 * I'm an Aussie and know both, although I learnt the Richard of York one first. 58.105.82.209 03:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to log in.I am a lemon 03:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Total internal reflection?
The article states that light is reflected from the back of the drop under total internal reflection. I find this statement rather dubious at best. A quick derivation from snell's law shows that the minimum angle for total internal reflection in water (using nw = 1.33) is 48.7 degrees. That would imply that the angle at the back of the droplet is greater than 90 degrees, which by inspection is not the case.

Since light would therefore leave the back of the drop refracted, would it not be impossible to see a rainbow between the observer and the sun, if the appropriate areas of the sky were unobscured?Kenneth Charles

Edit: I did some research. Light is indeed passed out the back of a droplet, but due to the fact that there is no distinct peak of emission from this spectra, it does not form a visible rainbow. However, the statement that light is totally internally reflected inside a raindrop is wrong and should be removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Charles (talk • contribs) 13 April 2005

Mythology and religion
Galileo wrote a treatise on the properties of light? I'm not familiar with this at all. If no one can provide a citation, we ought to change it to Newton, who certainly did study light and color.
 * It perhaps should read 'Descartes treatise'. -- Solipsist 09:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It now credits Descartes and his (unknown) predecessor Theodoric; see below. Dandrake 03:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

reflection rainbow - a contradiction
It says: Where sunlight reflects off water before reaching the raindrops, it produces a reflection rainbow.

Then it says: ''A reflected rainbow is produced when light that has first been reflected inside raindrops then reflects off a body of water before reaching the observer. ''

So which one is it? Thanks, Ladypine 18:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Reflected versus reflection. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I seperated the paragraph to make it clearer.Ladypine 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Images / German article
There has been some to-ing and fro-ing on the images recently (I cut some out and replaced with ones from Commons:Rainbow).

Which of the two following should appear as the lead image:

Secondly, my German is not good enough to extract more information from the excellent article in German Wikipedia. If someone can help, I should be very grateful. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now the Florida image is again there. I think it is the least impressive of all and should be replaced by any of the others. --Ikar.us 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. User:Desmond71 keeps putting the Florida one back for some unknown reason. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the Florida image serves as a much better lead image than the current Lake Zurich image because the main focus of the Zurich image is that of a brightly lit boat in the foreground and not of the rainbow. (The rainbow appears too dark and is almost lost among an even darker background, especially when viewed on darker monitors.) The Florida image, though admittedly not the best image around, at least does a much better job of illustrating the rainbow and therefore makes for a better lead image. I have absolutely no problem with the Zurich image that User:ALoan keeps using, but I feel it should be displayed elsewhere in the article rather than as the lead image. (I have tried contacting User:ALoan about this earlier, but I don't know how to send messages directly to users hear at Wikipedia.) -- Desmond71 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Desmond71 - it is good to hear from you at last. The easiest way to contact me is by leaving a message at User talk:ALoan (I left some messages for you at User talk:Desmond71 a while ago, but got no reply).  Fortunately, I am watching this talk page too.


 * I'm afraid that I just don't like the Florida image very much. I see what you mean about the Geneva image being dark, with too much emphasis on the boat; on the other hand, it shows an almost-180-degreee rainbow.  The "end of the rainbow" image is also quite nice (and a featured picture but the trees are a bit of a distraction.  The waterfall is also not a perfect example, and none of the others at Commons:Rainbow is perfect either... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Literature section needs complete rewrite
The section "Rainbows in literature" is horrible. It does not give any explanation or information about the view, the inclusion, the metaphoric usage... of rainbows in Literature. It just features some verses. How could this be descriptive of the section's title. CG 20:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * sofixit. Other than the instances cited, do you have any views on the "view, the inclusion, the metaphoric usage... of rainbows in Literature"?


 * That section is still the same, 15 months after the first comment. Does anyone have the necessary expertese to write a paragraph of prose about how rainbows have been used in literature? Neil Dodgson 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A photo of a rainbow taken from an airplane should be introduced
I have heard that rainbow looks like different when viewed from a high place - that it is not an arc in this case but rather a ring. Someone should put an effort to get a photo of a rainbow from a plane or a high mountain


 * It is true, the photo on this (http://www.wunderground.com/wximage/viewsingleimage.html?mode=singleimage&handle=JeffMasters&number=0) page proves it. Not sure if it can be used here, I can't find the legal mumbo-jumbo.


 * In general, you see a part of a circle, depending on where the water is relative to you and the sun. Being up in a plane with lots of water below you is the best way to see the whole circle, but it's not really a difference of kind, just a better viewpoint.  Notice in the picture you posted that you don't see the full circle, because there's a plane in the way, and no droplets between you and the plane.  The ground does the same thing, often, especially when the rain is in the distance; if it's raining where you are, you can sometimes see the rainbow extend all around you. Dicklyon 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but there's an explanation about the image, and it's the best I could find. --DragonSparke 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A rainbow seen from above is called a pilot's glory. It differs from the normal rainbow because the order of the colors is reversed (two internal reflections in the water droplets.) Also, the sahdow of the airplane is in the center of the rainbow circle. -Arch dude 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The end of a rainbow
The article contradicts itself, in the Rainbows in religion and mythology section it says, "The Irish leprechaun's secret hiding place for his crock of gold is usually said to be at the end of the rainbow (which is impossible to reach)." and yet, right next to it shows a photo which shows the end of a rainbow. Someone should fix this or tell me why I'm wrong ;) WikiSlasher 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You can see the end of the rainbow (or, at least, in general terms, roughly where it ends) but please let us know how you get on in reaching it... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I'll admit...I haven't tried reaching it, I guess it might move a bit as you approach it, I don't know because I haven't tried it, but it seemed like a contradiction so I just thought I'd get that cleared up. Perhaps if you use a long stick to reach it that'd help! :) WikiSlasher 13:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rainbows are actually a ring, but this is only evident when you see the rainbow from above the ground, from the land, it appears as an arc. So, really, there IS no end to the rainbow. If you chase that pot of gold, you'll never reach it, and get VERY dizzy. Hope this helps clear it up. ^^ --DragonSparke 17:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is easiest to practice reaching the end of the rainbow using a small example in your back yard. Choose a sunny summer evening and set up a sprinker or hose to give a fine spray of mist. Then stand between the sprinker and the sun with your back to the sun. You should be able to see a rainbow that appears to be just a couple of meters across, but you will still have fun trying to reach the end where it touches the ground... -- Solipsist 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a magnificent image of a fully circular primary rainbow at http://www.roddyscheer.com/photo_detail.php?photo=913. I presume that this image was taken from a hang glider. As the image belongs to professional photographer (Roddy Scheer), the image must NOT be added to this Wikipedia entry - but a link could be permissible.


 * The end of your rainbow comes to you. The region in space formed by the water drops which generate the rainbow light is shaped like a cone. The axis of the cone is defined by the shadow of your head. As long as there are spherical drops of water and parallel rays of light then the base of the cone can be infinitely far from you. So when you look at a rainbow, the sunlight comes from behind you, hits water drops on the surface of the cone and then is refracted and reflected down the cone to its apex which is located at your head. If you are close enough to the shower of water drops you can see two rainbows, one for each eye. Each observer sees their own rainbow and each observer is at the apex of their own rainbow. If the apex of an infinite cone that channels light towards its apex can be thought of as the end of the cone then it's also the end of the rainbow. You, your eyes, are the end of the rainbow. Maybe the leprechaun's secret is that you shouldn't be running around the country-side looking for material wealth because the rainbow reminds you that the most valuable wealth is found within you.

