Talk:Ethnic flag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What about it?[edit]

What about the Pan-slavic flag, which represents the slavic people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydragirium (talkcontribs) 02:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Criollo flag[edit]

Keraunos, you seem to have misread a very quickly written post on a discussion page. The phrase "criollo flag" in "And there is a proposal for a new Bolivian flag. It won't be accepted at the end, but I like it mixing the former Inca banner with the traditional criollo flag." doesn't mean that there is a "Criollo" flag, that is a flag that represents Criollos everywhere, but rather, Kratak was saying that the Bolivian flag was designed by Bolivian Criollos, and that the new addition was meant to represent the Indigenous population of the country. Apart from the not-very-used (and ultimately inclusive of all Hispanics/Latinos) Bandera de la Raza I have never heard of a "Criollo" flag. It seems this needs more research.TriniMuñoz (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


The major editor of this article has fallaciously equated the opposite of "non-White" people with Nazi terminology. I don't fly a Swastika and I'm of both Hebrew and Hellenic (e.g. Christian & Roman) background, not Iran in particular--although that as an element of ancestry cannot be substantiated with any verifiable data, for either determination (per Alexander the Great). In any case, it was inappropriate to put flags under that heading, knowing the White Nationalist attraction to quasi-supremacist symbolism. I do not object to Iranian ethnic flags under the heading of "Aryan", nor would most people. Remember, this is about consensus. Sceptik (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Aryan is not a racist term when used to mean "the early speakers of Indo-European and their descendents" (although some regard this usage as politically incorrect). This is the original meaning of the term in English. [1] The term has been used this way by many prominent authors such as H.G. Wells and Poul Anderson and also by well-known contemporary scientists such as Colin Renfrew. Aryan is only a racist term when it is used as a synonym for Teutonics only (as used by the Nazis) or as a synonym for the Western or European branch of the Indo-European peoples only (as used by the Neo-Nazis) while excluding other Indo-Europeans. Keraunos (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

References for this section[edit]

  1. ^ Mish, Frederic C., Editor in Chief Webster's Tenth New Collegiate Dictionary Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.:1994--Merriam-Webster Page 66

Image copyright problem with Image:Flag of the Macedonian minority in Serbia and Montenegro.gif[edit]

The image Image:Flag of the Macedonian minority in Serbia and Montenegro.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Kumyk and Nogai[edit]

The Kumyk and the Nogai are Turkic people and therefore their ethnic flags should be moved from the Caucasic section to the Turkic section.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I just moved the Kumyk and Nogai ethnic flags from the Caucasic section to the Turkic section. Keraunos (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


The six stars on the flag of Kosovo represent the six main ethnic entities of the region and therefore it can't represent just one ethnic entity — it is not an ethnic flag. Maybe flag of Dardania represents the local Albanian community, but not the official flag of the republican administration. — Hellerick (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Franco-Terreneuvien flag to gallery?[edit]

Just created an article for this Franco-Canadian flag out of a larger article, but how do I get it into the format used by the other flags?

Flag of Franco-Terreneuviens

MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Revert wars[edit]

I have partly undone several changes made repeatedly by MessiniaGreece (talk · contribs). Reasons are explained in edit summaries. I expect that M.G. or anybody else who wishes to reinstate these will first answer here on talk: (a) what makes you think Mount Athos belongs in a list of "ethnic groups"? (b) what, besides your political dislike of that group, justifies the removal of the ethnic Macedonian entry? (Note that the existence of self-identifying Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria is a lot better documented than that of, say, Greeks in the Republic of M.) Fut.Perf. 09:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Concept of ethnic flag[edit]

