Jump to content

Talk:Flag of the United States/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Longevity of the 48-Star Flag

The history section says, "The 47-years of the 48-star version had been the longest time the flag went unmodified until 1960, when the 50-star version of the Flag of the United States broke the record." If the 48 star version lasted 47 years, and the 50 star flag was adopted in 1960, wouldn't the record remain unbroken until 2007? Worms42 (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. That change went unnoticed for a month and a half. –jacobolus (t) 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Preble book at Google Books

Besides the 1880 book at the Internet Archive cited in this article, Preble also wrote a book Our Flag in 1872, the full content of which is available from Google Book Search. Someone might find it useful or informative. –jacobolus (t) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The image File:Boy Scout right sleeve.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Area in which the U.S. flag was very influential

Just about all the 5-pointed stars on the flags of countries of the world (with the possible exception of Morocco) are due to direct or indirect influence from the U.S. flag... Before the U.S. flag became known, the pentagram shape occurred as a heraldic "mullet" (spur-wheel), or as a good luck amulet, or as an abstract geometric decorative motif -- but it was not usually called a "star", and did not commonly appear on flags. It was only as a result of influence from the U.S. flag that pentagrams began to commonly occur on flags, and be referred to as "stars" in that context. This is very briefly discussed on p. 27 of The World Encyclopedia of Flags by Alfred Znamierowski, ISBN 0-7548-0167-5. AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Particular days for display

71.215.150.63 (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC) What part of this section needs citation? I'd be happy to help, I just need to know what the problem is (also, what kind of websites would you consider to be reliable for reference, since I now know that answers.com isn't reliable...).

The answers.com link you cited is actually a copy of an (older version of) this Wikipedia article. The article cannot be its own reference. Any of the specific facts in that section could use a reference (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Flag Folding - Process & "Meaning" / "Religious themes"

It seems the section on "Folding for Storage" needs some cleanup to make sure it's accurate and has a neutral point of view. For instance, step 4 says "make a retangular fold then a triangular fold" [to begin the folding into triangles]. It's not clear what the "rectangular fold" refers to. The associated animated gif doesn't show any intermediate steps between the second lengthwise fold and the first triangular fold.

Then we get to the "meanings" pieces: Since there's never been anything legally or officially adopted that specifies the "meanings" of the folds or shape or appearance of the folded flag, those portions need to be deleted, prefaced by "Some people believe..." or similar language to indicate that they're personal beliefs (and a fairly recent invention, at that), or revised to indicate that these meanings are only one set of many that have been used by various organizations (see, e.g., http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/folds.htm). Note that the American Legion source (note 53) cited also states that the raising of the flag in the morning is representative of "our belief in the resurrection of the body," which is hardly a religiously neutral viewpoint.