Malqum 22 June 2007 Malqum 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just made a short animation showing how the rainbow comes from a cone-shaped region but appears to be a circle. You can see it by searching on YouTube for "malqum" or at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXWiE3TX3p4 Malqum 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Culture
"CULTURE" --  A small comment but from my perspective as an anthropologist, important. The heading "rainbows in mythology and religion" is in the current form separate from "rainbows in culture"; and the "rainbows in culture" includes literature and art. This implies that non-literate peoples, or religion, or mythical beliefs are not part of "culture" (or more ironically, that culture is not inclusive of myth!). More specifically, this structure of headings seems to reify the use of the term "culture" to mean something like "I got culture because I go to the opera" as opposed to culture as the full behavioral repertoire of our species, etc. I'm sure none of the darker side of what is implied in my comment (racism, ethnocentrism, etc.) is intended at all! And it is a simple fix, just use "rainbows in culture" as the main heading and subsume myth, religion, literature, etc. under that heading. --Greg Laden


 * Good idea. So just fix it instead of pontificating about it. Dicklyon 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Indigo
I've removed the sentence in the mnemonics section suggesting indigo is not regarded as a colour of the rainbow, and also re-added it to the introduction. Using a simple google search seems to reveal that most sources still list Indigo, as do all the mnemonics actually mentioned:


 * Search for rainbow "red orange yellow green blue violet"
 * http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=rainbow+%22red+orange+yellow+green+blue+violet%22&btnG=Search
 * 497 results.


 * Search for rainbow "red orange yellow green blue indigo violet"
 * http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=rainbow+%22red+orange+yellow+green+blue+indigo+violet%22&btnG=Search
 * 12,200 results.

I believe these searches reveal all instances of the colours appearing in those orders, with or without commas and other punctuation in between.

Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 12:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. Yes, it is conventional to include indigo in the sequence.  But who do you know who can identify the color indigo?  Or who can see a stripe of rainbow between blue and violet?  The passage you removed captured the relationship between the conventional sequence mnemonics and the actual perception pretty well and neutrally, I thought. Dicklyon 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a citation for the paragraph (i.e. that humans are not able to perceive indigo)? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Contemporary Color: Theory & Use, by Steven Bleicher, p.6 says "However, most people can only discern six of these hues; they have trouble telling the difference between indigo and violet." Dicklyon 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent - please would you add the citation to the paragraph so the next time someone questions it, they can see the source for our assertion. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now added that citation in the relevant spot. Just for the record, I wasn't questioning whether humans can see indigo in a rainbow, merely whether modern definitions always omit it, as the previous paragraph seemed to imply. I believe it's now more accurate and informative! Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 18:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, point taken. I've restored the paragraph, though without the sentence most modern rainbow definitions do not include that as a distinct colour which I regard as untrue. It's kind of a repetition of what it says about indigo in the intro, but maybe that's the correct style for articles anyway - i.e. the intro is a summary of points in the article itself. Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 19:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read an academic paper in which the author claimed that s/he had examined Newton's notebooks and worked out the wavelengths of the seven colours. This showed that what Newton called "indigo", we today would call "blue", and what Newton called "blue", we today would call "blue-green" or "turquoise". I've added an appropriate comment to the page. However, I have been unable to relocate that academic paper: I'll keep looking. &mdash; Neil Dodgson 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no controversy in including indigo as a shade of the rainbow. Some people exhibit colour blindness towards almost any shade of colour some cannot see red for example, yet there is no section claiming that red is not a shade. 86.131.90.161 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally some decent photos
Thanks, Ceinturion, for the two new lead photos. Dicklyon 22:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am really glad that maker of the first lead photo (Eric Rolph) agreed to upload it to wikipedia. Ceinturion 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * One problem with that image is that its licensing is currently contradictory. The permission line inlucdes 'NonCommercial' and 'NoDerivs' which suggests that it should really be licensed as cc-by-nc-nd which is no longer an accepted license on Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 13:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The history shows that he added the license in a separate edit AFTER the "non commercial no derivs" initial license, so I would presume that license supercedes and we're OK. Dicklyon 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone still ought to ask them to fix the licensing. -- Solipsist 16:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to ask inactive User:Ericrolph anything. No user page, no talk page, no recent contributions. But give it a try, in case he logs in. Dicklyon 17:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundant image of double rainbow
The new image of a double rainbow (Double_rainbow_2.jpg) does not really add anything compared to the existing image of a double rainbow (Regenbogen_NASA.jpg). Therefore I would like to remove the new image next week, but I don't want to offend the person who submitted it. If you think the new image is better than the old one, please explain it here. Ceinturion 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My Rainbow
This seems to be the place to dump rainbow pics so here's mine. This one show's how close to the ground they can get. This one is hugging the hillside less than 15 feet away.--God Ω War 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But there's no garage door in the picture. What's up with that? Dicklyon 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ROYGBIV
The convention of seeing red, orange, yellow, green, blue... is not universal. Different cultures see the color breaks at different places. 67.120.92.193 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, it isn't particular to rainbows. Don't merge. Melchoir 00:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Close for lack of support even by the originator. Dicklyon 02:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does the rainbow form an arc across the sky?
Scientific explanation of why the rainbow forms an arc would be a great addition to this page. Its the question I'm still left asking. Agelena 17:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The rainbow forms at a constant angle from the direction that the sun is going. That makes it a circle.  But you only get the part of the circle where there are raindrops in the sunlight. Dicklyon 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying the same thing: It's the 40°–42° mentioned in the article -- wherever there are water droplets at an angle of 40° from you (as you are looking away from the sun), you'll see a spectrum. The set of positions which are 40° away from you are a circle (40° straight up, 40° to your right, 40° halfway-between-straight-up-and-to-your-right, and so on).  (If I could write this more clearly, I'd add it to the main page :-)  Hope that helps.  not-just-yeti 18:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a good illustration I found on this page. Dicklyon 21:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a reasonable number of images?
There was a time when this page was a dumping ground for people's pretty photographs of rainbows. I think the page now has a reasonable number of reasonably relevant images. Does anyone else have an opinion? Neil Dodgson 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with the issue, and have on occasion removed some rainbow photos myself, but I think each picture deserves some attention and a good reason for removal. Bulk removal with comments like "delete three images and some text as there are too many images on this page" is hard to distinguish from the typical vandalisms that I revert with comments like "revert unexplained removal".  That is, "too many images" is a pretty broad opinion, not a reason for removing something.  Dicklyon 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the overriding issue is does each picture further help to further illustrate the point, and before the removal of "extra" photos most of the images present were in the same medium and same artistic style. I feel that the two pictures that were left up are good examples but my arguement is that the remaining examples show only oil paintings; I tried to include one of my own digital works to add diversity, but that was followed by a cry of "too many pictures", and "self promotion", I'm already known on the Internet as being an artist and that work is a slight variant on what is considered to be one of the most popular blotter art designs in the last few years (also my creation). I think removing the one example of digital rainbow art was a mistake, but I'm not going to repost it myself as I do not wish to impose my sensibilites on others- you decide. Rafti Institute 05:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can explain my removals, if that would help. (1) There were five oil paintings. William Rafti had previously pointed out to me that all of the paintings were in the same style (see his comment of 12 May 2007, above). I therefore chose the two of these that I felt were the best, noting there are references to pages for other artists. (2) There was a rather poor image of a woodcut with the twelve astrological signs for the zodiac. There was no reference to this in the text and it seemed to add nothing to the page. (3) There was an image of the gay pride flag, which has its own page, so does not need to be reproduced here. (4) There was a rather poor image of a rainbow taken from an airplane, which seemed to add nothing to the page. (5) What sparked this off was my removal of Mr Rafti's rainbow-inspired digital art. I removed that because it seemed rather too close to self-publicity for Mr Rafti to put his own art work up on the page; although I appreciate his willingness to donate his own art to Wikipedia. Neil Dodgson 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanations. You didn't mention the one I care most about, so how about restoring Georges Noblet's photograph "Harpe de Lumière", a very different take on the artistic use of rainbow? Dicklyon 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Thanks for putting it back in. Neil Dodgson 18:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Diliff removed two further images on 24 May: Rainbow of Hearts, which is an example of a rainbow in popular culture with permuted colours, and Harpe de Lumière, which I had previously removed and Dicklyon restored on 12 May. Do we want to put these pictures back on the page? Neil Dodgson 07:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys. I wasn't aware of a previous discussion regarding these photos. Obviously I left a reasonably detailed edit summary but I'll try to justify things a bit further. Perhaps I was a little hasty in removing them completely, but I felt that them existing under the section "Rainbows in art" was stretching the truth a little, particularly when captioned in a way that suggests these images are notable and published. They are personal artistic images that have been labeled art by a contributor, whether it be the creator or just a fan. Furthermore, since it is the image that is supposed to be speaking volumes on the subject of rainbows and not the artist, it is not common practise to include the name of the creator in the subject, except when it is relevant. Obviously art is in the eye of the beholder and I don't claim to be definitive on the subject, but I think that rainbows in art section should be limited to what is already considered popular/renown/valued art, particularly since we cannot be that devoid of public domain art on the subject of rainbows... In a nutshell, I was struggling to see a valid place in the article for the images, felt that they didn't really add value and were borderline self promotional, or at least promotional, as I don't know the link between the contributor and the original photographer. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Khalid_Mahmood introduced another image on 13 and 15 October. It is similar to an image which was deleted back in May 2007 (amongst the seven images that were deleted then). We are trying to keep the number of images on this page down to just those that are vital. The ones on the page seem to have general support. This new one is not a significant addition, therefore I have deleted it (twice). I am happy to debate this on the Talk page. Neil Dodgson 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inline references sorely needed
I'm glad to see FA was removed from this article...it does not fit the current standard for FA. Even for a GA, an appropriate number of inline references are needed. I could cover the page with fact tags as it stands right now. Without in the inline references, the article won't be able to elevate above B class. Thegreatdr 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

