Talk:Flag of Poland

message: Perhaps it would be worth to mention in the article the meaning commonly associated to the colors of the flag:
white meaning honor and red meaning blood - to fight for the honor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.102.207 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: Added a bit about the law forbidding to fly the flag. Since the fall of communism it was a dead law. And state bodies even encouraged to fly the flag. It was changed in 2004 only after some large newspapers dug it up. IMHO this clarification is needed as people who visited Poland in the years between 1989 and 2004 could see polish flags on many private homes and businesses (for instance on May 3rd and november 11th) and on union demonstrations etc. And noone was aware of the law (including the police). The articles in 2003/4 started beacuse some police officer in a provinsional town dug up the law and started harrasing some businesses. After the articles it was scraped immediately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.66.1 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that bit again because it was unsourced. You are welcome to put it back in the article, iff you find a reliable source that supports it. I'm not saying that what you wrote is untrue, but to keep Wikipedia standards, we must only include information that a reader may check in outside sources. Also, it would better, if you find some more details: what was the title of the newspaper that wrote about this law? Can you cite a specific article? What was the name of the policeman who used the law to harass businesses? Also note that the fact that the Polish flag was flown on national holdays does not mean that the law was not obeyed because it did allow people to fly the flag on those days. It was only forbidden on regular days. — Kpalion(talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove it once before due to citation issues. Pretty much, as Kpalion said before, we need sources for that kind of statement. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights to fly the flag 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
Details:
* The lede seems a bit skimpy for the article. There is nothing in the lede about the flag protocol, nor when the flag is used by most folks. Also missing is more detailed information on the background of the flag and nothing on the last section, the related and similar flags.WP:Lede gives a guideline of about 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article of this size.   
**  Please let me know, if this is still too short. — Kpalion(talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reviewing the article, Ealdgyth, and I'm glad you liked it. I started to go through your list of suggested improvements and did the easy ones. For the rest, I'll need a little more effort, but I will be quite busy and away from my sources during this week. Could you extend the on-hold period until the end of next week (i.e. February 3), please? — Kpalion(talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all to extend. About the sourcing question above, I am not sure about the use of summary paragraphs in sections, and as a general rule, I figure if it's possible it could be contentious, I slap a citation on it. So, to be safe, go ahead and source it. Especially as it's got sources later down. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I put the current status in the Article history template as GA. There isn't a status for Current GA that was a FAC but didn't get listed. If I screwed up, please fix it. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: In a 1 May 2008 Polish newspaper article "Szyjemy flagę narodową" (translation: Let's sew up the national flag) in the daily Gazeta Wyborcza, its author, physicist Stanisław Bajtlik, included a computer-generated image of a darkened-white and crimson Polish flag as closely approximating the official CIE xyY values with their allowed variances specified in CIELUV color space as mandated by the Polish law for Poland's national colors. He also provided decimal RGB color component values for the flag's white (240, 227, 237) and its red (212, 29, 58). This is a first independent confirmation and verification of calculations and resultant image generation performed on the Wikipedia.  He also names the persons (and interviews one survivor) involved in crafting the law in 1980.  This information should be added to and elaborated upon in the article, particularly as augmenting the reference number 4, as it constitutes a valuable source previously sought but until now, unavailable.
The article contains the following passage, a comment on the arcane nature of the official color description, which identifies beyond doubt that the correct computer monitor output is the intended outcome by the article author: "Dlatego postarałem się podać prosty, chałupniczy sposób na uszycie sobie prawidłowej flagi narodowej na monitorze komputera." ("That's why I ventured to give a simple, home means for sewing up for ourselves a correct national flag on a computer monitor.") --Mareklug talk 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marek, I don't understand your last edit. Does it mean that the coordinates are in one color space, CIE xyY (1931), but the tolerated variance ΔE is in another space, CIELUV (1976)? — Kpalion(talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. CIE xyY is convenient and often used for specifying colors themselves, but as a space lacks meaningful metrics for comparing colors (color difference). CIE introduced in 1976 CIE Lab and CIE Luv to approximate perceptual nonlinearity and allow comparing color distances. This has been refined over the years. Curiously, the Polish law uses a little-used variant of the 1976 Delta E, which is a straighforward application of Delta E as defined on CIE Lab space, only using u and v in place of a and b parameters. Hope this makes sense. The color difference article on Wikipedia does not even mention using the u and v parameters in the simple 1976 Delta E, so I made sure we always mention that fact in conjunction with the Polish official specs from 1980. --Mareklug talk 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I reworded some bits a little without changing the meaning in the National colors section. I also decided to remove the technical details from the Shades of red section as this is already covered in detail in the other section and instead added the info about Mr Sobczak being the author of these specs, citing the news article you linked to above. — Kpalion(talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's clear that the conversion from CIE to sRGB done previously by DeJotPe on plwiki is close to Bajtlik's result, I think it's worth noting that they are not exactly the same. You can compare the variants on the right. DeJotPe is the current "normative use" flag, while white/crimson is the "symbolic use" flag on Commons. Having an external confirmation is nice, but it also brings a problem, which variant to choose as the normative one -- DeJotPe or Bajtlik? This has not yet been decided on plwiki. --Wanted (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darkened white calculation for the Polish flag confirmed off Wikipedia 

