Talk:Flag of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Retiring the flag

Can we add a section on how to respectfully dispose of the flag when it has become worn? When I was a Girl Scout I learned the proper (respectful! not protest!) burning ceremony for flag retirement, but is this something that is specific to the United States flag code, or is it general flag etiquette? I will avoid adding this section, in case it is not appropriate for this article.64.231.115.217 00:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are still around, please add and source the info. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the actual source: According to the Flag Code of Title 4, United States Code, Chapter 1: The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way. The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

In general, a flag is retired out of respect, when it becomes unfit as a symbol of our nation. Most communities use local groups such as boy scouts, girl scouts, war veterans, etc. to properly retire a flag. It is disrespectful to simply throw an old flag in the trash. While the ceremonies vary, most start with a somber speech about what the flag represents, then tear apart the flag in a specific way, then burn each part of the flag while giving additional speech. The ceremony is meant to be a flag funeral, thus respectful and final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.20.114 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

George Washington's quote?

I added a quote that was credited to George Washington on the Symbolism of the flag. “We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty.” This is like my third edit so I'm not really sure if it is good enough.--RNAi 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Crummy looking SVG flags

I don't have time now, but would someone separate out the layers in this file: Image:US Flag All Historical.svg, and upload them to the commons, with pd-self and pd-flag tags?

All of my pretty, high-resolution png flags (uploaded at a time before WP supported svg), have been replaced with ugly looking svg versions. That file linked above has all the layers necessary to save versions of all 20-something correct svg flags, with proper colors and proportions. It would be fine probably to just replace the flags that are currently on the commons, as they are ugly and wrong (for instance, compare Image:US 30 Star Flag.svg to Image:Us flag large 30 stars.png, a particularly depressing example) --jacobolus (t) 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well I fixed it. --jacobolus (t) 11:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

National Colors?

President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."

This is very interesting because almost every flag you see these days has that yellow fringe border on three sides. However after checking Executive Order No.10834 and the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, it does not say that a military flag is one with the yellow fringes on three sides. In fact it doesn’t mention it at all. This seems interesting the author should sure this up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lancer9910 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the section from the article, since (as you mentioned) the executive order in question does not contain the quote listed, or in addition any reference to yellow, or fringe. As far as I know, the yellow fringe thing is a common theory among some conspiracy theorists, especially if they hold to some of the beliefs common among tax protestors or the Christian Patriot movement. If anyone has any verifiable sources for this quote, then by all means re-insert it. g026r 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Institute of Heraldry (as administered through the Pentagon) included this issue in a FAQ on their website. It quotes a 1925 Attorney General's Opinion on the matter which is taken to be the government's official stance on the subject of fringe in the absence of specific legislation on the 'outside' of the flag. Would this be worth adding?--Ray thejake 19:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the full text. Surprised, such text is not both officially archived and easily available online at the same time for verification. Ihn consideration, that 1925 stance was before the 1959 E.O.10834 passage. Within the 10834, it does state that nothing should be attached to the flag along the statement of nothing being put upon it. The fringe itself appears as an attachment to the flag by such statement. An "enhancement" is made to a direct object, and in this case it is the flag the fringe tries to enhance. If it were a background border or color, it would be different. A flag on a shirt is not enhanced by the shirt itself even if the shirt is black, white, gray, orange, etc. I'm sure this can be further argued, but it appears there is symbolism to the fringe. 09:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not be suprised to find out the E.O. 10834 has been altered or dissapeared the way the pertainent part of the 1925 opinion of the Attorney general of the United States has been attempted to be de-emphasised because of "patriot" "crank" motions for nature and cause "bill of particulars" pre plea to determine the jurisdiction which a venue/court is arraigned.

The older smaller volumns of title 4 USC "Flag Seal and Seat of Government, which were republished in the early 1990's by WEST publishing (copywited presentations not actual code BTW); the smaller volumns found room for an exerpt from the 1925 opATTYgen that said in effect: "the placement of the fringe and the number of stars on the flag are not a matter of statuet but are at the discretion of the commander in chief of the Army and Navy"; now lawyers, if this was taken out of context why did west publishing see it as pertaining to Title4 USC and even found room for it in a smaller volumn than the larger replacements(retorically?). The Univerity of Kentucky law library where I photocopied my copy of the page; lost TITLES 1-4 in the older smaller volumns about 1996 and I dont know if it was ever found. They said a "professor" checked them out? So I even hesitate to say where to look as many other volumns could be "lost" as well.

Since I found the 1925 opATTYgen footnote I personally began scrutinizing the "U.S. flags" for many details. The size of the stars diameter has two main offical variations .616 as per title 4 and a version with diameters nearly if not equal to the width of a stripe and on many times with a lighter blue for the union field. This can be seen on many of this adminstration's webpages photos for cabnet personell.

Also, in diplomatic photo ops the flag is consistantly displayed with no tassels, frings or Eagle on the mast only a wooden ball or brass color spike. The ratio of this "diplomatic" flag appears to resemble the 1x1.9 flag that has hung behind the house of congress since photography has been in use.

The President has appeared several times at different locations with BOTH these variations behind him at the same time, that is; the large star and the small star ensign with all the accutriments of tassels, gold or not and fringe. The most notable of which is the 9-11-01 base speech he made from Lousianna that looked to be impromtude but Air Force 1 no doubt carries such items needed to set up photo ops and speeches so the vexology, in my view was deliberate, the theory comes in guessing what (corporate) entity or government venues these symbolise; the president's (operation) goverment, the military admistration since the war between the "several states" or a corporation filed in the business district of London to admister the banq-ster-rupsy of the former Confederate States of America (not the CSA BTW) Further I have read citiations of military code that state placing anything(eagle) on the top of the pole is desecration of a flag and a violation. 209.209.140.19 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

War flag?

So... a flag with a gold fringe is the official war/military flag? I find that hard to believe. Rmpfu89 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so now you change it again and claim that the "Dont tread on me" flag is our official naval jack? 24.91.9.206 20:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, it is. See First Navy Jack. Lockesdonkey 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag with gold fringe is merely decoration, not a "war flag". — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The main claim that fringe and other things like tassels, eagle on top plus the length of the fly and size of stars, is built on the FACT that the older editions of TITLE 4 USC code books(that were smaller,) managed to find room for a footnote on the page quoting a pertainent excerpt of the 1925opATTYgen that said: "placing of the fringe and the number of stars on the flag are matters not governed by statuet but at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy"; now why not just say president lawyers?-IF it was simply at the discretion of the president in civilian nonwar mode. This quote was deemed pertainent for a reason that, on its face is not frivolous. "Patriots" arguments and "crank" court motions in the 1990s are suspected to have been a factor for the removal of this footnote in the newer larger editions of the code books 209.209.140.19 (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington DC will never be a state

