Jump to content

Talk:Flags of the Australian Defence Force

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

Cleanup tag

[edit]

A lot of this article was cross referenced from other articles as is the case with some of wikipedia's other vexillology related content. I propose to take that tag down unless someone can elaborate what exactly are the major concerns in relation to it being unencyclopedic and of a certain point of view so they can be addressed constructively. I say it's well referenced and there's an abundance of links there for the purposes of verifiability. Aussieflagfan (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it has significant WP:SYNTHESIS issues. Gnangarra 15:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen cross referencing on this scale on wikipedia before. What would you like to see cleaned up exactly?
I've now rephrased all the material except the Australian ensigns at war. If this section needs to deal with both the red and blue ensigns would it make sense for it to be a synthesis? Aussieflagfan (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It never makes any sense to be a synthesis nor a random collection of newspaper collections that is the issue. The other aspect with the conflict of interest is that in focusing on the Military/ANZAC you are very much focusing other article to hold a bias based on one side of the flag argument. Everything from Flags_of_the_Australian_Defence_Force#The_Australian_ensigns_at_war needs to be condensed into 4-6 paragraphs within prose using independent sourcing thats links each of the listed newspaper articles rather than the current random selection you have chosen. Secondly all anfa-national.org.au links need to removed and replaced with better sources as what you created is exactly what anfa proclaims. This isuues extends across every article you writing, this one just happens to be worse offender, and because of a lack of other contributors input to it that is a significant problem. Gnangarra 10:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having had the opportunity to read the link you gave me about wikipedia's policy on undue weight I accept your argument that some of the imagery of a military nature that I had originally added to the Flag of Australia page might have legitimately raised this question. But I submit those considerations aren't necessarily as relevant to an article by this name. I see there that the Flags of the United States Armed Forces article which I've used as a guide here does mention US military flag raisings and individual specimens under preservation from days of yore though. In all the circumstances including those you mention I've decided to limit my sources to mainly contemporaneous newspaper articles and the archives of the Australian War Memorial. In relation to the latter you've got to be pretty good to beat them in an argument in matters of Australian military history. The declaration that I have made is that I was a member of a certain organisation. But that organisation itself does not even have a wikipedia page. And none of these sources I have tendered comes from their journal in any case. In relation to the source that does come from the ANFA page, whilst I will endeavour to find another source, I can tell you right now it's a fact that the HMAS Sydney flew the Australian flag from the mainmast at the battle of the Cocos. So you've got no concerns that way. In fact news of this victory of the Royal Australian Navy inspired Banjo Patterson to write his poem "We're all Australians now" where there is some reference to Australian flag being flown as the battle ensign. So I would have thought given some of the folkloric happenings of a vexillological nature recorded on the Flags of the United States Armed Forces page that's certainly one we could mention here. I'm not trying to bolster either side of any argument over another. I'm just trying to give it to our readers as it happened. I ask you to accept that these sources are reliable and verifiable in relation to the facts being asserted. I will now endeavour to convert them all to inline citations. Once that is done can then we agree to remove the tags? I do hope other members of the community are going to help with this article but just give them time. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using the US page as a model for an Australian one may not be such a good idea. That country has a much greater obsession with its flag than Australia does. I have no idea if it exists, but a UK page may be more equivalent. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I grant you that you might be right about flag vexillolatry in the United States as compared to Australia I don't see that as a relevant consideration. Perhaps if the article I have proposed on "Organised patriotism in Australia" is ever created that would be the right place to note Australia's more laid back approach in that regard? If there is an article about US military flags where they go into the whole history and folklore of it I don't see why we can't proceed along those lines at all. I draw your attention to a 2015 book by Major General Gordon Maitland entitled "The story of Australia's flags: Our flags, standards, guidons, colours, banners, battle honours and ensigns" as being not only being an excellent source for this article but as evidence that interest by Australians in this subject is steadily increasing as time goes by: https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/196814096?q&versionId=215552229. Witness the creation of this very article itself. As long as the verifiable sources are out there I say just use them. In relation to the cleanup tag if no one else is prepared to take it down I might ask for a third opinion. I see the corresponding tag on the Flag of Australia article did not stand for very long. Aussieflagfan (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I work with teenagers. The vast majority have no interest at all in the flag. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those who study vexillology in a pure sense are definitely an esoteric crowd. But there would have to be more actual fly flying today than there's ever been. John Howard once made the observation teenagers just didn't go to Gallipoli wearing flag capes back in his day. The federal government have even been talking about bringing back the salute to Australia in schools https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dutton-proposes-civics-pledge-for-schoolchildren-immigration-changes. And if it's going to be world war 3 watch out then because they put patriotism on steroids. Aussieflagfan (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Howard was very good at encouraging patriotism. It's a conservative politician's stock in trade. Keep's the peasants' minds off real issues. There will be no salute in schools. That will be as successful as the demand to fly the flag. It ain't happening. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To say the salute is never coming back. Forever is a long time. People used to say Australian National Flag Day would never become official but sure enough in 1996 it did. Bringing back the salute is seen as the next logical step. Patriotic types are talking about making it a stipulation of funding to government schools. That's the way every school in Australia got a flagpole back in 2004. And in South Australia all the government is making sure all those schools built since then will have flag poles too: https://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/12/04/19/03/government-pays-for-schools-to-install-flags If it's going to be world war 3 I'd say they'll get the salute back up and running. Like who is going to argue against it then? The word on the street is that they are raising it now simply because they know 'world peace' such as it is won't last another five years. Because the Chinese government has even admitted world war 3 is becoming "practical reality". So she ain't no conspiracy theory anymore. And some folks are saying this volcano in Hawaii might have 100 times as much molten rock to spurt out yet. There's a very real possibility Hawaii is going under and goodness knows how big the tidal waves are going to be. Some of these Christian doom and gloom preachers are getting very excited. I'm not going to tell anyone what they want to hear. The signs I'm seeing if you are a person whose faith is of this world are distributing signs. Aussieflagfan (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't know who told you schools don't fly the Australian flag. Sure in a country this size there's always going to be a few principals out there who don't want to go along with it just like there's a few councils where the Greens party find themselves in the majority that don't do anything for Australia Day. But that's not everybody. That's just a few pockets here and there. Aussieflagfan (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to find out for sure. Asking principals wouldn't work though. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give you some idea I live in a town of 40,000 people and all the schools there fly it. Now a lot of them don't do Flag Day despite getting sent memos about it every year by the education department. And of the ones that do it's like a once in every three years thing. But the picture I get is that when it comes to fly flying it's really just the odd school out. Because otherwise they've really got to leave all flag raising ceremonies alone. They can't do one for Anzac Day. Remembrance Day. NAIDOC week. Nothing. But just wait until world war 3 though. That's bound to be a real cold shower for these hold outs. Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here is becoming very off-topic as per WP:Talk page guidelines. As I see this as an ongoing dispute on WP:3, what is actually being disputed here? ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 02:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to what we were talking about though. As with the page on Flags of the United States Defence Force. An awful lot of these flag specimens do seem to be up on the walls of museums though in Australia and overseas. Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remove these images because they are presented as original research.

