text:
Talk:Flag of Bhutan

Source
Flag description taken from The CIA World Factbook entry on the flag of Bhutan, with minor changes. Note that the CIA text is public domain. --Dbenbenn 09:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reversed colors in 2nd flag
The article doesn't mention that the red and yellow as depicted in the image of the 2nd flag are reversed from the 1st and 3rd. Is the image accurate? Otherwise, why were the color positions switched? The description of the 2nd flag ("the red spreads from the base and forms the 'fluttering' end") makes it sound like the red should be on the bottom. Elphion (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved -- see Correct colors etc below. Elphion (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fimbriation
The reference glossary says "Fimbriation It is a narrow line separating two other colours in a flag." The description and picture do not show any Fimbriation between the red and yellow sections. If it exists, what colour is it? jnestorius(talk) 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved -- see Correct colors etc below. Elphion (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Colours of triangles
This article states that "the upper triangle is yellow and the lower triangle is orange" (this text appears to have been sourced directly from the CIA factbook). However, to me the upper triangle looks more orangey (or a dark yellow at least), and the lower triangle is red. The comments in some of the threads above also refer to a red section. So is it really yellow and orange; is it orange and red; or is it yellow and red? Bazonka (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved -- see Correct colors etc below. Elphion (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct colors in the Flag of Bhutan
''The following discussion is copied from the Humanities Reference Desk (sub November 20, 2009  ). Many thanks to User:Grutness for checking into this. The incorrect image of the Second Flag appears to have been created by Orange Tuesday -- I'll ask him if we can get an updated version. Elphion (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some outstanding questions in Talk:Flag of Bhutan about the flag images in the article. (1) Three versions of the flag are shown. In the second the two background colors appear to be reversed; is this correct or an error? (2) The article refers to fimbriation between the colors but none is shown in the images; which is correct? (3) The article refers to one of the colors variously as "red" or "orange"; which is correct? Was the color in fact changed? (Judging from a Google image search, access to a Bhutanese official might be required to answer this!) Elphion (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) During the 1950s, Bhutan's flag seems to have shown the darker triangle at honour point (i.e., upper hoist), at least according to Flags of the World. I will check with their mailing list, though, since the text on their Bhutan page makes no mention of this change; 2) There has never been any fimbriation on the Bhutanese flag to the best of my knowledge. Flags of the World's Bhutan page suggests that the term "fimbriation" was incorrectly used by the Bhutanese authorities to simply refer to the join between the two coloured fields; 3) The colours are open to much debate - a quick glance at the FotW page makes that clear enough. The colours were initially listed as "yellow and red" with no further specification, have been interpreted as everything from yellow and maroon through to two shades of orange. According to FotW, the "red was changed to orange by royal command in 1968-69". Some countries (probably Bhutan included) do not specify exact shades for the colours on their flags, but some form of yellow and orange - probably a deep saffron yellow and a reddish or brownish orange - are about as close to official standard colours (no pun intended) as you're likely to get. Grutness...wha?  23:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I posed the question at FOTW, and got several responses. It appears that the image there (which may be the initial source for many of the red-over-yellow flags) was based on a mistranslation of the official Bhutanese description of the flag. It was initially - incorrectly - translated as "The yellow spreads from the summit to the base and forms the fluttering end." The correct translation, as shown at reads "The yellow spreads from the summit to the base while the red extends from the base and forms the fluttering end." So it seems as if yellow over red (or a lighter shade over a darker shade, at least0 has always been the standard. A further comment added numerous online sites showing images of the actual flag in use:, , , , , , . There's also a pdf of the United Nations' description of the flag here. (with thanks to FotW's Jonathan Dixon and Esteban Rivera). Grutness...wha?  22:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The flag should be correct now. I'm glad we've cleared up this error. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also according to that pdf, that second flag is supposed to be square. I'll go change that as well. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for maintaining your many flag images -- they are beautifully executed. Elphion (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are our depictions of the first flag correct?
So I just came across these two images of the Flag of Bhutan from 1949. They seem to show a white dragon pointing diagonally towards the top of the hoist, instead of a green dragon pointing horizontally towards the fly. It also appears to be 5:4 rather than square. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Those are very interesting photos, though the host doesn't make finding them very easy! They look like prima facie evidence that our reference from the Centre for Bhutan Studies (who *ought* to know!) may not be quite on target.  The source does say that the design was "introduced in 1949 during the signing of the Indo-Bhutan Treaty", which the photos also purport to show.  I suppose it's possible that the flag in the photos is not the official one designed by Lharip Taw Taw -- but it's also possible that the Centre for Bhutanese Studies just goofed.  The photos don't help much to settle the color of the dragon:  depending on the film, the filter, and the shade of green or turquoise involved, the dragon might show up very light in photos (though if it *was* green, it was probably much lighter than we have represented).  And it's not clear just how the dragon is positioned, given that it is more S-shaped that the current avatar; I think a case could be made that it is intended to be parallel to the fly, especially given the later story about adjusting the position to the diagonal.  But there's no denying that it is pointed toward the hoist, not the fly.
 * Without a definitive official description, there's not much point in changing our representation of the flag; but we should probably mention and link to the photos as illustrating an alternative possibility.
 * Elphion (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is green, it is a very pale shade of green. Look at the Indian flag on the left. The relatively light green stripe on that flag comes out so dark that it nearly looks black. And as for the orientation of the dragon, if you line up the flags on the two images and rotate them to fit inside a square, you can see that the dragon is along the diagonal and not the horizontal. Check it out:
 * I mean, I don't want to venture too far into WP:SYNTH territory here, but we know that the 1949 flag was designed and constructed specifically for the signing of the Indo-Bhutanese treaty, right? So it's pretty reasonable to assume that the flag that we're seeing in those photographs is "the flag" of Bhutan. I would think at a minimum then, we need to resize the current images, flip the dragon to face the hoist, and lighten the green significantly. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch re the green on the Indian flag, which I didn't even take a good look at. Based on that, I would bet that the dragon is white.  And I think you're right about the orientation too.  So, how to proceed?  It would be easier if we had more confidence that the photos are correctly identified by ngmaindia.gov.in.  Given the doc from the Centre for Bhutanese studies (and the images all over the web based on its description), I think we should keep our existing image, but clearly identify it as "according to etc.etc."  -- and add a new image showing what the photos tell.  The latter should be identified as something like "as appearing in photos of the 1949 treaty signing, posted at etc.etc." It seems to me that both versions are worth noting, unless more evidence shows up to settle the matter definitively. -- Elphion (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay so I made two new images based on the photographs. Differences are:
 * Diagonal dragon rather than horizontal.
 * Pale almost turquoisey green instead of dark green.
 * Facing the hoist in the first one rather than the fly
 * 5:4 rather than perfectly square.
 * S-shaped dragon rather than straighter modern dragon.

Thoughts? Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Your 1949 flag looks good, agreeing closely with the photo. I'm not sure what to do about the color of dragon.  Judging from the photo it was probably white.  The only evidence that it was green comes from the Centre for Bhutanese Studies (hereinafter "CBS"), but it's clear that the flag they're describing as the "first flag" is not the flag in the photo.

 * The only sense I can make this is that other flags were made in the early period, generally of the description in the CBS doc (square, green dragon oriented parallel to top and bottom, facing the fly end), with the "sample" in the Assembly Hall (made when?) having diagonal orientation instead.

 * The doc describes the "second" flag as having been inspired by the flag in the photo -- implying that earlier flags differed from the photo. But the only thing the description picks up from the photo is the white color of the dragon:  the "second" flag is still described as square, with dragon facing the fly end, and parallel to top and bottom.  The innovations explicitly mentioned for the "third" version are the non-square dimensions and the diagonal orientation.  So there's no real evidence supporting your second (1959-1969) design, and it's not clear that your 1949 design is representative for flags generally from the period 1949-1956 (if there were any -- the doc is very unclear about that).

