Talk:List of Algerian flags

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rustamid Flag.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing fictional and unsupported flags

I've removed a number of fictitious and unsourced "historical" flags from the list. There's a reason these flags don't appear (or have been recently removed) on the respective main articles for these states and dynasties. (For some of the "Moroccan" flags, for example, see this discussion.) Unfortunately there are many WP:OR, unsourced, or dubiously sourced flags in Wiki Commons, uploaded by editors who try to push them on various Wikipedia articles. Some of the images are now even explicitly tagged as "fictional" on their Commons file description pages. There may be more problematic flags in the rest of the list but these are the obvious cases I could spot. (Even the Umayyad flag may not be supported, judging by recent discussion and edits at Umayyad Caliphate.) The reality is that we don't know what the flags of many historical North African states looked like (especially older ones), or even if there was a single standard flag for each of them; we shouldn't expect every historical state to be represented here. R Prazeres (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and possible original research

The article has been greatly expanded recently with a number of flags that look very speculative. Many are only supported by citations to crwflags.com (or FOTW, Flags of the world). I've said this elsewhere: CRW/FOTW is not a reliable source. It is a website for flag enthusiasts that accepts contributions from volunteers and is not reviewed by scholars. Its own disclaimer states: "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." This should not be used as a source on Wikipedia.

In a similar vein, editors should be very careful about extracting flags from primary sources and presenting them as historical facts. Wikipedia's policy on original research explicitly advises against relying too much on primary sources. At the very least, any flags based purely on primary sources should have those sources cited clearly and contextualized inline (e.g. with inline attribution) so readers know what they're looking at.

Lastly, a few sections particularly raise questions: what does the "Misattributed flags" section mean? If these flags are "erroneous", why are they included here? And likewise, what are the (unsourced) "proposed flags" for French Algeria? Proposed by whom? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vexillology forum, I doubt these are appropriate unless they're actually discussed by reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Flags Accuracy

Hi @Swiãtopôłk

Could you please refrain from adding proposed/historical flags to articles related to North Africa? I appreciate your intentions, and I have contributed to some flag creation where their authenticity is evident based on requests you've made. However, many of the flags related to North Africa are inaccurate and not necessarily true. Just because they appear on old medieval maps or illustrations does not make them authentic unless supported by a secondary source. Often, medieval authors linked the crescent or other symbols they thought represented Islam, using their imagination rather than actual flag evidence. This results in depictions of flags with red crescents here and blue ones there.

Removing the flags you've added one by one takes a lot of time and effort, and I’ve spent years doing this. I often find myself dedicating countless hours discussing these flags on talk pages to convince unfamiliar users on other wikis. Thank you for your understanding. Riad Salih (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Flags removed

You removed a couple of well sourced flags, especially those related to the regency and are in use in a couple of articles. (Especially the tricolour green, red, yellow). I oppose this. You need a consensus first. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The entire article is a mess, and if there are any sources, they should be added to the article, as each project is separate. I doubt that this list adheres to WP:TOOBROAD and WP:NLIST. First, we need to clarify what we mean by 'Algerian flags', defining our terms before having a discussion is necessary. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There are definitely some fictional flags here and I oppose adding any flag prior to the early modern period (I have a mixed opinion on the zayyanid flag). Yet Algerian flags are flags belonging to the state of Algeria or Algiers. A geopolitical entity that exists in North Africa since 1516. Therefore all well sourced flags about this period should remain here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe your current approach reflects a selective interpretation rather than a position grounded in verifiable historical consensus. Stating that Algerian flags are flags belonging to the state of Algeria or Algiers, a geopolitical entity that has existed in North Africa since 1516, is a broader historical claim that is highly debatable and, needs a separate discussion in itself.

I don’t believe that the existence of similar pages (most of them are fanatic) justifies the creation of this list from an encyclopedic perspective. Notability (WP:TOOBROAD and WP:NLIST) and clarity should take precedence. The article currently has limited interwiki coverage (a single nlwiki version, which is more contextually cautious) and the page views are around 48 views per day, largely from AI bots, editors, and search crawlers.

If there is a need for the Ottoman flags/banners/naval ensigns, or similar symbols used during their presence in the region, that would need a separate, focused article or list. Every topic belongs in its appropriate place, we shouldn't conflate or merge distinct historical entities under a modern selective national label.

Likewise, the article on the Flag of Algeria (well known) should reflect established and verifiable facts—without retroactive associations. Anything beyond that is a subjective or an arbitrary selection, rather than an encyclopedic one. Riad Salih (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres and @M.Bitton sorry for pinging you since I’m used to consult you on such matters. do you believe that flags (or anything for instance) related to Ottoman Algeria are not “Algerian” ? I think that well sourced flags of the regency have everything to do with the historical development of the Algerian flags since they are…Algerian, and not exclusively Ottoman. For instance I have two sources that relate the evolution of the modern national Algerian flag down to this period:

- علم الوطني الجزائري المعاصر تطوره الشكلي وتحليل لمضمونه الإيديولوجي والسياسي 1518 – 1945

-

Dictonnaire de la revolution Algérienne 1954 - 1962

pp 144.

Sources we find in commons describe them explicitly as Algerian without being emphasised as none modern national ones but rather related to the civil and military authorities of the regency.

Best. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the sources to the same extent as you, but retaining the Regency/Ottoman-era flags is acceptable to my mind, so long as they are accompanied by citations (and ideally some additional context, where useful). As the predecessor state to modern Algeria relevant to the latter's formation, it's a reasonable inclusion. We could still choose to make a seperate article if preferred, but in the absence of another relevant article at the moment, it's best to retain properly-sourced content and then move it later if needed. In the meantime, the relevant section could be preceded by a brief line or two introducing the historical context. R Prazeres (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: There are some other unsourced flags in the "Military" and "Merchant" sections, these should probably be reviewed and removed if unsourced.

We should also avoid citing WP:FOTW (all the "crwflags.com" sources are part of this), as it's not a reliable source. If some flags rely exclusively on this source, with no reasonable possibility of verifying them elsewhere, they should likely be removed. R Prazeres (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with R Prazeres's assessment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I’m temporarily stepping back from this discussion because I’m seeing an approach with some inaccuracies, when it comes to the use of terminology such as “state,” “geopolitical entity,” “Algiers,” and “Algeria” and "Ottoman Algeria"

If the term “Ottoman” is being used here, as it has appeared at least 4 times in this talk, then the logical step would be to create a separate and dedicated list or article specifically for the regency.

During the rule of the Ottomans, several independent or semi-autonomous entities existed, such as the Kingdom/Principality/Chiefdom/ of Kuku, the Sultante of Beni Abbas, the Sultanate/Emirate of Tuggurt, and the Principality of the Aït/Beni Jubar, to name just a few. Should their banners included if they existed? And why is the Regency is being used as the primary historical reference point, as if it’s the sole valid timestamp?

The real discussion (including the sources mentioned) must take place on the article about the Flag of Algeria, which clearly refers to the official flag of a recognized independent state since 1962. Yet, that article has been overloaded since 2018 with nonsensical content that does not reflect historical accuracy or logical reasoning in any way—regardless of the biased and selective narrative. Riad Salih (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

FLN-OAS ceasefire proposal

The source says. « les couleurs françaises apparaîtront dans le coin supérieur droit de l'étoffe » The source also compares this proposal to British Commonwealth flags in that, like them, it features the flag of the former colonial power as part of the design. It doesn’t specify that the French flag will be shown in the canton like the British one is but does go on to specify that it will appear on the ‘upper right’ of the flag.

The alternative interpretation is not convincing, in my opinion. Flags are invariably described as though hoisted on the left side. In a generic description of a flag design (rather than a particular view of an actually flying flag) ‘upper right’ would mean the fly. The source notes a comparison to British Commonwealth flags but does not state that design would follow exactly in placing tricolor in the canton. The source does however go on the specify placement in the ‘upper right’, which in this case would logically mean the fly. There are already good quality images of this description with the tricolor in the upper right corner as described in the source, so there is no need for this alternative depiction to have replaced previous ones.

Interpreting ‘upper right’ to mean canton rather than fly is a stretch and, I think, constitutes original research. Xophe84 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)