There maybe a more suitable example of postcards during WWI but that must be a postcard that fits it must be about the Flag, it should not be an incidental object, and it should be from within WWI as per the text. I also remove the opening sentence of the Navy section because that was original research and the image didnt add anything to subjects knowledge. Gnangarra 09:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the original research supposed to be though? Maitland even noted the large number of wartime postcards with flags in them and all these postcards do. Kwan mentioned the much debated Polygon Wood postcard. So we could probably mention something about postcards. With respect my fellow editor is probably not all that familiar with these sources. In relation to the photographs of HMAS Protector and Field Marshal Haig the Australian War Memorial did all the research. Aussieflagfan (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig reviewing the 5th Australian Division at Ebblinghem,. The ..." www.awm.gov.au. Retrieved 7 July 2018.
  2. ^ Goodman, 1998, p. 20-21.

Flags of the Anzac tradition

[edit]

Once again this section has ample abd easily verifiable references. In relation to whatever concerns there may be about original research what are they exactly? It has been speculated that the Saigon POW flag mentioned by Rupert Goodman is the same one held by the Australian War Memorial. Now if we found another form of words to write up this historic specimen would that resolve the issues? I can't see anything else the editor who tagged the article may be referring to here. Aussieflagfan (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

One of the main questions that arises here appears to be where does Wikipedia draw the line between someone with a close connection to a subject and someone who has special expertise they can bring to this enterprise? I understand the need to refrain from editing any articles to do with any organisation that I may have belonged to in the past. And I'm definitely not affiliated with the Australian Defence Force in any way. So we really should clear this up before I go any further. I see that a similar tag on the Flag of Australia article didn't stand for very long. I submit that these are excellent and readily verifiable sources for an article of this kind. Aussieflagfan (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Moreover, what's asked here is about an editor, not about content and 3O does not handle requests about since such requests are, ultimately, about conduct, not content. Having said all that, what you're asking about is conflict of interest and click on that link to see what our policy says about it. Questions about conflict of interest may be asked at the conflict of interest noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this a bit and was a little unclear what the Third Opinion dispute is about (original research or connected contributor/COI) and what the two opposing positions in the dispute are. (Struck the original research, that tag was removed the day the 3O was requested.) The COI tag seems to have been added in this edit on 5 July. @Gnangarra: did you have a specific reason for this? (BTW: I don't fault you for being cautious in this regard.)
I'm not really sure where being a connected contributor applies here; that'd be more if the editor designed one of the flags or was on a committee that chose the design, or perhaps a financial conflict if they invested in a flag factory. I would note the essays Wikipedia:COI in 5W and Wikipedia:Don't cry COI. Just because an editor chooses the username Aussieflagfan doesn't mean that they have a conflict of interest (COI) regarding Australian flags. Fans may not always be the most neutral, but they often have a large scrapbook of reliable sources which can greatly help to build articles on what may be obscure subjects. I took a quick read of the article and did not detect any neutrality or tone issues, and the only superlatives I noticed were in quotes. Though an expert on the subject might be more aware of issues if such exist. (BTW: I really liked the section on POW flags.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue with this editor is indicated by the fact that such a confusing request for a third opinion was submitted in the first place. He simply doesn't understand policy and formal mechanisms here, and shows little interest in learning. He is not so much editing with a conflict of interest, but with an obsessive, single purpose mission. This means that, despite a massive number of repeats attempts by other editors to get him to look wider and learn a little bit about how good editors behave, he remains almost entirely involved with the small set of Australian articles he has adopted, with no interest in broadening his view. He repeatedly makes the same, naive errors that should never be made by an editor with nearly 800 edits to his name, simply because he has almost never looked at how things work in the broader Wikipedia world. Without constant vigilance by a handful of other editors, his articles (and he does act like he owns them, would be absolute disasters, rather than simply the ugly, cluttered messes they are today. Whenever any of these editors tries to advise him on better ways of doing things, he responds with comments about how much he knows (true) and how bad the articles would be without his efforts (questionable). We are seeing the worst of a single purpose account. His massive knowledge and enthusiasm in this area would be great, if only he would try to learn a bit more about what makes a good editor and a good article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon I'm getting there but I will think to make more use of the sandbox in the future. I will note that I have made contributions to other articles. Take the World War 3 entry for example. As a true news lover and with my background in mediation it appears that I've been able to find a way forward there as I noticed other users thought it was getting a little bit behind the times too. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg: , the username was never an issue the editor himself posted he had a conflict of interest on his user talk page. There is long running political debate which centres on two issues one is the Union Jack in the top left corner - "we as seen as subservient to the UK", while those who oppose to the change argue that its use by the Military "they fought under this flag, we shouldnt change it". This users declaration and the information being added particularly the military aspect the volume of images is a clear indicator of the users opinion. This topic has previous been the domain of sockpuppets, when the debate was in the public eye and heated. The user has also indicated that they are making edits on behalf of other editors and number of other WP:BEAN related activities, if one looks through the user talk page history & contributions you'll find an interesting web of intrigue that grows when you look at the topic areas. HIlo48 is right its now developed more into a SPA & OWN issue, if I hadnt been drawn in early to the issue when I thought we had a potential editor worth educating I would have cleaned it all up using my mop. Gnangarra 03:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the explanations. I find it difficult to sort through page histories with so many small edits. I sympathize; I do a fair amount of mop work as well. Thanks for your efforts here. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to the Australian flag debate the approach adopted here is to give it to our readers as it happened. That means you draw on non partisan sources such as contemporary newspaper articles and sources such as the Australian War Memorial. That's the only possible way to go. So if we have people coming here wanting more information about some of these sub contentions within the wider Australian flag debate. They will be able make up their minds on the basis of the facts of the matter. There's other wikipedia articles been written on touchy subjects. But other editors have managed to find ways forward there. But aside from that you've got to expect an article on the subject was going to arise during the years of the first world war centenary. There's been that many newspaper and TV reports about flags of the Anzac tradition over the last four years it's unbelievable. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main points raised by the Ausflag movement is that there are other flags of the Anzac tradition besides the dejure Australian flag. But no one could ever accuse me of neglecting to mention the Union Jack and the Australian red ensign. It's quite the reverse actually I'm hearing criticism there are too many flags mentioned here even. The solution is to widen the scope of this article by going the whole hog and renaming it Flags of the Anzac tradition. If you look at the standing the Anzac Day public holiday has in the popular culture this has to be a proper subject for a wikipedia article. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birdwood and Essendon POW flags

