Jump to content

Talk:Australian Flag Society

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

Status of Flag Society

[edit]

Is the flag society in the business of educational and general charity or poltical advocacy i.e. retaining the existing flag of Australia?

It seems to me they are most preoccupied with advancing education and with the relief of poverty.

If you look at their paper on the "National Flag, Holiday and Flag Bill" they have on the table, on one level it seeks to entrench the existing flag in the constitution, if only to guarantee and put beyond all doubt the voting rights of the Australian people in the event the Flags Act is ever reviewed, which are currently only enshrined in statutory provisions of questionable constitutionality. In addition, their bill only provides a description of the national flag in general terms, meaning under their scheme the Flags Act would remain on the statute books to provide the actual specifications, meaning if another point on the federation star was desired in the event a new state is admitted to the federation, that change could be achieved by simple legislation - not the plebicite which is currently stipulated by law.

All this is really doing is addressing the shortcomings in the current provisions relating to reviewing the national flag design in the Flags Act, which have been raised by both sides to the debate since the Flags Amendment Bill was introduced in 1996.

Davedonovan (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had another look at their proposed amendment. If enacted, the provisions relating to the flag are not absolutely unmodifiable articles, in that they could be further amended according to the formula in section 128 of the constitution.
Davedonovan (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Educational charities don't promote legislation - that's what advocacy organisations do. Out of interest, do you have a connection with this organisation? If so, you need to read WP:COI. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only subscribe to the flag society's free newsletter. That's about it.

I'd question whether that's right. I was watching the news one night and a Salvation Army spokepersonThey proposed a welfare reform that would have required an amendment to act of parliament.

It seems like their proposed amendment is remedial only. As per the edit I made, it's more of a refinement rather than anything new; a nuance.

I would be interesting to know if they have charity status with the taxation authorities.

Davedonovan (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Salvation Army making a submission to a parliamentary committee:
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/Global/News%20and%20Media/Reports/2010/submission-to-the-senate-inquiry-welfare-bills.pdf
Is it really not possible, then, to put it back the way it was?
Davedonovan (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the flag society page. I see there's an awful lot of references to them in newspaper articles. Dr Elizabeth Kwan mentioned them in her seminal work "Flag and Nation". As you can see here they are the custodians of the iconic parliament house centenary flag https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346/. You'd be surprised how many people in Queensland have heard of them. You're joking aren't you?

All we can do is take down the tag or ask for a third opinion.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Flag Society. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Flag Society. 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) 03:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

[edit]

I submit there are enough references from the flag society displaying their parliament house centenary flag on flag day alone that have already been supplied to justify this article renaming such as: 

Ian Warden, 'How cricketing animals were kept off Australia's national flag', The Canberra Times (Canberra), 4 September 2002, p. 7
'Students celebrate as the Australian flag turns 103', The Reporter (Acacia Ridge), 8 September 2004, p. 3
Annelie Hailes, 'Huge flag for a big country', Courier Mail, 4 September 2009, p. 33
'Special day flagged by Central students', The Queensland Times, 2 September 2010, p. 6
Sarah Harvey, 'Now that’s a flag! Students salute big flag', The Queensland Times, p. 4 September 2012, p. 1
Chris Owen, ‘Ensign flags a very special Aussie day’, The Queensland Times, 3 September 2013, p. 2
Iconic flag to tour Warwick, Warwick Daily News, p. 3 https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346/

58.84.78.8 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them appear to be about this organisation. The only one with an internet link you provided isn't about the organisation. The 'Students salute big flag' [1] and 'Ensign flags a very special Aussie day' [2] stories do not mention it at all. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions the flag society. They're the custodians of a national treasure. You cannot be serious.

https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346/

58.84.78.8 (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two articles were on the subject of the Australian National Flag Association of the ACT before the name was changed to Australian Flag Society.
Pickworth, Carin, "ACT student rapt with Aussie flag", The Canberra Times, 6 July 2001
Centenera, Jeff, "Colours lowered as ACT's flag group ordered to disband", The Canberra Times, 4 November 2002
Kwan also mentions the Australian Flag Society as being a notable flag organisation in her Flag and Nation on page 11 and the name change in 2003.
58.84.78.8 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are you hoping to achieve by editing simultaneously from two accounts? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop hassling me about that because I've got a username now. I'm only trying to improve the article.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not expert on computers. But I'm told the issue might be that my phone and laptop have two different internet service providers. Now that I've got a username if that's your only problem that's not much.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage if my fellow editor to the third opinion dispute is not going to proceed with the outcome I move that the notability tag be removed. If Elizabeth Kwan mentioned the Australian Flag Society in her seminal work "Flag and Nation" in a section entitled "Flag organisations in Australia" then that is a reliable secondary source.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

I've decided to set up an account and ask for a third opinion. I think the notability tag should be removed and the last edit reversed. This organisation has been mentioned in umpteen newspaper articles the most recent one I can find being https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/iconic-flag-to-tour-warwick/3215346 Dr Elizabeth Kwan mentioned them in her seminal work "Flag and Nation" in a section entitled 'Flag organisations in Australia.'

