text:
Talk:Logogram

Edit
I'm removing the following passage.

 * The earliest alphabets (like hieroglyphs and cuneiform) are believed to have started as collections of logograms, which only later got a more general meaning.

Problems with this include:

 * 1) The writing systems given as examples are not alphabets, as far as I know.
 * 2) Are we sure these systems got started as "logograms"? I thought the party line was they started as pictograms and then morphed into ideograms.
 * 3) I don't know that anyone characterizes either example as logographic.

--Ryguasu 01:53 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Many people also believe that once learned, logographies can be read more quickly than alphabets.

If someone could find a reference for this, it would be more concrete. KaiSeun 08:27:45, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

Kinda hard... I've made some changes to make it more accurate, but someone should add in info on other languages. --Rmdsc 09:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

question on external link
I don't understand the relevancy of the link "A Typographic Outcry: a curious perspective". Can someone elaborate? The link also exists in Chinese character and Writing system.
 * I seriously doubt anyone would object if you just deleted it ... kwami 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just have. --Swift 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Style
This article reads like an essay. It would be more useful with fewer examples and a more objective tone. Dave 05:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Typesetting
Examples are not viewable if you do not have the language installed.

Suggest replacing text with images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.161.173.163 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Suggest using software that supports i18n and/or installing appropriate fonts. --Swift 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Chinese as logographic
Chinese characters need not represent words or morphemes. If I recall correctly, John DeFrancis cites the example of 葡萄 (grape), where neither character had anything to do with the meaning of grape, i.e. the two-character sequence (葡萄) is one morpheme that cannot be analyzed further. More modern examples: loanwords like 巧克力 (meaning chocolate, pronounced in Mandarin qiaokeli). Again the multi-character sequence is one basic morpheme. The character 力 (meaning "strength") only has a phonetic role (to mimic the "-late" sound in chocolate). In short, whereas all (?) Chinese characers arguably represent one or another morpheme, they may also be used strictly for the sounds they represent or otherwise in a capacity where the morpheme requires more than one character to express (葡萄). Characters used this way are not logographic. A-giau 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * You're perfectly correct, and the article should reflect this. Chinese is logosyllabic - in fact, I don't know if there is or ever has been a pure logography anywhere in the world.

 * As for 葡萄, about 10% of old Chinese vocab is disyllabic - mostly names of plants and bugs - and very often the individual glyphs mean nothing at all: a plant or bug radical was added to two existing glyphs, with a result unique to that word. kwami 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Its a myth that Chinese is logographic. People like to select various characters that have associated meanings, but in truth, a Chinese character is a syllable.  English has associated meansings with its syllables as well.

Is there anything real to the claim of "bimorphemic" characters in Archaic Chinese? The example 王 ('which transcribes both wáng "king" and wàng "to rule"') is merely an orthographic ambiguity, at least from the explanation. A single character that is "bimorphemic" in the relevant sense for the paragraph would mean it has two morpheme units that are invoked at the same time when the word is used, e.g. English "walked" has a verbal morpheme and an inflectional morpheme. 王 would be bimorphemic if it could have meant "the king rules", but I don't have any reason to believe it could. It's also not clear to me how one could split a single-syllable unit in this case into two morphemes, preserving the usual notion of a morpheme. Without a citation and better explanation, this is highly suspect and should be removed. --98.114.75.233 (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Anyway, I've gone ahead and removed this (--98.114.75.233 (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)):

 * In addition, in Archaic Chinese there were bimorphemic words of only one syllable; these were written with one character. An example is 王, which transcribes both wáng "king" and wàng "to rule". The latter was apparently derived from the former with a suffix, *hjwang-s, which is preserved in the modern falling tone. However, in modern Mandarin, bimorphemic syllables are written with two characters: 花儿 huār "flower (diminutive)".

 * In modern Chinese the second meaning of 王(to rule) is not used at all. The "preserved falling tone" only appears when a modern mandarin speaker reads a piece of old text. 130.235.210.93 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Advantage and Disadvantage
I this the current for/against arrangement should be resolved to provide more coherent narrative. I would think relative advantage/disadvantage of the system in term of basic, functional and academic literacy is a start. Logogram system is quite difficult at basic level(can recognise and pronounce syllable). But it is extremly efficient at functional and academic level of literacy. Vapour

 * I agree that the advantage/disadvantage section has major problems. I'm going to delete the sentence "However, it requires far less effort in comparison to memorising proper spelling in English", which is blatantly the opinion of the author and is not backed up by any cited facts. There have been studies on ease of literacy in various writing systems, but someone more knowledgable than me will have to provide the relevant citations. Amadh 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I've taken the bullet-point format and rewritten the whole thing, sectioning it up into three main issues. I didn't bother putting it through a spell checker and I contemplated putting in a few more facts or looking for sources, but this was large enough a task for now. --Swift 05:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Need better separation between simp/trad Chinese examples
In the section stating
 * A logogram-based system uses fewer characters to express something compared to an alphabetic system.

the first example illustrates the problem where the two Chinese variations of the one phrase are "run together".
 * "Return of the King"
 * "王者歸來"/"王者归来"

My first reaction was "Hey, the Chinese is longer!" This is because when simply scanning, the eye does not see the '/' character separating the two quoted strings. It all looks like one quoted string. Only once you know what is going on do you mentally separate the two strings. This is just wrong and I see many following examples like this.

Could we get agreement that it really is better to show these two strings as separate, something like:
 * "Return of the King"
 * "王者歸來" /  "王者归来"

or even
 * "Return of the King"
 * "王者歸來"  /   "王者归来"

if there is a 'correct' way to express extra space in Wikipedia besides using nbsp.
 * I got confused in exactly the same way. I've added some nbsps to space them out. -dmmaus 05:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect advantage
I've removed the following section from the Logogram section. "The meaning of words can be known directly. This significantly reduces the amount of effort required to advance from basic literacy to functional and academic literacy, despite the initial difficulty in becoming literate. Everyone who knows what the characters mean, can know what a new word means without explanation. This advantage become more pronounced as one advances in academia. In English, for example, more abstract words are constructed artificially from Greek or Latin words. These words are often unintelligible to most people outside of the speciality. For example, the word 'logogram' is a combination of the Greek words 'logos' ('word' or 'speech') and 'gram' (“something written” or “drawing”). In Chinese, it is written as 表語文字 (Word expressing letter) and anyone who is literate at a basic level can correctly guess the meaning. Once one learns the basic 2000-3000 letter/words out of the logograms, one immediately becomes functionally literate. And it take small effort to become academically literate at a highly advanced level. On the other hand, in Western languages, for example, there is no lowering of the learning curve for new terms and new vocabulary as they progress academically unless one has learned, or is learning, Greek or Latin. The use of logogram reduces the amount of words one must memorize as most can be read and written almost instinctively. This is cited as the primary reason for the close correspondence between the literacy rate and functional literacy rate in Japan and China." As elaborated upon in words in logosyllabic languages aren't necessarily made up of compound logograms which explain their meaning. Furthermore, there are some languages where technical/new words are created out of descriptive words already in the language. An example is the Icelandic language which has a committies that suggest translations for new words. Examples: flug-vél (flying machine, e. airplane), víð-óma (wide sound / wide sounding, e. stereo). Given the strong presence of words, pre- and suffixes of Greek and Latin origin in the English language, it could be argued that, to a limited extent, the creation of new words from those languages is qualitatively the same. --Swift 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, given the fact that 90% Chinese characters and vocabularies are logographic, and only 10% of them are more logosyllabic, there is an existing advantage in complicated word forming process. It is true that being functional literate in Chinese is much easier than doing so in English. -- May 1, 2007 (GMT)
 * Still not true. Unless we're talking under a high school level. Once we get to higher levels of education there are complex 成语 (lack of an English equivalent), idioms, phrases, "slang" and out of proper education there is still slang and transliterated words like chocolate that reduce literacy. For instance a person could easily understand "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" but "greasy pole" is less obvious. A person can get by using a basic understanding of a logographic language but will never excel at it unless they actually learn the terms available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.212 (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed extreme example and inadequate comparison
I removed the the following due to its inaccuracy: Logograms, however, can be quite complex and won't display well unless shown quite large. An extreme example would be 齉 nàng listen (help·info), the most complicated character in modern Chinese dictionaries. In the end, there seems to be little difference in the information content per area between common writing systems.  Writing complicated logograms, some of which have over ten strokes each, would also take longer than writing simpler characters. The letters of the Latin alphabet, for example, have many fewer strokes (usually one or two, including direction changes) and can be connected leading to very fast writing speeds. Reading logograms is not noticeably faster either since readers of alphabetic languages generally recognize words as patterns rather than spelling them out in their minds.[citation needed]

Finally, logograms cannot be inflected like words in alphabetic systems can. Languages which have imported Chinese logograms, such as Japanese and Korean (which both inflect extensively) cannot accurately describe their languages with logograms alone, and therefore need a separate alphabetic or syllabic system anyway.

