Talk:Flag of Serbia

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)

Minor glitch

@Fry1989: I think that Мандић Матеја is right (regarding [1]). 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) [2] "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". 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"[3]. 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"[4] 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 ([5] and [6] 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?

1. 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.
2. This is not the only version (only image) that exists ([7] and [8] 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: [9], [10], [11], [12]
3. 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.
4. 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 ([13] [14]) 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

Revolutionary flags citation correction

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)