Talk:List of Puerto Rican flags/Archive 1

Puerto Rico
	(1892 Flag version with light blue tone)
(1952 Flag version with Dark blue tone)
Use	Civil and state flag, civil and state ensign
Proportion	2:3
Design	Five equal horizontal bands of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; a blue (tone of blue may vary) blisosceles triangle based on the hoist side bears a large, white, five-pointed star in the center.

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Puerto Rican flags. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Meaning of flag colors and symbols

growing up i understood that the flag stood for something different from wht your explaintion. the blue triangle and star stands for the 3 sides of democracy, and the red and white stands for the blood and sweat of the people. i dont mean to correct you or any thing, but that was just the way i thought growing up.

yes the blood of Puerto Rico should always stand by there country and never turn there bck on it.....and thats that!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.59.231 (talk • contribs)

Where did they go?

I've noticed that several flag images, including all the ones on this page, have vanished...what happened? --^hello,gadr e n 03:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images have come from sources that do not allow for commercial re-use of their images. So I have removed them, but in it's place, I found website links that hosted the images that WP used to host so yall can see them still, but in another location. Sorry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be Noted

It should be noted that the majority of the content of this article came from the article "Flags of Puerto Rico" created by User:Marine 69-71 also known as "Tony the Marine" on March 15, 2006 and that said content is posted here as a result of a redirect. The history page of "Flags of Puerto Rico" which was not merged with the history page of this article can be found here History page of Flags of Puerto Rico in case of original authorship verification. Tony the Marine 04:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not doing the history merging, I have no done it before and if you wish for the history to be merged, go right ahead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's O.K. Zscout, you have good intentions. User:Nunh-huh offered to do the history page merge. Tony the Marine 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Nunh-huh finished the task, since all that was needed to do is move the article, not the talk page since it only contained the template for the PR Wikiproject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How is a history merge done? Is that an administrator-only thing? —Bkell (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. I am an admin, but just never pulled it off, thats all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the Spanish did not design the Burgundian cross flag - it came with the territory when Spain inherited the Duchy of Burgundy with the accession of Charles to the throne. Prior to that, it was used as the flag of the forces of that Duchy.

Antonio Vélez Alvarado as designer of the flag

Gente, I have a reference that describes Antonio Vélez Alvarado as "designer" of the Puerto Rican flag, and Pachín Marín as the one who did the prototype shown at Chimney Hall. I have plenty of reasons to believe this was indeed the case. Vélez Alvarado experienced that strange phenomenon where people are shown the American flag in pink and electric green, are told to stare at a cross in the middle of the picture, and then told to stare immediately at a blank sheet of paper to "see" the flag with its regular colors (does anyone know exactly how that phenomenon is called?) The "Velez vs. Marín" controversy was a big issue around the flag's 100th. anniversary in 1993. Until I'm proven wrong I'll fix the paragraph crediting Marín and credit Vélez instead. This is probably best assessed by historians, but... Demf 03:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this reference credits "José del Matta Terreforte" (sic), when in fact the name is Juan de Mata Terreforte, a photographer from Mayagüez who participated in the Grito de Lares, and actually took photographs of many of its participants back in 1867-68, including Ramón Emeterio Betances. "Juan de Mata" is the name of a saint, so in this case it is a given name ("de Mata" is NOT a last name). He was in New York City around the time the flag was adopted, but Vélez is credited with the design. Take note of the mistake. Demf 03:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Quebradillas flag.JPG

Image:Quebradillas flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rincón flag.JPG

Image:Rincón flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Juncos Flag.png

Image:Juncos Flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Temp. Protection

I have placed this article on a temp. protection for the following reasons:

1. User: Jmundo has posted an image of the Puerto Rican flag which is properly sourced as required by Wikipedia policy.

2. Various editors continue to remove said image without a proper explanation.

This subject is open for discussion and unless those who remove the image posted by User: Jmundo provide and cite a reason behind their actions said action may be considered as vandalism. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Decision