Virginian74 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Section violates NPOV and is entirely cited by three sources, none of which are official websites or the US government or otherwise authoratative. Since there has been no further comment, I move to delete. 163.251.128.2 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I know some of the services have adopted a script page 83 of this Air Force PDF has a script and all services use a script when presenting the flag to the next of kin. As for the rectangular fold, I remember from funerals it is done. Watch the funeral of JFK and see how the flag has a rectangular fold. It is not official or prescribed in code, but it is done. I agree the flag folding meanings should be removed for the sake of not only POV but just for the size of this article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are my reasons for deleting the section: (1) It is copy-and-paste; even the opening lines are largely plagiarized. This raises copyright concerns, (2) The sources have identical content and are not independent, (3) the sources are not from the government, are not scholarly, and not authoritative, (4) these completely contrived and esoteric meanings for the folds advance no important knowledge about the subject of this page, (5) overt NPOV with regard to specific religions and religiosity in general, and (6) statements like "flag folding ceremony described by the Uniformed Services involves religious themes" which are patently incorrect. I believe we have consensus. NBruschi (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a video of the Arlington Historian directly refuting the 'each fold has a meaning' myth. See 0:58. NBruschi (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that you told me it was a copy and paste job, then yes it should have been taken out for that reason alone. While I know there is no official meaning to the fold, and that is what Arlington is stressing. The Marine Corps Times agrees and quoted the National Cemetery Administration as such. Yet, as I pointed out, some official organs of the US Government have a script that is read during flag folding ceremonies. Here is the Air Force one and the non-recital of the religious themed one has stirred up controversy. Here is what I am thinking: "Sometimes there is a script that is read during the folding ceremony and attaches a meaning to each fold. One of the scripts used detail about the history of the flag and of the country; this is used by the Air Force during retirement (and other, replace this text) ceremonies. (cite) Other organizations, such as the American Legion, have a script that attach religious themes to each fold. (cite) On September 27 2007, the National Cemetery Administration, an arm of the Veteran's Administration that oversees the national cemeteries and burials, issued a rule that forbade any script from being read during the folding ceremony due to a complaint from a service in Riverside, California.(cite)(cite) In October of the same year, the VA allowed scripts to be read as long as the families of the deceased provided the scripts in advance of the service, regardless if they are in religious or secular in nature. (cite) However, any scripts that would have been political in nature, obscene, abusive, coarse, "fighting words" or racist in nature will be disallowed at the discretion of the cemetery director. (cite)" Feel free to change the wording as you like, but I feel to ignore this aspect of flag folding would be a disservice to our readers. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In similar inclusion/exclusion debates on other pages, an important consideration was WP:WEIGHT. Quoting the moderator in one case "In Wikipedia, we give events or viewpoints coverage in proportion to their prominence in respected independent sources. So the question we need to ask ourselves here is: given all the sources ever published about (the Flag of the United States) - historical, academic, and modern - what proportion of them are concerned with (the meaning of the folds)? That is how much space we must devote to it in the article. If the number is, say, 10%, then we can have an individual section on it; if the number is, say, 2%, then we may be able to include a sentence about it; if it is less than that, we probably shouldn't include it."
Using this standard, "Flag of the United States" yields 6,560 hits on Google Scholar and 3.3 million on Google Search. "American Flag" yields 40,300 and 26.8 million. The first line of the script, "The first fold of our Flag is a symbol of life," yields 3 hits (<0.1%) on Google Scholar and 108k (<0.1%) on Search. Perhaps giving meanings to the fold in general would yield more results but I have yet to find a search that can accurately tease out this number. The numbers here would argue against having the folding as a section or a paragraph, which we both seem to agree is to much, but I think it would be acceptable to include as much as a single line at the end of the "Folding for storage" Section stating "While the folding procedure above was not created with any official meanings for the folds, some non-governmental organizations have since imbued the folds with unofficial meanings that are often religious or patriotic in nature."
I have not found any sources confirming that, as you say, "official organs of the US Government" use this script (apologies, I cannot open the page you keep linking to). There is a helpful Snopes.com article on the Flag that addresses your USAF example and quotes the USAF Protocol Chief saying "Though there are no official ceremonies in the Air Force that require a script to be read when a flag is folded, unofficial ceremonies such as retirements often do." NBruschi (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The link is to the Air Force Mortuary Office and it has the actual script; the Air Force does confirm what Snopes says. But I consider the US Air Force as an organ of the United State Government, so that was my purpose with those words. So to say organizations like the the American Legion has a script and the Air Force doesn't will not be correct. [http://www.moody.af.mil/didyouknow.asp does give credence to what you say, but I feel we need to add "governmental" to your line about having scripts that are religious (Legion) or patriotic (Air Force) in nature. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-Rectangular Star Patterns?

This shows many unusual patterns for the stars. Are there any photos of some of these variants in use or an indication of how frequently they were used? I think many readers, like myself, would like to know if these unusual patterns were ever actually in common use. --CGPGrey (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Some information here (with further pointers; there are books which go over the subject). The Navy has always used horizontal rows, at least since 1818, though not necessarily of equal widths (not sure exactly what you mean by non-rectangular). That didn't prevent the public from using any pattern they wanted, and lots of different patterns are documented. Even the Army and Navy used slightly different patterns until they were standardized for all government departments in 1912, and as the actual law hasn't changed since 1818 different star patterns are still technically OK (i.e. it is still the American flag) though the last 100 years or so it appears the public generally prefers the official pattern. The Fort Sumter Flag is one very documented alternate arrangement, used by the Army. It might be good to find a statement about how prevalent they were -- it's my impression that alternate arrangements were very common (the book I have tries to document the "most common" arrangement for each number of stars, indicating there were always a bunch of different ones, but no explicit statement that I can find). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea, origin and/or inspiration of the history of ?

Anyone have information on the history of the flag ? Obviously it has tones of British within it, but is there information on the actual idea, origin and/or inspiration of the flag other than that provided in the Betsy Ross article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

White Ensign of Great Britain
It's really not historically documented, but probably most scholars would assume that the white and/or red ensigns were taken as the overall template, with possible influences from the Sons of Liberty flag and/or the British East India Company flag and/or the George Washington coat of arms, while the canton (replacing the one used in the earlier Grand Union Flag) was based on the idea of a "new constellation" of the 13 colonies/states... AnonMoos (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious (to me at least) that the Grand Union Flag was the primary inspiration... with the constellation of stars replacing the Union Jack in the canton. But AnonMoos is correct... the inspiration isn't documented (which means we can not state it as a fact in the article). Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

wearing U.S. flag

The artical states the US flag has been worn in the reverse by the military back to it's early history. I choose to disagree, I'm a retired US paratrooper and if you'll check the cover of life magazine Aug.14 1944 you will see that the military wore it according to proper guideline's. IE: the field of blue shall alway's be ot the left of the observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.113.95 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's my thought, too. When the flag is worn in a static fashion, the blue field is supposed to be oriented so that it is on top, and to its own right. This is also in keeping with the military's traditional "position of honor" - to its own right (front observer's left), e.g. order of precedence of medals, position in formations, etc. Fredmdbud (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Recollections of 1944 are moot; the source cited in the paragraph explicitly says today's usage is governed by Army Regulation 670-1, which evidently must have been made after WW II. The position of honor requirement is fulfilled by the flag being worn on the right shoulder. And the stripes trail to the rear as if the flag were "flying", consistent with the practice used on airplanes. There are plenty of pictures of modern servicemen wearing the flag this way, all over TV and the internet.
One way the paragraph could be improved is to paraphrase it; it is currently a copyright violation (verbatim copy) of the cited web site. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Iconic Meaning

