This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Semi-protected edit request on 01 November 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I wrote here a year ago requesting a change to the table in the "Historical progression of designs" subsection, but I see now that no one acted on my request (either to make the proposed change or to decline my request). So here I am again. The 1795-1818 flag is the only one to have a number of stripes other than 13, so it strikes me as needlessly taking up space to have a "Number of stripes" column in the table. It would make more sense to remove the column and instead add something to the "States represented by new stars" column saying that 1795-1818 was the only flag to have 15 stripes.
My request: Remove the "Number of stripes" column in the table under "Historical progression of designs", and add some text to the 1795-1818 flag explaining this was the only version to have 15 stripes. This is how I want the table to look:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🇺🇸. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 7#🇺🇸 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 bill
It's not necessary to add a source to the statement that a bill before Congress in 2020 to make D.C. a state didn't pass. If it had passed, there would now be 51 states, and it's notorious that there are only 50. Also, this article states elsewhere how many states there are. If you want to add a source about the fate of the bill, then go ahead, but meanwhile there's no reason to keep out of date information in the article. Richard75 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You changed the sentence to say the bill didn't pass in the House; that is clearly false. BilCat (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No I didn't, the sentence as amended still clearly stated that the House voted for it. You didn't read it properly. Richard75 (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, but there's no point arguing over split milk. You've updated the paragraph, and added new content on the recent vote, which is what was needed. Thanks for doing that. BilCat (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Dates has been ordered at half mast
I was expecting, but did not find it, a list of all the times the US flag has been ordered to be flown at half mast. I thought that would be very interesting and I don’t know where one would go to look for it if not Wikipedia. I don’t know even how to begin to research it so I’m begging you the editors that maybe that should be part of this page or another page. It is absolutely the kind of detail that you list and it absolutely shows what events were important in the mind of at least the President of the United States at the time.
Not the dates that CAN be declared half-mast; those that have. For example. At some point flags were flow at half mast for COVID-19 deaths in the US. Often it is a very political choice by the president about when we will and will not fly the flag at half mast which is well beyond that list. I was looking for that on Wikipedia. I can’t find anywhere on the Internet that has it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:10DD:594C:D96C:59DB (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about this. It's literally my first attempt at editing. I'll go read up some more on how to submit these types of edits. I figured that since it said I should state "Change X to Y" it would need to look like what I have below. Thanks for not deleting it.
Here's a horribly formatted version of what I had originally put:
Requested edits:
1. The "Surviving Historical Flags" table near the bottom of the page. Heading of column 4 labeled "Historical Significants"
Change - "!Historical Significants"
to - "!Historical Significance"
2. The last entry in the "Surviving Historical Flags" table near the bottom of the page titled '"Raising the Flag at Ground Zero" Flag'
Change - "Following the collapse of the two world trade centers on [...]"
to - "Following the collapse of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center on [...]"
Change - "[...] raised on a titled flag pole [...]"
to - "[...] raised on a tilted flag pole [...]"
Change - "This event was photograph and helped boost moral, similar to the "Raising the flag on Iwo Jima" photo."
to - "This event was photographed and helped boost morale, similar to the "Raising the flag on Iwo Jima" photo."
(Spelling/Grammar of photograph, moral, and titled; Proper reference for the Twin Towers at the WTC)
|"Raising the Flag at Ground Zero" Flag
|
|3 x 5 ft. 50 star American Flag
|Following the collapse of the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, this flag, which had been on board a yacht, was attached and raised on a tilted flag pole by three members of the New York City Fire Department, Dan McWilliams, Billy Eisengrein, and George Johnson. This event was photographed and helped boost morale, similar to the "Raising the flag on Iwo Jima" photo.[1] It is currently in the possession of the 9/11 Memorial & Museum.
Hey Volteer1, Thanks so much for the help! The only thing missed was changing "photograph" to "photographed". That's definitely my fault. My inexperience with editing hid the change within my comments. Also, thanks for the Welcome message! I'm digging into the tutorial page now.
