Jump to content

Talk:Flag desecration/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV title?

This has been listed on cleanup as POV, but it looks fine to me. Andrewa 12:02, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The title is inherently POV because it assumes that a flag, a piece of cloth, is "sacred" and can therefore be "desecrated." Adam 12:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To some people a flag is sacred and can therefore be desecrated irregardless of whether you or I think a flag is sacred. I think that the claim that this title is POV is nonsense -- just like claiming the title "evolution" is POV. Just my 2 cents. Stewart Adcock 22:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most nations and people around the world regard their flag as significant / important. The use of the term 'desecration' with a flag is common. This comes from the theory of a government only having that power which God has delegated to them (a theme common in many constitutions). There is a link between State and God in many cases. Perhaps 'desecration' is nonsensical term for e.g. the French tricolour, but it's common usage. Zoney 18:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say the usage was uncommon. I said it was POV. Adam 18:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the term desecration is an unnecessary link between State and God. Good point. Bensaccount 18:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The link between State and God is often official and recognised, even regardless of whether the country is Christian or Muslim. In fact, there's even the concept in secular states of the govt's power being vested in them by a 'higher authority'.
But this term is the one to use. It's well known. It's silly to be so overly PC about it all.
Zoney 19:23, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I suppose you could call it "flag abuse". But I agree that desecration is the normal term, including among agnostics etc., in which case changing the title to one that is less commonly used would be an expression of POV. I suppose you could say that the flag of Papua New Guinea or Brunei can be desecrated while that of Turkey or the USA can't be, on religious and socio-political grounds. Not convinced. Is the title the only problem with the page? Andrewa 19:35, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The title did make me blink - I wondered about flag burning as a title, but of course that's too narrow. I guess if we have host desecration, flag desecration is not hideous, but it does express a degree of POV, certainly, which our neutral point of view policy frowns at. Probably (and sadly) unavoidable, though.
In a way, the title is too narrow, because most people will not consider the use of a flag for commercial purposes to be "desecration", but it clearly should be within the scope of this article, as it is heavily intwined with relevant legislation and popular feelings. Martin 21:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
It appears you've got two neutral words (or at least more in that direction) in the first sentence: "defacement" or "dishonoring". Defacement is probably the best to go with as it more properly describes the act without the connotation associated with "desecration." Forgive the poor editing skills, new at this.
Way wrong. See "Deface", below.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this page is fine. I did edit the paragraph comparing the Janet Jackson incident to wearing the flag as a poncho. I think that will soon be outdated, so I tried to express the same sentiment in a more time-independent way. Uranographer 10:02, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Editing mistake

There is a mistake in the third paragraph of the United States section: "... under the same September 11, 2001 attacksreasoning...". I'm not sure what it should be changed to. Betelgeuse 16:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops! That was a cut-and-paste artifact I think. Thanks for getting rid of it. Uranographer 23:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

UK sport

This is perhaps a little off-topic, but does cover deliberate defacing of a flag and may be of some interest: here in Britain, it's quite common for spectators at sporting events to plaster the name of the team they support across the Union Flag, Flag of England etc. For example, you might see "MANCHESTER UNITED" printed across the horizontal red stripe of the flag; this is generally considered entirely unremarkable. Loganberry (Talk) 03:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds on topic to me.--Greasysteve13 11:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps... but - to touch on something mentioned in another context above - "desecration" would be a ludicrous word for it. Loganberry (Talk) 01:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"des⋅e⋅crate /ˈdɛsɪˌkreɪt/ [des-i-kreyt] 1. to divest of sacred or hallowed character or office. 2. to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose. 3. to treat with sacrilege; profane." - I don't think it would be appropriate to mention here. The word 'desecrate' implies a violation of sacredness which does not apply to sports fans decorating the flag with their team name when it is, in fact, done with a sense of pride. Zarcadia (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging Flag desecration in the United States to this article

I've looked at both Flag desecration in the United States and the appropriate section here, and the other article seems barely longer than this section. Unless it can be expanded considerably I see no reason for having a separate article for examples in the US. MartinMcCann 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Israel/Iraq

This is a biased statement so I deleted it: Interestingly, Iraq launched numerous missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War, but not a single Iraqi flag was burned by the Israelis.