Most Chinese Character's stoke count range from 5 to 15, which present no problem in display even in small fonts. The paragraph cite an extremely rare and complex word in dictionary as an example and it does not reflect the true. Such act would be similar to citing the word Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyph- ophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon just to demostrate the point that English won't display well unless shown on large size paper.

The paragraph also made a mistake in comparing the writing speed of an entire Chinese Character ( 10 strokes ) with a single Alphabet (1 to 2 strokes), but fail to mention the fact that a 10-stroke Chinese Character is usally able to form a complete meaning word while a single Alphabet cannot. A proper comparison should be made between Chinese Character and English word.

In general, Chinese text is often more condense than English thus it is faster to write and read. A case in point is, if a piece of text of a third language is translated in to both Chinese and English, both in medium size font, the Chinese translation is typically shorter than the English. Davilaser 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed. A Chinese translation is usually 2/3 the thick of an original English book. And uses less bytes if in digital form.130.235.210.93 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I wouldnt take that too seriously. Chinese translation usually falls under a tradition of Chinese phrase creation in that they prefer using either two or four characters. No matter how ridiculous they'll try their best to sqeeze the meaning into those four characters. Otherise Chinese translations could be just as long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.212 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Examples of Logogrammatical Systems
As far as I know, most shorthand systems, and especially Gregg and Pittman, are definitely not logogrammatical. They're phonetic alphabets. I have removed them from the list of examples.

Additionally, following the Nsibidi link brings one to the Nsibidi article, which states that the system is ideographic. I have also removed this, as to prevent conflict. 63.224.137.99 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of ISO 8859 graphemes
I removed the clause stating that ISO 8859 contains only 256 graphemes. In fact, ISO 8859 is a collection of about 15 different character sets, and each of them has ranges that are reserved for non-printing control characters. No one set contains more than 192 graphemes. The union of all of the sets contains many more than 256. But it's pointless to explain all this in the article. The only significant point to make is that one 8-bit byte is sufficient to encode all the graphemes in any one of the ISO 8859 character sets. Gwil (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ideogram v. pictogram
Please see my recent post at Talk:Chinese_character_classification.

...ignoring the vowels...
It is not totally correct to say that Ancient Egyptians language was written ignoring the vowels. This statement originates from the first tries to understand that language, when the Egyptian language was assumed to be similar to Hebrew or Arabic, were vowels are usually not written. However Egyptian is different, more complicated and, in some way, more primitive. Some vowel is explicitly written, some is defined according to the corresponding consonant. See Jean Capart for valuable books (eg. «Je lis les hiéroglyphes») about reading that language.--Dejudicibus (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Logography v syllabary
Each Chinese square represents a syllable, and multi-syllable words require more than one square. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction/ambiguity
The article states that Chinese characters are logographic and not, at least strictly, ideographic, and yet one class of Chinese character are termed ideographic, and seem to me to fit that definition. I think the factors that class Chinese characters as logographic rather that ideographic should be made clearer. Or we could instead class them as ideologographic or logoideograpic. ZFT (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Egyptian Hieroglyphs were mostly phonetic, not Logographic
As James Allen's book Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs emphasises, while Egyptian Hieroglyphs did indeed use a large amount of logographs relative to modern scripts (except those using Chinese Characters), the use of logographs was largely limited to simple roots whose referent could be pictured, such as pr "house", r "mouth", jb "heart, mind", &c.. And while most content words were written with determinatives (look at Wikipedia's index of Gardiner's Sign List for the list, if you so wish), the rest was purely phonetic - specifically, alphabetic (even when the numerous multiliteral signs are included). This should be made clear when relevant in this article. Jamutaq (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Good show. :) —Ringbang (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition?
This article does not appear to have at its beginning a definition of what a logogram is and what characterizes a logographic writing. It jumps right into descriptions ancient languages without a simple definition, which is somewhat confusing. Could someone with a better grasp of logograms than I do fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.218.209 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. The article makes no damn sense. Sadly, I am not the editor for this job. Popcornduff (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * . But it looks to me like the rest of the article is written about logographic writing systems, so maybe Logography is a better headword for this article. We definitely need more high-quality citations as well. logogram and ideogram have contradictory definitions in many sources. —Ringbang (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Blissymbol(ic)s
I was wondering if Blissymbols aren't purely logographic ... They are used by speech disabled people especially, but they were based on the idea of having an international writing system like for numerals, based on an idyllic conception of Chinese characters as purely symbolic writing.

Charles K. Bliss' original ideas came to be published around 1950, in a work first called Semantography. Jansegers (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems so. I found several sources on Google Books that describe blissymbols as a synthetic system of logographs. —Ringbang (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Language vs writing system
I changed the title to "Differences in processing of logographic and phonologic writing systems". It's clearly about writing systems and not about languages. We will probably have to revise more here. Laypersons often do not see the difference between writing systems and languages and this is absolutely understandable but still... Wathiik (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Alphabetic sounds and puzzling words iLogogtam
If two different characters would have the same sounds just as c and k in cake and kick for example or girl and giraffe, imagine as it is the H and KH being sounded sometimes as h as in He/he and other times as in kh as in k. Then, hanji; Kanzi; Hanja; ; and Han tu;  and all were to be read with the first character sound as k/kh where at one point is selected the H/h sound as k, dropping the h sound,  and at another, the k/kh sound,  and all four words were to start with the k/kh sound, and the j were to be sounded as “y”  for example as in the Scandinavian Languages then, with the first sound as k/kh, they will read as follows: - k/khanji meaning beyond Kanzi = kan zi meaning beyond this (masculine singular=m/s) Hanja = Han ja meaning beyond that (feminine singular = f/s) Han tu meaning beyond that (masculine singular m/s)

These are Mandarin Chinese; Japanese; Korean, and Vietnamese (source en.m.Wikipedia: Logogram). respectfully of which I am not knowledgeable. The analysis and meanings given above is based on another ancient language of the larger region of Ancient Near East. The question arises, “How much of an influence and interaction did exist between the Far East and the Near East, and when? Which direction was the influence/‘ Further thorough and conclusive analysis could only be done by scholars and come up with irrefutable conclusion.

The meaning of the words as given above are used in indicating positions and placement. For example in writing, or in placing some material in position, ( including during construction); especially in phonetic writing where every alphabet or character is selected individually and placed where the string of alphabets would then make a word. Alphalang 76.240.109.159 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How logograms "separate writing from pronunciation" (no they don't)
"Separating writing and pronunciation"

There is no separation, unless you are talking about morphographic kanji, but morphography is irrelevant here.

"The main difference between logograms and other writing systems is that the graphemes are not linked directly to their pronunciation."

They are. All logographic systems indicate pronunciation one way or another.

"An advantage of this separation is that understanding of the pronunciation or language of the writer is unnecessary, e.g. 1 is understood regardless of whether it be called one, ichi or wāḥid by its reader."

You can use any written word in any writing system to that end. Inherent qualities of the writing system in question are irrelevant.

"Likewise, people speaking different varieties of Chinese may not understand each other in speaking, but may do so to a significant extent in writing even if they do not write in Standard Chinese."

No, they can't. Grammar is different, words are different, even characters are different.

"Therefore, in China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan before modern times, communication by writing (筆談) was the norm of East Asian international trade and diplomacy using Classical Chinese"

The only difference with use of Latin in Europe is that they couldn't talk in it.

"This separation, however, also has the great disadvantage of requiring the memorization of the logograms when learning to read and write, separately from the pronunciation."

Ideograms (the vast minority of characters) are separated from pronunciation, phono-semantic compounds (the vast majority) aren't. You've called them "vague hints a most", but one, phonetic system need not be exact to be called phonetic, two, there are plenty of cases where they match exactly and three, as I've mentioned, they represent the firm majority of characters, rendering "at most" an incorrect claim.

"Though not from an inherent feature of logograms but due to its unique history of development, Japanese has the added complication that almost every logogram has more than one pronunciation."

If it is not inherent, then why is it even mentioned?