 * Reconciling the photo and the CBS doc is almsot impossible without some hand-waving. I think the right approach is to say that the CBS describes three periods (represented by the three existing diagrams in the article), but that a photo, presumably of the original flag at the 1949 treaty celebration, tells a different story (represented by your first image above, but with a white dragon rather than a green one) -- and that the colors in the original are not precisely known as the photo is black and white.

 * Elphion (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "other flags" being made on the CBS model, that doesn't seem very likely. The CBS source specifically says that the first flag was used only for the signing of the Indo-Bhutanese treaty and then never again after that. The fact that we have photographic evidence from two different sources of a different flag being used at that ceremony makes me think that maybe the CBS book just isn't a reliable description of the history of the Bhutanese flag.
 * As for the second flag, it's based on the FOTW image seen here, which (from what I can tell) was drawn from an image in The Observer’s Book of Flags from 1966. If the photo version is correct, I think it's likely that this version is as well. The dragons are nearly identical and the flags have the same ratio.
 * I don't know. It's really confusing. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I'm rereading the CBS source text, and I'm not sure it actually describes a horizontal dragon at all. It says the dragon is "parallel to the fly, facing the fly end." But the fly is the edge of the flag furthest from the flagpole, isn't it? wouldn't that make it a vertical dragon? Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

First, the easy point: Your concern about "parallel to the fly" is answered by the doc:  it has a diagram in which "fly" is illustrated as the dimension from pole to the "fly end" along the bottom of the flag; clearly, "parallel to the fly" means parallel to the bottom. When the author refers to the edge away from the pole he writes explicitly "fly end", not "fly". Besides, a vertical dragon would either face up (in which case shifting it to the diagonal would be no better at solving the slump problem), or it would face down (in which case it would "face the earth" even when the flag wasn't slumping).

As for the rest, there are no definitive answers, based on the sources we have. The FOTW source you point to shows no hard sources other than the two we have here: the photo and the doc quoted in the CBS doc. (All the various images in various flag books clearly go back to one or the other.) The CBS doc (and the doc it quotes) are the only textual sources anybody has come up with; we're sort of stuck with them, and using them without reconstructing our own version of history is going to be tricky.

It is clear from the doc that the transition from the original flag (presumably the one in the photo) to the modern flag (illustrated in the doc, which agrees with modern photos) happened by degrees. It is probably a mistake to identify a single version as "the flag" from 1956 (when multiple flags appear, if we're reading the doc right) to 1969 (when the modern form is finally established). The Martin Grieve illustration for the "second flag" in your FOTW link is simply the photo with the dragon reversed; there's no good evidence for it. (And Grieve was misled by the bad translation to reverse the yellow and red -- they were corrected later. My point is that the Grieve image is based on the photo, influenced by additional info quoted in the doc -- it's not an independent source, and not based on an actual example of a flag later than 1949.)

The doc never describes the flag in the photo; the photo seems unknown to the authors. They assume that the original flag was square and that the dragon was green, faced the fly end, and was parallel to the bottom -- all of which contradict the photo. (I'm assuming here the photo dragon is white, though it could be a very pale green. We don't know.)  But there must have been flags at some point illustrating each of those points, though perhaps no one flag showing all of them.

The doc's claim that "The flag in its present shape, dimension and design was made during one of the visits of the Gangtok-based Political Officer of India to Bhutan in the late 1950s" has to be taken with a grain of salt, even assuming that the date is correct. The doc speaks of 4 changes in the transformation to the modern flag:

(1) The dragon's color became white. This is mentioned specifically for the 1956 flags, but it's not clear whether there were other flags made (before or after) with green dragons (of whatever shade). Possibly the 1949 flag and the later "sample" were the only "green" dragons, but that's not the only reading possible.

(2) The flag became rectangular (3:2), and (3) the dragon was shifted to the diagonal. The doc implies that the 1956 flags were square and had dragons parallel to the bottom, and therefore that these changes happened later: perhaps "in the late 1950s" -- but again it's not clear that all flags uniformly observed the changes.

(4) The bottom color was changed from red to dark orange in 1968 or 1969, finally achieving the modern design.

So we have, as reasonably fixed endpoints in the process, (a) the photo flag (with the dragon of unknown color), and (b) the modern flag. The intermediate stages are perhaps best described verbally, not with images, since we really don't know the details.

Elphion (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Addition: I'm assuming that flag in the photo really is the first flag.  I don't seriously doubt that, but I wish we had a better source than the funky museum website. -- Elphion (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another addition: I looked again at the photo, and I'm coming around to accepting a pale green dragon: the white in the Indian flag is noticeably lighter.  I still think it would be prudent to say that the color is not clear from the photo, but that the doc mentions green, and that a pale green is at least consistent with the photo. -- Elphion (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

URLs for reference:
 * http://www.ngmaindia.gov.in/upe_bhutan.asp -- the official gallery "Bhutan: An eye to History" (exhibition 24th December 2009 to January 31st 2010) at the Indian National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. The slide show displays the first of the following two images with the caption "Signing of the first Indo-Bhutan Friendship treaty at Darjeeling on the 8th of August 1949. Sri Harishwar Dayal, representing India, and Gongzim Sonam Tobgye Dorji representing Bhutan, signed the treaty."
 * http://ngmaindia.gov.in/images/showcase/bhutan/pic3-big.jpg -- direct link to the photo in the slide show.
 * http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/61 -- page at Bhutan 2008 discussing the 1949 treaty, with the second photo showing the flag.
 * http://www.bhutan2008.bt/files/images/indo-bhutantreaty.jpg -- direct link to the second photo.
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8486717.stm -- BBC blurb about the exhibit, "In pictures: Rare images of Bhutan go on display". The first photo above is shown in the slide show with the caption "The India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty of 1949 is the basis of close ties between Bhutan and India.  It was signed at government house in Darjeeling in 1949.  (Image: Queen Grandmother of Bhutan)."
 * http://www.bignews.biz/?id=830644&keys=Bhutan-Eye-to-History -- News item about the exhibit from Bignews.biz, "National Gallery of Modern Art and the India-Bhutan Foundation presents ‘Bhutan: An Eye to History’".
 * http://www.bhutanstudies.org.bt/admin/pubFiles/NationalFlag.pdf -- "The doc" from the Centre for Bhutan Studies (CBS), "The Origin and Description of The National Flag and National Anthem of The Kingdom of Bhutan", including the correct translation of the Bhutanese government archive doc describing the "second flag".
 * http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/bt.html -- Flags of the World (FOTW) entry for Bhutan. See separate link there under the 2nd flag for a discussion of the accuracy of their description.  Note also that their depiction of the 1st flag follows "the doc" rather than the 1949 photos.

<Add more as appropriate> -- Elphion (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I popped over to the library this morning and found some relevant flagbook images. With callous disregard for intellectual property rights, I've taken some pictures of their depictions and uploaded them off-site:
 * The Observer's Book of Flags by I.O. Evans (1963):
 * The Book of Flags by Gordon Campbell and I.O. Evans (1965):
 * Flags of the World by E. M. C. Barraclough (1965):
 * The Observer's Book of Flags by I.O. Evans (1975):
 * Flaggen Wappen Daten by Karl-Heinz Hesmer (1975):
 * Quality isn't great, but the important details are there. The black and white images from Evans all give the same colour description: yellow-orange over red with a white dragon, even on the otherwise modern looking 1975 image. These were the oldest books I could find (at the Toronto Reference Library, anyway) that differed in any way from the modern Bhutanese flag. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So I think you're right that we have to approach this as three periods of flag design, rather than a timeline of different flag designs. I don't think we have the sources we need to reconstruct any kind of well-defined timeline and the changes were probably too piecemeal anyway. My thoughts are that it goes something like this:
 * 1949-1956: A single flag, which was designed for the signing of the Indo-Bhutanese treaty and then fell into disuse. A black-and-white photo of the ceremony shows the design of the flag. The colour isn't clear from the picture but the CBS doc describes it as a yellow over red bicolour with a green dragon. Illustration is File:Flag of Bhutan (1949-1956).svg (labeled as a reconstruction)
 * 1956-1969: Mutliple flags produced, originally based on a photo of the original, but gradually changing to resemble the modern flag. Official description is a yellow-red bicolor with a white dragon (as quoted in "the doc") but that description leaves the ratio of the flag and the orientation of the dragon ambiguous. Many different designs are reported during this period. Illustrations are File:Second Flag of Bhutan.svg ("as described in [the CBS doc]", possibly tweaked to have an S-shaped dragon rather than the straighter version in there now.), a new image to match some of those flagbook images ("typical design from contemporary flag books" or something. basically this: ), and maaaaybe File:Flag of Bhutan (1956-1969).svg ("as shown on FOTW"). Or maybe just the first two since we don't really have a source for the last one. In any case, we stress that they're examples of reported flags during this period.
 * 1969-Present: The modern standardized design of the flag. Illustration is File:Flag of Bhutan.svg
 * Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting: four of your flag books essentially follow the photo (with some understandable disagreement about color), while one gives the modern flag. No intermediate versions need apply! (Actually, the Evans 1975 version is worth note: modern in all respects except the bottom color and the old 4:5 aspect ratio -- would be interesting to know why he chose those dimensions.)