Washington DC is a federal district which is opposite of a state. Similar to the federal district of Berlin, Germany. DC becoming a state is bogus in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion; however, there is at least one active movement advocating such a change in status. See D.C. Statehood, and DC Statehood Green Party. -ScottMainwaring 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Berlin *is* a Land just like the fifteen other Länder and in no way different from them. Ahem. I see no reason why D.C. shouldn't be a state, too. —Nightstallion (?) 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a federal district and b it's a federal district. So if it's always going to be a federal district, you have no case. Citizens who don't like it can move to Maryland! Renegadeviking 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1770, the Thirteen Colonies were a "permanent" part of the British Empire, too. Ancient Egypt was ruled by its pharaohs for millenia before the Roman Empire made it a "permanent" Roman province. And where is either Empire today? Might I suggest that history did not end with the textbooks we read when we were kids? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen. —Nightstallion (?) 11:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was argued why some representitives do not vote. There are no representitives of D.C. that can vote. Residents of D.C. can not vote because they need to live within a state to obtain full citizenship. People who move to D.C. have a limited time they can vote until their primary residency changes and if it changes, and it does change sometimes. I like to see more facts about this, but this isn't the article about voter rights and citizenship within D.C. 09:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

People who live in D.C. are citizens just like anyone else, and while they don't have Congressmen or Senators, they do vote in Presidential elections. D.C. gets 3 electoral votes, which would be the minimum if it actually were a state. They went for Kerry in 2004. And, of course, they have local government elections. Wahkeenah 10:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be too much of a problem to just give them their congressman and senators then, would it? Just reduce the Federal District to include only the White House, and everything's solved. But since even the Democrat-controlled House of 1993 didn't manage to make DC a state... Well, we'll see. —Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, this discussion should be on the District of Columbia page. You can Talk there all you want. 66.108.105.21 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Vertical stripes?

This is an interesting quote from a Nathaniel Hawthorne book:

"From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military, post of Uncle Sam's government is here established."

Source: Introduction to The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, pg. 1

URL: http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Nathaniel_Hawthorne/The_Scarlet_Letter/THE_CUSTOM_HOUSE_p1.html

This is the first I've heard of a flag with 13 stripes turned vertically to signify a civil government office, whereas horizontal stripes signify military. Actually, I've never heard of the 13 stripes turned vertically for any reason. Anyone else heard of this before? 24.18.35.120 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what Hawthorne was talking about, was simply suspending the flag so that it's hanging downward. This "turns the stripes" vertically. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.166.178.1 (talk • contribs) .

United States Civil Flag has information on this. As the article notes: it's considered by most vexillologists to be a hoax, and that it was likely refering to the flag of the United States Customs Service. -- g026r 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are pictures of flags with eagles and an arc of stars above that resemble the Customs House Flags with the vertical stripes,a white field and blue stars and eagle and a version is on the shoulder of the U.S. Coast Guard even today. Hawthorn may have been told his version of the vexology inaccurately or not, but the flags did and do exist. unsigned

Hawthorne is mentioned in this article: ( http://www.barefootsworld.net/uscivilflag.html ) Lots of good stuff there, like this for instance.

Through usage and custom, horizontal stripes had become adopted for use over military posts, and vertical stripes adopted for use over civilian establishments. The Civil Flag, intended for peacetime usage in custom house civilian settings, had vertical stripes with blue stars on a white field. By the Law of the Flag, this design denoted civil jurisdiction under the Constitution and common law as opposed to military jurisdiction under admiralty/military law.

--Chris Heath 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer this reference is of little use since it does not source its information and goes by word of mouth. While this is a quote of the article and they mention Hawthorne, this is not a Hawthorne quote. In addition, this block quote has no reference and IMHO is merely speculation/fabrication.

And to cut short your potential argument, yes, I read the whole article. It also contains, "Before 1940, no U.S. flag, civil or military, flew within the forty-eight states except in federal settings and installations. Only state flags did. Since the 1935 institution of Social Security and the Buck Act of 1940, 4 U.S.C.S. Ch. 4 Sec. 104-113, by clever legal maneuvers the feds have entirely circumvented the U.S. Constitution, and have overlaid federal territorial jurisdiction on the sovereign States, bringing them under the admiralty/military jurisdiction of Law Merchant, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the law of Creditors and Debtors...Since then the U.S. military flag appears beside, or in place of, the state flags in nearly all locations within the states. All of the state courts and even the municipal ones now openly display it. In the last half century they have more openly declared the military/admiralty law jurisdiction with the addition of the gold fringe to the flag, the military flag of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces." So many of these claims are false, I won't even begin to consider this as a reliable source. BQZip01 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal stripes means its Old Glory, USAs military flag, vertical stripes is Stars and stripes, USAs civil flag. Very simple. Use of Stars and stripes fell out of use early 20th century(before or during WWI IIRC), i vaugely recall that it was the coast guard or maybe customs office who was the last to use it. This information is available in any good book on flags or flag history(or should be at least). I dont have any english reference at the moment unfortunately. Will see if i can find one for proper referencing. DW75 81.224.170.124 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it to be a serious problem that you don't have a single English reference (English is the dominant language in the U.S....). If you don't have a reliable source for that, it's not much more than, "I once heard that the flag..." — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

UScoast guard has a shoulder patch and flag that uses vertical stripes, see the opening scene of the movie "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" for an example.````

Again...source? What you probably saw was the Coast Guard Ensign

File:CoastGuardEnsign.gif

This is not a "vertical flag"

. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratio of 1.9

I edited the paragraph that discusses the 1.9 ratio. As originally written it implied that the alternate-size list made the ratio an open variable -- which it doesn't. The list is specifically for government agencies and lays out eleven specific hoist-fly (width-length) dimensions. Only three of the eleven permitted sizes deviate significantly from the 1.9 ratio, and they are probably intended to cover unique needs (limited space or something like that).

Section 5, which governs display of the flag by individual civilians and civilian organizations, refers to Sections 1 and 2 for the definition of what a US flag is. The alternate-size list is in Section 21, not 1 or 2.

So apart from three specific flags of specific dimensions, which are authorized specifically for government agencies, a US flag is in fact defined by law as having a 1.9 ratio. By strict legal definition, the 3x5 footer (ratio 1.66) that most people buy at retail stores is not a US flag.

Note however that Section 3 (which deals with mutilation and other abuse of the US flag) uses much broader language, which essentially says that if a layman easily recognizes something as a flag, then it's covered by Section 3. Which DOES cover the 3x5 footer, along with many other representations -- going all the way down to the little paper job that you sometimes see attached to toothpicks.

Star Patterns

Wouldn’t it be possible to add Great Star Patterns (where the stars are arranged into a large star), circular patterns or diamond patterns into this article? In my opinion these patterns were more inspirational and beautiful than the present day nine offset horizontal rows. .--Lumber Jack 12:50, 4. Jul 2006 (CEST)

Folding the flag

It appears that the folding section was taken from usflag.org however, I don't think it's complete. I thought the final step involved tucking the last rectangular section into the triangle, as described on crwflags.com. Additionally, I was always under the impression that a "perfectly folded" flag only showed four whole stars more like the picture on usflag.org (but even here it appears crooked). The animation ends on a rather sloppy fold in my opinion. Am I nit-picking? Hoof Hearted 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoof, a bit of a delay in response, but, no, it doesn't matter whether or not 4 stars are showing. The problem is that flags vary in thickness and there will be some variation from flag to flag. Specifying the end result will present problems with flags made from thinner/thicker material as it will when flags are wet. Perhaps this should be included in text of the page. BQZip01 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BQ! You bring up some good points. I think including this in the article would probably only clutter up the section and borders on original research. But I'm glad to know it for my own peace of mind.  :-) Hoof Hearted 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

probably what leads to this misconception is folded flags in display cases. Those flags (especially those done by professionals) usually have the "correct" 4 stars showing because they are placed around a hollow block that slides into the display. The flag is then neatly folded into the hollow space in the block and the back of the case is sealed. It isn't technically up to specs, but it looks nice and no one can prove a thing without taking apart the display case.