"Conversely, a phonetic character set is written precisely as it is spoken"

No, it's not. Dungan ignores tones, Indonesian writes two vowels the same way, Turkmen ignores long vowels, Persian does not write vowels at all. They are all still phonetic systems.

"Many alphabetic systems such as those of Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and Finnish make the practical compromise of standardizing how words are written while maintaining a nearly one-to-one relation between characters and sounds. Both English and French orthography are more complicated than that; character combinations are often pronounced in multiple ways, usually depending on their history. Hangul, the Korean language's writing system, is an example of an alphabetic script that was designed to replace the logogrammatic hanja in order to increase literacy. The latter is now rarely used, but retains some currency in South Korea, sometimes in combination with hangul."

None of this has any relevance to the topic.

"According to government-commissioned research, the most commonly used 3,500 characters listed in the People's Republic of China's "Chart of Common Characters of Modern Chinese" (现代汉语常用字表, Xiàndài Hànyǔ Chángyòngzì Biǎo) cover 99.48% of a two-million-word sample. As for the case of traditional Chinese characters, 4,808 characters are listed in the "Chart of Standard Forms of Common National Characters" (常用國字標準字體表) by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China, while 4,759 in the "Soengjung Zi Zijing Biu" (常用字字形表) by the Education and Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong, both of which are intended to be taught during elementary and junior secondary education. Education after elementary school includes not as many new characters as new words, which are mostly combinations of two or more already learned characters."

Again, irrelevant. 95.53.165.168 (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Article needs a total rehaul, is not adequately familiar with its subject
As outlined by many of the headings above, this article is the comparatively rare example where I feel it is actively harmful to an unfamiliar reader's understanding of the subject. Among numerous framing errors, it constantly equivocates in the nervous way that someone does when they do not have a working understanding of a subject, with jagged sidelines to topics that perhaps feel more comfortable. I think the issue can be fully embodied in the following snippet at the top body section: "Logographic systems include the earliest writing systems; the first historical civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Mesoamerica used some form of logographic writing. A purely logographic script would be impractical for most languages, and none are known. All logographic scripts ever used for natural languages rely on the rebus principle to extend a relatively limited set of logograms"Beside the secondary but glaring historical oversimplifalsehood ('first historical civilizations'), this is confused about why categories are what they are, and why they are important. Fundamentally, it seems to conflate logography with pure, simple ideography. It does not seem to be interested in why writing systems seem to originate as proto-writing ideographies that incorporate phonetic information to become logographies capable of encoding human language.Moreover, it is overly precious about the distinction between symbol and writing system. I feel like I'm turning into the boastful talk-page quoter polemicist, so I'll try to mediate, but Qiu Xigui simply wrote that "a writing system is characterized by the symbols that are contained in it". Logographs correspond to spoken semantic elements of a language, using multiple means of representing them, combining semantic, phonetic, and pure sign components to do so. The examples the article states below as to why no actual logographies exist are immensely flimsy and unhelpful: yes, Chinese languages have multisyllabic morphemes and characters used solely for their phonetic value. Does it scan that English writing now often includes emoji means that it is now not "purely" alphabetic? Of course not, that is not helpful to understanding how the writing system actually works. The point is that symbols on the whole work a given way, and exceptions and innovations on top of that system do not put a crack in that system. The logographic systems listed are...well, logographic! What are these exception characters if they're not logograms? They're not letters or syllabograms, so what are they? The article tells you: they are "logograms". They are not purely logographic, but they are indeed logograms. This sort of nuance might be fine in the body after a proper introduction has been done, but presented in the way it is, it actually constitutes misinformation. Remsense 留  09:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These seem like reasonable concerns to me (not a professional in this area, just a linguistics minor on my degree). Various bits of this article have always rubbed me wrong, but it seemed like a really big job to dive into, and one better done by someone with more of an expertise in the topic area. That said, the edit you did to the lead might be necessary for concision, but the detail elided from it needs to be in the article somewhere. "In the Sinosophere" is meaningless to most of our readers, so the quick run-down of the Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese character sets (by name) borrowed from Chinese is important information; perhaps it should instead be retained as introductory material at the top of the "Chinese characters" section, if it's too much detail for the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, agreed on the Sinosphere point, I just always feel bad about omitting Zhuang or Vietnamese for the sake of concision or making them all less important as part of a lengthier list.  Remsense  留  19:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Logogram


text:
Carol Lynn Maillard

Carol Lynn Maillard (born 1951) is an American actress, singer, and composer. She is one of the founding members of the Grammy Award-winning a cappella ensemble Sweet Honey in the Rock.

Early life and education
Born and raised in Philadelphia, Maillard was a student of the GESU SCHOOL in Philadelphia and also graduated from John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls' High School. She graduated from The Catholic University of America with a major in theater in 1973.

Stage and Screen
Maillard has acting credits that include roles on Broadway (Eubie!, Comin' Uptown, Beehive); Off-Broadway (in several Negro Ensemble Company productions like Zooman and the Sign, and in New York Shakespeare Festival productions); television (For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf, Hallelujah!); and film (Beloved, Thirty to Life). Much of her career has involved participating in works that are Afro-centric and steeped in African American orality, as well as uplift and support of Black culture

Music
She is a founding member of the group Sweet Honey in the Rock, and has composed and arranged many of that group's songs. Maillard has described the creation of that group as something connecting to the social movements of the time, but also equally inspired by contemporary experimental theater and contemporary popular music. That group has been nominated for a Grammy multiple times, won a Grammy Award for their contribution to the Smithsonian Folkways A Vision Shared album, and have won multiple Washington Area Music Awards Wammies Most of her solo compositions are published via 4 Jagelish Music.

In addition to composing and performing with Sweet Honey in the Rock, she has also been a guest vocalist for other artists, including Horace Silver and Betty Buckley.

Personal life
Maillard has a son, Jordan Maillard, who is also a Los Angeles-based musician. He appears with her in the documentary Sweet Honey in the Rock: Raise Your Voice

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Carol Lynn Maillard


text:
Talk:Flag of Ireland

Flag of Ireland ?
If you take 'Ireland' in the context of the whole of ireland, then it does not have a Flag as it is made up of, two different countries...... Therefore surly the Wikipedia should, actualy read FLAG OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND, being the irish Tri-colour, Green white and Orange, yes orange for the colour blind among us, not Gold. Northern Ireland not having a offical flag since 1972, and use the Union Flag, on government buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon5952 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is recognised as the Flag of Ireland world-wide, and that is what matters to Wikipedia. --Red King (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What! So just because a bunch of Irish Americans ignorantly believe that this flag represents the whole island means that we have to wallow in their ignorance?!!! That doesn't sound very much like an encyclopaedia to me!! 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, in so far as there is no flag of Ireland. However, this article is about the flag of Ireland. Ireland being both the common and official name of the entity that it is the flag of.
 * On occasions, for technical reasons, Wikipedia as to dab between one Ireland and the other (e.g. History of Ireland and History of the Republic of Ireland). On this occasion, since there is no flag of Ireland, there is no need to dab and so we can name the article according to the state's official and common name (e.g. as in Government of Ireland). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 * FWIW, the whole island doesn't have a flag. The Republic of Ireland has a flag & Northern Ireland uses the Union Jack. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WRONG - The whole island had the St. Patrick's cross and the flag of the 4 provinces. Of course no flag is going to be used by any state for the whole island, as no single state spans the whole island. The St. Patrick's cross, however, is used by several all-Ireland NGOs, educational institutions, sporting institutions, and the Church of Ireland on both sides of the border. Not only that, but the St. Patrick's Cross is also used by cross-border governmental bodies such as the Commissioners of Irish Lights!!! 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The naming of this article is indeed quite disingenuous - the most NPOV title would be "Flag of the Republic of Ireland" - I understand that some Irish nationalists may also consider this an all-Ireland flag, but that is an extremely contentious PoV. The St. Patrick's Salitire is more deserving of the title "Flag of Ireland" than the tricolour, the latter which can only be encyclopaedically be described as the "Flag of the Republic of Ireland". 164.129.1.42 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * The result of a very long and deep discussion on the matter of when to use "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" are described at the manual of style for Ireland-related articles. These are subject to an ArbCom ruling.
 * In essence, Ireland is the common name for both the island and the state (as well the states official/diplomatic name). In this case, since the island of Ireland has no flag, there no need to disambiguate between the two "Irelands". --RA (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I completely disagree with your sentence stating "since the island of Ireland has no flag, there no need to disambiguate between the two 'Irelands'". The St. Patrick's cross and 4 provinces flags are both undisputedly flags representing the whole island - either of those is more deserving of the title of "Flag of Ireland" than the Tricolour which officially only represents the southern part of the island. The naming as it stands pushes the PoV that the tricolour is an all-Ireland flag - officially it is not. 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Talk:Flag of Ireland/Archive 1 and Talk:Flag of Ireland/Archive 1 may be of interest. Unless you start a fourth, doomed to fail, move request, I will not be replying further and I suggest nobody else does either. O Fenian (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Translation of the above paragraph - "You have a point there, but I have no answer to it. I want the title here to remain as it is because it suits my Irish Republican PoV. If you make any attempt to move the article back to where it was originally I will get a big bunch of my Irish Republican buddies together and shout louder than you (as we have done before) to ensure that the Irish Republican PoV is maintained above all else." 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would actually also be in favour of moving this article to Irish Tricolour and moving what is currently at the PoV fork of Cross-border flag for Ireland to a much more logical disambiguation location at Flag of Ireland. Flag of the Republic of Ireland would point to Irish Tricolour.
 * This is also entirely in line with the Wikipeida style on Flag of Northern Ireland and Ulster Banner articles. 164.129.1.42 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this point: "Translation of the above paragraph - "You have a point there, but I have no answer to it. I want the title here to remain as it is because it suits my Irish Republican PoV. If you make any attempt to move the article back to where it was originally I will get a big bunch of my Irish Republican buddies together and shout louder than you (as we have done before) to ensure that the Irish Republican PoV is maintained above all else."". It shows a major problem with the Wikipedia project. Facts can be ignored or changed if one gets enough pals to do so.