The subject was open for discussion for over 14 days and the parties who continued to revert User: Jmundo's version of the flag did not respond nor challenge said version in this forum, therefore it is determined that the version of the flag posted by User: Jmundo is the correct version. The page will be unprotected and removal of Jmundo's version of the flag may be considered an act of vandalism and the editor committing the act may be subject to being blocked from Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop changing flag to light blue version

It has been discussed several times, and since the government uses the dark blue version, that should be the one displayed here. Furthermore, there is NO sourcing that states the light blue version is the official one, just accounts of people who remember that in 1995 the government flew this flag, though only once, and it did not make it the official version. When the constitution was adopted, the flag flown and adopted was the dark blue version. Republikaner (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The flag discussion was open for over 14 days. No one, including you participated to discuss the situation. It seems strange that after I lifted the protection the protection from the page, that you would come and make a change without discussing it here first as is required. I personally have no idea as to which tone of blue is used in the flag, however Wikipedia is about reliable verifiable sources and not a political forum. I will revert your edit on account that it has been determined that removal of Jmundo's version of the flag may be considered an act of vandalism and the editor committing the act may be subject to being blocked from Wikipedia. Now, I am "not" disagreeing with you, the only thing that I as an administrator of Wikipedia is asking is that you cite and provide a verifiable reliable source as required by Wikipedia policy as to the true tone of blue in the flag's triangle to sort this thing out before posting your version again. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the discussion I was referring to occured in the actual Puerto Rico flag, no need to insinuate hidden intentions as to the timing. Here are several links that show the Government uses and has always used the dark blue version.
http://www.gobierno.pr/GPRPortal/Inicio/PuertoRico/Simbolos/Banderas/Bandera+de+Puerto+Rico.htm Official Government Website
http://welcome.topuertorico.org/reference/flag.shtml

From this last website and excerpt indicating the dark blue version is the official one adopted by the government: Interesting Fact Did you know that the original design used a sky blue tone of the triangle in the Puerto Rican flag? But when the flag was adopted officially by the Commonwealth in 1952 it featured a dark blue very similar to that of the US flag. This fact has raised many issues whether to use a sky blue tone or a dark blue tone in the flag. Recently, with the celebration of the flag's 100 anniversary in 1995 the current administration displayed a flag with the original sky blue tone. Some historians concluded that the reason why a dark blue was used in the 1952 flag was related to the origins of the flag and its relationship with a revolutionary independence movement.

The identity of the flag's author has been reason for many debates, possible authors: José del Matta Terraforte, Antonio Vélez Alvarado, Manuel Besosa and/or Gonzalo (Pachín) Marín.

Soon after the Cuban Revolution (1950's) US officials in the island became suspicious of those who displayed the flag, considering them subversives. Police used to arrest anyone displaying the flag on charges of insubordination against the United States.Republikaner (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the source "saying the light blue is official", first of all does not say that, and secondly, it states:

(F) "Unión o campo azul". - De acuerdo con el Reglamento de la bandera de los Estados Unidos de América, el rectángulo que aparece en el extremo superior izquierdo de la bandera de los Estados Unidos de América, en el cual están incluidas las estrellas representativas de los Estados Federados de la Unión Americana, y el triángulo equilátero azul que con una estrella de cinco puntas en el centro aparece en el extremo izquierdo de la bandera del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico.

Which translated defines the blue field as both the one in the US and in the PR flag, which could point to the same tonality.

Additionally, on that same page:

(B) La bandera del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico es la que tradicionalmente se ha conocido hasta ahora como la bandera puertorriqueña.

Which translated says the flag shall be the one traditionally identified as the Puerto Rican flag, which since 1952, is the dark blue version.