I would describe the first version as following the photo with "colors as described in the CBS doc", pointing out that the photo limits any green to a pale shade. The 1956 version in the WP article is fine as is: I wouldn't make the dragon more S-shaped because (a) we don't know when it acquired the straighter form, it might be this early -- and (b) we need a version that clearly shows the difference between parallel and diagonal orientation, since that change is explicitly called out as happening after 1956. I don't think a third diagram (before the modern version) is necessary, and in any event, the 1956 version is the only one between 1949 and 1968 that we have an explicit description of.

There are really 7 changes (not just the 4 mentioned in the doc) from 1949 to 1969:
 * 1) Dragon becomes white (described already for 1956)
 * 2) Dragon flips to face fly end (ditto, but not described as a change; CBS seems unaware that the original faced the hoist)
 * 3) Dragon acquires a more linear shape (timing unknown)
 * 4) Dragon acquires 4 pearls instead of 2 (timing unknown)
 * 5) Dragon gets tilted to the diagonal (sometime after 1956)
 * 6) Shape becomes square (in 1956), then 3:2 (sometime after 1956)
 * 7) Bottom color changes from red to dark orange (1968-69)

In sum, I think your new version of the 1949 flag is fine, and the existing version of the 1956 flag in the article is consistent with all the evidence. I'm not convinced yet that including diagrams representing other flag book descriptions is a good idea -- they're variations on the same theme from the same sources with no physical evidence to back them up. I think, however, that we should mention that the CBS doc's description of the original flag does not entirely agree with the photo, so its description of the 1956 flag may not be entirely correct either; we cannot be sure of the timing or the order of any of the changes except the last.

-- Elphion (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I actually don't think those drawings are the same as the photo. They're similar, but the dragon is considerably larger in the books, and it's closer to the horizontal line in most of them than it is to the diagonal.
 * See, here's my problem. We have an explicit description, yes. But how reliable is that description? I mean, consider the other description in the source. CBS says the 1949 flag was square. It wasn't, it was rectangular. CBS says the dragon ran horizontally across the flag. It didn't, it was on a sharp diagonal. CBS says it faced the fly. It didn't, it faced the hoist. I mean, it's wrong on nearly every single point. The only thing it's probably right about are the colours, and for all we know, those might be wrong too.
 * So if they got that description so completely wrong, what else did they get wrong? Was the second flag really square? It's certainly possible, but why would it have become square if it was based off of a picture of the original, which was rectangular? And why, for that matter, would the dragon have been reversed and placed on the horizontal? If the story about the 1956 flag being based off of a photo of the 1949 flag is true, then the depictions in Evans and Barraclough are much more logical. I'm not saying we should discard the doc entirely, but I don't think we should treat it as authoritative. Half of the information we're concerned with is unsourced and the other half all comes from an interview with a single individual describing events that took place 45 years earlier. Maybe this guy just messed up the details.
 * I'm fine with keeping that image on the page, but I don't want it to be "the image" when there's no other source backing it up. We either need to put alternate renderings on there or dispense with images for that period altogether.
 * Oh and about the straightness of the dragon: That is really just due to a lack of technical skill on my part. When I first made that image I didn't have the Inkscape skills to make a new body for the dragon, so I just rotated the dragon from the modern flag and hoped that it would be a close enough approximation. If I had been making File:First Flag of Bhutan.svg today, it would have had a curved body to match and File:Second Flag of Bhutan.svg would have been the same. There's no specific evidence that the "straighter" dragon existed before the modern flag was designed. I'd hate to be responsible for spreading misinformation via the unstoppable google juggernaut that is Wikipedia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we bring this conversation to the attention to the FOTW people? I'd be interested to get their take on everything. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less what I've been saying. We have three sources: the photos, the government archive quoted in CBS for the 1956 flag (probably trustworthy, but incomplete), and the anecdotal descriptions in CBS (from several sources identified in the introduction). The anecdotal descriptions we know are fallible, but (except for the 1949 flag) we don't know how fallible. I trust the description of the 1956 flags as square with horizontal dragons, precisely because of the dissatisfaction that led to rectangular flags and diagonal placement later. And the dragon in 1956 was probably facing the fly, because the whole anecdote about "facing the earth" makes no sense otherwise. Beyond that nothing is clear, so => any illustration is necessarily a reconstruction without firm basis. The seven changes I mentioned above might have happened in almost any order at any time. We can reconstruct a plausible sequence based on the sources, but that is at best a reconstruction. The flag books are no help because they're relying on the same sources we are. So any illustration for a flag between 1949 and 1969 is going to be at best a conjecture unless we turn up a new source.

(I don't think the four books are that different from the photo -- they are not different enough to convince me that another unknown flag is involved. The size of the dragon is tolerably similar to the photo (especially given the absence of any prescribed size), and the orientation is not very different.  I still get an impression of horizontal placement from the photo -- the hind feet are at about the same level as the forefeet, e.g.; it's only when you flip the dragon around against the diagonal that you see that there's a definite rise to it.)

I would be comfortable with an image for the 1956 flag only if we indicate what conforms to the government archive and that the rest is inferred from the anecdotal descriptions and the modern flag, both uncertain sources for 1956. For any other intermediate version we're just whistling in the dark. I wouldn't read too much into the statement that the 1956 flag was based on the photo; I think that means simply that no flag survived to 1956, and the photo simply gave them the basic parameters, which they played pretty freely with. The notion of an official, fixed design for a national flag was not something they grokked in 1956.

-- Elphion (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And yes, if we can get the attention of FOTW it would be good to get their input. I already notified Grutness, who was involved in our last disaster :-), but he seems to be on break. -- Elphion (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Here's what the anecdotal portion of the source definitively says about the initial 1956 design:
 * "the colour of the dragon was changed to white."
 * "The flag was square"
 * "the dragon, instead of being diagonally placed, was straight."
 * You'll note there's no mention in the 1956 section about the dragon facing the fly at all. That is assumed to be an inheritance from the 1949 flag. And when we take into account that the fact that the 1949 dragon faced the hoist, I don't think we can reasonably say that the dragon faced the fly in 1956. At least, not based on this text alone. It might have, but we have zero evidence to support that.
 * I also don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the flag books as "working from the same sources we are". We don't know what sources they used. You could say that the similarity to the photo is evidence that they just copied a photo, but here's another explanation which is just as reasonable: They based their drawings off of actual 1956 flags, and the reason they look so similar to the photo is that the 1956 flag was based off the photo. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another possibility: What if "square" in the source doesn't literally mean 1:1 square. What if it's just a relative term? Compared to the modern 2:3 Bhutanese flag, the 5:4 flag is, well, kind of "square". Normally that would just be idle speculation, but we do know that the source described the 1949 flag as "square" when it was actually 5:4. Maybe there's a subtlety lost in translation here, or maybe they're just considering it to be square by comparison, or maybe they're just not being specific enough with their wording.
 * If you consider it that way and take into account the fact that the source never says that the flag in 1956 faced the fly, Barraclough's image suddenly conforms to the source really nicely. The dragon was changed to white, check. The flag was "square", check. The dragon was straight, I think you could say so. If you apply the same diagonal line test we used on the 1949 flag you can see that it is much closer to the horizontal than it is to the diagonal:  (1949 for comparison: )
 * Also: The Indian flag story works just as well with a 5:4 flag as it does with a 1:1 flag. Neither would flutter quite the same as a 3:2 flag. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument just reinforces my previous statement: any illustration for flags between 1949 and 1969 is not firmly based on evidence. We don't know what order the changes occurred in. The photos make clear that the doc knows 1949 only from hearsay; so using its erroneous description of that flag as the basis for these theories is (your words) "idle speculation" ;-).