The fact remains that Ireland is an island group split between two states. One state uses the Tricolour whilst the other, the Union Flag. Neither of these flags are "The Flag of Ireland" so neither should be listed as such in Wikipedia.

Perhaps the whole article should be erased and the subject of flags depicted in articles about the two states? That would be better than an erroneous and very contentious article based on bigotry and the aspirations of some members? Acorn897 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest to regular contributors - Don't Feed The Trolls. --HighKing (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with others here - this article is quite disingenuously titled and worded - indeed not what you would expect from an encyclopaedia and inconsistent with articles on other countries. On the Republic of Ireland government's main website there is an essay linked directly from the front page discussing symbols of Ireland. Some of the symbols mentioned in this essay are all-island symbols, however, when the article comes to mention specifically the tricolour flag it says this: "Even the tricolour, the popular name of the Republic of Ireland’s green, white and orange flag" - surely this should be the overruling referenced precedent on the issue!!!

The best, most logical, and least PoV solution would also to be consistent with the Northern Ireland and United Kingdom flag articles and have separate articles for the flag itself and for the flag of the state - i.e. the content of this current article should be split into two different articles Irish Tricolour and Flag of the Republic of Ireland (the former discussing more detail on the history of the flag etc., and the latter could also discuss state variants such as those used on ships etc.); this would be entirely consistent with the Ulster Banner/Union Flag and Flag of Northern Ireland/Flag of the United Kingdom articles respectively. The title Flag of Ireland as it stands is just blatant PoV-pushing and this page should really disambiguate such a contentious issue and take some of the content from the stupidly named Cross-border flag for Ireland article with some extra content added in there (tricolour added). For those that wish to point out the [controversial!] northern Irish Nationalist use of the tricolour: that aspect is already well covered in Flag of Northern Ireland article - note also the article at Ulster Flag - this was made into a disambiguation.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander! IrishBriton (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good points, i support your proposed solution to this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * There are several problems that I would see. The first is that there is no problem: the subject of this article is the flag of Ireland. That is the name of the state, both its common name and its official name. The flag described in this article is the flag of that state.
 * The second is that the Union Flag article deals with the development of the Union Flag over time, as there has been several of them aside from the current one. The flag the contemporary state follows the same format as here: "Flag of [common name of state]").
 * The third is that Northern Ireland does not have a flag so of course the article on the Ulster Banner is not located at Flag of Northern Ireland: the Ulster Banner is not (today) the flag of Northern Ireland.
 * Finally, the statement that the title of the article is "blatnant POV pushing" just doesn't hold up to interrogation: the official name of the state is Ireland, the common name of the state is Ireland and the only other entity called Ireland doesn't have a flag. The subject of this article is the one and only "flag of Ireland". Just because that Ireland is the state, not the island, doesn't change that fact one iota.
 * Of the editors frequently commenting on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland issue, my reflex is to always put the island first and use "Republic of Ireland" to dab the state; but when there is no other "XXX of Ireland", that simply becomes an absurdity.
 * The dab link at the top could be made clearer and it could be pointed out more in the introduction that the flag is not the flag of the entire island of Ireland, but just the state, but there is no need to move. --RA (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The possible creation of an article at say Irish Tricolour is not dependent on this page being moved at all. I think it would be beneficial for that page to cover the history of the flag in greater detail, before it was hijacked by Free Staters. O Fenian (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very disingenuous argument by RA to say that there is no ambiguity because there is no flag of Ireland (the island). I am sure RA is aware that some people, particularly Irish republicans, consider the Tricolour to be the flag of the whole island. Others consider the St Patrick’s Cross to represent the whole island. And other bodies, such as the IRFU, use the Four Provinces flag. There is quite clearly a potential for misunderstanding by entitling this article “Flag of Ireland” as many readers may consider the flag to relate to Ireland, and not merely to the Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Harldy disengenious, Moortetwin. There is no consensus as to what the "flag of Ireland" is in the context of the island of Ireland. In the context of the state of Ireland, there is one single definitive "flag of Ireland". Flags (plural) of Ireland is more to the point with respect to the island, to which end I recently suggested that List of flags of the Republic of Ireland be moved to List of flags of Ireland. That should be linked to from the dab and the introduction of this article also.
 * Fenian, that's a good point. An article on the tricolour in its broader sense (akin to Union Flag) would be a very subject for an article. --RA (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is disingenuous, and that you continue to be so. It is irrelevant whether or not there is a consensus on what the "flag of Ireland" is. The pertinent point is that there is a potential ambiguity, because many people either consider the Tricolour to be the flag of the whole island, or may assume that it is the flag of the whole island, or may consider some other flag to be the flag of the whole island. The absence of a consensus does not eliminate the potential ambiguity. Under WP policy, where there is a risk of ambiguity, ROI should be used. Mooretwin (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, there is potential for ambiguity. That's why there are dab link on top. A seperate page dealing with the tricolour itself would be additionally helful in that respect. Some people do consider the tricolour to be the flag of the entire island. Other people mistakingly believe it to be so. In any definitive sense though, there is no flag for the entire island. On the converse, there is a single and definitive "flag of Ireland" in the context of the state.
 * Also, disingenuity implies poor faith. I'm not being disingenuous. Regardless of what you "believe", let's put an end to that one now. --RA (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of those areas where there could be clear confusion, considering there use to be flags that were considered to represent the whole of the island and some think one continues to today. For that reason it is not obvious from the title this is about the state. There for a dab page is required. If the problem is people not wanting an article at Flag of the Republic of Ireland then we could simply just use Irish Tricolour there is no need for a separate article. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Oddly enough there has never been a definitive flag for the island of Ireland. A source I once came across, but cannot find again, cited the Union Flag as the first flag that represented Ireland. That is a controversial statement, for sure, but neither the Kingdom of Ireland, the Lordship of Ireland nor Gaelic Ireland in the time of the High Kings had a flag.
 * The convention is to follow "Flag of [common name for state]". Until there is another flag of Ireland (singular), there is nothing to actually dab to, but it could be made clearer in the text that the flag this article is about the flag of the state and point to use of the tricolour elsewhere and other flags that are used to represent Ireland-the-island. --RA (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Until there is another flag of Ireland (singular)" - there are other flags of Ireland - the St. Patrick's Cross is one. I have no idea what "singular" is supposed to mean here as there are several e.g. the 4 Provinces Flag. "Ireland" is first and foremost the name of the island. This is because name of the Republic is derived from the name of the island. The name of the island came first.