BTW, I just looked back at your assertion and realized that there isn't anything about tucking the remainder into the flag. I'll add it here in a few minutes. Good catch! BQZip01 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag upside down as a distress signal.

This article says that it is not true that an American flag can be used as a distress signal when flown upside down. This is not correct. According to AFPAM36-2241V1 "Do not display flag with union down, except as a distress signal" This can be found here: [US Airforce Electronic Publication Site] This manual is the study guide enlisted members use for promotion. Maybe other services do not recomend it, but it is being taught to all USAF personnel.TchussBitc 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a part of the US Code Title 4 Chapter 1, section 8. I will edit the wiki.TchussBitc 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better for the article if we include something about the flag being flown upside down.--ItsJodo (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the US Code before editing!!!!

I've been reading through some edits on this page and people are adding false information. The US Code is a federal law that provides guidance on the American flag. I've noticed people inputing false information that is easily proven wrong by reading the US Code.

Now that I am off my soap box, I can't figure out how to reference properly, and I'd like my references to conform to the style of this page. Anyone care to correct my edits to reference the same style as the article? Thanks! TchussBitc 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would think the U.S. Government has the flag code somewhere within it. Barring that, there's always the page in the World Almanac. Wahkeenah 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

History section needs a rewrite

Despite it's A-Class rating, this article has some major problems, in particular in the History section. Various contradictory theories regarding the origin are presented, but without referring to the consensus by historians (if one exists). The first flag is referred to as Grand Union and as Continental Colors and as wrongly called the Grand Union. Illustrating images are a mess. The overall flow is awkward. Would someone knowledgable please take a stab at fixing this? --ScottMainwaring 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Purported original design of the U.S. flag

In the video The Illuminati Vol. II - The Antichrist Conspiracy (2006), by Chris Everard, there is a claim made that "The Original Design of the U.S. Flag" is an image shown of a flag that I've never seen before. It is made up of one dark side on the left and one light side on the right. On the left/dark side there are 7 stars forming a half circle around a glowing eye placed in the middle of the dark/left side, shining nine rays of light onto the light/right side. The eye looks very much like the Eye of Providence and, given the context of this video, is implied to be representative of the Illuminati. According to conspiracy theories (as discussed in the video), the Illuminati is a secret organization controlled by Luciferians conspiring to control the world. That may sound ridiculous, but nonetheless there is a great deal of evidence to back it up, and in either case whether or not the Illuminati exist or are evil is beside the point. My point is that there was a strange version of the U.S. flag presented in the video and should be investigated and recognized in this article. I feel that whether or not it is found to be an actual early version of the flag or not, it would still deserve mention (and a picture) here, at least stating that it is believed by some to be an early version of the U.S. flag. This video, I believe, is available at EnigmaTV.com.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sloth monkey (talk • contribs) 09:38, November 3, 2006 (UTC)

The history section reads far better now. The various orgination theories are all valid, although it is unlikely to ever be completely resolved. I have a problem with the following quote re: the Grand Union flag:

"This traditional account probably is mistaken, confusing the use of two different flags (the British Union Flag and a red, striped flag) at Prospect Hill as a combined, single flag."

This quote questions that the Grand Union flag ever actually existed in the colonies. The very first recorded use of the Grand Union flag can be found in the Collection of Letters to Congress in December 1775:

"... Cape Henry the largest Ship will carry at her Mizen Peak a Jack with the Union flag, and striped red and white in the field." The text of this communication can be found at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DelVol02.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=537&division=div1

This is probably the best source to support and validate the existance of the Grand Union flag (contrarians can point out that it does not describe the number or alignment of stripes). Given this, I'd suggest removing the "mistaken" statement in the article.

Dbnull 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dbnull. My intent in making that edit was only to represent the findings of Ansoff's recent peer-reviewed article on the Prospect Hill story: that the original sources have been misinterpreted to put the Grand Union Flag at that time and place, when in fact there is no (primary) evidence that it was ever anything other than a naval ensign that was flown at sea only. I didn't mean to cast doubt on the existence of the flag itself. I think your source is consistent with this interpretation, and is worth adding to the article. --ScottMainwaring 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood the language, there is some confusion caused by 2 different references in the use of the word Tradition:

"Tradition assigns the role of "first flag" to the design commonly named the Grand Union Flag, contending it was raised first by General Washington's soldiers at Prospect Hill, at the Cambridge, Massachusetts, on New Year's Day 1776. This traditional account probably is mistaken,..."

This is easy to misread as the Grand Union flag being the "first flag" being mistaken. It's fairly clear from historical records that the Grand Union flag has always been considered the first flag of the US. So, let's reword the first sentence, removing the ambiguity as to the status of the Grand Union flag. Dbnull 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette

Can someone confirm, that it is indeed correct to flip the flag at its vertical axis when hanging down, so the stars still appear in the upper left corner? As with the South African flag. I have seen it at President Bush visits in Denmark and Jordan, and also seen it not done at the olympics. Medico80 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Short answer, yes, it is correct. BQZip01 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the stars should always appear in the upper left when hung. Clemonsjw 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to drag this section out a little longer, the ones you see at the Olympics may be raised in such a way that the field is in the upper left for the viewers in the audience or due to positioning in the stadium, but the camera angle chosen is viewed from behind. Additionally, other flags may have different regulations and they may "look wrong" in comparison to the other flags and still be 100% right. Hope that really answers your question completely. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

54 Stars

The US World War I museum has a flag that belonged to General Pershing from the war, and has 54 stars. Any idea of why this might be? It was given to the museum around the time it was dedicated in 1926, but dates from 8-10 years before that.

States + Territories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.177.207 (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Half-staff

It is just me, or has the flag been flown almost continuously half-staff since pearl harbor day, and then will be until January 26th-ish because of Ford's death? What is the record for longest half-staff either continuously or almost continuously? → JARED ^(t)  15:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize your interest in the matter, but, unfortunately, this cannot be determined. Local officials can direct a flag to be flown at half staff for just about any reason. Because of that and the fact that no records are kept on the subject, it is a curiosity that will go unanswered. Sorry for the bad news. BQZip01 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this persons question is not referring to how long "local officials" direct the flag to be flown at half-staff. It appears they are asking how long it has been flown on a national level, i.e. directed by the President of the United States. I do know for a fact that this can be determined, because each time the President directs the flag to be flown at half-staff, a FOUO message is sent to all U.S. federal agencies. These message are archived in federal historical offices.

1. Please sign your posts.
2. Well, that is an assumption that I wasn't willing to make. Some flags are continually flown at half staff.
3. If you have a better solution, please give us the answer. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish ancestry or ties??