The idea that "square" doesn't mean square is possible but WP:OR -- you're bending the existing source to postulate a 1956 flag as the basis for the book illustrations, but there's no evidence for that. The old flag book images can all reasonably be explained as based on the 1949 flag (or more likely, the photo) -- i.e., based on a flag for which there *is* solid evidence.

What the doc *does* say about the 1956 flag includes your three bullets above, but also the clear assumption that the dragon faces the fly. You have to willfully bend its clear meaning to read a hoist-facing dragon from the doc. => Moreover, the doc's story about the dragon facing the earth when the flag slumped makes no sense unless the dragon faces the fly. Again, ignoring that amounts to WP:OR.

I grant that we can imagine scenarios for various possibilities. I grant that the evidence is not clear. But the configuration for 1956 that best fits the evidence at hand is a square flag with a horizontal, fly-facing, white dragon. I think we're bending the rules going even that far -- but reconstructing anything else really breaks them.

-- Elphion (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the doc supports a hoist facing dragon necessarily, but the dragon facing the fly is implictly based on claims earlier in the document which appear to be false. If I understand correctly, the doc says that the 1949 dragon faced the fly and that the 1956 flag was based on the 1949 flag. And from that we draw the conclusion that the document says the 1956 dragon faced the fly. Now that's a reasonable reading to make, but that chain of logic doesn't fit the evidence, because we know that the 1949 dragon didn't face the fly. If we're largely disregarding the 1949 description as hearsay (which it seems like we have to in light of its multiple disagreements with the photo), then we don't really have a specification of which way the dragon faced in 1956.
 * Between the flag books and the CBS doc, we seem to have two competing depictions of the flag. One is a square flag with the dragon facing the fly, the other is a rectangular flag with the dragon facing the hoist. The problem is, there's no independent evidence supporting either of those depictions, and neither source reliable enough for us to trust outright (errors crop up in flag books all the time, and the CBS source is decidedly wrong on at least one of its three flag descriptions). And the only government source we have is non-specific enough that both versions could technically be correct. Yes, the dragon slumping story supports the CBS version, but that's a circular argument. The only source for that anecdote is the CBS document in the first place.
 * I feel like we have to have both possible renderings on there. If nothing else, just to illustrate how complicated and uncertain this history really is. Either that or have no images at all for that period. But to only have the square flag reconstruction when it comes from a source that we can't trust 100% seems iffy to me. I'm not going to say it's a violation of NPOV (because that would be a bit of a silly extreme for a flag) but it does seem to violate some "NPOV-ish" principle, where we present all the evidence to the reader without giving anything undue weight.
 * My point about the flag books is that we can't assume that the flag books are based on the photo absent any concrete evidence that they are. Barraclough's rendering is similar to the photo, but there are significant differences between the two:

The flag book images all look like the 1949 flag to me. Yes there's variation, but they were working from an imperfect source and the differences are all acceptable within artistic license -- drawing dragons is not a precise science. I'm not saying that's *evidence* that they were drawn from the 1949 flag -- but I am saying the variation is not evidence that they weren't.

The flag-slumping argument is not circular: it's solid evidence that at some point there was a fly-facing horizontal dragon that was deemed unacceptable. Was it the 1956 flag? That's certainly the sense of the doc, which suggests that the change to the diagonal was made as early as 1959.

Thought experiment: What's on the other side of the flag in the photo? Possibly nothing. Possibly another dragon facing the hoist. But suppose you are Lharip Taw Taw, tasked by the king with painting the dragon. You paint two copies, one for each side, both happening to face to the left since you are careful to make them exact copies of each other. They are cut out and appliqued to the flag, one on each side: one facing the hoist, one facing the fly. Which is the front? you have no idea, because the whole western understanding of flags seems to have taken Bhutan by surprise in 1949. The one we see in the photo is just an accident of the way the flags were hung by the Nepalese in the conference room.

Did it happen that way? I have no idea. It's at least plausible. => and it has the brilliant consequence of saving the doc's description of the 1949 flag: everybody *remembers* that the dragon faced the fly! Even the "sample" (what we would call a "reconstruction from memory long after the fact", clearly influenced by the modern flag) has a green dragon facing the fly. (I'd bet on that, since it is explicitly described as placed along the "fimbriation" or diagonal, and it's not likely to be facing downward toward the hoist!)

(Yeah, there's the bit about "square" -- who's to know what they truly meant by that.)

OK, that's OR: plausible reconstruction going well beyond the evidence, but seemingly supported by the evidence. I'm not introducing it as evidence! But it should reinforce that we are operating under hidden assumptions -- that the Bhutanese understood the notion of the front of a flag in 1949, or that the doc and the photo are beyond reconciliation. We just don't know. It makes sense to discuss the changes to the flag from 1949 to 1969, and to illustrate the endpoints, both of which we know tolerably well. The rest is just too poorly known for any image to be anything but misleading.

-- Elphion (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay, I think we're agreed that intermediate illustrations should probably just be avoided then. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes to the article along the lines discussed above; specifically:

 * Replaced the 1949 flag image with Orange Tuesday's new one following the 1949 photos.
 * Discussed differences between the photos and CBS doc.
 * Rewrote the "Second national flag" section as "Later flags", describing the changes from 1949 to 1969 and the uncertainty about when or in what order they occurred.
 * The first paragraph of "Current flag" was moved to "Later flags".
 * Removed the old 1956 image as too reconstructed.

-- Elphion (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Updates?
This is a good article and top importance for WikiProject Bhutan. Is there still anyone working on the article beacuse it has potential for GA maybe FA if improved a lot? Spongie555 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious: what changes do you think would improve it "a lot"?  (My own take:  the article depends almost entirely on the problematic CBS document for the evolution of the flag.  There is almost no other source for this history, but the doc does not appear to mesh well with the photographic evidence.  A more authoritative treatment would appear to require new sources.) -- Elphion (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never reviewed or writtien a GA but i agree it needs more sources. I can ask some other people to help you if you want. Spongie555 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or just change the sources. When you do quote about the actual legal code from 1972, I found it as a separate document on a government website. The biggest thing we should do now is make sure the sources actually say what they say. The 1972 legal code does not mention the finial at all, but according to the text here, it does. The 1972 legal code mentions only "two third of it must be kept as the width. For example, dimension such as 9 by 6. " when it comes to the ratio and does not mention any flag sizes. I will be working on this article, by request of Spongie555, to help get it to GA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
My question is this; what photos are you talking about? If there are in the CBS document, they are not present. I am looking at the 2009 paper given about the Bhutan flag at a conference I went to and there are some photos of the flag involved. I am trying to check the text in our article against this paper, but this is something that needs to be figured out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 * The article is not accusing the CBS document of internal inconsistency, just that its information is not consistent with surviving photos taken at the 1949 treaty conference (and referenced in the article). Are the photos in the paper you cite identical with either of the photos referenced in the article?

 * The photo you found of the Flag Behind the Throne (at the Kuensel site) is a nice find, but it makes clear that the throne flag was re-created long after the fact, and is not an accurate representation of the flag in the 1949 photos. Interestingly, though, the dragon behind the throne is made to face to the left, just as in 1949 -- but by reversing the flag so that the fly is on the left.  The fly is colored orange, not red, so the throne flag clearly dates from after 1969. So as a source for reconstructing the flag of 1949, the throne flag is not very trustworthy.

