File talk:Flag of Mari El (back).svg

Accuracy

The source given by the original uploader (archived) doesn't at all support the idea that the flag at that time had no emblem on the reverse. I think it's likely that the uploader knew that the previous flag had the charge and text only on the obverse, and that the new flag had different proportions, and simply produced an updated version of the plain tricolour reverse in the new proportions.

I don't think this conclusion is backed up by the text of the law. Vexillographia interprets the pre-2006 law as setting a different obverse for that flag, but not in the case of the 2006 flag. Other easily available sources don't mention the issue at all. JPD (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clearer, other sources don't mention the issue when talking about the 2006 flag. FOTW covers the different reverse of the 1992 flag. JPD (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I do have an actual flag from this region and it shows the same front design as the back. It is a thin single sided desk flag, so your mileage may vary. As for FOTW, the person who presented the information about the current flag has died several years ago, so we are not able to ask him. I did find a source that shows the obverse mirrors the reverse. This picture has the best view. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested the current flag has a different reverse. This image, originally presented as the reverse of the 2006 flag, is both out of date (the flag was changed in 2011), and, I think, inaccurate tostart with, since the 2006 flag had no special treatment of the reverse. JPD (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from. According to the 2006 law, I also conclude there is no different reverse. This journal and this article show the obverse and reverse are the same for the 2006 flag. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)