18.75 octillion distinct colours
The following comment has been added twice by 193.238.80.100 to The sequence of colours section and removed twice by me:

"Assuming visible light is from 400nm - 700nm in wavelength and using the minimum quantum measurement of 1 planck steps there are approximately 18.75 octillion distinct colours in the rainbow."

There are three issues here: Neil Dodgson 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * this sentence is unhelpful, requiring an understanding of quantum theory to know just what the author is trying to say;
 * the number of distinct perceivable colours in the rainbow is considerably smaller than this, owing to the limitations of the human eye, therefore this sentence will confuse people who assume that "distinct" relates to perception rather than quantum mechanics;
 * if this sentence is to be added to the page then this seems to me to be the wrong section to put it in.


 * It's a neat idea, "how many colors in a rainbow", and I thought the reference to quantum theory is okay (the intent/derivation of that one statement was perfectly comprehensible to me, after 1yr of college physics). Although I'd quibble that it's unclear every frequency gets reflected inside (enough) raindrops, and I have no idea how many photons from the rainbow are reaching my eye even if every frequency is being reflected.  So I'd be mildly in favor of putting the idea in somewhere, but mention that this has less to do with rainbows than the theoretical maximum number of colors in the visible spectrum.   not-just-yeti 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neil that this doesn't belong in an article on rainbows. The Planck length is virtually unmeasureable, and so I don't see this as adding substantial information to the article. I'd be more interested in content about the eye's ability to perceive this phenomenon. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloodbow
I recall about 8 years ago seeing a rainbow while driving at sunset.. and as the sun set i caught sight of it and it had turned from your usual multicoloured glory into a bow of almost complete red.. it lasted only a few seconds... and was mostly obscured by the trees on the road i was on.. but was really awesome.

Is this a known phenomena?--Nasher 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen it too. The colours in the rainbow are refracted out of the sunlight which is usually white light so contains ROYGBV. As the sun gets closer to the horizon its light gets redder as wavelengths in the violet end of the spectrum get removed by the longer path of air the light travels through. So the sunlight that produced the red rainbow you saw may have had very little green, blue and violet. If the rainbow was also caused by very small drops of water then diffraction can blur the colours into a band of just one colour which could look quite red.Malqum 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh thank God, I thought from the title that you were talking about the refraction of light in a fine mist of blood. 213.48.15.234 09:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Change double rainbow photo?


I added some time ago another photo showing double rainbow. It was removed because the person felt that it wasn't necessary to have another photo of double rainbow.

But, I think my photo shows the whole double rainbow much better, so what are your thoughts removing the current and adding mine?

Upper one is current photo.

eQualizer 09:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is tricky. Both photos have advantages:
 * The current (upper) photo is clearer than the proposed (lower) photo. The rainbow is wider and brighter in the current photo.
 * The proposed photo shows a full double rainbow, whereas the current photo only shows two arcs from the secondary.
 * There isn't much in it. I tend towards keeping the current photo because it has a wider brighter primary. Neil Dodgson 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever image gets used, it may be beneficial if it could meet the WP:FP criteria. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of the current photo. Although the proposed photo is more majestic, the current photo is more informative and educational because of the visible antisolar point (the shadow of the observer), the depth of the rainbow, and the absence of shrub shadows near the antisolar point. Ceinturion 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The 'full featured double rainbow' is a very good photo and it really should be in the article somewhere. Especially since with the current photo, although it's also very good, as the caption admits the double part is not that clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfDEH (talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
The aesthetic nature of this subject matter makes it a natural for a gallery. This is also recommended by the MoS for articles that have too many images. I think a gallery section would be an appropriate addition to this page, and there are FA'd articles with a gallery. (E.g. Seattle%2C_Washington.) Does anybody find this objectionable? (Yup I know there's a rainbow gallery on the commons.) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reflection rainbow photo
Tlatla, the reflection rainbow picture that you added is great! I have been waiting for a picture like this for quite some time. I somewhat prematurely removed your statement that the reflection rainbow on the photo is due to sun rays reflected from water behind the camera. Could you indicate the location of the camera more precisely, for example by editing the following coordinates? 48.34167°N, -122.55833°W Ceinturion 06:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reflection rainbow Hellbus?
Hellbus, yesterday you added that the image that I copied here shows "both types" of rainbow. Given the history of the article I think that with "both types" you meant a reflected rainbow and a reflection rainbow, where the faint colorless vertical streak above the horizon is the supposed reflection primary. In my opinion that streak is not a convincing example of a reflection rainbow. Saperaud, who added the photo on 31 july 2005, just called it a double rainbow. As you've added your claim several times (17 august 2005, 28 february 2007, and 27 july 2007) I would like to know whether it is your personal interpretation or that you were present when the photo was taken. Ceinturion 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Noahacian Deluge
I slightly reworded the section on the biblical view of rainbows, because it failed to take into account Christians who believe that the Noahacian Deluge was a local flood rather than a global flood, which is widely held belief among certain subsets of Christians. StaticElectric 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Culture
The part of the "Culture" section that follows "Religion and mythology" seems especially weak to me. I think there should be more depth to the coverage, rather than just presenting a few examples. For example, rather than discussing the symbolic use of the rainbow in the "Literature" section, all it has is several quotes. These seem to add little to the content as they are not dissected for meaning. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from the first quote, the quotes have been chosen to illustrate the cultural response to the discovery of the scientific explanation for rainbows. This fits with what goes before. Despite this, there could be much improvement in this section. &mdash; Neil Dodgson 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow 'religion'?
Can anyone find confirmation of this? The paragraph has been inserted by two anonymous ip editors, or perhaps one editor on a cluster address, it sounds plausible, but I cannot find anything to confirm it. I'm going to add a fact tag to it for now. -- Geoff Riley (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