Hello, there is an interesting flag in Poland that resembles Stars and Stripes: the flag of Sandomierz town. To my best knowledge, it predates the first US Stars and Stripes and Betsy Ross Flag by ca. 16 years (I think it was enacted in 1760, while the USA began to be an independent country in 1776). The flag may be even older, as I've seen it on some map as the flag of Sandomierz territory (ziemia sandomierska in Polish; it was a kind of local province or something). Do you know anything more about those issues?? They're really interesting for me, especially that I'm Polish:) Critto

The various flags or ensigns of the [British East India Company] strongly resemble the first battle flag chosen by General Washington and probably are the pattern that inspired the flag for the "several states" of the revolution. unsigned

--Cedartrad 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Hi,

Regarding the origin of the Stars and Stripes. It is claimed that they are an adaptation of the Washington family crest which consists of three red stars above two red stripes. The Washingtom family moved to Washingtom Hall in Co Durham, England in 1183 and later, in 1657, the family moved to Virginia because of their royalist sympathies.

Does an image of the flag burning belong here?

Image:Flag burning.jpg, There seems to be some controversy regarding this image added to the Gallery section by an anonymous editor today. In removing it, User:Wahkeenah argued, "Flag-burning is offensive and has no place here." I would not argue its offensiveness, but I think it actually is not out of place here, given the longstanding and emotional controversies about the burning of the U.S. flag, and indeed the frequency with which this particular national flag is burned as almost a cliche of the growing anti-Americanism in many parts of the world. Furthermore, it's my understanding of WP:NPOV is not that offensive (from some POV's) material is prohibited, but rather that the overall encyclopaedic content needs to be balanced and un-biased. As it stands, this page I think has some overall pro-American bias, which more highlighting of anti-US-flag beliefs and practices could actually help remedy. What do other editors think? --ScottMainwaring 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I recall some outrage in the Cuban community following a Seinfeld episode which involved the accidental ignition of a Cuban flag and Kramer stomping on it to put it out. The only reason for including such an image is anti-nation POV-pushing, which you have as much as admitted to. Wahkeenah 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is an article about the proposed anti-flag-burning amendment (which I do NOT support, FYI) which would maybe be a more appropriate place to put this photo. Wahkeenah 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "anti-nation POV-pushing", only in editorial balance, and in more coverage in this article about this flag's role in international anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism is related to but outside the scope of the Flag Desecration Amendment article, which is focused on the domestic political debate. And please note that I'm not endorsing anti-Americanism, just arguing for its importance as a topic. --ScottMainwaring 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section on Problems flying the US Flag

There are several instances of people having problems flying the US Flag.

• Connecticut Woman Ordered to Remove U.S. Flag From Condo

EAST WINDSOR, Conn. — Her son is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, but one Connecticut mother is waging a war of her own over her right to fly Old Glory on her front lawn. Connecticut Woman Ordered to Remove U.S. Flag From Condo. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250541,00.html

Connecticut Woman May Win Battle for Old Glory

EAST WINDSOR, Conn. — The Connecticut condominium association that asked the mother of a National Guardsman to remove her flags and flagpole will allow the woman to keep Old Glory flying if she moves her flagpole from the center of her lawn, FOXNews.com learned Wednesday. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250760,00.html Crocoite 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Donald Trump Files $10 Million Lawsuit Against Palm Beach After Being Cited for Large Flag

PALM BEACH, Florida — Donald Trump is suing this oceanside town for $10 million after being cited for flying an oversized U.S. flag over his Mar-a-Lago Club. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238626,00.html

New articles and further details on these articles would be referenced in this section. Crocoite 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags are missing

The flag 23 and 37 are missing in the 'US stars and design duration' section. Could someone put them back. Freedom Fighter 1988 05:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think they're missing, they're just corrupted. I downloaded one and it wouldn't open. Wahkeenah 07:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed them. --Zundark 10:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks.Freedom Fighter 1988 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The 15 stripe flag is missing in the 'Later flag acts' section. I went to try editing it as saw it is fixed to 181px and there is a comment not to adjust the size due to a wikipedia glitch. I didn't want to mess with it, since I don't know what glitch was being worked around. - Occasional Reader 16:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly missing. There is a glitch in wikipedia they are trying to fix, but their latest attempt seems to have made it worse. This was the best I could get. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Duration (if any) of the 49-star flag

Just to further press the point,on April 18,1818 Congress approved an act finalizing the design of the American flag.Thirteen alternating red and white stripes representing the original colonies and one star for each of the states with a new star being added on the July 4th after the date a House Resolution or Senate Bill,approved by Congress to make a territory a state signed by the then sitting President into public law.(1) On July 7,1958 President Eisenhower signed H.R.#7999 into public law making the territory of Alaska the 49th state of the Union.(2) Then on March 18,1959 Eisenhower signed S.#50 into public law making the territory of Hawaii the 50th state of the Union.(3)So on July 4,1959,the first July 4th after these two events. the flag increased directly from 48 to 50 stars. Although Eisenhower did also sign an executive order proclaiming Hawaii a state on August 21,1959(4),this was just simply a ceremonial gesture as Hawaii was already made a state the previous March.Therefore there has never been a Federally sanctioned 49 star flag.Any design for this flag is a bogus creation possibly by one or more flag manufacturers "jumping the gun" with a design sometime prior to March 1959 and has been promoted by those with no knowledge of the difference between the rules and laws making a territory a state and what an executive order &/or proclamation is. This means on July 4,2007 the 50 star design will surpass the iconic 48 star design as having had the longest service to America. William F.Hendricks Source Material: (1)Encyclopaedia Britannica 1956 Set,Volume 9,Page 347A (2)Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1959,Page 3 (3)Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1960,Page 36 (4)Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1960,Page 38 (Posted 17:00, 28 February 2007 by 24.193.214.232, identified in text as William F. Hendricks; moved here from main article page by ScottMainwaring 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

This specifically states that there WAS NO 49 star flag and that is why I deleted it. The webpage you cited shows nothing more than a picture of a 49 star flag and no relevant historical information. In my edit I specifically requested any information to be posted. So far, none has. Why re-include it? I'll give anyone until 9 March to respond, but the 49 star flag comes down then.BQZip01 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just to explain my reasoning: I re-included it because I felt by taking the 49-star flag out one was at the same time making an unattributed (unless the reasoning that started this thread checked out; certainly, it can't be simply accepted without delving into it) assertion that the 48-star flag lasted until 1960. That assertion, that seems likely false from the discussion that follows, shouldn't be included in the article without support. Hence I took it out, and reverted to the original state of the article. --ScottMainwaring 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not this proves anything further, but I have one of those historical site souvenir shop posters called "History of Famous American Flags", which includes the following comments about the 48 and 50-star flags: "1913-1959: President Taft issue an executive order on June 24, 1912, establishing the 48-star flag. He also prescribed the relative proportions of the flag and the arrangements of the stars. An investigation had disclosed that more than 36 different sizes and proportions were in use by various federal departments of government... The 48-star flag remained our national emblem for more than 46 years." That is, until sometime past June 24, 1958. There is no 49-star flag shown nor mentioned. For the 50-star flag it says, "1960-present: After Alaska and then Hawaii joined the Union, a new design and arrangement of stars were required in the union of the flag. In the order issued by President Eisenhower on August 21, 1959, the national banner with 50 stars became the official flag of the United States." Wahkeenah 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The World Almanac states that Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959, and that Hawaii followed on August 21, 1959. It goes on to say, "The 50-star flag was raised for the first time on July 4, 1960. The 50th star had been added for Hawaii; a year earlier the 49th, for Alaska." It goes on to say that "No law designates the permanent arrangement of the stars. However, since 1912, when a new state has been added, the new design has been announced by executive order." That would seem to be self-contradictory. However, it also explains the significance of August 21, 1959. The question is whether Ike had issued an order for a 49-star flag. If not, then the 49-star flag would seem to be an invention. But the 50-star flag would not have gone into effect on July 4, 1959. In fact, although I was pre-teen then, I have a vague recollection of there being some discussion and debate about this topic. Further research would seem to be called for. Wahkeenah 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This site says that Hawaii celebrates the third Sunday in August as "Admission Day" and that there was a 49-star flag for a year. One thing I am fairly certain of at this point is that that whatever the flag looked like on July 4, 1959, did NOT yet have 50 stars. [1] Wahkeenah 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This site makes the assertion that there was, in fact a 49-star flag for one year, and that it was authorized by Eisenhower on January 3, 1959, and that the original flew over Independence Hall and was later given to the Alaska governor. [2] Wahkeenah 10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This site [3] states that Alaska and Hawaii honor July 4th as the dates in 1959 and 1960, respectively, when their stars were added to the flag. The states also celebrate January 3rd and the third Sunday in August, respectively, as "admission day". Wahkeenah 10:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The more you search, the more info you find supporting that there was, in fact, a 49-star flag for one year. Wahkeenah 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection to the last comment, but a viable link should be provided showing this information. In additoin, a state's admission to the union is not the same as when it was added to the flag, so that information is of little consequence for purposes of this discussion. I recommend adding a link to the Executive Order that added another star to the flag (if you can find it). If not, this one will suffice: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20060704.html . BQZip01 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the N.Y. Times is a secondary source. If you could find a comprehensive list of executive orders, that would be a good primary source. Wahkeenah 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to recall just what the debate was in 1959. I'm thinking that it was that, although the 49-star flag was to go into effect on 7/4/59, it was already known that Hawaii would be the 50th state, so why change the flag for just one year... unless it was for "political correctness", i.e. to throw Alaska a bone? I vaguely recall that, flag-wise, it was as if Alaska came into the "union" in 1959, and Hawaii in 1960. There seems to be evidence that some 49 star flags were produced and used by government agencies. I wonder how to find out (barring going to the library and scanning microfilm) how widespread the 49-star flag was? Wahkeenah 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Executive orders listed above clearly show a lack of a 49 star flag, but many sources say otherwise. I would check the white house website. You might find some there. BQZip01 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The key Executive Order here is number 10798 issued by Eisenhower on January 3, 1959. I've been unable to find the exact text online; the closest I've come is a document entitled Remarks Upon Signing the Proclamation Admitting Alaska to the Union and the Executive Order Changing the Flag of the United States issued that same date. It's clear, at least to me, that this EO changed the official flag of the US to a 49-star version effective the following 4th of July. Executive order 10834 of August 21, 1959 -- which it is easy to find online as it's the current flag specification -- revokes 10798 in section 33, but not before defining the flag design it specifies to be official until July 4, 1960 in section 31. (Mr Hendricks comments above assume, mistakenly, that the flag somehow (by sheer will of Congress?) automatically changes on the July 4th following admission of one or more states to the Union since the previous July 4th; interesting theory, but the documents don't bear this out. Executive Orders, not some automatic process, are what actually define changes to the flag.) --ScottMainwaring 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The automatic process thing is the same problem I had with it. http://www.qmfound.com/us_flag_49th_and_50th_star.htm shows the history of how the 49-star flag came into existence, but again does not show the text of the Executive Order. This presents a problem since we don't know what it says exactly. However, I believe we can infer by the date of EO 10798 (3 January 1959) and the text of 10834 that a new official flag should have been flown as of 4 July 1959. Therefore, the 49 star flag should stay. Anyone who wants to make a change/deletion should provide specific evidence that refutes this discussion. BQZip01 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is inconsistent with the idea of the 49-star flag: "The flag has been changed 26 times since the new, 13-state union adopted it. The 48-star version went unchanged for 47 years, until the 50-star version became official on July 4, 1960 (the first July 4 following Hawaii's admission to the union on August 21, 1959); the 47-year-record of the 48-star version was the longest time the flag went unmodified until July 4, 2007, when the current 50-star version of the Flag of the United States broke the record." It further gets the arithmetic wrong, since, if the 48-star flag lasted until 1960, it would have been 48 years old, not 47. I lived in Alaska when it was admitted and traveled to several other states during the year of the 49-star flag. It was universally flown during that year and there was no controversy about it. I owned one until it was stolen in a burglary.

Copyright

There's no mention of who owns the copyright image of the flag and what the guidelines are for printing.

• If you mean the flag in general, it's a product of the US government, so its presumably in the public domain. Anyone can make a US flag. Wahkeenah 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian flag

According to the Malaysian flag's wikipedia page, the flag is inspired by the flag of the East Indian Trade Company, as well. To be more accurate, there is no hard proof that the flag is inspired by the American flag, and it would makes more reason if it was by the British East Indian Company's flag.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zpowers (talk • contribs) 09:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Gallery

Why is the gallery notable? --87.189.95.49

It's not clear. Several of those pictures are pretty uninteresting, too. I say remove it. The rest of the article has plenty of space for putting flag images, if there are particularly cool ones. --jacobolus (t) 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them show different ways the flag can be displayed. Those, at least, could be kept. Wahkeenah 12:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, keep them, but, as suggested by jacobolus, put them in the main body, no need for the gallery. --87.189.127.32

Erm, well, actually I don't think any one of them is notable. A Betty Ross is notable, but these are just some pretty pictures of the flag. None of the pictures adds anything to the article (except maybe warm feelings to flag lovers). --87.189.91.236

Ok, please name any of the pictures you think carry any informational value and I will add it to the main article body. --87.189.91.236

Once again, why are these pictures notable:

Another test: Please provide a caption of five words or more for each of the pictures, containing all which is notable about it. Should be easy. --87.189.91.236

You're an IP address. Why are you notable? Just because you hate the USA is not sufficient reason to unilaterally delete a few harmless (and free) photos. Wahkeenah 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ad hominem and also inane ("hate the USA"? C'mon). At any rate, anonymous contribution is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I, too, prefer dealing with folks who create user names; but it is not a requirement. Trevor Hanson 18:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the funny story: I don't want to write about myself, so I don't have to be. Also, whether I do or don't hate the USA does not matter. In this case, the notability of the photos is the only thing important.