The concept of an ethnic flag is flawed. For instance, though the Albanian flag may be used to represent the ethnic Albanian minority in the FY/ROM, in Albania itself it is not an ethnic flag but the flag of all its citizens. Likewise, the Greek flag, it stands for all Greek citizens in Greece but only for the ethnic Greek Cypriot community in Cyprus. I suggest we change the title to 'ethnic-based flags' or something.Politis (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, Your Greek example looks like supporting the ethnic flag concept. Hellerick (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The 'ethnic' Greek flag in Cyprus is not the one shown in the article (a Greek cross against blue background), the flag they use in Cyprus is the Greek cross in the Canton (the upper left quarter) with the stripes. Politis (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that flag with the caption "the Macedonians (Republic of Macedonia)" is the flag of the ethnic/Slav Macedonians in Greece. Please provide evidence if not we can safely delete the Greek reference. There is also no evidence that it is used in the Republic itself, at least officially. It is only used in Bulgaria and Albania. Politis (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Three things reverted[edit]

I've reverted three recent changes by MessiniaGreece, again:

  • the classification of Pomaks under "Thracian": plain nonsense; Pomaks don't speak Thracian but Bulgarian, and they aren't any more Thracian than any other ethnicities in the area. The classification on this page supposedly goes by language families. (Which, if you ask me, isn't a good idea at all, but as long as it is the way it is, Thracian makes absolutely no sense at all.)
  • the Macedonian flag: I believe it is common knowledge and can hardly be doubted that the Vergina flag is much more commonly used by that ethnicity than the golden lion flag. We know it's used particularly by numerous minority organisations in the diaspora. This can easily be sourced if needed. The fact that Greek people don't like this use is, obviously, entirely irrelevant here.
  • the heading "Greek" vs. "Hellenic": see explanation on User talk:MessiniaGreece. Fut.Perf. 11:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
MessiniaGreece, you have been told that, "The fact that Greek people don't like this use is, obviously, entirely irrelevant here". Where did you say or hint at this? Because if you did say or hint at that, please remember that you cannot speak on behalf of the Greeks because that can be interpreted as either Original Research, or POV, or down right prejudicial and offensive, dear fellow editor. Also, IMHO some of your edits are based on misleading conceptions, think it over.
However, you may wish to find evidence that the Pomaks do not speak 'Bulgarian' per se, especially since in Greek Thrace they have have manuals that teach them their own Pomnak, Slavic dialect (which, however, is usually classified as a Bulgarian dialect).
As for the Vergina flag on red background, MessiniaGreece, a variation of it is used - that is without the blue centre as mis-represented in the article - and it is actually used by some organisations of the (Slav) Macedonian diaspora, as well as in Albania and Bulgaria - though not in Greece. Thanks. Politis (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Italic section[edit]

Hi, in my contribution, dated 13th September, I added, in the italic section, the flag of Duosicilian people. Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) removed the flag and justified the removal saying that "it is the flag of an historical state, not an ethnic flag". However, for common history, culture and language, the people who inhabits the southern part of the italic peninsula can be considered a separate group, as Sicilians, and, with Sicilians, it forms a Nation whose identity has been formed over centuries, since 1130 (date of birth of first Kingdom of Sicily). Nowadays different cultural associations, whom support culture and identity of Duosicilian people, use the ancient flag of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies as National symbol of this People. So, I propose you to relocate the flag of Duosicilian people. I would like to know your opinion about my thesis.

Moreover, the use of the flag of the Kingdom of Italy (1861-1946) to represent ethnic Italians seems wrong. In particular, that flag, which shows the coat of arms of the House of Savoy, has a negative connotation in Italy, because it is associated with the fascist era. So, I propose to change it with the modern italian national flag. --The White Lion (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic flag with Vergina sun for Hellenes[edit]

At least one group uses and proposes the Vergina Sun as an ethnic flag, see [1]. Not sure what to make of it since I find the whole concept of ethnic flags and this article quite nauseous, but here it is for anyone's ponderance. Politis (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vinland flag "Euro-Anglo" Americans?[edit]

why is Type O Negative's Vinland flag used for "Euro-Anglo" (whatever that is) people? Just because some (few at that) white supremacists skinheads use it dose not make it a pan-ethnic flag for white people in America, I find the very notion funny since "white people" in America are anything but ethnically homogeneous. Zantorzi (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic (?) Muslims.[edit]

Don you think that Muslims aren't an ethnic group but a religious one? That is mean that this section must be moved to the "Islamic flags" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indymediacentral (talkcontribs) 11:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends; If a Muslim flag was Arabic-Muslims, then yes, but Muslims as a whole is a bit more complicated. Essentially, ethnicity means "group" (Any group...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talkcontribs) 14:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Vergina Sun[edit]

MacedonianBoy, are you serious? and won't qualify as WP:RS however wide you stretch the definition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily reputable sources which don't include amateur websites.--Ptolion (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim that the Vergina Sun is being used as an ethnic flag is hardly an "extraordinary claim". We all know it is true; it's common knowledge and therefore no more and no less in need of sourcing than the countless other unsourced entries on this page. Let's not play these silly games about tags. In any case, I've added Danforth as a reputable academic source describing its use and significance. Fut.Perf. 09:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the fact that it is used, I am disputing the claim that it is the main ethnic flag instead the current national flag.--Ptolion (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I will remove the references and your tags anyway, bevause... just take a look at the history of the article and what one admin reverted. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin's reversion means nothing, he has not seen your dubious sources.--Ptolion (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are the Greek flags?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

the old Reichsflagge for Germans[edit]

This article erroneously shows the old Reichsflagge as a ethnic flag for "all Germans". This is completely nonsensical. The Black, White and Red was the merging of Prussian black and white with white and red of the Hanseatic League. This flag became the national flag of the Prussian created "second Reich" in the late 19th century. But itnever stood for all German speaking people - very definitely not those in Austria and Switzerland, and it was also not too popular in southern parts of Germany and the Rhineland, where the Prussian dominated Second Reich was considered a mixed blessing (to put it politely). Today, this flag is nearly exclusively used as a place holder by neo nazi groups who are forbidden to use "real" nazi symbols.

Unless serious objections are raised, I will remove the flag from this article. Wefa (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, remove it. Take the "ethnic Italian" and "ethnic Japanese" flags as well. This article in general needs overhauling, I think that this article should only list flags of stateless ethnic groups (Flemings, Basques, Welsh, Druze, Roma/Gypsies, American Indians...) or flags of ethnic groups where the ethnic flag is different to the flag of the nation-state (Serbs, Irish...). It's ridiculous that most of this article is dedicated to reproducing national flags of nation-states, in it's current state it's forking Gallery of sovereign-state flags and similar articles.--Ptolion (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I certainly share the objection to the German flag – only noticed it now, or I would have removed it myself earlier. I agree with Wefa's assessement of its status. Fut.Perf. 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is in a terrible state[edit]

This article is still in a deplorable state, and the recent editing has not been making things better.

  1. There is still no clear set of inclusion criteria, and those that are stated are routinely ignored. There is no consistency about how to treat national flags. Things like the German Reichsflagge get repeatedly restored without any comment, even though there was previously a well-founded consensus it doesn't belong. A massive number of flags of regions are introduced, with no indication whatsoever why and in what sense the inhabitants of those regions constitute "ethnic" groups.
  2. The ordering principle of the whole page is OR on a massive scale, and very bad OR at that. The page systematically uses linguistic group labels as an ordering criterion for ethnicities. This is just terribly, terribly wrong. Lingusitic relations are not tantamount to ethnic relations. Every such heading can be read as a factual claim that those entities grouped together under each heading form an ethnic unity based on this particular linguistic relationship. Each of these claims, if it was to be taken seriously, would be in need of heavy sourcing; each of them is unsourced; the huge majority of such claims would be patently wrong.

I'm considering stubbing this article back radically. I am going to remove each and every flag entry that doesn't come with an explicit reliable independent source stating unambiguously that the flag is used and that what the thing it denotes is in fact an ethnic group (and not a state, a region, a political movement, or whatever). I will also remove each and every heading that doesn't come with an explicit reliable source stating unambiguously that the grouping it represents constitutes an ethnic, rather than just linguistic, unity.

This will probably mean removing 95% of the content of this page. I don't care.

People interested in maintaining this page should seriously start getting their act together and source its contents, rather than just edit-warring over it. Fut.Perf. 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Clear criteria will make a consistent article and will prevent pointless edit wars. I've been reverting the anon user and inviting him to discuss, not because I like the state of the page, but because he is not bringing any new clear ideas about how this page should be constructed. It really needs a serious discussion. Please make your proposals and let us start solving it. Many thanks! --Carles Noguera (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I think we should radically get rid of the whole ordering-by-linguistic-relationships idea. In the absence of anything better, I suggest to maintain only a high-level ordering by world regions, and then flat unstructured alphabetical lists within each. At most, we could go down to the level of subregions the size of "Western Europe", "Southern Europe" etc. (although those too would probably lead to problems of definition, and concomitant silliness and lame edit wars).
Having fewer sections won't lead to practical useability problems, because once we take sourcing seriously, the number of actual keep-worthy flag entries will also be reduced a lot.
So, my suggestion is:
  1. First step: remove all the subsection headings, fold everything back into flat lists
  2. Second step: Remove the sentence in the lead that says "The national flags of nations and flags of provinces or autonomous areas that are overwhelmingly composed of a single ethnic group, or that are set up specifically as a homeland for a certain ethnic group, are shown as being the ethnic flag of that people." First, this is a bad example of Wikipedia self-reference (the lead should be talking about the topic of the page, not contain meta-commentary about editorial decisions). Second, it is mainly those entries that contain the most OR – whether a nation or a region is actually the "home" of an identifiable ethnic group is exactly the problem that is usually left open here.
  3. Second step: Everybody is invited to remove any unsourced flag entry they consider questionable, and nobody is allowed to restore it unless they can source it. Sourcing means: reliable independent source confirming (a) that the entity referred to is in fact an ethnic group, and (b) that the flag is in wide use by members of that group to denote the group (and not something else).
Fut.Perf. 10:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, though I think most of my flags entry are not liked at Fut.Perf., I also agree with you. Yes, I know, most of the changes I made are based on linguistic relations and I've often used linguistic labels to organize sections and categories. Moreover, we have to admit that a certain organization of the page based on linguistic labels was already there and that the organization in world regions (such as it is now) is not very easy to use. Finally, do not forget that language is one of features that may contribute to define an ethnic group.
However, I believe Fut.Perf.'s proposals viable and I think they contribute to improving the article. Differently, I suggest to organize this page according to the same breakdown by world regions used in the page Lists of ethnic groups. I think this makes consultation easier for the reader who must travel between the two pages. What do you think? --The White Lion (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Coordination with other pages would of course be a useful consideration, good point, but I doubt that other page will work as a model. First, it presents not one but several alternative ordering criteria; second, it is far less comprehensive (essentially, it has entries only where those supposed groups also have articles); third, it also contains problematic OR choices and orderings that are plain wrong. I fear this is just going to bring back the "linguistic" ordering scheme through the back door. Fut.Perf. 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, The White Lion, are you the 86.* IP that has been editing the article? If yes, it would be good if you could make it a habit to always log in when editing; it makes it much easier to follow who's been doing what. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC) was me. It happened sometimes… sorry, but I thought I was logged.--The White Lion (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Returning to the ordering of the sections, I was referring to the criterion of world regions and not to the criterion of language families (as we have already rejected). Anyway, if you consider incorrect the order used in the article I mentioned, we can discard it. But I remain convinced that the sections of this article should be reorganized to make it more readable. Removing the references to language families, a possible scheme could be this:
1 Africa, Arabian Peninsula and Fertile Crescent
1.1 Northern Africa, Arabian Peninsula and Fertile Crescent
1.2 Western Africa
1.3 Middle Africa
1.4 Eastern Africa
1.5 Southern Africa
2 Americas
1.1 North America
1.2 Central America
1.3 Caribbean
1.4 South America
3 Central Eurasia and Northeastern Eurasia
1.1 Central Asia
1.2 Northern Asia
1.3 Eastern Asia
4 Southeastern Eurasia and Oceania
1.1 Southern Asia
1.2 Southeastern Asia
1.3 Australasia and Melanesia
1.4 Micronesia and Polinesia
5 Western Eurasia
1.1 Northwestern Eurasia
1.2 Western Europe
1.3 Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Anatolia
please your remarks --The White Lion (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we just call Europe and Asia by their proper names and not try so hard to shoehorn them into PC terms? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is still in a terrible state[edit]

Hi Fut.Perf., I know your efforts to verify the reliability of what is written in wikipedia and to improve the contents of this article, but I have to say that your latest works on this page made it "more terrible". First, I express my disappointment at the lack of care that you gave to the layout: now, the article is unwatchable. Second, I can share the removal of flags of recognised states, but in the case of regional flags, I can not understand the criterion used to distinguish purely regional flags from "regional ethnic flags" Let me explain. I suppose you removed the Aragonese flag because it is a flag of an Autonomous Community, then, in your opinion, a regional flag. Conversely, you did not remove Valencian flag which is, equally, the flag of an Autonomous Community. Similarly, the Sardinian flag is still displayed, but not the Sicilian one. So, the cases are two: or this distinction is arbitrary, or I can't see the obvious.

Therefore, this article looks like Barney Gumble after a night at Moe's. It can not remain in this horrible state. Here's some alternatives.

1. This is an article and not a gallery, so we have to remove all flags.
2. A small number of flags is enough to exemplify the concept of ethnic flag, so we have to remove all dubious flags.
3. Display a reasonable number of ethnic flags is the purpose of this article, so we have to reach agreement on the criteria adopted to identify a purely ethnic flag.
4. This article was made up to display the largest number of ethnic flags (or presumed ethnic flags), so we have to follow the way walked until this moment.

I believe the third point is the best solution.
Here's what I'm going to do:

1. work on the layout of the page.
2. restore some flags pointed as mere regional flags but equipped with an ethnic connotation.
3. reorganize and semplify the arrangement and the naming (as suggested by Chris (クリス • フィッチュ)) of the sections to help the consultability of the article.
4. research reliable sources.
5. involve users who have contributed constructively to this article in this operation.

Please your remarks--The White Lion (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not fixing the layout issues immediately – I just didn't have the time at that moment, and also foresaw that quite a few further removals or restorations would follow, so I felt it might be okay to leave that for later. As for the distinctions regarding regions, my choices were rough and quick and on the basis of whether I was aware of local claims to "ethnic" distinction. In the examples you mention: I was aware of ethnic regionalism in the Valencian Community (according to our article, its autonomy statute defines the population as a "nationality"), but I am not aware of comparably strong claims in Aragon; I'll be happy to accept evidence to the contrary. Similarly, I was aware Sardinia has a claim to ethnic distinction – again, according to our article, Italian law defines Sardinians as a distinct "people" (popolo), and the linguistic distinctness is quite strong too; whereas I am not aware of comparable claims for Sicily. Here's my proposal for a defining criterion regarding regions: they can go in if there is a notable, widely held claim that the natives of a given region are a distinct ethnic group ("a people", "a nationality"), as evidenced by reliable academic literature; typically this would be manifested either through official recognition as in the cases just mentioned, or through a notable (not just fringe) political separatist/autonomist movement, Fut.Perf. 09:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Moments of confrontation and dialogue are very important, in Wikipedia and in every sphere of life. About regions, I fully agree to use criteria you proposed, but I think they are not enough. Let me explain. Back to the example Sardinians vs Sicilians. The article you refer to misrepresents reality. In fact the Regional Statute of Sardinia does not regulate (and does not define) the concept of "Sardinian People" (not even vaguely). When you read "Popolo Sardo" the word "popolo" is understood as population (ie "all the inhabitants of Sardinia"). In particular, you can read "popolo sardo" only twice, in the Article 15 and in the Article 28. Article 28 says: "The legislative initiative lies with regional government, members of the Council and Sardinian people". Article 15 deals with the branches of the Region and you can read the words "popolo sardo" when it makes a mention of the direct democracy. Moreover, no Italian law defines the Sardinian nation as a distinct people from the Italian one. With regard to its laws, the Italian Republic was careful to not recognize ethnic Sardinian. In fact the law 482/1999 defines the protection of linguistic minorities in the territory of the Italian Republic with these words: "[...] The Republic protects the language and culture of Albanians, Catalans, Germans, Greeks, Slovenes and Croats and those people speaking French, Franco-Provençal, Friulian, Ladin, Occitan and Sardinian. "People who speak Sardinian" is a different concept from "Sardinian people". This fine distinction suggests how difficult it is for any sovereign State (even for a "democratic" and "liberal" State) admit the fact that it rules over a nation not belonging to the ethnic majority. Therefore, your proposal to refer to statal and regional low is fully valid (and objectively justifiable), but it can be applied in rare cases.
More interesting is the criterion of ethnic claims through separatist/autonomist movements. But there is the risk to consider a mere political movements such as ethnic groups. For example, until January 20, 2010, this article indicated Padanians as an ethnic group. In my opinion, criteria you proposed must be reinforced by certain aspects such as: self-designation of a group, history, language, culture and traditions. I hope you share my reasoning. At this point, I go on and proceed with the second step of my work plan (restore some regional flags with ethnic connotations); of course, with your (and other users) cooperation.--The White Lion (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. If you feel I misunderstood the Sardinian case, feel free to remove it. I'd say that if in doubt, I'd rather err on the side of caution and leave an entry out. It can always be brought back on the basis of good sources supporting an "ethnic" claim. Fut.Perf. 10:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Actually I don't doubt the existence of a Sardinian Nationality: Sardinians are a distinct people, but Italian law does not recognize this. The Italian Republic recognizes, at most, the existence of the Sardinian language, while, for example, Sicilian, Neapolitan and Venetian languages do not have an official status, and they are improperly treated as dialects of Italian language (even by most of their own speakers). What I mean is that state laws and separatist claims are not sufficient to identify an ethnic group but they must be accompanied by evaluations (based upon reliable sources) of history, language and culture of a people.--The White Lion (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


The white-blue-red flag was only used for a very short time as a flag of Russia, from 1883 to 1914 as an alternative to the national flag of Russia (black-yellow-white). It was previously the merchant ensign like the Red Ensign is to Britain. It was adopted as the flag of the Russian Federation in 1993, as the flag of the Russians were various flags that stemmed from the flag of the Soviet Union. Russians were identified with the Soviet flag, and are still identified with it in Western minds. The Russians can claim several flags as their ethnic ones, but no one predominates over the other. Before 1858, the national flag of Russia was the Tsar's Imperial Standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove "citation needed" tags[edit]

White Lion, can you please not remove those "citation needed" tags I put in, without in fact providing citations? I really meant it when I said we need to have explicit references for these things, and this means for both aspects of it: for the use of the flag, and for the contention that the thing the flag stands for is an ethnic group. We need this for every single flag in this page. Fut.Perf. 20:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Future Perfect, your tag was removed because I was convinced it was refering to the image Bandera del Reino de Mallorca.svg and not to the entry in total: after replacing the image, I removed your tag. You know I fully share the need to identify sources to support what is written on this page. Therefore, I restore the tag immediately. --The White Lion (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the Mongolian flags and also the qing flag should be removed[edit]

Mongolians from China and Mongolians from Mongolia are the same ethnic group as are Chinese today and Chinese during the Qing Dynasty the flags should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Re: the flag in the article with a symbol resembling the Vergina star and with the caption: "Macedonians [26] (Republic of Macedonia)". The Danforth reference says, "... both Greek and Macedonian nationalists, particularly those in the diaspora, eagely seized on the sun or star of Vergina... both Macedonian and Greek diaspora organizations carried flags...". The text is quite explicit about the flag as an ethnic symbol of the Macedonians in the Greek disapora. Therefore we have at least one source for including the Macedonian Greek flag as well: yellow star/sun against blue background. Politis (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that for Greeks it is not a symbol of their ethnicity, i.e. of being Greek. For them it is a symbol of a regional identity within the Greek ethnos. "Macedonian Greeks" aren't an ethnic group, they are part of an ethnic group, the Greeks. As such, that symbol doesn't belong here. Fut.Perf. 09:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Why one ethnic group can't be a part of another? E.g. Setos are an ethic group, and yet they are a part of Estonians. And sometimes an ethnic group can be a part of several other groups, e.g. Cossacks are a part of both Russians and Ukrainians. Hellerick (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a possibility, but it isn't the case here. Why don't you just quote a reliable source that states that "Macedonian Greeks" are an ethnic group? You doubtless have many. Fut.Perf. 10:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hellerick, that would make sense if "Macedonian Greeks" referred only to those Greeks with a Slavic-speaking or an Aromanian-speaking background, or even Pontians. Each of the three groups could be seen as an ethnos inside an ethnos. But "Macedonian Greeks" refers collectively to all of the above and everyone else that trace their origin in Macedonia.--GroGaBa (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It pays to discuss things... I agree that the Greek Macedonian flag has no place here, it would be like having the flag of Hydra or Corfu. Politis (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tibetans and Uyghurs[edit]

The flags that purport to represent Tibetans and Uyghurs should be removed, because they don't represent those ethnic groups: they represent states that were (or could possibly be) dominated by those ethnic groups. The Kokbayraq flag (blue star and crescent) is a flag sometimes used in the East Turkestan independence movement, and "East Turkestan" is a very multi-ethnic place, as have been the past East Turkestan republics. It most definitely does not represent just Uyghurs. The flag of Tibet, with the exception of Tibet being a more ethnically homogeneous place, likewise represented (represents?) a state (actually it was the flag of the army of Tibet) and not a people. Splittist (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Splittist (or Quigley) is right. I completely forgot to check the progress of the discussion on his tp. In my opinion, if we consider the ethnical composition of East Turkestan (according to PRC's data, published by UNPO), we can read: "9 milions of Uyghurs" and "7 milions of Chinese". These are the largest groups. Assuming that Peking's data is correct, I have a question: which of these peoples could claim indipendence from a Chinese state to form a new Turkic state? Uyghurs or Chinese? If the answer to this question is Uyghurs, Kokbayraq flag is correctly definible as the ethnic flag of Uyghur people. Aside from this provocation, the facts tell us that: 1. one of the sources to which I referred is UNPO; 2. the organization that represents the East Turkestan in UNPO is the World Uyghur Congress (WUC); 3. The WUC conveys requests and interests of the Uyghur people. So, as happens in many cases, a particular people associates itself with a given territory without taking into account the presence of other groups on it. For example, Iraqi Kurds and Assyrians considered a slice of the same territory as part of their homeland. Similarly, the Uighurs claim the whole East Turkistan and they associate their own symbols with all the territory. In conclusion, there is a relationship between the Kokbayraq flag and the East Turkistan only by virtue of the Uyghur people. In other words: the flag is associated with the people and, consequently, with the territory; not vice versa. As regards the Tibetan case, I think it is clear to everyone and it is not necessary to spend more words. On the other hand, I ask anyone who wants to do to deepen the topic. The White Lion (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You say that the Uyghurs associate "their own symbols" with the territory. Uyghur organizations have said that that's the flag they would like for East Turkestan. But no Uyghur (or any other) organization said that Kokbayraq was the flag of the Uyghur people. In the face of this lack of attribution, it should be removed. Am I right in assuming that your saying that the Tibetan case is "clear to everyone" means that you accept that the flag of Tibet is not the flag of the Tibetan people? Quigley (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It means exactly the opposite. Well, given this impasse, I propose to listen to the views of other users who collaborate in this work. I await their posts. TWL (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
After all this time it is clear that these other collaborators are not forthcoming. The policy is clear; we cannot say these flags are the flags of these people because we think so, even if we have long and complex arguments like you do above. That the flags are the flags of those peoples must be directly attributed to a source, and it isn't, so they are removed. Quigley (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the World Uyghur Congress uses exactly that flag, and massively. Leonardo Piccioni de Almeida 16:32, 02 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbëresh flag????[edit]

The flag of the Albanian community who moved in Italy in Medival times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talkcontribs) 22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Bay7x14.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Bay7x14.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bay7x14.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)