message: I have no source to back this up, but I do believe the Red and White were NOT hereditary, but a statement, where white meant Peace and red meant War, as in "Peace over War".  I can't conform this, but I think that in the Napoleonic Era, a war Polish Flag was read with the bird on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.219.65 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be blunt, but what you think or believe is irrelevant here, in Wikipedia. What is relevant is sources, which you don't have. — Kpalion(talk) 08:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Colours 

message: I am sorry, but what a f. is that?!: http://www.hrono.ru/heraldicum/flagi/home.htm described as a "Flag of Poland in Kingdom of Poland period time". I see no Polish Flag there. I don't speak Russian, but I recognize there a Russian Flag and Russian Language on this site. Remove that link, please.
Regards,
rmh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.105.21.11 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As there are only two users involved in the discussion, I have a requested a third opinion, a simpler conflict resolution process than RfC. For the benefit anyone who would like to provide a third opinion, here's my summary of the conflict as well as some background information:
# A flag is, by definition, a piece of died fabric. When illustrating a Wikipedia article about a flag, the question arises of how to represent a flag on a computer screen. One approach is to use photographs of actual flags, another is to use idealized schematic diagrams. Both are used in many flag articles. The discussion here is about the choice of a correct diagram for the flag of Poland.
# The colors of the flag of Poland are, according to Polish law, white (upper stripe) and red (lower stripe). The law further defines the exact shades of these colors as coordinates in the CIE 1976 color space. These specification may works well for fabric, but in order to create a flag diagram for display on a computer screen, the specification need to be converted into the sRGB color space.
# Two diagrams have been proposed, which differ in the shade of the upper (white) stripe. 
# The diagram supported by Kpalion (let's call it the "statutory flag") uses shades of both white and red that have been calculated from the legal specification. The source and necessary assumptions used in the calculation are given in a footnote to the article. 
# The diagram supported by Fry1989 (let's call it the "pure-white flag") uses the same shade of red as the "statutory" one and pure HTML white.
# Fry1989 argues that there is only shade of white and that the upper stripe of the "statutory flag" is grey, not white.
# Kpalion argues that white, like any other color, has many shades and the upper stripe of the "statutory flag" is indeed a shade of white. 
# Fry1989 argues that photographs of actual flags prove that the upper stripe in real-life flags is actually white and that legal specifications are not followed in practice.
# Kpalion argues that colors in photographs are not homogeneous (there are shades and highlights) and that they do not prove anything. 
# Fry1989 has not provided any citations of reliable sources that would support the "pure-white flag" or that would claim that legal specifications are not followed in practice.
# Fry1989 has come up with a compromise solution, that is, to include both the "pure-white flag" (in the infobox) and the "statutory flag" (in a section on legal specifications). Kpalion rejects this solution on the grounds that the "pure-white flag" is not supported by reliable sources.
# Kpalion has come up with a compromise solution, that is, to present photographs of real-life flags in the infobox (thus showing the "reality" regardless of legal specifications) and the "statutory flag" (in a section on legal specifications). Fry1989 rejects this solution because it doesn't include the "pure-white flag".
If I have missed or misrepresented any of his points, Fry1989 is welcome to provide his point of view. — Kpalion(talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, Kpalion has set it out very well. just a couple points I'd like to add. First, my stance is not strictly a "pure-white versus the statutory shade set by the Goverment". My stance is that, per the current version of the article, we show both the official colours set by the government, AND the version with pure-white, as the flag is commonly produced and used (even by the Polish Government). Whereas (per previous edits), Kpalion's stance is that we show only the official statutory-coloured version, even when the State Flag is not in SVG for that, and with so many sources showing that even the Polish Government doesn't follow their own rules much of the time. I specifically made the current version of the page as a compromise between those in the Wikipedia Community who (through numerous edits in the past) want either one or the other. Sadly, Kpalion's version does not accomplish such a compromise. I simply can not see any reason against showing both the official legal colours, and the colours most commonly produced-and-used. Fry1989 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And what kind of source could you possibly expect me to find??? The Polish Government has a law on the colours. I don't think they're gonna publish anything that contra-dicts that. All we have are pics, which show a VERY different story. Fry1989 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible reliable secondary sources may include findings by Polish government agencies or court rulings that would say that the law on national colors is not being followed; or a publication by a respected vexillologist that would say the same. The whiteness of the white stripe in the pictures is in the eye of the beholder though. — Kpalion(talk) 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I've removed the  as a WP:3O already came here. I think everything has been said here already. As I've understood, no-one has secondary sources for their claims (correct me if I'm wrong), which I think is hard to find. IMO, when it comes to something in writing, just use "white". Period. Regarding the real images, one is bright and one is shaded in the current state, so keep it that way. Do you guys have a problem with the images in this section?    ~ AdvertAdam  talk 11:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Kpalion you can repeat your points all you want, but you have absolutely failed to gain any consensus for the exclusion of the SVG files. It looks like I will be forced to take this to a dispute resolution board. Fry1989 eh?  19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion request 

