Talk:Union Jack/Archive 3

RE: "The Irish saltire is arranged counterchange with the saltire of St Andrew"

Does anybody know why this was done?

Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speculation: so that neither would be "on top" (of course the Cross of St. George, on the other hand ...) ... that and graphically it does adds vertical balance. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They had to be counterchanged in order that the Scottish saltire was not seen simply as a fimbriation (separating area, as with the white stripe around the St George's Cross) of the Irish saltire. As such, the narrow white strip on the saltire part is a fimbriation, and only the thick strip is considered part of the Scottish saltire. As to the differing order (high on the left, low on the right), I can only speculate. With the top left being the superior position in a flag, it was intended to demonstrate a superiority of sorts between Scotland and Ireland, with the former being the larger and older constituent country.--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

having done some research, the St Andrew's Cross is placed upper-most, near-flag pole position, as it joined the union nearly 200 Years before Ireland. This Possition was chosen as it is the most honourable. see: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip.t.day (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We were taught about the flag in Junior school in the 1950s, and what is referred to here as counterchange was called in those lessons the Raised or Reversed Saltire. (If you just draw the St Andrews Saltire by itself and then adjust it to match the position on the union flag it does not cross neatly in the centre). it can be drawn in rotational symmetry if the four arms have a triangular fillet off one side, and the four fillets meet at a point in the centre. We were told at school that it was done to denote the historical precedence of the Scottish flag over the Irish in the union - chronology, not cultural, superiority. We had to draw all the separate parts and colour them in our exercise books and then build up the history of the flag and the union. The absence of wales was even talked about then, and explained as the welsh never having had a King, and that flags were derived from the banners that kings flew on their pavillions. That bit, of course, was nonsense as princes and bishops flew banners! Brunnian (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the {{Refimprove}} tag to the article as there are numerous claims and quotations without citation. For example, the line "The 'Jack' part of the name may also have come from the name of King James I/James VI of Scotland," looks like original research unless a source can be provided. Also, citations should appear directly after quotes such as, "joyned together according to the forme made by our heralds, and sent by Us to our Admerall to be published to our Subjects." and "the ensign armorial of the Kingdom of Great Britain".
These are just a few unsourced statements within the first three sections. There are plenty more within the rest of the article. If you are serious about this passing through a Good Article review then this is something that will need to be resolved soon. Road Wizard (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that on Wikipedia, everything has to be compared with how things are in the US? e.g. "In general there are no prescriptions regarding the use and disposal of the flag in a manner akin to the United States Flag Code." We don't compare everything in the world to the French way of doing things, for example. Jetekus (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is done becasue like it or not, a massive number of en.wiki users are American. It also reflects the fact that American related things are often most famous. Do you know of another country which has a code for everything to do with the national flag including how to fold it? If so, and its not the USA, feel free to change the article. That's why Wiki is Open source after all. Philip.t.day (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not know of another such country, which is why it seems like such an odd thing to say. If America is the odd one out because it has such a code, it seems odd to then compare this flag's rules with the one of a country that is unusual in this regard. Jetekus (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I undserstand your point of view. But I think this particular comparison is just used to make clear the conditions attatched to our flag. Also we should consider the Americans who regularly take American normal to be that of the world, and therefore assume. As an encycopedia, we should be aiming to correct any wrong assumptions right? Philip.t.day (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But by comparing everything to the US norms you are just reinforcing their ideas of the Unites States centrality. It may be sensible to have comments like that in an American encyclopaedia, however this is an international encyclopaedia and so such comments are out of place. I wont delete it now, however if no one objects here ill come back in a few days and take it out.--Prophesy (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophesy (talk • contribs)

This is an English speaking enclycopaedia. I must say that whilst I agree that; often; all things should not be compared to a United States tradition or protocol, in this instance it is correct to do so. This is because it really is the case that most often when the Union Flag is folded, people tend to fold it by the same (or very similar) method to that of the US Flag. were there a French method widely know throughout the english speaking world, then I'd happily have it changed to compare to that.

It is my opinion that the article remain unchanged in this matter Philip.t.day (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Jeketus. The vast majority of the world finds everything on the internet have become too America-centric. It's always a continuous issue throughout history. Previously, we had the British era, and everything was focused on everything British. Now, in the American era, we have focused on everything American. So what's next, we be on everything Chinese??!!! --Anti.Exams (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I also found the comparison with the extradorinary treatment of the US flag jarring and unnecessary. It tells us nothing about the UK flag, and that should be the criterion surely? Brunnian (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is that meant to mean? I'm guessing its about the fact that it has a St George's cross and a St Andrew's cross, but they have their own reasons---St George is the patron of Moscow (and I think of Russia too), and St Andrew is the patron of the navy, or its because St Andrew's cross is their naval ensign. Perhaps the article should make clear that the Gerorge+Andrew thing is not in imitation of the UK, but because they coincidentally invoke the same saints. 118.90.51.62 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open source encylopedia, if you don't like something, especially such as the fact you have disputed, which has a "citation needed" tag. They you are perfectly within your rights, and indeed encouraged to correct it publicly on the article. If I were you, I'd give it a go, as editing Wikipedia is pretty fun. Quick warning though, it is VERY addictive, so if you are about to go into a major exam taking year for e.g. GCSE's or A2's watch out! happy Wiki-ing. Philip.t.day (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Union Flag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm afraid that this article does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. The main issue that I see is regarding verifiability (2a and 2b): far too much information is lacking citations, including entire paragraphs. Some sections contain only one or two ref ("Since 1801", "Other nations and regions", etc). There are two {{fact}} tags that I can see, but far more inline citations are needed. There is also an issue with the types of sources utilized. Although news articles can be very useful for citing less contested information, I feel that book/scholarly sources should be looked into. For example, Nick Groom's The Union Jack: The Story of the British Flag is listed in "Further reading", but why isn't it used as a source? Also, never ever use Wikipedia articles for sources!

Other, more technical issues I see with this article is with formatting and the MOS. The lead is not of a sufficient length and it does not adhere to WP:LEAD. Citations are missing important information, including but not limited to author, publisher and access date, per WP:CITE. You may choose to use citation templates in order to create consistency with your formatting, but it's not mandatory. Remember that references go after punctuation rather than before (preferring union jack (in lower case)[5].), use double quotes instead of single (Andrew Rosindell introduced the 'Union Flag Bill' ) and that external links should not appear in the prose (the Union Flag flown more often from government buildings.[3])

As a side note, I did not read the article in great detail for prose issues at this time. Again, the article's main problem is its references and for that alone I do not feel that the article can be promoted at this time. Please do continue to work on it and I hope to see it listed again at GAC once all of the above has been addressed. Best of luck and if you have any questions you can contact me on my talk page. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it true the Union Flag is a royal banner flown as the defacto flag of the UK with permission of the Monarch?

121.216.232.15 (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Philip.t.day (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this need to be spelt out more in the Status section? JPD (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From the current version of the article: "The Irish saltire is arranged counterchange with the saltire of St Andrew, so the white is always on the clockwise side of the red."

But, surely, if the hoist is to the right of the flag, the white is on the counterclockwise side? In physical terms, it changes between clockwise and counterclockwise if you walk to the other side of the flag. I'm not changing the article because there maybe some technical vexillological definition of "clockwise" that I'm not aware of.

On a related note, is it true that a depiction of the flag, such as in print or on a screen, should always be made with the hoist assumed to be to the left? David Brooks (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed correct it would change sides, but as with a drawing of any flag, a discription of a flag is usually assumed to be depicting it with the pole on the left hand side. As a result you don´t have to say "clockwide with pole on the left, and anti-clockwise when pole is on the right". Or such an explanation.

THat sort of leads on to your next question really, yes it is common practice to assume pole on left in drawings. philip.t.day (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In Western cultures, the obverse or main side of the flag has the hoist on the left, and so it is often assumed that we are talking about that side. We could for further clarity say something like "...always on the clockwise side of the red on the obverse" - that might not be a bad idea. In some other cultures the obverse is actually the other side, but since this is less common, it is a good idea to make this clear when depicting a flag in this fashion. JPD (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This tiny island off Friesland and Hamburg was under British rule from 1807 to 1890. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_Heligoland_Flag.png" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has already been moved, though I'm wondering why it seems to have been moved back to "Union Flag". Union Jack is the traditional and (I would have thought) more popular name for the flag. "Union Flag" is a relatively recent name for it. I suggest moving it back and leaving a redirect here. --Setanta747 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd disagree, as the term 'Jack' may cause people to confuse it for the common myth that it is only such when on a jack staff. This way makes it perfectly clear that the artice is about the flag in all curcomstances. I appologise for spelling mistakes, I can't spell "ser-cum-stan-ses" to save my life! Philip.t.day (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be the case, as the article itself addresses that issue. I remain convinced that the most popular (and oldest?) name for the flag is "Union Jack". --Setanta747 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldest name? Actually, no. In his flag proclamation of 1634, concerning the first version of the flag, Charles I described as "the union flag".

Again in the royal proclamation of 1 January 1801 which created the current flag, the new flag was again described: "the Union Flag shall be Azure, the Crosses Saltires of St. Andrew and St. Patrick Quarterly per Saltire, counterchanged Argent and Gules; the latter fimbriated of the Second, surmounted by the Cross of St. George of the Third, fimbriated as the Saltire". There is no mention of jacks in either, nor indeed in the original proclamation by James VI & I.

You will find that pedantry wins out over common sentiment on Wikipedia, and pedantry demands that a "jack" is found only on a jackstaff.

Howard Alexander (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'jack' theory has no basis in fact. Whilst I neither approve or disapprove of the proposed move, 'Union Jack' is a perfectly acceptable term for the flag - jackstaff or none. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"You will find that pedantry wins out over common sentiment on Wikipedia, and pedantry demands that a "jack" is found only on a jackstaff." See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things.

