This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flag of Venezuela article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Flag of Venezuela is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Dates should be added to the image captions. Instead of saying "new flag" "old flag" dates such as "flag adopted on March 15th, 2006, featuring stripes and stars..."Waarmstr 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should include the old version as well. physicistjedi 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. And we should include both versions with the horses. Cause i believe that's a pretty important thing as well. It seems that it symbolizes the left/right wing idea of the 2 parties.
I think that the Venezuelan flag is pretty cool. The stripes and the stars are pretty awesome...when you look at it, you feel like a superstar!just like i am today!-hannah talley* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by64.12.116.72 (talk • contribs) .
Great another star... what a revolutionary idea...Jfreyre
What would you have instead? There were seven stars before, would you have added a golf ball for the eighth object? Stars may seem like a ho-hum everybody-has-them symbol, but let's face it, they've had stars for 200 years so stars it is. Darcyj 11:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having just heard of this... do the stars carry a particular meaning? If so, what is the significance of the eighth? Radagast 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've just heard of it, but did you get any further and read the whole article? Darcyj 11:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the explanation of the stars wasn't on the article when I read it. It looks like it's been added, which is basically what I was asking about. So it's all good. Radagast 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the AP http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060312/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_new_flag The seven original stars represent the seven original provinces of Venezuela and the new eighth star represents the former province of Guayana. Which now is the country of Guyana. Venezuela and Guyana have always been in a constant border dispute among each other. Perhaps this might imply that Chavez has future plans of retaking Guyana.???
Not quite. According to :es, today's states of Bolívar State, Amazonas State and Delta Amacuro State originally constituted the Venezuelan province of Guayana, not today's sovereign state of Guyana. Just because Bush says Chávez is evil and dangerous doesn't mean he is; the only territorial ambitions Chávez has are for some islands off the Venezuelan coast. ;) —Nightstallion(?) 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states, "the 19th century colonial province of Guayana (roughly coterminous with the present Venezuelan state of Bolivar)", which contradicts Nightstallion. Nightstallion appears to be more correct. According to Statoids, the original province included what are now three states, but for a time the name Bolívar was apparently used for this whole region, instead of just the present Bolívar State. Guayana is currently one of the Administrative regions of Venezuela, comprising all three states. The disputed part of Guyana seems to be called Guayana Esequiba. I have also seen the colonial province of Guayana referred to as Spanish Guiana. I will correct the reference to the "state of Bolívar". --Nike 13:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awwill has reverted my change with the comment "not the same Guayana". However, I have the following sources which say it is:
Amazonas and Delta Amacuro territories were split from Guayana state, while the remainder of Guayana state became Bolívar state (emphasis added)
If anybody has any references which show that Guayana Province covered only the present Bolívar State and not the entire administrative region of Guayana, please post them. --Nike 12:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to know for sure with old territories that changed names frequently, but just looking through the maps and the Statoids chart that you cite, I still disagree. I'm not going to change it again since you seem pretty sure, but best I can tell...Prior to 1881, the original province of Guayana (the 8th star) merged with Barcelona, and Cumaná to become Orinoco (not Bolivar.) In 1881, this was broken up, and only the original province of Guayana and the smaller department of Apure became the new state of Bolivar in 1881. (The old totally different state of Bolivar became a part of Guzman Blanco aka Miranda). In 1891, the new Bolivar (formerly Guayana and Apure) had an area of 229,735 km2. In the 1960's, Bolivar, Amazonas, and Delta Amacuro all became a part of the new administrative region of Guayana, which has a total area of 458,344 km², clearly significantly larger. This is why I think the star is the original state of Guayana a/k/a plus or minus the current state of Bolivar, not the current administrative region of Guayana. Cheers. aww 18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reading all the information on the Statoids page about Guayana. For instance, under 1832-03-29 there is a table which shows the area of Guayana as 469,671 km², which is actually larger than the present region, and much larger than Bolívar State, which is only 238,000 km². Note that the information is from an 1840 atlas; if you look at this atlas, you will see maps of all the provinces of Venezuela, a comparison before and after 1840, and separate maps for the different parts of Guayana (Angostura, Caycara, Piacoa, Rio Negro, Upata). That Statoids page also gives further details: in 1856 Venezuela's 13 provinces were divided into 21, with Amazonas being for the first time a separate province, which was merged back with Guayana around 1860. The Dept. of Orinoco actually dates back to before independence, and included the Provincia de Guayana and other provinces. It should also be pointed out that there were many changes to Bolívar and other states and territories, and that the 229,735 figure for Bolívar in 1891 does not refer to the area of the colonial Provincia de Guayana in earlier periods.