[edit]

If we are going to give the subject of historical ADF flags full treatment like they do on the Flags of the United States Armed Forces article surely we need to mention the Birdwood and Essendon flags? It is truly amazing in itself how many of these 1st and 2nd AIF specimens still reside in museums and churches. Aussieflagfan (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were these official ADF flags? If not then no, they don't belong here. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the threshold I have used here is to include them only if they were used as battle or POW flags and been by chronicled by the Australian War Memorial, historians and war correspondents. The Birdwood flag you removed was given to General Birdwood who commanded the Anzacs at Gallipoli and was flown over the AIF HQ in Belgium. Similarly the Essendon flag which is on display at the Essendon Civic Centre was presented to General Blamey and used by a battalion raised in Victoria as their battle flag. And later when a lot of them were captured in the Pacific theatre it was used as a burial flag for deceased POWs. So that's very special. Rather than go any further along American lines - which would be to create yet another article on "flags of the Anzac tradition" along the same lines as this one Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America - I say just write all these individual specimens up here. In relation to what hilo is getting at not every historical US military flag specimen you see mentioned on wikipedia is actually altogether that folkloric to need its own separate article either. So even though the Darwin bombing flag for one is up in lights at the war memorial and has been seen by all those 100,000s of people I'm not about to get too carried away with a separate entry for it at this stage. But I'm sure you can give these two historical ADF flags that are still under preservation an even more concise write up here if minimising trivia is what you are mainly concerned about. Maitland even mentions the existence of an ADF vexillological and heraldic register so as we know what churches all the colours were laid up in even. Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's still going to be dissent the other option is that we could rename the whole article "Flags of the Anzac tradition" instead and I'd be in favour of that. Aussieflagfan (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the differences of the place of the flag in Australia's culture when compared with that of the USA, there is no validity in wanting to make the Australian article anything like the American one. In fact, if anything, the Australian article should highlight the differences. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see Australia's vexillological history seems fairly well preserved and documented though. Lots of verifiable sources. With respect it does rather seem as if, as long as a flag has something to do with the Anzac tradition, then curators have decided that's something the museum going public in Australia wants to see. And this is true not only of institutions entirely dedicated to military history like the Australian War Memorial and the Shrine of Remembrance but also of smaller, general museums - even where the only local connection to the specimen as such is that the person who donated it happened to reside there in later life. It's because the Anzac tradition has enormous standing in the popular culture. Australians who have won the Victoria Cross find that it is a life changing event. All sorts of people end up tripping over themselves in a mad rush to shake your hand every time you get wheeled out in public. It just never ends. They were even parading the last Gallipoli veteran Alec Campbell on Anzac Day up until his 103rd birthday. So is anyone really surprised to see an article on this subject emerge during the years of the first world war centenary? If we do ever get an article on organised patriotism in Australia up and running then that would be an ideal place to go into the reasons why patriotism in Australia needs to be centrally organised in the first place. I'll grant you that in other countries it just happens. As in groups of people in the US and France have long been forming their own Independence Day or Bastille Day committees on their own initiative to organise celebrations in their local area. Although I have actually seen indices that attempt to measure how patriotic the people of various nations are and Australia always comes in, not at the very top, but certainly up there. In 2001 the national maritime museum in Sydney held an Australian National Flag Day event for the centenary that drew a crowd of 10,000 people. Now that's not anywhere near the record US flag day crowd of 100,000 people. But per capita it wasn't a bad turnout and a lot of nations don't even do an official flag day at all. But as for why so laid back about it in general there are various theories that have been advanced by academics that we could go into which makes an article on organised patriotism in Australia such an exciting prospect for wikipedia. As for this particular article it is still incomplete. Why don't we just truncate down what was written about the Birdwood and Essendon flags so as to minimise any trivia, because I understand that although both are or will be on display to the public, they aren't as altogether notable as to need their own separate wikipedia entries at this time as are some of these flags of US military folklore. And once we see what this article could look like in all its glory we can go from there? I see there are even articles about Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America. Now Australia has not had a revolution or civil war worth calling that yet. But in consideration of all you are talking about, instead of having yet another on flags of the Anzac tradition, wouldn't you sooner keep it all here on this one page? Aussieflagfan (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'd have to agree that none of these flags is folkloric enough in Australian terms to warrant having separate entries of their very own like the Fort McHenry garrison flag has. There's no call for that. But I say there's still a lot to learn about the way US military vexillologists actually present this kind of information. In fact we could and should aim to do even better. Whilst there is probably not the need for Australia to have all those articles upon articles as exist for US military, revolutionary and confederate flags and all the rest. The more flag related articles I do read on Wikipedia the more I can see that there is a certain consistency in relation to the format. And if it has been inspired by the way the American editors do it then there you go. I know some people complain about it but there's a lot of American influence at work in Australia. Not only do many people prefer to use the American term buddy instead of mate. The kids here are even starting to do Halloween now. Aussieflagfan (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop looking at other flag articles, and look at a few mainstream ones. World War III doesn't count. That's ultra-fringe. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just base this article on formats that have passed the test of time unless there's an actual rule you can draw to my attention that says we can't. Foreign editors with no real stake in Australia just don't seem to have a problem with my approach. As for world war III is was the preserve of the lunatic a fringe until the Ukrainian and Syrian civil wars started. But you've got some more responsible sources warning about the likelihood of it now. The bottom line is peace is just an interval between war and some conspiracy theories come true. And if I've been able to find a way forward for wikipedia that can bring that article and others into the year 2018 then I think that's fantastic. Aussieflagfan (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the Australian Defence Force → Flags of the Anzac tradition – In order to accommodate such concerns that have been raised as to the relevance of some of the content in relation to individual specimens used by the Australian Defence Force as are still under preservation and various historical flag designs no longer in military circulation the title should be Flags of the Anzac tradition. Aussieflagfan (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - We would need a solid, reliably sourced definition of "Anzac tradition" and I think that would be hard to find, if not impossible. Inclusion would result in even more WP:SYNTH than we see now. What one person thinks is a flag in the Anzac tradition I'm sure others would see as OR. Such an article is going to be a mess. Instead, this article needs to be cleaned up and trimmed of all the trivia and what amounts to fancruft and restricted to actual flags of the ADF. The Queen's flag, for example, is not an ADF flag and should go along with a number of other flags. And, while we're at it, the article needs to comply with the MOS. There are issues in this area as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current framing is clear and sensible, "Anzac tradition" is a vague mess. To the extent that this article has sprawled into that territory, it badly needs to be pruned back to actual flags of the ADF rather than barely-related flag-cruft. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yeah this would work, if you removed three quarters of the content. No, this is NOT the solution to the problem of all the crap that this article contains. Just remove the crap. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What has the flag got to do with biscuits? WWGB (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the last Anzac biscuit tin we got has the national flag on it, not any of the actual ADF flags. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Australian ensigns at war section