I wrote that paragraph, and I'm not putting it back, but I still think it is worth noting that mostly barbarians burn flags. The flag is a symbol of civilization, and is supposed to be respected. If you see a flag burning, it is usually either barbarians showing their utmost disrespect to their opponents' flag, or pseudointellectuals trying to catch the public eye. By the way, I oppose to the former and support the latter. --Gabi S. 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's also totally unsubstantiated! What proof do you have? Fool.
Incidentally, the article mentions that Iraq's flag includes the name of God in Arabic. So it probably wouldn't be a good idea to burn it in a public protest. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I also added a report of an incident in Israel of their own flag being burned. The Jerusalem Post makes a big point of mentioning that the flag burners, aged 12-15, were immigrants from Russian and maybe only half Jewish. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

I inserted a weasel-words tag with regard to this line - Some judge the burning of the flag of their own country as illustrative of the impotence of the burners and an act of marginal significance. Which seems to be a classical example of an unsourced, controversial statement, per the weasel words page. Perhaps a source citation for that could be added? - I also removed the word draconian from the phrase Quebec's draconian language laws, as it seems POV to me. I also corrected a few small errors (majuscule C for Congress, for example). Beobach972 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one provided a source for the sentence, and it's been a month, I'm going to delete the sentence and, of course, the tag. --Tjss(Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Upside-Down?

Should there be some reference to the use of the US flag in protests through turning it upside down and writing on it? I've seen this happen but there's no reference to it on this article (I believe). I'm sure it won't be too hard to find a photo of on the Commons either, although I could be wrong.

Picture NPOV

I think that, at the moment, the picture Image:Anti America.jpg (seen under the heading of 'The United States') is displaying a point of view - that is, those who burn the flag are burned themselves. It is also slight POV to show a man of Arabic origin burning the flag. Either the picture should be removed, or a new one should be found. OkamiItto 10:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

POV, What a stretch ... this was an actual news item that was caught on camera. It fits this page perfectly. The guy pictured is an 'Arab' only because flag burning seems like 'the thing' for the 'Arabs' to do to gain media attention. Duke53 | Talk 16:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Lord, do you actually listen to yourself when you type this? The picture is essentially sending a message that says "people who burn the flag get punished", which does not fit the encylopedia tone of the Wikipedia at all. I'm going to remove the image and request Admin assistance on this issue - your own pro-America stance aside, I believe that you yourself barely have a leg to stand on when it comes to this.OkamiItto 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that 'Arabs' don't use the act of burning the AMERICAN Flag to get on camera? Your vandalism of the image was according to Wkipedia policy? The picture might convey that message to a moron, but normal people realize that flag burning most times has one casuality ... the flag. Essentially, anybody getting a different message isn't very bright; no sense 'dumbing down' Wikipedia for them. Duke53 | Talk 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, don't argue here. The [i]current[/i] picture shows a man; his skin looks tan and he seems to be standing on a basketball court; and he's smiling while burning a flag. So, that doesn't seem to be POV to me. It wouldn't anyway. The picture is supposed to depict the act of "flag desecration," although in order to "desecrate" it, most people just burn it. But the picture was serving its purpose. What would you say if there was a white man holding up a burning American flag?

Cronulla Riots Guy

The part of the article about this guy is not entirely correct. The october referred to was in this year (2006), not 2005 as is indicated - the riots occurred in December '05. Also, he was not sentenced to carry the flag, he was invited to by the president of the NSW RSL (read the article, guys!), and the march in question is in 2007. Eu neke 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The above person is right. He wasn't "sentenced" he was invited by the RSL. It's just wrong and I have edited it accordingly144.132.250.160 11:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

hey, something else as well. He walked the whole kokoda track with some australians and he didn't tell them who he was until the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.186.8 (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasons, Motives