Then there are all the other links I listed previously, which include numerous historical maps and text references, all of which indicate that the colonial Provincia de Guayana covered approximately the same territory as the present administrative region of Guayana, and far more area than just Bolívar State. To continue to maintain your position, you need to explain away all these references, and also provide your own references which show that Guayana in the 1810s was restricted to the present boundaries of Bolívar, and not the boundaries of Guayana given by every map in existance. --Nike 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some kind of argument going on about whether the horse is running left or right. Without getting into that, I'd say that it seems odd to say that the horse is running to "its left" or "its right": it's running forwards, not left or right. It's not a crab. Markyour words 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for the idea coming from his seven-year-old daughter? Although that may be accurate, by itself it seems a bit condensending, considering that the BBC article says that he's claiming to make a statement (that the white horse has now been freed). I'm going to add that bit, and if I can't find a source, I'll also remove the reference to the daughter. Aaronwinborn 12:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the new coat of arms and you'll see that the horse is running to its rights.
Just like when somebody raises his right hand for an oath it doesn't mean "raise the hand on the right side of the viewers".
In heraldry all "beasts" in the center of the coat of arms must face dexter (to their right) with their whole body.
Something very interesting that I found out is that in 1945 President Truman (USA) made the same changed to the "Great Seal of the United States" and requested the eagle's head to be shifted towards the viewer's left.
Anybody that claims that the horse "now is running to its left" needs to go back to school.
Hugo Chavez himself said that the horse idea came from his daughter. His words were something like his daughter asking him why the horse was running with the head backwards, that made him look like it was being slowed down (or something like that). I'll try to find the exact date of the speech and the exact words, but that's what I remember him saying on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.38.205.47 (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are three flags shown, two of which claim to be the "new flag". Can we either fix the captions to indicate why the ligher yellow without the coat of arms is relevant or remove it? -Harmil 15:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that all three flags should have the same colours, in which case somebody should photoshop the images to make them consistent. Lee M 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix the state flag today. The star design on the current state flag is not correct, and I will fix the colors too. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The vexillological symbols need fixing too, I think. — Johan the Ghostseance 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one with the coat of arms is considered the more "formal" one, and has to be used in governmental and military functions, and can be used by anyone else too. Private citizens and institutions can use the simpler version without the coat of arms, which is easier to make. This has been like that for a long time. I'll see if I can find the actual article in the laws. I notice that the coat-less flag was remvoed since this comment, but it might just be worth a comment in text.
I Think that this flag is a Hugo Chavez disrespect fot the Venezuelan history, traditions and culture, put the horse to the left is more than a proof that the venezuelan dictator wants to unite party and government to build a autoritarian socialist regime.Poor venezuelans.
Lincoln Baptista, Brazil
I am not happy about the flag change either. My pals from Venezuela are very upset too, some were brought to tears. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe - but Bolivar proposed the 8th star almost 200 years ago, so it has a good pedigree.