ChonkyPhteven (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Oops, missed that one. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
In the section referencing the Brazilian national flag, the first sentence reads: "The Republic of the United States of Brazil used a flag that greatly resembled the U.S. flag since 15 November 1889, it was proposed by the lawyer Ruy Barbosa."
I feel the sentence reads much better as: "The Republic of the United States of Brazil used a flag that greatly resembled the U.S. flag FROM NOVEMBER 15-19, 1889. It was proposed by the lawyer Ruy Barbosa."
Also not the period breaking the longer sentence into two shorter ones.
Agreed, sort of. I've added in the dates which are sensible, but don't think the splitting of sentencing is warranted. I've also removed the subsequent commentary, as it has nothing to do with the flag of the United States. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
In the descriptions of famous US flags, the sentence "In 1861 the flags original stars", should have an apostrophe: "In 1861 the FLAG'S original stars"
I added the official Pantone colors from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Can someone with more knowledge of colors help with any needed cleanup? Do we still need the approximations listed for the cloth colors? Thanks. Gemini-Two (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the text should be more cautious in describing any particular specs as 'the official ones'. An internal style guide from the State Department is relevant, but its importance shouldn't be overstated. It probably overrules anything previously provided by an embassy, but not necessarily other approaches. Same goes for the Cable colors - they're only specified in a military standard. JPD (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Pantone is a device-independent system, while RGB is device-dependent, so there are many possible RGB conversions of a Pantone color... AnonMoos (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Hopkinson flag
PDF Hopkinson flag (width-to-height ratio of 1.67)SVG Hopkinson flag (width-to-height ratio of 1.9)
I created a new redirect for "Hopkinson flag" but this might be better off as a new article. There seems to be a lot of material and history on this page already for this particular flag design. I also replaced the image used in the article from "file:Hopkinson Flag for the U.S. Navy.pdf" to "file:Hopkinson Flag.svg" since the SVG has much better image quality than the PDF (which appears to have an image defect). However, these two files have different proportions for the flag. I think the proportions on the PDF image might be more accurate. Would it be possible for someone to create an SVG version of this flag using the proportions from the PDF? Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know, there wasn't anything approaching a formal specification of the geometry of the United States flag until 1818 -- and that was an internal Navy Dept. document, which only governed flags bought by the Navy. Before that time, there were no real official proportions... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I created a new category on Wikimedia Commons: "commons:category:Hopkinson flag." There are currently three different versions of this flag on Commons. I concur that there wasn't any formal standardization of the flag (Hopkinson or otherwise) in this period. I was just annoyed by the PDF image quality and was hoping someone might be able to make a cleaner SVG version. But with the design(s) for the original Hopkinson flag(s) lost to history, the number of possible interpretations is technically infinite. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
cleaned-up PNG
Sorry, I wasn't comparing the details of the images. I extracted the raster from the PDF and cleaned it up and regularized it, and re-uploaded as a PNG. I may at some time make an SVG out of it, but I can't promise when... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 22 March 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Flag of the United States → American flag – The national flag of the USA is most commonly referred to as the American flag. There has not been a point in the entire post-1800 corpus of ngrams, where "Flag of the United States" has been more frequently used than "American flag". The WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and concision come to mind here: the natural title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English and also is the one that people are most likely to search for, while the concise title is the one that is no longer than necessary to uniquely identify the article's subject. Since "American flag" is the term used most frequently to refer to the article subject and is a whole three words shorter than the current title, it has advantages over the current title. The proposed title is equally recognizable and precise to the current title, which leads to no advantage on the criteria of recognizably and precision. As such, the proposed title is superior on two criteria to the current title. Therefore, I request that this article be moved to American flag. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