Some of the motives given for flag desecration need support. I've never heard of anybody burning a flag and claiming it was to express hatred for the people of the country. I have also never heard of anybody burning a flag and claiming it was merely for pleasure (although people can do just about anything for pleasure). I have never heard of anybody defacing a flag as a religious statement. I have never heard of anybody defacing a flag to protest ideals or lifestyle. I've never heard any reason given other than as statement of free speech or objection to government policies. What is the source for all these other claims? It is also a bit loaded to say that flag desecration "dishonors" a flag, since it makes some assumptions that are part of the debate (such as that a flag is something that can have honor, rather than a symbol of something that can have honor).Bsharvy 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Flag-burning of this type is done strictly as political protest. The other stuff is either a different way of saying that, or is POV-pushing. You can't "dishonor" an inanimate object. But you can make the people who consider it a "sacred" symbol feel that it's an attempt to "dishonor" them, hence the term "desecration". Wahkeenah 15:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "should" here needs to go; it is taking sides: "In Canada, the National Flag should be burned privately when it is torn or faded. Only new flags or ones in good condition should be flown in Canada." Is it a description of the law? The recommendation of some group? Convention or custom? The author's opinion of morality? What is meant by "should"? I propose deleting the entire paragraph.Bsharvy 06:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The guy in the picture

He appears to be an American burning his own flag "for fun" with no clear political message. Can you please replace it with another picture. 70.59.4.210 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree I dont like that picture either. I wud replace it but dnt knw how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.68.104 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right- it was "for fun." Anyway please replace the picture. 122.26.189.185 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)the guy in the picture

So you're claiming that you didn't burn the flag? Or that there's some {{copyvio}} problem here? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - even if he is the guy in the picture, regret or embarrassment is not sufficient ground for removal. The image has been licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0" so we are free to use it here. My suggestion to "the guy in the picture" is that he upload a suitable and superior replacement picture that we can use. Barrylb (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you use this one instead? http://www.jaradite.com/images/2001/flag_burning.jpg or this one http://california-christian-news.com/cms/images/stories/flag_burning.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.189.185 (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems. The one from Flickr is clearly OK to use, the images you suggested here aren't (by any annotation that I can see). The first one's a good image though, and it would be a good image to use otherwise.
I'm happy to replace an image on this vague say-so, but not to remove a significant masthead image from an article (which then makes the article less informative) on the tenuous grounds that an anon IP might be who they claim, and that they're embarrassed at having burned the US flag. Hey, you burned the flag, you get to live with the redneck lynchmob afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Blatantly ignoring WP:3RR is just going to get you a block and doesn't help your case that this image ought to be removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor will blanking the description page at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How does policy apply to this? Despite the repeated vandalism from IPs who claim to be the flag-burning guy (and as they're on two continents simultaneously, at least some are probably meatpuppets), WP:3RR etc., we need to behave here in a way that's according to WP:Policy, not just reacting to trolling.

  • I suggest removing the image. This is because I believe WP:BLP would have to be seen as applying, and if it does, then it ought to go. This doesn't mean that I personally agree with this, but if that's the policy then I think we ought to follow it. WP:BLP is a "strong" policy, and for good reason. Remember the big picture here. If I'm wrong of course, then please correct me.
  • Actions should be entirely independent of this person's behaviour since. They're not helping their case, but if we have to act on policy not punitively, then we have to ignore that.
  • We should believe that this anon IP is the person pictured. WP:AGF requires this, in the absence of any counter-argument.

Your comments please - both sides. This needs resolving so that we can all get off vandal-watch and move on. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right I am the person pictured and I would like the picture to be removed from the flag desecration article(s) and from wiki commons. My friend who took the picture has already removed it from his flickr site and is looking at how he can go about getting it removed from this site. Is it that hard to find a replacement picture of a flag burning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.214.33.75 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We are trying to resolve this issue by making the appropriate policy-based decision. Please stop deleting the image until it has been done. Your behaviour will not help your cause. Barrylb (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll stop editing the article(s) and concentrate on my deletion request instead. Flag123 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)flag123

