Talk:Union Jack

Ratio of flags in History section

In the "Since 1801" section, which includes a flowchart of the combination of crosses to form the current flag, the images used are in the 3:5 ratio instead of 1:2. Is this intentional? -- RealGrouchy (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not symmetrical

Does anyone know why the Union Flag is not perfectly reflectionally symmetrical? I had always thought it was, until I read this article. Are there some hysterical raisins behind it? JIP | Talk 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hysterical indeed. I don't know about reasons (or raisins, for that matter), but consider the following. The Cross of St. Patrick as it appears in the Union Flag now is styled so that, were the Cross of St George to be removed, it would not look like a cross. I think this is to avert ill luck or the suggestion of blasphemy in obscuring a Christian symbol (albeit by another cross). For people were very pious in former times: barbaric, maybe, but none is more pious than a barbarian.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The flag of Scotland is the white "X"-shaped cross of St. Andrew on a blue background. When it was first combined in 1601 with the red St. George's cross of England, the white border remained because there is a heraldry rule (Rule of tincture) that says you can't mix (abut) two colors. You need a metal, gold or silver, which are respectively represented by yellow and white, to separate them.

When the Red "X" for St. Patrick was added in 1801, it also needed a border to separate it from the blue. If it were centered on the white, it would have made Scotland's symbol look as though it were only a border for Ireland's, naturally the Scots didn't want that.

If you look at the illustration under design specifications, each diagonal is six units wide. The red cross is two units and if you think of the white cross as two units, you have a unit on each side as a border. So, both countries symbols are the same size showing equality between the two.

Flipping the red and white gives each Kingdom "top" billing in half the flag, like co-equal billings in movies where one star's name is on the upper right and the other's is to the left, but a bit lower.

Because Scotland was in the union first, it got the prime spot at the top hoist (left) and Ireland got to be above Scotland on the right. I apologize for the length of this answer, but hope it helps.Goldnpuppy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, this part: When the Red "X" for St. Patrick was added in 1801, it also needed a border to separate it from the blue. If it were centered on the white, it would have made Scotland's symbol look as though it were only a border for Ireland's, naturally the Scots didn't want that. seems like a good enough explanation. I understand the Union flag is made up of three different crosses: an upright one for England, and two diagonal ones for Scotland and Ireland. I just never thought of the heraldrical rules that forbid mixing two colours without a metal in between, perhaps because I know next to nothing about heraldry. Which is a bit silly, when you come to think of it: I'm European, where heraldry was invented, and I like to look at the coats of arms of municipalities both in my home country Finland and other European countries, and am proud of this tradition, but the excessively detailed rules of what you can place where just seem needlessly complex to me. (Not that I would approve of photographs of real-life people being placed on coats of arms, as was suggested by a Finnish tabloid reporter once, but it was instantly turned down.) JIP | Talk 20:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a beautiful 'geometric' construction of both the "National Flag" and the "War Flag". First we make a 3:4 rectangle (landscape) we know that the diagonal by Pythagoras is "5" (3:4:5, 9 + 16 = 25) Next we combine four "3:4:5" rectangles to make a "6:8:10" rectangle (landscape) and inscribe a circle, radius "5" centered at the "+" where the four "3:4:5" rectangles meet. Above and below the 3:5 ratio 'War Flag' will be a border of 2 x 10, These will consist of two 1:2 ratio National Flags each side (portrait draped) and two larger National Flags 2:4 ratio. (center) The position of all the vertical, horizontal & diagonal lines become obvious. Pythagorean triangulation was an essential tutorial for all Naval Cadets. Drafting the "War Flag" with ruler, pencil and compass was a nice introduction to the art of navigation and survey. User:JIP's answer is a good one. (I will attempt to upload a JPG illustration of this geometric construction of the "War Flag") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Carnegie (talk • contribs) 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Another reason for this is that otherwise, a distress signal would be harder to make, and so anyone who has been taught which way up it should go would be able to tell whether a distress signal is being called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainOAP (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Hawaii update needed

According to one story, the King of Hawaii asked the British mariner, George Vancouver, during a stop in Lahaina, what the piece of cloth flying from his ship was. Vancouver replied that it represented his king's authority.