end of the rainbow
It is possible to see the end of the rainbow as I found out yesterday. We were travelling in a large thunder storm just south of Mirboo North, Victoria, Australia at approximately 7pm ADST. It had been a sunny 30 degrees celcius for most of the day. When we came to the top of a small hill there it was on the end of my bonnet. It was gorgeous and quite bright but very nice and extremely exciting to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrilbro (talk • contribs) 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) _____holly

Textbook Drawing of Rainbow?
I came to wikipedia:Rainbow, to show my daughter the COLORS of a Rainbow. There are some great pictures, but I was wondering if there is a place for a textbook drawing of a rainbow? Silly as it is, I try to use the colors in order, and would like to teach my kids this also. (or perhaps my question is whether there is a kids.wikipedia.org ?) Pachai (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a sensible comment on the content of this article - where else on the net would you look for a rainbow diagram to teach the colours? I've added a diagram here and also to Roy G. Biv. Possibly not in the right place? My last contribution to the page was removed and reading the Talk page, I can see why. Hopefully this will be more useful.
 * ProfDEH (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tedridge (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Strunk and White
The "Religion and mythology" section contained the sentence "In the Biblical canon of Christian and Jewish scripture, the rainbow is explicitly stated as a sign of the Noahic Covenant between God and The Creation, and the biblical God's promise to Noah that never again would The World be purified by the Deluge (Genesis 9.13-15[14]):" It was a prime candidate for the application of the best-known dictum of The Elements of Style: "Omit needless words."


 * "... Biblical canon ..."

"Bible" works just as well, eliminates the impression that we are headed on a trajectory toward a discussion of what constitutes the canon, and is just flat-out less pompous.


 * "... of Christian and Jewish scripture ..."

In mathematical terms, this phrase has a one-on-one mapping to the previous one. It's a tautology, and the phrase is redundant.
 * The Bible, however defined, but certainly the Book of Genesis, is the "Christian and Jewish scripture."
 * It is the only such scripture, as opposed to the Rig Veda, Theogony, or the Elder Edda.
 * It is theirs alone, and not regarded as scripture by others, such as Buddhists or Shintoists.


 * "... is explicitly stated ..."

Something may be either explicit or implicit. Since, however, the thing is "stated," the default understanding is that it is explicit. The word is, therefore, unnecessary.


 * "... as ..."

This is a grammatical error. What is wanted is "to be."


 * "... a sign ..."

Use of the indefinite article indicates that the noun is one of many. As there is only one sign, the definite article, "the," is correct.


 * "... the Noahic Covenant between God and The Creation, ..."
 * "... the biblical God's promise to Noah ..."

The two phrases are all but equivalent. This being so, we toss the former (longer) and retain the latter, however noting that on two points, the first was superior.
 * As the sentence begins by limiting the discussion to the Bible, the term "biblical" is superfluous. There is utterly no chance that the reader would possibly conclude that it refers to Quetzalcoatl, Odin, or Amon-Ra.
 * As the quoted passage extends the promise not merely to Noah, but to "every living creature of all flesh," the term "The Creation" in the deleted phrase was more accurate. However, as the issue is the promise itself, it isn't necessary to specify to whom the promise is made. The reader can see that for him- or herself in the immediately following quotation.


 * "... The World ..."

The capitalization is incorrect, certainly for "The." In any event, the term is wrong as the story does not depict the disintegration of the planet, but the extinction of land life. Therefore, that's what the sentence should say.


 * "... purified ..."

The author is editorializing. While he may believe that the world would be somehow "purer" if zoologically limited to fish, the text does not reflect this nihilist attitude. The passage merely says "destroyed," without a value-judgment.


 * "... the Deluge."

We have here the reverse of an earlier infelicity. Use of the definite article refers specifically to Noah's deluge. What is under discussion is any other deluge. What is wanted is the indefinite "a deluge." We can, however, do even better by replacing both words with the simpler "flood."  A later editor appended a "[sic]" to the scriptural quotation "I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth ..." with the rationale that
 * "Earth in this context is a proper noun and in true and correct grammatical form should be rendered with the initial letter capitalized."

This is actually somewhat problematic. While the orthographic point may be well-taken, there were three other options available. The fact that the "[sic]" needed an explanatory note, which is not usual for its more routine uses - misspelling, non sequitur, or gross grammatical error - indicates that one of the other choices might be better.
 * Let it go. The standard use of sic is "to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error." As the sentence we have been analyzing ends with a direct linked reference to the text, it is somewhat superfluous to cover for the transcriber by noting that the spelling is in the original, when the reader can see it for himself.
 * As the quoted text is merely an (Elizabethan) English translation of the Hebrew original, our editor might have made the correction directly as "Earth," or, more properly, "[E]arth." While this is a questionable tactic, it might be pointed out that Hebrew lacks upper and lower case letters. The translators were on their own when it came to capitalization.
 * The editor might have rooted about for a substitute translation that met his standards. Wikisource provides dozens.

In any event, the editor makes an unwarranted assumption. He takes "the earth" to mean the entire planet. He has ignored the possibility that it merely refers to the land portion (which would not be capitalized). When we consider what "the earth" means in context, it is certain that the latter meaning is correct. Clearly, it is not the inanimate dirt and rocks that comprise the lithosphere that are being promised anything, but the living creatures of the land. This is metonymy, where "the earth" substitutes for "land animals." (Note that sea creatures are unaffected in the Flood story.) So "the earth" in "... the covenant between me and the earth ..." should not be capitalized.

The other use of the term, "When I bring clouds over the earth ...," is somewhat ambivalent. Yet the inclusion of "again" in "the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh," when "all flesh" is actually limited to land creatures, hints that, again, only the land is meant.

In any event, as the reader is unlikely to assume a repeated miscapitalization on the part of the Wikipedia transcriber, the inserted "[sic]" is, if not a needless word, an unnecessary one. Additionally, for such a minor transgression (if it even is one), swooping in to point it out, appears to be less a mark of self-protection by a transcriber to forestall the reader from blaming him for an orthographic irregularity, but more, if I may be pardoned for saying so, a smug and unpleasant game of "Gotcha!"

I have removed the insertion.  As it stands, the shortened sentence contains an ambiguity that might lead the reader to an oddball belief as to what the scriptural text implies. The text does not support the notion that the Bible posits Genesis 9:13 as the creation of the rainbow. Refraction being inherent in the physics of waves, the earliest point in the biblical chronology for the existance of the rainbow is found in Genesis 1:3-4, although it is not specifically mentioned there.