 * Let me try approaching this question with a different example. If I were to hear someone speak of "the flag of New Guinea" I would assume they were actually referring to the flag used as the symbol of the nation-state of Papua New Guinea, not a symbol of the entire island of New Guinea--the western portion of which is part of Indonesia.  Similarly, when I hear "the flag of Ireland" I assume that is the flag of the nation-state formally known as the Republic of Ireland, and not the entire island which is also called Ireland--since a portion of said island is part of a different country.  If there were to actually be a flag which represents the entire island, I would expect it to be specifically identified as such, rather than simply "of Ireland." LarryJeff (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Offensive implications of the current article naming
As a Northern Irishman I actually find the attempt to push the word "Ireland" to mean the Republic offensive, unnecessarily ambiguous, arrogant, and aggressive in its territorial implications. Similarly, to illustrate how offensive the Irish Tricolour flag can be seen to Northern Irish Unionists/Loyalists please read the following BBC News article:

BBC News: I only want justice says bomb victims' daughter

In the BBC article there is a photograph of an Irish Tricolour draped over the coffin of a Provisional IRA bomber (killed by his own bomb during a terrorist attack on a Unionist/Loyalist street); pictured carrying the coffin is a member of the IRA leadership - Gerry Adams. The BBC article uses none of the euphemisms that have infested Wikipedia "Troubles" articles due to edit warring by those with political agendas - it describes the IRA members as "terrorists" and the dead bomber (covered with the Irish Tricolour) as a "terrorist". Another PIRA member involved in the same attack is described as a "convicted murderer" and the Unionist victim, Ms. Williamson, describes him as a "mass murderer". Unfortunately in Northern Ireland (no matter its status in the Republic or any meaning of the flag) the Irish Tricolour flag is simply viewed by many in the Unionist/Loyalist community as something that represents the IRA terrorists who attempted to murder them throughout the 40 years of violence. To suggest or imply that the flag in any way represents the Irish Unionist/Loyalist people is EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to them. An illustration of how much the Irish Tricolor is a despised symbol by Unionists/Loyalists in Northern Ireland is no better illustrated by the fact that they light hundreds of bonfires every July, and on the top of most is placed an Irish Tricolour:

Tricolour on bonfire in Northern Ireland 1 Tricolour on bonfire in Northern Ireland 2

Therefore, I urge you to stop pushing this "Flag of Ireland" title to mean the Irish Tricolour, when there are certain people from Ireland who would in no way, shape, or form wish the Tricolour to represent them.

The Troubles are now (hopefully) over. In 1999 the Republic of Ireland dropped its territorial claim to the whole of Ireland in the name of peace. Attempting to now imply that the Republic's jurisdiction is that of the whole island by forcing it's name as solely being "Ireland" -- as currently being pushed on Wikipedia -- is a step backwards. "Flag of the Republic of Ireland" is entirely consistent with the current Wikipedia policy considering the article is at Republic of Ireland and that the Republic's government even refers to the flag on its official website as such (see linked reference above). Therefore, under such extremely controversial circumstances the naming of the article should be that which causes the least amount of ambiguity - the current name of "Flag of Ireland" is completely unacceptable.

Flags also do not necessarily need to correspond to sovereign states - it's an out of date concept that people can't have a common identity just because they are on different side of a line on a map - Ireland proper (the island) is certainly a case of this, and there are (at least) two other flags that more accurately reflect this than the tricolour. An appropriate solution that allows all PoVs to be expressed is that which I outlined above - "Irish Tricolour" should be an article about the flag in general and all its usages; "Flag of the Republic of Ireland" should be about that of the state and its official state usage; "Flag of Ireland" should be a redirect to an article that discusses the various flags that represent island as a whole and the common Irish identity that exists on both sides of the Irish border.

Slan leat and peace to all. IrishBriton (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the present article location is deeply offensive and disrespectful when everyone knows how political the situation with flags is. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a very clear case of WP:IDL. You have brought nothing new to the discussion. Bjmullan (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows there is another editor concerned about the location of this article. It is not just a case of WP:IDL, the flag of the state should not be at the title which applies to the whole of the island. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The article name is a major problem as it implies the whole island which i feel is the point in the staunch defense by some for it being retained. Mabuska (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC

 * I personally fail to see the issue here. Firstly the flag was first used in 1916 before Northern Ireland even existed. By this logic it is historically a flag of all of Ireland. Secondly the Republic of Ireland is commonly referred to as just 'Ireland'. I would personally also discredit a lot of comments made on this article as people who get offended by the slightest thing. In fact it is blatantly obvious that some comments are pushing an agenda. Alowishus321 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening line and WP:IMOS
It is clear that the controversial name of this article will not be changed, but in the interests of clarity, compromise and in line with the guidelines at WP:IMOS the opening line should read "The flag of Ireland is the national flag of the Republic of Ireland". This retains the article title but makes clear to readers that the subject of the article is the ROI flag and not a flag of the whole of Ireland. IMOS says that, where confusion may arise over the use of "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" should be used. In line with WP:BRD I made this edit, but unfortunately (and unsurprisingly) it was reverted by a nationalist editor. Any other views? Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you only want loyalist views like your own, because anyone who disagrees with you is going to get tagged with the nationalist name? Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have "loyalist" views! I should think "loyalists" would be quite happy with the implication that Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland! Maybe O Fenian is a loyalist? LOL. Or does his name give his game away? LOL Mooretwin (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we leave out the "by a nationalist editor" and "loyalist views like your own" kind of statements. We don't need them making any discussion descend into bad faith. The edit does maintain the article title in it which can be seen as a compromise, with RoI adding in the clarity - its up to those who may have an issue with it to define why they do. Mabuska (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Go with Republic of Ireland, as less familiar readers could conceiveable mis-read the opening line as meaning the whole island. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No arguments against the edit, so far. We'll leave it a week and if it remains that way we'll then proceed. Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly a stalling move. If no opposition is raised and you add it back in, the opposition will appear. Mabuska (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot be expected to devote every minute of the day arguing against relentless point-of-view pushing, especially considering the nature of the first post. "We'll leave it a week" means there is ample time yet. O Fenian (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Claims of POV pushing is a POV in itself. Mabuska (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for the change as I see no confusion. NI is not mention anywhere so were is the problem. We could go for RoI just like we could remove the union flag from Colin Turkington. But lets leave it a week, or a month or maybe even longer... Bjmullan (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The confusion is that the article title refers to the Flag of "Ireland". Ireland is a 32-county island, but the flag relates only to the Republic of Ireland. Readers may believe the flag is a 32-county flag. Given that the article title is remaining as is, it makes sense to clarify in the lede that the flag is a 26-county one. Mooretwin (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * There's sound reasons to make a distinction between ROI and NI in this article but I don't think the suggestion above is the best way to do so. Suggestion:
 * "The national flag of Ireland (Irish: bratach na hÉireann / suaitheantas na hÉireann[1][2]) is a vertical tricolour of green (at the hoist), white, and orange. ...
 * The flag is the state flag of the Republic of Ireland but has no official status in Northern Ireland. Despite this, it used throughout the island by some organisations, most notably the Gaelic Athletic Association. It is one of a number of flags that are regarded by some as being the flag of the whole island of Ireland."
 * --RA (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --RA (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Firstly welcome back RA. Secondly not a bad suggestion, though is "It is one of a number of flags that are regarded by some as being the flag of the whole island of Ireland" even needed when the preceding sentence essentially implies the same thing? Thirdly is the term "national" which is already there needed? Is Ireland the island not a nation to many? If we can suggest "state flag of the Republic of Ireland" then we shouldn't need "national". Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All sounds sensible to me. The last sentence was intented as a way to link out to the list of flags of Ireland and indicate that, not only do some people think that the tricolour is the flag of the whole island, but that there are other flags that are thought of in the same way as well. --RA (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can give my support to that, although do we need a citation to support the "regarded by some as being the flag of the whole island"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally it would need sourced, however so would the "one of a number of flags" bit, which i think is a good addition to broaden the scope. Neither should be hard to source, we could even give examples such as St. Patricks saltire and the Four Provinces flag. Mabuska (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we move ahead with RA's proposal, then? Mooretwin (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we move ahead and insert the text, and maybe RA can come up with the citations in due course? Mooretwin (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I cant see any reason how Flag of Ireland is confusing. And none has been shown. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the confusion is that the article title refers to the Flag of "Ireland". Ireland is a 32-county island, but the flag relates only to the Republic of Ireland. Readers may believe the flag is a 32-county flag. Given that the article title is remaining as is, it makes sense to clarify in the lede that the flag is a 26-county one. We have a compromise proposal by RA. Mooretwin (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the first line say national flag and dab link to ROI so where is the confusion? Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, "national" could equally refer to all of Ireland as to the Republic, and the dab link isn't visible. The text reads "Ireland"! Mooretwin (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IMOS is being misrepresented as normal. The part which reads "An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic" has not been mentioned at all. Considering the article is about the flag of the state, it can hardly be argued that the state does not form a major component of the topic. Two requested moves have found that consensus is that the phrase "Flag of Ireland" is not misleading. There was absolutely no confusion, yet in order to add some we had the ridiculous phrase of "The flag of Ireland is the national flag of the Republic of Ireland" added to the article. That has to be the most appalling construction I have ever read. O Fenian (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * If this article is about the state that is the Republic of Ireland then why on Earth is there a table that shows virtually most flags to do with Ireland which don't represent the Irish state? It gives the impression that this article is about the flag of Ireland the island and not the country. Maybe it would help avoid confusion by removing this unnecessary thing from the article and keep it where its meant to be. So in the meantime whilst you guys argue, i propose deleting this unrequired part of the article. In fact i'll do BRD. Mabuska (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That section does now need a picture or two or three to break up that mass amount of text. However we can add in pictures of the flag of the Irish republic flying from Leinster House, the Irish Army etc. etc. and other things of relevance. Mabuska (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I also fixed the About tag template code thats at the start of the article. Now we can finally see the link to List of flags of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's much better. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant text in the introduction
The end of the first paragraph of the introduction seems to contain redundant statements:

 * "...a common interpretation is that the green represents the Irish nationalist tradition of Ireland and the orange represents the Orange tradition in Ireland, with white representing peace between them.[7] The white in the centre signifies a lasting truce between the 'Green' and the 'Orange'.[8]"

Perhaps the last sentence should be struck and the 8th note combined with the 7th, since they seem to say the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87Fan (talk • contribs) 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Orange/yellow/gold
The cited reference does not say the flags flown during the Easter Rising were yellow. All it states is that one flag, 90 years later, is a yellow colour. More discussion welcome. O Fenian (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the sources do not confirm the colour of the flag at the time of the Easter Rising, only what colour it is 90 years later. O Fenian (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded to state that it was the one on the GPO that was yellow. Ant it WAS yellow at the time, not only 90 years later - the source explicitly mentions that "in the planning for the Rising, revolutionary leader Sean MacDiarmada ordered green, white and yellow favours from a Dublin drapery company". This is not just any flag we're talking about - it was THE flag that was flown from the GPO during the rising - if it weren't authentic I'd very much doubt they would be expecting up to $700,000 for it!! 80.219.51.21 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am assuming, that even at the third time of asking, you have still failed to understand the relevance of the "90 years later" point, even though it was also mentioned before this discussion took place. Colours fade, so the current colour is of no relevance. Books say the flag was green, white and orange. O Fenian (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut the lecturing tone please - you've only mentioned that once to me so I am not "ignoring discussions", and could I also point out that you have already broken the "1RR" yourself. The source explicitly mentions that Sean MacDiarmada specifically ordered yellow cloth from a draper - this was then taken by Sean Heuston who then organised making this available cloth into flags. The source mentions an 1848 design being orange; it also mentions that orange was only standardised between 1922 and 1937, making it official in 1937 - it would not discuss these details in cloth ordering or differences in colour over time if it were not clear that the flag flown from the GPO during the rising was not orange but actually yellow. 80.219.51.21 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the notice before blanking it, you would have noticed it does not apply to reverting edits by IP editors. The source is quite detailed, but seems to be a detailed work of fiction. The details there are not in any book on the Easter Rising I have read, which is most of them. The part about Heuston and his sister is particularly dubious. O Fenian (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't like the lack of "assuming good faith" in your tone of writing, nor do I care for these petty rules (see Ignore_all_rules). Of all the sources in the world (and for almost any topic) I don't think that it would be possible to find a source as good or more reliable than an auctioneer like this - if you are going to want someone to give you $700,000 for a few pieces of cloth stitched together then you are going to need to have some pretty damn compelling evidence that all the background info on it is correct - if any of such information is seen to be misleading then the auctioneer can also be sued in a court of law. Unless you can provide some reliable source explicitly stating that the tricolour specifically flown from the GPO during the 1916 Easter Rising was not yellow/gold but orange, then this source should remain in the article as it is in this revision. ( btw they openly admit not knowing 100% if Heuston's sister made the flag, however, the colour and origin of the cloth used is clearly stated as a fact) 80.219.51.21 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The auctioneers have to ensure that their description of the item is correct, and therefore that it is a flag from the GPO. Anything else is up to them. That is why it is described as yellow, as they have to accurcately describe the current colour of the flag. For books that contradict it try Coogan and Caulfield to begin with, and others too if I could be bothered to check (I see someone else has below). I have never seen the claims about the origins of the flag (Heuston's sister, Mac Diarmada ordering cloth from a draper and so on) in any source, so why we are supposed to believe this brand new account that has never been heard before I do not know. O Fenian (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Let's not go changing the article to suit the commercial interests of auctioneers of a flag that has failed to sell for a second time. I do recall there being something about the consistent use of the colour orange but can't find anything about it. In any event, as requested here are some references. (The book The Irish Rebellion of 1916 and its Martyrs is interesting since, while published in New York, is contemporary.)
 * "Having convoyed their cargo safely, the Lancers returned towards the centre of the city. By that time the flag of the Republic — the green, white and orange tricolour — was floating over the Post Office." Padraic Colum, et al., The Irish Rebellion of 1916 and its Martyrs: Erin's Tragic Easter, The Devin-Adair Company, 1916, New York
 * "At the GPO two flags were raised in place of the British ones - a green one, with a golden harp in the center and carrying the inscription 'Irish Republic'; the other was the green, white and orange tricolour which the Irish Free State laater adopted as the national flag." - James Lydon, The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present, Routldedge: London, 1998
 * "On the roof of the GPO, several volunteers ran up first a green flag, emblazoned Irish Republic, and then the green-white-and-orange tricolour." J. Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army: the IRA, Forth: New Brunswick NJ, 2004
 * "The rising had begun when Connolly ordered the group of forty (including his secretary, Winifred Carney) to march off from Limerty Hall, to relieve Pease of an embarrassing sister who was pleading 'come home, Patrick[, and] for all this foolishness'. The party proceeded up O'Connell Street and into the GPO, which was quickly fortified as the headquarters of the 'Irish Republic'. The green-white-and-orange tricolour flag of this would-be state was hoisted, at at 12:45 p.pm. Please read the proclamation signed 'on behalf of the provisional government' to a bemused group of bystanders." - Austen Morgan, James Connolly: A Political Biography, Manchester University Press, 1988
 * "It was Connolly himself, a heavyset man with a bushy mustache, who was leading teh column, along with the nationalist poet, Padraic Pearse. Suddennly Connolly shouted, "Left turn. The GPO - CHARGE!" The ragtag army dashed under the Ionic portico of the General Post Office and into the building. Minutes later, two flags fluttered over the portico. One, a green flag with a harp, was like the traditional flag of Ireland (a nation that never had an official flag) except for one thing: on it, in white and gold letters, were the words "Irish republic". The other flag was new - a green, white and orange tricolour." William Weir, Fatal Victories: From the Crusades to Bunker Hill to the Vietnam War, Pegasus Books, New York, 1993
 * "As threater it was magnificent; as a means of siezign power from the British it was ill conceived. Choosing the General Post Office (GPO) as the republicans' command post was probably a tactical mistake. The well-provisioned Shelbourne Hotel would have been a better headquarters. Yet as a dramatic site for unfurling the new national flag, visible down the length and breadth of Sackville Street (later O'Connell Street), the GPO had its full effect. As well as the green, white and orange tricolour in which the white, signifying peace, came between the traditional enmities of Ulstermen and Republicans, there was a second flag: the romantic creation of Constance Markiewicz, who dyed an old bedcover green and painted a harp on in it bright gold." Brenda Niall, The Riddle of Father Hackett: A life in Ireland and Australia, National Library of Australia; Canberra, 2009
 * --RA (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On this specific flag as far as i know from published sources its the colours green, white and orange. Prior to 1916 the order of the colours didn't matter and i have that in a reliable source. In fact the same source states the flag was originally potentially orange, white and green. Mabuska (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

To try and settle this old orange/yellow debate for the purpose of readers, it is worth pointing out that "orange" as a colour definition came late into the English language from the fruit of the same name. As late as the early twentieth century many artists pallettes and manufacturers' dyes would have circumvented the description altogether, preferring to describes various hues and shades under a yellow/red category. If the source is true, it is quite plausible that material intended as orange would have been described by a draper's order form as a shade of yellow. Dainamo (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Orange Order??
It's unlikely that orange represented the order, which was always strongly opposed both to Irish nationalism and Roman Catholicism. More likely it harked back to William of Orange, who had fought against absolutism in his wars against Louis XIV.86.43.191.172 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Don't forget that the Irish tricolour was originally introduced to Ireland by an Irish Protestant after being in post-Revolution France. Thomas Davis was it i can't remember?