Why don't you just explain why the photos are notable and get rid of me? --87.189.91.236

Here's a few captions for you

1. "Flag properly flown over Arizona
2. Flag flown improperly over Arizona (note the bottom grommet of the flag is disconntected from the halyard). — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the picture to the relevant section. --87.189.91.236

Its the same flag and both are connected correctly if you look at the full res version. --Dual Freq 18:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but it is hard to tell from even the wikipedia page for the image's resolution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They are pictures of the flag, and the article is about the flag. Unless you're arguing that the flag itself is not notable. Wahkeenah 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has already plenty of pictures of the flag, so additional pictures add nothing, and are thus not notable. The flag is of course notable and its article should have pictures. --87.189.91.236

Define "plenty". Which wikipedia policy specifies an upper limit on the number of photos in an article? Wahkeenah 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"plenty" = "Enough to understand what the subject looks like." How many pictures do you think a person needs before understanding how the flag looks like? Or to put it for the umpteenth time another way: What do the individual pictures or the whole lot of them add to the article except more of the same? --87.189.91.236

Then you should be looking for other articles with galleries, such as... well, I'd better not tell you, or you'll start attacking them also. Although I think it's just this specific article that offends you. Wahkeenah 18:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to start somewhere, though I'm sure a lot of the gallerys make a lot of sense. Also, interesting to note that I have to follow WP's rules but you don't. Remember, the only reasons given for adding the pictures so far are: 1. The subject of the article is notable; 2. I'm not notable; 3. I hate the USA. Think about that. --193.254.155.48

Two wrongs don't make a right. He may (or may not) be personally attacking you, but that doesn't mean you get to violate WP policy. You are the sole person arguing for these images to be removed, therefore, your opinion does does have support in either facts, WP policy, or a consensus.

I never claimed I get to violate WP policy. I just noticed that he gets. Your therefore is a non sequitur.

"plenty" = "Enough to understand what the subject looks like." is not Wikipedia policy. If it is, please give us a link.

You don't expect me to have a link for that, do you? It's notability, as said before. The additional pictures add nothing.

A Gallery is supposed to contain additional, non-specific images. That is it's stated purpose. No reason not to include the pictures. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the policy describing that? --~~¸~

WP:NOT#MIRROR says: Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.... Wikipedia articles are not:... 4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text.... [so] please provide an encyclopedic context.... The appropriateness of galleries within articles is disputed. The debate here seems rather puerile. Still, I don't see the encyclopaedic value of a random bunch of flag pictures. Trevor Hanson 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It amounts to using wikipedia policy as a bludgeon to justify deleting something an editor personally dislikes. Wahkeenah 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unique panorama of American Flags at Chicago's Navy Pier.

I have moved all the images that had clear licenses from the gallery to commons:Category:Flags of the United States. I think the only one I didn't move was Image:DigitalUrbanFlag1280sm.jpg because of the source and uploader. --Dual Freq 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Query?

What was each flag assembled from? I want to to compare this to American industry at each time in our history? 66.191.102.41 08:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Please get a username from the main page. It makes it SO much easier to communicate and it literally takes about a minute.
2. Fixed the grammar for ya :-)
3. Please put new topics at the bottom of the page.
4. Are you asking for the materials used to make American flags? If so, I'm not sure the materials used for the flags was ever specified, only its colors, design, and dimensions. I'm not sure if anyone else knows on this site, but you can try contacting the Smithsonian. It's a long distance call, but I've called them in the past regarding other issues and they have been very helpful. Of course, I was in the military and calling from a war zone and needed an answer quickly regarding the history of the Composite Flying Wing in China in the 1940s...hmmm kinda went off track there. Anyway, you can call their visitor line and request to speak with someone from the National Museum of American History. If you can, try to talk to someone from their conservation lab. Call (202) 633-1000 (I got the number from: [[4]])
5. Hope this helps! — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "Please get a username...." Please get a life. A username is not required, and I am not turning on cookies to get one and to use it. The person above probably doesn't want to either. 05:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)~

1. Cookies are not needed
2. I never said it was required. I was simply a request. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading this conversation more than a year after the fact, but I would like to comment that changing the content of someone else's message seems a bit... arrogant. I've moved people's messages, to ensure that they are in the right place to be seen, I've fiddled with their formatting so that they can be read, but I would never alter the content of what someone writes, no matter what errors of grammar or spelling or expression I think may be there. I would count this as a significant transgression, in my opinion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The content was a simple typo in order to make my answer more clear. I was up front about this and never tried to hide my actions. He was welcome to revert it if he wished. There was no arrogance involved, simply a helping hand offered to increase clarity. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong symbol under Union Jack?

The Union Jack caption says it was used as the naval flag, yet the symbol indicates it was used for "military land" use. Is it backwards, or is there something not explained? WaltRiceJr 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch -- I've fixed it. --ScottMainwaring 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What if...

If the flag touches the ground, what are you supposed to do?Mooapau 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends. If it isn't dirty or blemished in any way, then nothing. If it is dirty, you can either clean it or properly dispose of it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you supposed to do? Turn yourself in to the authorities, of course. >:) Wahkeenah 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Backwards stars and stripes on U.S military uniforms

this has been bugging me. The U.S army and marines have the american flag on their sleeves, however the flag is backwards. ie. the stars are at the top right corner, instead of the top left. WHY? Willy turner 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should only look "backwards" on the right sleeve. The rule I've heard is that the "hoist" of the flag (where it would attach to a flagpole) should be towards the front of the person, as if they were facing/marching into the "wind". Same with display on vehicles, aircraft, etc. Anyone have a reference for this? --ScottMainwaring 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but I know that is the exact reason why it is done on airplanes. ANNAfoxlover 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the flag isn't "backwards." It is simply a different 2D view of a 3D object called a "reversed field" flag. I would recommend searching the Army and Navy regulations (the Marine Corps is only a department of the Navy...albeit the men's department...). Secondly, if a flag is hung vertically with the stripes vertical, this would be the flag orientation used in order for the field to be shown in the proper manner. For faster answers, I highly recommend using Google for future queries. (couldn't resist throwing those two links in; don't take offense) — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference: AR 670-1; 28-18; pg. 240. "The full-color U.S. flag cloth replica is worn so that the star field faces forward, or to the flag’s own right. When worn in this manner, the flag is facing to the observer’s right, and gives the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward. The appropriate replica for the right shoulder sleeve is identified as the reverse side flag." See the AR for a diagram. Therefore, the photo in the artice is incorrect.joel 02:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the photo in which "artice" is incorrect? The wikipedia one? If so, why?

I guess he mean the picture of the urban camouflaged American flag patch. Presumably because if it is a patch for the right sleeve; then it is a reverse side flag patch which is being displayed backwards (to make it look like a front side flag patch). That's a lot of guesses though - Occasional Reader 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Prospect Hill is in Somerville not Cambridge (Section: History - First Flag)

I live in Somerville and know that Prospect Hill is in Somerville not Cambridge, MA as stated in the History-First flag section. The hill top itself and plaques commemorating the event are in Somerville. At the time of the flag raising Somerville was part of Charlestown, MA. Although Cambridge, MA is a short distance away, Prospect Hill is not now or has it ever been within the City of Cambridge. I would edit this myself but I'm new to contributing comments on Wiki, I'm not a historian or Flag expert & my confidence in WIKI etiquette is lacking, so I'm posting here first.--And the wind 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

47 Star Flag

I believe there was the design of a 47 star flag when New Mexico became a state but only very few (11 or 12 in number) were created as flags. Was this flag ever flown as the Flag of the United States? How many are left in existence? It appears there were on a few made as Arizona became the 48th state very shortly after New Mexico.MRaton 13:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

While they may have been made, they weren't official flags. Official flags are generally updated on July 4th (see list on main page). If additional states are added in the same year, then more stars are added until 4 July when all the new stars are updated on the flag. Clear 'nuff? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Though its design is similar to the flag of Malaysia and of the British East India Company...