 * -- Elphion (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by the photos and the text in the article, I think they are the same. I can send you the paper via email. As for the flag, the text reads "The first flag was used only for the occasion of the signing of the Indo-Bhutan Treaty, and a sample of the flag (with some changes) is displayed behind the throne in the National Assembly Hall in Thimphu." The sample could mean modern reproduction, a copy, etc. I will change the wording. The problem I had is from the previous wording it felt like the CBS studies has the photographs, which it does not have. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You say in the edit summary that you want to rely less on the CBS document.  But the reference to Kuensel alone is misleading, since (a) this implies information independent of the CBS document, and (b) it implies that Kuensel is the source for all of the information in that sentence.  Neither is true:  except for the photo (for which Kuensel *is* an appropriate reference; I'm not advocating removing it), Kuensel is completely dependent on CBS, and CBS supplies more information than Kuensel does (in particular, how the throne flag was influenced by the modern flag.  So both references are appropriate, and I have reinstated the ref to CBS. -- Elphion (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits hide the documentation difficulty
Recent edits have gutted the careful description of where the information is coming from. If this is being done as a result of the "GA review", then the review needs to reconsider the problem here. There are essentially two basic sources of documentation for the early flags: the CBS (Center for Bhutanese Studies) history of the flag, and black and white photographs of the 1949 flag. The problem is that the CBS document is essentially our *only* early documentary source (and that needs to be acknowledged), but that its description of the 1949 flag does not entirely agree with the photos. The current version says "Bhutanese documents does not [sic] contain photographs of the first versions of the flag" -- that's certainly more than we know (and it is in fact false: at least one of the black and white photos came from the Queen Grandmother of Bhutan). What is true is that the primary source, namely the CBS document, does not contain such photos. It's important to make clear where our knowledge is coming from, and which source says what. -- Elphion (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for only going part of the way with the edits and leaving the text in a confusing condition. To clarify, the modifications I made to the 1949 Flag section while conducting the GA review were the beginning of an effort to fix what came across as undue emphasis on one document. Let's make some revisions to this section to reincorporate some of what I removed, while also explicitly stating the importance of the document and photos as key primary sources (explaining why); this will justify the detailed discussion by framing these sources as the crucial documents they are. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some revisions along those lines. -- Elphion (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lupant's paper
The paper Flags over Bhutan by Michael Lupant, though it draws together a lot of interesting material, is not (so far as I can determine) a published source. We should avoid citing it unless some bibliographic data (and in particular a reputable publisher) are forthcoming. -- Elphion (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is being published in a congress report next year (because I am the guy publishing it). Most of the information is pulled from the CBS paper and some websites. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this document online somewhere? Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not until everything is published. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone took off the refernce from Lupant's paper just to say. Spongie555 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am well aware. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lupant has recently published a book on the subject (Symbols of Bhutan, CEBED, Ottignies, March 2011); I have bought it at the recent International Congress of Vexillology, but I only had a superficial glance at it right now.--12.187.228.2 (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad I could not be in DC right now to pick up his book or at least read it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dzongkag?
This sentence in the section Code of conduct makes no sense: "The 1972 rules also state that each dzongkhag will fly the national flag; if no dzongkhag is present, the building of the head government officer will fly the flag." The problem is that we don't know what a "dzongkag" is. WP has an article Dzongkhag defining the word as meaning any of the twenty districts of Bhutan. So far so good; but then "if no dzongkhag is present" makes no sense. (I would look up the relevant passage in the code of conduct, but the PDF will not download for me.) -- Elphion (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant text is below:

"5. Admissibility of Hoisting the National Flag a) Starting  from  the  capital,  every  dzongkhag  will  hoist  the national flag. b)  Where there are no dzongkhag, the national flag will be hoisted in front of the office of the main government officer. c)  If  officials  above  the  rank  of  ministers  do  not  reside  near  the capital,  they  can  hoist  the  national  flag  in  front  of  their residence. d)  In relation to the hoisting of the national flag by Bhutanese and foreign embassies, the ambassadors can hoist the flag according to their legal tradition."

User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

 * So, the rule must mean something like the following? "The districts (dzongkhag) of the kingdom are to fly the flag; and in areas not assigned to a district, the building of the head government officer will fly the flag."  The problem with this interpretation is that according to Districts of Bhutan the entire country appears to be assigned to districts (though perhaps this was not true in 1972?). -- Elphion (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess so? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they ment a building like for example Rinpung Dzong instead of a district? Spongie555 (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only time a building is mentioned is if a "dzongkhag" was not present. I think the legal language really needs to be updated, but until something is passed, we have to stick by this. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 11:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am primarily concerned that the ordinary reader won't have a clue what this is talking about. Since we can't really do much to clarify it, beyond linking to Dzongkhag, I've replaced what we had before with the language of the rules directly.  We don't know just what they had in mind, so we are better off using their language rather than trying to interpret it.  (I also restructured this so that it is contained in its own paragraph.  That way we can remove it cleanly if it is judged to be too cryptic.) -- Elphion (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In the CBS document, there is a footnote explaining that dzongkhag refers to the district headquarters (the building). I clarified this in the text. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Article about early Bhutan flags
There is some good information in the article linked below. Including some of it could help to enrich the information contained in this article.

http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16483

 * Unfortunately, the link above no longer leads to the article, which appears to be no longer posted at Kuensel -- Elphion (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

For fun, here's one about the Bhutanese flag flying in space: http://www.kuenselonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=13574

 * Is the picture of the flag in space in public domain? If NASA took the picture it might be in public domain. Spongie555 (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The credit on the image is not NASA and I found nothing by using a .gov image search on Google. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's too bad it would have been a good edition. Also would a image of the first flag like in the first source be in public domain? Spongie555 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research?
The history section has recently been tagged as OR. I disagree: there are no conclusions there that are not in the original sources, except that the sources disagree, which is fair to point out. Without some statement indicating that the sources are not consistent, we would be propagating misinformation. -- Elphion (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hearing no response, I'm removing the tag. -- Elphion (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dragon on the Flag?
Is the current dragon/druk on the current svg flag here on wikipedia the official one. I found that there is a more stylized druk, here and here. The image on the right also shows that the druk is different from what we currently have here. Any thoughts?--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flag of Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706162637/http://www.constitution.bt/TsaThrim%20Eng%20%28A5%29.pdf to http://www.constitution.bt/TsaThrim%20Eng%20%28A5%29.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424024939/http://oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/National_Flag_Rules_1972.pdf to http://www.oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/National_Flag_Rules_1972.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706163643/http://www.constitution.bt/html/constitution/articles/article_1st.htm to http://www.constitution.bt/html/constitution/articles/article_1st.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Flag of Bhutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320040746/http://www.judiciary.gov.bt/html/education/publication/crest.php to http://www.judiciary.gov.bt/html/education/publication/crest.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012011301/http://www.bhutan.gov.bt/government/abt_nationalflag.php to http://www.bhutan.gov.bt/government/abt_nationalflag.php
 * Added tag to http://www.bhutanstudies.org.bt/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004025504/http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/204 to http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/204
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706162643/http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/256 to http://www.bhutan2008.bt/en/node/256

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference URL update
Apologies for being a newbie, but the rules for the use of the flag (reference 3) are dead. This appears to be the new reference: https://oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/National-Flag-Rules-1972-English.pdf Walnut Iguana (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flag of Bhutan


text: Category:702 deaths

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

title: Category:702 deaths


text:
User talk:Mystine~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Viriditas | Talk 09:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Mystine. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Mystine~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mystine~enwiki


text:
User talk:Edwardkerlin

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Viriditas | Talk 09:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Edwardkerlin


text:
User talk:Mixer

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

HEY YOU!
I REITERATE: THAT INF IS NOT VERIFIED. LEAVE IT PENDING VERIFICATION OR I WILL REPORT YOU:

HANMOODONT
please leave the article as is pending verifications. DANKE --Finn Institute for Health and Self-Defense 05:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

MOO
Could you explain the difference between MOO and MU ? I am no cow, but this is getting ridiculous! --Finn Institute for Health and Self-Defense 10:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OMON
Hi. I reverted your edits on OMON because for some reasons a lot of sections were duplicated. Your latest edits again duplicated many sections. Could you please check and remove the duplicates? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 01:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, i tried to fix the duplicates while keeping your edits. Please check if it is OK. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... That's interesting bug. Took about 5 minutes to upload that page and it didn't even worked. :( Thanks for fixing, it looks fine to me! :) mixer 18:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Klaus Fuchs image
Hello there, I saw you added an image to the Klaus Fuchs article. In the future, when uploading images, could you please add the correct image tag indicating its source and copyright status (see Copyright for information on that). It's important to do this because one of the chief ways Wikipedia could run into problems in the future is if it gets in trouble using copyrighted material, and nobody wants that! :-) Thanks! --Fastfission 00:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There was a problems with this particular image since it is pretty wide-spreaded and I have no clue about the origin (nor did I succeeded to find it). Thus I decided to post a picture and leave it "as is". Anyways, thanks for trying to help! Gud Lak! :) mixer 19:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:AaronBankGreenBerets.jpg
Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 13:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

TOMA
I've replied on Talk:TOMA - in brief, add your reference to the article! (and thanks for looking it up!) --Alvestrand 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug Pruden
Hi Mixer, I replied at Talk:Doug Pruden. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 07:11Z

Han Mu Do
Finn Institute for Heath and Self-Defense? Anyways, I am a Member of the World Han Mu Do Association. http://www.hanmudo.com/ <- please Reference, We are a true Martial Art Style. Han Mu Do meaning Korean Martial Art. I would like to assure you We do exist and Prosper.

Danke Schön --DeathKick 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Qc2k2.ym.2002-08-16.272.levelord-appears.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Qc2k2.ym.2002-08-16.272.levelord-appears.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

TOMA
A template has been added to the article TOMA, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. B. Wolterding 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Han Moo Do
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Han Moo Do. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Han Moo Do (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. When you recently edited Baud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Analog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Iorfida v. MacIntyre
Hello ,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Iorfida v. MacIntyre, may be copied from http://www.zeably.com/Chilling_effect_(term). It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iorfida v. MacIntyre
Hello Mixer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Iorfida v. MacIntyre for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 16:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liz Wahl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The View (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Realpolitik
I reverted your edits to Realpolitik. You added a sentence without adding a reference and you removed a cn tag without suitable reason. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. We have to cite independent reliable sources. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mixer


text:
Lugano Airport

Lugano Airport is a regional airport located 4 km west of the Swiss city of Lugano, approximately 80 km north of Milan, in the municipalities of Agno, Bioggio and Muzzano. It lies closer to the village of Agno than to Lugano itself, and is sometimes known as Lugano-Agno. Around 200,000 passengers use the airport each year, using some 2,400 flights. There are also limited freight operations, a flying club and flight school. The headquarters of Darwin Airline were located at the airport prior to its bankruptcy.

The airport is situated on land owned by the city of Lugano, whilst management is the responsibility of Lugano Airport SA, whose shares are owned by the canton of Ticino (12.5%) and the city (87.5%). The company has 73 employees, and an annual turnover of 10 million Swiss francs.

History
The current location of the airport dates back to 1938, when it opened as a grass field. The first paved runway was laid in 1960, and originally had a length of 1200 m and a width of 30 m. Initially managed by private sector companies, the airport was taken over by the Azienda comunale dei trasporti della Città di Lugano, Lugano's municipal transport company, in 1974.

In the early 1980s, the airline Crossair decided to invest in the airport, establishing connections between Lugano and various European cities. In 1985, the runway was extended by 150 m, and in 1989 a new control tower became operational.

After the demise of Adria Airways in September 2019, which operated the route to Zürich Airport on behalf of Swiss International Air Lines, Lugano lost its sole year-round scheduled service as Swiss will refer its passengers to train services in the future without resuming the flights.

In April 2020, the company behind the airport serving Lugano, Switzerland opted to put itself into liquidation after the COVID-19 pandemic destroyed air traffic at the location.

Terminal
The airport has a single passenger terminal building, with airline ticket and check-in desks, airport security and customs facilities. There is an air side departure lounge with duty-free shop, bar and snack bar. Boarding of aircraft is generally on foot across the apron, although sometimes buses are used when the aircraft is not parked directly next to the terminal building.

An adjacent building to the terminal building houses the ground side airport restaurant and flying club, with outdoor seating under an awning between the two buildings. Other ground side catering and shopping outlets are situated around an adjacent open courtyard.

Runway
The airport has a single, bidirectional runway with an asphalt surface, identified as 01/19. The runway is 1420 m long, 30 m wide, and 279 m above mean sea level. There is no parallel taxiway, and aircraft arrivals and departures often involve backtracking on the runway.

The airport's instrument approach procedure is quite challenging because of its steep angle of descent of 6.65°, more than double the standard approach angle of 3° and steeper than London City's 5.5°. This is due to its geographic location in the mouth of a valley.

Airlines and destinations
The following airline offers seasonal flights at Lugano Airport:

Road
The airport is some 6 km from Lugano city centre by road, and a similar distance from the nearest junctions on the A2 motorway. It has both long and short term parking, a taxi rank, and a selection of car hire companies.

Train
A shuttle bus connects the airport with Lugano railway station and city centre, meeting most scheduled flights. Agno railway station is a sign-posted ten-minute walk from the airport, and trains connect to Lugano and Ponte Tresa every 15 minutes on weekdays or 30 minutes at weekends.

title: Lugano Airport


text: Category:683 deaths

title: Category:683 deaths


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/General

kernel of an article, idea at least
Can any of you kind folks suggets where this idea might find fruition? I have been thinking of an article or subsection on the geographic etymology of medieval trade goods, (it's horrible, but I haven't come up with a better title) what I mean is the practice where we even today call objects by where things were made locally or the trade cities that were sources for them at the time, vide
 * Tangerine=Tangier
 * Ginger=Zanzibar
 * Cashmere=Kashmir
 * Afghan blankets=Afghanistan
 * Angora=Ankara
 * Muscadine=Masqat
 * Damask cloth=Damascus
 * Turquoise=Turkey

as well as that some considered to be such a name is in fact a false etymology, vide
 * Alabaster=not really from Halab
 * Persimmon=not being related to Persia

Please let me know your thoughts. :) Chris 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Manumission
This article has almost no content relating to the rituals and realities of manumission in the MA, which was a fairly common practice both in the north (at least up to the twelfth century) and in the Mediterranean (where something akin to ancient "slavery" continued in places like Genoa, inter alia, for centuries). I'm swamped at the moment, but perhaps someone with a social history Jones could have a go at this?? SGilsdorf 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Slavery and History of slavery have virtually zero mention of medieval slavery...we could write a whole big article about it! I am also swamped but I would be happy to collaborate on that topic. Adam Bishop 15:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I have a great deal of sources for this topic on hand, but I would be happy to begin a (stubby) section at those articles soon in hopes that one of you can beef it up. Srnec 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Adam--there is in fact Slavery in medieval Europe, although it's pretty sparse and could use some TLC. Maybe this is where medieval manumission belongs, in the end... SGilsdorf 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the same token, rather than adding new material to Slavery and History of slavery, couldn't we just add an annotated link to Slavery in medieval Europe at the appropriate points in both articles, and then focus on the latter one? SGilsdorf 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I didn't know we had that article until now. Let's add to that one. Adam Bishop 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I too had no idea such an article existed until today. I found it discussed higher up on this very page! Srnec 04:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been going over what sources I have immediately available, and I can add an outline of slavery and manumission in Roman/Byzantine law (as used in the middle ages, of course), as well as in canon law; justifications for slavery by various jurists and canonists; and an outline of various aspects of slavery in the crusader states. I hope that's not too specific...I found a lot of general books about medieval slavery when I was working on this for a class, which I didn't need at the time, so I will have to track them down again. Adam Bishop 00:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