 * The Orange Order is dedicated to King Billy and that was a major thing for Irish Protestants for a couple of centuries. Mary and William were popular names for Irish Protestant men and women due to King Billy and his wife Queen Mary. Check the 1901 and 1911 Irish census' online to see how many Protestants used these names especially (my ancestry is full of them) when today Mary is considered a Catholic name by Protestants in my community.

 * Green was at the time of the United Irishmens failed uprising the colour of revolution in Europe just as much as orange is the colour of anti-Russian-influence revolution in Eastern-Europe today. Green was adopted as the colour of independance from Britain and has remained ever so since. Orange was the colour of those that desired to maintain the Union thanks to King William of Orange. The flag was designed to reconcile both sides. Mabuska (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"National"
Why is the national in the lede in bold for? I thought it was only meant to be the title of the article in bold, which would mean just flag of Ireland instead of national flag of Ireland. I would just be bold and change it but there might be some edit-warring over it so i thought i'd pop in and ask if any objections? Mabuska (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since BritishWatcher is currently thinking about a doomed attempt to move this page due to ambiguity, I would say the inclusion of "national" is a good idea, since it immediately clarifies that it is not the official flag of the entire island. O Fenian (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely then you should propose a Move to National Flag of Ireland. That would leave room for something like "Flags of Ireland" which would contain the national flag, the Rugby flag and the cricket flag. --Red King (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats flawed judgement O Fenian, the statement of national flag of Ireland gives the impression that its the national flag for the whole island, which is how it is seen by nationalists. Seeing as the article title is already ambiguous i'd hardly call BW's attempts to move it a doomed attempt to move it to ambiguity. Mabuska (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should probably say national flag of the Republic of Ireland to help avoid the ambiguity problem. A page move to Irish Tricolour and allowing this spot to be a dab page still seems fair and reasonable. But certain editors refuse to even accept there is a problem so i cant see a move being supported by enough editors, even if it is clearly justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness the title, in keeping with other national flag articles, is right to be "Flag of Ireland" since Ireland is the offical name of the country. "Republic of Ireland" is simply be a well used term in order to distinguish it from Northern Ireland.  Defining what is meant by Ireland (the country of the flag) as opposed to the island of Ireland can be made clear in the article itself Dainamo (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a little more than that. "Republic of Ireland" is the official name of the country under UK law since 1949.  If this wasn't the case, there'd be hardly any objections to using "Republic of Ireland" to dab.  We get a lot of British nationalists insisting on using RoI as the "name" of the state for every circumstance.  Equally we get a lot of Irish nationalists insisting on using "Ireland" as the "name" of the state, even in circumstances where the context doesn't make it clear that it is referring to the state.  The rest of us get to suffer through the endless resulting shite.  --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is in the wrong place. This section is about the use of the word "national" not the name of the state. Mabuska (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Your objections to the term "national flag of Ireland" with the reasoning that if "gives the impression that its the national flag for the whole island, which is how it is seen by nationalists" goes directly to the heart of what is Yet Another Shite Nationalistic Argument.  --HighKing (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 * "The national flag of..." appears to be standard fare for articles of this kind (see here). This is also the phrasing used in the Constitution of Ireland (see here):
 * "Article 7: The national flag is the tricolour of green, white and orange."
 * --RA (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I take it neither of you read the original posting at the start of this discussion? Issue was the fact the "national" bit was put in bold. I never called for its removal at the start and it has since been sorted per MOS:BOLDTITLE. So dead issue why re-raise it and go on for?

I'd say let dead issues stay dead instead of resurrecting them HighKing. 10th September 2010 was last this discussion was even active. It can be seen as a form of trolling. Mabuska (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Merchant Mercantile marine
I think the merchant marine exposition needs more work. My understanding is that, until the 1939 emergency order, the 1894 act was still in force not just in the UK but also in Ireland. It would seem that the Irish authorities chose not to enforce the law, presumably for nationalistic reasons. However, they could not force an Irish-registered vessel to fly the tricolour, or to refrain from flying the red ensign if the owners were so inclined. I wonder how they would respond if an Irish-registered vessel tried to sail with no flag at all.

More generally, how are marine flags registered or published? Are the details sent to the International Maritime Organization the way vehicle registration codes are registered with the UN? If so, when did this process begin, and what happened before then? The Irish situation pre-1947 seems to have been rather unruly, if most ports accepted the tricolour, the British sometimes did and sometimes didn't, and foreign boats occasionally didn't, either for bona fide reasons or to gain some tactical advantage. I can't imagine that the passing of the 1947 Merchant Navy act, still less a 1939 emergency order, would have had any effect outside the state; it might just possibly have persuaded the British customs to stop fining people, but I doubt any others even knew such a change had taken place. I might speculate that the British Admiralty was a defacto global authority whose rules another country would follow by default except in specific cases where it explicitly decided otherwise; in such a case, Britain's non-recognition of the tricolour would be bothersome until an Irish diplomat convinced Portugal, say, to recognise the tricolour. But that's pure speculation; hopefully somebody has actual facts. jnestorius(talk) 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Ireland uses the term "Mercantile Marine" while Britain says "Merchant navy" and the Americans say "Merchant Marine". There was no rule on what flag should be flown. The reality was that the deValera government were pursuing a policy of self-reliance, which implied zero exports and imports, so shipping and ports were ignored.  In general, ferries and cross-channel traders flew the Red Ensign while merchantmen travelling further afield flew the tricolour.   There wasn’t even consistency within companies. The B&I line had some ships under the tricolour and others under the red ensign.  The 1894 Act was not enforced in Ireland or in many UK ports.  You wondered if any flew without a flag.  At least one did so, I can’t recall its name at present; she was based in Donegal but spent most of the war plying between Scottish islands with cargos such as condensed milk.  Britain continued to regard Irish ships as British until June 1942.  Irish losses were registered as British losses by Lloyds register.  In January 1942, the British requisitioned the Irish Hazel which was being repaired in Newcastle, renaming her Empire Don.  On the other hand the Ministry of Information made much of Germany targeting ‘neutral’ vessels, starting with the sinking of the Inverliffey two days into the war; she was flying the tricolour and would have into Tilbury.  There were all sorts of anomalies.  Then there was the Irish Rose. In September 1941 Irish Shipping purchased the Arena.  She was repaired and fitted out in Philadelphia, where they gave her the Fenian flag (golden harp on a green field). While the battle of the Atlantic was all around them, the Arena crossed the Atlantic flying this flag and so docked in Dublin on 26 December 1941.  There she was renamed the Irish Rose and thereafter flew under the tricolour.  Your words “rather unruly” are an understatement. Lugnad (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your contributions. Information on the prewar period would also be nice. Have you a source for the June 1942 date? Did Customs stop fining people for tricolours after that? If small boats in internal waters are not required to fly an ensign, then Britain might have regarded small boats from Ireland as covered by that exemption. jnestorius(talk) 08:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * for the june 42 date: page 129 of Frank Forde's book "the long watch". There were no "improper insignia" prosecutions during the war.  Lugnad (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The Donegal based boat I mentioned earlier was the Millbay ON 83941. She was actually registered in Plymouth and therefore should have flown the red ensign.  Her story is told in Coastal Trade of the Ketch Millbay of Plymouth between 1902-44 by Lulu Chesnutt ISBN 9780955368103. Lugnad (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I wonder whether the Kerlogue story is relevant here. The Allies had declared an exclusion zone and therefore the RAF were free to attack anything in that zone.   Their report claimed to have hit a ship five times the size of the Kerlogue.  I doubt that this was a case of mistaken identity, they were just trigger-happy.  As an aside, why was the Kerlogue there anyway? why was she so close to the French coast? It was miles out of her way.  The answer has never been published, OR rules prohibit it here.  The Kerlogue and some othe Irish ships en-route to Lisbon skirted the French coast, the Germans became accustomed to seeing them, so on occasion they dropped and collected Free French and other Allied agents.  This would explain why the Admirality was so upset by the attack, and why the war cabinet ordered compensation to be paid.  Lugnad (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Is it appropriate to use the term "flag of convenience" when that term was unknown in those days? It is a modern term dating from the mid 1960s, possibly a little earlier, but definitely not during WW2 Lugnad (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another quibble to ensure neutral Irish ships were not mistaken for British ships by the German navy. Why navy?  Some were bombed by the Lufwaffe.  I'm thinking of the Isolda Lugnad (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tricolour is a contentious "Flag of a Foreign Nation" in Northern Ireland
Yet more evidence for the international audience on how badly this article is named. In Northern Ireland the Irish tricolour is EXTREMELY divisive: Divisive flag of the Irish Republic Mr. Elliot's comments may have lacked tact, but is how the tricolour is viewed by most in Northern Ireland.