No where in the entire page, or laws of Puerto Rico for that matter is Jmundo's claim verified. It is a confusion caused by the Government using once, and only once the light blue version to celebrate its 100th aniversary.Republikaner (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Which translated defines the blue field as both the one in the US and in the PR flag, which could point to the same tonality." is original research, there isn't any statement for the actual tone as far as I know, both have been used interchagably in some government facilities (and not only once), which only serves to prove that. Though, I see that this is most likely just another way of people of trying to push their political POVs, as its obvious by the exclusive nature of Republikaner's edits. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

During Fortuño's inauguration the dark-toned flag was displayed atop the Capitolio. Joelito (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

About the ""Unión o campo azul": this section falls under the Article 2 called "Definitions". The purpose of this section is to define the vocabulary used in the law. This term is only used in section 18, "Puerto Rican flag in coffins with the flag of the United States":

"When you use the flag of Puerto Rico and the United States to cover a coffin, the flag of the United States is first placed on the coffin so that the union or blue field in the flag is header to the left side of the coffin."

Now, Section 2: "Description and symbolism", clearly says that "the flag of the of Puerto Rico is the one that has traditionally been known until now as the Puerto Rican flag." Sources support the fact that the traditional Puerto Rican flag is the one inspired by the Cuban flag not the American flag. The "dark blue version" is not mention by the Constitution or any law, including the Act 1 of 1952. (see primary sources). --Jmundo (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The "big" question here is: By "law", is there an "official" tone of blue for the triangle of the Puerto Rican flag? If there isn't any "consitutional law" in this regard, then are people allowed to display the flag with whatever tone of blue they desire? If this were the case, if there isn't any official constitutional law which dictates the exact tone of blue, then we would have to place in the infobox images of the different variations of blue used in the flag's triangle. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course Caribbean H.Q. had to involve political POV, no that is not the case regardless of my POV, this has been an issue for long in Wikipedia. No, there is no mention whatsoever anywhere of what the actual official tone is, reason for which stating the light blue is official since 1995 is false and misleading. If we don't accept usage of one by the government as that being the official one, then we should not put the light blue as the official one since 1995, since again nowhere does it say it changed the tone. Again I put the references, Jmundo now interprets that the traditional flag was the one inspired by the Cuban flag, argument that presents the following problems:

1. If that is so, then why wasn't the light blue version used when the flag was adopted and 2. Even with the darker blue tone, the flag is described as being derived from the Cuban flag.

I guess Tony the marine's solution is the most appropriate one, since the law does not specify the tonality of blue, and yes everyone displays the flag according to how their likes and beliefs. However I do favor eliminating the references to the years given that the 1995 law DOES NOT specify the tone.Republikaner (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why in 1995 the government approved a new law regarding the flag? Do you think it was approved just for the sake of it? The law was approved to clarify that the flag of Puerto Rico is the one that has traditionally been known as the Puerto Rican flag. According to the acts of Chimney Hall the flag of Puerto Rico "...is same as the Cuban, but the color stripes are inverted..." If you read about the flag of Cuba, the blue represent the sea that surrounds the island (light blue tone). This article is about the flag of Puerto Rico not what type of flag people display. The sources in this article are clear, the Puerto Rican flag was inspired by the Cuban flag not the American flag. Come back to this discussion when you find any historic verifiable source that points to the contrary. --Jmundo (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I cannot accept that interpretation of the law as fact, one because if you are going to make a law to change the colors, I guess you would make it clear in the law, which is not the case. Secondly, if that is so, then why did they fly the light blue version only the day of the anniversary? And how can you define the traditionally known flag as only the light blue version? Especially since the one used by the government is the other version? You are assuming your interpretation is fact and that is simply not the case. If a law wants to specify something, it would say so. Additionally, the law was not made just for the sake of the law, which is a possibility nonetheless, but it added regulations for the use of the flag that were not specified previously as a search through Puerto Rico laws proves . You just can simply try to impose your opinion and interpretation of a law and pretend that others accept it as a fact, it simply will not happen. Again, Tony the marine's solution of specifying that there are different versions seems as the most appropriate. We could leave the article as it is, which would be ignoring reality, given that not everyone uses that version, including most notably the Puerto Rico Government! And since when does a color tone change on what flag the Puerto Rico flag was inspired on? I mean I seriously doubt the dark blue tone makes the Puerto Rican and Cuban flag that much different. Oh and I do think that the flag the Government uses should be taken into consideration, because, I don't know, they are the ones who are supposed to use it in the first place, not to mention that it is the government who determines how the flag is.Republikaner (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If there isn't a constitutional by-law or admendment which clearly states the exact tones of the Puerto Rican flag then we may have the unusual situation where all of the parties involved in this discussion may be right to some extent. Tomorrow, I will create an alternate introduction which will explain that the blue tones used in the flag may vary. Then I will fix the infobox to included the different varitions of blue used. This intro of course, I will present it here in the "talk" page and I will not post it in the main article unless a consenses is reached. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed introduction

Since there isn't any code which establishes the exact "official" tone of blue in the flag's triangle, I propose the following introduction to the article. I have placed in "bold" lettering the addition to the paragraph.

"The flag of Puerto Rico consists of five equal horizontal bands of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; a blue isosceles triangle based on the hoist side bears a large, white, five-pointed star in the center. There isn't a constitutional law which dictates an official tone of blue to be used in the flags triangle and therefore it is not unusual that at various times the flag will be displayed with different variations of tones of blue. The original design of the flag used a sky blue shade for the left triangle and was associated with Puerto Rico's independence movement. In 1952, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico adopted the 1892 flag design however, the color of the triangle was changed to the same dark blue of the U.S. flag, which now is commmonly used by the statehood faction in the island. In 1995, the government of Puerto Rico issued a regulation in regard to the use of the Puerto Rican flag tittled: "Reglamento sobre el Uso en Puerto Rico de la Bandera del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico; Reglamento Núm. 5282." (Regulations in regard to the use in Puerto Rico of the flag of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Regulation No. 5282). In the regulation's "Artículo 2: Definiciones" and "Artículo 2: Descripción y simbolismo" (Article 2: Description and Article 2: Sescription and simbolism) the government specifies the colors to be used but, do not specifiy any official tones of colors to be used.^[1]"

I hope that with this intro. we can put to rest the issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a nuisance, but shouldn't the statement "The government of Puerto Rico officially changed the color to sky blue in 1995 in time for its centennial anniversary" be removed, as there is no actual proof this happened?Republikaner (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have researched the situation and after looking at the 1995 regulations, could not find anything in regard to the "tones" of the color "red" or "blue" to be used in the flag. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will remain neutral about the proposed change. I think it's important to hear the opinions of others so we can reach a consensus. Thanks, --J.Mundo (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems good to me.Republikaner (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted "un anuncio" in the Wikiproject:Puerto Rico page and invited others to express their opinions. If I do not receive any objections by Jan. 18, 2009, then I will assume that a consensus has been reached and post the proposed introduction. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tony, your proposal is sensible, I see no reason to object at all.--Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Only thing is that we should source some of the claims, so our dear Republikaner calms down. :D--Cerejota (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    - I suggest to put the flags side by side. One on top of the other suggests ranking or hierarchy. Joelito (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      - I tried, but failed. I really don't think that one on top of the other would suggest ranking or hierarchy since the situation is clearly stated in the introduction and the fact is that the light blue triangle did come before the dark blue version. Yet, If you Joelr31 or anyone else can can place them side by side, please do. The only thing that someone will come along and start an endless arguement as to why one flag was placed on the left side and the other on the right side, same as top and bottom. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: I added the years in which each version was originated in the infobox.)
        Just so you guys know, this conflict has extended its tentacles to Commons as well. I reverted the edit of two anons trying to claim that the supposed "1952-1995" version is the official color, naturally because there is no actual "official" version. Without really trying to find a suspect for those edits, I noticed that it "quacks". Hence as a favor, Republikaner, try to keep your conflicts out of the reach of other projects, savvy? My proposal is to revert Image:Flag of Puerto Rico.svg to the "in-between, happy medium" neutral tone, using that image in unrelated articles like Puerto Rico. Effectively killing the political dilemma at its root. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        A broader consensus was requested at the project's talk page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

- - - - Caribbean, I really do not appreciate you pointing out fingers. I have not visited Commons, so you can stop spreading false information Thank you!Republikaner (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this article contradict itself?

The article appears to be well written, but I find some contradictions in it. Namely one; where is it stated that the flag of Puerto Rico was ever based on the flag of The Dominican Republic? If you are mentioning that the flag could have origins from the Cuban flag in sources 17 and 18, then I believe that is more truer than the former assumption. Never have I read that the flag was inspired by the Dominican one. To my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) the flag was inspired off of Narciso Lopez's Flag of Cuban Independence which in turn was created in 1849 by Narciso Lopez and a few other expatriated Cubans. It was used in battle in 1850 in the Battle of Cárdenas, and in 1851 in the battle of Playitas. It was adopted as the Cuban national flag by The Congress of The Cuban Republic in Arms in 1869 [1]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by P70ferrer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The article does not contradict itself. You see, it clearly states that the first flag of Puerto Rico was the 1868 revolutionary flag of Lares, since a short lived republic was declared. Said flag was modeled after the Dominican flag. Though not official, it was the first flag of Puerto Rico and it was the official flag of the Puerto Rican Revolutionary until 1892, when the current design, modeled after the Cuban flag, was unveiled and adopted by the committee and later in 1952 by the Government of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Shades of blue

The article states that "The color of the triangle that was used by the administration of Luis Muñoz Marín was the dark blue that is used in the flag of the United States, instead of the original light blue.^[2]"
As a reference it cites http://flagspot.net/flags/pr.html presumably in an attempt to support the statement that the color of the triangle during LMM's administration was the same *DARK* blue as the blue in the flag of the USA.
However, a review of the color of the flag of the USA at the same site (namely, http://flagspot.net/flags/us.html ) shows that the two flags DO NOT have the same shade of blue. SPECIFICALLY: the flag of Puerto Rico is a light blue whereas the flag of the USA is dark blue. Thus the citation does not support what appears to have been the objective of the editor to begin with. That is, the citation does not support the statement that "the triangle that was used by the administration of Luis Muñoz Marín was the dark blue that is used in the flag of the United States."
In order to support the statement above, (and I believe I speak for most people) the editor would need to cite an official PR government (or similar) website that shows the "dark blue Puerto Rican flag" being used, flown, deployed, installed, raised, etc, in some official manner during the LMM years. The citation given, contradicts the apparent goal of the editor in that (1) the blue at http://flagspot.net/flags/pr.html is NOT the dark blue of the USA flag; it is a light blue, and (2) the site is showing flags of the world TODAY - not flags of the world in the 1950's ("LMM's years") timeframe.
Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob99324 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. What is being sourced is the text of the reference not the images. This article does not state that both flags had the same shade of blue. What it states is that "The sky-blue of the triangle in the original flag was changed to dark blue, resembling that of the flag of the United States, to keep it distanced from its revolutionary roots. This is supported by the website cited Flags of the World; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico which states the following:

"when the flag was adopted officially by the Commonwealth in 1952 it featured a dark blue very similar to that of the US flag".

This statement is supported by various websites among them this one "About the flag of Puerto Rico" which states the folllowing:

"The original design of the flag used a sky blue shade for the left triangle. In the official commonwealth flag of 1952, however, this color was changed to the same dark blue of the U.S. flag. The governor of Puerto Rico officially changed the color to sky blue in 1995 in time for its centennial anniversary. The dark blue flag is still used by pro-U.S. groups, and a light blue flag is used by groups who support Puerto Rican independence."

and also stated in [2] Puerto Rico Flag

"In 1952, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico adopted the 1892 flag design but changed the sky blue to to the same dark blue of the U.S. flag. This is commonly used by the statehood faction who want Puerto Rico to become an official state of America."

As you well know the government of Puerto Rico issued a regulation in regard to the use of the Puerto Rican flag titled: "Reglamento sobre el Uso en Puerto Rico de la Bandera del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico; Reglamento Núm. 5282." (Regulations in regard to the use in Puerto Rico of the flag of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Regulation No. 5282). In the regulation's "Artículo 2: Definiciones" and "Artículo 2: Descripción y simbolismo" (Article 2: Description and Article 2: Description and symbolism) the government specifies the colors to be used but does not specify any official color tones or shades and as such it is not unusual to see the flag with either tone of blue flown in official settings in Puerto Rico.