If they are the custodians of an Australian national treasure doesn't make them notable right there?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely not the custodians of the Australian flag (to the extent that there is a body with such a responsibility, it's the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [3], and that news story from a regional newspaper is not even focused on them. That section of the book has only a single sentence on the society: [4]. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what your saying. The Joint House Department on the other hand says they handed over to the Australian Flag Society not only custody of the parliament house centenary flag but full ownership in 2002.

I think you are mistaking the parliament house centenary flag with the centenary flag of state. You would be right in saying the department of PM and cabinet have responsibility for that. But they are two different flags. The question is though does the flag society's custodianship of the former which has become a national treasure make them notable? I would argue it does.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this above that these two articles were on the subject of the Australian National Flag Association of the ACT before the name was changed to Australian Flag Society.
Pickworth, Carin, "ACT student rapt with Aussie flag", The Canberra Times, 6 July 2001
Centenera, Jeff, "Colours lowered as ACT's flag group ordered to disband", The Canberra Times, 4 November 2002
Kwan also mentions the Australian Flag Society as being a notable flag organisation in her Flag and Nation on page 11 and the name change in 2003. You can't say shes not an authority on flags and flag organisations in Australia.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you are paying no attention to what I'm saying, don't appear to have read the notability criteria (WP:ORG), are now abusing multiple accounts to repeatedly post identical material in multiple threads and may also have an undisclosed conflict of interest with this obscure outfit (please also see WP:COI) I will not be continuing this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. But I've now set up an account and asked for a third opinion rather than start an edit war. I'm doing the right thing aren't I?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated by the page history [5], you are logging in and out of the account to post identical material. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again sorry about that. I've got a username now though.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that obscure really. You'd be surprised how many people in Queensland know about them and their big flag. It's been mentioned umpteen times in regional Queensland newspapers. You obviously don't share my interest in flags.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating an article about the parliament house centenary flag and redirecting this page there?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
I am interpreting this dispute as a question of whether the Australian Flag Society is a notable organisation or not, following the placement of a notability tag on the article as per WP:FAILN. A third opinion is an informal way of resolving content disputes, and as such is not an appropriate way to determine notability. As notability is still disputed by the parties, the best way to resolve this dispute as to whether this organisation is notable or not is for the user who believes the organisation is not notable (User:Nick-D in this case) to nominate the page at WP:AFD, where the community can discuss the matter. Iffy★Chat -- 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that if someone can post the link.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take it that my fellow wikipedian is not going to abide by the third option and state their case?
Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you drawn that editor's attention to this discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. At this stage if my fellow editor to the third opinion dispute is not going to proceed with the outcome I move that the notability tag be removed. If Elizabeth Kwan mentioned the Australian Flag Society in her seminal work "Flag and Nation" in a section entitled "Flag organisations in Australia" then that is a reliable secondary source.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Hasn't this been fairly well covered already in the section about the flag society's Australian Christian Broadcasting arm?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the Flag Society of Australia mentioned in this section is a completely different organisation: www.flagsaustralia.com.au
I say this section should be removed.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake with the name in the article, which is now corrected. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we even need this section though? It's been covered in what was already there about their Christian broadcasting arm.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the religion section into the one on Australian Christian Broadcasting like so:

In December 2016 the AFS launched Australian Christian Broadcasting as a news wire service focusing on biblical eschatology and current world events. The official AFS facebook fan page also features a 'world war 3 watch' series which regularly monitors developments in relation to the civil wars in Ukraine and Syria, the North Korean missile crisis, the Iranian nuclear accord and the South China Sea dispute. [19] [20]

It is the position of the AFS that the Australian constitution and national flag are both of divine inspiration.[21]

Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think of it I'll concede that "Religion" is a neutral heading. So I've merged the Australian Christian Broadcasting material under that heading. I fully appreicate that world war three is a touchy subject at the moment. But I still don't see how my wording in POV though.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There' are big holes in this article

[edit]