[edit]

I've just removed most of this section. The material is obviously WP:OR, as it's referenced to photos on the Australian War Memorial's database or contemporary news stories. More broadly, it's unclear why the various examples here need to be included: it hardly seems surprising that Australian military personnel often prominently display the Australian flag during overseas deployments and battles. Text and sources which succinctly explains this, or notes any issues (for instance, was it unusual for the soldiers to use the Australian rather than the British flag in the world wars? Is there a tradition among Australian military personnel of ceremonially raising the flag on particular occasions or is this unusual, etc) would be far superior. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(As I understand it, there's been some debate over the extent to which the Australian flag was used by the military in the world wars, with evidence that the Union Jack was also often used: the article should discuss this frankly, rather than be a list of examples of when the Australian flag was used). Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing that content Nick-D. And yes, there is certainly plenty of discussion suggesting that most Australians had the Union Jack flying when they went to war in the two World Wars. Even when there is a photo showing an Australian flag, it's black and white, so it's virtually impossible to know whether it was the red ensign or the blue ensign. It may well be that the instances of the Australian flag being flown were significant because they were rare. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article previously did mention union jacks, red ensigns, blue ensigns. Let's not worry about partisan sources and just give it to folks as it happened. Just give them the whole story. I think we'll put it back the way it was before. The monarchists even fly the red ensign at their Flag Day at event at Martin Place now. Aussieflagfan (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not impossible to know what colour some of those flags were. Maybe you could still mention the difficulties in discerning the difference. You've got to be a very keen student of vexillology to be worried about that to begin with. And that's a rather esoteric crowd. The Australian National Flag Association has all this on file. In the highly unlikely event there is ever is a national flag poll held it's all going to come out one way or another if that's all you are worried about. Aussieflagfan (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to suggest a compromise. Let's just put back into the article what was there about the first and second world wars. If it's the extent to which the various Australian flags were used prior to 1954 that has been made into a subject of debate. Let's just list all the best and most interesting instances where it was used in the first two world wars drawing only on non partisan sources. Then let people make up their own minds. We won't worry about Korea and Vietnam so much. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, per my argument at the top of this thread. Wikipedia is not a random collection of stuff, and these are not the " best and most interesting instances" of the flag being used: they're generally unimportant instances you found on Trove. A secondary source which discusses the use of flags by Australian soldiers is needed to establish that any are of significance. The article should focus on how flags were used, rather than listing random examples. The use of non-Australian flags also needs to be discussed given that this was apparently also fairly common. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change