''It depends on how you regard the bible. If you insist that there cannot be any scientific errors in it (on account of it being word-for-word from an omniscient creator), then you must maintain that the creation of the rainbow is not implied. If the bible, however, is simply the creation myths of a certain bronze-age people, then it is quite obvious that the passage is meant to explain where the rainbow comes from, and documents its "inauguration" (for want of a better word).'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.179.135 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While this issue might be dealt with in a supplimentary sentence, it is well to remember that the article concerns the rainbow, not biblical exegesis, and that this section is merely a minor note on the subject. With that in mind, altering "is stated to be" to "becomes" appears to be sufficient.  As a final note, I wish to defend the prolixity of what appears here. This concerns, after all, just a Minor Edit. Why have I not followed the excellent example of Mr. Finnegan, and merely explained "tightened wording?"

The problem is that dealing with anything even remotely connected with religion is akin to lighting a match in a fuel depot. Someone is liable to have his nose thrown out of joint. It is my forlorn hope that this point-by-point lengthy explanation will forestall any explosions.

B00P (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow as an emergent phenomenon
It would be nice to see some expansion on the point that the rainbow emerges from the individual behaviour of raindrops and their interaction with the viewer. It's mentioned, but the point could be expanded. Other similar optical effects include the blueness of the sky, diffraction on a CD. You can see something similar by looking into a box of drinking straws.

Also - because each eye sees its own rainbow, a rainbow always appears at infinity. Much like a heads-up display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.179.135 (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow an optical illusion?
Because rainbows may be photographed, are they therefore really an optical illusion? Gerontech (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. The wikipedia article on optical illusions does not mention the rainbow, so calling the rainbow an optical illusion is at least inconsistent. Usually I experience the rainbow merely as a phenomenon. Only incidentally I will get the illusion that it is also a body at a certain location. The colour dispersion is essential for a rainbow, but its apparent location isn't. I am going to change the first line "Rainbows are optical illusions and meteorological phenomena ..." into "A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon ...", and a line in the third section "It is an optical illusion whose apparent position depends on the observer's location" into "Its apparent position depends on the observer's location" Ceinturion (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow as Phenomenon
The intro is not quite right: A rainbow is an observable optical occurrence, what is actually the definition of an optical phenomenon. Its emergence is essentially dependent on the observer's position and it only "occurrs" (in terms of phenomenon), when the sun stands behind the observer and is shinning in view of the rain cloud and not only as described in the intro: ... when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. It is true that this is causal, but phenomenologically it is not enough to its "formation" as a phenomenon. --Kunderbunt (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flask experiment
In the article Theodoric of Freiburg it is described that he did experiments with spheric flasks as models for water drops. Here in the rainbow article it is reported about Descartes. Which is true? Or both? Ikar.us 11:02, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

They both did. See for reference: Jondor 21:56, 29 June 2005 (UTC)
 * Beverly T. Lynds, About Rainbows (on Descartes)
 * Rom Harre, Great Scientific Experiments (ISBN 0486422631), pages 85-93: Theodoric Of Freibourg - The Causes of the Rainbow

As a Gay symbol too high in article
I moved the text about a rainbow being a gay symbol into the culture section - as I thought it was more appropriate there. It was in the section "visibility" in the introduction which surely it didn't belong as this should be more about physically visibility of the actual phenomema. djambalawa (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edit to integrate
An IP made what appears to be a really good faith edit but unfortunately blanked a big part of the article by technical mistake. If someone with knowledge about the subject could please check and reinsert some or all of it (if the info is correct). Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He just deleted a block of lines without editing anything. Wikipedia's clumsy Diff-view gives a false impression that it was a substantial edit. (The WikEdDiff gadget gives a better view). Thanks for restoring the deleted part, nothing remains to be integrated. Ceinturion (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was fooled by an IP? What a shame :(  . So much for assuming good faith, LOL.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The scientific explanation is incomplete and probably invalid?
Refraction of light is surely the cause of colour splitting. But by observing a single raindrop or a crystal glass ball, one cannot conclude that out of the billions of rain drops falling on the sky, some will send colour lights to our eyes in 7 distinctive wide bands. There is no explanation why we see 7 wide bands of colours when we don't have a single giant rain drop on the sky. When there are billion of rain drops creating billions of micro-rainbows across a wast 3D space like that, what magic brings that optical illusion to your eyes that there is one giant rainbow across the sky? There is no geometrical model to show that when the light gets to your eyes, you get 7 distinctive bands (why not millions of small little patches of 7 colours on each patch?). All the yellow seems to come from one place, blue from another place and so on. Why all these billions of mini-rainbows don't just diffuse the colours? Being incomplete like this, it's a leap of FAITH to arrive at a scientific explanation. It's devalue of science. It's a generalisation. This scientific explanation is merely a conjecture as unproven as why lion eats meat and not grass.

That's what wrong with modern science where people just recycle observations and make wild guesses without attempting to connect all things and eliminate all objections.

Dmaivn (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, please discuss your perhaps revolutionary thoughts elsewhere in an appropriate newsgroup. Regarding the rainbow, please run the interactive simulation of many drops in, and read the explanation at that page; it will improve your understanding of the rainbow. BTW, your statements contain several inaccuracies and mistakes, for example: the cause isn't refraction but dispersion; distinguishing 7 spectral colors is a mistake; the rainbow explanation isn't modern science; etcetera. Ceinturion (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is complete and definitely valid. The "magic" that brings the "illusion of one giant rainbow" is the very ordinary fact that we only have one sun.  The number of raindrops only influences the size of the rainbow.  The article covers this in some detail. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 'The article is complete'? Mannafredo (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, complete in that it presents a cohesive and logical explanation, and is not incomplete as suggested by Dmaivn. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo of GMA-7
It is important to place the information about GMA Network Logo of 1992 to 2002 because it is rainbow ok??!! I suggest to save the logo column of this article,ok?GOD BLESS!121.54.15.166 (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can find thousands of logos that feature a rainbow. The GMA Network Logo is of no particular notability and the article cannot begin to include them all in anything like this detail. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article?
I wonder, shouldn't we split this article into separate articles, like Rainbow (meteorological) and Rainbow (cultural)? I come to think about it because the heterogenous nature of the current article seems to invite people to add increasingly divergent sections, like the one that was added today by 121.54.15.166, about the logo and the ambitions of a television station, GMA. In addition, some sections about discrete color names have little to do with the meteorological rainbow, they are actually about color theory, color vision, and human language. Ceinturion (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. The article is at a length where a fork along these lines may be worth doing.  I'd also suggest that the Rainbow  page either redirects to the meteorological page, or becomes a dab page.  However, I don't think info on TV company logos would find room even in the cultural fork.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reflected rainbow vs. Reflection rainbow
The section on reflected rainbows has two paragraphs that repeat points. But one says that the rainbow is formed by reflecting from the body of water and then the raindrops, and the other says the opposite. Anyone know which is correct? Maybe both are possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donimo (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That section discusses two different things with two different names: the reflected rainbow and the reflection rainbow. The former is below the horizon, the latter above it. The former is often seen, the latter rarely. They originate from different light paths. Don't confuse them! Ceinturion (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Egypt concerning mythology surrounding rainbow?
Egypt is a very ancient civilization and just about anything of significance was invented there first before being re-invented elsewhere. E.g. the very first alphabet as already in Egypt around 2700 BC (for religious purposes) long before the Phoenicians had their own. It's odd that we find no mention of the rainbow in Egyptian lore. Can anyone please prove me wrong on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.179.52 (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that a colored arc on the tomb of Meryre (high priest of the god Aten during the reign of Akhenaten) represents the rainbow.   . Without a story, unfortunately.  Ceinturion (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the real pot of gold at the end of the rainbow phenomenon
There is a very real phenomenon that can occur when a rainbow hits the ground, when the light at the "impact" point is golden instead of the usual white. I believe that the cause is a red shift, such as the setting sun to the west across a dusty desert, resulting in an abnormal rainbow spectrum. I have observed it once (in the hills to the east of Idaho Falls, Idaho), and my father, a fisherman and PhD geo-physicist who has spent many weeks of his 80 year life in the deserts of Idaho, has seen it six times. I request that someone with meteorologic authority verify my anecdote and correct or confirm my explanation of the cause.Educ8edlady53 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Gdynia Strazak.jpg|right|150px|thumb]]Could you be more specific about what you mean by 'the light at the "impact" point is usually white'? Usually the end of the rainbow has the same colors as other sections of the bow. See the image at the right. Ceinturion (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Inverted Rainbow
I observed an inverted rainbow at 80°22'W and 25°45'N location and the pictures are accompanied here. One is the original picture and the other one is a cropped and enhanced picture. Can we discuss the reasons of its origin. Krishnavedala (talk) 8 November 2009