Now, if you can provide an official document or a reliable verifiable that proofs without a doubt that in the LMM years a dark blue triangle similar to the shade of blue used in the American flag was not used by the Government of Puerto Rico, then we must continue to use the sources which we have because Wikipedia is not about what we like or do not like, but about what is and what has been verified by reliable sources. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. It helps explain the confusion. However, there are still several points that need to be made:

I was not taking sides either way nor I am not looking to provide proofs without a doubt that in the LMM years a dark blue triangle similar to the shade of blue used in the American flag was not used by the Government of Puerto Rico. I was simply hoping for comments that could probably make the joint Statement/Citation clearer, as there seems to be several problems with this statement:

The cited reference shows that the dark blue was used "officially from 1952 to 1992". This would had covered the administrations of not only Munoz Marin (1949-1965), but Vilella, Ferre, Hernandez Colon, and Barcelo as well. So, again, it might be beneficial to re-word the statement (while keeping the citation, which I agree is useful [See below for my doubts about even this last part]).

The cited website (FOTW) shows there are not two, but three variants of the flag of Puerto Rico, with dark, sky blue, and light blue shades of blue. It shows the current variant "(official since 1995)" is the sky blue variant, not the light blue. Althought there is a reference or two to "sky-blue" (sic), this seems to be used interchangably with "light blue" in the article, and this can be confusing to the reader.

Finally, something I just thought of, the FOTW site shows that the flag of Cuba uses a *dark* shade of blue. As the flag of Puerto Rico was inspired by the Cuban flag, this bit of information probably should also be considered in any reference to shades of blue. Again, I am not supporting either side.

Question: How reliable is the Flags of the World site, to begin with??? I observe that the site has characteristics of a blog, if not worse. Where, for example, did you see even a blog where 100% of commentators (contributors) actually sign their real full name? Also, the site states that "PR is not a state or a territory of the US" (http://flagspot.net/flags/pr%7D.html). Humm, first I heard that! Finally, if, in reference to being fashioned after the Cuban flag, the problem is that the FOTW site is not using the correct shade of blue for the Cuban flag, then of course that site's credibility would really, really be questionable, and its use as a reference in the Flag of Puerto Rico article should probably be reconsidered to avoid further confusion.

Hello Rob

Your observations are really good. I really appreciate when I have conversations with people who are civil and level headed that think with their minds as you. Your suggestions are valid and I'll check into them soon. I agree in your comments about "Flags of the World". At first the site was very reliable, except for the drawings. The statements in the site at first were made by people who were knowledgeable, then something happened along the line where they permitted opinions. That is why when using that site I always use and suggest that others use what a person with knowledge on the subject has written and before doing so cross reference the information.

Now in regard to the shades that they use in their illustrations, that's a toss up and reminds me of the "Never Ending Story". I blame the government of Puerto Rico for all of the confusion in this. When they adopted the design of the flag they should have specified the exact tones of blue and red to be used, but they didn't. I believe that it is all about politics but, I also believe that it never to late for the government to put an end to this as long as they have some kind of referendum where the majority of the people should decide the tones that they want.

In regard to the Cuban Flag, it is said that the early Cuban Flag had light blue stripes, but they began to have problems when their ships went out to sea and the color of blue of their flag blended with the blue of the sky and sea, making it hard for other ships to determine what country they belonged to and therefore they decided to change their shade to a darker one.

That "PR is not a state or a territory of the US" is a funny one. I can understand the first part if the person means that PR is not a "state of the US" or not a state as in a "independent nation", but not a "territory of the US? This person is half right and half wrong. Makes you wonder how he/she did in school getting things only half the time right, don't you think? Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rob, I like your contributions so far....but I still don't understand the fuss. I know you dont like the reference,do you have a better one? You know we can not let Tony do all the work around here, sometimes we have to get our hand dirty, and I have been busy, you know fighting with evil spirits (dont ever edit in the Spanish Wikipedia, is like a bad centroamerican country, take you hostage!) Anyway, I been called obsessed by the shade of blue even my wife, so I try to stay out of this civil discussion. My suggestion my friend is that you find a better wording be bold a so fix it, but be sure to let us know of any drastic changes (consensus, keep good friends).

Hey Tony, I love that image of the flag, too bad that the great General Ruis never arrived, I think he was in some prison in Spain, love the details. Now Rob, and Tony, I leave this page, thanks for some nice conversation, we need people like you guys, our history is alive in the Wiki....Como dijo Lavoe I dont know English, pero le someto....--J.Mundo (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Tony for your observations, and yes, it is because of statements such as "PR is not a state or a territory of the US" (yes, the last part) that I would not put all my eggs in that FOTW basket, unless it is the only thing we have to go on. In fact, even if it was the only thing we have to go by, if the site is that bad, maybe we should instead, for this one, just rely on a concensus from the editors of the article.

Regarding the comments by J.Mundo, thanks for your comments. As my time permits I would like to contribute some more to this article. However, there are several problems that are more basic than the shades of blue of the flag, and I'd like to start there. I think that, with time, once these other problems are out of the way, it will be easier to work on the shades-of-blue issue.

Here are *some* of the problem areas I see as of now: (1) the introduction is too long, (2) grammatical/syntax errors throughout the article, (3) thought of the contributing editor is not always easy to follow, needs to be presented clearer, (4) article needs more breakdowns into subtitles for ease of reading, and (5) too much space is dedicated to Flags *IN* Puerto Rico vs. Flag *OF* Puerto Rico. (Fundamentally, Is this article about the Flag of "the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" (and its history, associated flags, etc, of course), or is it about Flags of Puerto Rico, the island. In this last point, the article also states that "After the island was conquered and colonized, the official flag of the colony was the flag of Spain", but I could not find, amongst the almost 100 images of flags in the article, an image of this first "official" flag of the Island in the form of a statement/caption that unequivocally identifies the Cross of Burgundy flag as the first *official* flag of the Island - which is a relevant "first" fact - and whcih is, I believe, what the article is saying.)

After improvements to at least most of these areas are made, we can then address the issue of whether it is three shades of blue or just two. Once we are passed this, the article should have a standard way of depicting of the lighter shade (light blue, sky blue, sky-blue(!)) and systematically and consistently use such standard term throughout.

After all the above issues have been take care of, then the shades-of-blue issue can be researched a bit more (if there is anything else out there!), worked on head on, and hopefully put this matter to rest.

If someone wants to grab some of these ideas and start working on them - great! I will try to get to them as my time permits. Regards, Rob99324 (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

When I first wrote this article, it was titled "The flags of Puerto Rico" and was intended to be just that, an article about the flags of Puerto Rico. However, with time the title was changed and as such it should be an article about the "Flag" and it's evolution. What I'm going to do is "split" the article. In other words, I'll create separate articles about the "municipal" and "political" flags and have them interwiklinked in the "See also" sections. I think that this would make more sense. That is unless, the article is renamed "Flags of Puerto Rico" which was its original title.

True, the introduction could be shorten some. To state that the Spanish flag was the first official flag of PR would be a little off since it is common knowledge that as a colony it was more of a colonial flag, not only of Puerto Rico, but of all the colonies, therefore the word "official" goes out. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article after it has reached this level would be pointless, maybe even an idiodic contradiction of Wikipedia's ultimate goal. I'm not going to blindly walk into an argument about politics, but I will protect the article if one of the sides goes around changing the shade that was agreed per consensus. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no the shades is not the issue here. We reached consensus on that and we are not going to make a mess of what is already a "GA" article. For the same reason I am retracting in the "Splitting" the article idea, we put in too much work into this article for that. What the issue is , is the proper title of the the article. Should we change it back to "Flags of Puerto Rico". This is after all one of the best articles on our flag in the internet, but the title only referrers to the "Flag" and not the "Flags" which include the municpal, political and sports flags as such, or should we leave it as is. That is why I am asking opinions as to if a correction has to be made. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is going to be left as it is then the name has to be changed to flags, yet quickly reviewing a few of the other American flag articles, they (at least the ones I saw) only refer to the National flag in the article, so it might be a good idea to leave only the information pertaining to the National flag, and create new articles for the other flags. El Johnson (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, looking at this from a user's standpoint (and I contribute here in terms of making resaearch easier for schoolchildren and other users), it would be best that people can find information of all of Puerto Rico's flags (all prior historical flags, all versions of the official flags, all municipal flags, all political party flags, etc) in one place.Pr4ever (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Flags of Puerto Rico", one single article- Pr4ever (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well somebody just changed the name, so I guess that solves it?El Johnson (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My two cents-- I like the name change, and the flag of Puerto Rico will continue as a redirect (I hope) so hopefully we can move on. Dividing this "Good article" doesn't make sense to me either.--J.Mundo (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you all for your participation both here and in my talk page. It was made very clear that the article should be renamed to it's original name and kept intact. This article has been read by thousnds, see: [3] and has only received one or two complaints, therefore in regard to the shades of blue used in this article, since there are no official government rules in regard to the tones and shades to be used, we agreed by consensus to use the ones currently on the article and that they stay as such. We are not going to start to create any controversies. Thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Flags of Puerto Rico → Flag of Puerto Rico – per WPMOS standard naming conventions on plurals-vide "cat" vs. "cats" and so on. Nearly every political entity in the world has had more than one flag in its history, yet the article names are singular Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment:: Sorry, but as the title indicates the article is about more then one flag of Puerto Rico, it is about the "Flags" of Puerto Rico. The article as such had been revised by the "Good Article" reviewers who would not have approved it had the title not been the proper one. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Support (strongly) per nom. Per WP:SINGULAR we should favor singular titles, and it's entirely appropriate for articles on the flags of political entities to follow that standard, even when multiple flags are discussed. Compare to Flag of the United States or Flag of Bavaria. And since articles should be titled consistently with those of similar articles, see the many articles titled "Flag of" compared with those titled "Flags of," noting that many of the latter really are about groups of flags belonging to multiple entities, such as Flags of micronations or Flags of counties of the United States. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose (strongly) This article has been titled as is and has been read by thousands for years and no one had complained. This is not about one Flag, but about the various flags that have had a historical significance in Puerto Rico. It is about the first historical flags, the the evolution of the current flag, the municipal flags and political flags of Puerto Rico. The article was deemed "good" as it is and there is no reason to change what is good because two or three people want to. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This is about more than one flag. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Support. It is still mainly about the current flag and historical territorial flags. Per BDD, titles of the form "Flags of ..." are usually only lists of flags (of countries by continent, of subdivisions by country, of micronations, etc.) or redirects to "Flag of ..." or "List of flags of ..." articles. Flag of France lists a whole bunch of flags of former French colonies and French communities in other countries, but it's still at "Flag of France". SiBr₄ (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Support and split. It's obvious that we need an article about the current flag of Puerto Rico but this article covers everything. So, just have this article focused on the current flag and its history, then just split everything that is not related to that matter to other articles. For example, the flags about the municipalities should be moved to the different articles about the municipalities or hosted at Municipalities of Puerto Rico but not here. Same with the flags of the political parties. No idea why we have this here. It sets a bad precedent 'cuz then every single flag flown in Puerto Rico must be covered by this article, whether it's a territorial flag or not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree Maybe create an article for Municipal flags of Puerto Rico or List of Puerto Rican flags? SiBr₄ (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I just did a search and found out that the scope of this article is usually found under the title of List of Puerto Rican flags since it covers all the different Puerto Rican flags (see List of Spanish flags for an example). We also use the convention List of municipal flags of Puerto Rico (see Flags of the autonomous communities of Spain). So maybe we should just rename this article to List of Puerto Rican flags and make Flag of Puerto Rico a new article about the state flag only. @Tony, what do you think? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ahnoneemoos, your suggestion is an excellent one, since after all that is waht the article really is, the history and "list of Puerto Rican flags". Plus, the "Good article" status which was granted on all the content of the article, not just one part of it, will remain intact. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Puerto Rican flags. 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) 01:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)