 * If I remember correctly, the British Library has some Anglo-Saxon manuscripts that have manumissions included as marginalia. I will try to find images of them in the coming week and put them on Commons. Dsmdgold 02:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion preposed: Medieval life
Members of this wikiproject would be intersted to know that the article above is listed for deletion at: Articles for deletion/Medieval life. CaveatLectorTalk 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon task force?
Is anyone interested in joining a task force to work specifically on Anglo-Saxon articles? I'm thinking it would be good to take one of the kingdoms -- probably Wessex, Northumbria or Mercia, or maybe Kent to keep the scope small to start with -- and try to bring every related article up to featured standard. There are the individual kings to do, though several are already done; and also battles and an overall history article. There might be scope for specific articles on coinage, archaeology, or historiography too, though those are more likely to live up at the Anglo-Saxon level. I'm sure there could be other articles too. If anyone's interested, let me know here or on my talk page, and I'll put together some kind of task force page so we can figure out what to tackle first. Mike Christie (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Medieval economy
We quite desperately need an article on that subject.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Devol
Treaty of Devol has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Courtier and Favourite
Are both virtually dic-def stubs. Can anyone expand these rather important articles? Johnbod 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

moot hill
Has the opposite problem— it's a quite long parthenogenetic article with much more material than trustworthiness. Considered purely as an encyclopedia article, its problems are obvious— it's full of plagarism and copyvios; it's rambling and poorly organized; it's frequently not encyclopedic in style. I'm making a few attempts to fix all that. But there's also a general feeling of untrustworthiness to it which I'm having a much harder time putting my finger on; I feel that it draws too heavily on a few specific sources (some of which don't look very reputable) and lacks the 'broader picture' which somebody really at home with early medieval society could give it. Could anybody stop by and lend expertise? Thanks, Doops | talk 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Also— why don't we currently have an article on moot (it's just a dab page now), or thingemote, or folkmoot, or the like? Doops | talk 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Application of Project Banners
The project banner has recently been added to a great many articles which probably do not really fall under the definition of "medieval" or "Middle Ages". .. The Japanese medieval period is generally considered to extend from roughly 1180 (the beginning of the Genpei War which ended in the establishment of the first shogunate) to roughly 1600 (the end of the Sengoku period of feudal civil war). ... While I realize the difficulties of applying each individual country/culture's notions and dating of their own medieval period, and keeping it all straight, I think this is something that the project needs to figure out.

Having a project banner on an article isn't a big deal - it doesn't affect the content of the article, and is (at least in my opinion) less important than categories in terms of being appropriately placed. Even so, a number of topics have been labeled under the Middle Ages Project which quite assuredly fall under the rubrics of "antiquity", "classical", "ancient" or the like. I'm going to go remove a number of the more blatant ones.

What do you suppose we should do about this? Shall we establish a rubric for what counts as "medieval" in various parts of the world? LordAmeth 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists of religious leaders
For some insane reason I thought it would be a good idea to make List of religious leaders in 1220 as comprehensive as possible. And then I thought it would be a good idea to organize the page according to archdiocese-diocese structure as of 1220. The only problem with that is that the vast majority of pages (on Wikipedia, the Catholic encyclopedia, and catholic-hierarchy.org) do not say who is a suffragan of whom, especially back then. I find that this is especially a problem in Italy (where there seems to have been a vast reorganization post-Reformation) and Spain. Does anyone know where I can find more information about this, aside from searching through Wikipedia? I am only working on the Roman Catholics for now. Adam Bishop 03:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deacons of Clairvaux
I hate to say that just because I have never heard of something, it didn't exist, but in this case I think I might be right! This article doesn't make any sense to me, the author has never contributed anything else, and it doesn't appear on Google (which is odd for anything secretive in the middle ages). Anyone ever heard of them? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The words in this odd little essay that give me pause include "secretive monastic order", & "Knights Templar". Further, since the remains of St. Mark were critically important to the Venetians, I find it surprising that some mention of them couldn't be found. In short, I too am highly suspicious of this group, which sounds like what someone who has read The Da Vinci Conspiracy might come up with. Time to nominate at AfD as a hoax? -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Names of early British historical figures
Editors here may be interested in this discussion about the correct names to use in these articles. Mike Christie (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1345
This is an article a couple of us have completely revamped in an experiment to see if it was possible to make a year article an FA. Obviously, it's a middle ages article, so any help you could lend would be wonderful. Wrad (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 * That is an impressive feat, nice job! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Crusades project
Do you think there would be enough interest in creating a separate crusades Project, or can the multitude of ever-increasing crusade articles be handed well enough by the general Middle Ages project? I've been planning to create one specifically for the crusades for some time so I thought I would mention it here first. I think there are enough crusade-minded editors to keep it going. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this project is getting big enough that we need to split it into task forces. I think a Crusades task force would be nice, as would a medieval literature task force. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I notice that fr: has a nice fr:Projet:Croisades. They have tons of stubs but it's organized pretty well. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Names
Does anyone know if there is already a Wikipedia policy for naming medieval writers? If not, I would like to suggest we try to form one. I am thinking of people like Paul the Deacon who is traditionally and more commonly named Paulus Diaconus, but our article is - I think rightly - headed by the English form. I am only talking about writers in Latin here: there is no question about, say, Chrétien de Troyes, who belongs to French literature and should be cited in French; renaming him Christian of Troyes would be daft. But we have so many little-known Latin authors whose name is made up of a personal name and a toponym, and the toponym has become obscure: Iohannes Haugustaldensis / John of Hexham. People no longer no which town is meant when it is cited in Latin. Besides, I am not sure that Haugustaldensis is really a personal name form: in medieval thinking it is a place name adjective, not a surname, and we certainly never cite places in Latin first.

