Talk:Gallery of sovereign state flags/Archive 2

message: There's a bit of talk comparing this page with Gallery of national flags on Talk:Gallery of national flags. Scurra 19:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: I am shocked, shocked and saddened by the fact that the National Flag of Quebec was ripped from this page for a second time. I am not sure whether this was done because of disrespect or ignorance. This flag has every right to be presented here with dignity. I will defend that position, as I would for any nation.
It is quite difficult to defend non-sovereign nations with sociological arguments, so I will mostly show facts of recognition. Beforehand, I will point out the definition of a nation according to the United Nations.
"A group of experts meeting under the auspices of the United Nations has identified seven objective indicia of peoplehood [...]:
# A common historical tradition.
# Racial or ethnic identity.
# Cultural homogeneity.
# Linguistic unity.
# Religious or ideological affinity.
# Territorial connection.
# Common economic life.
Peoplehood also necessarily includes subjective aspects which are not readily, if at all, subject to proof. Thus, a people combines objective characteristics describing a group's common historical, ethnic, cultural, religious or other background, with the subjective consciousness that the group has a common identity." 
Quebec harbors all of these caracteristics.
Now, for the hard facts... the Flag of Quebec is officially called Le drapeau national du Québec (the National Flag of Quebec) and the national emblem by the government of Quebec. On this, please refer to these pages: ,  & . It has been decreeted by... hum, by the National Assembly of Quebec, the parliament of Quebec. National, that word again... It is the custom to display it on what is officially called, since 1977, the... Quebec National Holiday... that pesky term once again. As a matter of fact, Quebec has a National Library, a National Capital (Quebec City), a state decoration called the National Order of Quebec, a National Museum of Fine Arts, a National School of Police, a National motto (Je me souviens, meaning "I remember")... etc. etc. All of these term uses are *Official*. Well well...
Furthermore, I am flabbergasted by the fact that the addition of entities like the Basque Country, Catalonia, Scotland or Wales (other nations without fully sovereign states) did not ruffle anyone's feathers enough to warrant a unilateral removal, but the adding of Quebec did. Are there grades? Superior and inferior nations? Or are all nations indeed equal? I knew many saw non-sovereign nations as inferior, sadly, but a hierarchy between non-sovereign nations is even more bizarre and anti-equalitarian. Quebec even has a national language, Quebec French, an aspect sadly not fully harbored anymore by Scotland or Wales. Quebec was, like Scotland and Wales, conquered by military force, and united to the British Empire by the very same kind of Act of Union as Scotland, Wales and Ireland (the Act of Union of 1536 for the Welsh; the Act of Union of 1707 for the Scots; the Act of Union of 1800 for the Irish; the Act of Union of 1840 for the Quebecers). The will to be recognized officially by the international community might be considered a sign of nationhood since it proves a national conciousness. On this aspect, Quebec has an unassailable position. Of all these people mentioned above, (and probably of most non-sovereign peoples in the world), the Quebec people has the greatest will to obtain this recognition that comes with national sovereignty (between 47% and 50% according to recent polls) and plans to obtain it shortly are put in motion by a large group of citizens.
::Scotland was not conquered by military force, and united to the British Empire (any more than England was). Its Parliament along with the English Parliament passed the Act of Union 1707. Scotland could not have united with the "British Empire" because it was that act which created Great Britain as a political entity. The British Empire was a much a Scottish creation as an English one. The two kingdoms had already shared a monarch for 100 years (less decade of the Interregnum starting with James VI of Scotland. Philip Baird Shearer 02:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention those areas, but we have to add various others. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The National Flag of Quebec 

message: Seems to me this article really isn't necessary. The category system is perfect for this sort of thing. Category pages containing images (for example, :Category:National flag images) provide readable thumbnails of their members. So, for example, we could have :Category:Flags/UN members and :Category:Flags/Occupied nations and people. That would make this entire discussion moot -- we don't need an imprecise category like "national flags. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, except for the huge fights that would break out over which territories actually belonged in the latter category. Jayjg (talk) 14:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea in the form of a substitute

message: There is no dispute as to whether Israel is an independent state; there is a great dispute as to whether "Palestine" is.  Please do not make further attempts this kind of unilateral "even-handedness" which, in actuality, is nonsensical. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Levelcheck did it again, put "Israel" in as a "disputed nation".  Did you see any talk: here about Israel being disputed, Levelcheck?  No, you didn't.  The talk: here is about whether or not "Palestine" belongs on the page.  Why don't you join the discussion, rather than implementing unilateral changes to the page. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either both Taiwan and Palestine should be listed, or neither should be. Neither has a seat on the UN, but both claim to be independent nations, and in both cases that claim is challenged by a colonial occupier (China and Israel respectively). Israel is also a disputed nation because of the tremendous number of UN resolutions related to its existence and borders. LevelCheck 19:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, when there's a dispute over which flag to use, how do we decide? Should the Iraqi flag be the US-imposed flag that many Iraqis claim to be imperialism, or should it be the original flag before the US regime change? LevelCheck 19:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, you're finally here; that's great.  Now please read through the thorough discussion of the topic above, so that we don't have to repeat the various arguments on both sides, or re-explore potential solutions. Oh, and there are no U.N. resolutions regarding Israel's existence, except the original one which said it should exist; Israel is a full member of the U.N., and has been for almost 60 years.  And finally, highly POV language like "colonial occupier" is neither accurate nor helpful. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is a nation that belongs to the UN and is recognized by many nations. Taiwan is a nation, since it is running its own land in spite of what China is doing. Palestine, on the other hand, only has authority when Israel gives it to them. If Israel does not let the PA do anything, then the PA is stuck. As what Jayig said, bring any disputes here before making anything happen on the article page. Zscout370 20:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was that "compromise" a joke? 