Thanks for that. There are only two reasons it might go: WP:Policy or WP:Consensus. Anything else counts as vandalism and will be resisted.
Read the comments above. As I read Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy, this image ought to be removed on this request, but that's just my opinion and I'd want to see some agreement from other editors before I acted on it. That's having both WP:Policy or WP:Consensus together, the happy smiley way. Either one works though, if there's sufficient weight behind it. If everyone wants it gone, it's gone - even if we could still keep it.
A third reason to get rid of it is because it has been superseded by a better image, subject to copyright and Wikimedia policy on what we're allowed to use. If you can find such an image, then lets just stick it up instead and everyone is happy. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this from the image deletion request. Flickr has a few freely licensed photos of flag burning [1], including this set which specifically says it was a political protest, and includes photos that show only the flag. --dave pape (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
File:US flag burning.jpg is now uploaded. --dave pape (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent - I would be quite happy for this to replace the current image that will put this issue to rest. Barrylb (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image changed It's not a great image IMHO, bit too eye-candy and I'd prefer to see someone burning the flag rather than just a flag on fire, but it's the best for the moment and we can always change it later. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We could go with this one: http://flickr.com/photos/nhx/3010634309/in/set-72157608743660583/ which seems to be the flag of the state of New Hampshire. -- Barrylb (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flag123 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The present picture, of an American flag with flames in front of it, probably does no harm but is kind of silly. It is clearly a staged picture and does not convey the emotional content of a real act of flag desecration. Couldn't a picture taken at a demonstration be found? It doesn't have to be the American flag. Come to think of it one of the pictures down the page might be better to use at the top. This one doesn't illustrate the subject of the article at all. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I WP:Boldly replaced that picture with the one of the USSR flag being burned. It is a real picture of the article's subject. It has some emotional impact. It is unexpected. And, I hope, it makes people think -- which is surely one of the missions of an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like this new picture - it is too small and black-and-white. There are other pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nhx/ that might be more to your liking though... that is where the previous picture came from. Barrylb (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
They are good quality pictures. However my objection to them is that they seem to re-enforce common stereotypes of "flag burners." (Need I say what these are?) The picture of the Hungarian burning the Soviet flag, on the other hand, has the effect of making people stop and think and hopefully learn something new as they read the article. I also don't think there is any need for this article to be pretty. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW the American flag being burned picture is being used at Flag Desecration Amendment. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Very late follow-up: I have cropped the image to remove the person, and restored it at File:Flag burning.jpg. – Quadell (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted an aside

I deleted the aside comments about Florida confederate flag statutes and about the Yale instance where people were charged for setting fire to other people's private property (i.e. flag they did not know). Revert if there's strong disagreement, but they struck me as trivial asides. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "Deface"

The word "deface" is wholly misused in this article. In vexillology, "deface" means to create a flag by adding something to a pre-existing flag. The Flag of Australia is the British Blue Ensign defaced with the Southern Cross and Confederation Star. The state Flag of Germany is the national flag (Schwarz-Rot-Gold) defaced with the Bundesschild. These are not acts of flag desecration. See how the word is used here: Blue_ensign#Defaced_blue_ensign. Some other word should be used.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of something better, please make the changes yourself. OkamiItto (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've rephrased to avoid the word "deface", except where it's used to mean adding new symbols to a flag. So, "deface with slogans" but "bedaub with excrement". Perhaps that's still not a correct vexillological use of "deface", since the intent of writing slogans on a flag is not to create a new flag for future use but just to create a disrespectful copy of the existing flag. Dricherby (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I like the pic of the Soviet Flag being burned because it is not a static image and shows context, unlike the pic it replaced, but the article contains no information on flag desecration in Hungary or to the Soviet flag so it seems inappropriate to illustrate the article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I came to this article, I heard about it in some dispute, I just knew that the picture would be by someone who took an American flag out in his backyard and set it on fire. I think that is what most people would expect, if they knew WP that is. I don't think the absence of info on flag burning in the USSR or Hungary is a problem since the picture is intended to illustrate the entire concept. If you have a better picture for this please suggest it. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I also added a section on flag desecration in the Hungarian revolution of 1956.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Off topic stuff

I will go ahead and remove some of the material that is only indirectly related to the article. The section on the British military was put back. I don't see what it has to do with the topic.Steve Dufour (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletions by user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

I'm concerned at a recent group of deletions by user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz , diff.