 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. To discuss your photos you will have to search for a weather forum, something like . Anyway, it looks like a common halo, see the link in the section "Effects to be distinguished from the rainbow". Ceinturion (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Interactive simulation of light refraction in a drop
Wizard191, today you removed the link to the Interactive simulation of light refraction in a drop (java applet), "per WP:ELNO point 10". That says: Links normally to be avoided: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. However, NTNUJAVA Virtual Physics Laboratory is a "site that host hundreds of physics related java simulations under create common license", and the link refers to plain physics, not to a discussion. I am sure you know the difference. In addition, as this java applet is extraordinarily instructive (more than some of the other illustrations), I think it should remain in the article. Ceinturion (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right: it contravenes #8 "documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content". Propose removal once again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case the advantage of the instructive value of the applet outweighs by far the disadvantage of WP:ELNO. Explore the applet, and see for yourself. WP:ELNO is a principle to be applied with judgement. Ceinturion (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Division in distinct colours
I shrunk the sections about distinct colours, because the article is primarily about the meteorological rainbow, not about arbitrary colour perception. Ceinturion (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Colour vs Color
Which one should the article use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoBar (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph identifying location of distinct bands
The line indicating the location of the color bands in a rainbow should be removed from the paragraph. Retro rainbows appear in reverse order, as is mentioned is subparagraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicodemas (talk • contribs) 04:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Circumhorizontal arc
Circumhorizontal arcs are caused by refraction and reflection in nearly spherical water drops, like ordinary rainbows. The only difference is, that three or four refections occur inside the drops. In a circumhorizontal arc only the angle relative to the direction to Sun light is important, so that the arc is part of a circle. This proves, that the the rain drops are nearly spherical, since otherwise the angle to the symmetry axis of the drop would be important. Never ever such arcs can be explained by ice crystalls, which don't appear colored at all. --RainbowB (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove to yourself whatever you like, but do it elsewhere; wikipedia is not a discussion group. And remember that it is freezing cold up there in those cirrus clouds. Ceinturion (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You never heared about supercooled freezing rain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowB (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your vision on circumhorizontal arcs and supercooled freezing rain in a meteorology forum (for example 1). Wikipedia is not a discussion group. Ceinturion (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SunDogs?
Have seen "rainbow" type effect high in clouds .Is this a rainbow or a Sun Dog I think there called?HAAPSPENDEN (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. As you saw it yourself, compare it yourself to the images on websites like Atopics.co.uk.
 * Ceinturion (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Infinite distance to rainbow
The viewer in fact sees one rainbow in front of each eye. Since light falls in parallel from the two rainbows, this appears to the viewer as one single rainbow at an infinite distance. This can be observed even if the rainbow is formed at close distance, for example in the spray of a water hose.--Staffansolve (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the full spectrum
Understood that the rainbow as we see it is an artifact of human vision. But using scientific equipment, what is the full range of reflected radiation? Is it even continuous? Piano non troppo (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding an overdose of Roy G. Biv variants in the introduction
Stismail, the purpose of the phrase "(popularly memorized by mnemonics like Roy G. Biv)" was to remove an overdose of Roy G. Biv variants from the introduction, and to move the discussion of all variants to the Roy G. Biv article (see 7 July 2009 edit). That is why I reverted your edit. Ceinturion (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New Addition to "Culture" Section Needed
In recent years, the rainbow has become a symbol of, how shall I put it? I'm not even fully versed in what exactly it means -- something to do with tolerance for gay and "alternative lifestyle", um, stuff. Yeah, that should be enough get someone more knowledgeable started.

I sought out this article looking for a more concise definition of what the rainbow symbol means in that context, and when that meaning came about. I was quite surprised to find no mention at all of the rainbow in that context -- not even a link to another article which might cover the topic more fully. 96.247.73.110 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The first line is: "For other uses, see Rainbow (disambiguation)". There is an entire article on your topic, Rainbow flag (LGBT movement). Another way to find that article is to search for rainbow and gay. Ceinturion (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 10 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this series of edits). Tobby72 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Philosophy
Is there a source for the claim that Hindu Philosophy assigns seven colours to the rainbow? 130.225.25.207 (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Double Rainbow Internet Meme
Currently Double Rainbow redirects to this page; it seems that the vast majority of people searching for Double Rainbow will be looking for information on the ubiquitous internet meme, rather than general information on rainbows. A reference to that meme on this page would seem to be inappropriate, so what is the best way to handle getting people to the information they want as easily as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.232.238 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to mention or redirect. The Internet video indeed led me to this page, but only because I wanted to know more about the phenomenon, not the meme. I'd like to think that's the kind of information others are looking for as well. Kevin S. (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I could see mentioning it in the music section if one of the related songs becomes popular enough to be considered notable. --Xaliqen (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just put the above in if needed. Lots42 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Colour bands result from dispersion at diffraction - not an artefact of human vision
Distinctly! Light of different wavelengths is diffracted more or less strongly at the surfaces air to water and water to air under certain angles. The catacaustic angles for the whole process of diffraction (plus reflection on the inner side of raindrops - once for the main rainbow, twice for the secondary) of different colours differ distinctly and "draw" these bands of colour, i.e. narrow spectras of light of changing wavelengths. Of course, the brightness impression along this spectra corelates with the sensitivity (a curved function by wavelenth, with a smooth maximum peak) of our 3 kinds of colur-sensitive receptor pigments. And eyes with different pigments (of other animals, or colour-blind human individuals) or other sensors can monitor an somehow moved edge of the rainbow as the watching instrument can detect more or less of the spectrum of light that enters and passes the raindrop (being not extincted by absorption) and is reflected inside the drop. (German being my mother language) --Helium4 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Contrary to popular belief"
"Contrary to popular belief, the light at the back of the raindrop does not undergo total internal reflection" This must be the first time ever that "popular belief" and "total internal reflection" have appeared in the same sentance! Wardog (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mythology" and "Religion" should be in two separate subheadings
Under the Mythology Section of this article, it describes the Christian "mythology" of rainbows along with all the other "myths". Myth and religion are two separate disciplines as they are treated differently in bookstores, college catalogs, etc. It is highly offensive to call someone's religious beliefs "mythical", whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. You should have a separate category for myth and religion.Ansgar7000 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Ansgar7000