DisagreeEvery other page on a nation's/state's flag is called "Flag of X", the US flag shouldn't be an exception. "American Flag" already redirects to this page anyways (meaning it shows up in the search bar). Ilovecrabcakes1462 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree per Ilovecrabcakes1462. There is no need to change the title. American flag may mean the flag of any country in the Americas. Hvn0413 (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree per previous comments. Existing redirect is sufficient and existing title is both consistent with other titles and not an obscure or unusual way to refer to the flag (for instance, US Flag code refers to it as "the U.S. flag", "the flag of the United States", and "the flag of the United States of America"). --JonRidinger (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree there are a ton of American flags, and the current name is consistent with every other national flag. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree / OPPOSE (very, very strongly) (not for ambiguity, but for consistency). This term already redirects here. The Union Jack is a UNIQUE EXCEPTION due to the fact that the WP:COMMONNAME isn't "Flag of X" or "X flag", but instead it's referred to by the name "Union Jack" the VAST MAJORITY of the time. (It's different than people calling the flag of India "the Indian flag".) This move would have problematic consequences and would open up a gigantic can-of-worms (...where would it stop? what about territories and states? what about places with less-common demonyms, or controversial ones?). If we move this, we'll be inundated with unhelpful move requests that will only make flag pages harder to find. (Based on the already-formed consensus against this, should this be speedily, uncontroversially WP:SNOW-closed?) Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose not for ambiguity but for consistency RedSlash 21:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree, excluding first nations and historical nations, there are 35 different American national flags across North America and South America. "American flag" requires disambiguation. There are also two different contemporary American national flags belonging to countries called the "United States:" the United States of America and the United Mexican States. So "flag of the United States" should also be disambiguated between the USA (United States American) flag and the Mexican flag. The article title should be changed to either "USA flag" or "flag of the United States of America" to avoid any ambiguity. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
That's a case of WP:OFFICIALNAME vs. WP:COMMONNAME. In English, there is no ambiguity for United States being the common term for United States of America, hence the article on the country being where it is. "United Mexican States" is the English translation of the official name, and one hardly ever used in primary or secondary sources, which is why the article on the country is at Mexico, the common name used in virtually all primary and secondary sources, even Mexico's own government websites (which also refers to its northern neighbor as "the U.S." and "the United States"). --JonRidinger (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose move For consistency with our entire Category:National flags. In addition, "American flag" is arguably less precise are more ambiguous. AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article on Slate.com asserts that the 50-star flag was not designed by Robert G. Heft as this Wikipedia article and many other sources states. I do not feel qualified to weigh in on this, but it would be worth looking into. Francoisdjvr (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The pre-merge page on Robert G. Heft (before it was merged into this page) is also critical of the claim. Finally, I checked the Eisenhower Library and found an official source stating the flag design for the fifty star flag dates to 1949. I am cutting the Heft content from this article unless someone can find an offical government source that can refute the 15 September memorandum from the Acting Secretary of the Army. Anyone interested in inspecting these documents themslves can find the records here and the actual submission which accompanies the memo can be found here.