Although wrapped up in dire "BLP violation" warnings, there seems to be little justification for them. Yes, there were sourcing issues - but we fix those, we don't delete content unless we have to. To take just one of them, it's hardly difficult to see sources for it.

Overall I'm concerned that there's more here than over-cautious policing of BLP policy. I would suggest reverting (and fixing) as appropriate, but raise it here first as my poor old drama llama is tired out. I've already reverted one of those same deletions once this month (as it "didn't fit with the formatting of the page"!). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:BLP -- "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As Jimmy Wales said, "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as [citation needed], please do not do that! Please just remove the statement . . ." While Jimbo went on to suggest automatically initiating talk page discussions, there was strong support for extending the removal requirement to talk pages as well. From WP:LIVING, precursor to the BLP policy: ""We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page." The policy page has evolved to somewhat less definitive language to reflect the fact that the policy has been extended to address unsourced positive/promotional material, but the removal of unsourced negative material still enjoys strong consensus support. In this article, the items I removed were pretty much straightforward accusations of criminal behavior, which is just about the paradigm of material calling for automatic removal. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"Immediately" can quite reasonably be taken to mean fixing it on the same edit, not a question of counting seconds, even for BLP. Doesn't take long to source the BLPs that were removed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Flag

I just put the section on that back. What was the problem? The intro does not say the flag being desecrated has to be a national flag. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(Preemptive move) In case the problem is that it's just an example, well, I think that's a good thing in this article. The title of the article is "Flag desecration" not "Laws concerning flag desecration." Through the examples readers can get an understanding of what flag desecration means on an emotional level to people in different countries. This gives them some understanding of why laws were written concerning it. They were not just made up by bored MP's/Congresspeople with nothing better to do. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

correct me if I am wrong but this article is about flag burning not about where flags should be displayed and how republic of Ireland flags were banned however the deface parts are relivent MARK BEGG (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously there have been many times and places where the flying of a certain flag was banned. But that does not belong in this article.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It may not be entirely relevant but I was told in Northern Ireland that any flag flying in public must stay on it's post at all times and is an act of vandalism if it taken down. This may not be completely correct but I thought I'd mention it as it could be seen as a form of flag desecration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.231.88 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Monaco and Norah, Lady Docker

In 1958, Lady Docker was ostracised from Monaco after having defaced their flag by dancing upon it. Does anyone have sources to add a section for Monaco, particularly on any relevant law? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

there should be a world map with 3 colors

one for allowing it, one for against the law and one for other restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.153.35 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that there seem to be a lot of shades of grey in how laws banning flag desecration are enforced (eg, the examples given for New Zealand), that probably isn't feasible. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and Texas v. Johnson

The Nazi historical flag has been the target of flag burning which is discussed in reliable sources therefore it should be included in the article. Texas v. Johnson is an important event in the United States in regards to Flag desecration as it set that flag burning was protected speech under the 1st amendment. I do not see why either of these sections should be removed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is about country flags (as described in the description of this page) and Nazi is not a country; although, it may make sense to put the Nazi flag section as a sub-section under the Germany section (since its government used it during World War II), similar to having the Confederate flag subsection of the U.S. section.

I'm confused, the Nazi flag section was already a subsection of the Germany section? The Nazi section was a level 4 header under the level 3 header of Germany. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it had gotten moved. when i saw the Nazi flag part, it was a section all it's own.

According to Article III (of the U.S. Constitution), the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power or authority to change,enforce, or create laws. According to the text of Article III, their role is to advise those who create and enforce the laws; not to be their own ruling class, deciding what only THEY wanted.

Texas v. Johnson only resulted in a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Congress did not agree with their ruling and took no action to validate its ruling, by changing existing laws and the U.S. Constitution (which they would have to do, to back up, said ruling). The federal law covering desecration of the U.S. flag was never cancelled, the U.S. Constitution was never amended, and no wording of the U.S. Constitution was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.3.170 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of a law since Marbury v. Madison, in Texas v. Johnson they ruled that flag burning is protected speech under the 1st amendment. Congress did try to contest this twice, first time with Flag Protection Act, but it was struck down in United States v. Eichman, and the second time with the Flag Desecration Amendment but it was never ratified. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, The U.S. Supreme Court can rule on whether or not a law goes against the U.S. Constitution; but only in so much as to advise the U.S. Congress as what they may do about said law. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority/power to invalidate laws. Congress didn't try to "contest" it; but rather, attempted to clarify it. As we have seen in such examples as Dred Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Congress will (at times) disagree with the ruling of the Supreme court and "over-rule" them, so to speak. Often times, this is exercised as simply ignoring the ruling or passing legislation to clarify the wording of the "offending" law. According to the Supreme Court's website http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx, they even admit that the concept of Final Judicial Review isn't even afforded to them in the U.S. Constitution and was never actually given to them according to any law.