How come no was has responded to my above inquiry? Who has the power to change articles on "rainbow " article? I've posed a legitimate question and would like to have an answer.Ansgar7000 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Ansgar7000

This goes against a neutral point of view to place Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism into a section on mythology. Yancyunger (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yancyunger, please elaborate. I do no understand. Thanks. Ansgar7000 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Ansgar7000

Actually I don't see the difference. Please elaborate. Gabe896 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have given Christianity, and Judaism there own heading, due to the fact they are not considered a myth by those who believe it. i have given them the same heading because the explanation of rainbows by both faiths resides in the Old Testament. Scoobertjoo (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is considered a myth by those who believe it; that is a tautology. (Unless of course you're using the other definition of myth which means any story, whether fact or fiction.) —Keenan Pepper 21:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Violet looks wrong
Can anybody justify GianniG46's changes of 17:20, 22 October 2010  regarding the violet color patch? It looks like GianniG46 simply subbed in the X11/web color "violet". I mean, does anybody actually see that pink at the edge of a rainbow? I would suggest that that change be rolled back. - Vonfraginoff (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Change reverted.  Ceinturion (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, looking again at it, perhaps I may admit that my violet was a little too pink. But, also, I believe that your violet is too blue. Rainbow at its end tends to be more red than this. It is difficult to see this in photos, but perhaps in "The end of a rainbow", in the section "Mythology", you can see it. The point, however, is not to judge photos, but to know which was Newton's violet. I remember to have always seen in books a color substantially more red than the article's violet. Even if this color is not present in a simple rainbow, and Newton took this "pink" violet from supernumerary rainbows (see photo in the homonymus section), nevertheless, it would be the Newton's color. I will try to find a reference for the violet I remember. --GianniG46 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Supernumerary rainbow 03 contrast.jpg PatronRefraccionCD.jpg Color mixing between supernumerary rainbows produces red violet colors, but introducing supernumerary rainbows to justify reddish violets is complexity instead of simplicity. The entire paragraph "the seven colours of the rainbow" is rather confusing in this article about the meteorological rainbow. Newton did not discuss the rainbow. He investigated the spectrum of prismatic colors, obtained by refraction in a glass prism. In addition he discussed the perception of additive color mixing by human observers, using a color circle. About 3/4 of the color circle is the spectrum of prismatic colors. The remainder of the circle is a range of extraspectral colors (color mixtures, really) which appear reddish violet or purple. It does not make sense to call those reddish violets primary rainbow colors.  Ceinturion (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The hypothesis of mine on supernumerary rainbows was just a hypothesis, and another hypothesis could be given by the color circle. Newton could have been tempted to stress the reddening of violet to close the circle, a much more satisfying thing than leave it open. As a matter of fact I see that very often rainbows are represented rather "pink" at the violet end, though up to now I had no opportunity of looking for a "robust", serious source.--GianniG46 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, in one respect we agree: where Newton used the word violet in a discussion of the color wheel, he may have meant a reddish violet. However, where Newton used the word violet in a discussion of prismatic colors, he did not mean a reddish violet. The violet end of the prismatic spectrum is not reddish, as anyone can verify empirically with a cd. Nor did Newton identify the color wheel with the rainbow. The color wheel does not belong in an article about the meteorological rainbow. Ceinturion (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why a semicircle?
Why is the rainbow a semicircle? 110.227.89.2 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a question-and-answer (Q&A) site. You will find the answer at Yahoo! Answers. Ceinturion (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a full circle, actually, but you can't see half of it because of the dark ground behind it. S  B Harris 05:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

helpful
i tried to edit in that leprechauns dont hide gold at the end of rainbows but it said its un-educative


 * Yeah, we knew that. S  B Harris 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Explanation
This part of the article does not make sense. It is actually the angle of incidence that causes blue to be below red in the rainbow and not blue being seen from a different droplet as is stated. The picture is also wrong as it shows light refracting from the back of the water droplet and not passing through. Even more confusing is when the picture shows light refracting from the back of the water droplet and the smaller angle is blue and the wider angle red, when red refracts at a smaller angle of incidence as it passes through the water droplet. There is no difference between how light refracts in a water droplet as it does in a prism. —Jarrett 23:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the science in this article is correct. The lowest rainbow in the sky is made by light reflecting fome the back of all drops and thus passing through each drop twice. Hitting water bends visible light by a certain fraction of the incidence angle according to Snell's law. If you draw it out you'll find that the harder the bend (larger refractive index) the closer the light come back to coming directly back at 180 degrees to the observer. With no refraction at all, it would be scattered at right angles. With two refractions it comes back at the rainbow angle: . The more it's refracted (blue) the smaller that angle is, so the closer to straight back it comes, so blue is on the inside of the lower bow, which is where the total reflection angle is closest to 180 degrees. Red light from those same drops (in the blue band) is not refracted quite as much, so you never see it (it goes over your head). You only see the red from drops at a larger angle ("above") and the blue light from THOSE you never see before it hits the ground before it gets to you. The math is in the link. S  B Harris 01:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of colors
In the article: "For colours seen by a normal human eye, the most commonly cited and remembered sequence, in English, is Newton's sevenfold red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet (popularly memorized by mnemonics like Roy G. Biv). However, colour-blind persons will see fewer colours."

In the abstract of Newton on the number of colours in the spectrum by David Topper: "In his Opticks (1704), Newton described the spectrum of white light as divided into seven distinct colours, a system subsequently adopted almost universally. But Newtons Optical Lectures of 1670-1672 reveal that he initially saw only five colours (red, yellow, green, blue, and violet). Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain Newtons addition of orange and indigo, the most recent and seemly persuasive being that Newton drew upon the analogy between colour and music (specifically the seven-tone scale of the octave). The argument presented here will qualify that thesis, with the emphasis instead being upon aesthetic factors (independent of extemal analogies) playing a key role in Newtons thinking."

I've heard too that nobody sees the difference between blue and indigo.

José Henrique Campos (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Touching the Rainbow
A number of people have, indeed, experienced passing through the end of the rainbow. I for one, have, and my experience matches up with other people who are posting their experience on the internet. These usually consist of people driving in a car, and surprisingly passing through a manifestation of the end of the rainbow, such that it brightens the immediate area, and even lights up their persons in the differing colors. Do some searches on the net about it, and read these testimonies, and there are a couple pictures showing this phenomenon. I do not know how this manifestation is capable of occurring, but I do not think the article should discount these testimonies with source-less claims as it does. If someone wants to collect some data on this, and at least mention this phenomena in the article, that would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.40.187 (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tertiary rainbow contradiction?
Hi, on the one hand in the first section it says:


 * (1) Although legendary, triple rainbows (in the same style and angle as double rainbows) are impossible, since a third reflection of light inside water drops would put their rays close to the direction of the Sun, and they would thus be invisible.

on the other hand, however, in the section "Double Rainbow":


 * (2) A third, or tertiary, rainbow can be seen on rare occasions, and a few observers have reported seeing quadruple rainbows in which a dim outermost arc had a rippling and pulsating appearance. These rainbows would appear on the same side of the sky as the Sun, making them hard to spot

Well - one of the statements obviously is false :-) But which one? 109.71.31.2 (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see a photo. People have spotted the Loch Ness Monster too. S  B Harris 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is a mistake that the exotic 3rd and 4th order rainbow are discussed in the introduction of the wikipedia article. Even in the "Double Rainbow" section it is not really useful to focus the attention of the general reader to a few doubtful observations. Having read the Atopics page, I think it would be better to remove statement 2, and to move statement 1 from the first section to the "Double Rainbow" section. Ceinturion (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree: I have witnessed them a couple of times — although, SBHarris, never when I had a camera with me. In any case, (2) provides citations for higher-order rainbows. My suggestion is simply to delete (1), which has no citations. --Ant (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I removed (1). Next I would like to remove the unclear sentences after (2):
 * (3) One type of tertiary rainbow carries with it the appearance of a secondary rainbow immediately outside the primary bow. The closely spaced outer bow has been observed to form dynamically at the same time that the outermost (tertiary) rainbow disappears. During this change, the two remaining rainbows have been observed to merge into a band of white light with a blue inner and red outer band. This particular form of doubled rainbow is not like the classic double rainbow due to both spacing of the two bows and that the two bows share identical normal colour positioning before merging. With both bows, the inner colour is blue and the outer colour is red.
 * As this bow is close to the primary rainbow, it is not the tertiary rainbow. In addition, the discussion of two 'remaining' rainbows is unclear, and no reference is given. Ceinturion (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Ceinturion (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Explanation & dispersion
Yesterday, Kintetsubuffalo labeled the following sentences with the tag : ''The amount by which light is refracted depends upon its wavelength, and hence its colour. Blue light (shorter wavelength) is refracted at a greater angle than red light, but due to the reflection of light rays from the back of the droplet, the blue light emerges from the droplet at a smaller angle to the original incident white light ray than the red light. The pattern of colours in a rainbow has red on the outside of the arc and blue on the inside-if the red light from one droplet is seen by an observer, then the blue light from that droplet will not be seen because it is on a different path from the red light: a path which is not incident with the observer's eyes. The blue light seen in this rainbow will therefore come from a different droplet, which must be below that whose red light can be observed.''

Originally, these sentences tried to explain why red is on the outside of the rainbow. In 2009 someone added two slightly confusing sentences about different droplets. Today I removed them. (Editing history of those sentences: diff today, diff yesterday, diff 2009). Ceinturion (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Variation - Inner Rainbow
I recently saw a type of rainbow that is not mentioned on the page. It was one end of a partial rainbow at a much more horizontal angle than is normal. I'd be interested in an explanation of how it is formed.

I have a photo of it, along with another photo of a double rainbow shot a little later. But when I try to upload, it says I am not authorized to upload to this project (and worse, wikimedia commons appears to want me to create another account). I have no idea how to overcome that problem. Dave Howorth (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The account issue is an easy one. You can use the same account and password if you follow the directions outlined at single unified account. That account would be good for all of the Wikimedia projects. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  13:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"intricate detail"? Really?
I see someone has tagged the scientific history section here for "too much intricate detail". Speaking as a fly-by observer, I thought that was one of the best sections of the article. Vashti (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll just be bold and eat the tag. Vashti (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How did it taste? Actually, I quite agree with you. Original tagger is obviously one of the Philistines that WP was meant to help, if only you could lead a horse to water AND make it drink. Anybody who finds a section too detailed is free to skip it. That's the beauty of WP:NOTPAPER and Wikipedia in general.  S  B Harris 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 10 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The first picture is a fake because rianbows are optical illusions. Plus, the go in a circle anyway. Kyleronco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.161 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Positioning of LGBT information
We have previously (years ago) had a round of edits reducing the references to LGBT to a single link in the Flags sub-section of Culture. That reference is still there.

We have recently had the introduction of a new LBGT movement sub-section at the top of the Culture section. LBGT use of the rainbow is a recent cultural phenomenon. Should LGBT movement therefore be moved to the end of the Culture section, after the Flags sub-section, so as to be near the other reference to its use in this context? Neil Dodgson (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The LGBT flag section should be close to (or within) the Flags sub-section because it is about the flag, not about the meteorological rainbow. Alternatively, the LGBT sub-section could be removed entirely. The information is just a duplicate of what is already available in wikipedia, in the main article about the LGBT pride flag. Elevant (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I've edited the article accordingly. Happy to discuss it here if anyone thinks it needs more than the couple of links that remain. Neil Dodgson (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe there should be a seperate "LGBT" section. The reason being is that variations of "gay rainbow" on google gets more google hits than most other headings under the current "culture" section. This is understandable because the rainbow symbol is generally associated with the LGBT community.   Pass a Method   talk  19:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about definition and properties of the rainbow, not about the LBGT movement. Some reference is given to the rainbow's use in culture, of which LBGT is an example, not meriting a separate section. People who want to know more about how the LBGT movement uses the rainbow can follow the link. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Woodstone. There is an entire article on Rainbow flag (LGBT movement) so this current page needs only a reference to that other page. Neil Dodgson (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming to culture section of this article I expected it to start with a section about the gay pride rainbow flag. I think that is where the rainbow is most often seen in western culture today. Mentionioned as part of a sentence in the very end of the article is not the right place. I would give it its own subsection at the start of Culture section, and think that it at least deserves a few sentences at the start of the flags subsection.
 * The argument that "The information is just a duplicate of what is already available in wikipedia" could equally well be applied to the Religious belief subsection since there is a Rainbows in mythology article. When a subtopic has its own article that article should be summarized and linked to (WP:SUMMARY). As it stands now there is not even a link to Rainbow flag (LGBT movement). Ulflund (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rainbows have been used symbolically for thousands of things throughout history. The article cannot go into detail about them all.  Your opinion that gay pride is the most significant is debatable at best, and I don't believe it should have greater emphasis above everything else. However, if you think what's there can be improved upon then please feel free.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was only pointing out my opinion and have no sources to back it. This is not my field of expertise, so I do not intend to edit the article. Just a note: Today all Stockholm busses have rainbow (LGBT) flags on their roofs. I have a hard time imagining it would be used that widely with any other meaning. Ulflund (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read Rainbow flag and educate yourself-- that's what WP is for! The LGBT thing may be the most common use of this symbol in 2012, but that's a recent thing, as this flag didn't start having that meaning until 1978. It was a peace flag for a generation before that, and rainbow flags have been around for 4 centuries. S  B Harris 23:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the history section I would agree that things should be in a cronological order, but in the culture section I think the most well known uses should be mentioned first, and according to rainbow flag, "The most widely known worldwide is the pride flag". Ulflund (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do I read User:Ulflund correctly: "The most widely known [rainbow] flag worldwide is the pride flag"? Surely it doesn't mean "The most widely known [flag] worldwide is the pride flag". The second sense could, at a stretch, merit a more prominent position in its section, but the relevance of the first lies within the spinoff article. The policy is explained here; part of the rationale is to give proper representation of the sub-topic by using a sub-article, because "Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the [main] article" — I think we can agree that the rainbow flag is "less important for understanding the [main] topic" here. The flag is dealt with in this way at present, with its own sub-article, and any expansion here would contravene the policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote was about the rainbow flag, which was clear by the context in the article where it stood. I agree that the pride flag is not an important part of the rainbow article, but it is an important part of the culture section and the most important part of the rainbow flags subsection. That is why I'm surprised that it is given a less prominent place than e.g. the German Peasants' War, where the article doesn't even mention the rainbow flag. Ulflund (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)