As Breadandcheese says. The name "union jack" was applied to the flag many years before the jackstaff came into being.

The "union jack" has been named in government legislature.

It is the name of the flag, and the most common name in use in the UK.

I say we go for the move and make "Union Flag" the redirect. --Setanta747 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a moment of caution first. This article has already been moved from "Union Jack".

Do you have a citation for the statement that "union jack" has been named in government legislature"? I would not be so sure. Goverment statements yes, but ministers say a lot of things we do not listen to: letters patent or a royal proclamation would be another matter.

You also suggest that The name "union jack" was applied to the flag many years before the jackstaff came into being. According to the Flag Institute's website, the word "jack" "was in use before 1600 to describe a small flag flown from the small mast mounted on the bowsprit, and by 1627 it appears that a small version of the Union flag was commonly flown in this position. For some years it was called just 'the Jack', or 'Jack flag', or 'the King's Jack', but by 1674, while formally referred to as 'His Majesty's Jack', it was commonly called the Union Jack, and this was officially acknowledged." That suggests that the "jack" is specifically naval. It might support your assertion "union jack" came before the jackstaff was invented, but only because the jackstaff was named after the jack flag! It certainly tells us that a jack is a particular sort of naval flag.

What we do have is definitive authority for "union flag", from the Proclamation which created it in 1801.

Let us get some solid evidence together before making radical changes.

Howard Alexander (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the Union Jack is named in government legislation. However, the method of its naming is quite interesting; "the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack)"[2] Road Wizard (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[de-indent] Again, I cite Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things. I have already been cautious by the way, in the fact that I brought the subject up on this talk page instead of simply moving the page. Was there a discussion about the previous move at all? Does the person who moved the page now own it? --Setanta747 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been done to death. Please, before doing anything, see the merge proposal at Flag of the United Kingdom — if you like, add your comments about the proposed merge — and also see Archives 1 & 2 for all previous discussions on renaming proposals. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On the British Parliament website which details the history of England and Scotland, leading up to the union of the crowns and then the Acts of union it says this...

"In 1606 he(King James) gave orders for a 'British' flag which bore the combined crosses both of St George and of St Andrew. The result was the 'Union Jack', 'Jack' being a shortening of 'Jacobus', the latin word for James. " I have not seen any mention of this possible reason for its naming, is the parliament website totally inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.35.86 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article say: "Union Flag, AKA Union Jack. The correct usage is the other way around. Most people refer to it as the Union Jack. Btline (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is he same argument as exists for "Big Ben" the monument in London. Most people know the tower itself as Big Ben, but technically it is called "The Bell Tower". I believe that until recenty the technical term for the flag in general discussion should have been Union Flag, and the term Union Jack more of a colloquialism. But to be honest I have no preference as regards to which way round it is, so don't let me stop you from switching it around. Philip.t.day (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal, but perhaps of use: I grew up in England in the 70s and 80s: Union Jack was exclusively used. I only encountered Union Flag when moving north to Scotland. I understand that Scottish usage has been Union Flag for a long time. In short, both terms have coexisted: 122.57.91.36 (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the images in Union_Jack#Campaigns_for_a_new_Union_Flag may be a breach of policy, specifically WP:MOSFLAG, WP:CBALL, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE. Are these designs attributable to reliable published sources? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely--every time I see Paul S's ridiculous "example of St. David's Cross incorporated into the Union Flag" that he made himself. If that's not a violation then I don't know what is. RobertCDavis (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should be move to Flag of Great Britain as the term Union Flag covers the Flag of Great Britain (First Union Flag) and later the Flag of the United Kingdom (Second Union Flag) Mr Taz (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm... the article covers both too. Why should it be named only for the older one? JPD (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Because there all ready a article that covers the Flag of the United Kingdom (Second Union Flag) post 1800. So this article can cover the Flag of Great Britain (First Union Flag) 1707-1800 Mr Taz (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag days section should be split into a new article called Flag flying days in the United Kingdom. Like Flag flying days in Mexico as this section is about flying the flag and not about the flag Mr Taz (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Flying the flag is about the flag. Whether it deserves a separate article depends on the length of various sections and how well it fits into the article organisation. Given the wider use of this flag, it may well be a good idea to split it off. JPD (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This BBC article mentions the original ratio was 1:1.6, but a change to thread sizes caused it to be changed to 1:2. Is this worthy of inclusion or a bit too trivial? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

These "see also" notes are frankly getting ridiculous. Should create Union Jack (disambiguation)? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion here on whether "Butcher's Apron" should be a standalone page about the nickname, a redirect to this article, or deleted entirely. Given that a redirect implies this article should mention the term somewhere, interested editors may like to weigh in there... Shimgray | talk | 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the article for Butcher's Apron redirects here, then the term must be described on this article somewhere. A quick search of the article for the word "apron" found no matches, although I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it here before (I'm well aware of the use of the term, it's the most common one used up here when discussing the flag). Lianachan (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The apparent Scottish variant of the first union flag (with the St Andrew saltire passing over the St George cross) is not well documented. The only proof such a flag ever existed is in a single engraving of 1693 (a time when anti-English feeling was begining to appear). It was not an authorised flag notwithstanding that it flew over Edinburgh Castle according to the artist.

The alleged appearance of such a flag in Dumfries in 1618 is fakery. The source in question does not mention the presence of any flag; it reports a loyal address to King James VI which refers to the crosses "so proportionately interlaced"; an adequate poetic description of the King's union flag in its normal guise. Indeed why would King James, having emphasised the flag as one flag for the whole of his "Kingdome of Great Britaine", then have two? Someone is playing naughty games with a primary source.

I am content that the 1606 union flag is the flag of Scotland with the English St George cross allowed house room on it. (I have always assumed that the Countess of Northampton pressed the design on her husband, the Lord Admiral, and she was a Scot.) Malcontents from each side will interpret a slight in anything. The English certainly did. That could give rise to the Scottish variant by the 1690's, but it was no official flag.

If the office of the Lord Lyon says otherwise then I will eat my words, but I can be confident.

The flag is worthy of mention, but raising it to the status of an official flag is to invent history. Every reliable source which mentions it states that it was an unofficial version. Until there is proof otherwise these claims for its staus have no place in an encyclopædic article.

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but your entire argument is based on your own POV:

• What is your criteria for "well documented"?
• "The only proof" should be qualified with the fact that this is true as far as you are aware, alternatively cite a source.(WP:RS applies)
• "anti-English feeling was begining to appear." I wasn't there at the time, but I suspect such sentiment was already present amongst many Scots, and had been for centuries.
• "alleged appearance of such a flag in Dumfries in 1618 is fakery". And your proof is..?
• "Someone is playing naughty games with a primary source." Explain...
• "but it was no official flag." Nor is the current Union Flag: "No law has been passed making the Union Flag the national flag of the United Kingdom" according to the article, (admitedly Wiki should not be regarded as a reliable source), yet the flag exists despite this.
• "If the office of the Lord Lyon says otherwise then I will eat my words." Get writing in that case, do not presume.
• "but raising it to the status of an official flag is to invent history." Nowhere was this claimed/stated in the article.

Historical references to this design exist. If a department of the UK Govt. (fco.gov.uk) sees fit to mention the existance of such a historical design, how can it then "have no place in an encyclopædic article"?

While not wishing to enter into an edit war, I propose your edit be reverted, with the proviso that it be emphasised that such a design, (as can be seen at FOTW together with reference) was unofficial.

Endrick Shellycoat 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise; have including most of your previous alterations but including most of those which preceded them. Have included sufficient detail that there can be no doubt as to the status of Scottish variant, and references have been included. Endrick Shellycoat 11:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The first post is correct, the source quoted does not suggest the flag's appearance in Dumfries, anything that suggests it does is mere speculation. The only proper evidence presented for it is an artists engraving - which is questionable as a source and entirely unreliable: it has often been commonplace to draw in flags in images of important buildings. Use of FOTW as a source, which is in reality a compendium of comments made on an email mailing list, is again highly dubious.

As for the anti-English sentiment comment, again the first post is correct - it became a significant force in the 1690s. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. However, if published works such as the Story of Scotland's Flag, (Paul Harris, William McMillanand John A. Stewart, Lang Syne Publishers, 1992), adapted by Paul Harris from The story of the Scottish flag by William McMillan and John A. Stewart, (published in 1925 by Hugh Hopkins, Glasgow), Slezer's Theatrum Scotiae of 1693 and John Nichols' The progresses, processions, and magnificent festivities, of King James the First... (1828) are going to be challenged to the extent which they have, then I'd expect something other than mere opinion to be brought to the table. We cannot throw material either in or out of articles on the basis of opinion. If references are able to be challenged, then cite the reference which challenges it, preferably in the article itself. Endrick Shellycoat 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the book references. It will be interesting to see if those books have any contemporary, primary source, or whether they too can only cite the Slezer engraving and the word "interlaced" in the Dumfries address. If the latter, they get us nowhere. Even the earliest of the books is a century and a quarter after the event of course, but if it has primary sources we can hang on those sources.

This should not be a matter of opinions but of pinning facts down. (I know the old one about "I have a statement; you have a point of view". Let us not fall into that.) The Wikipedia principle is that statements must be verifiable. Here we seems to have one contemporary engraving (which is good, if not conclusive, evidence for 1692) and nothing else but a much later romantic suggestion, which in terms of evidential value gains nothing from repetition. We have to do better than that.

Do you have anything on Covenanters' flags?

Howard Alexander (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, to a degree, in as much as "this should not be a matter of opinions but of pinning facts down". The facts remain that Slezer has left us a contemporary, visual example of the flag's use. Whether that "use" was by the Scottish army at the castle garrison, to which the Parliament of Scotland and it's Royal Commissioners may have turned a blind eye, or whether it was simply by Slezer himself for the purpose of political point-scoring or mischief making, is neither here nor there. The fact which we can pin down is that the flag, in this design, was used during the period pre the Acts of Union of 1707. The only argument which remains is as to how it was used; the whether it was used has been established c/o Slezer's engraving. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that I doubt very much that Slezer invented the design himself. It would be curious indeed if this were the case, but given his own experience in the summer of 1689 at the hands of the local authorities in Edinburgh, who had him imprisoned for failure to take the proper oath of allegiance to William III over James VII, his engraving some two or three years later may betray some kind of defiance in the design of the flag, perhaps even mirroring that which was being used elsewhere in Scotland to suggest some form of loyalty to the Jacobite cause. (Short of a source to confirm such, this remains mere speculation on my part).

Those references to which I refer earlier will remain that which fall within WP:RS and WP:V unless evidence can be produced from equally reliable and verifiable sources which state to the contrary. We, as Wiki-editors, are not in a position to determine by ourselves and purely on the basis our own opinion, however well-informed such might be, what published works are deemed reliable and verifiable where this issue is concerned. What is in print and in the public domain can be taken at face value or interpreted a thousand different ways by the individual - all we can do as Wiki editors is include information and cite a source. How the reader chooses to interpret such is a matter for them.

Perhaps we should also be seeking sources which not only support those mentioned earlier, but which also might suggest that such a design was indeed an invention of Slezer and one which never saw any actual usage whatsoever. Such referenced material can also be included in the article, alongside the current references, and the reader left to draw their own conclusion.

As for Covenanter banners, I can only recall those designs based on the saltire, with fields of varying colours, adorned with slogans and other designs - I don't recall ever seeing one based on a Union flag design - perhaps you can enlighten me. Endrick Shellycoat 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There aren't really any particularly reliable sources for its use or existance. All we can really document is that one such flag appeared in an artists piece. We shouldn't use the piece as a source itself as it is a primary source and we generally require secondary or third party sources. --neon white talk 10:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So much of what we rely upon in terms of history in its broadest sense relies upon just such examples of similar 'primary sources'. I feel that here, as is so often the case on talk pages, we are crossing the line of simply presenting information in an encyclopaedic manner to analysing the information in depths more befitting an Honours project or Masters' thesis. The primary role of wiki editors, to quote the website iteslf, is "to write articles that cover existing knowledge". If you choose to go down the avenue of spending days in the National Library in George IV Bridge, leafing through mountains of documents in order to create a definative work on the actual use or otherwise of a Scottish variant of the Union Flag, then that is the choice of the individual.

I am in no position to cast doubt upon the reliability or otherwise of the authors of the references I listed previously, and I very much doubt that anyone else here could claim anything to the contrary. Therefore to suggest, as the last post did, that "There aren't really any particularly reliable sources for its use or existance" is frankly unjustifiable in this instance under WP:RS which simply states "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".

The references to the design exist, and provided these meet the WP:RS criteria, and I fail to see how they do not, then all that editors are required to do is to cite them as a means of qualifying that which appears in the article. Again, to quote the rules, wiki is not for "the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". The information in the article relating to the Scottish variant is from third party reliable sources which are cited within the article. That is all that is required on the part of editors of this encyclopaedia. Endrick Shellycoat 11:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added the image of the Slezer engraving to the article. The original source identified by the Commons uploader can be found on this link to the National Library of Scotland, whose opinion as to the works of Slezer can be read here. (This, I would suggest, meets the WP:RS criteria). The page showing the Edinburgh Castle image has the facility to 'zoom' in to the image, to show the flag in greater detail. Anyone wishing to embark on further study might do well to try Google Books search for "Scotch Union Flag" or "Scottish Union Flag", where you'll get several hits where such a flag is mentioned, including one which claims that "The flag had official recognition". (Sadly the reference for this can't be seen on the snippet view, but if anyone has a copy...)

• snippet view 1
• snippet view 2
• snippet view 3
• snippet view 4
• snippet view 5
• snippet view 6
• snippet view 7
• snippet view 8
• snippet view 9
• snippet view 10.... need I continue....

Perhaps the most intreaguing of all being snippet view 3, which appears to give a description of this flag, taken from the second edition of The Present State of the Universe by John Beaumont, Junior, published in 1704, and containing an appendix entitled "The Ensigns, Colours or Flags of the Ships at Sea, belonging to the several Princes and States in the World". The flag's description is given as "Azure, a Cross gules, fimbriated, argent; over all a Saltier of the last". I don't suppose any of you have a copy to hand? Endrick Shellycoat 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is good progress. Of those extracts, only one is a primary source, but they do cite primary sources. In all then we have three: Slezer, Beaumont and another work obliquely referred to called A General Treatise of the Dominion of the Sea. None of them seems to be by a Scot. I have only seen Slezer's engraving.

All the three sources are dated to the period 1692-1707 (or the period between the Glorious Revolution and the union. Perhaps the flag existed just in that period? All that is speculation. I will have to bury myself in a library or two.

Howard Alexander (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise... Endrick Shellycoat 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. I have found another almost-primary source, or rather a reference to it. It should we enough to settle the fact that there was almost certainly a Scottish variant to the flag in the last years before the Union.

All the evidence for a Scottish Union Flag is for the period from about 1690 to the Union. This was a distinctive and politically contentious time when such a thing might arise.

An article in The Scotsman, Nov 9, 1999; p. 20 (by Simon De Burton) tells of the sale of certain papers from the Easton Neston library, including the personal papers of Sir Henry St George, Garter King of Arms at the time of the Treaty of Union:

It is thought that the English representatives on the council called for a flag which would show the members of the Union in an equal light, but the Scots boldly suggested that the cross of St Andrew should take precedence.
Sir Henry provided several options, including the Scottish suggestion, for the consideration of the Privy Council and Queen Anne but, on 17 April, 1707, they approved his original effort, numbered "one".

The version of the article avaiable on The Scotsman's on-line archive has no pictures, but I have seen a photocopy showing the Scottish proposal (labelled "Union Jock" by the paper) marked by hand as "Scotts union flagg as said to be used by the Scotts" (which is hearsay, but pretty good). The design is, of course, that in the Slezer engraving.

I have not found out where Sir Henry's papers went from that sale.

There is no evidence from before the Glorious Revolution that the twin kingdoms used different union flags. There is certainly no "English variant"!

The "Scotch union flag" is almost worth its own article.

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work on all of the above. It is a pity many of the documents are lost, including that which held the two draughts of alternative patterns to the King's Colours of 1606. These two draughts of new patterns, proposed by the Scottish Privy Council and accompanied by a letter dated Edinburgh, August 7th, 1606, are referred to as follows:

They have drawne two new drauchtis and patrones as most indifferent for both kingdomes, whiche they presentid to the Counsell, and craved our approbation of the same, but we haif reserved that to your Majestie's princelie determinatioun, as moir particularlie the Erll of Mar, who was present, and herd their complaynt, and to whom we haif remittit the discourse and delyverie of that mater, will informeyour Majestie and let your Heynes see the errour of the first patrone and the indifferencie of the two newe drauchties.

According to the source "these draughts are not to be found, nor does it appear that any notice was taken of the complaint" (ref:Full text of The Flags of the World: Their history, blazonry and associations)

We must also be careful to remember that Wikipedia is not for "the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". There exist published works which advocate the mention in a speech given by James Hallyday, Commissar of Dumfries, on Monday 3rd August 1617, of a flag whose "whyte and reid crocies are so proportionablie interlaced" as referring to a Scottish version of the King's Colours, (Union Flag). Whether you or I agree with this interpretation is neither here nor there, but it remains the case that the designs put forward by the Scots Privy Council in 1606 and the possibility of an alternative design being seen in Dumfries in 1617 does not support what I'm assuming is your own assertion that "there is no evidence from before the Glorious Revolution that the twin kingdoms used different union flags. There is certainly no "English variant"!

Furthermore, proof exists that a flag depicting the Cross of St George in the hoist and Cross of St Andrew in the fly was used, appearing on a Seal of Charles II as well as in several works of art depicting naval vessels. Therefore, we can be certain that the King's Colours of 1606 was not the only design of 'Union Flag' used prior to the Glorious Revolution. (Even Cromwell had his own version ref:File:Flag of the Commonwealth (1658-1660).svg). I'm not saying that your wrong, I'm just saying you can't prove conclusively that your own assertion is correct.

I think having pretty well exhausted all readily accessible sources on the subject, the section in the article covers the subject fully and the references can be explored further by the reader if they wish to examine things in detail. I doubt there is much more we can add for the subject to warrant its own article. Likely this would require much more information from sources which have yet to be discovered. Unless something else can be found which might add greatly to the content of the section as it stands, then I'm happy to leave the section as it is to be honest. Good effort on your part! (If I recall we started with only one line plus one reference on this subject!) Cheers. Endrick Shellycoat 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) PS Have added short para to include that which you had discovered via Scotsman article.

That sounds good to me.

Howard Alexander (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Endrick Shellycoat 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop stalking me and reverting my good edits, and do something constructive like learn the English language which would prevent you from making poor edits. See this, this, and particularly this and this and this and this. If you really want to see how wrong you are, change the word.

• The Union Flag is used as a jack by commissioned warships and submarines of the Royal Navy, and by commissioned Army and Royal Air Force vessels, though none is currently (June 2007) in commission.
• The Union Flag is used as a jack by commissioned warships and submarines of the Royal Navy, and by commissioned Army and Royal Air Force vessels, though no ships is currently (June 2007) in commission.

"none are" is correct, so go away. O Fenian (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Please revert.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you agree, why do you want to revert? Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"None" and "no ships" are not the same. "None" means "not one", i.e. not one is currently in commission. "No ships" is a different construction. Mooretwin (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you dispute that the noun being referred to is plural? If it is plural, "are" is correct, not "is". I have produced many sources to support that, and you have what to back up your claim? O Fenian (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The noun to which the verb relates is "none", which is singular ("not one"). Mooretwin (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Except none is not singular, as the sources I have provided show. As an example, "none is currently in service" has 5 results on Google (4 of them from Wikipedia or mirrors), while "none are currently in service" has 301 results. It would seem clear that your view of the use of "none" is at odds with the world at large. O Fenian (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"None" should be singular (given that it is short for "not one" - do you dispute this?), although plural usages abound - not surprisingly, given the tendency to forego grammatical rules in recent times. A trend of which you are clearly a part. Mooretwin (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and language are not set in stone, they evolve over time. Blind adherence to traditionalism despite change is not a helpful attitude. I dispute that when referring to a plural entity "none is" is correct instead of "none are", as do the sources linked above. O Fenian (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again: do you dispute that "none" stands for "not one"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Read the links regarding use of "none is" versus "none are", and stop wasting people's time. O Fenian (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your failure to answer as a "no": you do not dispute it. (You're the one who started the discussion, so it's your own time that you are wasting.) Mooretwin (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you do not. I take it by your failure to acknowledge the many links supporting the use of "none are" that you do not dispute that your Edwardian views on grammar are outdated and not relevant in 2009? O Fenian (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered. Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources have answered for me. I see you have none. O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources don't answer my question. It surprises me not one bit that the internet is full of people saying "none" can be plural. I looked for my copy of Fowler's - a proper authority - for a source, but couldn't find it. For someone who didn't want his time wasted, you've successfully wasted quite a lot of it on this discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What an utterly pointless argument this is. "None are" is correct, because that is how it is most prevalently used in Standard English. It may well be derived from the singular phrase "not one", which of course would be "not one is". But in that case, if we're being ultra-traditionalist here, surely it should say "n'one is". Which of course would be silly. So stop bickering, please, children, and get jobs. Thank you. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that this page is part of the heraldry and Australia projects, but not the UK one. Who decides these things? Brunnian (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Someones probably just forgot to ad the wikiproject, it should be there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We have talk about the Scottish Union Flag "In objecting to the 1606 design of the Union Flag, whereby the cross of St. George surmounted that of St. Andrew, a group of Scots took up the matter with John Erskine, 18th Earl of Mar" etc etc. but why no talk about the English Union Flag Mr Taz (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there wasn't one. The basic union flag devised under King James I is the St Andrew with the cross of St George placed on top of it. In Scotland it appears that an alternative version arose at some point. (There is no reliable evidence of when someone first decided to interfere with the flag. All the positive sources proving that the Scottish variant existed are 1690's - 1707 though. )

The "Scotch union flag" is a variant on the original. In the rest of the King's realms, from Kent to Connecticut, everyone was happy with the official, authorised flag. There was no other variant.

Howard Alexander (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The sources identified in the article confirm that no sooner had the King's Colours of 1606 been run up the pole, the Scots were drawing up alternative patterns for the flag, with one particular alternative documented as having been used in the Kingdom of Scotland prior to the 1707 union of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Such action was not repeated in any other of the King's realms, therefore as said by Howard Alexander "There was no other variant" specific to an individual realm except that used in the Kingdom of Scotland. (However, it would be interesting to know what pattern may have been used in Nova Scotia between 1621 and 1631). The same principal applies to the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom in as much as there is a version used in Scotland and a version used everywhere else. We do not refer to that version used everywhere else as the "English variant". I hope that this straightforward comparison clears things up sufficiently so as to convince you to undo your recent edit at Union of the Crowns. Endrick Shellycoat 21:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The information in the "History" section and in the facts bar to the right side of it completely contradict each other. СЛУЖБА (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of the National Front, flag waving football fans, nutters in Union Jack outfits? ProfDEH (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly true of the far right in any country using national symbols. It's certainly not particular to the Union Jack. So I would suggest that sort of thing would be better kept to articles about the National Front or indeed one about national flags more generally. --Breadandcheese (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's rather POV. What other countries do you have in mind? Compare with the USA where every decent citizen has the stars and stripes flying from their property, if they have enough property for a flagpole, and the streets are full of flags every July. I don't see how you can ignore the connotations, but I suppose it needs introducing properly into the text, not just a See also. It may be distasteful to admit not all the connotations of the flag are positive, but isn't it rather indicative of the British character? ProfDEH (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If there were evidence of an enforced BBC policy on terminology, the paragraph might be relevant. What we have is a magazine article that claims the BBC uses "Union Jack" that is contradicted by the evidence. No further evidence is offered for an editor's assertion that the term "Union Flag" is used universally, something that seems to be pure original research and is impossible to verify. I see no reason to have a paragraph about BBC usage unless there's something to say. In this case there's no accurate sourced information. If it's all the same I'm going to remove it. --122.194.154.168 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see an IP made a change to the flag shown in that section recently and it was rightly undone. However is there any real justification for both of those images remaining there on the main article about the union flag? I think its useful to have the Welsh propasal, as there is clearly a problem with it being the only country of the United Kingdom not represented, but is the other random image really needed? I cant even see where that originally came from?BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why "rightly undone"? Why is the IP's flag "Apparent self-promotion of original work" and the other images acceptable? Which reliable source has proposed those flags? If they are proposals created by editors, they equally have no place in this article. O Fenian (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Id rather none of these unofficial alternative versions were shown on the main article about the flag, although i see the reason why its useful to have the image on the one with the welsh dragon which highlights the clear problem with no Welsh flag being on the union flag. I see no justification or need for the other flag shown, which is simply adding the flag of a county of England. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether people like it or not, the term "Butcher's Apron" is used in Scotland. This is clearly demonstrated by the source provided, showing the term being used in Scotland by a Member of the Scottish Parliament. The three words "and in Scotland" are perfectly correct, with a source provided, and should not be removed from the article again. Lianachan (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands says "common ... in Scotland", which is slightly different from "used in Scotland". However, from the Daily Record -

But the email suggests White did approve claims that "most Scots" referred to the Union Flag as the "butcher's apron" and that it was a "tarnished global image". The comments caused a storm of protest from Labour and Tory MSPs.

This says that her claiming it was used by "most Scots" was strongly protested and a "controversial statement". If she's being attacked for saying the term is widely used - and later disowned the statement herself - then I'm not sure we can use the article to claim it is actually widely used! It certainly is evidence that some Nationalists use it, but that its use is contentious within Scotland as a whole. Perhaps a better phrasing would be "common ... and among some Scottish nationalists (etc)" - this would be consistent with the earlier section, where we talk about use among Irish republicans rather than a more general "common in [Northern] Ireland". Shimgray | talk | 09:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the article creates the false impression that the term "Butcher's Apron" is used exclusively in Ireland. It must be made clear that the term is also used in Scotland. Lianachan (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying it is common among one group does not mean its not used by anyone else. We cant be expected to list every group or place in the world that its used occasionaly. Although adding the suggestion "some Scottish nationalists" is fine with me, but id think (or perhaps hope) most Scottish nationalist would not even support or use such a term and might demand better sources for such a claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The source shows one SNP MSP using it, and then dismissing its use and the person responsible for the email had to resign. That in no way justifies the claim that "Butchers apron is commonly used in Scotland". Your addition makes it sound like its used more in Scotland than in Ireland, because it only mentions Irish republicans not "Ireland" in general. Im going to remove it again, u have not provided a reliable source which backs up the statement. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt oppose among "some Scottish nationalists" if a better source can be found for it because i dont think the current source even justifies that. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any source which confirms this, but some speculation from an editor. For the record, I have lived in Scotland most of my life, am interested in flags and heraldry, and have never heard the expression. If a single Scottish nationalist used it, then that would probably be inspired by the Irish conflict rather than confirming independent use in Scotland. From a brief reading of the article provided, it seems that the MSP did not use the term either, but rather a researcher. That would not really be notable. Indeed, from a quick Googling, it seems Mark Hirst - the Researcher - is of Irish descent, often comments about Northern Irish politics and has been accused, by a councillor in Renfrewshire, of 'using 50 year old sectarian language' in relation to his commentary on Ireland. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The term is common in the Highlands. Indeed, I'd probably go as far as to say it's the term I hear most commonly. Of course, personal testimony is unencylopediac, and local knowledge and personal experience is worthless in wikipedia. It is my understanding that the term originated in the Scottish Highlands, by association of the flag with Butcher Cumberland during his activities in the aftermath of Culloden. However, the whitewashing of Highland history seems to be a common theme here (and in general, actually) - hopefully just as an unfortunate consequence of the way wikipedia works. Lianachan (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If theres reliable sources saying thats where the term originated then thats certainly worth noting in that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It would strike me as quite an odd possible origin, considering that the Union Flag was created and popularised by the Stewarts, and indeed it seems that it may well have been flown in some forms by the Jacobite side at Culloden. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the modern 'Irish' label re. the "Butcher's Apron" may have skewed the Scottish use of the phrase, for I recall the term being applied to the Flag of England rather than the Union Flag. Butchers, or Fleshers as they are sometimes referred to in the Scots tongue, used white aprons with vertical red stripes in the day to day conduct of their business, see image. It was this white and red cloth which was associated with the Cross of St George. The Union Flag with its navy blue element was probably associated with a "Butcher's Apron" with blue and white stripes, image. I suspect that those in Scotland using it in association with the Union Flag will most likely be found in west central Scotland, and have Irish Republican sympathies. In all my years living just outside Inverness I never once heard it being used, even in Scottish Nationalist circles, with which I was very familiar. Perhaps it is best left to the 'Irish' to claim it as their own, although even they at times confuse the two...

Where is the flag of England,

Go East, North, South, or West,

Wherever there's wealth to plunder,

Or land to be possessed,

Wherever there's feeble people,

To frighten, coerce or scare,

You'll find the Butcher's Apron,

The English flag is there.

-Derek Warfield of The Wolfe Tones

Endrick Shellycoat 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The text includes the quote "Azure, a Cross gules, fimbriated, argent; over all a Saltier of the last", which is also used as a picture cap. Is this correctly quoted (it is referenced) or a typo? If the former, as I suspect, is it worthy of a {{sic}}?

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Happy new year. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. It is the quote as it is spelled. Spellings 3+ centuries ago were not as they may be seen today. The ref can be seen at google books, and a search at Google Books for the phrase "a saltier of the last" turns up several hits for that particular spelling. I'd not object to the insetion of a {{sic}} if you consider it to be appropriate. Likewise, have a Happy New Year. Endrick Shellycoat 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree that the attribution of popularity is slightly ridiculous? That Geri Halliwell popularised the Union Jack is going a bit far. Perhaps she introduced the flag to some fans, but does she even deserve being mentioned in this article? I am sure we could find some other celebrity who displayed the flag and accredit its popularisation solely to them.
En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: mega-selling group Def Leppard used to take to the stage in shorts and top emblazoned with the design, long before Ms Halliwell. However, they also have no place in this article. :) 86.129.4.198 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Al

I have re-added one of the citation templates originally added by British Watcher. A number of the citations provided have failed verification. I don't agree with that (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Two outstanding templates fixed. It may also please you to note that in light of recent edits, and the intention of some to reduce this entire section to "one or two lines at the bottom", I have parted with the princely sum of $8 (actually, $16 as min.purchase=2 bulletins) to the The Flag Research Center, (wiki article), for a copy of their Bulletin #188 (and #192 for sake of interest) detailing the "Scottish Union Jack". Once received, I intend to revisit this section of the article and quote extensively from this publication; parts of which can be seen at Google Books. I also intend to restore the Scottish Union Flag to the image template as this was removed without reason, without explanation and without concensus; apparently on the basis of someone's POV. In the words of the Governor of California... "I'll be back". Endrick Shellycoat 15:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This section on the "Scottish union flag" can only take up a certain amount of space on this article, too much and it will clearly being giving undue weight to the topic. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We'll see... It can always be linked to as its own article of course, which would solve your problem. Endrick Shellycoat 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the refs. My intention is not to reduce the section but rather to have adequate citations. If these cannot be provided then the section will ultimately endue being a couple of lines at the bottom. The issues I have with this section is lack of and mis-representation of reliable sources. If you find them and accurately quote them they can be added (subject to Wikipedia rules). Your intention to "quote extensively" will also be subject to these rules, including undue weight, reliance on a single source etc. I don't agree with that (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beaumont reference used in the article is from "The Ensigns, Colours, or Flags of The Ships at Sea"; specifically flags at sea not on land. As noted by Hulme (Flags of the World: Their History, Blazonry and Associations) "Though its appearance in a book of sea-flags seems to imply that such a flag had been made, we know of no other instance of it." The source does not confirm use on land. Further, the Bartram reference used in the article is taken out of context since it relates specifically to use by Scottish vessels; no mention of use on land. I don't agree with that (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your point being what, precisely? The section deals with the flag's use on land only in relation to Slezer's engraving. The initial complaint from the Scots specifically refers to ships' masters and owners, "seyfaring men", objecting to the initial design, which speaks for itself as to the "use", does it not? From what snippets I've seen at Google Books of the Flag Research Center Bulletin, the Scots version also appeared on Royal Seals and in art work depicting Covenanters. I'll await its arrival and will of course be sure to identify those sources used by Smith himself in the bulletin; thereby addressing any issue of "single source" etc. As previously stated, an article in its own right will I'm sure address any concern re. "undue weight" in this article, which is of course in any respect a matter of opinion. Endrick Shellycoat 08:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear what reference support what statements. Some references only support use at sea. By 1634 use of the Union Jack was restricted use to the RN. The section does not make this clear. I don't agree with that (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish variant was unofficial. So says:

Crampton (TheWorld of Flags, 1990), writes that it was that version with the St. George cross uppermost which was the "authorized" union flag;

Bartram (British Flags & Emblems) writes the Scottish variant was unofficial;

Bartram (XIX International Congress of Vexillology) as above;

Smith (The Flag Bulletin, 1973), comments about McMillan & Stewart (The story of the Scottish flag 1925): the mention of St. Andrews cross first does not support their conclusion that is was therefore placed over the cross of st. george. Further, Perrin (British Flags, 1921 can be seen here [3]) resolves the term of interlaced in "…whyte and reid crocies are so proportionablie interlaced…" to flags of the type used during the 2nd & 3rd Dutch Wars;

The references from these vexillology experts is unimpeachable and hence this "McMillan & Stewart" can be dismissed as WP:FRINGE. Therefore the following can be removed from the article:

evidence of an unofficial Scottish variant, whereby the Scottish cross was uppermost, does exist. An early account of the possible use of such a flag, whereby the Scottish cross has the place of honour, refers to an occasion in 1617 where in welcoming James VI to Dumfries, the Town Commissar was reported to have stated "Your Royall Majestie, in whose sacred person the King of kings hath miraculouslie united so many glorious Kingdoms, under whose Scepter the whyte and reid crocies are so proportionablie interlaced". However, the mere mentioned of St. Andrew's cross first does not support such a conclusion.I don't agree with that (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

well done for taking the time to research this matter, it seems reasonable based on the points and sources you mention to remove the paragraph in question. Full support for removing the discredited fringe material. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"discredited fringe material". You guys crack me up. Go here and, in your own name, repeat those words in a review if that be the case. Oh, and I'd get youself a good solicitor when you're done.Endrick Shellycoat 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about if the material belongs in this article or not. It has nothing to do with a review of the book in question. Im sure its a lovely read. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The is not a new book, it was first published in 1925. Both writers are dead. I don't agree with that (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lucky for some... Whitney Smith, on the other hand, is very much alive. I look forward to your collective rubbishing of his work if it doesn't meet with your approval.Endrick Shellycoat 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I have created 4 versions of the evolution of the Union Flag/Jack each adding their own level of complexity and official historical accuraciesVersion 1 - Simple Evolution

St Andrew's Cross 16th c. (Scotland)

St George's Cross 16th c. (England)

Union Flag of 1606 1606 (Union of the Crowns) 1707 (Great Britain)

St Patrick's Cross 17th c. (Ireland)

Union Flag of 1801 1801 (UK of GB & I) 1922 (UK of GB & NI)

Bigger Render

Version 1.

Version 2 - Mostly Complete (Union Jacks Only)

St Andrew's Cross 16th c. (Scotland)

St George's Cross 16th c. (England)

Union Flag of 1606 1606 (Union of the Crowns) 1660 (Restoration) 1707 (Great Britain)

Coat of arms of Ireland 16th c. (Ireland)

Protectorate Jack 1651 (The Commonwealth)

{{{}}}}

St Patrick's Cross (Historical) 17th c. (Ireland)

Union Flag of 1801 1801 (UK of GB & I) 1922 (UK of GB & NI)

Bigger Render

Version 2.

Version 3 - Mostly Complete

St Andrew's Cross 16th c. (Scotland)

St George's Cross 16th c. (England)

Union Flag of 1606 1606 (Union of the Crowns) 1660 (Restoration) 1707 (Great Britain)

Commonwealth Flag 1651 (The Commonwealth)

{{{}}}}

Coat of arms of Ireland 16th c. (Ireland)

Protectorate Jack 1658 (The Protectorate)

St Patrick's Cross (Historical) 17th c. (Ireland)

Union Flag of 1801 1801 (UK of GB & I) 1922 (UK of GB & NI)

Bigger Render

Version 3.

Version 4 - Complete

St George's Cross 16th c. (England)

St Andrew's Cross 16th c. (Scotland)

{{{}}}}

Coat of arms of Ireland 16th c. (Ireland)

Commonwealth Flag 1651 (The Commonwealth

Union Flag of 1606 1606 (Union of the Crowns) 1660 (Restoration) 1707 (Great Britain)

Commonwealth Flag 1653 (The Commonwealth)

Protectorate Jack 1658 (The Protectorate)

{{{}}}}

St Patrick's Cross (Historical) 17th c. (Ireland)

Union Flag of 1801 1801 (UK of GB & I) 1922 (UK of GB & NI)

Bigger Render

Version 4.

I think that version 2 or 3 are probably the best. So what are your thoughts? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the first and simplest one. Many people do not have a basic understanding of how the union flag was created with the English, Scottish and Irish flags being merged together. I think adding those other flags which had a role in the past but are no longer in any way relevant to the modern union flag simply complicates the matter and clutters the image.

Perhaps a second image for how all the alternative flags evolved could be included separately further down the page if the images are useful. This whole thing sort of makes me think there needs to be a History of the union flag so we do not clutter this article up with so much stuff. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok So that is one for version 1 or 2. Anyone else? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about [4]. Is this an official flag? FOTW says it is, but it is not listed by Crampton. I would like to see a RS to confirm this (FOTW is not reliable). But other wise I would agree to version 1. It maybe possible to include a secondary one as BW suggest but in any event neither should include unofficial flags. I don't agree with that (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer the first and simplest presentation. It is easy to see how the other flags were composed without cluttering up the presentation of the current Union Flag itself, which is more subtle. Mirokado (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What is missing from the panel is another graphic of the counterchanged St Patrick's cross on it own, which many such diagrams have, which shows how that arises. Mirokado (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this sections serves on other purpose but to advocate and promote the "readoption" of this flag. Further the reference given does not support the claim "open day" claim. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:SOAP. I don't agree with that (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

At least the flag flying on 31 May 2009 can actually be verified, see my edit. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No it cannot be verified since it is not shown unfurled (see my edit). It is still not clear what the flag image is. This is a primary source. A source that makes no mention of the flag. All you can do is give an opinion that you think it may be the "Scottish Union" Flag. But the primary source does not confirm this either in the image or in text. You need a secondary source to confirm your opinion. I don't agree with that (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. The pictures do not show what flag was flown. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There used to be a far clearer picture; a close-up showing the flag flying on His Grace's flagstaff as the "Scottish Union Flag". It must have been taken down from the site. Nevertheless, that modern use does not prove use in the seventeenth / eighteenth centuries.

I am more interested in the analysis of the contemporary sources. The Slezer engraving is clear as day, but I believe it has been identified as appearing only in a later edition of Theatrum Scotiae, not as published in 1693. It is near-contemporary though. More compelling are the sources from 1704 (Beaumont) and 1707, when the flag was noted by no less than the Garter King of Arms. (We need to find out where Sir Henry St George's papers went when the archive was sold something over ten years ago.)

This material tells us beyond doubt that the Scottish variant flag existed. It does not tell us though it was the usual flag used nor when it came into use. The earliest undoubted reference is Slezer, possibly 1693, and the earliest firmly dated is 1704, by which time the previously cordial relationship between Scotland and England had turned to a distrust which might have resulted in such a flag. That though is mere speculation; there is nothing to prove the flag's existence before 1693, but no proof against it either.

Howard Alexander (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the clear flag image because Flickr is really not suitable as a source, e.g. anyone could claim it was photoshopped (which I don't). As to the existence of the Scottish Union flag as such, I am with Howard Alexander, there's no doubt that this variant was and is real. I would also like to point at Flags of the World, that states:

"The design of the Union Flag that preceded the current version was established by a royal proclamation of 12 April 1606. However it was for use only at sea in civil and military ships of both Scotland and England. In 1634 its use was restricted to the king's ships. The flag went out of use in 1649 when England became a commonwealth but was restored for use in the king's ships after the restoration in 1660. The flag became 'the ensign armorial of the United Kingdom of Great Britain' as one of the provisions of the Act of Union in 1707, when the kingdoms of England and Scotland were united." [5]

De728631 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The earliest Slezer can be dated is 1710 (second edition). It may be that this engraving was done at the same time as the others and just omitted from the first edition, but this would be pure speculation.

The Beaumont reference is from "The Ensigns, Colours, or Flags of The Ships at Sea"; specifically flags at sea not on land. As noted by Hulme (Flags of the World: Their History, Blazonry and Associations) "Though its appearance in a book of sea-flags seems to imply that such a flag had been made, we know of no other instance of it." The source does not confirm use on land.

The partial reference at Encycolpedia.com regarding the Garter King of Arms in 1707 does not provide any images. The manuscripts were sold in 1999 (for £62000) but I don't know to whom (http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?sale_number=L09223&live_lot_id=295).

The FOTW website is not a reliable source and any member can upload without references. I don't agree with that (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say FOTW is unreliable per se, if somewhat amateurish; it has an editorial board though and certain statements are even referenced, e.g. "As late as 1693, Slezer, Captain of Artillery and Surveyor-General of Stores and Magazines in Scotland, produced an engraving on Edinburgh Castle in which the 'Scottish' version is shown: again, an implication of actual use. Source: Paul Harris (ed.), Story of Scotland's Flag, Lang Syne Publishers Ltd, 1992." Slezer's drawing may only have been published in 1710 but can we rule out that it was made even earlier? And don't think it matters whether the flag was used primarily at sea or on land, if it was used at sea, then there was a use of this design. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FOTW is useful for finding relevant reference material but not for directly quote someones opinion that gets posted. I agree that Slezer's drawing may be pre-1707 but we can't be certain and such an assertion cannot be supported by a reference. It is significant that the Beaumount reference specifically states use at sea. It must be remembered that in 1606 the Union Flag was specifically for use at sea.

BTW, there is a view of Slezer's (Queen Anne view: http://www.nls.uk/slezer/engraving.cfm?sl=58) which also has a flag flying from the castle (far right). This flag certainly isn't the Scottish variant. Further, NLS states:

"Slezer did not work alone on all of his drawings, although it's not clear whether other artists did any of the actual prospects. We do know that a painter called John (or Jan) Wyck was paid to touch up and fill up the 57 drawings for Theatrum Scotiae with 'little figures'. Many of the figures – and other features, such as ships – are out of scale with the image they've been added to. Some have been used in more than one drawing. These indicate that the artists used the cut-and-paste technique, in the same way we add 'clip art' to documents today."

So it may well be that Slezer did not actually add either of the flags in the engravings. I don't agree with that (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, your reference to "Slezer's (Queen Anne view: http://www.nls.uk/slezer/engraving.cfm?sl=58) which also has a flag flying from the castle (far right)" can be dated to being post the 1707 Union: see the Royal Arms; the arms of Scotland and England appearing impaled in the first and fourth quarters. By this time the Scotch Union Flagge had been superceded in the former Kingdom of Scotland by the official flag of the Kingdom of Great Britain, (as per the Acts and Articles of Union), this being reflected in that version shown in the drawing.

Not so. The mere fact that the drawing was later dedicated to Queen Anne (as it did not appear until the 1717 edition) does not date the drawing to being post 1707. The source state it was "was probably drafted around 1690". I don't agree with that (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point.Endrick Shellycoat 13:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"So it may well be that Slezer did not actually add either of the flags in the engravings". Pure speculation on your part I'm afraid. Endrick Shellycoat 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just as the 1693 date. But there is no doubt that (at least one) others apart from Slezer edited the drawings I don't agree with that (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Omg i have just read that shocking final paragraph of that section. It needs deleting or rewording completely. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The following paragraph should be deleted from this article:

"In 2006, despite almost three centuries having passed since last being used, Scottish historian David R. Ross called for Scotland to once again adopt this design. Despite an apparent lack of widespread public support in Scotland for such a proposal, the Scottish Union Flag may yet continue to find favour in some quarters. For example, to mark the 2009 Open Day celebrations on May 31 at Lennoxlove House, the historic seat of the Dukes of Hamilton, the Scottish Union Flag was observed flying from the flag pole on Lennoxlove House itself."

How can one separatist making a political stunt by demanding the union flag be changed be notable enough for an article on the union flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The pathetic joke in the second half of the paragraph is even worse and totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Really... The significance of the (now deceased) premier peer in Scotland choosing to fly a 3+ century old design of Union Flag from his principal residence on May 31 2009 may well be lost on you, however, photographic evidence of this event does exist and I, for one, felt it worthy of note. See flickr image detail and big version and gallery. I see no suggestion of trickery or attempts to mislead in these images and incline towards WP:Common Sense. As for your other assertion, it was notable enough for Scotland's leading broadsheet to run a piece on it; The Scotsman hardly being a hotbed of nationailst sentiment. Oh, and do try keep your own political sentiments off these pages, I'm sure there are other fora elsewhere to suit your needs in that department. Endrick Shellycoat 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Did the media cover the flag being flown in 2009? If it did not then that part needs to be removed for sure as it lacks notability and reliable sources and is clearly original research. As for the other thing, one scotsman article justifies inclusion on this article? We could find hundreds of articles about incidents involving the union flag in the media, should they all be added?

I would find it easier to keep my political sentiments off this talk page if it was not for the article itself containing such troubling material which clearly needs urgent attention. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your placing tags on the section is tantamount to politically motivated vandalism IMHO. There remains a differing of opinion re. inclusion of a newspaper article and a reference to an image - that hardly brings into question the entire section as you would have it. If you can call into question the sources given then that is a different matter. Good luck on that score. If the concensus, (remember that?), is to drop the last para then so be it. I suggest you leave the article for the time being and further your argument for doing so here.Endrick Shellycoat 01:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC) PS Before you go charging off in all directions, have a read here: Talk:Union_Flag/Archive_3#Scottish_variant_to_1707

The refs (currently 28 and 29) are OK I think. The second sentence "Despite an apparent lack of widespread public support in Scotland for such a proposal, the Scottish Union Flag may yet continue to find favour in some quarters. For example, to mark the.." seems to lean towards unsourced commentary. Perhaps replace with: "During the..." Mirokado (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My placing of tags was to reflect the concerns i have about that section and the fact others have questioned it too. I thought adding the tags would be more appropriate for the time being whilst we debate this matter than if id have just gone and deleted it, which i think would be justified.

My concern about the first half (on the historians request for a flag change in Scotland) is that it is not notable enough for this article. Just because there is a news article that one man (of questionable notability) wants something which is obviously going to be rejected does not justify inclusion on the main article of the Union flag.

My concern about the second half (the flag raising in 2009) is that the event is not notable enough and lacks reliable sources. Lets wait and see how others feel about this, i wont delete the paragraph for a few days so we avoid an edit war, but id like the tags to remain there until there is agreement one way or another. If consensus is to keep the paragraph i will remove the tags. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No the refs are not OK. Flickr is not a reliable source and makes no mention of any date. The flag Haddington Pipe Band site cannot be verified since it is not shown unfurled. It is not clear what the flag image is. In addition this is a primary source and one that makes no mention of the flag. Hence to put the two sources together and claim "to mark the 2009 Open Day celebrations on May 31 at Lennoxlove House......" constitutes a WP:SYNTHESIS and is prohibited under Wikipedia rules. I don't agree with that (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the the suitablity of Flickr as a source, but it does show the date (and time) of the photo. Of course these can be edited, but so can anything else on the internet. Talltim (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice that someone has found some photos. But I have to agree with BritishWatcher. Is this really a Notable event to be included per wiki's policies? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As much as I found this addition and the photographs interesting and entertaining, I shall have to agree that it is hardly notable. Anyone can get an old fashioned flag made up relatively cheaply. That does not, in of itself, make it notable. The Duke, whilst titled and a notable person, was not acting in any official capacity in flying this flag: he did so as a private citizen, probably for a bit of fun. --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the last para was, through linking to a newspaper article and the images, simply a means of demonstrating that despite the 3+ centuries having past this design of Union Flag may be gone, but not forgotten; an albeit unsuccessful campaign to reintroduce it having being mounted in 2006 by "Scottish Historian" (The Scotsman) D Ross, and Scotland's premier Peer having been seen to use it in 2009. The paragraph makes no claim of wider use, popularity or acceptance, other than to note these two instances. If other editors would rather ignore these instances and have the last paragraph removed in its entirety then that is for them to argue. However, in removing it the reader is left with the impression that this version of the Union Flag merely exists in the pages of certain obscure titles and is not something which was not only subject to an article in a quality newspaper but was also observed fluttering from a flagpole belonging to Scotland's most senior Duke during the early part of the 21st C. If the majority of editors wish to ignore these, then I'll not dispute that concensus. However, I maintain that they are noteworthy and therefore are fit for inclusion. Endrick Shellycoat 06:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to this entire article and even the section dedicated to this variant of the flag. This one incident seams to be a case of WP:Undue. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated previously, if the majority want to ditch or rewrite the final para then I'm not going to jump up and down about it. However, if the Duke of Norfolk saw fit to run up the 1606 Kings Colours at Arundel and David Starkey was quoted in an article in The Times as being in favour of its reintroduction, both these taking up a line each in the article, would we be having this discussion? Endrick Shellycoat 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it has gone quiet, if there are not more objections i will be deleting that paragraph considering several have raised concerns about it.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I Agree, since as I noted above, it also contains a WP:SYNTHESIS in addition to other issues raised above. Further the whole section has poor referencing and misquoted sources. At best this section should be no more that a couple of lines and moved toward the bottom of the page. I don't agree with that (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that the flag needs removing from the Union Jack evolution image [6]. I don't agree with that (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Union Flag (arbitrary break)

Ok the template has been edited (quite a pain to do by the way) and the section talked about has been removed. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better, well done. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, no, I don't agree with that. This change improved the template how exactly? Was it done following a discussion whereby a concensus was reached? On what grounds was this change made? As soon as I can figure out how, and can find the time, I'll be restoring the flag to the template unless someone can give a credible reason as to why I should not do so, and why this version should not appear on a template showing the development of the conjoined flags of England and Scotland.Endrick Shellycoat 13:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That template is of the evolution of todays union flag. The "Scottish union flag" is an alternative flag and not part of the evolution of our union flag. The justification for its removal is very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, we get to the root of the issue here; "our union flag". This encyclopedia, need I remind you, exists "to cover existing knowledge which is verifiable from other sources". Multiple sources indicate that an early form of Union Flag existed in Scotland which was considered, albeit unsuccesfully, as a candidate for the flag of the Kingdom of Great Britain; not the Kingdom of Greater England. In this country, the design is very much "part of the evolution of our unon flag" as being a distinctly Scottish version. Your assertion that this Scottish variant was "not part of the evolution of our union flag" betrays an underlying and somewhat disturbing attitude towards the subject matter and is, at the very least, clearly a breach of WP:NPV.Endrick Shellycoat 21:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering your declared separatist views i do not think we should be getting into a battle over potential breach of NPV. I stated the reason why "The Scottish Union flag" has no place on the image showing the evolution of the Union flag. They are two separate things, one was rejected, the other became one of the most recognised symbols in the world.

The evolution of the present union flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has nothing at all to do with an alternative flag that was rejected, this is exactly the same for people in England as it is in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WTH? "Considering your declared separatist views"...

My political opinion regarding the future government of Scotland is neither here nor there and, as far as I'm concerned at least, nothing whatsoever to do with my interest in flags.

Your spurious argument is without foundation and the more you persist the more inclined I am to resort to Wikipedia:Mediation.Endrick Shellycoat 22:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the one that questioned my neutrality, i simply wanted to point out two can play at that game if it is a game you want to play. I just want us to focus on the facts. The simple fact is the evolution of the union flag has nothing to do with the "Scottish union flag" talked about in this article. It is an alternative flag, there for how can it form part of the evolution of the current one. If you feel you need to resort to mediation to try and resolve this matter that is up to you. I am confident about the validity of the position i have taken on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your remarks gave rise to questions of neutrality. Would you also question the neutrality of the following sources:

• snippet view 1
• snippet view 2
• snippet view 3
• snippet view 4
• snippet view 5
• snippet view 6
• snippet view 7
• snippet view 8
• snippet view 9
• snippet view 10

I wonder how many of the authors whose works are linked to above would agree with your assertion that "the evolution of the union flag has nothing to do with the "Scottish union flag" talked about in this article". This article which, incidentally, concerns the Union Flag, in all its past and present guises, and not specifically the Flag of the United Kingdom, which is a separate article! Endrick Shellycoat 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Scottish union flag" is an alternative flag which was rejected. It there for does not belong in an image showing the evolution of the union flag. I have not looked at all the sources you listed, but unless one clearly states the "Scottish union flag" was altered to make the current union flag then they are irrelevant to this specific issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The "issue" being whether the removal of the flag from the template improved or detracted from that template and therefore from the article itself. I maintain it detracted, you maintain it improved. Our positions will not change; it will fall to WP:Mediation to decide. As soon as I can repair the template and save it as a 'version 2' or whatever, for ease of comparison, I'll take the matter elsewhere.Endrick Shellycoat 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Having an alternative flag to an image with 5 flags already that were involved made no sense at all. We must ensure the image is not complicated or confusing. Displaying a flag which had no official status and no role in shaping todays union flag simply was pointless. You could try taking this to mediation, but the majority view from the comments i have seen was in support of removal of that image. Consensus was reached, sadly it does not always equal unanimous agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The "concensus" consisted of the idea being first broached by a WP:SPA who seems particularly well-versed in the workings of this site for a self-acclaimed "New user". The edit was undertaken by Phoenix without any consultation, with support from yourself post-edit. Having concluded that the way to proceed here is to create an article specific to the Scottish variant, I shall place the following there, which I trust most will not find in any way confusing...

St Andrew's Cross 16th c. (Scotland)

St George's Cross 16th c. (England and Wales)

King's Colours of 1606 1707 (Great Britain)

St Patrick's Cross (Ireland)

Union Flag of 1801 1801 (United Kingdom)

Bigger Render

Evolution of the Union Flag.

Endrick Shellycoat 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I suggested the removal of the flag I failed to provide any reason. This is why:The purpose of the template is to show the evolution of the Union Jack; it shows how the first official version evolved and how the current (forth) version evolved. The template mirrors one contained in William Crampton (TheWorld of Flags, 1990).As BW noted, the Scottish version was rejected. It was never an official flag. Bartram makes this clear in his book (British Flags & Emblems) and in a paper for the XIX International Congress of Vexillology. Crampton, writes that it was that version with the St. George cross uppermost which was the "authorized" one.Further, the current template omits two intermediate official versions of the Union Jack so I would expect to see these before any unofficial one was added, plus, what about that unofficial one where both the crosses of both St. Andrew and St. Patrick surmount the cross of St. George should be added? May be there are other unofficial ones should we add them all? I don't agree with that (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See above.Endrick Shellycoat 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but i oppose the addition of the unofficial "Scottish union flag" which is an alternative flag that does not belong in an image about the current union flag. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed there is no reason to have unofficial flags in that section for there are many variants over the years. I have added the Protectorate Jack. You said that there were 2 missing flags. What was the other one? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm i think id rather the image was kept to the basics of the 3 English/Scottish/Irish flags and the 2 versions of the UK flag but the new addition is certainly more justified than the "Scottish union flag" which had no official status. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok figured it out. So is this a no go or a keep? Should we only have flags that influenced the union Jack and remove the Commonwealth Flag or is that a good example of the evolution of the flag into what it is now? -- Phoenix (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish Union Flag had an official status in 17th/18th c. Scotland equal to that of the Cross of St. Patrick in 17th/18th c. Ireland. Oh, and BTW, that shown above now bears no resemblance to the original and will therefore not be used for the purpose which I stated previously.Endrick Shellycoat 16:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts Phoenix. The second official Union Jack (5th March 1649) was the combined St. George cross with the Irish harp [7]. I think we all agree that the template should only include official flag (so that discounts the so called "Scottish variant" and other unofficial flags). Crampton in his book includes only the first and the current ones. I will do a bit more searching to see what other flag books have. Incidentally, Whitney Smith sort of agrees this in writing: " Every vexillologist is aware that it has had two basic forms — the original combination of St. Andrew's and St. George's crosses (l606-l649 and l660-l800) and the same with St. Patrick's cross added (since l January l80l)." I don't agree with that (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice body-swerve on the official status in Ireland of the Cross of St. Patrick; what does Crampton say about that? "I think we all agree", to coin a phrase, I don't agree with that. On what basis are all the variants except the Scottish classed as "official". As far as I'm aware, two designs can stake such a claim on the basis of Royal Decree and/or Parliamentary Act(s), as for the remainder, what are their credentials?Endrick Shellycoat 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait are you saying that the Union jack does not officially contain the Cross Saltire of St Patrick? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are you being obtuse? I'm asking what the official status of the Cross of St. Patrick was in 17th/18th c. Ireland? Clear?Endrick Shellycoat 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Umh... No I am just startled that you would try to bring that up so that you could prove a point. But please be clear. Yes or No, is the St Patrick Cross officially a part of the Union Flag? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict:::I'm merely asking a question in the hope that someone with access to a RS can answer it. I'm not disputing CoSP in the Union Flag, in fact I'm not disputing anything re. the 1801 design and never have. Therefore, once again in the hope of a definitive answer coming via Compton or anywhere else, what was the official status of the Cross of St. Patrick in 17th/18th c. Ireland?Endrick Shellycoat 22:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The official status of the St Patrick cross in Ireland at the time has got nothing to do with anything. The fact is that cross was added to the original union flag to form the official union flag we use to this day. I am sorry if you can not see the difference between that and showing an unofficial flag made from two official ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Would the "difference between that and showing an unofficial flag made from two official ones" be that the other might be an official flag made from one unofficial and one official one? Can anyone answer my question? Where is our resident WP:SPA when you need him?Endrick Shellycoat 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest the history of the St patricks cross is not a topic i have looked into before nor care about. All i am saying is, the status it had makes no difference. It was a flag of Ireland (no matter what recognition or status it had) that was used to form the official union flag.

lets say for a second it had no official status and it had nothing at all to do with Ireland. (this is just an example, i am not saying it had no status as i have not read the history):

official old union flag + unofficial flag chosen by the nasty Brits for Ireland = official new union flag.

Because it formed the new official flag it is clearly needed to be shown in the evolution of our union flag as thats the one we now use. Compare that to your "Scottish union flag"

Official flag + Official flag = unofficial rejected flag

Surely you can see that those two scenarios are very different which is why one justifies being in the image and the other doesnt. Any flag no matter what its status would have to be displayed if it was used to form the official union flag. Just because someone put 2 official flags together and made an unofficial mess does not justify it being displayed in an evolution of the union flag image. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I sense goalposts being moved?

• "there is no reason to have unofficial flags in that section":Phoenix
• "I think we all agree that the template should only include official flag (so that discounts the so called "Scottish variant" and other unofficial flags)":I don't agree with that

Status of CoSP in 17th/18th c. Ireland, anyone? It's a genuine question, as is that which relates to those other versions, excluding of course the official 1606(King's Colours)/1707 and 1801 designs. Were they official?Endrick Shellycoat 23:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Crampton: "On 1 January 1801 the fourth Union Jack came into effect, which included the red saltire to represent Ireland". The templates purpose is to show the evolution of legitimate versions of the Union Jack. Your argument is, as pointed out by BW above, a Strawman fallacy and irrelevant. I don't agree with that (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input. There are templates being proposed which include flags whose official status I would like to establish prior to making my views known. This, according to you, is a "Strawman fallacy and irrelevant"? Really...Endrick Shellycoat 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to show the official evolution of the Union Jack; the 1st evolution, 2nd, 3rd and 4th (current) evolution. The "Scottish variant" plays no part in this. I don't agree with that (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Which are evolutions 2 and 3, and other than pictorial evidence suggesting their use what defines them as being "official"? Your Crampton ref still doesn't answer my question re the CoSP in 17th/18th c. Ireland BTWEndrick Shellycoat 23:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to learn more about the status of certain flags before sharing your views with us then you could always research it yourself. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the views being expressed on this page I assumed that such "research" had already been undertaken by those to whom my questions are being directed.Endrick Shellycoat 23:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so lets get official about this:

• Question : Officially is the Saint Patrick Cross included in the Union Flag/Jack?
• Answer : YES. According to all reliable and academic sources that is indeed correct:
  • "The Union Flag is thus made up of the crosses of St George, St Andrew, and St Patrick, respectively the patron saints of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and it was first flown on 1 January 1801." [8]
  • "The Union with Ireland in 1801 brought the cross of St. Patrick into the flag. The result was the modern Union flag, established by royal proclamation by King George III on 1 January 1801." [9]
  • "The cross saltire of St Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, is a diagonal red cross on a white ground. This was combined with the previous Union Flag of St George and St Andrew, after the Act of Union of Ireland with England (and Wales) and Scotland on 1 January 1801, to create the Union Flag that has been flown ever since." [10]
  • "Flag combines crosses of St Patrick, St George and St Andrew (there's no separate representation of Wales)" [11]
  • "The union jack as we know it today dates back to 1801, when Ireland joined Great Britain in a single kingdom. But the original flag, which was set out by royal proclamation on 12 April 1606, was subtly different, lacking the diagonal red lines - the so-called St Patrick's cross." [12]

Overwhelming evidence for the flags inclusion as an official part of the Union Flag.
It is clear from your statement above I'm not disputing CoSP in the Union Flag, in fact I'm not disputing anything re. the 1801 design and never have. Therefore, once again in the hope of a definitive answer coming via Compton or anywhere else, what was the official status of the Cross of St. Patrick in 17th/18th c. Ireland? We are not talking about the national flag of Ireland only the Union Jack/Flag and as proven above and as a point you have already conceded it is a clear part of the Union Jack/Flag. It is also clear that you are not posing this question sincerely, so please WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not dispute the above, nor am I disrupting wikipedia. Three editors, one of which a WP:SPA, have appointed themselves as judge and jury re. what does or does not appear in a template. Their own concensus appears to be that unofficial flags have no place in that template. I have merely asked a specific question as to the status of one of those flags which appears in the template and I've met with nothing but obstruction, evasive non-answers and accusations of straw man whatevers and disruptive editing. The status of other flags proposed for alternative versions of the template have also been queried by me and, despite assuming that those three editors will have undertaken research to support their own position, I've effectively been stonewalled and told to go and establish any such status for myself. Perhaps my questions being too awkward...

Furthermore, if this editorial trio's interpretation of official is related to Royal Decrees and/or Parliamentary Acts, then I'm concerned that evidence not only to support the official but also unofficial status of flags is reliable. What, if any, Royal Decrees/Parliamentary Acts exist re. the versions other than the 1606/1707/1801 versions? Does the absence of any evidence of such a decree/act mean that we make the leap to assume that status must then be unofficial, as in the case of the single primary source which claims the Scottish variant was "unofficial"? (This being despite there being no evidence to support this assertion; James' reply to the Scots Privy Council re. the 1606 complaint by Scots seafarers being lost, possibly as a result of being placed together with the plates showing the "two new drauchtis and patrones," which were indeed consumed in a fire). If the accepted logic is that in the absence of proof of official sanction by Royal Decree and/or Parliamentary Act the status of a flag is unofficial, what is the status of the Protectorate Jack, the England/Scotland impaled, the England/Ireland impaled and the England/Scotland quartered versions proposed for inclusion in versions of the template? Do they also have associated decrees/acts?Endrick Shellycoat 11:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on the Union Jack/Flag. So its evolution and what it is made up of is not in dispute. You agree so I do not see why this conversation is continuing. It is obvious that you are a good editor by not brining this argument to the articles main page so I truly commend you for that. If people were arguing that the scottish variant should be removed from this article you would see me arguing on your side. But on this matter we disagree. But Scotland still used St Andrews Cross until the union and not the Scottish union flag. -- Phoenix (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw man and Ad hominem fallacies, I would also agree there is no need for this conversation to continue. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. You have already been given these. I don't agree with that (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Union Flag (arbitrary break 2)

Thanks Phoenix, but my questions re. the official status of certain flag variants included in your selection of template subpages remain a mystery; those here appearing either unable or unwilling to answer them. My reason for the query was to go on to suggest a compromise which might include all flag versions, including those which you included in your subpages whose status I was seeking confirmation of here, in a revised family tree template. This would be a colourful and interesting addition IMHO, given the variety of flags appearing between 1606 and 1707 which some form of evidence suggests saw actual if albeit limited use. The flag images could be reduced in size and would make quite an impressive collection. I would be happy to spend time on a draft version, however if my suggestion is only going to be poo-poo'd by those who claim I'm adhering to a variety of exotic fallacies then I'll refrain from doing so.Endrick Shellycoat 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose a second image that covers many other flags although the list would have to be agreed and the flags would certainly have to be smaller than the current one. But i do feel strongly we need one clear image of the evolution of the union flag which simply contains the 5 flags (England, Scotland, Ireland + Old union flag and New Union flag) which needs to be shown first. A second image further down the page containing alternative / other flags and how they are formed is ok with me. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So what was your thought? When I created version 4 below it was thorough but a bit complicated. Can you make a 5th version to show us your idea? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll get 'round to it as soon as I can. My intention would be to include all those versions Phoenix displayed in his version 4, plus the England/Scotland impaled, which according to FOTW "was actually used (from c1643) as a jack by Royalist ships in the English Civil War", plus the Scottish variant. This would then include all those designs for which a suggestion of actual use exists; whether the flag be official or otherwise. The design of family-tree I have in mind differs from that of the subpages designed by Phoenix. Therefore if you're open to such a template I'll produce it. Endrick Shellycoat 19:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So could we get agreement to have the original evolution of the union flag show the basics (England/Ireland/Scotland/original union flag / current union flag) then everyone can focus on this new image your suggesting which will include all of the other flags too? and once thats agreed to gets included in the article further down the page? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The current evolution template on the article page contains all the flags that give the 4 versions of the Union Jack. There can be problem with that. Do we really need a second image the page size is already long enough? But if there is to be one can I request the proposed Welsh variant be included. I don't agree with that (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which Welsh version? There does not seam to be any consensus on what version would replace the current flag. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW.Endrick Shellycoat 23:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow nice job, but I do have a couple of comments. It looks like the "Harp of Ireland" is a recent creation so we might want to remove that one and just use the coat of arms in its place. I have not heard of or seen the "Royalist Jack" before. Where did you find out about it? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Harp of Ireland is only a banner of the arms, and I'm speculating that the example which is impaled with the CoSG may be the earliest indication of its use as such. The syntax of the template is problematic here as it does not permit for a single line to drop to the right hand side of the England/Ireland impaled box to link the 'banner box' to the 'protectorate box'; all that appears is {{:}}. Therefore in order to connect to the Protectorate Jack there must be an additional box to make that connection, hence I used the Irish CoA. The "Royalist Jack" I forgot to alter to read simply "Naval Jack"; CRW/FOTW states with regard to this that "As a matter of interest, the 'impaled' design was actually used (from c1643) as a jack by Royalist ships in the English Civil War" (link), and I do recall reading that it appears on a contemporary depiction of a Royal Navy vessel, therefore there is a ref out there other than CRW/FOTW which I'm sure someone can track down. Feel free to mess around with it.Endrick Shellycoat 13:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to that which appears at FOTW ("English Naval Jack": link) and used Navy Royal, which appears on the Royal Navy article for the period concerned. Is it worthwhile placing this template on the article?Endrick Shellycoat 15:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)