Talk:French colonial flags
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
French colonial flags is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
 |
French colonial flags 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). |
While the previous page were these entry were has been fixed, the same problem still exist about the background, namely: there is no such things as a plain white or green "republican french ensign" as well as no proof that they ever existed.
To take an example, the morocan civil ensign during the french protectorate was *not* a "french red ensign" defaced with a green star, it was the national flag at the time with a french tricolore added in canton. the fact that the result look like such an ensign is just conincidence.
In the same vein, there is no proof (to my knowledge) that any of the other colonial flags were defaced template and not created in toto.
finaly, the dimension were not all the same contrary to what is suggest but were chosen based on its relation to the element of its design, another proof that they were modififed template.
So once more, the whole "copying from the british" and "template" idea is groundless and should be cut from the page.
--Marc pasquin 17:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Marc, please edit the article as you see fit. Don't worry about your English, we can fix any grammatical or vocabulary problems once you've made your edits.Homey 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My Edits
I just added a few precisions and removed a lot of what was there before. While this might seem drastic, I have explained higher up why they they did not belonged on the page.
Before you, Don, simply revert or write a long list of historical french colonial flag, try and understand this: I am not picking on you but most of what you wrote are not accepted facts but rather your own personnal interpretation. So, until you can find proof of the existence of both a british link or of actual plain ensigns used as templates, there is no point in putting those sections back in.
Rather, you might want to include images of the various colonies, mandates and protectorates which would probably be more useful. On that last subject, note that the size and ratio of the tricolore in canton is *not* standard from one to the next--Marc pasquin 21:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be useful to include some images of actual French colonial flags in the article, leaving aside the whole "template" question. Homey 22:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- will do--Marc pasquin 00:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Having seperate images would be a great idea, and solve a lot of the problems, but is it really worth deleting all the information until then? The similarities to British ensigns could do with rewording, but I thought I had made sure the version here made it clear that the "plain ensigns" were not actually flags. I guess the word "template" is a bit dodgy, as it could imply they the different colonies deliberately used that design. Would "pattern" be any better? Unless there are severe objections, I'll try and fix the old version on Monday or when I've got time. JPD 17:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with either "pattern" or "template" (and linking it to british ones) is that it imply a standard method of designing them. the only real pattern is that in most (but not all) cases, a tricolore was placed in canton of a previously existing national flag to make its civil ensigns. even then, the size and ratio of the canton seems to be based strictly on the rest of the design. So realy, not much of a pattern. the division between "major" and "minor" template also seem to lack historicity, the only reason why some colours are present then other has to do with the place being colonised (and its previous flag) more then any real considerations at hierarchy.
- One better avenue in my opinion for the "british segment" was the suggestion made by James to make a "Similarly designed european/world ensign" to draw paralel (intentional or coincidental) between various countries. To put it here would just add confusion: yes the morocoan red-fielded flag was its civil ensign during the french protectorate era but so was its national flag. --Marc pasquin 17:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
It should be possible to describe the fact that they have a similar design without implying that this was deliberate. Template is definitely a bad word for this, and it seems pattern is bad as well. I'll see what I can do. JPD 09:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- but then you will encounter some problem with, for example, jebel druze and the syrian mandate which do not have a single coloured field. Also, greater lebanon (and one or 2 others) are defaced tricolores themselves. I'm sorry if I sound difficult, I just don't see how drawing paralel where there weren't any is helpful.--Marc pasquin 13:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] JPD's edits
That's a good start johnatan but I think a division into categories of the flags with more historicity would be along the lines of:
- pre-existing flags defaced with the french naval ensign - pre-existing flags defaced with the french national flag - flags created in toto - Defaced tricolore
I have been reading up on the subject on FOTW, Pierre Guay's site and other sources but try as I might, I just can't see the justification of dividing it by field colours. To me, this would be like describing the british flag as "blue defaced with an 8 arms' red and white cross".
Maybe I'm wrong on this so hopefully other vex inclined readers can chime in.
--Marc pasquin 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, IMHO there is never anything wrong with classifying flags by appearance, as long as this isn't taken to imply common origins. But that doesn't mean it is the best way to list them here - I tend to think that it would be best to do it by historical period or geography, which might actually match the categories you've got above. However, FOTW does suggest that the Syrian flags existed both with national flag and naval ensign cantons, so I don't think they should be split up. Anyway, as you say, it's a start - hopefully there's some acceptable info there now, to be rearranged or added to, rather than deleted. JPD (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