Well, if you want to take it from a vexillologist POV, the flag was altered in 1999 because the coat of arms was changed. While the civil flag and the merchant flag did not get affected, the state flag did (thus, money). Now with this flag change 7 years later, the government is spending money again to replace national symbols, which is money that could be used to better the people of VE. Plus, VE will spend money again to revert Chavez;s changes to the symbols, so in the end, a lot of money that could be use to build hospitals and other things are getting wasted on petty political symbols. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy 23:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well; I guess that’s a discussion for the Venezuelan parliament. If they want a new flag, they should get one. – And I don’t really think that the money that they are putting on the flag change comes from health care any way. I think they’ve got a budget post for something like this, that doesn’t take from another post. --Rapvatten 14:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a special fund that was set up for this, but what I am trying to get at is that the money could be used for, let's say, more important things. But from what the VE Government says, there is a 5 year phase into the symbols change, so it will not be as dramatic, as say, Georgia (both the US state and country) and Belarus. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy 20:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this article is linked to from Current events and the main page, I see no reason to not include the current event tag. Since the main page and the Current events page both linked to this article rather than a new one discussing the event, this page should be regarded as the de facto event page, especially since it lists the three-day old event. --Kmsiever 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going into a silly revert war over this, so if you feel this strongly about it go ahead and put it back in and at leat I will stay out. But this is really not what the current event box is meant for. At least it wasn't back when the tag was made. But it seems to be a spreading misconseption that everything that has been covered in some news section the last days should have that ugly box on top of it. The template was made two years ago during the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings when news about the event was comming in pr the minute and information really was changing as the event progressed and news about it came in. The purpose of the template is to tell readers that the information here may be outdated soon because it's an evolving event. I don't see the flag of Venezuela to be changing again anytime soon, so I don't see it fit into this. Shanes 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a revert war either. That's why I brought it up here. --Kmsiever 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that the current event tag should probably go, but we should make a note using iNotes that this article is linked on the Main page and will incure a lot of edits in the next few days. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)Fair use policy 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't tag articles just because they are linked to from the Main page. At least I don't know of any such tag. I don't think tags should be put in lightly on top of articles. They should really be meassaging the reader something important to defend having that prominent place. Now, I'm even more opposed to the sprotect and vprotect tags we smear on top of some prominent articles (why the hell would readers care if they can edit or not; we're here for the readers). But maybe, just maybe, there is some merit in telling the reader that "this article will be much better in a day or two, come back and read it again then if this topic interests you". That would actually be informative and worthy of some reader distraction. At least much more so than the completeley irrelevant "you can't edit this page" notes we put up many places. I'm probably digressing. But that's just my oppinion. If someone makes a template like this, it will quite likely have to go through a tfd debate, and we'll get the community's oppinion. Shanes 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so much sold on having the currentevent tag per se on the article. But I think it would be helpful that there was some indication that the article is currently seeing an abnormal amount of traffic and such traffic could result in some errors, POVs, etc. --Kmsiever 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert at this, but as far as I know, there hasn't been an official eight star flag until 2006. From the article I got the feeling that the eight star flag has been official since 1817: After the Guayana campaign, Simón Bolívar added the eighth star to the national flag. I think that is misleading. ZooTV 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "The flag is the one primarily adopted by the National Congress of 1811 [...] a flag with three stripes, yellow, blue, and red" and "This format has remained largely unchanged since 1811". However the article also shows an image of a supposed flag used in the First Republic of Venezuela (1811-1812) with the red side up. See also es:Primera República de Venezuela which shows a yellow-blue-red flag with the image of an indigenous woman in the corner, see also http://www.simon-bolivar.org/bolivar/bandera1.html --JRSP 22:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See [1], particularly [2]. Basically, it's been largely unchanged in that it's always been a three stripe, yellow/blue/red flag. The number of stars and the coat of arms has changed. I've never seen that upside down flag, and since it's not cited, I'll remove it now. Re: number of stars. Venezuela had originally 7 provinces. An 8th was added when Guayana joined (The stars were on the yellow stripe at the time). Later the stars were removed, and put in again when Venezuela separated from the Gran Colombia. There were 20 states at the time and 20 stars were added. At some point some national territories (not states) were included. The 20 star flag was short-lived, and was changed to a 7-star flag for historical reasons, pointing at the original 7 colonies. The only changes were on the arrangement of the stars. Chavez' readdition of the 8th star comes just from wanting to remember a different point in history than anyone else. Knowing how this goes, he'll probably wait a couple years and change it to a 23 star version since that's how many states we have now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.249.138 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All sources say that the flag of the 1st Republic is this one:JRSP 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ad a folklore to the history of the flag.
The flags colours is said to be inspierd by a woman... Christina Hall (Cleo). A welthy merchant lady from Gothenburg.
It has being said that the flag is as golden as her hair, as blue as her eyes and as red as her lips.
Som of her memories are left in "Archivo del General Miranda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.67.76 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solo los organismos del Estado, así como la Fuerza Armada Nacional usan el pabellón con el escudo de armas a la izquierda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.10.231 (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thomasbelloofficial appears to believe that their PNG file should be used instead of the normal SVG. Can we please discuss the matter? I am firmly in favour of using the SVG as that is standard practice. Fry1989eh? 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck drawing the coat of arms in SVG. I think PNG will suffice until someone creates an SVG image. I certainly will not be able to do it.Jp16103 00:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, there is an SVG. We should keep it. There was some miscommunication here on my part, please ignore my last message. Jp16103 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The naval jack only has 7 stars. But the text states 8
The naval jack only has 7 stars. But the text states 8. Should be corrected one way or the other 192.141.246.138 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)