It may be a misinterpretation, but the present generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution is that the Supreme Court may invalidate a law, in which case it was never legal. They often only invalidate a law prospectively, or allow it to remain in effect until it is corrected, but they may invalidate a law retrospectively. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree here. The issue is that the Supreme Court can invalidate laws that are not the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. However, the text as written:

"It should also be noted, however, that according to Article III (of the U.S. Constitution) any ruling by the Supreme Court is strictly advisory and does not actually change any existing portion of the Constitution or law. If Congress agrees with the U.S. Supreme Court, then further steps are made to amend the Constitution or change/enforce laws. No laws and/or Ammendments have been changed/made, in accordance with this ruling. In most cases, the purposeful desecration of any country flag (on U.S. soil) violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, due to motive being able to be proven for intent of breach of peaceful assembly or instigation of breach of peaceful assembly."

heavily implies that the opposite is true, and flag burning laws are still valid due to inaction form congress. I am just a no account nobody who tried to fix this a couple times, once with a secondary source that discussed the impact of the rulings, that they invalidated several state laws. This information is confusing people, who are citing it as their belief that burning or otherwise desecrating the US flag is illegal. That is how I found this error and why I'm trying to fix it.
The problem appears to be that the text I quoted is being driven on ideological grounds, not factual ones. The current text about the Supreme Court not making law is actually irrelevant because these ruling did not seek to make law, only invalidate ones the court decided were unconstitutional under protection by the first amendment. The second sentence appears to be a further attempt to cloud the issue. The cite provided is not an opinion how flag burning might be a violation of rights, it's just a link to the Bill Of Rights which says nothing about flag burning. This appears to be some Wikipedia editor(s) opinion. In fact, both sentences incorrectly cite first the Constitution, then the Bill Of Rights, which do not explain how either documents related to the subject matter in question. They're at best primary references, but I'm not entirely sure they'd even qualify as that. If we were to accept that the premise presented here is correct, it would at the very least need the cites to address the relationship to flag desecration directly.
On the other side of this, I had added an explanation of what the ruling meant practically. It was brief but to the point with a supporting cite. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_desecration&type=revision&diff=664704170&oldid=664667613
I rarely edit Wikipedia articles, and haven't been involved in one that was as contentious as this is turning out to be. Can someone advise me how disputes lik these disputes are handled? I see there is a rule about continued reversions, and yet I keep seeing this section defended. It is both incorrect and incorrectly cited. It's surreal that Wikipedia seems to have information inconsistent with reality.65.30.57.79 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, 65.30.57.79. I've removed the disputed sentences as false (not that important in Wikipedia) and not being in the citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the current version (as of 17:40 UTC) is satisfactory, it gives an accurate history of the US laws regarding the issue without the misguided interpretation of the Supreme Court's abilities. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

singapore incident

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-apologizes-after-diplomat-uses-singapore-flag-as-tablecloth/

recently in singapore an israeli diplomat used the singaporean flag as a tablecloth

singapore summoned the israeli ambassador and got an apology and promise that the diplomat would be disciplined

someone could add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag desecration. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

US flag - altered colors?

What is the significance of US flags where the colors are altered, like the one with the shades of grey? This is not illegal in the USA, of course (whatever it means), but would this be banned in countries where damaging a flag is illegal? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flag desecration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag desecration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Flag desecration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

flying a flag upside down

should flying a flag upside down be included in this article? The only source for this is CNSnews which is considered a biased source. Seraphim System (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag desecration. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_desecration/Archive_1&oldid=1145872716"