While the flag burning photo is encyclopedic, it shouldn't be on this page. Depictions of flag desecration make more sense in the main article. --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
What main article? (Flag burning has historically been a very important part of American culture surrounding the US flag.) Staecker (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Assuming you're referring to the Flag desecration article, which refers to global flag burning, not just America. That article already has two different images of burning an American flag - another would be overkill. You admit yourself that this image is encyclopaedic - and it's relevant to the article section, so why should it not be in the article? Flag burning is a big thing in the United States, and this is appropriate. I think it falls short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR, but there's no reason to exclude it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It is inappropriate. No other country's flag has an image of flag burning in its article; and the image in this article is undue weight. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Por que no los dos? If we start with the concession that it's encyclopedic and relevant to article content, then that's kindof the end of the discussion. GMGtalk 12:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not relevant to the content of the article though. Flag desecration can be discussed more in the Flag desecration article, which is where this image belongs. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The section of the article specifically mentions flag abuse and desecration. Are you suggesting that a different example of flag desecration is used instead of the burning image? With regard to your comment about other articles featuring flag burning, there's possibly the fact that the American population at large fixates on the flag far more than inhabitants of other countries:
"The flag has become a powerful symbol of Americanism, and is flown on many occasions, with giant outdoor flags used by retail outlets to draw customers. Reverence for the flag has at times reached religion-like fervor: in 1919 William Norman Guthrie's book The Religion of Old Glory discussed "the cult of the flag"[1] and formally proposed vexillolatry.[2]"
I'm saying that the picture is jarring, seeing how other articles on other country's flag do not have similar images. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, not every image relevant to an article's content or encyclopedic is included in an article, no? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact people are allowed to do this shows that a country has great civil liberties. In this case "its a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment." As for this image..... it does represent freedom of speech but is out of place compared to other articles on this topic. Moxy- 00:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Right -- I agree that flag desecration, as tasteless and as unethical as it is, ought to be protected speech, and I'm glad that's the case in the US (and in Canada!). Plenty of countries (even other liberal democracies like Germany and France) make it a crime. I just think that it's a bit jarring for the image to be there on this particular article, when articles about the flags of other nations do not have similar images. The image doesn't improve the article in any way; at least that's my perspective. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
As I pointed out above - the Flag desecration article already has two different American flag burning images. Another one really would be inappropriate. Burning the American flag is powerful symbolism - albeit perhaps not the type most people reading this article will expect - and that makes it suitable for the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it does. WP:CENSOR is not a call to find the most offensive available images in an attempt to counter censorship, and WP:OTHER is about the existence of articles, not their contents. Flag desecration is notable, no doubt. I don't think it makes sense for it to be discussed in depth in this article instead of a separate article. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I see the first sentence: "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." You interpret policy one way - I another. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: Wait, what? I'm the one who brought up how things are done in other articles about other countries' flags. Your response was to link WP:OTHER. I'm not sure how that sentence helps you, it appears to bolster my point. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you did: "It is inappropriate. No other country's flag has an image of flag burning in its article; and the image in this article is undue weight"[1] - that is a perfect example of WP:OTHER: Article "X" does (or does not do) such-and-such, therefore article "Y" should also do (or not do) such-and-such. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Chaheel Riens: I don't follow. The first sentence states that the essay "is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." Therefore, you claiming that my statement can be discarded because it's an example of WP:OTHER (which it technically isn't, anyway, since again, that's about deletion discussions) makes no sense. The sentence condemns dismissing someone merely because they are referencing other content elsewhere. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 12:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Your confusion may be partially my fault - I should have linked to WP:OTHERCONTENT which covers article content, not WP:OTHER which concerns itself with article creation.
However, it's still fairly obvious the intent - as stated in the section "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page"Twice Three times in your comments you use exactly this argument - that the info is not present in other articles, therefore it shouldn't exist in these either:
"It is inappropriate. No other country's flag has an image of flag burning in its article; and the image in this article is undue weight. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)"
"*I'm saying that the picture is jarring, seeing how other articles on other country's flag do not have similar images. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)"
"...I just think that it's a bit jarring for the image to be there on this particular article, when articles about the flags of other nations do not have similar images..."