74.102.43.107 (talk · contribs) continues to add the following uncited info to the leading paragraph:

Though its design is similar to the flag of Malaysia and of the British East India Company, no substantive connection to either flag has been established.

I don't think that this is useful or germane information. Opinions? Popkultur

It's ok information in itself, but the "Similar Flags" section further on down the article is where this topic is discussed, and there's a much more detailed treatment at Flags of the United States#Flags with similar designs, where the British East India Company flags appear. -- JackofOz 06:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifications of the flag

I’ve become interested in the specs, and I see in Image 1 that each of the 50 white stars has what seems to be a blue cross in its centre. These are mentioned nowhere in the specs. But they don’t appear in Image 2 at all. Is there any information about these crosses?

Also, this might be a nitpick, but the stars themselves seem to be ambiguously specified. We’re told their diameter is 0.0616. A star with an even number of points might be said to have a diameter – the distance from one vertex to its opposite number, passing through the centre - but one with 5 points doesn’t have this property. What I think they really meant to say was that the diameter of the circle circumscribing the star is 0.0616. -- JackofOz 06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image 1

Image 2

The "crosses" (actually crosshashes) are only the intersections of the shown lines. Good point though. If someone has to software to remove them, it would be a good idea to do so to avoid problems like this.

Diameter is appropriate (see link, definition 1b) as the "side" is a circumscribed circle...inferred I'll admit...— BQZip01 — ^talk 06:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, BQZip01. OK, I see what the crosshashes are for: The stars are placed not just anywhere that looks kinda symmetrical, but the crosshashes specify exactly where the centres of the stars are. They're the intersections of the E-F and G-H borders, etc. In that case, I think we should leave them where they are because they serve a vital purpose, but add a note to the image explaining what they're for.

About my 2nd point and Defn 1b: Yes, a circum-circle must be implied. In the case of a star with an even number of points, "diameter" could be taken to mean the longest internal distance (point to opposite point), but with a 5-pointer, no internal line via the centre (or via anywhere else) would be long enough. -- JackofOz 07:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The mean ol' Sun versus lunar flags

In a section listing Places of continuous display

There is a photo from the Apollo 14 mission,

Astronaut Alan Shepard raises the United States Flag on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 14 mission.

and the following list item:

• In addition, the American flag is on continual display on the surface of the Earth's Moon, having been placed there by the astronauts of Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17. It is possible that Apollo 11's flag was knocked down by the force of return to lunar orbit.

To which I added:

After decades of unfiltered ultraviolet solar radiation, lunar temperature extremes and space weathering, the potential recognizability of the non-metallic portion of the Apollo flags is unknown.

BQZip01 reverted to let me know that this "interesting claim NEEDS a source."

Really, I totally hedged it and left it about as hopeful as I could. Maybe I should have replaced "unknown" with "questionable." I understand and have seen how this is shocking, even emotional, for some when they first consider it.

The effect of direct sunlight on dyed fabric is not really controversial. The flag delivered by Apollo 11 was made from an ordinary 3' x 5' nylon flag purchased from a government supply catalog for $5.50. A similar flag placed on display no earlier than 1976 in a replica exhibit at the Smithsonian on Earth, indoors, was in 1996 already "quite noticeably faded."

The lunar environment, however, lacking a shielding atmosphere, is absolutely brutal for something like a nylon flag. Not only the color of the dyes, but the material itself, is attacked by the radiation. I won't conduct new research in the article to conclude that the flags are now somewhere between a dustily degraded near-white and non-existent. However, in light of what we know of conditions on our colorless Moon, it would already seem that the burden is on the claimants of continuous display to adequately support that what we would recognize as an American flag is indeed on intact display there.

And this is where the question of the present condition of the flags becomes moot. It is unlikely that anyone or anything with adequate resolution will be checking up on the flag at a manned lunar landing site for quite some time. To have something on display is to have it where it can be seen. For something to be "displayed continuously" now, it needs to be where it can be seen, continuously, now.

If it is any consolation, the flags served their purpose at the time: they were fun, they photographed well, we got to see them on TV, and the first became associated with one of the most memorable shared moments ever. Finally, Apollo did leave the Moon other, more permanent, keepsakes in the form of some nice stainless steel plaques. They're not on display, either. — RVJ 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps better phrasing would be in order, "The flags left on the moon are presumed to still be in place, but their condition is unknown at this time." or something like that? — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Until someone comes along and gives the first part an . Then you weaken it further, or run headlong into WP:Verifiability. The whole thing should be avoided. The flags left on the Moon just don't belong under Display, continuous or otherwise, by definition. You can hardly hide something better today, than to put it on the Moon.

The Flag on the Moon, developed with this information and photos from NASA, would make a good subsection on its own up in Flag of the United States#History. Then there wouldn't be the need to establish its current state. — RVJ 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So you actually doubt that the American Flag is on the moon? Please tell me that I have misinterpreted your comment. ThreeE 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE, you have misunderstood. The question here is not the flags on the moon, but their current state. Have the years of ultraviolet solar radiation, lunar temperature extremes and space weathering taken their toll? Or is the flag still there. The flags were obviously planted on the moon.

RVJ, I guess we have a problem then. "To have something on display is to have it where it can be seen. For something to be "displayed continuously" now, it needs to be where it can be seen, continuously, now." (emphasis added). These flags (or at least what is left) can be seen today...if you visit the moon. I can't get to Pearl Harbor right now, but that doesn't mean the flag there isn't on continuous display. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So you believe that you can't get to Pearl Harbor. Who cares? Are you…a solipsist? That's okay. Imagine then, that other members of the public go to Pearl Harbor, and see a flag. Is the problem that you are also imagining that someone, anyone, is visiting the lunar landing sites and inspecting the flag remains? I trust not.

Maybe this will expose the problem:

dis·play |dəˈspleɪ|

verb [ trans. ]

make a prominent exhibition of (something) in a place where it can be easily seen

noun

1 a performance, show, or event intended for public entertainment

(excerpted from New Oxford American Dictionary)

As for flags on the Moon, they necessarily went off display the moment their images were beyond the range of a visual observer, living or electronic. — RVJ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As scary as it is for me, I have to agree with BQZip -- the lunar flags are still on display. You certainly can still visit them -- after you build adequate transportation. You could also look at them via a robotic probe as well. ThreeE 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then read the definition of display again, please. If the flags under discussion were not brought back by the astronauts and exhibited in a place where they can be easily seen, then the flags cannot be said to be on display. Until which time that adequate imaging—or transportation to the landing sites—is available, this is plainly the case. —RVJ 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

September, 11th - Half or Full-Staff

The Flag is listed as being raised both Full-Staff and Half-Staff in the article I was Just looking for some clarifiction on the issue, Thanks (71.200.102.79 14:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Good catch. Though it is unsourced, the article Patriot Day says it should be half staff all day, as does the White House. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Artists

While many artists have portrayed the flag in many different mediums, I don't think it is appropriate to show random depictions of the flag (especially when it isn't recognizable from the image given). Furthermore, unless a said artist was instrumental in something related directly to the flag (i.e. Francis Scott Key), I don't think they need to be listed under Notable People. Thoughts anyone? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the depictions (unless someone adds a section Influence in contemporary art and fashion or some such — not a bad idea, in my opinion). But I think the Associated people section should use a broad enough definition of "associated" to encompass artists, designers, politicians, essayists, etc., so long as they have a truly notable association through their work with the flag. If the list becomes too long and unweildy, it could be moved to a stand alone article (there certainly is a problem with the long length and "listy-ness" of this article). --ScottMainwaring (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Colors on Flag Of United States

Can anybody tell me symbolism of colors on the Flag of the United States? I want to know what red and white stripes symbolize and also blue color on the flag.