This "story" needs to be updated to match our article content over at Flag_of_Hawaii#Origins. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Independence

What happens to the flag if Scotland leaves the Union? Pseud (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't need to go into the article unless it does happen, which it probably wouldn't until at least 2016. The chances are though, the flag would just lose the blue background. Bigdon128 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Chances are the Union Flag won't change at all. The possibility of Scotland's cession is just that, cession; not the break up of the United Kingdom (which won't be keen on changing the world's most identifiable flag). Alexsau1991 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Newsflash! The UK of GB & NI ceases to exist if the vote is in favour. The repeal of the 1707 Acts of Union would result in the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland. Should the Westminster Parliament retain the United aspect of the title that would be entirely up to them; this word should however have been dropped, along with the flag being redesigned, in 1927, but neither was done on the grounds of cost. Either way, the nearest you'd get to it would be the United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland (Wales already being part of the Kingdom of England is not mentioned specifically in the title nor is represented in the flag in its own right). It could be that again on the grounds of cost the flag would remain unaltered, but on the grounds of accuracy it should be changed.

Each new state would be a successor state in law and be bound to all previous treaties undertaken by the predecessor state; as in the case of the Czech Republic and Republic of Slovakia in respect of the former Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia. (Not that >50% of Scots will vote in favour, more likely 40-45%).

Scotland would not cede from the UK as Quebec might cede from Canada. Scotland and England together established the Kingdom of GB, which unified with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the UK of GB & I; this becoming UK of GB & NI as of 1927. If Scotland goes, then so does GB, and you're left with UK of E & NI or simply the K of E & NI should the United term used since 1801 be dropped; the only Kingdom left in the pack being England, so no other Kingdom left with which to be United. 81.135.131.228 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not likely to happen - HMG under Jim Callaghan commissioned a report in around 1976 to find out the cost involved should Scotland gain independence, and it turned out that Scotland could only afford independence if the rest of Britain subsidised its defence costs. The predicted naval defence costs amounted mainly to defending the offshore oil industry and fishing grounds, and even with the predicted revenues from North Sea Oil it depended on the Royal Navy effectively giving any Scottish Navy free use of RN naval dockyards, and presumably things have become even worse since Thatcher closed down most of the Scottish ones in the 1980s. Then there were the air defence costs, and Scotland couldn't afford to operate the Nimrods, Sea Kings, etc., and more importantly, even if the aircraft and ships were given to Scotland as their share of the MoD 'divi', they would still be reliant on the UK to maintain them for no cost. The same applied to the training and other supporting infrastructure.

So no, Scotland isn't likely to become independent. Not unless the Scottish taxpayer wants to pay the entire costs of their own defence. I seriously doubt that the taxpayers in the remaining parts of the UK would be interested in doing it. And I also seriously doubt how kindly a future UK government might take to a weak point in the defence of the mainland British Isles possibly open to the risk of foreign invasion should future world events take a turn for the worse, and if you don't believe me then just look at Ireland and see exactly why the British have been involved in that island since the time of Edward I and later Oliver Cromwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dimensions

Hi, I don't understand this diagram:

It is not possible to interpret this without knowing the angle at which the 6 unit "width" of the diagonal stripes is supposed to be measured. The text seems to imply that this measurement should be square to the diagonal lines, but in the diagram it is clearly shown as non-square, but with no angle or other reference indicating exactly how it should be measured. 86.160.212.146 (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Do they mean centimeters, millimeters, feet, inches? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't relevant. Any units can be used; only the proportions matter. The point is that it is not possible to determine the relative width of the diagonal stripes from this diagram since the six units is measured at an indeterminable angle. 86.160.212.146 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's indeterminable because of the corner, then? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's because the measurement of six units is shown to be not square across the strip (at right angles to the edges of the strip), but at some odd and unspecified angle. 86.160.212.146 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it should be a right angle. William Avery (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're reading way too much into an artifact of the limitations of the dimensioning tool that the image creator had available. Just because the dimension leaders and arrows aren't perpendicular to the seven gray lines that define the St Andrew's and the St Patrick's crosses doesn't invalidate the dimension. Similarly, if one were to draw extension lines from the flag to the dimension leaders, you will find that the arrows don't properly line up. Gasp. And of course there is the adjacent text that explicitly states the width of the diagonal portions of the flag.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If that distance is supposed to be measured at right angles to the diagonal lines, then the way it is currently drawn is quite obviously incorrect. If I had to guess how to draw the flag from this diagram, I would measure six units at 45 degrees to the flag edges, which we seem to be saying is wrong. The fact that the diagram and the accompanying text are inconsistent is not an argument for retaining the status quo. 86.160.212.146 (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any hard and fast rule that requires dimension leaders to be at any specific angle with respect to the object for which they specify a distance. Clearly, the whole image isn't "properly" dimensioned—but so what? This is Wikipedia, I encourage you to improve upon what is here.