Additionally, you are misinterpreting the need for WP:CENSOR - certainly in this article - there is no desire to find a deliberately offensive or charged image and justify inclusion under WP:CENSOR. Rather WP:CENSOR is being used as a defence that because some people may claim it to be offensive is no reason to remove it, especially when it has been placed in the article in good faith as an intent to show negative flag symbolism - which it can be argued it certainly does, hence the claim of it being offensive. Furthermore, it's not unreasonable to say that the fact that people are complaining about offensive flag desecration is actually an argument to keep the image in the article, as it obviously stirs up emotion over the perceived symbolism of the flag. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
My argument isn't solely that similar content does not exist elsewhere, although like articles should be treated similarly, and you cannot use WP:OTHERCONTENT to dismiss my comparison either, as the article says. Anyway, beyond OTHERCONTENT, the image does not convey anything that the text does not. It is appropriate include images, even offensive images, if they enhance the article. This image is not helpful to the article. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 17:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Your opinion, and you're welcome to it. My opinion is that the image does contribute to the article in that it shows how flag desecration can be carried out, and is an example of same. I feel that it will be impossible to appease you based on comments such as "...flag desecration, as tasteless and as unethical as it is..."' - which suggests a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and "you cannot use WP:OTHERCONTENT to dismiss my comparison either, as the article says" - when I quite clearly can, because you literally request (three times) removal based on the content of other articles.
We obviously will not agree on this. Based on your text and responses so far it's apparent that the only reason you want it removed is because you personally find it offensive. That's not a good reason for removal. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Casting WP:ASPERSIONS much? The reason I want it removed is because it doesn't belong in this article, as it's inappropriate. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm going to make an RFC and open this up to the wider community. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Not really, when I'm using direct quotes from your own posts to back up my comments... Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
You're making a false claim about why I want it removed from this article. It has nothing to do with censorship, everything to do with it being inappropriate for the article. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
^The Flag Bulletin. Vol. 23. Winchester, Massachusetts: Flag Research Center. 1984. p. 107. Retrieved 2018-04-27. [...] a formal book-length proposal for vexillolatry was made by William Norman Guthrie in his The Religion of Old Glory (New York: Doran, l9l9).
Request for Comment on the inclusion of an image depicting the burning of an American flag in this article
Should the "Symbolism" section of this article include an image depicting the burning of an American flag? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
As nominator, my answer is "no", and here's my rationale. Although Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, the image adds nothing to the article that the text does not already provide. While NOTCENSORED means that potential offensiveness of an image is not a valid criterion in considering whether an image should be kept, it does not give favor to offensive content; rather, the only criterion is whether the content is useful, and whether it would be expected to be in an article about the subject. A reader would not expect this article to include this image (see the principle of least astonishment), and the image does not add anything to the reader's comprehension of the article. In addition, other articles on their country's flags do not include similar images, so it seems odd to single the United States out. I would argue that a separate article should be made regarding flag desecration in the United States, or that the image would be more appropriate in Flag Burning Amendment. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The image should stay in the article. I would view this as perhaps akin to images of the prophet in Muhammad. These images are offensive to some people, but the offense arises because those people are steeped in a particular tradition which reveres the prophet in certain ways. As an encyclopedia, we are not participants in that tradition, so simple illustrative images are regarded as permissable and valuable.
The nominator suggests in discussion above that burning the American flag is "tasteless and unethical", which suggests to me that the nominator is similarly steeped in a tradition of reverence for the American flag. I would suggest that flag burning is a deeply important aspect of American flag culture, and a simple illustrative image is permissable and valuable. I understand that some may be offended by that imagery. But I don't see that "least astonishment" applies. Only a certain type of American is likely to be astonished or offended to see one of these images. Everybody else wouldn't view it as scandalous or remarkable, appearing next to a text paragraph about flag burning.