Thanks, Rohit

1. Please sign your posts with four tildes (the little " ~ " thing). That will let us know whom we are addressing.
2. You inquisitiveness and question are certainly something that Wikipedia values and we'd love to have you as a member. Please sign up as a member. It takes all of about 20 seconds and doesn't even require an e-mail address. If you need help, please contact me on my user talk page (the little "talk" thing after my signature).
3. Quoting from the text in the article:

In terms of the symbolism of the design itself, a book about the flag published by the Congress in 1977 states: "The star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays of light emanating from the sun."

George Washington is credited for saying: "We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty."

Many people also take the red and white to stand for the blood of those who gave their lives for freedom, and the presumed purity of the freedom ideal, respectively.

So basically, they don't "stand" for anything specific and it is open to interpretation.

Many military members I know view the red as the blood shed for this country in peace and war, the white stands for the peace we strive for, and the blue union surrounding the 50 stars represents the union that hold the 50 states together.

Hope that helps. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the stripes were first seen on the British West Indies Company Flags that had a small grand union for the field, the number of stripes varied but no doubt colonists, even Washington could have seen Brit Schooners/contract ships fly this corporate flag. Now sources are unknown to me, claims are made that the stripes were said to symbolise the stripes on Yeshua's back as well, no doubt from the same crowd the cried" no king but King Jesus" supposedly as a rally for the revolution. These type of lore are passed around even absent a original period source except some diary of a grandson or something, go looking eh? "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in your philosophy" 76.177.80.36 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the similarities that you are referring to is with respect to the flag of the British East India Company flag. This was the same (if not amazingly similar) to the Grand Union flag and predates it by many decades. Of itself, it is unknown as to the origination of the design, with respect to the red and white stripes. But it is suggested that it is based off a British Naval communications flag that consisted of a plain red flag with white stripes. The white stripes then being applied to the Red Ensign to make the BEIC flag.

Irrespective of this, the Grand Union flag contained the colours of the Union Flag, that is their true source. Any subsequent claim as to their meaning is an acquired meaning post the event (there was no other reason for choosing these colours except that they are the colours of the British Union Flag). Dbnull (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Question re other flags on US soil

I have a general query to which I couldn't find an answer... Is it permissible to fly a foreign flag on US soil without a supplemental (or dominant) US flag? What about only the state flag without a US flag? Dionix (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer forthcoming on my talk page (this page really isn't the place to discuss this). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Specifications

This article has very detailed specifications but nothing in title 4 gives such specifications. Specifically, 4 U.S.C. § 1 and 4 U.S.C. § 2 do not detail these specs despite the article indicating such. Where do they come from? Cburnett (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There was a merge proposal on this article (in the History section) since February 2007 with no discussion, so I have removed it and replaced it with a {{main}} tag, pointing to Timeline of the Flag of the United States. If you oppose this edit or support the merge proposal, please state your reasons here. Bry9000 (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Navy Blue in American flag?

According to the Web_Colors Wiki page, the blue color code 'Navy' is 00,00,128 (RGB, decimal) but the color definition of the American flag says that the blue in the American flag is defined as "Navy Blue, (0,40,104)" (RGB, decimal) So either the color code is wrong, or the label 'Navy Blue' doesn't apply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.169.162 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is no fixed and invariable mapping from colors of objects in the real world to computer-monitor RGB colors. RGB colors are highly context-dependent. That's why flag colors are more usually defined or standardized in terms of Pantone than RGB. To reliably convert Pantone to RGB, you have to carefully calibrate your monitor's particular characteristics, and the results of such a conversion from Pantone to RGB could be different for someone who has a different monitor (not to mention ambient lighting). AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Dimensions

Wouldn't it make more sense for the vertical dimension to be based on 1.3 instead of 1.0? There are thirteen stripes, and this way, each one would be 0.1 (relative). Nice for SVG, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.134.103 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how the U.S. government chose to do things in Image:Flag of the United States specification.jpg... AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why no "of America" in article title?

Why is this article titled "Flag of the United States" instead of "Flag of the United States of America"? The opening paragraph and the infobox both use the "of America" title, and the proper name of the country is the "United States of America", so, why isn't the article titled that way? It should be noted that there are many other "United States" besides the American ones. I see the USA article also currently just uses "United States" as its main title, which I think is also wrong.
Do other people agree it should be moved? Or is anyone opposed to such a move? -- HiEv 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue won't be settled here -- it's a general geographic names "style" issue, which affects a number of articles in the same way. Not sure where the exact Wikipedia policy talk page (where this issue should best be discussed) is located, but there probably is one somewhere... AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found it in the US/FAQ page: Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions#Why is the article's name "United States" and not "United States of America"? I still don't agree with it though and I posted a comment on it here. -- HiEv 14:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problems of allowing a variable into a flag

Are there any other flags that have had so many changes, caused by allowing a variable (in this case, the number of states) into the design? Mike0002 (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, though Flag of Brazil follows a similar convention. But why is this a "problem"? --ScottMainwaring (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Most other cases of multiple flag changes have been due to political upheavals (such as with the Flag of Afghanistan and the Flag of Syria in the 20th century). All changes to the U.S. flag after 1795 have been somewhat minimal changes, according to a plan laid down in 1818, so the U.S. case isn't really comparable... AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Touching the Ground

It is a myth that a flag that touches the gound has to be burned Nice or in evil (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide Fame

Shouldn't there be a section detailing that the US flag is one of a few which are instantly identified by most people on Earth? And that it is also the flag/symbol which is by far most commonly burned, thumped on, and desecrated by people around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.12.119 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Instantly recogniozed dosn't equal fame,. The nazi flag is also easy to recognize, so is the soviet union, the japan, the english... canada... fact is, nope.--Jakezing (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Link defunct

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/06/24/olympics_history_feature.shtml -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Splitting 'Display and use' into a new page

The section 'Display and use' is lost within this article and needs splitting into it's own article Flag flying days in the United States (like Flag flying days in Mexico) Mr Taz (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Who Screwed up the intro paragraph??

Can someone please go in and adjust the intro right now it says "Don't use this top paragraph I edited it by mistake...so sorry bearing 50 small..." yadda yadda. I don't know who did it, but I certainly don't know enough about the American flag to fix this mistake. Keenjane (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5