message: To let you know, I have re-uploaded the images of both flags into new file names to fit the Wikipedia convention on the ROC and the PRC. If you want to update varios pages in Wikipedia with the new images, that is up to you. The PRC image is name PRC_flag_large.png, while the ROC flag is named ROC_flag_large.png. Zscout370 (talk) 16:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan is the generally accepted name for the country.  That is why "Republic of China" is in brackets and follows Taiwan.--50Stars 03:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The whole world references Taiwan, you should as well...--50Stars 04:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. The situation is far more complex than that, as has been explained on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Equating "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" introduces unnecessary and easily avoidable bias and inaccuracy. For the link targets, we should stick with official names: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. For the link anchors, a compromise that uses both the colloquial names and the official names is fine IMO. For example, Taiwan (Republic of China) and China (People's Republic of China). --MarkSweep 20:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did is that instead of using the anchor names, what I did is China, People's Republic and moved the flag of the ROC underneath it, calling it China, Republic of. I know that is something few might not like, but it will (in my mind) be Wikipolitical Correct (c). Zscout370 (talk) 20:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. I think "Taiwan" could also be mentioned in order to make this page easier to use (e.g. searching for "Taiwan" within this page and being pointed to the appropriate article on the ROC). --MarkSweep 22:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone searches for Taiwan, they get to the article about the Geography of the island. In order to get the Political information, you will have to go to Republic of China. Same thing: if you look for China, you will get the geography of it, but you have to see People's Republic of China to find who the Premier of China is (runs from the tomatoes and beer bottles hurled in his direction). Zscout370 (talk) 22:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Jiang, if you want to use "People's Republic of China", perhaps it should be listed under "P".  Or, perhaps, we should reference the world, and just call it CHINA!--50Stars 04:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please debate the naming conventions on the relevant page. What's wrong with "China, People's Republic of"? --Jiang 04:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY?  Because only the communist Chinese calls it PRC.  The rest of the world just calls it China.  For Example, United States is sufficient, you don't have to use "United States of America".--50Stars 04:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because no other entity claims to be the United States. This is a consistent convention: check out Korea and Macedonia -- they don't point to actual country templates for the same reason. --Xiaopo ℑ 05:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: However, even if a majority of people call the ROC Taiwan and the PRC China, that is now how the governmental pages are named. If you head to China, you get the geographic page. If you go to Taiwan, so you see the same thing. Since we are an international encyclopedia, we have to hammer out agreements that will please a huge majority of people. And the consensus now is to have the political pages of China and Taiwan to be at People's Republic of China and Republic of China, respectively. Zscout370 (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[mainland China]] (PRC) and [[Taiwan]] (ROC) Images 

message: Could someone please explaine the semantic diffrence here in using regroups vs. enumerates in the first paragraph?  Mainly I am intrested in someon form the regroups camp to explaine how its better. Though I would settel for how it even makes sense. Even though I am a native speaker of english I could not figure out what it means there.  Regroups how?  Regroups from what?  I looked both words up to try and find some way that regroups would work and I came up blank.  Enumerates does seem to work. But, grammar and such have never been my strongest point so I am totally open to having it explained.  From dictionary.com I get:
 re·group 
 v. re·grouped, re·group·ing, re·groups
 v. tr.
    To arrange in a new grouping.
 
 v. intr.
 
   1. To come back together in a tactical formation, as after a dispersal in a retreat.
   2. To reorganize for renewed effort, as after a temporary setback.
I am haing trouble reconciling this word with the concept of a "list" as the title of this article indicates. Dalf | Talk 04:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  enumerates vs. regroups 

message: Hey yall. I have been having a few server problems loading the article page. Do yall have the same problem too? Zscout370 (talk) 16:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Problems 