As for articles of other countries' flags, these of course reflect the flag culture of other countries. Flag burning in the USA is especially notable, more so than in most countries, so I'm not bothered if there are inconsistencies in this regard. Staecker (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Staecker: Thank you for your input! My statement that burning an American flag is "tasteless and unethical" has no relevance to the debate, and besides, I believe that flag desecration should be legal. Nonetheless, I'm not offended by the image in the same way a Muslim might be offended by images of Muhammad, I simply do not think it is relevant in this article, which devotes little discussion to flag desecration yet has a large image depicting it. It makes much more sense for it to be the lead image on Flag Desecration Amendment (in fact, even if the image is not removed from this article, I think that particular image should be in the lead of that article). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep as a relevant, encyclopedic depiction of activities discussed in the article which are highly relevant to understanding the subject at hand. — chrs || talk 00:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The image should remain. The practice of flag burning is discussed extensively in that section, so the image is appropriate and relevant. Since flag burning has been a topic often very publicly discussed and litigated in regards to the US flag, I do not think it is unduly "astonishing" to see an image of the practice in this article. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 01:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Flag burning is not discussed at all in that section... ––FormalDudetalk 06:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
FormalDude, do you mean aside from the parts where it clearly is? Despite a number of attempts to ban the practice, desecration of the flag remains protected as free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Scholars have noted the irony that "[t]he flag is so revered because it represents the land of the free, and that freedom includes the ability to use or abuse that flag in protest".[71] Comparing practice worldwide, Testi noted in 2010 that the United States was not unique in adoring its banner, for the flags of Scandinavian countries are also "beloved, domesticated, commercialized and sacralized objects".[72] The fact that it does not literally say "burning" does not mean that it is not discussed and would be silly pedantry; burning the flag was the exact subject of those bans. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 18:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Bit of a stretch to call that an "extensive discussion" about flag burning, no? ––FormalDudetalk 19:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I am also "steeped in a tradition of reverence for the American flag," and as a result I recognize that the fact that it is even possible to burn one in protest speaks directly to the reason for that reverence, namely the rights and freedoms this flag represents. It is a notable aspect of the relationships various groups and individuals have with this flag; there are not images of burning flags in similar articles because the burning is not notable in those contexts. This is an appropriate subject for an image in this particular encyclopedia article.~TPW 01:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep, but add another picture – Relevant and expounded upon in the article text. But, in the crude interest of neutrality, add another image of the US flag as a symbol of nationalism. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima comes to mind—a well-known picture, whose historical significance exemplifies how much the flag is almost deified by some. That being said, this article has too many pictures and deserves a trimming on those. Suggested image is at right. An image of a similar statue is already in the article and could be moved up. Ovinus (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Flag color?
Lead versionPantone version
This might not belong here, but why is the current national flag shown as this weird blueish color if official sources show it as being the same blue as all of the other ones? Loganp23 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
As per the "colors" section, the actual colours cannot be reproduced with 100% accuracy so there's always going to be a variance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Which "official sources" are you thinking of? If they look substantially different from Wikipedia, they are doing a crummy job reproducing the official colors for a physical flag. -jacobolus(t) 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Internet images use "device dependent" color, while cloth fabric colors are defined in a "device independent" way, so there isn't necessarily a simple direct conversion between the two which is valid in all circumstances. AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There are two versions of the blue used in the article. One is the Pantone version, while the lead image is not the Pantone. I think the OP is asking why we're using the two different versions, and not the Patone, which just looks better to me, and to others judging by the amount of times the lead image is being changed back and forth. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Pantone is a "device independent" color system, so there is not necessarily only one RGB image color which corresponds to a Pantone-defined color... AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
None of the commonly claimed Pantone colors very closely match the official US flag colors. –jacobolus(t) 00:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I actually think it's better to have the variance, as it shows that there is a variance, and that as explained in the article, it's not only acceptable but inevitable. Also, jacobolus - can you indent your replies properly please? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
My reply was indented just as intended. You don’t need to change it. –jacobolus(t) 15:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There's two parts to the idea that any of the claimed Pantone colours don't match the "official" colors. One is the idea that any given set of Pantone colours (say, the ones in the State Department identity standards) aren't close to the Standard Color Card colours set out in the military specification. The other is the idea that the military specification defines "the official colours".
On the first point, it may well be true that there's a significant difference. But an awful lot of people seem to come to this conclusion be looking at digital representations of the colours without much attention to whether the conversions are equivalent, rather than actually comparing Standard Color Card and Pantone samples next to each other.