You state that the "diagram and the accompanying text are inconsistent", but you don't state your reasoning. How are they inconsistent?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I understand the diagram, in fact it is the only thing I do understand. The description in the bullets defeats me, mostly the second bullet- what is the normal and broad white diagonal about, the 1/15 implies 2 units, there is nothing on the diagram's white diagonal with 2 units of white. The paragraph below seems ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.201.152 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that you point it out, I think that you're right. The offending paragraph is copied here so others reading this don't have to flip back and forth between the article and the talk page.

The three component crosses that make up the Union Flag are sized as follows:

• The red St George's Cross width is ¹⁄₅ of the flag's height with a ¹⁄₁₅ flag height fimbriation
• The white diagonal St Andrew's Cross width is ¹⁄₁₅ of the flag's height and the broader white diagonal's width is ¹⁄₁₀ of the flag's height
• The red diagonal St Patrick's Cross width is ¹⁄₁₅ of the flag's height and the narrow white diagonal's width is ¹⁄₃₀ of the flag's height

I think that the thing that is confusing is that, unlike the description of the St George's Cross, there is no mention of fimbriation. The visible parts of both the St Andrew's and St Patrick's crosses is two units or ¹⁄₁₅ wide and each has a ¹⁄₃₀ fimbriation as is shown in this diagram:

So, perhaps the second and third bullet points could be rewritten like this:

• The white diagonal St Andrew's Cross width is ¹⁄₁₅ of the flag's height with a ¹⁄₃₀ flag height fimbriation
• The red diagonal St Patrick's Cross width is ¹⁄₁₅ of the flag's height with a ¹⁄₃₀ flag height fimbriation

I suspect that some mention of the counterchange should be included but I'm not quite clear on how to best accomplish that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a 'Standard' side for pole?

About the section on flying and when the flag is considered upside-down; there is mention of which *side* the hoist/pole is: "can also be statically displayed incorrectly with the hoist on the right", but it isn't clear which way that flag should be flown if there is no pole at all. Is it somehow 'standard' or preferred that the pole is on the left? Often, as in the images shown, no indication of which side the pole is, in which case I don't see how if can be claimed that the flag is upside-down since it can be counter-claimed that the pole is on the right. Does anyone know about this?

Davidmaxwaterman (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that §Flying adequately states which end of the flag is the hoist end. The two adjacent images show both the correct and incorrect way to fly the flag and the captions clearly state, for the purposes of the illustrations, that the hoist is on the left.

What §Flying doesn't say is how the flag is to be displayed when, for example, it is mounted on a flat surface (a wall). The rules for the American flag when displayed on a wall has the canton at the flag's own right (the viewer's left). If there is a similar rule for the Union Flag, that would explain the sentence that you describe. In which case, a little bit of clarification is in order.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's simple - although we don't usually display the flag on walls. The Hoist goes to the left - the same as it does when the flag is flown the right-way-up. If it's flown the other way round then it's also upside-down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Bizarre that this discussion was considered consensus for one side or another. — Jon C.^ॐ 10:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I just hope that now the page has been moved there will not be attempts to turn Union Flag into a disam page. The "Union Jack" is clearly the most notable/known "union flag". BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks to all who took time to comment here. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

