Talk:Saltire

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Heraldry and vexillology Saltire is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles Christianity: Saints Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Mid-importance). Scotland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Visual arts / History / Military / Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. This article is supported by the religion in Russia task force.

• Talk:Saint Andrew's Cross
  )

Based on discussions in the

Merge is complete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same type of cross that appears on the flag and herald of Amsterdam? There should be a cross-reference, if so.

Yes, this design appears in triplicate on the flag of Amsterdam, and could be referred to in the article merger proposed above. --Dulcimerist 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I've already added a mention of Amsterdam to the article. —Tamfang 06:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be much point in describing this saltire variation? Although I don't know who St. Julian was, this heraldic design is the Cross Crosslet Saltire. --Dulcimerist 05:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though there's some confusion over the use of

I see no sign of an edit war. Mais oui! and I have a disagreement over the interpretation of

WP:DAB

. I will leave his top note in place but we can discuss further on this talk page. Both articles have been around a long time without causing any fuss. I don't think there is such a thing as proper, just common usage, and it is common for Scottish people to refer to their flag as The Saltire. I don't know if Burgundians or Alabamans use the same expression for their saltires, but if they do, someone will tell us. Both articles educate readers about the Flag of Scotland without, in my opinion, confusing readers.

If people want to edit war, they will find anything to war about. If people want to have an enjoyable hobby editing an encyclopedia, then they will eventually find a way to work together. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good enough. I was simply concerned that an edit war might break out, but you're more familiar with the histories of these articles than I am.  ;) I agree with what you've typed. --Dulcimerist 04:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the need for a five image gallery on this page. Most of the images can be worked into the page structure, and a few are just superfluous. Thoughts? -- nae'blis 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please work them into the article structure. I put them there because (a) I like galleries (b) it was a quick way to find a home for short bits of encyclopedic info that were cluttering the flow of prose. Which ones do you think are superfluous? Scottish Red Ensign can go if you like; there are already several Scottish flags on the page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the crossed swords? You say it is 'a bit of a stretch', but it seems a reasonable example of having elements in saltire. I found it by browsing "What links here". All the other images are of saltire crosses, so by all means propose another in saltire example in its place. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added it, per your suggestion. I think the amount of pictures are overwhelming the text in this article, but I did what I thought reasonable to shrink them/reorganize them a bit. I'm still not real happy with the TOC/St. Alba/in saltire mash-up at the top of the page... -- nae'blis

"the amount of pictures are overwhelming the text"- it seems to be a visual topic, which is why I proposed the gallery. I agree- you did a reasonable, in fact good job, of reorganising. Nothing mashes up on my screen after your changes - I expect you have a different window shape and font size. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it be broken out into a separate article again (as people have noted below that it was once a separate article). I just did a bit of research into the matter and several dictionaries clearly differentiate between saltire meaning an X-shaped item of heraldry and St. Andrew's Cross meaning a physical X-shaped cross structure. Googling around, it seems the BDSM community rarely if ever uses the word saltire, preferring St. Andrew's Cross. (See [1]) They may share a shape, but heraldry and a physical wooden structure are different things used for different purposes and probably deserve separate articles. IdahoEv 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really need to be there? It seems sort of tasteless. The main article is sort of a sordid heraldry thing, and then there's this hardcore sex tool thrown in for jollies. I recommend it be put into a seperate article, and maybe put a disambig on top. --Pewpewlazers 01:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BDSM saltire used to have its own article, although it was really too short. Someone proposed the merger on September 14, and a few weeks later, after no objections were received, I merged it with Saltire. The word saltire is not ambiguous, so does not need disambiguation—the sex thing is just a type of saltire, just as the railway and road signage is. If it ever gets its own article again, it still deserves a mention here, not a disambiguation. The photo has no nudity, so it is not usual to call it hardcore. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems sort of... weird. I'm not offended or anything, but just because it's a homonym and only really distantly related, doesn't mean it should be on the same page. It's better to leave it as a stub on another page and have a link at the top of the page for people who are looking for that sort of thing.--Pewpewlazers 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stub would have to repeat the legend about Saint Andrew, which arguably lowers the taste even further. Here it avoids repetition. It is not a homonym: like all other saltires, it is so-called because of its shape. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sordid heraldry thing?? —Tamfang 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Where'd it go? :( --ZBrisk 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor cut that section, with no edit summary and no comment here; not good practice. I've restored it (though I didn't restore the reference in the intro paragraph, which might have been more detailed than necessary). I agree with Hrothulf's comments above. Though some readers will find it "weird", it's hardly "distantly related", since these days I think virtually every instance of this design (the three-dimensional object, not the heraldic symbol) is in fact used for just that purpose. ←Hob 02:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [whoops, I just made an anonmyous edit of my own! but that was me.][reply]

I just reverted an other anonymous edit.--

• Although Wikipedia is not censored, it is still an encyclopedia and its content should be attributed to verifiable sources which place the BDSM St Andrew's Cross within a general encyclopedic context and which document the claims made about its popularity, etc. Since the BDSM device is clearly a derivative of the traditional means of
  Saint Andrew's martyrdom, I think we editors should focus on documenting that tradition so that the sex device is described adequately by a short reference rather than a full description. Surely a classical depiction of Andrew's martyrdom would more effectively demonstrate the concept in a general context, and I would tend to place it with the introduction rather than in a "gallery of saltires" which is clearly for heraldic uses. --Dystopos 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The use of saltier in
  Nemissimo II 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If that is the case there should be no problem finding good sources for your claims. The only POV I am pushing here is that the BDSM use is derivative of the religious iconography. If the BDSM usage has an independent derivation (physiological, perhaps?) then that should be documented. If not, then the description under this heading should, I believe, be kept short. --Dystopos 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whats with with the skanky BDSM pic? This is why nobody takes wiki serious. @nt1-H3r0 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.246.232.20 (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I would say that the use of the St Andrew's Cross in BDSM is a lot more derivative of the original use of crosses, that is, punishment, rather than the religious context. It is more a Roman use of a cross than a Christian one. It is thus my opinion that if discussion of BDSM use of St Andrew's Crosses is to be part of a larger article, rather than a stub of its own, it would be better placed in the section on modern uses in the article on
        Saint Andrew's Cross (BDSM) still redirects to it. It does not make sense to redirect to this page and then completely ignore the topic.Cadrac 02:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Is someone willing to clean up the references to the cross' use in fetish circles? I think that if the wiki article on leather references leather fetishism and rock&roll stars; and if the article on Crisco references it's use as sexual lubricant (exclusively outside of North America, I might add) there is no reason why there cannot be a subsection in this subject (I readded the paragraph earlier today). Here is a link to a website which sells the crosses: http://www.masterrsdungeons.com/products.php?cat=26 Kurtto 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back in April, an experienced editor tagged the fetish/BDSM paragraphs as uncited, and in May, they deleted them according to policy. New material on this topic is more likely to stay if it has references that meet the norms of WP:CITE Wikipedia:Verifiability . --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-rework

In my major rework of the page I attempted to address the BDSM use (particularly Cadrac's observation above). It merits inclusion, alongside other non-heraldric uses of the terms Saltire / St Andrew's Cross. However, it does not need its own entire section (as it stood prior to my edit), nor mention in the introduction (which had already been removed). Perhaps the removal of that undeserved prominence in the table of contents will address concerns mentioned here. Tofof (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation for the following line about the flag of Scotland:
It is the oldest continuously used sovereign flag in the world, having been in use since 732 AD.

I think the claim is incorrect because of the following information found on the Wikipedia Scotland entry:

The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until 1 May 1707, when the Acts of Union (despite widespread protest across Scotland)[7] resulted in a union with the Kingdom of England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.[8][9] Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and Scotland still constitutes a discrete jurisdiction in public and in private law.[10] The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.[11] However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union.

--Mrdarius 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there information on the physical implement used, instead of just the symbol? This used to exist in a seperate article, IIRC, called X cross - which used to cross-link to Saltire, so people who didn't know what that type of cross was called, could find the correct name. The only non-symbol reference remaining in this article is "Saint Andrew is said to have been martyred on such a cross." and the link to BDSM fetish furniture.
~ender 2007-01-13 08:29:AM MST

This is an issue still not resolved - this article is the one linked to in other articles referring to physical St. Andrew's crosses (I think I came here from the breaking wheel article) and contains no information about them, four and a half years after the issue was first brought up here. *This* is why people don't take Wikipedia seriously. 173.56.90.38 (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Tiktok[reply]

At least as of today, the physical crosses have an article, and this page properly links to them. Tofof (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"(Nova Scotia was originally a Scottish colony)"

That doesn't seem correct at all...it was a colony of the United Kingdom (after having been a French colony, although clearly under a different name).

This kind of logic ssems to imply that New South Wales was a colony of South Wales....clearly false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.145 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Add new topics at the bottom, using the "new section" button.) According to Nova Scotia#History, colonization from Scotland began in 1621–2, well before the union with England in 1707. —Tamfang (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland had colonizing efforts indepedently of England, not only in Nova Scotia, but in Brazil as well. There were Scottish colonies, though after 1707, they are just UK 206.188.80.11 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The 10th Mountain Division of the US Army uses bayonets in saltire to represent the Roman numeral X (10)"

I do not think crossed swords are a saltire, which derives from Christian symbols. There is a difference between the letter X and a Christian cross.Geo8rge (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any pair of pole-like objects so arranged is described as in saltire. The term refers to the shape, not to its symbolism. —Tamfang (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the US Army heraldry specifically lists the bayonets as in saltire. Tofof (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A saltorel is a narrow saltire; the term is usually defined as one-half the width of the saltire, and is a relatively recent "innovation".

Why the scare-quotes on "innovation"? — I kinda thought a saltorel was a saltire couped, used as a common charge; French flanchis. (My relevant books are in boxes.) Am I befuddled? —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed these scare quotes, along with the entire (unsourced) claim about the novelty of the term. Tofof (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the before mentioned image put away?? It IS a St. Andrew Cross, Then?? Is there any reason why can't it be there?? Only yesterday it was still there!!--207.249.136.254 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image on its own (File:CodexMendoza01.jpg) doesn't tell us much. What is it? Is the saltire a symbol, or a simplified representation of four rivers or canals? —Tamfang (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it 'tells' but not US, it need'nt tell YOU that's the reason why Wikipedia exists cause it's not someone's point of view or how is it 'seen'. Now that you ask, be it a symbol and/or a representation of channels it is maybe my mistake to have entitled it 'Precolumbian' (in this you might be of help) cause in truth the codex dates (I've made the research) from the period-epoch of Viceroy Mendoza-that's why it's called Mendocino-so there might certainly be found in there a Christian influence and symbolism; but even if there's not please consider and take into account that it may be - always and by all means- what Jung* called unconscious archetypes thus coming to be known as jungian* (Universal) archetypes. So finally, there need'nt be an explicit symbolism but only that of common sense as it is seen. P.s.: *Jung had a whole school and followers of his own and I believe some of his disciples like Joseph Campbell for instance would be in agreement too.Even others like Mircea Eliade!!, etc.--207.249.136.254 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we ought to have a picture of X-shaped bracing on a barn door, then. —Tamfang (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in you being ironical, these are VALUES. I'm gonna quote precisely the Wikipedia-it is someting I didn't write THE FOLLOWING IS AN INTERNAL WIKI LINK: Jungian archetypes "Therefore, these images must be thought of as lacking in solid content, hence as unconscious. They only acquire solidity, influence, and eventual consciousness in the encounter with empirical facts."[2]. I'm afraid your commentary might not only be thought of as ironical but with a taint of racism in it!! Is it because it is mexican?? It's VALUES I tell you once again.--189.136.158.247 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I fail to grasp what you're getting at. What do you mean by VALUES? Are you citing Jung for the idea that every X is meaningful (because the viewer can see a saltire) even if the person who drew it did not intend meaning, or something of that sort? If so, why not a barn door? Would it be any less racist to insist on including something irrelevant because it is Mexican than to exclude something clearly relevant because it is Mexican? (How about a Mexican barn door?) Also, what do you mean by VALUES? —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The letter t and the Christian cross are different symbols although they can look the same. So is the letter X and cross symbol meaning 'not' and the Saltire the same thing as the article implies.

This statement was made by the experienced metal-detectorist who found the "Dumfreisshire hoard" recently. Does this imply that the Vikings introduced the Saltire to Scotland? I thought St Andrew, or at least his becoming Scotland's patron saint, was associated with a Pictish king. I'd never heard of the Saltire as a Viking symbol (though to be fair, I don't know that much about the Vikings) but the detectorist's comments appear to be understood by the world at large as reasonable. However, a quick trawl of our articles on

I don't think he was describing a saltire per se - probably it's a reference to the diagonal cross motif that is found on various Hiberno-Norse artifacts. See e.g. [2]. Prioryman (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be it. Is it worth a sentence of explanation? -- only one of the nine or so uses mentioned in Saltire#Other uses is actually a Saltire, and this usage seems more worthy of inclusion than most of them ... or alternatively perhaps the Other uses section should be considerably culled, before someone adds the letters X and x and the Greek letters Χ and χ, claiming that they are all Saltires, in spite of them all considerably pre-dating Christianity ;-) Enginear (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see the emblem of University of Patras showing St.Andrews (died in Patras, is city's patron) and the X (Saltire cross?) on which he was killed by the Romans (tradition says they did it cause he said he was proud to die on Christ's cross) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.243.84 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217101704/http://www.lemessager.net:80/details_articles.php?code=118 to http://www.lemessager.net/details_articles.php?code=118&code_art=24911

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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. —

• Flag of Mississippi (2001–2020).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ethiopian-Eritrean cross 1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This week a paragraph on the bondage cross was added and reverted. Didn't the article once have a hatnote for that? I feel there ought to be a link somewhere, but the most natural place for it is not obvious to me. —Tamfang (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]