On the second point, what makes the DoD specification more "official" than the State Department identity standards? Sure, the military spec is longer lasting, and probably likely to stay so, but that's not the same as being more official. The simple fact is that flags generally don't need to have fixed precise colours, and in this case neither the definition in the legislation, or even at the level of the executive order applying to the whole executive branch, doesn't include that level of specification. JPD (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
One is a formal specification for physical flags made out of cloth. The other is a half-assed “let’s pick some Pantone colors that vaguely look like the flag” guideline. –jacobolus(t) 15:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Being "a formal specification for flags made out of cloth" doesn't make it the single official version of the flag. Such a concept need not exist. JPD (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I, as an American myself, can confirm that it turns out that both the Old Glory and the Pantone colors are used. The Metropolitan Fire Department uses the Pantone colors, but the Bank of America uses the Old Glory colors. It’s inconsistent! Why aren’t the two shown together, side by side on Wikipedia?Kxeon (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Bob Heft
Bob Heft redirects to this page. Allegedly, he designed the current 50-star version in school project. However, there's little point redirecting when the article doesn't cover the fact. Can someone find a valid source and write it in? Nø (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, but the redirect makes no sense now. Should a Bob Heft page be recreated (to debunk or question the claim), should it covered in the present article, or should the redirect be deleted?--Nø (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Dispute over flag color
There are many edits which swap the flag at the very top of the article to the pantone version. So, there are a few possible options I am proposing to possibly prevent edit wars.
A: Keep the flag as the one which matches official specifications
B: Keep the flag as the pantone version
C: Keep the flag which matches official specifications at the very top, but mention the pantone version as the "de facto" flag, at the bottom of the infobox
D: Keep the pantone version of the flag at the very top because it is more commonly used, and keep the one which matches official specifications at the bottom of the infobox
It should be left matching the official specification, which have been the authoritative colors for many decades. The pantone version (or really versions: several different ones have been suggested over the years) is not a "de facto" flag, and is already mentioned in the article. There's no need for any change. If all you care about is examples in the wild, you can find an infinite variety of American flags online, as cheap physical flags, on T-shirts, posters, stickers, ... And if the supposed "State Department standard" is at issue here, the URL is a 404 page (it existed from about 2012-2020, then disappeared); hardly inspiring for something supposedly authoritative. It's ridiculous to promote a set of proprietary color chips based on their inclusion into Adobe products, when there is already a perfectly good official document referencing exact colorimetric measurements. No matter what sRGB colors you choose, many readers are going to be seeing something different anyway, as there are a wide variety of display devices, most of which were not carefully characterized and/or don't do proper color management. It's a waste of time trying to re-litigate this again. -jacobolus(t) 03:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
As has been discussed many times here before, Pantone is a "device-independent" color specification, while RGB colors on a computer monitor are "device-dependent", so there's no one-to-one conversion between the two which is valid in all or most circumstances... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect colour names used.
When describing a flag it is important to use the accepted terms for those colours.
White is Argent
Blue is Azure
Red is Gules
This is may be a minor detail, but if the article is intended to be taken seriously it should be addressed. 120.22.207.186 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
"Accepted terms" in what context? Official documents describing the flag call the colors "red", "white", and "blue", as do ordinary people in writing and speech nearly universally. You seem to be thinking of color names used for coats of arms by the French at the time of the Norman Conquest and thence later by the English (see Tincture (heraldry)). This system may still have currency among the English nobility, but is almost entirely irrelevant to the flag of the United States. -jacobolus(t) 13:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
120.22.207.186 -- Those terms are used in formal heraldic blazons, but not much elsewhere. We don't give a blazoning for the U.S. flag in this article, but it would be something like "Gules, six barrulets argent, on a canton azure fifty mullets argent". Everywhere else, feel perfectly free to use the words "red', "white", and "blue"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, this is an American topic, so we use the American English spelling "color" and also do not use color terminology jargon associated with royalty. nobility and aristocracy, none of which exist in the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not only an aristocratic thing; the "armigerous" can come from wider social strata than that, and people in the United States who are interested in heraldry use those terms in blazons, as I said. However, such "tincture" terms certainly have little relevance to the United States flag... AnonMoos (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Current text: "Traditionally, the Army and Air Force use a fringed flag for parades, color guard and indoor display, while the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard use a fringeless flag for all occasions."