message: Because the above dispute discussion, as well as the included Third Opinion, have been unable to bring about a resolution to this problem, I have raised it to the Dispute Resolution board. All here are invited. Fry1989 eh?  19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution 

message: Right and obligation to fly the flag' subsection, under the subheading 'Flag with coat of arms', it says "the ban on using the flag without coat of arms has been lifted".
But the only mention of any ban that I can find is "flying the flag with coat of arms was, from 1955 until 1985, punishable by a fine or arrest for up to one year." (Emphasis mine.) Is one of these a mistake?
Also, under the subheading 'Flag without the coat of arms' is the sentence "Organs that are required by law to fly the national flag without coat of arms on or in front of their official buildings" (emphasis mine). What that would mean is that they are required to fly the flag, either without the coat of arms, or, with the coat of arms and in front of the buildings, which seems like a strange requirement, so I wonder if the word 'or' is a mistake. CarrieVS (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Before 2004, the law did not allow ordinary citizens to use either flag, but punishment for unauthorized use was possible only in the case of the variant with coat of arms and only until 1985. As to the second point, the flag may be flown either on top of a building or in front of it. Your questions suggest that the wording is not very clear. Would you care to suggest ways to rephrase these fragments to make them less ambiguous? — Kpalion(talk) 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made minor changes to these two fragments. Please let me know, if they are clearer now. — Kpalion(talk) 23:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version was banned? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Poland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227175814/http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5/dok/SEJM/056/2149.pdf to http://www.senat.gov.pl/k5/dok/SEJM/056/2149.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211124346/http://www.zycie.czest.pl/modules/show.php?id=1438 to http://www.zycie.czest.pl/modules/show.php?id=1438
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025211530/http://www.pis.org.pl/article.php?id=7278 to http://www.pis.org.pl/article.php?id=7278
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190459/http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=70 to http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=70
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified