Talk:Flag of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Heraldry and Vexillology Portal Flag of the United States is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

An event mentioned in this article is a June 14 selected anniversary

Archives Archive 1 (November 2001 to March 2006)

Contents 1 Retiring the flag 2 George Washington's quote? 3 Crummy looking SVG flags 4 National Colors? 5 War flag? 6 United States article on featured candidate nominations list 7 Washington DC will never be a state 8 Vertical stripes? 9 Ratio of 1.9 10 Star Patterns 11 Folding the flag 12 Flag upside down as a distress signal. 13 Read the US Code before editing!!!! 14 History section needs a rewrite 15 Purported original design of the U.S. flag 16 Etiquette 17 54 Stars 18 Half-staff 19 Polish ancestry or ties?? 20 Does an image of the flag burning belong here? 21 Proposed section on Problems flying the US Flag 22 Flags are missing 23 Duration (if any) of the 49-star flag 24 Copyright

[edit] Retiring the flag

Can we add a section on how to respectfully dispose of the flag when it has become worn? When I was a Girl Scout I learned the proper (respectful! not protest!) burning ceremony for flag retirement, but is this something that is specific to the United States flag code, or is it general flag etiquette? I will avoid adding this section, in case it is not appropriate for this article.64.231.115.217 00:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington's quote?

I added a quote that was credited to George Washington on the Symbolism of the flag. “We take the stars from Heaven, the red from our mother country, separating it by white stripes, thus showing that we have separated from her, and the white stripes shall go down to posterity representing Liberty.” This is like my third edit so I'm not really sure if it is good enough.--RNAi 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crummy looking SVG flags

I don't have time now, but would someone separate out the layers in this file: Image:US Flag All Historical.svg, and upload them to the commons, with pd-self and pd-flag tags?

All of my pretty, high-resolution png flags (uploaded at a time before WP supported svg), have been replaced with ugly looking svg versions. That file linked above has all the layers necessary to save versions of all 20-something correct svg flags, with proper colors and proportions. It would be fine probably to just replace the flags that are currently on the commons, as they are ugly and wrong (for instance, compare Image:US 30 Star Flag.svg to Image:Us flag large 30 stars.png, a particularly depressing example) --jacobolus (t) 09:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, well I fixed it. --jacobolus (t) 11:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Colors?

President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."

This is very interesting because almost every flag you see these days has that yellow fringe border on three sides. However after checking Executive Order No.10834 and the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, it does not say that a military flag is one with the yellow fringes on three sides. In fact it doesn’t mention it at all. This seems interesting the author should sure this up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lancer9910 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the section from the article, since (as you mentioned) the executive order in question does not contain the quote listed, or in addition any reference to yellow, or fringe. As far as I know, the yellow fringe thing is a common theory among some conspiracy theorists, especially if they hold to some of the beliefs common among tax protestors or the Christian Patriot movement. If anyone has any verifiable sources for this quote, then by all means re-insert it. g026r 08:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Institute of Heraldry (as administered through the Pentagon) included this issue in a FAQ on their website. It quotes a 1925 Attorney General's Opinion on the matter which is taken to be the government's official stance on the subject of fringe in the absence of specific legislation on the 'outside' of the flag. Would this be worth adding?--Ray thejake 19:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the full text. Surprised, such text is not both officially archived and easily available online at the same time for verification. Ihn consideration, that 1925 stance was before the 1959 E.O.10834 passage. Within the 10834, it does state that nothing should be attached to the flag along the statement of nothing being put upon it. The fringe itself appears as an attachment to the flag by such statement. An "enhancement" is made to a direct object, and in this case it is the flag the fringe tries to enhance. If it were a background border or color, it would be different. A flag on a shirt is not enhanced by the shirt itself even if the shirt is black, white, gray, orange, etc. I'm sure this can be further argued, but it appears there is symbolism to the fringe. 09:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not be suprised to find out the E.O. 10834 has been altered or dissapeared the way the pertainent part of the 1925 opinion of the Attorney general of the United States has been attempted to be de-emphasised because of "patriot" "crank" motions for nature and cause "bill of particulars" pre plea to determine the jurisdiction which a venue/court is arraigned.

The older smaller volumns of title 4 USC "Flag Seal and Seat of Government, which were republished in the early 1990's by WEST publishing (copywited presentations not actual code BTW); the smaller volumns found room for an exerpt from the 1925 opATTYgen that said in effect: "the placement of the fringe and the number of stars on the flag are not a matter of statuet but are at the descretion of the commander in chief of the Army and Navy"; now lawyers, if this was taken out of context why did west publishing see it as pertaining to Title4 USC and even found room for it in a smaller volumn than the larger replacements(retorically?). The Univerity of Kentucky law library where I photocopied my copy of the page; lost TITLES 1-4 in the older smaller volumns about 1996 and I dont know if it was ever found. They said a "professor" checked them out? So I even hesitate to say where to look as many other volumns could be "lost" as well.

Since I found the 1925 opATTYgen footnote I personally began scrutinizing the "U.S. flags" for many details. The size of the stars diameter has two main offical variations .616 as per title 4 and a version with diameters nearly if not equal to the width of a stripe and on many times with a lighter blue for the union field. This can be seen on many of this adminstration's webpages photos for cabnet personell.

Also, in diplomatic photo ops the flag is always displayed with no tassels or Eagle on the mast only a wooden ball or brass color spike. The ratio of this "diplomatic" flag appears to resemble the 1.19 flag that has hung behind the house of congress since photography has been in use.

The President has appeared several times at different locations with BOTH these variations behind him at the same time, that is; the large star and the small star ensign with all the accutriments of tassels, gold or not and fringe. The most notable of which is the 9-11-01 base speech he made from Lousianna that looked to be impromtude but Air Force 1 no doubt carries such items needed to set up photo ops and speeches so the vexology, in my view was deliberate, the theory comes in guessing what (corporate) entity or government venues these symbolise; the presidents goverment, the military admistration since the war between the "several states" or a corporation filed in the business district of London to admister the banqerupsy of the former Confederate States of America (not the CSA) or ?

unsigned

[edit] War flag?

So... a flag with a gold fringe is the official war/military flag? I find that hard to believe. Rmpfu89 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so now you change it again and claim that the "Dont tread on me" flag is our official naval jack? 24.91.9.206 20:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, it is. See First Navy Jack. Lockesdonkey 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington DC will never be a state

Washington DC is a federal district which is opposite of a state. Similar to the federal district of Berlin, Germany. DC becoming a state is bogus in my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion; however, there is at least one active movement advocating such a change in status. See D.C. Statehood, and DC Statehood Green Party. -ScottMainwaring 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Berlin *is* a Land just like the fifteen other Länder and in no way different from them. Ahem. I see no reason why D.C. shouldn't be a state, too. —Nightstallion (?) 22:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a federal district and b it's a federal district. So if it's always going to be a federal district, you have no case. Citizens who don't like it can move to Maryland! Renegadeviking 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1770, the Thirteen Colonies were a "permanent" part of the British Empire, too. Ancient Egypt was ruled by its pharaohs for millenia before the Roman Empire made it a "permanent" Roman province. And where is either Empire today? Might I suggest that history did not end with the textbooks we read when we were kids? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen. —Nightstallion (?) 11:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It was argued why some representitives do not vote. There are no representitives of D.C. that can vote. Residents of D.C. can not vote because they need to live within a state to obtain full citizenship. People who move to D.C. have a limited time they can vote until their primary residency changes and if it changes, and it does change sometimes. I like to see more facts about this, but this isn't the article about voter rights and citizenship within D.C. 09:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

People who live in D.C. are citizens just like anyone else, and while they don't have Congressmen or Senators, they do vote in Presidential elections. D.C. gets 3 electoral votes, which would be the minimum if it actually were a state. They went for Kerry in 2004. And, of course, they have local government elections. Wahkeenah 10:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be too much of a problem to just give them their congressman and senators then, would it? Just reduce the Federal District to include only the White House, and everything's solved. But since even the Democrat-controlled House of 1993 didn't manage to make DC a state... Well, we'll see. —Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, this discussion should be on the District of Columbia page. You can Talk there all you want. 66.108.105.21 05:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

[edit] Vertical stripes?

This is an interesting quote from a Nathaniel Hawthorne book:

"From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military, post of Uncle Sam's government is here established."

Source: Introduction to The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne, pg. 1

URL: http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Nathaniel_Hawthorne/The_Scarlet_Letter/THE_CUSTOM_HOUSE_p1.html

This is the first I've heard of a flag with 13 stripes turned vertically to signify a civil government office, whereas horizontal stripes signify military. Actually, I've never heard of the 13 stripes turned vertically for any reason. Anyone else heard of this before? 24.18.35.120 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what Hawthorne was talking about, was simply suspending the flag so that it's hanging downward. This "turns the stripes" vertically. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.166.178.1 (talk • contribs) .

United States Civil Flag has information on this. As the article notes: it's considered by most vexillologists to be a hoax, and that it was likely refering to the flag of the United States Customs Service. -- g026r 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are pictures of flags with eagles and an arc of stars above that resemble the Customs House Flags with the vertical stripes,a white field and blue stars and eagle and a version is on the shoulder of the U.S. Coast Guard even today. Hawthorn may have been told his version of the vexology inaccurately or not, but the flags did and do exist. unsigned

[edit] Ratio of 1.9

I edited the paragraph that discusses the 1.9 ratio. As originally written it implied that the alternate-size list made the ratio an open variable -- which it doesn't. The list is specifically for government agencies and lays out eleven specific hoist-fly (width-length) dimensions. Only three of the eleven permitted sizes deviate significantly from the 1.9 ratio, and they are probably intended to cover unique needs (limited space or something like that).

Section 5, which governs display of the flag by individual civilians and civilian organizations, refers to Sections 1 and 2 for the definition of what a US flag is. The alternate-size list is in Section 21, not 1 or 2.

So apart from three specific flags of specific dimensions, which are authorized specifically for government agencies, a US flag is in fact defined by law as having a 1.9 ratio. By strict legal definition, the 3x5 footer (ratio 1.66) that most people buy at retail stores is not a US flag.

Note however that Section 3 (which deals with mutilation and other abuse of the US flag) uses much broader language, which essentially says that if a layman easily recognizes something as a flag, then it's covered by Section 3. Which DOES cover the 3x5 footer, along with many other representations -- going all the way down to the little paper job that you sometimes see attached to toothpicks.

[edit] Star Patterns

Wouldn’t it be possible to add Great Star Patterns (where the stars are arranged into a large star), circular patterns or diamond patterns into this article? In my opinion these patterns were more inspirational and beautiful than the present day nine offset horizontal rows. .--Lumber Jack 12:50, 4. Jul 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Folding the flag

It appears that the folding section was taken from usflag.org however, I don't think it's complete. I thought the final step involved tucking the last rectangular section into the triangle, as described on crwflags.com. Additionally, I was always under the impression that a "perfectly folded" flag only showed four whole stars more like the picture on usflag.org (but even here it appears crooked). The animation ends on a rather sloppy fold in my opinion. Am I nit-picking? Hoof Hearted 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoof, a bit of a delay in response, but, no, it doesn't matter whether or not 4 stars are showing. The problem is that flags vary in thickness and there will be some variation from flag to flag. Specifying the end result will present problems with flags made from thinner/thicker material as it will when flags are wet. Perhaps this should be included in text of the page. BQZip01 06:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BQ! You bring up some good points. I think including this in the article would probably only clutter up the section and borders on original research. But I'm glad to know it for my own peace of mind.  :-) Hoof Hearted 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

probably what leads to this misconception is folded flags in display cases. Those flags (especially those done by professionals) usually have the "correct" 4 stars showing because they are placed around a hollow block that slides into the display. The flag is then neatly folded into the hollow space in the block and the back of the case is sealed. It isn't technically up to specs, but it looks nice and no one can prove a thing without taking apart the display case.

BTW, I just looked back at your assertion and realized that there isn't anything about tucking the remainder into the flag. I'll add it here in a few minutes. Good catch! BQZip01 05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag upside down as a distress signal.

This article says that it is not true that an American flag can be used as a distress signal when flown upside down. This is not correct. According to AFPAM36-2241V1 "Do not display flag with union down, except as a distress signal" This can be found here: [US Airforce Electronic Publication Site] This manual is the study guide enlisted members use for promotion. Maybe other services do not recomend it, but it is being taught to all USAF personnel.TchussBitc 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is a part of the US Code Title 4 Chapter 1, section 8. I will edit the wiki.TchussBitc 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read the US Code before editing!!!!

I've been reading through some edits on this page and people are adding false information. The US Code is a federal law that provides guidance on the American flag. I've noticed people inputing false information that is easily proven wrong by reading the US Code.

Now that I am off my soap box, I can't figure out how to reference properly, and I'd like my references to conform to the style of this page. Anyone care to correct my edits to reference the same style as the article? Thanks! TchussBitc 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would think the U.S. Government has the flag code somewhere within it. Barring that, there's always the page in the World Almanac. Wahkeenah 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section needs a rewrite

Despite it's A-Class rating, this article has some major problems, in particular in the History section. Various contradictory theories regarding the origin are presented, but without referring to the consensus by historians (if one exists). The first flag is referred to as Grand Union and as Continental Colors and as wrongly called the Grand Union. Illustrating images are a mess. The overall flow is awkward. Would someone knowledgable please take a stab at fixing this? --ScottMainwaring 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purported original design of the U.S. flag

In the video The Illuminati Vol. II - The Antichrist Conspiracy (2006), by Chris Everard, there is a claim made that "The Original Design of the U.S. Flag" is an image shown of a flag that I've never seen before. It is made up of one dark side on the left and one light side on the right. On the left/dark side there are 7 stars forming a half circle around a glowing eye placed in the middle of the dark/left side, shining nine rays of light onto the light/right side. The eye looks very much like the Eye of Providence and, given the context of this video, is implied to be representative of the Illuminati. According to conspiracy theories (as discussed in the video), the Illuminati is a secret organization controlled by Luciferians conspiring to control the world. That may sound ridiculous, but nonetheless there is a great deal of evidence to back it up, and in either case whether or not the Illuminati exist or are evil is beside the point. My point is that there was a strange version of the U.S. flag presented in the video and should be investigated and recognized in this article. I feel that whether or not it is found to be an actual early version of the flag or not, it would still deserve mention (and a picture) here, at least stating that it is believed by some to be an early version of the U.S. flag. This video, I believe, is available at EnigmaTV.com.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sloth monkey (talk • contribs) 09:38, November 3, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette

Can someone confirm, that it is indeed correct to flip the flag at its vertical axis when hanging down, so the stars still appear in the upper left corner? As with the South African flag. I have seen it at President Bush visits in Denmark and Jordan, and also seen it not done at the olympics. Medico80 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 54 Stars

The US World War I museum has a flag that belonged to General Pershing from the war, and has 54 stars. Any idea of why this might be? It was given to the museum around the time it was dedicated in 1926, but dates from 8-10 years before that.

[edit] Half-staff

It is just me, or has the flag been flown almost continuously half-staff since pearl harbor day, and then will be until January 26th-ish because of Ford's death? What is the record for longest half-staff either continuously or almost continuously? → JARED ^(t)  15:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize your interest in the matter, but, unfortunately, this cannot be determined. Local officials can direct a flag to be flown at half staff for just about any reason. Because of that and the fact that no records are kept on the subject, it is a curiosity that will go unanswered. Sorry for the bad news. BQZip01 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish ancestry or ties??

Hello, there is an interesting flag in Poland that resembles Stars and Stripes: the flag of Sandomierz town. To my best knowledge, it predates the first US Stars and Stripes and Betsy Ross Flag by ca. 16 years (I think it was enacted in 1760, while the USA began to be an independent country in 1776). The flag may be even older, as I've seen it on some map as the flag of Sandomierz territory (ziemia sandomierska in Polish; it was a kind of local province or something). Do you know anything more about those issues?? They're really interesting for me, especially that I'm Polish:) Critto

The various flags or ensigns of the [British East India Company] strongly resemble the first battle flag chosen by General Washington and probably are the pattern that inspired the flag for the "several states" of the revolution. unsigned

[edit] Does an image of the flag burning belong here?

Image:Flag burning.jpg, There seems to be some controversy regarding this image added to the Gallery section by an anonymous editor today. In removing it, User:Wahkeenah argued, "Flag-burning is offensive and has no place here." I would not argue its offensiveness, but I think it actually is not out of place here, given the longstanding and emotional controversies about the burning of the U.S. flag, and indeed the frequency with which this particular national flag is burned as almost a cliche of the growing anti-Americanism in many parts of the world. Furthermore, it's my understanding of WP:NPOV is not that offensive (from some POV's) material is prohibited, but rather that the overall encyclopaedic content needs to be balanced and un-biased. As it stands, this page I think has some overall pro-American bias, which more highlighting of anti-US-flag beliefs and practices could actually help remedy. What do other editors think? --ScottMainwaring 07:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I recall some outrage in the Cuban community following a Seinfeld episode which involved the accidental ignition of a Cuban flag and Kramer stomping on it to put it out. The only reason for including such an image is anti-nation POV-pushing, which you have as much as admitted to. Wahkeenah 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• There is an article about the proposed anti-flag-burning amendment (which I do NOT support, FYI) which would maybe be a more appropriate place to put this photo. Wahkeenah 15:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "anti-nation POV-pushing", only in editorial balance, and in more coverage in this article about this flag's role in international anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism is related to but outside the scope of the Flag Desecration Amendment article, which is focused on the domestic political debate. And please note that I'm not endorsing anti-Americanism, just arguing for its importance as a topic. --ScottMainwaring 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed section on Problems flying the US Flag

There are several instances of people having problems flying the US Flag.

• Connecticut Woman Ordered to Remove U.S. Flag From Condo

EAST WINDSOR, Conn. — Her son is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, but one Connecticut mother is waging a war of her own over her right to fly Old Glory on her front lawn. Connecticut Woman Ordered to Remove U.S. Flag From Condo. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250541,00.html

Connecticut Woman May Win Battle for Old Glory

EAST WINDSOR, Conn. — The Connecticut condominium association that asked the mother of a National Guardsman to remove her flags and flagpole will allow the woman to keep Old Glory flying if she moves her flagpole from the center of her lawn, FOXNews.com learned Wednesday. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250760,00.html Crocoite 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Donald Trump Files $10 Million Lawsuit Against Palm Beach After Being Cited for Large Flag

PALM BEACH, Florida — Donald Trump is suing this oceanside town for $10 million after being cited for flying an oversized U.S. flag over his Mar-a-Lago Club. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238626,00.html

New articles and further details on these articles would be referenced in this section. Crocoite 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags are missing

The flag 23, 36 and 37 are missing in the 'US stars and design duration' section. Could someone put them back. Freedom Fighter 1988 05:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duration (if any) of the 49-star flag

Just to further press the point,on April 18,1818 Congress approved an act finalizing the design of the American flag.Thirteen alternating red and white stripes representing the original colonies and one star for each of the states with a new star being added on the July 4th after the date a House Resolution or Senate Bill,approved by Congress to make a territory a state signed by the then sitting President into public law.(1) On July 7,1958 President Eisenhower signed H.R.#7999 into public law making the territory of Alaska the 49th state of the Union.(2) Then on March 18,1959 Eisenhower signed S.#50 into public law making the territory of Hawaii the 50th state of the Union.(3)So on July 4,1959,the first July 4th after these two events. the flag increased directly from 48 to 50 stars. Although Eisenhower did also sign an executive order proclaiming Hawaii a state on August 21,1959(4),this was just simply a ceremonial gesture as Hawaii was already made a state the previous March.Therefore there has never been a Federally sanctioned 49 star flag.Any design for this flag is a bogus creation possibly by one or more flag manufacturers "jumping the gun" with a design sometime prior to March 1959 and has been promoted by those with no knowledge of the difference between the rules and laws making a territory a state and what an executive order &/or proclamation is. This means on July 4,2007 the 50 star design will surpass the iconic 48 star design as having had the longest service to America. William F.Hendricks Source Material: (1)Encyclopaedia Britannica 1956 Set,Volume 9,Page 347A (2)Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1959,Page 3 (3)Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1960,Page 36 (4)Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1960,Page 38 (Posted 17:00, 28 February 2007 by 24.193.214.232, identified in text as William F. Hendricks; moved here from main article page by ScottMainwaring 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

This specifically states that there WAS NO 49 star flag and that is why I deleted it. The webpage you cited shows nothing more than a picture of a 49 star flag and no relevant historical information. In my edit I specifically requested any information to be posted. So far, none has. Why re-include it? I'll give anyone until 9 March to respond, but the 49 star flag comes down then.BQZip01 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just to explain my reasoning: I re-included it because I felt by taking the 49-star flag out one was at the same time making an unattributed (unless the reasoning that started this thread checked out; certainly, it can't be simply accepted without delving into it) assertion that the 48-star flag lasted until 1960. That assertion, that seems likely false from the discussion that follows, shouldn't be included in the article without support. Hence I took it out, and reverted to the original state of the article. --ScottMainwaring 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not this proves anything further, but I have one of those historical site souvenir shop posters called "History of Famous American Flags", which includes the following comments about the 48 and 50-star flags: "1913-1959: President Taft issue an executive order on June 24, 1912, establishing the 48-star flag. He also prescribed the relative proportions of the flag and the arrangements of the stars. An investigation had disclosed that more than 36 different sizes and proportions were in use by various federal departments of government... The 48-star flag remained our national emblem for more than 46 years." That is, until sometime past June 24, 1958. There is no 49-star flag shown nor mentioned. For the 50-star flag it says, "1960-present: After Alaska and then Hawaii joined the Union, a new design and arrangement of stars were required in the union of the flag. In the order issued by President Eisenhower on August 21, 1959, the national banner with 50 stars became the official flag of the United States." Wahkeenah 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The World Almanac states that Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959, and that Hawaii followed on August 21, 1959. It goes on to say, "The 50-star flag was raised for the first time on July 4, 1960. The 50th star had been added for Hawaii; a year earlier the 49th, for Alaska." It goes on to say that "No law designates the permanent arrangement of the stars. However, since 1912, when a new state has been added, the new design has been announced by executive order." That would seem to be self-contradictory. However, it also explains the significance of August 21, 1959. The question is whether Ike had issued an order for a 49-star flag. If not, then the 49-star flag would seem to be an invention. But the 50-star flag would not have gone into effect on July 4, 1959. In fact, although I was pre-teen then, I have a vague recollection of there being some discussion and debate about this topic. Further research would seem to be called for. Wahkeenah 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This site says that Hawaii celebrates the third Sunday in August as "Admission Day" and that there was a 49-star flag for a year. One thing I am fairly certain of at this point is that that whatever the flag looked like on July 4, 1959, did NOT yet have 50 stars. [1] Wahkeenah 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This site makes the assertion that there was, in fact a 49-star flag for one year, and that it was authorized by Eisenhower on January 3, 1959, and that the original flew over Independence Hall and was later given to the Alaska governor. [2] Wahkeenah 10:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This site [3] states that Alaska and Hawaii honor July 4th as the dates in 1959 and 1960, respectively, when their stars were added to the flag. The states also celebrate January 3rd and the third Sunday in August, respectively, as "admission day". Wahkeenah 10:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The more you search, the more info you find supporting that there was, in fact, a 49-star flag for one year. Wahkeenah 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection to the last comment, but a viable link should be provided showing this information. In additoin, a state's admission to the union is not the same as when it was added to the flag, so that information is of little consequence for purposes of this discussion. I recommend adding a link to the Executive Order that added another star to the flag (if you can find it). If not, this one will suffice: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/20060704.html . BQZip01 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Even the N.Y. Times is a secondary source. If you could find a comprehensive list of executive orders, that would be a good primary source. Wahkeenah 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to recall just what the debate was in 1959. I'm thinking that it was that, although the 49-star flag was to go into effect on 7/4/59, it was already known that Hawaii would be the 50th state, so why change the flag for just one year... unless it was for "political correctness", i.e. to throw Alaska a bone? I vaguely recall that, flag-wise, it was as if Alaska came into the "union" in 1959, and Hawaii in 1960. There seems to be evidence that some 49 star flags were produced and used by government agencies. I wonder how to find out (barring going to the library and scanning microfilm) how widespread the 49-star flag was? Wahkeenah 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Executive orders listed above clearly show a lack of a 49 star flag, but many sources say otherwise. I would check the white house website. You might find some there. BQZip01 05:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The key Executive Order here is number 10798 issued by Eisenhower on January 3, 1959. I've been unable to find the exact text online; the closest I've come is a document entitled Remarks Upon Signing the Proclamation Admitting Alaska to the Union and the Executive Order Changing the Flag of the United States issued that same date. It's clear, at least to me, that this EO changed the official flag of the US to a 49-star version effective the following 4th of July. Executive order 10834 of August 21, 1959 -- which it is easy to find online as it's the current flag specification -- revokes 10798 in section 33, but not before defining the flag design it specifies to be official until July 4, 1960 in section 31. (Mr Hendricks comments above assume, mistakenly, that the flag somehow (by sheer will of Congress?) automatically changes on the July 4th following admission of one or more states to the Union since the previous July 4th; interesting theory, but the documents don't bear this out. Executive Orders, not some automatic process, are what actually define changes to the flag.) --ScottMainwaring 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The automatic process thing is the same problem I had with it. http://www.qmfound.com/us_flag_49th_and_50th_star.htm shows the history of how the 49-star flag came into existence, but again does not show the text of the Executive Order. This presents a problem since we don't know what it says exactly. However, I believe we can infer by the date of EO 10798 (3 January 1959) and the text of 10834 that a new official flag should have been flown as of 4 July 1959. Therefore, the 49 star flag should stay. Anyone who wants to make a change/deletion should provide specific evidence that refutes this discussion. BQZip01 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

There's no mention of who owns the copyright image of the flag and what the guidelines are for printing.

• If you mean the flag in general, it's a product of the US government, so its presumably in the public domain. Anyone can make a US flag. Wahkeenah 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)