What, if anything, does the work 'iconic' mean in the heading of this section? Yes, the flag is iconic; the meaning of the flag is not. Could this poor, over-worked word be removed? Bitbut (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a picture to this section from the US Capitol building. I agree the word "iconic" may be redundant, depending on the audience.--Dmaiolo (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the date should be December 1860 and not 1861. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.31 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Size of historical table

I took the liberty of scaling down all the flags in the Historical progression table by 5/7, to reduce the visual impression that the table goes on forever. I think the star fields are still easily visible, (and readers can always click on any image to see a bigger size.) I hope nobody objects. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Months

What's the point of the "months" in the "Historical progression of designs" section? They just clutter up the table, and all of them since 1818 are simple multiplications by 12 (since the design now always changes only on July 4.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Got rid of months. Silly. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar

What are the standards for putting something in the "similar national flags" section? Some of them seem really odd choices, in particular the last row. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The flag of Czechoslovakia certainly seems to be a stretch; not sure about others. AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think if you read Flag of Czech Republic, it's pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the U.S. flag. The fact that it's also red, white and blue seems to be nothing more than a coincidence as the colours of the Czech flag have their own separate historical origin. It's gone. Wiggy! (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice that the Czechoslovakian flag had been added recently by an anonymous IP, or I would have removed it; thanks for doing so..
By the way, if you're willing to interpret similarity or influence in a loose sense, then almost any flag with a 5-pointed star could be added, since before the U.S. flag became known, the pentagram shape occurred as a heraldic "mullet" (spur-wheel), or as a good-luck sign, or as a geometric decoration -- but it was not usually called a "star", and did not commonly appear on flags (search through the 18th-century flag charts at File:Encyclopedie volume 6-143.png and related images, and you'll have great difficulty in finding any). Probably the flag of Morocco is the only national flag with a 5-pointed star not due to direct or indirect influence from the U.S. flag... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest the flags of Greece and the Republic of China (Taiwan) should be removed as they aren't all that similar, and as far as I know there's no evidence that they were influenced by the US flag.--ImizuCIR (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the Flag of Malaysia in this section? They're both based on the British East India Company flag, after all... Hzoi (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The British East India Company flag has been frequently suggested as an influence on the U.S. flag, but it's impossible to prove or solidly document this (see "#Idea, origin and/or inspiration of the history of ?" section above). Others have pointed out that British East India Company flag was not actually supposed to be flown in the Atlantic... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Way too big an article.

An encyclopedic entry, as a general rule, should not be this extensive. While it does remain within the guidelines of length, Wikipedia still recommends splitting an article this long; see WP:SIZERULE. This article, at present is 85.6 kb which is well over 60 kb, which is Wikipedia's size recommendation for splitting it into another article; see WP:ANOTHER. It really should be brief. Imagine that a user may land here wanting to find out what the stripes mean. With a bloated article, such as this, it is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Not ALL information needs to be published, or at least not in the same article. As an alternative the article could suggest books or websites for further reading. Keep the facts brief and simple. I am not a good writer, but I am fairly good at critiquing and making suggestions, hence my comments here. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there are also too many photos in this article too. I would recommend making this article into one like the Flag of Japan (an FA). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Even if the article should be split, it doesn't necessarily follow that "Flag of the United States" should be a very brief article. Furthermore, it would be highly constructive to propose a concrete specific name for a spin-off article ("History of the flag of the United States" could be one possibility)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think what I would like to see is not make this article short, since it is not going to be possible, but make it summary style of an article (so maybe a short paragraph or two about the code, and a subsection about flag desecration), a summary style of the history of the US flags, etc. If I had the time, which I don't, I would make such an article in my userspace. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it’s completely fine. There isn’t really a reasonable split, and everything here seems relevant. I wish every Wikipedia article covered as much about its subject. It’s easy to make bad assumptions about what hypothetical users do or don’t want to read, or think is easy/hard to find. Speaking only for myself, I’m overjoyed when I find long, comprehensive Wikipedia articles about subjects I want to learn about. Any user can easily skip over sections she doesn’t care about, but hunting down subpage links is a pain, and defeats in-page searching, printing, or saving a page to read later. –jacobolus (t) 04:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to lend my voice to the original comment: this article is way too big and rambling to conform to the principles of an encyclopedia and WP in specific. There are reasons for keeping articles to a certain length, and this article verges on a manuscript. The proper treatment of this subject would take someone of insight with plenty of time to spend, but I think it's reasonable to split it into separate articles about, say, history, application, or whatever makes sense. But as a user just coming here to get a basic sense of the American flag, this article is way too much to wade through, and discourages the kind of general learning an encyclopedia is meant to encourage. I therefore encourage some brave soul to take this on and turn it into a series of logically related articles to make it more useful and in keeping with the philosophy of WP. Just my 2c. Jefferson1957 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

what is that "Oil painting depicting the 39 historical U.S. flags"?

it looks really amateurish, and contains flags that the article does not contain. is this a "famous" painting, or an especially historically complete one? doesn't look like it to me. 71.190.65.235 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What flag is this?