As proposed before, separate articles called "Irish Tricolour" and "Flag of the Republic of Ireland" are required. The current article naming is simply contentious. IrishBriton (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I recommend asking the Government of Ireland to change the name of the state then. Please let us know their response. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It's also used at Old Firm matches for the same reason, to wind up impressionable people. So why mention just Northern Ireland and not Scotland?86.42.220.173 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it's more of a reflection on Mr. Elliot than anything else. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some strange threads on Wikipedia but this one is up amongst the best. Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article is about the whole island, then it'll need splitting. If it's only about the country, then it doesn't need splitting. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about GoodDay? Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First things first, is this article about the whole island? GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the name of the article it is usually a clue to what it's about. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The country & the island, have the exact same name. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again what are you talking about? Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this article covers the history of both the whole island & the republic? you'll need to change the title to Flags of Ireland & include the Union Jack (unless Northern Ireland is no longer on the island). GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the Flag of Ireland, or will we make up a name say the green white and orange flag, would that be ok with you? Mo ainm ~Talk  23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this article isn't limited to the republic, the Union Jack needs to be included, with the article title changed to Flags of Ireland. The Union Jack did fly over the island, at one time. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose we rename the article to the green white and orange flag, that way editors with no clue about anything will no what it is about. Because according to a lot of editors people are stupid and might get confused. To clarify that post was sarcasm, just in case some injudicious editor thinks other wise Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For now, we'll let others way in on this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My advice - stop feeding GoodDay and he'll go away. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on article, not editor; thank you. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah good idea because you haven't made any sense at all. So I will put it simply the article is about a thing called a flag, and it is the flag of a place called Ireland, the flag is called the Flag of Ireland, they even talk about it in something called a constitution, (oops big word there, that is like a rule book that governments use), and in that book they call the place were they are, Ireland, go figure, how selfish of them doing that upsetting everyone in Wikipedia who are always confused about names. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's 2 Irelands, an island & a country. I didn't plan it that way, I didn't recommend that the country adopt the same name as the island. There's 2 Irelands, that's a fact. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Islands don't have flags, states do. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Flag came into usage before the 1920's, when Ireland was a part of United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Republic (where I live) in its 1937 consitution claimed Northern Ireland, but the 1998 Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland ended that claim, so from an Irish state point of view the tricolour is not a flag of Northern Ireland but is a flag used by some Northern Irish people who like to be different in some way from their (identical) neighbours. As well as Old Firm, see Sectarianism in Glasgow. Ho hum.86.42.205.57 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The following at the top of the article makes it clear what this article is on about, or what it should be on about: ''This article is about the flag of the state called Ireland. For other flags associated with the island of Ireland, see List of flags of Ireland. For for flags used in Northern Ireland, see List of flags used in Northern Ireland. The first instance of flag of Ireland'' in the article is also correctly wikilinked to Republic of Ireland. There is no point in argueing for a change as one, it won't happen due to the above editors, and secondly the disambiguation at the top of the article makes it clear what the article is on about. Mabuska (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's 2 Irelands, an island & a country. I didn't plan it that way, I didn't recommend that the country adopt the same name as the island. There's 2 Irelands, that's a fact. GoodDay this is incorrect. the state of ireland is know as the republic of ireland. only before ireland became a republic was it know as Ireland. it was also known as eire. Eire was mor commonly used so barely was ireland used to discribe the state. realy the title should be called "The National Flag of the Republic of Ireland" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.182.52 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresented tricolour
I reverted Ran's change here to see if there are any other views on it. For me it's not confusing to have that image, since the text alongside explains the issue, as does the caption. The image immediately draws to the attention of the reader that should they see one of those flags it does not represent the Irish State. WizOfOz (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 * No problem, if it is thought useful. --RA (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

wolfe tone and being french based
there is a picture of wolfe tone after commiting suicide with a scarf around his wast. green wihite and orange. the scraf is split up into there segments. it appered in a 19th centuary newspaper, and is in the school book The Past Today by Dermot Lucey. would this not mean that this was the offical colours of irish republicism before the easter rising. should this be mentioned? Also the flag is base on the french tricolour dont know if this is in the artical or not.86.41.182.52 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)irishperson86.41.182.52 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the colours are arranged as you describe, though a scarf is not a flag. BTW, on which page does the image appear, and which newspaper and its date? RashersTierney (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the past today book it is on page 206 under chapter title Ireland during the age of Revoltions. The picture is shown but only says on the picture "The suicide of Wolfe Tone, as illustrated in a nineteenth-century paper." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.42.42 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland variant defaced with the four provinces crest
Forgive my ignorance in these matters, but where has this flag come from? Is it in any way official, or used by any organisation? MidnightBlue  (Talk)  15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello midnightblue, it is not official, only a defaced variant example that is employed mainly in a sporting context with provincial or county crests as the sources show,in the same manner as the gold version of the Ireland flag is a used variant but not official Setanta Saki (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The flag is now used in several articles, but it is purely unofficial. I don't think its use here, or in the other articles, is merited. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  18:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. There sees to be some invention going on at the moment with regards to the four provinces emblem. --Tóraí (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice it's now been removed from all the mainspace articles. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and the same editor with regards to that was incorrect, the arms of the four provinces are surrounded by numerous styles of crests there Is no officially recognized or standardized format across the board the only thing that is, is the presence of the four provincial arms. It is clear to me why the above editor who has been blocked numerous times has issue with it. Its use in this article as an example of how Irish crests are utilized on the flag of Ireland is quite justified it serves a more broad perspective than just including for example a crest of county clare as shown in the sources provided.Setanta Saki (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Marine flag
In July 1923, Diarmuid Fawsett, a Free State civil servant the government wanted rid of, was planted with a bogus memorandum that the UK was insisting that the red ensign be flown at sea. When it appeared in an anti-Treaty newspaper, he was duly dismissed for leaking it. Ironic that the bogus story turned out to have some truth. jnestorius(talk) 20:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Adopted in nfobox
I have changed itt from 1916-1921 to 1922 (Constitutional status; 1937). Murry1975 (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Flag of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.vincentpeters.nl/triskelle/lyrics/greenwhitegold.php?index=080.010.040.010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Tatarstan Link
I added a link to the flag for Tatarstan to the "See Also" section because I see 2 reasons it might be of interest to a reader of this article: the colour scheme (green-white-red) is similar, and the sentiment (peace between Russians and Tatars) is also similar. The parallel isn't exact of course, the Red doesn't represent Russians for example! That would be represented in the white band. 2A02:8084:B3A2:CC80:1C5A:6492:FE1:E95F (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion
A Requested Move discussion, proposing to move this article to the title "Flag of the Republic of Ireland", is taking place here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Flag Icon should go to the island of Ireland rather than the state
There's a discrepancy in how this flag's icon links back. The flag itself is used for the island of Ireland is certain contexts' such as the Irish amateur boxing page, however it links back to the Republic of Ireland. This should be changed to reflect the different usage of the flag. Thoughts?
 * I think looking at the previous discussions on this page and other requested move pages the page is ok to remain as is. ~ Ablaze (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an issue for this page, discussion would need to be at Template talk:Country data Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Irish green at Shades of green
Over at Shades of green a massive overhaul occured around February 6th without any edit summary or referencing or previous discussion on the talk page. Most colours were changed or deleted, including deletion of most (all?) anchors (!) Amongst others, Irish green, formerly called "Shamrock green" and defined as a slightly different shade of bluish green than here, is now called "Kelly green" and defined as #4CBB17, a slightly yellowish green, and all mention of the Irish Flag has been removed ("It is named after the common Irish family name, Kelly. It evokes the lush green Irish landscape and is also commonly associated St. Patrick’s Day."). Not sure what that is all about. --92.193.240.64 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"ROI flag" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ROI_flag&redirect=no ROI flag] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flag of Ireland