message: FYI, a user restored the Gallery of national flags, and also included the flag of the Palestinian Authority. I went ahead and restored the redirect on that page to here. Any questions anyone? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I don't suppose we can get the redirect permanently protected? --Carnildo 03:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This only happened once in weeks. If it starts to pick up, then I will field a request for protection. I just suggest for everyone to add the Gallery to their watch list and see if anything happens. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I for one would want to restore the gallery. It was much nicer looking, more useful and more correct (per flag sizes) than this, and the whole problem of definition hasn't dissapeared by deprecating it for this title. Zocky 02:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I believe the decision was that the same issues were being discussed on both pages, both pages had the same flags. As for the ratio business, what we can do is just have the flags at a fixed pixel size (100px) and see what happens. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then one of the talk pages could've been made to redirect to the other. The problem of duplicate discussion isn't enough of a reason to blank a page which has been around for a long time and was worked on by many people. Zocky 02:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to the talk page is listed at top, I will restore the page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived all discussion about the inclusion of flags on that talk page and made the notice at the top a bit more explicit. Zocky 03:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also talk about the actual images itself here in a few days. I need to answer the concerns on the Gallery talk page. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also thought the original Gallery page had a nicer layout.  In an attempt to make the flags look more uniform I set up this page: User:Mloester/Sandbox/flags.  Would it make sense to edit the List of national flags page to look like this? Mloester 19:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of the Gallery 

message: This page has inherent non NPOV. The definition at the top of the page "The list of national flags regroups flags representing independent states" is to say the least confusing. If that definition is used then why not use the definition List of flags of UN members which redirects to United Nations member states. I suggest that this page is redirected there as well.
The problem is that there is an assumption that Nation and State are interchangable. This is an idea from the U.S. and French Revolutions, but to anyone who lives in a nation which pre-dates those events: Nation, State and Sovereignty are constitutionally very different things.
In the case of the Commonwealth of Nations and more specifically the United Kingdom sovereignty does not lie with the nations but with the Crown (see also British monarchy). Think of all those costume dramas about Henry VIII and you start to understand how the constitution works in the UK. Ambassadors to the UK present their credentials directly to the sovereign at the Court of St. James's not to the Government of the United Kingdom.  Only Commonwealth High Commissioners present their credentials to "to the United Kingdom," rather than to the Sovereign or her Court. The Parliament of the UK is the British Peoples' Parliament (English Civil War and specifically 1649) but because of the English Restoration in 1660 the Government of the United Kingdom is Her Majesty's Government .
Although this is a wander down the archic dusty corners of the British constitution it is important because it highlights that Sovereignty, State and Nation are not the same thing which is why the pople who insist that they are get into conflict in this talk page with those who try to include nations which are not states in this article. 
If this is to be as the list says in the first sentence "The list of national flags regroups flags representing independent states"  then it should be a redirect to  United Nations member states
I can appreciate that the contributers to this list have invested time and commitment to making up the list, but if it is not to be replaced with a redirect then it should be moved to a name which represents what it is. A list of "sovreign state flags", it is not a list of National flags --Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I argued much the same thing as you for a couple of weeks in May; in particular, I argued that the idea of an "independent state" was inherently POV, and was always going to be disputed, and that therefore full U.N. membership should be used instead. If you look over the old talk, you'll see I was dismissed as having a POV-based agenda. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: * Talk:List of national flags/Archive01 
* Talk:List of sovereign state flags/Archive 2
If this list is missing the flags of any of the states included in the list of sovereign states please include it here. Philip Baird Shearer 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I think it would be a good idea to merge this list of flags with list of sovereign states and then make this page a redirect. This is what has been done with List of flags of UN members which redirects to United Nations member states. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with list of sovereign states

message: ===>This discussion has already occured In a debate over Palestine, and consensus was reached. Now, without any consensus, Abkhazia is being added, with the terse response that this article is being brought into line with List of sovereign state flags. I checked the talk page there, and consensus was not reached regarding the addition of these so-called states. My main points of contention are as follows:
#The legitimacy of an article like this is immediately in question once unrecognized secessionist groups are included. Once micronations like Sealand or Seborga are included (as they logically would be), the article becomes accuracy bankrupt.
#The inclusion is, I suspect, largely politically-motivated. I would personally like it if, say, West Papua was internationally recognized as independent, but I would not include it in a list of independent states, as it is neither independent nor a state.
#The very idea of making this article conform to the list of sovereign state flags is itself not apparently logical. Why shouldn't that article conform to these standards? Since no consensus was reached, there is no reason to assume that this one should change.
#If a country is unrecognized, it is not a state, and has no place on this list. There is already the article "Flags of non-recognized nations" for such entities. If someone wishes to add a footnote or "see also" section, by all means do. Justin (koavf) 03:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I Reverted your edit. Make you arguments on Talk:List of sovereign states not here. If the List of sovereign states changes so should this article as this article is just a list of flags of the states under List of sovereign states. Philip Baird Shearer 16:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrecognized countries (from [[Gallery of sovereign state flags]] 

message: I'd suggest splitting this article into "List of sovereign state flags (A-L)" and "List of sovereign state flags (M-Z)". With all the images, this page takes quite a while to load on my shared cable modem, so it must be excruciating for those who use dialup. And it probably puts an incredible amount of strain on the Wikimedia Commons servers as all those flag images load. --Oddtoddnm 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the article? 

message: From the history of the article:
:Updated footnote format, simplified Palestine footnote and added that it's not really a de facto state (maybe Lebanon, Tibet, etc. should get footnotes too to indicate they're only semi-sovereign?
I do not think so. This article should reflect the List of sovereign states on this issue and not diverge. If you think these should be added then first do in on the other page before making the change here. Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote