Talk:Flag of Serbia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Flag of Serbia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Flag change?

BBC reported that the flag had been changed to the version introduced in this article as "unofficial". Can anyone verify that everything is done and dusted and that the flag with coat of arms is official as of now? Note that the Serbian coat of arms article has been updated. Should we switch to using the "new" Serbian flag throughout Wikipedia? zoney ███ talk 19:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes it did change, though I wouldn't call this version "unofficial" but "popular". State institutions are obliged to have the flag with the CoA. Citizens and various organisations can (must?) hoist flag without CoA. I'll try to find exact text of the law. Nikola 14:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The picture is totally wrong! The flag has changed, now it has the coat of arms on its left part. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I updated the article to reflect the changes. It's good that it took us just 18 months to do it ;-). I can't find a 2:1 version (IIRC that was (semi)-official 1991-2004) around, so I removed the old reference – it's better not to have one than to have it obviously wrong (the old version had caption "1:2" when it was obvious the image was 2:3). Duja 13:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, according to Serbian Government: National symbols and anthem of the Republic of Serbia the tricolour with the coat-of-arms is the state flag, so why is it displayed as the "official flag"? Shouldn't the article show the national flag just like for all the other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.77.48 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Which "other countries"? The usage for both is clearly defined, "official flag" meaning "for official use". The wording could be clarified, but the first is the state flag and the other is popular flag. Duja 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

LukaP, isn't it better that every paragraph is accompanied with the image, so that the reader can immediately see what 's it about, rather than that they're collected in a tiny gallery below? Besides, gallery is supposed to be used for numerous images related to the term but not strictly related to any particular piece of text — the case here is quite different. Duja 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Grrr

Heck people, could someone mention and WP:CITE the new Constitution of Serbia, according to which apparently official and popular flags were equalized, containing the coat of arms? Ultimately, I found the citation myself. I've been fighting a lame revert war at commons:Flag of Serbia for a couple of days. Duja► 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the 1991-2004 flag have the same colours as the Yugoslav flag?

I know that people are trying to be consistent when they are getting the colours for the flags but Serbia's flag from 1945-1991 or 1992 had the same colouring as the Yugoslav flag, since Yugoslavia continued to officially exist afterwards, it seems common sense that they would pick similar colours as they had done in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.129.3 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Flag of the People and Flag of the State

In the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, article 7. states that the Republic of Serbia has a Coat of Arms, Flag (FR: Drapeau) and Anthem.

Coat of Arms are used as Great Coat of Arms and Lesser Coat of Arms.

Flag of the Republic of Serbia exists and is used as Peoples Flag (Flag of the People, National Flag) and as State Flag (Republic Flag). So why not publish these facts in the article Flag of Serbia. Not the Anthem, Coat of Arms, etc. But Peoples flag is in use, look at the Peoples Assembly of Republic of Serbia there are allways two flags The Flag of the People and The Flag of the State. If we want to be exact then the title under The Flag of the State cann't be Flag of Serbia, but State Flag of Serbia or Flag of the Republic of Serbia. You cann't write that National flag was in use 2004-2006, because it is still in use to simbolize the difference between the State (eg. Governoment) and the People. Flag of the People or People of Serbia flag or The Flag of the People of Serbia is in Serbian language (NARODNA ZASTAVA) not (NACIONALNA ZASTAVA) so translation in English language should be appropriate. Imbris 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the imprecise formulation in the constitution did create some confusion, but it appears that there really are two flags: for example see [1]. Nikola 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Constitution is not imprecise. It is the base of all law in Serbia. Article 7 of The Constitution of The Republic of Serbia clearly states which of those two flags is the first mentioned in the text of The Constitution of Serbia. Orriginal text of the Constitution is available in English language at the official site of The People's Assembly of The Republic of Serbia - in official translation.

Third sentence of the Article No. 7. of the Constitution is "The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag.". This is why we must first and foremost portray the National Flag of Serbia before the State Flag of Serbia.

One of the most important principles of any modern state is that the nation comes before the state.

Imbris 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, but it is very confusing. The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag. - WTF does that mean? That there is one flag only, used as national and state, that there is one national and one state flag which are both one flag... ??? Nikola

I agree that it's very confusing, but I parse that garbled sentence in the sense that there's only one flag -- the one with CoA; the one without CoA was in use as national flag during the previous Recommendation.

Me too. However, notice that the original Препорука о коришћењу грба, заставе и химне Републике Србије uses exactly the same sentence with different meaning: The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag. The national Flag is a horizontal tricolour [...] The State Flag is a horizontal tricolour [...] Small Coat of arms of the Republic of Serbia [over all]. What now? Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used during the last year indeed.

O RLY? Observe

I shot in front of Nemanjina 20 just two weeks ago. And I noticed more. Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus, it should probably be moved to the "history" section. I believe that your link is outdated, as it doesn't mention the new constitution at all. However, I'd like to hear an official interpretation. ZOMG, someone should really e-mail our brave government for clarification... Zemljo [Srbijo], otvori se... Duja► 08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that if we do that, we would either a) not get an answer, b) get an answer from a secretary who looked up one of websites we already discuss, or c) get four different answers from three institutions we talk to.

I see a way out of this mess however. There exists Закључак о употреби грба, заставе и химне Републике Србије which was published in the Official Gazette 61/2006. (This is not the same Conclusion as the one brought in 2004.) It clearly states that there are two flags. Now, could you find when was number 61/2006 published? If it was published after the constitution was finalised, or even while talks about the constitution were underway, I say that there are two flags. Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On retrospect, my suggestion on contacting the government was fairly stupid...

I couldn't find the exact issue 61, but I found a reference to Official gazette no. 62/2006 here, which was issued on 19 July 2006. Thus, no. 61 is few days older. But, are you positive it was 2006? I found the identical (?), but undated and unsigned text here, whose properties in Word say: Created: Thursday, 19. August 2004. 16:59:00. I did find the reference to it in 61/2006 here though. Ergo, it doesn't prove much, but it is likely that it's still in effect, especially regarding that photo of yours. Duja► 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, talks about the constitution were well underway in July[2]. According to this piece, there were only a few open questions remaining. See also this. Nikola 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...and, btw, note that this page, apparently updated, does not contain the National flag (anymore -- I'd swear it used to be there last year), as well as the accompanying pdf. I think it's pretty safe to say that the national flag is not effective anymore. Duja► 08:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not too surprising given that the page is titled "State Symbols of the Republic of Serbia" and the book is titled "The Book of Standard of the Small Coat of Arms and the State Flag of the Republic of Serbia", or is it? Nikola 22:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but they could at least mention it... like I said, I could swear that it used to be there when I downloaded the pdf last year, but unfortunately I didn't save an offline copy. This page says "и дефинише се застава, која ће се користити као народна и као државна застава." and then goes on to describe both the national and state flag. What we have on official government pages are 4 Ghits, contradicting each other. Duja► 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can at least tell that it was never there[3][4]. One mystery less :) Nikola 08:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we must conclude that we can't know for sure. Worse still, I'm fairly certain that they don't know for sure. Fuck the Constitution whose text says "The flag of Serbia exists and..." O RLY? It exists?

One way or another, your research does indicate that the National Flag is/might be valid, but it's seldom used nowadays; for example, I'd expect the national flag to be hoisted on international sport events, but instead the state flag is always used. Can we say something sensible in the article along the lines that there's a mess? Apply the solution from Flag of Germany, where the one without CoA is indicated as both national and state, and the one with CoA indicated as state? (In our case, it would be

for the one without CoA and

for the one with CoA)? Duja► 07:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with any of that is that it would be OR. For example, when looking about this, I also noticed that rules about flag use are oftenly respected (the flag is not put in the middle when in group of three for example -

) but I can't write about it. I'm in favour of returning both flags as they were and keeping quiet about the issue. We're not more likely to be wrong that way than the other way, and we would not conduct OR. Nikola 16:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I'll at least reverse the order. The national flag has largely lost the prominence, and should come second. Duja► 15:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In every state on the World (that has one) Constitution is as important as the Holy Bible

Except in Serbia? Or am I wrong about this? And if I am wrong about this, then the order of the flags will not be changed any more. -- Imbris 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See Germany, Finland, Russia. All of those have flags of the state with CoA, but flag of the Nation is more important. -- Imbris 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution says, word for word, official translation:
The flag of the Republic of Serbia shall exist and be used as the National Flag and State Flag.
which you interpret as:
Constitution is not imprecise. It is the base of all law in Serbia. Article 7 of The Constitution of The Republic of Serbia clearly states which of those two flags is the first mentioned in the text of The Constitution of Serbia.
Sorry, but

You're probably not a lawyer (just like us). Ergo, this is only your interpretation. Nikola and I agreed that the sentence is hopelessly garbled. It is only you who thinks that it clearly means something, let alone that it specifies that the national flag should have precedence.
If you read the discussion above, you would notice that all we have of official sources are the Constitution, the Recommendation, and the two government web pages.
Also, the national flag is rarely if ever used these days, even on sports competitions. I also think that the national flag should be used as the primary one, but the sad fact is that it's not. Also note that Encarta, CIA Factbook, Britannica disagree with you as well. Duja► 07:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this order of the flags. Just the fact that they are mentioned in the constituion in one order doesn't mean that they have to be in that order whenever mentioned. Nikola 05:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argumentation has a point, but up to a point. Constitution is not just a colection of articles, and the order of articles are not an amusing coincedence. When we are talking about a Flag of Serbia then National Flag has precedence over the State Flag (written in the Constitution, Recomendation and the Conclusion that deal with state symbols). No one is forcing you to use the National Flag in sports, statistics, Wikipedia articles about State of Serbia, or even Serbia Wikiproject. But when we are talking about the Flag then you are clearly mistaken by the Encarta, Britannica and CIA Factbook (not allways correct), they have an article about the Republic of Serbia - thus State Flag is used., and should use National Flag of Serbia when Serbs or Serbian Nation is the topic. When the Flag is the topic then National Flag has precedence because all of official documents say so. National Assembly of The Republic of Serbia uses both of the "flags" e. g. uses The Flag of Serbia, which exist and shall be used as The National Flag of Serbia, and as The State Flag of Serbia. When we are talking about a flag we use vexilology and not political-geography (Republic of Serbia). Republic of Serbia is a different article than is the Flag of Serbia article.. -- Imbris 00:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well but this is article about flag of Serbia, not flag of Serbs or Serbians. In addition, state flag is more prominent and more oftenly used. Nikola 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Serbia shall exist ... Not to repeat myself. And in addition W. must be factual and objective, not often correct but allways, etc. In the Parliament of Serbia (better The National Assembly of The Republic of Serbia) both flags are used, and National Flag is placed to the vexilology honour place of the "heraldical left" which is really right. When you receive an university diploma, not you, but one person, Rector signs in the right and Dean on the left side. -- Imbris 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikola's servitude towards Duje's position is obvious. W. is not a democracy to cast votes and majority rules. You need arguments. The lack of arguments on "your" part is going on your sole if you have one. And the shame is going towards you two - Austria, Germany, Finland and the rest of nordic countries have prospered because the nation preceedes the state. They all have state flag and nation flag but nation flag is always first. Another story is the article about their governments, and state. -- Imbris 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The honour place in heraldry is heraldical right, which is observer's left, and that is how the flags are placed in the parliament. Nikola 09:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am not wrong. Honour place in heraldry is heraldical left, viewer' right. But this debate can go on and on. I have found proofs for both honour place is left and right. -- Imbris 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are both wrong and not wrong? :) No, honour place is viewer's left, and in any way that is honour place in Serbia's flag-related laws (if two flags are displayed, flag of Serbia has to be on the viewer's left). Nikola 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be in some vexicological studies, but not all. And you say Flag of Serbia. Flag of Serbia consists of two banners, namely National Flag of Serbia (first and foremost) and State Flag of Serbia. -- Imbris 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Large CoA preceedess the Small CoA, Constitution says so. Small is more often. Even you must admit that this is correct way to go. Why not also with the Flag. See other countries that have duality with national and state flag. -- Imbris 23:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think that in the article on coat, small should be displayed prominently, and large less prominently. Nikola 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Same as the Flag, the Large CoA is first and the Small CoA is second. -- Imbris 23:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

People in Serbia use both

If I had not presented the National Flag in its rightful place it would still be placed in the "historical" section. The file is still "Flag 2004-2006" which is not the truth. Someone needs to check ones own perspective, and it is not I who is that someone. -- Imbris 22:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to ask for a RfC out of this? Or a straw poll? Nikola 11:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if people with an cool-head or with an open mind will join in commenting this case. I think that this is not neccessary. Know what is neccessary? You explaining why you changed your position. -- Imbris 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

National Flag vs People's Flag

First term e. g. National Flag is the correct and neutral term. And National Flag is the term used in the English language rather than People's flag. -- Imbris 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mix

This article includes info on Montenegrin flags - it should be removed, this article is not about Serb tricolors but about flags of Serbia. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Colours

This is just about colours. -- Imbris (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of those flags have sources in their's descriptions -- Imbris (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Colours (continued)

The colours proposed by Imbris appears to be based on a small picture of the flag at the government of Serbia's webpage which is describing the Serbian national symbols and national anthem of Serbia.[5]

However there are far more accurate, larger, and more detailed pictures available parliament of Serbia's webpage at this link [[6]] which shows large detailed templates of the official coat of arms and flag.

--R-41 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think that I have only cited the governmental web-sites, first and formost I have cited the National Assembly of Serbia web-site [7] which is a part of the official document of the Republic of Serbia called the Recommendation on the use of the Coat of arms, the Flag and the Anthem of the Republic of Serbia. There is no need to stress the information that I used is part of that Recommendation because the link which I have just previously cited can be found [8].

You are quoting the pdf file which is not part of the Recommendation and violating the agreement reached on commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg. All users agreed that these colours are closest to official ones since the pdf file you used listed different colour standards and none of those standards comes near what the pdf file displays. -- Imbris (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste my time arguing with you Imbris a.k.a. Rainman. You are using double accounts to make it seem that there's more people in favour of your actions. The image you found was small, the images I found were large. If you had looked closely at them, the very designs shown on the page are what the svg uploads are based on. The Government of Serbia has provided an excellent template for the flag and coat of arms, the images show the colours to be used, which have been used on Wikipedia for some time. And may I remind you that when a government shows detailed and templates of flags, with specific colours, that means that those are the colours. All this debate over the colours of the flag started when someone moved the colours away from the ones that were in the original uploads of the designs. Then the haggling started. Then to be absolutely safe and not you offend you Imbris/Rainman, they agreed to the most neutral proposal possible so no one like you would be angry, and the result is that it is WAY OFF from what the Serbian governments' detailed templates show. Don't bother me with a game of semantics about these being uploaded by a "stupid webmaster", because the image you based your image is small and undetailed and was also uploaded by a webmaster, so stop being a hypocrite. If you want to challenge me, go e-mail the Serbian government for yourself and ask what the exact official colour shades are. If they are different, They will probably be much closer to the version I and people before my time on Wikipedia have uploaded than yours. But there is no point in convincing you, you are a know it all. I have tried to listen to you, but you have only passion of anger and opinions and that does not solve anything.--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Colours issue again

It is not according to Wikipedia to shout and trash users. Instead we are here to present arguments and listen to other people what they have to say/contribute (with sources). Your accusations are null and void Imbris is not Rainman.

You have disrupted the discussion by changing the colours of the second proposal, instead of uploading your proposal. It is highly unorthodox to see clear disregard of other peoples involved in creation of best possible content like Avala (original second proposal before meddling of R-41 begun. Also Nikola (made an image according the Pantone scale).

Nobody uses in real life the version of that pdf file because it is highly controversial version that contradicts itself by displaying images which do not correspond to colour codes (listed in itself) both in CMYK and Pantone colour standards.

First and foremost - colours of the pdf file are not used in real life
Second - The Recommendation colours are the only official colours
Third - A compromise has been reached upon at commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg
Fourth - When you look you would find that users complained about red being far to much pink, then maroon and reached an agreement in both names of flags and colours

There is no doubt that no matter how large or small in size are the official images that those images should be used and not some fabrications that you claim have any official status. They simply do not. First read the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia which commands that all laws must be in conformity with the Constitution. Then read the Recommendation in its official form as it is printed by the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. Then compare those images with the image listed under the source No. 7.

You are being very rude in your entire approach about flags which can be seen Talk:Flag of Yugoslavia. You just keep talking about some anger and keep imposing yourself as a defender of some truth. This marks you as not being objective enough because you keep claiming that this colour pattern exist, it does not exist in a real flag ever been made with such colours. You are being disruptive and your opinion that we should eliminate all sources but your sources is contrary to Wikipedia (especially WP:SYN. You have made just that a SYN. -- Imbris (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your version of the flag, uploaded by you is nowhere on Wikipedia. The "second proposal" is not just a second proposal it has been on Wikipedia far longer than any of these proposals, it has been used on multiple pages and for a long time it had the colours that users before me, and the Serbian government have reccomended. But if you are so satisfied with it, then put it up on the infobox for the article Serbia. It won't look at all like what the Serbian government recommends, but if you are so confident then do it.--R-41 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You have destroyed the Second proposal which had support by Avala, Mile, Nikola (had simmilar colour desing) and myself. The second proposal shall be reverted when those users see what you have done. Also it is not the matter what I think but what the Serbian people use, they do not use colour which you started to advocate. Please stop with the edit-war and find some more sources in real life. You are able to find them? Or perhaps not! Stop the edit-war on something which has been agreed upon. -- Imbris (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who made "Flag of Serbia.svg" only a "proposal" discussion flag destroyed its original purpose. The "second proposal" flag existed before the discussion over the colours took place, it is posted all across Wikipedia representing the flag of Serbia, not a discussion board flag, and its not even the one that you say was agreed upon. Why is your upload for it not the colours that are on for another version uploading by you on the Flag of Serbia article?--R-41 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not making any sense with your constant arguing. You have not produced any source that the pdf colour pattern ever existed in real life. Everyone can look and find all over the Internet that the flag of Serbia has many different colours (none of which correspond to that of pdf file). Only narrow minded people would argue that some drawings (that may look like the pdf colours) are on the same level as the real time usage. The flag colours like it looks now has been edited by a number of users who did not change the colours back to those of the pdf file. Users agreed on the proposal A and not on the colours that were latter uploaded by Avala (which you have also used). Because of the compromise being reached that there would be:

This is the naming compromise which would be used to ensure that every possible usage would be meet. Then nobody wished to start another colours war and the sittuation was left as it were.

Imbris (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal for discussion

As asked for by Imbris I have restored the compromise version of the flag, and I will no longer assume my positions to be correct, it appears that the Serbian government's proposals for red do seem to be inaccurate, as Imbris has noted that the colours do not match up with the colours used on the actual flags. The following is a proposal by me which has a less purplish red. Some images of the Serbian flag indicate that it may have a brighter red than this. On Wikipedia, when a red is unknown usually the following colour shade is used which is CMYK 0-100-100-13, as used on the flags where the red is considered to be bright such as that of the Flag of the Soviet Union (1955-1991 version) and the Flag of Germany. I have decided however to use a shade of red more like the one reccomended on Image:Flag_of_Serbia.svg. Please post your views and any constructive criticism of this proposal.--R-41 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not satisfied with my endorsment of the colours which Avala proposed. Those colours appear in the first source for the flag that is listed in the article [9]. Also those images are not so small to be considered as a valuable source especially because they can be found at [10] and [11]. There is more things to be considered rather than just the red colour. The blue colour should be darker than you propose. If you would just read the discussion at commons:Image talk:Flag of Serbia.svg you may realise that I have no bad faith when dealing with this issue. I thought that the agreement with other users showed that. I do not know why the CMYK and Pantone versions were deleted because they show that Pantone is more thrustworthy than CMYK (in case of those pdf suplemmented codes). So if you have previously been "for" the colours of Avala in the Flag of Serbia what changed your mind? -- Imbris (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the compromise colours best describe the small images of the Recommendation (Parliament images) and the slightly greater images of the Conclusions (Govt. images). And the two are the same colours. -- Imbris (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal image I added has been slightly changed by me, a standard flag red is being used, as Wikipedia flag images typically use this shade for bright reds or undefined reds on flags. The blue in Avala's proposal appears too purplish. This blue is more like those on actual flags.--R-41 (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been four days now since the proposal was put forward, I see no opposition to it yet. So I will upload the file under the title. If there is opposition to this I will revert it and the dicussions can continue.--R-41 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to complete disregard the proposals have been destroyed by Zscout370

Zscout370 singlehandedly distroyed previous agreements between users who correctly interpreted the Pantone colour standards of the Serbian flag. Proposal A has been completely destroyed in order to cloud the talk page with false imagery. Only commons:Image:Flag of Serbia state (proposal R-41).svg survived the deletionist manner of Zscout370 and his friends on commons. This is why I would reluctantly use R-41's image because now there is a mess in the article without using that image which is closest to the Avala proposal and my proposal of interpretation of Pantone standards. -- Imbris (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Saturation of the blue

I can't understand - why the blue of the flag is so dark and less in saturation? I suppose it is not correct according to the Heraldic. The saturation is less than the flag of Belgium. ZJ (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Naval flag

User:Buttons removed the flag, saying its not official. According to this flag on vessel, this clear picture, this zoomed picture, and the gallery of Serbian Army, this picture, this one, that one, and this picture, the flag is certainly used. --Zoupan (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I prefer to base my arguments on official documents stating yes it exists, rather than some photos... And I'm still not finding any on the the flag in question. Is it here? Nope. Maybe here or here? Nope. So how are we to know it is used in any official context? Buttons (talk)

This flag is in official use and very broad use as well. It's heavily documented and has sources that are trusted. FOTW is a valid website source regarding flag issues, and is used as a source on hundreds of Wikipedia articles including this one for a different subject. Moreover, the photographic evidence, provided by the Serbian Military itself, is clear as night and day. All the ships have this, all the ships are using it, that suggests this isn't some unauthorised self-made thing, it has to be official. Buttons, if your reasoning that this is "not official" is merely because the Serbian Military's website doesn't mention the flag, you're attempting to set a ridiculously high standard that is not being held on other flag articles. New Zealand's Navy website does not mention their ensign, neither does the websites of the Bangladesh Navy, or the Estonian Navy, and many others where the ensign is nonetheless well documented and presented on the relevant Wikipedia articles. Unless you can provide a better reasoning for why this flag should not be on the article, you have no right to continue to remove it as if you are the authority on the matter. You don't own this article, and you clearly have no consensus for your deliberate exclusion. If anything, 5 users over the years have tried to tell you otherwise. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that FOTW is a reliable source, I never argued otherwise. Yet even it states the flag is a unconfirmed design, indicating its dubious nature. Besides FOTW, I have not found any other reliable sources about this flag, despite your claim that it is "heavily documented". Could you provide some of these documents? To be perfectly clear, I am not against the idea of including the flag in the article (List of Serbian flags would be more appropriate however). If I was, I would also dispute its use in the River Flotilla of the Serbian Armed Forces article. What I am against however, is its inclusion in the main flag infobox. It is completely nonsensical to include a "naval ensign" for a landlocked country with very little evidence to support its use, apart from some marginal use by a small military unit. Its misleading to the reader. I won't bother addressing the rest of your post since its just lambasting. Buttons (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

First let me just address what appears to be a retraction, that you only now oppose this flag being in the main infobox. I don't believe that to be true, since this flag in several page editions was placed elsewhere and with a clearly non-confusing caption explaining this is of the River Flotilla and not a "navy" in the traditional sense. You still removed it each time. I find your change of opposition to be contrary as you clearly do not feel this flag should be on this article in any capacity.

Now to address your points. FOTW refers to this flag as "unconfirmed" only in the same sense as your own expectation of confirmation, that being a document or article from the Serbian Military or Ministry of Defence available from their website(s). But as stated, if that is the standard to which we are to hold such things, I can spend the next week compiling flags which are official and in use and we know this through various forms of documentation that exclude that which you demand as acceptable. Furthermore, where does having a naval ensign require a country not be landlocked and have access to the sea? May I point you towards Bolivia, where they have not been able to access any water body larger than rivers for 130 years, and yet they maintain a "navy" and have a naval ensign, which we know is true as nonsensical as you would call it. Whether you consider it nonsensical to call something a naval ensign for a country which does not have a "navy" (at least in the traditional sense) does not override the job of this website to point towards truths, even unlikely or odd ones, and in this specific context of truths that means any and all flags of Serbia. So if this flag is the naval ensign of the River Flotilla, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary, it clearly belongs here whether you believe the idea of a lond-locked country having a "naval ensign" and therefore the required "navy" makes sense or not. Now over the past 2 years, 5 users have accepted the sources we do have, which are I might add accepted in similar cases, while you have constantly removed this file without a consensus or support and with the attempt to assert a standard of evidence that is not held elsewhere. I do not believe you are in a position to do that, and unlike the others before me, I will pursue this until I get a fruitful conclusion. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to provide any reliable source(s) at some point? You keep talking about them and still nothing. I have asked several times now and you've always manged to switch topic or try and justify not providing one by making vague comparisons between articles. Where is the consensus to include the flag? Did you and these 5 other users hold a secret meeting without including it here? User:Zoupan did the right thing by starting this discussion here but since they only presented their argument and left without further discussion or response, it does not constitute a consensus to include the flag, despite your editing habits. The burden of proof (to keep the flag) is on you. Not me. And enough with the chest beating. Buttons (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. almost forgot, because I actually try to make compromises, I said that I am mainly against its use in the infobox. I won't try and justify past edits beyond saying that I have made mistakes and/or changed my mind like every other editor. This is my compromise now, you can take it, provide your own, or go to DR (again). Buttons (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If a picture shows that a government's buildings fly a blue, red and white flag, and it is known that this government has officially defined its flags to be a certain colour but no text of it can be found to say what colour the flag exactly is, can it not be deduced that the government has a blue, red and white flag?

This is bureaucratic nonsense, to disrupt on a technicality because technically you can. Shall we next require that when an author describes the colour of something we provide proof that the author was not legally colour blind? And that the medical examiner was truly indeed licensed to perform such a determination? And that the certifying agency was in good standing with some sort of overseeing agency at the time of certification? And so on, and so on... User16052013 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources are very clear. I suggest you read them since you are apparently new. Photos/images can be easily altered or faked entirely, hence why they are not regarded as a reliable source. Since most flags come with descriptions from official publications/sources, there is no excuse to treat this flag differently. There is nothing bureaucratic about that. Buttons (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we now have definitive proof this is the naval ensign of the River Flotilla. Back on the 31st, before I filed my DRN, I emailed the Ministry of Defence. They have a list of contacts and while it was a long shot, I thought I would give it a try. I sent my email to info@mod.gov.rs and have received a reply from the Office of Chief of General Staff. The response is as follows:

"Dear Sir,

The photograph in question represents the flag of the River Units. These units represent a specific branch within the Serbian Armed Forces.

The flag signifies vessel’s belonging to the Serbian Armed Forces, i.e. to the Republic of Serbia when the vessel sails in the international waters.

A vessel in port flies the flag of the River Units on a stern flag pole or, if the vessel does not possess one, on the main-mast.

A vessel at sea/river flies the flag of the River Units on a main-mast signal halyard.

Sincerely,

Office of Chief of General Staff Serbian Armed Forces www.vs.rs / www.vs.rs/m / vojska.srbije@mod.gov.rs"

While not using the word "ensign", the purpose of this flag as they have defined it perfectly meets the parameters of a naval ensign. I can forward both emails (my request for information on the flag and the corresponding response) to any user upon request and I'm sure Buttons will cease their opposition in the face of what is now indisputable. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you may include the flag in a sub section of the article or List of Serbian flags. But I am still not convinced it belongs in the infobox. Buttons (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And as I pointed out above, it doesn't have to be in the infobox, there are other places on this article where it can and has been and you kept removing it wherever it was placed. Now will you "allow" it to be on this article somewhere, or am I forced to refile a DRN? Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss the second part of a earlier post titled P.S. above? "I won't try and justify past edits beyond saying that I have made mistakes and/or changed my mind like every other editor". Satisfied? Buttons (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not, because you keep contradicting yourself. You didn't want it on the page at all in the past, now you say you don't want it in the infobox but you're willing to entertain it being elsewhere, but you keep suggesting the only place you want it on is List of Serbian flags which means you don't think it belongs on this article. You're all over the place, so no I'm not satisfied in half-baked apologies or excuses or whatever you call it. I want you to give me a straight up answer, will you "allow" (a term I use with extreme prejudice) the flag to be on this article, or must I seek an override of your baseless veto which has no consensus or support outside of yourself? Fry1989 ^eh? 19:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesus, you are impossible... Alright, let me make it as clear as humanly possible for you, since you are having such a hard time understanding. You may GO AHEAD and place the flag in the article: Flag of Serbia, but not in the infobox, IMO. You may also use it in the article List of Serbian flags, if you so wish. Because that is the compromise I am offering now. Was that so hard for you to deduce? Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question and I don't actually care. Buttons (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm impossible because I point out your contradictions and inconsistencies and demand you give me a straight yes or no answer for once? No, you're impossible, impossible to work worth because you were wrong from the start and acted like your opinion of what constitutes "reliable sources" is so much more important than those of 5 other users who over the years have all told you the opposite. You made this discussion stupid. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Serbia. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130521073202/http://scindeks-clanci.nb.rs/data/pdf/0353-9008/1997/0353-90089708149A.pdf to http://scindeks-clanci.nb.rs/data/pdf/0353-9008/1997/0353-90089708149A.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Serbia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor glitch

@Fry1989: I think that Мандић Матеја is right (regarding [12]). There is really some problem with the lower left edge of the coat of arms at File:Flag_of_Serbia.svg. His edit was certainly made in good faith, and with appropriate edit summary. You shouldn't have just reverted his edit without explanation (as you did here). Reverting new editors without explanation is a kind of WP:BITE and is not appropriate behavior. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologise. @Мандић Матеја:, I am sorry. The glitch can be fixed in the Graphics Lab. I will avoid further involvement. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Flag of Stefan Vladislav

@Peacemaker67: Flag of Vladislav I (reigned 1233–1243), as described in 1281. The historical record only mentions red and blue color (vexillum unum de zendato rubeo(red) et blavo(blue). That's all we know about that flag. We have comment of Željko Heimer(Croatian vexillologist, president of the Croatian Heraldry and Flag Society) [13] "There is not the least evidence that the ancient flag in question was a simple horizontally divided red-blue flag. It could have been anything else including whatever your fantasy allows you. In fact, it would be very surprising if the flag was indeed anything like the modern reconstructions. However, one should bear in mind that such (probably) erroneous reconstruction has had some influence in the modern times and is therefore worth mentioning".^[1] Data about the reconstructed flag, "we however don't know how were the colours patterned; horizontal diband shown to the left is sometimes used in commemorations of medieval events in Serbia"[14]. I want to know whether such a flag for which we do not know the actual appearance can be cited in wikipedia as a factual historical fact ie as described in 1281? Mikola22 (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It can. Thank you for sharing and basing your opinion on an opinion piece. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: It can not. There is no evidence whatsoever that the flag of Stefan Vladislav looked like this. The main source for the flag file at Commons is Flags of the World at fotw.info. FOTW is definitely not a great WP:RS in itself, but even they make it clear that it is only the colours red and blue that have any sourcing. Presenting this flag as the flag from 1281 without any reservation was clearly undue. While I have been writing this, you have obviously understood that, since you have made the addition "(modern reconstruction)". This makes it slightly better, but easily gives the impression that this is some kind of "officialy adopted" reconstruction. I would suggest to put a bit more emphasis on the reservation part, suggesting the caption "Suggested reconstruction of the flag of Vladislav I (reigned 1233–1243), based on a description from 1281". --T*U (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I agree with that description. Since you have proposed it, please add it, you have my support. I can agree that we should emphasize the existing reservation. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: This "modern reconstruction" must be consistent with some source. RS says what we all know ie that in the historical source only two colors are mentioned. We have "Coat of Arms of Hrvatinić"[15] and that coat of arms is based on scientific work. This flag drawn by an anonymous is based on two colors mentioned in some source but he used today Serbian flag as a source. It is not wikipedia material, wikipedia material would be a reconstructed flag based on scientific work. This flag is someone’s private promotion of his view of the flag without scientific work. Mikola22 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No, this is not ok for inclusion. To use this, it would need to be based on the work of a vexillologist, not some random person's opinion. It is also opposed by a vexillologist, which makes it even more dubious. It is currently original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Find a reliable source from someone who has studied the subject, or drop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Peacemaker67. Mikola22 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at a compromise was probably built on too flimsy ground. Since the vexillologist says that the "reconstruction has had some influence in the modern times and is therefore worth mentioning", I thought it might be worth a try, but I am quite happy with the removal, which anyway was my first choice. --T*U (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Leaving the flag out is not a compromise, it's plain removal based on the notion that we do not know the position of 2 colours, which is simply wrong. The same vexillologist clearly states that it is notable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that supports your claim that we know the arrangement of the two colours? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is OK for the flag to be included in the article, as it is known and represented in the media. That is why I added the explanation that it is a modern and disputed reconstruction. We cannot ignore the fact that something appears in the mainstream media, which confirms that it is notable, but the origin and authenticity need to be explained. --WEBDuB (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have been closed in May but there's edit-warring to bring back the WP:FRINGE idea that the flag of Serbia which is - obviously - based on the Pan-Slavic colours of the 19th century is actually not a variant of the Pan-Slavic flag, but an "original", medieval Serbian flag of Stefan Vladislav. @Peacemaker67:@Mikola22: The discussion was had, sources weren't put forward so if 4 months later there's edit-warring in support of a fringe narrative, the Balkan topic area has the recent experience of one WP:AE and it could be repeated.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliable source that is being relied upon that clearly states the arrangement of the two colours? Of the three sources cited for the image, the first reproduces the work of a Wikipedian and cannot be used per WP:CIRCULAR, the second doesn't state the layout of the flag, and the third (FOTW) isn't a RS. All we know for sure is that it was blue and red, not its appearance. Use of this image is pure OR. It should be described textually, but not by an image containing clear OR. I have removed it until this is resolved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor Sadko is playing with Wikipedia again even though everything has been explained to him earlier. The tactics of editing articles are clearly visible. It is important that another editor comes to edit some information which is earlier for some reason removed from the article or changed and that is his consensus. And then his personal view again finds a place in the article. This flag is drawn by some anonymous person. No source determines which are the positions of the listed colors, they only presented historical information where red and blue color are mentioned. Everything else in the article beyond that is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

First off, learn the basic of English and etiquette. After that - read WP:OR. The image description is/was highly neutral and self-explanatory. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is completely OR. There is no reliable source used in this article that says what the arrangement of the colours was. Either find a reliable source that details the arrangement of the colours or drop it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, you already told him that a few months ago. He is not looking for sources which prove this, he seeking consensus to bypass your request. Mikola22 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Perhaps you should read WP:OR, Sadko. It is a core content policy of Wikipedia, not a guideline or a suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is neither OR, nor FRINGE. This version, obviously wrong, is known and represented in the media, portals and social networks. It was not reconstructed by Wikipedians, on the site it is said that it was made by Tomislav Todorović and Mladen Mijatov. There are other known versions with these colors ([16] and [17] 0:54 and 0:56). Nobody claims that it is a credible reconstruction. When something appears in the mainstream media, it is notable. It deserves a place in the article. Of course, we should explain that the authenticity was disputed. Many well-known phenomena, despite their disputed authenticity, exist on Wikipedia, with an explanation. Maleschreiber, stop with WP:ASPERSIONS and labeling, as well as WP:HOUND. Assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. (WP:CIVIL).--WEBDuB (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not understand OR. Please read it again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Serbian state media can reproduce whatever its editing team chooses to reproduce. Wikipedia, however, has chosen to not reproduce fringe theories. @Peacemaker67: The original source is a document in the Ragusan archives. It was first published in 1876. The 1936 citation at Stefan_Vladislav#Flag of Serbia is a newer publication of the same archival work. It shouldn't even be directly cited (WP:PRIMARY) and the fact that it is being put forward as evidence for the "first Serbian flag" only highlights the OR and FRINGE of these narratives because the document doesn't list any flag. It mentions a Vexillum, which could be any form of standard - long before the era of modern flags in the Byzantine-influenced world - as just another item in a long list of items which belonged to Desa, son of Vladislav. Stefan Vladislav is a GA that is based on fringe and OR narratives of PRIMARY documents. Now, the fact that a very obscure narrative made it as a legitimate theory among some people in Serbia and then Serbian state media propagated it, probably has to do with the role that wikipedia has in the popularization of ideas and how receptive state mechanisms in the Balkans are towards fringe theories. --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I really see no reason for a mocking оr ironic tone, we need to discuss politely how to find a solution. Of course, I know OR well. Please, explain which part is not in line with that policy?

Neither I nor any other Wikipedian made the reconstruction of this flag. The file was posted in 2007, and it was already used by Todorović and Mijatov in 2006.
This is not the only version (only image) that exists ([18] and [19] 0:54 and 0:56). Others can be seen in the media, while one of the mainstream media states that it is used in medieval-themed events. Examples: [20], [21], [22], [23]
So the fact is that this version of the flag exists and it is notable. Its authenticity is disputed, but it is something notable and it appears in the mainstream media. You insist here that a source that claims that the reconstruction is credible must be found, but nobody claims that. There are sources that say that this reconstruction of Vladoslav's flag is used today. It would be the fringe theory if we claimed that it was 100% reliable and credible reconstruction.
I had written that it appeared in the media, but that it was disputed. I see no reason to ignore the fact that a phenomenon is known and notable, even though it may be a product of documented mistakes or misunderstandings. For example, we have the whole article Caduceus as a symbol of medicine.

To conclude, I think it's important to explain all the publicly known things. Of course, with the right and concrete explanation. I think it is OK for the flag to be included in the article, noting that despite the fact that it is often used, this modern reconstruction is unreliable and unfounded.

@Maleschreiber: I know the problems in the Serbian media very well, I wrote a lot about it on Wikipedia (including nationalist and war propaganda). Probably more than anyone else. In this case, it cannot be used as an argument, as it is not a topic and are not cited as a source of authenticity.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that some media or events in Serbia promote this "flag" doesn’t mean that we should promote it too without RS. RS which exist mentions one historical record in which red and blue color of some fabric is mentioned, while these sources or historians do not deal with the reconstruction of that flag. From this facts to create one of medieval Kingdom of Serbia flag which is similar to the modern Serbia flag is indeed and WP:FRINGE. Which English source confirms this? This flag must be described in some source(RS), with arrangement of colors on that fabric and reconstructed by historian, while everything else is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone read what I write? I am used to everyone ignoring threats and insults at my expense, but ignoring the arguments is not good for a quality discussion and improving the articles. From this facts to create one of medieval Kingdom of Serbia flag which is similar to the modern Serbia flag is indeed and WP:FRINGE. - I agree, but I don't even want to write that. I do not support the theory that this is what the medieval flag of Serbia looked like, but that this version can be seen today. There is no such “promotion” here. If something is “promoted” by the media and events, it means that it is notable and needs to be explained. Even more so because it can be said to be misused. We have RS ([24] [25]) who claims that this kind of horizontal reconstruction is often used, but that this version is not reliable. All this should be stated in the article. There are no arguments about OR, since it was not invented by any Wikipedian.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You need to talk with Peacemaker67 about that("this version can be seen today"). I do not know if modern version of the flag with only Serbian sources(newspaper, portals) who think it might look like that may be source for some historical flag, characteristic of some medieval state and period 800, 500 or 300 years ago. What I know is that this flag created by an anonymous person on Wikipedia has no basis in RS where this flag must be reconstructed. I have nothing against you but I think that your suggestion is not possible. Mikola22 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, it was not created by an anonymous person on Wikipedia. He uploaded the version that could be seen in Serbia earlier. Another example of a flags that look the same can be seen on the links I have added. Tomislav Todorović added and described the flag to the crwflags.com, which is very often cited on Wikipedia, referring to the fact that this version can be seen in the media and events in modern Serbia. I do not mention it as RS, but as proof that the reconstruction is not the work of Wikipedians.

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. (WP:OI) Even if the editor made and uploaded it 2007 (versions have been corrected in the meantime), it is not OR because the same version of the flag could be seen before.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, anonymous can put it on Wikipedia, it is in fact the rule. I mean that this flag without confirmation in the source actually becomes work of that anonymous and not of historian from some RS, ie his flag is OR. The fact is that this flag was made by an anonymous person without confirmation in RS. Show me where listed sources reconstruct the flag in its present form? (this is OR). If the confirming RS will be media and events in modern Serbia published in some newspaper article or portal ten years after creating current flag, Peacemaker67 is here to clarify that ie whether it is possible. This flag is probably wish of the Serbian public, but we do not have reconstruction of that flag in quality RS. Most of these modern sources newspaper etc say that this flag might look like that. It is actually WP:FRINGE. This flag could look in all possible ways so we have to use quality RS as confirmation. We cannot replace books of historians which exist and who do not speak of that appearance of the flag with newspaper articles or some portals. Mikola22 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You're on the wrong track again.This flag is probably wish of the Serbian public, but we do not have reconstruction of that flag in quality RS. - We don't need that, because no one claims that it is a credible reconstruction. And no one is trying to replace books and historians. It is neither WP:FRINGE, nor WP:EXCEPTIONAL because it is supported by mainstream media. Precisely because, it is used today, it can be said unfounded, it needs to be explained. Just as the phrase “Merciful Angel” is incorrectly used for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, does not mean that this explanation should be removed from the article. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Mainstream views in its particular field in this case are books of historians ie RS who contain informations about first recorded Serbian flag but they do not reconstruct that flag because such informations for reconstruction do not originally exist. This fact(not reconstructed flag) is part of more books and that fact is mainstream view of particular field. "Mainstream media" in your case are not mainstream view of particular field but they are also OR because they do not base their claims on mainstream view of particular field ie on this books. If "Mainstream media" in your case are not fringe then books of historians are fringe because they have different conclusion. "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability", the current flag has no confirmation in RS and this is OR. As for “Merciful Angel” is concerned, in the article exist information which color has that flag but we cannot have a picture of the flag because there is no RS which proves that. Mikola22 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You are still not trying to understand me, but you are going into repeating yourself and in WP:BLUDGEON. Unfortunately, probably everyone will ignore the key arguments due to too long a discussion. If "Mainstream media" in your case are not fringe then books of historians are fringe because they have different conclusion. - They don't have different conclusions, they both claim that the color scheme is not reliably known. That is exactly what I want to be stated in the article. we cannot have a picture of the flag because there is no RS which proves that - We have pictures and texts that confirm that this version is (mis)used as the oldest Serbian flag and that should be explained.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"they both claim that the color scheme is not reliably known".. Yes, that’s why historians in books can’t make reconstruction of the flag nor do they give any indication of what that flag might look like but "Mainstream media" have their own vision of that flag, which has a example in today's Serbian flag. Therefore these are not two same facts. I guess historians won't use "Mainstream media" when they would try to reconstruct the flag because we have no historical information for such a thing. WP:BLUDGEON, I don't know if you understood me, this flag has no confirmation in the sources ie it is OR. I already asked you to show me where in the source says how this flag looks like. If you want to talk we can talk until tomorrow but it is the only possible answer for which you must give evidence. I am waiting evidence for two days. Mikola22 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://fotw.info/flags/rs_em.html#13c

Revolutionary flags citation correction

This edit request to Flag of Serbia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under 'Revolutionary flags', one mentioned by prota Mateja Nenadović is brought up: "Among the early flags, the one described by Mateja Nenadović could be connected with today's flag and the first Serbian flag: it was red-blue-red with a Serbian cross," with Flags of the World's page on the Principality of Serbia being cited. Not only is there no mention of Mateja Nenadović or anything specifically from the First Serbian Uprising at the cited source (which may be better fit elsewhere in the section, i.e. for the Takovo flag from the Second Serbian Uprising), but the sentence in question isn't entirely accurate. The source in question is his Memoirs (Мемоари проте М. Ненадовића), which are available on Serbian Wikisource. To quote the relevant section: "Пошљем ја те се изнесе из бранковичке цркве барјак, који је био од белога, црвеног и плавог мусулина, са три крста." (following translation mine: I sent out for the flag/banner, which was made of white, red, and blue muslin, with three crosses, to be taken out of the Brankovinian church). The second sentence after it, "То је било 15. фебруара 1804. лета," one day after the start of the First Serbian Uprising, may be important for relative dating too.

As such, the line should be changed to: "Among the early flags, the one described by Mateja Nenadović could be connected with today's flag and the first Serbian flag: it was red-blue-red with three white crosses," with the citation changed to the linked Wikisource above with the original sentence quoted too. Ideally, Lovett F. Edwards' 1969 English translation of Nenadović's Memoirs could be cited/quoted too, but it unfortunately does not appear to be freely available online.

To affirm accuracy, I'll cite two articles celebrating the anniversary of prota Mateja Nenadović's gathering of revolutionaries on Brankovački Vis in Brankovina, one from 2014 and the other from 2017, both of which have images depicting a red-blue-red flag with three white crosses. 82.73.224.206 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Looks like somebody else got it, and forgot to mark this request as answered. BlueNoise (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It does not appear that someone got this, the line and citation in question have not been changed. Checking the edit history of the article, at the time of writing there has been only one edit made to it since I wrote this request and that's to change the 'Use2' variable in the infobox. 82.73.224.206 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Serbia hv.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

On Flag of Serbia vs. Serbian flag

I moved this page back for consistency sake. The article fails to clearly explain why it would belong in [Serbian flag] instead of here. The section on the "flag of Serbia" having different dimensions is confusing. The other flags - Flag of Montenegro, etc. deserve their own articles. --Jiang 04:48, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I moved it to [Serbian flag] because it makes more sense to me to talk about the flag as a symbol then about official flags separately, as it is basically one same flag used by Serb states and institutions as well as by Serbs worldwide; is Serbia would somehow cease to exist, the Serbs would still use the flag. Also, if Flag of Montenegro, Flag of Republika Srpska etc. articles would have separate pages, each page would then have to repeat the same history of the flag at the top. I also thought that some from Montenegro might find insultive to have their flag listed on the page titled Flag of Serbia, but could not have objections on a title based on ethnicity.

Currently, on Wikipedia, only official flags have articles while flags as symbols are not mentioned. For example, if you remember our talk about Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had blue-white-red tricolour with its coat of arms, Communists took down the coat and put there the communist star, and now the star is taken down as well. It makes more sense to me to talk about symbolism of this tricolour (at, say, Flag of Yugoslavia) then about each of the official flags separately. Same here. The red-blue-white design is and was the base for various military flags, flags of political parties, logos etc. It would be stupid to say that the logo of 13th Annual Convention of Congress of Serbian Unity in San Francisco (you might go to the URL to see the logo) is based on the flag of Serbia; no, it is based on the Serbian flag. Nikola 08:34, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[Serbian flag] and [Flag of Serbia] mean the same thing. How are these different?

It is my understanding of English language that [Serbian flag] at the same time could mean both [Flag of Serbia] and [Flag of Serbs]. Is it not correct? Nikola 07:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The former is usually implied. If you want it to mean the latter, then try Flag of the Serbs. I would rather have a large version of the official flag displayed, and leave the traditional unofficial one underneath. --Jiang 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Currently, it is only the flag of the Serb Orthodox Church and the flag of Montenegro being listed here in addition to the flag of serbia. The church flag should be displayed in that article, with a note indicating that it was adopted from a serbian flag. That article should in turn by linked here in the text itself, since it is not that actual flag of Serbia. It's better to repeat info on separate articles, than to be redirecting people to places where they shouldn't be. Think of how you would feel if I merged this article with Flag of Russia, citing that this flag was derived from that one!

The difference is that Serbian flag is inspired by Russian, while flags of Serbia, Montenegro, RS, SOC are different variants of one same flag.

Perhaps this could be resolved in this way: Flag of Serbia, Flag of Montenegro, Flag of Republika Srpska has large image of the flag, description, and says "This flag is derived from Serbian flag" and then the history of the flag could be described on that page. Nikola 07:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good, but how about the Flag of Serbia and Montenegro? --Jiang 00:28, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In what context is the 2:3 flag used instead of the official 1:2 flag? Is it used at all? --Jiang 09:08, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, for example, it is used on weddings, public gatherings, sport celebrations... Oftenly other variations of the flag are used but only plain 2:3 is legal technically. Nikola 07:57, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[1] ttps://fotw.info/flags/rs_em.html#13c

[1]