I don't see this 13-star flag (included in this BBC article) in the Flag of the United States article. I also see a similar flag listed under lot 885 on this page.

What are they and should they be included in this article?

--Craig (t|c) 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the John Shaw flag, flown in Annapolis -- some details here and here. The original flag dates from 1783 or so (not the earliest); the one in the photos is a recent replica. Kind if interesting as it more follows heraldic rules such as on the U.S. coat of arms (white outer stripes). See File:John Shaw Flag (White First).svg, though apparently there was also a version with outermost red stripes. Not sure on the other one you're asking about, but countless one-off star designs were used throughout the 1800s, and we're not going to be able to show all of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Carl. Appreciate the history lesson. I hadn't realised that "countless one-off star designs were used throughout the 1800s," but I suppose that makes sense in context. --Craig (t|c) 04:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Tattered and improperly displayed"

Is there something else improper about the display of the flag shown in Spokane besides its tattered condition? The wording of the caption seems to suggest there is, but I don't see any hint in the picture or the main text. Not R (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

From the context of the photo and Commons description page, I found nothing else improper. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Display on Vehicles

I don't understand the reason for such excessive and seemingly arbitrary specificity in the citation:

"When the flag is affixed to the side of a Ford or Chevy (land, sea or air)..."?

Why should the specific make of the vehicle be specified? Is the implication that if you put it on a Chrysler, or even Toyota, there are no conventions and one should just stick on it any way it appeals to them? And since automobiles are almost universally on "land" I don't see a reason to specify if they happen to be on "sea" or in the "air".

I'm going to following the WP Prime Directive and "Be bold", and rewrite this to be more generic and make more sense. (Probably just replace the specific language with "vehicle".) If I am missing something important, and someone sees a reason, please feel free to modify or revert, but it you do, please do me the kindness of explaining why you took this action here. Jefferson1957 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Uniformity of terminology

I don't know if this is already codified as a principle of writing WP articles, but I think it's best when terms are established and used uniformly to discourage any confusion that might arise when the same thing is referred to by different terms. Feel free to insert any other related comments in this section.

The terms that inspired me to make this comment was "canton" vs "union". I was confused for a minute about this and had to look back to resolve this, which is an action that encyclopedia writers should strive to minimize. As I understand it, "canton" is the general flag term for an area of a flag, and on the American flag, this space is occupied by the "union", the representation of states by white stars on a blue field. Technically each term is correct, but again, it introduces ambiguity which can be confusing. It is my feeling that the general term "canton" should be uniformly used to refer to this area unless it is a comment specifically about the union. Therefore, as I get time, and unless there are objections, I will go through and make sure the term "canton" is applied uniformly where appropriate. As always, feel free to correct or revert, but please do me the courtesy of explaining why. Jefferson1957 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As I went through to implement this uniformity, I encountered some special circumstances. In one place defining the flag's dimensions, for reader convenience I substituted "union" with "canton ('union')" to make it more immediately understandable.
Also, I encountered the use of the word "union" referring to the "union of the United States", and in cases where this was not initial-capitalized, I capitalized it. Unless someone disagrees, I think it's proper to say, "a state was admitted to the Union" as opposed to "...to the union." "Union" in this usage is a proper noun.
Also, if the term was used in a quotation, I left it as is. Jefferson1957 (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Canton" is the general heraldic/vexillological term, but "union" is used in the text of the official 1778 flag law (because in the 1707 GB naval ensigns, the upper left corner was where the part of the flag expressing the union of Scotland and England was located, and in the 1778 flag it was where the stars expressing the union of the 13 colonies were located). AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Future of the Flag [citation needed]

The last section of the article has the "citation needed" notation on the remark that a future State of Puerto Rico would require a 51st star.

Here is the appropriate citation for that.

§ 2. Same; additional stars On the admission of a new State into the Union one star shall be added to the union of the flag; and such addition shall take effect on the fourth day of July then next succeeding such admission. (July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 642.)

http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/2011/2011usc04.pdf US Code, Title 4. 76.0.13.172 (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's actually been in force since 1818... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing the Section "Similar national flags"

Greetings.

I write at this time regarding the section "Similar national flags" of the wikipedia entry "Flag of the United States": That entry includes several flags bearing some similarity to the U. S. flag. What is missing is a reference to the flag of Malaysia. Ironically, in the section "Similar flags" of the entry "Flag of Malaysia," there is an explicit reference to the American flag. For symmetry, then, the flag of Malaysia should be referenced and pictured in the "Similar national flags" section of the entry "Flag of the United States."

Happy Holidays, Ehud Ronn (email redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.137.135 (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


about malysia flag

Ronn-san, i would like to tell you that Malaysian flag's design isn't at all linked directly to meigoku flag, but it have the same origin of it's own neighbour, indonesia. the medieval flag of local kingland do have too a red-white stripped flag. 

                               ~~Yamato Ryu sensei  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.215.20.169 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Similar Flags

By what rationale is the Czech flag similar, other than that it is red, white and blue? 108.56.6.125 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not, as discussed in January 2012 above on this page... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Color interpretations

I removed the section about the color interpretations. As even the source given for that section states, "Sentimental writers and orators sometimes ascribe meanings to the colors in the flag. The practice is erroneous, as are statements on this subject attributed to George Washington and other founders of the country." The stated color definitions are part of the symbolism of the Great Seal (not the flag), though even those were just thought to be traditional heraldic definitions at the time of adoption, and that is a dubious at best heraldic practice. See Talk:Flag of the United States/Archive 3#Colors, where this was discussed before. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

American Flag "Old Glory Blue" and "Old Glory Red" Available in CMYK On-Screen and Print Colors

The existing Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_United_States includes color information for the purposes of fabric color standards used for the American Flag.

The article badly needs information for CMYK and RGB colors used on-screen and in printed material. Please see the following content:

Official U.S. Flag RGB and CMYK Colors for On-Screen and Print Usage There is a great deal of erroneous information on-line about the RGB and CMYK color values for the Old Glory Red and Old Glory Blue colors within the American Flag. The U.S. Department of State Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs published its June 2012 Identity and Marking Standards guide, which includes correct information. It is available in PDF format at http://fa.statebuy.state.gov/Content/documents/style_guide_public_hi.pdf. The official U.S. flag colors are: Old Glory Blue = RGB 0,33,71; CMYK 100,87,37,51 Old Glory Red = RGB 187,19,62; CMYK 8,100,77,1 White = RGB 255,255,255; CMYK 0,0,0,0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bremmeram (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

However, computer-screen RGB color is inherently device-dependent, so no one CMYK/RGB conversion can be valid across all circumstances... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Military section

I just removed this section:

"Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.
President Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."

s:Executive Order 10834 says no such thing. A flag with fringe is the same flag; the fringe is merely decoration, from all that I've ever seen. The above needs much better sourcing. Per here and other places, the fringe is decorative, which (while widely used on military colors) is also used in the private sector. The Executive Order merely defines the dimensions of the flag for use by executive agencies and departments, while giving the Department of Defense a bit of leeway to alter things for their own needs. They all typically use yellow fringe on their dress colors (parade and other ceremonial use) but that is just their choice. I'm not sure what the above passage was trying to imply but the emphasis seemed misplaced and there is no "jurisdiction" of the military over the flag beyond their own use of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And I just removed it again. It's batshit crazy Sovereign Citizen conspiracy claptrap. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The words "fringe", "decoration", "gold" and/or "yellow" do not even appear in this EO at all. The only thing is that in section 24 of this EO, it says the Secretary of Defense (or the Administrator of General Services for non-military agencies) may alter the proportions of the flag to fit their needs. It doesn't say anything about adding fringe. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
For future reference, the "34 Ops. Atty Gen. 83" reference is a typo (which seems to only appear on those conspiracy sites); the correct reference is 34 Ops. Att Gen 483, which can be seen here. The question was if the military's use of fringe was a desecration or otherwise illegal, but the answer was no. The ruling recognized it was within the President's prerogative to decide if such use was OK or not, but of course that authority is only over the executive branch (of which the military is a part) and does not cover the public's use. A longer quote from the ruling:
In a circular dated March 28, 1924, The Adjutant General of the Army thus refers to the matter of the fringe:
"For a number of years there has been prescribed in Army Regulations a knotted fringe of yellow silk on the national standards of mounted regiments and on the national colors of unmounted regiments. The War Department, however, knows of no law which either requires or prohibits the placing of a fringe on the flag of the United States. No Act of Congress or Executive order has been found bearing on the question. In flag manufacture a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag, and it is without heraldic significance. In the common use of the word it is a fringe and not a border. Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags."
With these conclusions of The Adjutant General I am inclined to agree. The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence can not be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under the law such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.
The presence, therefore, of a fringe on military colors and standards does not violate any existing Act of Congress. Its use or disuse is a matter of practical policy, to be determined, in the absence of statute, by the Commander in Chief.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

2014

I apologize as I'm not sure exactly where this page should have this updated information but this reference link is below and I thought it appropriate to update wikipedia re: news that American Flags manufactured in China are banned in US military as a result of this quote "Congressman Mike Thompson to write legislation requiring flags purchased by the Department of Defense be 100 percent “Made in America"

(ref:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-flags-made-in-china-now-banned-in-us-military/) Mjkim1974 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

13 colonies or 13 states?

Resolved

The opening paragraph states: "the 13 stripes represent the thirteen British colonies that declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain and became the first states in the Union."

However, the article later states in The section 'Flag Resolution of 1777': "Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation."

So which is it? Thirteen Great British colonies? Or thirteen original states?Presidentbalut (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Both - SummerPhD (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: "References" clean up

Hi,

I was scanning through this page, noticed a "dead link" for a reference for the "Flag of Liberia", and tried to fix it. In the process, I also noticed somebody had added a RS for the Flag of Malaysia that was a link to a Wikipedia article, so I removed that per WP:CIRCULAR. After closer examination, it appears that different formats are being used for the various inline citations used in this article. Ideally, it would be best if they all followed the same format, but before changing anything a consensus should be achieved per WP:CITEVAR. I don't mind doing all the busy work, but perhaps editors who regularly work on this page should decide which format is best. Furthermore, it also seems that quite a few of the references are more explanatory note than citation; therefore, it might be better to treat them as {{efn}} and separate them per WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

New Congress Act passed?

I heard that your Congress passed an Act which states that the flag used by your goverment needs to be produced in the US? What is the Law called and where to find it on Wikipedia? 87.78.122.110 (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it covers only flags used by the military.[1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

13 colonies or 13 states?

Resolved

The opening paragraph states: "the 13 stripes represent the thirteen British colonies that declared independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain and became the first states in the Union."

However, the article later states in The section 'Flag Resolution of 1777': "Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation."

So which is it? Thirteen Great British colonies? Or thirteen original states?Presidentbalut (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

Both - SummerPhD (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: "References" clean up

Hi,

I was scanning through this page, noticed a "dead link" for a reference for the "Flag of Liberia", and tried to fix it. In the process, I also noticed somebody had added a RS for the Flag of Malaysia that was a link to a Wikipedia article, so I removed that per WP:CIRCULAR. After closer examination, it appears that different formats are being used for the various inline citations used in this article. Ideally, it would be best if they all followed the same format, but before changing anything a consensus should be achieved per WP:CITEVAR. I don't mind doing all the busy work, but perhaps editors who regularly work on this page should decide which format is best. Furthermore, it also seems that quite a few of the references are more explanatory note than citation; therefore, it might be better to treat them as {{efn}} and separate them per WP:REFGROUP and WP:EXPLNOTE. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical flag verifiability

I just spot-checked the historical flag variants (the concentric circles, for example). Most have just been hand-made in an SVG editor and uploaded by users without any hint of a historical reference. Images need to be verifiable, too. These variants need reliable sources showing they existed, or they don't belong here. —Designate (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of them are in the Furlong and McCandless book (ISBN 0-87474-449-0). It's not really a customary requirement that image description pages on Wikimedia Commons should have historical footnotes. AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
P.S. There was no official specification of the arrangement of stars in the U.S. flag until 1818, and that document only covered flags procured for the U.S. Navy. For much of the nineteenth century (and all of the eighteenth century after 1778), it's not always easy to tell what's a "variant" and what was "normal", among flags not used by the Navy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Images are required to have sources, though. Even if it's drawn by a Wikipedia user, if it's based on someone else's material, it's a derivative work and should say what it's based on. That's true even if it's public domain—the uploader is supposed to explain why it's public domain. There's no reason it can't be cited on the article page either. Images do fall under WP:verifiability even if it's not always enforced. —Designate (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sourcing on Wikimedia Commons is concerned more with what is relevant to determine copyright status than with historical documentation as such (especially for SVG files of an abstract geometric nature). It's certainly encouraged that historical information should be included if available (as with Library of Congress images, etc), but you can't always rely on Wikimedia Commons sourcing requirements to ensure the presence of the footnoted historical documentation that you desire... AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Oversimplification of SVG code

It is disconcerting to see that a number of individuals have taken it upon themselves as a sort of tour de force to hand-code flags and other heraldry with a text editor in a misguided effort to reduce the file size to sub-minimum size. In doing so, the SVG vector files, while they may technically still be legal and may pass a validity check, can no longer be opened and manipulated in many cases by commonly available software tools and, therefore, become inaccessible and useless to the vast majority of Wikipedia site visitors. In addition, in doing so, valuable and useful metadata in the original design files are being discarded and lost. This activity should stop. SVG files should be prepared by a recognized tool, such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, and simplification should be limited to removal of redundant white space, i.e., space and tab characters. Ultimately, due to the way files are stored in mass storage systems, such simplification is futile and a waste of time, since storage space is allocated in fixed-size blocks. If the file is reduced to the minimum block size, reducing it further will not save one iota of storage space. — QuicksilverT @ 23:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Being "guilty" of having removed many megabytes of code from bloated Inkscape SVGs, I mostly disagree.
  • "SVG vector files (...) can no longer be opened and manipulated in many cases by commonly available software tools" – AFAIK Inkscape can open any errorless SVG file, and Illustrator probably can too (I don't know enough about AI to be sure). Often, Inkscape/Illustrator SVGs are invalid and may be a bigger problem for loading in other programs than hand-coded SVGs.
  • "valuable and useful metadata in the original design files are being discarded" – do you have an example of automatically added metadata that is actually useful? The tags within the <metadata>...</metadata> part added by Inkscape are empty 99% of the times. Inkscape further bloats its SVGs by including the page size and color, zoom levels and grids on saving, layer information (can be really handy, but hardly ever for flags), nodetypes and meaningless numerical IDs for all elements. The only thing I can think of that may be worth keeping is the attributes that define stars, ellipses and other shapes stored as paths (annoyingly, Inkscape can't handle <circle> and <ellipse> elements the same way as its own path-based shapes). Again, I don't know much about AI, but from what I have seen it adds quite a bit of unnecessary stuff as well.
  • "storage space is allocated in fixed-size blocks" – I've been told that 1kB is the usual block size. Even the simplest flags that could have been less than 300 bytes big using Notepad exceed 2–3 kB if saved as Inkscape SVG due to the metadata listed above. For larger files many kilobytes can often be reduced by removing unnecessary path attributes Inkscape also tends to add (such as 'stroke-linedash="none"' – it would be very odd if all lines were dashed by default), cloning similar items (possible but obscure in Inkscape if the shapes to clone have different colors, for example) and grouping elements with identical attributes. I doubt you think the reductions listed on my user page (collapsed stuff at the end, Flags & emblems, Most drastic code reductions) don't have any effect on their required storage space.
The fact that you've put this post here suggests that you're referring specifically to File:Flag of the United States.svg. The latest change to that file reduced its size from 1.62 to 1.45 kB, and the only changes in the code were simplifying two color codes from #FFFFFF to #FFF and removing a lot of whitespace, neither of which I think will change anything to how any program renders the file. While I agree that version was not really worth uploading, I don't think we should stop simplifying Inkscape/AI SVGs using Notepad since that often reduces several to many kBs, as opposed to 174 bytes. SiBr4 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I recently downloaded the File:Flag of the United States.svg from Wikimedia Commons and it could not be opened completely in Adobe Illustrator CC 2014 due to too many deeply embedded groups (many levels of which were spurious). It was not possible to correct the problem in Inkscape, because Inkscape has no interface for manipulating layers. Significant time was wasted attempting to find a freeware/trial application that could remedy this situation. In the end, I gritted my teeth and restored the 33 missing stars myself using Adobe Illustrator 2014. While I was there, I made the layers, groups and object names human-readable to ease future maintenance (valuable metadata that had gone missing). Perhaps the original file can be edited in some application I haven't yet tried, but I drew the line at setting up a Linux workstation from scratch just to find out. Please e-mail me if you want a copy for review (I am not a professional graphics designer, so I refrained from uploading).

Checking out the New Zealand flag, as another example, it is readable with Adobe Illustrator but its groups and layers are a completely disorganized mess making further manipulation difficult. Between the US flag and the New Zealand flag, I have lost an entire evenings work repairing them before I can even begin the project I was intending to use them for!

I think the core of the problem is this: "optimization" restricts the use case set to a single purpose (the rare case of SVG as a user-interface resource in a memory critical application) and actively prevents the file being used as a graphic design resource. This is an unnecessary restriction (why undertake extra effort to break the majority of use cases when the no effort alternative is to satisfy all possible use cases?). On this basis, I would consider "optimization" to be a form of vandalism, and I note that not a single valid argument has been raised in its favour. Paul Coddington (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Adobe Illustrator really cannot be our final authority with respect to SVG, because it has some notable idiosyncrasies. I'm sure it's a powerful tool in a number of respects, but it has a kind of overall desktop publishing / commercial illustration orientation which doesn't have much to do with Wikimedia Commons flag SVGs. For many flag SVG files, it's not too clear what human-meaningful layer names and "clearly-organized layers" would accomplish, since they're not really intended to be taken apart into their component parts, which would then be subject to aethetic manipulations irrelevant to the correct definition of a national flag... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Color References

It seems a bit awkward having the absolute colors D65 and the relative colors D50, does it not? Paul Coddington (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it has been found through long experience that in simple geometric solid-color (non-photographic) flag image files, for most purposes flag white must be set to #FFFFFF (255,255,255) in the computer RGB display system. Any attempt to use another solid color can be distracting (often accused of looking "dirty" etc.). There have been many past discussions on the subject, and they always arrive at that conclusion... AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please find me a picture of this I am allowed to use on Wikipedia

Here's a link to the page talking about the flag of which I need a picture that is allowed on Wikipedia for: http://americanhistory.si.edu/exhibitions/star-spangled-banner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 22:46, September 19, 2014‎

Article is Star Spangled Banner Flag. -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Display At Half-Staff

I recommend deleting the statement found at the end of the section "Display at half-staff" which begins "Further, the flag is always flown at half-staff at four locations in the United States"...... Reason: It is not true that at the four locations cited the flag is always flown at half-staff, and the only citation (84) in support of that statement is a dead link. I propose to edit this section by deleting the statement after 30 days if there is no objection. FlagAdvocate 10/14/2014 FlagAdvocate (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@FlagAdvocate: If you can provide a reliable source to support your edit, then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to change the text to reflect that source or at least add the information to show that there is some difference in actual practice. However, per WP:KDL, cited information in an article does not automatically become "invalid" or "useless" just because its source is a dead link. If an archive of the link can be found, then the dead link can be repaired. If an archive cannot be found, then a {{deadlink}} can be added. If the statement in the article is obviously not true as you claim, then there should be something somewhere that can be used as a reliable source to support that fact. If no source, can be found then it's possible that some might see your claim as WP:OR. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I found this archived version of the dead link. It was originally dated July 30, 199 and archived on August 20, 1999. It says the following: "7. What three places always fly the flag at half staff? The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; Arlington Cemetery; and the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor." The same page was archived again on October 16, 2011 with no changes made. So, it appears the source cited only supports three of the four locations currently listed in the article. So, there are two possible solutions in my opinion according to WP:UNSOURCED:
  1. Fix the dead link and move the citation's location from the end of the sentence to after "...Pearl Harbor," and then add a "citation needed" template after "(Fort Mackinac Post Cemetery)"; or
  2. Fix the dead link and remove the Mackinac Island information altogether.
The information and source were originally added by 12.96.170.39 with this edit . IP 12.96.170 made two edits to this page and has not made an edit to Wikipedia since July 2012 so I don't think we will be getting an explanation any time soon as to why they added that particular bit of info. So, if it is even remotely possible that the Fort Mackinac Cemetery is one of the locations, then I suggest option one. If not, I think we should follow option 2. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have (at best) a questionable source, without regard to the dead link piece (an archive is fine). While I accept that the newsletter in question is well-intended, I don't believe it is a reliable source. With that in mind, I search around a bit. Various sites of no particular reliability have various versions of this list and/or people questioning it. Several forum posts note specification in the flag code as to when the flag is to be flown at half-staff, none noting that there are any locations that are to fly at half-staff at all times. The best challenge is a poster at this forum who quotes US Army DA PAM 290-5, Administration, Operation and Maintenance of Army Cemeteries which, according to the source, specifies "The flag of the United States will be displayed at Arlington and the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home National Cemetery every day during the hours the gates are open.....The flag will be brought to half staff 1/2 hour before the first funeral on a given day. It will be retained in this position until 1/2 hour after the last funeral of the day, at which time it will be returned to full staff. The flag will not be flown at half staff except for funerals and as provided in AR 600–25." IMO, unless someone would care to argue that the newsletter somehow meets WP:IRS, I think we have strong enough reason to believe it was merely reproducing claims its author found on the 'net and we should remove it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not for nothing: Here is a photo from Gettysburg that directly contradicts the claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional info SummerPhD. Actually, I just got back from lunch and my next post was going to be about the reliability of the source. It, as you say, appears to be questionable and is certainly not from a third-party reliable source such as a newspaper, etc. It was a subpage of "http://www.mcpherson.army.mil" which seems official enough, but that page no longer exists, so it's impossible to verify. Apparently there was a Fort McPherson in Georgia that was closed in 2011, which might be the same fort and thus explain the dead link. I guess one could try and argue that the US military wouldn't let erroneous information be posted about the US Flag on one of its official websites, but that would assume that there was some kind of editorial control and fact checking which is something that's going to be hard to prove. So, for what its worth, I tend to agree with you about the reliability of the source. Maybe then, as you suggest, the thing to do is to remove the information per WP:BURDEN. It can always be re-added if a different, more reliable source supporting the claim can be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
PS: Not sure what that photo proves other than it's winter and a US flag is flying behind some kind of metal gate at the entrance to some unknown location. First of all, the article doesn't list Gettysburg as one of the four locations where the flag flies at half-staff at all times. Secondly, there's no way to know from the photo where that particular flag is. Maybe a better photo to use would be this one of the Arizona Memorial. I have been there, but I don't recall the flag on that particular day. However, at least in this photo, it is not at half-staff. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
PPS: This page appears to be quite authorative and nothing is mentioned about any locations where the flag is supposed to always fly at half staff. However, it does say "It is important to note that the Flag Code is a code, it is intended to provide guidance and is not obligatory. It carries no civil or criminal penalties for "misuse" of the Flag. Individual are not acting illegally when using the Flag according to their own usage. Only on government / public building is the flag code required to be followed." The four locations would all be considered "government/public buildings", right? So, it seems that something such as this would be important enough to be specified in the flag code or somewhere else, right? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
My mistake on the photo. Gettysburg (which is where the photo is from) is sometimes listed as one of the locations. Another common listing is Punchbowl Cemetary instead of the USS Arizona Memorial. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed material. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Katha Pollitt from Associated People section

While is seems Katha Pollitt is a notable person, her inclusion in this section seems out of place. Sure, she wrote an essay about why she refused to fly the US flag from her window...but isn't it a little ironic that she is in the Associated People section when she has disassociated herself from the flag (and what she says it represents)? Seems like her name ought to be removed. Comments? BroJohnE (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone should add a link to the Wiki article on the ship Empress of China to section 1.5 The "Flower Flag" arrives in Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_of_China_%281783%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHDavis (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Flag of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_the_United_States/Archive_4&oldid=1030833582"