How the hell did this result in a Move decision??? At best it should have been No Consensus. Bazonka (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Not sure how it passed. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No point complaining here, where the horse has bolted. WP:ANI needs to be informed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. I've started a thread at WP:ANI. – Marco79 04:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloody stupid move. Union Jack is a term used for the flag in specific circumstances, not the general name. I thought we were an encyclopaedia which tried to get things right? Looking over the thread above there seems to be absolutely no consensus for the move at all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Its a common name of the flag though. The common name isn't always the most accurate. By the majority of the population its known as the Union Jack. I quote from the admin who closed this. "it's not a vote and therefore it is strength of argument that is more important than the raw numbers. As I said in my close, those supporting (in general) gave much stronger, policy-based arguments. They showed that Union Jack is the most common term for the subject and, while many of those opposing asserted that Union Jack was incorrect, none of them provided any evidence to back up that claim." --JetBlast (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"By the majority of the population its known as the Union Jack". Do you have any evidence to support that, or are you just pushing your POV? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Plenty above. --JetBlast (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't, which is why I asked. Some of the references say "commonly known as", but I've not found anything that supports "By the majority of the population its known as the Union Jack": there is a subtle but quite large difference between the two. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say "Union Jack" to an American, we're thinking Brit -- if you say "Union Flag", we're thinking the North in the Civil War [11] or a symbol of a labor organization [12] NE Ent 00:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There is more to the world than just a sub-set of America. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Americans are probably 10-to-1 more likely to use "Union Jack" than "Union Flag," for what it's worth. Unless it is decisively the other direction in the UK and the Commonwealth, that's the commoner commonname, methinks... Carrite (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Truly bizarre that such a hotly contested move was carried out on the basis of an split as close as 11-14, especially sicne it was clearly still being actively debated at the time the discussion was arbitrarily closed. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick, it isnt based on a 11-14 vote. It is strength of argument that is more important, not numbers. Those people for the move presented a better argument. Most of those who where against simply said there reason was is because its wrong, saying its wrong is an opinion, personally i thinking calling it the union flag is incorrect. --JetBlast (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's typical of Wikipedia that the non-correct usage predominates purely because of the tyranny of the (small) majority. The symbol of British nationhood is NOT a naval jack! It is a flag! The ONLY reason the naval usage predominates in common usage is that the jack was seen more commonly than the flag in foreign countries, due to the fact that Britain 'ruled the waves'. That does not mean that such usage is correct on a page that clearly refers to the land-based flag and the overall symbol, which is a FLAG, not a naval jack. I mean, is it really so hard to get this stuff right? This sort of nonsense is why Wikipedia is generally regarded as a joke. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'd taken the time to read the article, or indeed the discussion, you'd realise that your suggestion that "Union Jack" is somehow inaccurate is wrong. Indeed, it's little more than an urban myth and, being an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia quite rightly ignores such things even if they become relatively popular. --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request

How will the article (recently moved) be presented on other articles? 1) Will it be pipe-linked as Union Flag? 2) Left as a re-direct to Union Flag? or 3) Directly linked as Union Jack? GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is linked to Union Flag it will redirect to Union Jack. If its linked to Union Jack it will go direct to Union Jack. --JetBlast (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. How should we present the article in other articles? GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge Flag of the United Kingdom into Union Jack

What are peoples thoughts please? I can't see why they are separate. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support a merger provided the article properly reflects the fact the flag started in 1606, before it became the flag of the newly formed Kingdom in 1707 and the modified/latest version in 1801. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose As this is both a national flag and a design used in many others there's an awful lot of information that's best kept separate. Plus the Union Jack is not the sole flag of the UK - the ensigns are also UK flags and are no more the Union Jack than the numerous other flags with the design in the canton. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with a merger is that the flag retains official status in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The question should instead be how much of the content in this article should be siphoned away to the other article? --Jiang (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag flying on Merchant Navy Day in Scotland

The article says that the Union Flag is flown on this day (3rd September). However, the Scottish Government webpage says that it is the Red Ensign which is flown on this day. I therefore propose to remove this reference. Alekksandr (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems straightforward enough. --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

union Jack

i believe that the union flag is only referred to properly as "Union Jack" when is is flown from the 'Jack Staff'of a British warship. mike brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.153.144 (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you didn't read Union Jack#Terminology (or various sections higher up this talk page)? - David Biddulph (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Or didn't believe them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.120.140 (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

'Fimbriate' misspelled as 'fimbrate.' Amended. Stephen A (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)