I feel that the usual policy of choosing the most commonly used name is out of place here. For one thing, there are usually heaps of references for both forms, and counting google hits is not a good way to decide it. Then, we have to consider the fact that medieval scholarship has changed direction in the last 20 years here, using English names where older scholarship used the Latin ones. We don't want to stick with the old forms just because the volume of pre-1980 literature has not been overtaken by the volume of new stuff. Or because people outwith the field are still copying old material all over the net. I would plead for a consistent policy, and using English forms is logical here.--Doric Loon (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Images
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I haven't yet figured out the copyright status of medieval pictures (for example, from illuminated manuscripts, or paintings). I generally browse commons if I'm in need of pictures. Many are tagged "public domain" on the basis of their age (thus copyright has expired); yet sometimes in books/websites I see pictures identified as "British Library" (or whatever). Are the copyrights of some images held by organisation such as that, or are they all in the public domain? Or perhaps the image itself is free, but the copyright belongs to the person who scanned or photographed the original? Or something else? I would be grateful to anyone who can explain this to me! Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I had the same problem.  or  seem to cover it. Kind Regards, Mcewan (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just noticed how old this question is, and all the good work you've done. Quite sure you don't any futher help on this topic :) Mcewan (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In case anyone else is puzzled, the original works themselves are well out of copyright because of age, but under English & other countries laws the photographer or his employer have "derivative copyright", which however WP does not recognise because it does not exist in the US (Bridgeman v Corel case - for 2 dimensional images only) or other countries where the WP servers are located. So all medieval paintings or illuminations are ok, but sculptures, or even coins may not be - paradoxically these may be ok if on public view in the UK or Germany, but not if they are in the US ("Freedom of panorama") - you are supposed to get permission from the man on Flickr. There must be a link on this - anyone? Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Medieval household
I've recently created an article on the medieval household. It was suggested in its GA review that it be included in the template Middle Ages wide 2. I thought I'd bring it up here for discussion first.  Lampman  Talk to me! 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force
Based on the discussion above, I recognized that a task force might be preferable to a whole project, so I created User:Adam Bishop/Crusades task force. I thought I'd try to get some help setting it up before implementing it. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Bleh, I put it at WikiProject Middle Ages/Crusades task force instead. Hopefully we can all work on it there. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for examination/help
I did some extensive work on Royal forest back in 2005. Unfortunately, a lot of that is based on the work of John Manwood, whose perspective is not entirely reliable. It needs a good going-over based on modern scholarship and secondary sources, to which my access is now much reduced. If anyone here is familiar with forest law, please take a look, even if it's only to strike some of the more egregious misconceptions. Choess (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval peace treaties
I have begun move requests at Talk:Peace of Toruń (1411) and Talk:Peace of Toruń (1466). Further input would be appreciated. Olessi (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Medieval patricians, burghers and the like
I was shocked to see how little we seem to have on the city-governing medieval elites - nothing at all on those two until I added a sentence each, and bourgeoisie is no use here. Or am I missing articles? A translation of the Italian Patrizio (titulo) would be a start. Patricianship is currently all about upper-class Dutch popstars & the like. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1345
An admin moved the summary version of this article to 1345 (summary) from the main 1345 spot. This article is in the scope of this project. Commentary is needed on whether summaries in the main year articles should be encouraged or not. Discussion is here. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Paladin
We're trying to sort out some issues at the paladin article. It's mostly over terminology; one user holds that the terms "paladin" and "palatine" are synonyms and has written the article as such; however, this is not borne out in any reliable source. I'm working on it, but additional input would be appreciated.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blanche of France
I was just cleaning up after a disambiguation move, and I was rather disturbed to see that none of the articles linking to Blanche of France (1282–1305) agreed on birth and death dates. Can anyone verify the correct dates so we can make this consistent? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Florence of Worcester to John of Worcester
I would like to bring your attention to this discussion and would be happy to hear of any opinions that people might have (whether it be to keep it as it is, or if possible to find more info about Florence; to have his own article). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Migration Period
I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted. Even though the article is not listed on the 'WikiProject Middle Ages', it does however overlap in matter of periodization and geography, with Early Middle Ages. Hopefully I have raised your curiosity. The comment is at the talk-page Talk:Migration_Period, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01. Sechinsic (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review Otto I
An article about Otto I, one of the most influential (and fascinating) early German kings, is up for peer review. Feedback from interested editors would be greatly appreciated. (If this is the wrong page to post this, please feel free to move the notice, thank you). GermanJoe (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wanted articles
Is there a list anywhere of articles that are wanted but have not yet been writen? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FFS-! Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  11:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but such lists are very rarely any good in my experience. As with the rest of WP, what we need is more articles on major topics, rather than ones on individual people, places, events and things, where coverage is pretty good.  Anything to do with economic history is normally very thinly covered indeed. Of course we also need updating in the huge numbers of articles that have hardly changed since they were started with a big dollop of century-old PD stuff. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox folk song
You are welcome to discuss the newly created Infobox folk song and its future here. --Tamtam90 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Medieval England Project Deadlink
Hi everyone, I've been editing Manorialism and found this wikiproject. I was about to look into WikiProject Medieval England and found it is a weird link to a draft article about an Irish Republican muralist (???) thought you might want to resurrect the project or at least remove it from your sister projects links. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Crusades
There is a general discussion ongoing about how to organise the aforementioned topic (which does not solely revolve about its military aspect). Being previously uninvolved, I closed two RfCs, at Talk:Crusades and at Talk:Crusading, since they were pretty much about the same fundamental issue. A further discussion is ongoing at Talk:Crusades. Your participation is naturally welcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Genealogy
I am looking for some discussion on what Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources. Working extensively on Eleanor of Aquitaine, it has been a bit frustrating that people keep deleting sources as "unreliable". for instance this is my question to the last person to delete sources:
 * "What is your source for dismissing FMG as a reliable source for medieval genealogy? It does have a number of academics and receives funding from the UK Government. I am aware of the discussions on Wikitree, which could be summed up by saying no source on its own is infallible and all should be read critically and compared. You may be aware that someone else just removed Wikitree as unreliable, which seems a bit unfair since its medieval project is not only tightly controlled but also pretty critical of sources. Which of course leaves us with the burning question of what exactly does Wikipedia accept as "reliable"? Imperfect sources are sometimes better than none. Maybe that is a question for further discussion by the project."

Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  02:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean this FMG, it isn't a source. Its journal is Foundations. Whether that counts as 'reliable' depends on the importance of the article (Eleanor of Aquitaine was arguably the 2nd most pivotal figure in the medieval history of people speaking the English language) and how arguable the point your making is, which you aren't mentioning. If it's about her genealogy, that should be referenced to fairly rock solid historians, not random websites or their inhouse journals. Wikitree—and any other wikified project—will never be a reliable source for anything on its own. Use their sources instead.

 * All of this is covered in detail by WP:RS, which I'm sure others have already linked. Go ahead and actually read it. If you just want a bright line to look for, (a) avoid anything that uses the website template; (b) use things where you can fill out the  and   part of the citation or cite book templates; (c) aim to have things that say Cambridge, Oxford, etc. in that first field for major figures like Eleanor that surely have good sources from reliable researchers. Alternatively, help out by adding articles on more minor figures. People won't remove your work then; they'll just slowly improve it by using better sources like Eleanor's article already does, 16+ years in. —  Llywelyn II   13:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


text: Category:603 births

title: Category:603 births


text:
Hacilar

Hacilar is an early human settlement in southwestern Turkey, 23 km south of present-day Burdur. It has been dated back 7040 BC at its earliest stage of development. Archaeological remains indicate that the site was abandoned and reoccupied on more than one occasion in its history.

Archaeological History
Hacilar lived and died in prehistory. What remained of Hacilar became a mound on the plain and remained so until 1956. It was in this year that a local teacher showed the mound to British archaeologist James Mellaart. In 1957 the excavation of Hacilar began under Mellaart's direction and continued until 1960. The artifacts recovered during this excavation are currently on display at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara.

Ceramics from Hacilar show similarities with those of the Halaf culture from about the same period. There are also similarities in their figurines.

Stratigraphy
Up to 11 stratigraphic levels have been identified. The oldest strata belong to aceramic Neolithic, and are dated to the 8th millennium BC.

To the 6th millennium BC, nine levels are assigned, the oldest with ceramics, that were almost entirely undecorated.

Level VI is dating back to 5600 BC, and there were many activities at this time. Nine buildings were found, grouped around a square. Livelihood mainly consisted of agriculture. Spelt, wheat, barley, peas and vetch were cultivated. Villagers engaged in the breeding of animals; bones of cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and dogs were found. The pottery is simple, although some specimens represent animals.

Numerous nude female figures, made of clay, are quite remarkable, and possibly represent some divinity.

At level II (c. 5300 BC), the village was fortified and had a small temple.

The settlement of level I, dating after 5000 BC, differs significantly from the previous layers, so it is believed that there were newcomers who settled here. The site is now heavily fortified. The pottery is of high quality and is generally painted in red on a cream background.

Architecture
Housing in Hacilar consisted of grouped units surrounding an inner courtyard. Each dwelling was built on a foundation of stone to protect against water damage. Walls were made of wood and daub or mud-brick that was mortared with lime. Wooden poles were located within each unit to support a flat roof. It is generally believed that these houses had an upper story made of wood.

The interiors were finished smooth with plaster and were rarely painted. Over time changes were made to the housing units; Querns, braziers and mortars appeared in the floors. Recesses in walls were also put to good use as cupboards. The kitchen was separated from the living rooms and the upper levels were used for granaries and/or workshops.

As Mellaart describes: 'The walls and floors were carefully plastered, laid on a pebble base. The plaster was frequently stained red and burnished or decorated with elementary geometric designs in red on cream.' In Hacilar houses no doorways were found. It seems possible that the entry was from the roof only.

Literature

 * Mellaart, James. «Hacilar: A Neolithic Village Site» — Scientific American, August 1961, p. 86.
 * Mellaart, James. «Earliest Civilizations of the Near East» - Thames & Hudson, London 1965, p. 80.

title: Hacilar


text: Category:612 deaths

title: Category:612 deaths