Starting the sentence with "Traditionally" and then ending the sentence with no citation, should be enough to remove this sentence all together.
But the second half of the sentence is particularly nonsense. Simple google searches provide countless images of Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard flags with fringe.
Yeah, interesting. That statement was made by an anonymous IP edit in September 2009. The Navy NTP 13(B) document, from 1986, does state that fringes should be used on the national ensign when out of doors, but indoors is presumably different. And not sure they follow that these days, as photos show. There is a statement here that the military services generally only use fringes for ceremonial use, and never on flagpoles, but does not make much distinction between the services and does not support the statement in the article. It should probably be removed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
"All-American Flag Act"
If it's just a proposed bill, is it important enough to be on this article? AnonMoos (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. I'm hunting for more info on its status, but this isn't working right now. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I concur. Not important as currently written. BilCat (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
From what I'm seeing, this was originally introduced by Bruce Braley, in the House, in 2008. There's so little coverage beyond press releases that I can't figure out what's happened with it. It's been reintroduced a few times: 8 times in the House, passing 3 times; 5 times in the Senate, passing 2 times. --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
15 or 14 stars on Flag that flew over Fort McHenry in the War of 1812?
The article has these two statements:
"It was the 15-star, 15-stripe flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write "Defence of Fort M'Henry", later known as "The Star-Spangled Banner", which is now the American national anthem."
and
"This flag is depicted by Francis Scott Key in the song "Star-Spangled Banner" which would later become the national anthem of the United States.[153] Details : 30 x 34 ft. (Currently) 15 horizontal stripes alternating red and white stripes 14 stars (one missing)"
Did one star fall off the flag? Or is there something else going on? sbelknap (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
The flag was damaged. Star-Spangled Banner (flag) tells the history of the flag, but doesn't mention how it got damaged. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
It suffered a lot from souvenir hunters and poor conservation in the 19th-century. That article actually says "the fifteenth star was similarly given as a gift"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't see an authoritative source so far. I bet the Keim & Keim book has info. Anybody have a copy at hand? sbelknap (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a star and a stripe were removed? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Smithsonian sez, " In the tradition of relic worship, family members permitted “souveniring,” or the snipping of small pieces from the flag. One star was cut out “for some official person” but who that person was is unknown to historians. The family loaned the Star-Spangled Banner to the Smithsonian in 1907 and gifted it in 1912 to be shared with the nation. The flag now measures 30 by 34 feet due to a number of factors, including damage from flying over the fort for at least a year following the battle, the cutting of damaged and frayed ends as part of repairs and the practice of souveniring."[3]sbelknap (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
27th or 28th?
What's the difference?
Can you add an explanation of this apparent discrepancy to the article...
Article currently says:
The current design of the U.S. flag is its 27th
In the following table depicting the 28 various designs of the United States flag
Another possible problem with those passages is that the word "design" is used pretty loosely. In the laws, only the colors, number of stripes, the existence of a canton ("union") and the number of stars were specified, which left a number of details unspecified. There was no exact specification of the U.S. flag until 1818, and that only applied to flags bought by the U.S. Navy... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Another?
Sod. I was hoping to avoid further reading. The link at "27th design" doesn't count the zero star version (the very first) before June 14, 1777.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🇺🇸. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 7#🇺🇸 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Partly done:
DisagreeEvery other page on a nation's/state's flag is called "Flag of X", the US flag shouldn't be an exception. "American Flag" already redirects to this page anyways (meaning it shows up in the search bar). Ilovecrabcakes1462 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
00:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.svg)