Where exactly does the religion thing fit with loving the flag? By general Australian standards, the society's religious views are extreme. They are mentioned in the article. It also has its "dramatic" position on World War III. There is no explanation of any connection between these views. What is really going on? Is the "Society" really anything more than a mouthpiece for one person with extreme views in several areas? I would fill in these gaps if I knew where to look, but I don't. Can anyone help? HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that this was once a small but moderate organisation, and has now become a very small and immoderate one. It's Facebook page is certainly not typical of that of an organisation focused on promoting a national flag, but presumably represents the group's views. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what if the society has one main spokesperson? If you look at their facebook page they seem to have something of a following of religious minded patriotic types who strongly identify with them to me <www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society>. They can have any organisational structure they like. They've got as much right to be here as you do. Live and let live I say.

Aussieflagfan (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That a group of Christians have formed a flag society in relation to one of 31 national flags bearing a Christian symbol hardly amazes me. So they choose to stand for God, Queen and Country and not be a secular organisation instead. Good luck to them. They might even be right about current world events being linked to bible doomsday prophecy. However why not just redirect this article to the one I have proposed for their Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) and restore there the section entitled "Australian Flag Society collection"? Because exhibiting this national treasure is where they get most of their publicity from and not their Christian outreach projects. Problem solved.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My query began with finding that an organisation supporting the flag (a straightforward position) also has extreme views in other areas, which it seems determined to tell the world about. I was really just seeking an explanation. Is there material available on how these positions evolved? And how about the membership? Any material available? Facebook supports and likes count for nothing. What, exactly, is the Australian Flag Society? HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see they've got a google form up on their facebook page. Sure they'd have members if it's that free and easy. I've even seen folks comments on the form saying how much they are happy to have joined. I've also seen them publish notices of the minutes of meetings. I've also heard them answer the allegation they are a bit far ahead of where public opinion may be in Australia. And they'll just tell you they are preparing for the next Australia which is supposed to be the one after world war 3 starts. Probably it would be good with regards to their christian outreach efforts to have an increasing number of people asking themselves the big questions in life. You could expect that to be a much more polarised society.
I'd have to say though that as doom and gloom preachers they've got a spring in their step now Hawaii looks like it might go under and send massive tidal waves to reach the west coast of America. Maybe things are going to go their way after all?
Aussieflagfan (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And let's just say Australia is the last western nation where world war 3 deniers are in the majority. The flag society nevertheless aren't having a bar of that sentiment anymore. Not with slogans such as "Re-Christianise, Re-Monarchise, Re-Militartise". A lot of people in Australia - even most - might be getting dragged kicking and screaming into the recent decision to buy $35 billion worth of warships from the UK. But I've just noticed that some of those other loyal societies are following the lead of the flag society and making a big deal of these military procurement announcements now: https://www.facebook.com/acmnorepublic/posts/1890554304298264 I remember a time when they'd just let it slide by. Clearly they are leaving all the bible quotes out of it. But it just goes to show the truth is the truth even if it's not the majority belief.
In five years time we could be here praising their genius in being so well positioned to take advantage of the lead up to the next global conflict.
Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

How about we simply redirect this article to the one that has been proposed and accepted for the Parliament house centenary flag (Australia)? I propose that we restore to this latter entry a section entitled "Australian Flag Society collection" as follows:

According to Dr Elizabeth Kwan's "Flag and Nation" the AFS was originally constituted as the Australian Capital Territory branch of ANFA.[1] However, on 15 July 2003, affiliation with ANFA was severed, and the organisation rebranded as a national body.[2] The organisation was founded by Nigel Morris who in 2002 secured federal funding for the distribution of the "Our National Flag ... since 1901" video kit to all primary schools in Australia [3][4][5] being described as a "flag lobbyist" by the Canberra Times. [6]

The official AFS facebook fanpage states the following aims and objectives:

  • Making civics education, vexillogical and other resources available to organisations and the general public and considering all requests for grants of aid and materiel.
  • Due recognition of the Australian National Flag and observance of Australian National Flag Day, 3 September.
  • Facilitating contact between supporters of the Society to discuss ways to promote the Australian National Flag and patriotism in general.
  • Maintaining a general headquarters and preservation of the Society's collection.
  • Continuing to add to the body of knowledge through primary research. [7]

In addition to acting as the custodian of the parliament house centenary flag the AFS has proposed that 22 August be proclaimed as "Captain Cook Day" in 2005 to commemorate the day explorer James Cook laid claim to the east coast of Australia as New South Wales on Possession Island in the name of King George III.[8] In 2013 the AFS would also announce a worldwide quest and $10,000 reward for information leading to the discovery of the Union Jack which was reportedly hoisted as a second flag at the battle of the Eureka Stockade.[9]

The AFS has proposed that all schools in Australia pause to recite the words of the national salute as part of the annual Australian National Flag Day commemorations. Formerly a tradition the national salute was part of the school curriculum until falling into disuse from the late 1950s. [10] The version used by the AFS in conjunction with the parliament house centenary flag reads as follows:

"I fear God, I love my country, I honour her Queen, I salute her flag, I promise to always obey her laws." [11]

Would that be an acceptable resolution to all?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kwan, 2006, p. 11
  2. ^ Centenera, Jeff, "Colours lowered as ACT's flag group ordered to disband", The Canberra Times, 4 November 2002
  3. ^ "History of Aussie flag to be given to schools", Canberra Sunday Times, 11 August 2002
  4. ^ "Civics | Our National Flag...since 1901". Curriculum.edu.au. 2005-06-14. Archived from the original on 2012-04-30. Retrieved 2012-05-22. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Nigel Morris - On Line Opinion Author". Onlineopinion.com.au. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
  6. ^ Centenera, Jeff, "Colours lowered as ACT's flag group ordered to disband", The Canberra Times, 4 November 2002
  7. ^ https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society/about
  8. ^ "Society Flags Captain Cook Day", The Canberra Times, 23 August 2005
  9. ^ http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1858615/10000-reward-to-track-down-the-other-eureka-flag
  10. ^ Kwan, 2006, p. 159
  11. ^ https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society/photos/a.210701592278728.64879.124224670926421/1890297980985739
Parliament house centenary flag (Australia) would seem to be a particularly niche article, just about one flag that most people would hardly know exists and are likely to care little about. I'm not sure it really even deserves to exist. This article should logically be the more important one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HiLo48, this article is much broader than the centenary flag one. If anything, the redirect should be in the other direction. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian National Flag Association

[edit]

How about we expand on the Australian National Flag Association entry with sections for each of state chapters and merge this article there? I think that would be a good fix especially as there is no 'Australian National Flag Association' if it is just five separate state based organisations plus the Australian Flag Society. Aussieflagfan (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see a single, simple coherent article on the apparent mess of organisations seemingly competing with claims that they do the best job of promoting the flag. It's very confusing. Why do they all exist? Personality clashes among what I suspect is really only a tiny number of people behind all of this? HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not the same organisation, so covering the AFS in detail in the Australian National Flag Association is not sensible. I agree with HiLo: a central article on current Australian flag advocates might be the best approach, especially as the individual organisations don't seem notable in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really that's right. Some of those five ANFA branches are active and get a good roll up at meetings. But others are run out of the secretaries private home and struggle to get a quorum at the AGM much less generate any publicity. I haven't heard anything about ANFA VIC in particular anytime recently which is amazing when you consider Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Building was where the Australian flag was first flown. And even the blue ribband ANFA NSW appears to have a president that is doubling up as the secretary at the minute. So it's little wonder some of those ANFAites have went and formed the Australian Flag Society instead. I've tried to be constructive but nothing I have suggested has so far resolved the dispute. So I look forward to Nick-D bringing back an article that meets those requirements. You certainly can't deny the existence of a divided loyalist front in Australia. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could call the article "Loyalist organisations in Australia". As wikipedia itself states Loyalism is an the ideology all about allegiance to the powers that be. But even so some bent out of shape republican is likely to take issue with that. But would going with "Patriotic organisations in Australia" cause the same issues? If you go with the former you could even mention Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, the Australian Monarchist League, the Royal Commonwealth Society and all the rest. I'd have to say though the ailing Australian National Flag Association has it's very own article. And as we know the flag society which is an offshoot gets all their publicity these days. ANFA are a do nothing organisation that might eventually fold in some states where they are having trouble getting a quorum at the AGM. They aren't even really a national organisation having never had branch in SA or the NT. So you might even actually merge the ANFA article into the new one too. Aussieflagfan (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So in one post you attack anyone who you think is "some bent out of shape republican", and the entire ANFA. You add in a pile of speculation as well. Please try to contribute more constructively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that a lot of republicans are bent out of shape. And I can't blame them. Because they got well and truly ripped off in 1999. The point is though that ANFA and the flag society are loyal societies as wikipedia defines the term loyalism. So what would your objection if any be to an article by that name? Aussieflagfan (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious POV pushing. An article title which states that people are only 'loyal' if they have a particular set of views is obviously non-neutral. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are loyal - to the powers that be. I always thought loyalists were the opposite of republicans. Wouldn't it be no more POV that the wikipedia article on loyalism itself? What about "Organised patriotism in Australia" instead? Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under a heading like that you could even mention the Wattle Day Association which has been captured by the Australian Republican Movement. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's even the slogan of the flag society's Australian Christian Broadcasting - "Two patriotisms, One God!" Such an article should reflect both streams. Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I've done is proposed that there be an article on the subject of Organised patriotism in Australia. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You argued that republicans are not loyal. That kind of approach is both illogical and insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to put your academic hat on. Does the wikipedia article on loyalism really and truly offend you? All I'm trying to say is that loyalists are loyal to the powers that be. Which is not to say republicans aren't loyal to something either. The solution may be to create an article on "organised patriotism in Australia". That way you can talk about the republican's wattle day association as well. The Australia Day council. ANFA and the flag society. All that. With respect to the notability tag here's a link that may be relevant. https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society/photos/a.210701592278728.64879.124224670926421/2097803953568473/?type=3&theater Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was always unrealistic to expect that they were going to parade a flag as newsworthy as that around a state where national conservatives may make up as much as 20-25% of the population and that they weren't going to achieve some level of notability qualifying them for a wikipedia article. And if anything they appear to the gaining credibility in loyalist circles. Already this year I saw a thread on one of these facebook groups where fans of the royal family go where someone said something along the lines of "There was a time when some of us thought these things the Australian Flag Society were saying were a bit far out now they are starting to come to pass." Aussieflagfan (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook is not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Talk pages are not the place for promotion of an organisation. They are for discussing improvements to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was only a letter to the editor too. But if there is indeed a faction in the federal government that wants to go ahead with their proposed national salute what is this notability tag all about really? Not that an article on organised patriotism in Australia is still not an exciting prospect for Wikipedia either. Aussieflagfan (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]

I've seen reports recently that the Australian Flag Society has now become part of Anzac folklore for having discovered a national treasure in the form of the Australian flag used by the 2/23rd battalion on Tarakan. Should we therefore remove the notability tag at this point? They've been around for a lot of years now. They are relatively well known in Queensland for all these syndicated newspaper artciles. https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society/photos/a.210701592278728/2224884557527078 . Aussieflagfan (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that obviously doesn't establish notability. Please see WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick-D. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Nick-D. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I say remove the article for now and we can only see if it reappears again one day soon. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of the arguments presented by Aussieflagfan, I don't think we need a full-blown RFC for removing the tag. Let's remove the tag and if someone disagrees with notability they should pursue deletion according to policy. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) Yeah, I agree with Nick-D, HiLo48 and Euryalus, that one link doesn't confer the organisation notability conforming with WP:NCORP also, this shouldn't be a full-blown RfC, someone can just be bold remove {{notability}} (which they have) and if someone disagrees, s/he can start a normal talk page discussion.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 10:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article

[edit]

How about we just delete this article for now. And just continue to see where this is all heading over the next couple of years. https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Flag.Society/photos/a.210701592278728/2224884557527078. Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think it's good to have an article showing one of the extremist groups extant in Australia today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't like the flag society Mr HiLo? They've been widely influential as far as I can see. Big time national politicians and other loyal societies have adopted some of their policy prescriptions. We're only getting closer to the next global conflict which they've been ringing alarm bells about for some time. I mean America has made the decision to go to war against Iran now. So I'm guessing their standing among patriotic types is only going to continue to rise. It is interesting. Their spokesperson is one of the most overtly religious men in this country. And now he's become part of Anzac folklore for finding lost national treasures. So it's not like it's holding them back at all. They see it as the key to their success. They've always said that there's only going to be more people asking themselves the big questions in life in the future. What I will do then is remove the notability tag and see what happens. Rightly or wrongly they really are the go to people when it comes to the Australian flag in Queensland these days. Aussieflagfan (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They've reinvented themselves as loyalist war hawks. But they've still got nothing on some of these folks running the show in the USA at the moment. You take their man and put him in the microwave for 2 minutes. And that's about where Donald Trumps' national security adviser John Bolton is on the tinder dry scale. Aussieflagfan (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Rudd even set up a parliamentary prayer group. And didn't he top the polls as Australia's most popular ever PM? That kind of religiosity might present a barrier in, say, Australian greens party circles. But that's not everyone. That's only 10% of people if that. Aussieflagfan (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This "society" appears to me to be religiously driven, one-man band, which wants compulsory patriotism. That's extremist in my book. But Wikipedia is not a forum, so we should stop here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Flag_Society&oldid=1199199651"