Talk:Union Jack/Archive 2

message: It is stated that the Union Jack is 'the national flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
This is tantamount to suggesting that the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is made up of just one national grouping.  Perhaps this cannot be true in fact although I dare say that those who dreamed up the idea of the UK never considered the issue!The Belfast Agreement recognises the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the Irish nation and should the majority of its people so wish they can elect to leave the UK and join with the rest of the nation on the island of Ireland.
, Article 1(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm#annex 
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND]
:It's not at all tantamount to that. For pity's sake don't read so much into the normal, everyday word "national." Not everything is politicized. Doops |  talk 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary defines the 'word' national as 'Having to do with a nation'. Surely the point is that there is more than one nation in the UK of GB & NI?  Lets be normal then and not call the Union Jack the national flag! Lughlamhfhada 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All this has been discussed to death on Talk:United Kingdom, Talk: Scotland, etc. Of course there are multiple nations in the UK; but that doesn't ipso facto mean that the UK as a whole isn't also a nation; there's no reason why one nation can't be made up of other nations. (Nor one country of other countries, etc.) And even if some people (I am not one of them) like to be persnickety about when to use "nation", "country", and "sovereign state" and get all worked-up when the wrong one is used, I really don't think it extends to adjectives -- neither "country" nor "sovereign state" has an adejective form. 'National' can used for all three. Doops |  talk 21:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the UK has recognized that Ireland is one Nation not two should have some bearing on this matter.
You might think that English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalities are interchangable but there is no legal basis for this opinion!
One might be given British citizenship but not British nationality! Lughlámhfhada
Lughlamhfhada 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The word nation has different meanings in different contexts. It really is as simple as that. If anyone still can't get their head around that, try looking for the official references to the UJ as a national flag. Even if we think the official references are incorrect, Wikipedia is not the place to point it out. JPD (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it not be helpful to use the term 'national' when we refer to one 'State', and the term 'international' when more than one state is involved?
Eog1916 11:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, late to the discussion but 'The Belfast Agreement recognises the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the Irish nation' - is a complete nonsense. No such recognition has ever been made. Anyway, a nation is something with a distinct culture and heritage - the UK satisfies that, as do its constituent nations, as do parts of its constituent nations (eg, Shetland, Cornwall). --Breadandcheese 13:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "obscurantist" must have invented for debates such as these. It is correct to say that the United Kingdom has never been a nation state in quite the same way as France. By the same token, there's probably not a country in the world without some constituent part which could claim a "national" identity. What makes all this even more absurd is that until only about thirty years ago, there was no debate that "British" was itself a shorthand term for the nationality of all UK people, and therefore beyond debate that the Union Flag / Jack was a national flag. The mistake people are making is that "national" equals "ethnic group". I think the history of the last one hundred years should caution everyone against that sort of tribalism 222.152.64.109 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nation is a group of people, not a division of land. I have to admire the Nation of Islam for their correct use of the word. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The National Flag [sic]

message: This article used to use the argument that BBC English is widely regarded as correct, and therefore the Wikipedia article should follow suit. Now that the BBC use the term 'union jack' that argument has been erased. Further argument for the name Union Jack comes form Oxford, Britannica, Pears and quotes from the Royal family. It could be argued that Wikipedia is being used to fulfill an agenda.
Repeatedly edits are made to this article which infer that that Union Jack is a nick name. We all know that both names are acceptable, even if we each have personal preferences. Infering that Union Flag is more correct is wrong. It was of course the second name attributed to the flag, and is more of a description than a name anyway. 
I am interested to know why so many people have such a desire to change the name of the flag, especially since many historians believe that Jack refers to King James. Seems dumb to change something that isn't fully understood.
We could also call the article the Union Jack flag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.205.40 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The propeganda here for 'Union Flag' is ridiculous 

message: I took the ferry from Rosslare to Fishguard last weekend. On my way over, I saw that Stena Line had posters about the history of the company hung around the ship. The text accompanying the posters were in French, German and English, with each language indicated by a national flag. The flag used for English was the 1707 Union Flag. Was this a sly nod to the Irish passengers aboard? I wonder if anyone else has seen similar uses of the 1707 flag? --sony-youthpléigh 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd observation - 1707 flag 

message: I can hear the ghost of my CO shouting at the Soldier from 16th Air Assault Brigade for dragging the the flag on the ground. Could we perhaps find a more respectful image? Kevlaw 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, it isn't particularly bad form to let the flag touch the ground in British tradition (the opposite of the case in the US) - after all, the Union Flag is lowered to lie on the ground in salute, something that usually surprises the American tourists a bit. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't let the flag touch the ground 

message: Without a good citation, the story about a captured outpost secretly signalling distress without their captors noticing due to the slight asymmetry of the flag smacks of wishful thinking. 
It looks like someone has imagined a situation where this could have happened and it has been passed on as fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.90.152.89 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable Urban Legend 

message: *Support Union Jack as actual English usage. The argument that usage should still be confined to the particular use of this ensign should be made in the article, if it can be sourced. But we should call the article what most general readers will expect, and score points of pedantry in the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC may state that, but its website is littered with contradictions where they use either Union Flag or Union Jack, or both in the same article! Some examples of Union Flag usage: BBC - Five Live - Union Flag, BBC NEWS: Welsh dragon call for Union flag, BBC NEWS: Union Flag flies at Palace, BBC NEWS: Union flag to fly all year round, BBC NEWS: The Union Flag: 400 years on, etc. So I wouldn't rely too heavily on them for a standard usage. – Marco79 05:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, and while I am here: I strongly support the proposed merge with the Flag of the United Kingdom article. The existence of these two classic Wikipedia:Content forking articles just makes Wikipedia look idiotic, which may be accurate but is really not in anybody's interest. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Is there any particular reason not to merge the article to Flag of the United Kingdom? It seems that this would cut through the whole vexed issue of whether "Jack" or "Flag" is more common, more correct, more supported by vexillologists, etc. So what's the argument for having two separate articles about the same flag? I'm not seeing it jump out at me from the comments above. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm torn on this myself; I see logic in merging and keeping them seperate. Certainly the Union Flag is incorporated into other flags (most famously perhaps, the Flag of Australia) and I can see why an article about that may be useful. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument not to merge?

message: To clarify, the discussion of this subject (on the entire history of the talk page) concerns Union Jack as a proper noun, not Union jack where Union is the proper noun. The later is a jack flag by definition, as pointed out by Horsesforcorses and Lucy-marie. By the same logic Union flag is an undeniably accurate term in context, which is why it is written that way in legislation. Correct-o-pedia (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important note on grammar 

message: There was a further version of the Union used during the interregnum (can't remember off hand if it was during the Commonwealth or the Protectorate) that was the original Jacobean union, with a blue shield in escutcheon which bore the Irish harp. Should this not also be included? Can an image be found, or created?
Petecollier (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag you are talking about is here. It's certainly worth a mention. Other worthwhile mentions are here. --sony-youthpléigh 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version during the interregnum