[edit]

Let's rename the article "Flags of the Australian and colonial military". That way we can have a big free for all. And reinstate what was there before. Aussieflagfan (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously no support to include the rambling collection of trivia you added. The proposed title is flawed: there was not a "colonial military" in pre-Federation Australia as each colony had its own independent armed forces. Something like Military flags of Australia might work (the current title is flawed as the ADF didn't actually exist until 1976). Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's constructive. You want a title broad enough where you wont have folks getting all upset just because you mention the Union Jack and other flags that had dejure status in colonial times and don't now. So I'm happy to go with that. And they say politics is fluid. The present generation of monarchists dont seem to be hyper sensitive about the red ensign anymore. Not in the slightest. Well obviously if they fly it at their flag day events. And even Ausflag arent denying the blue ensign was used anymore. They are now saying the men in uniform didnt have their hearts set on that one particular design. Which is difficult of course to reconcile with the fact the Australian National Flag Association started as an offshoot of the RSL. It is evident Ausflag are right about the red ensign being in military and civilian circulation in days of yore. But the blue ensign wasn't the pre 1954 rarity it is said to have been either. All in all though what it means is that this is a good time to proceed with a comprehensive article on this subject. If you just stick with authoritative sources like Kwan and Maitland and the Australian War Memorial and contemporary war correspondence I don't see how you can really argue with that. Australian military history is pretty well documented compared to some other nations. Aussieflagfan (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources used in the Australian flag at war section as it once stood are the best documented and most interesting instances in the historical record. You can take my word for it. Trove is just one handy resource. You can do in two days what it might have once taken two years. Aussieflagfan (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a rambling pair of comments. Would you care to precis all that in no more than 25 on-topic words? I have no idea what point you are making, HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. People pay money to see what I write. What I'm saying is the fact that there is more than one flag of the Anzac tradition is not a touchy subject anymore as far as I can see. So don't let that hold us back. The monarchists even fly the red ensign at their flag day events and even over the Sydney Harbour Bridge now. So they're really running scared of it aren't they? <https://www.facebook.com/groups/Australian.Flag.Society.Sydney>. There are some wikipedians who refuse to move on from the state of knowledge as it was when Ausflag was formed in 1983. Even though Ausflag itself at glacial pace grudgingly has. I know when old understandings break down it does come as a shocking and jarring quantum leap to some. But you've had a while to get used to the new state of knowledge now though. The point is there's finally been a constructive suggestion made by another editor. What about "Military flags of Australia" as a catch all title? I'm happy with that. Then let's have a nice little field day on this subject. The verifiable sources are there. That's what I want to do. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you couldn't understand that. Then that makes me think you are not all that familiar with the history of this article and that perhaps you need to step back and let folks who have read all the relevant material make the running. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OWN. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of an issue anymore as you yourself are even staring to make constructive suggestions much to your credit. But military vexillology in Australia could benefit from a sweeping Wikipedia article on this subject that was written in strict accordance with wikipedia rules. It suffers from there being a whole lot of people out there making pronouncements about it who only maintain a swallow partisan interest in the subject and don't really know what they are talking about. Even Ausflag is backtracking now. They just didn't have resources like the internet and trove when they started out back in 1983 and their credibility has suffered as a result. You just don't hear from them these days as much as you used to in the 1980s and 1990s. Aussieflagfan (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That way we can have a big free for all. - This is an encylopaedia. We don't have free for alls. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

What about ending the article with a gallery of images of the Australian flag at war? There's been that many photographs of that kind unearthed during the years of the worldw war one centenary it's unbeliabale. ~~

Galleries are discouraged. There is more than one template to put in articles that have a gallery. See {{gallery}} and {{Cleanup gallery}}. There is even policy on including galleries. See WP:GALLERY. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What the Australian flag looks like is well known, and a gallery isn't needed to show lots of old photos of it. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove tag

[edit]

Would anyone object if I removed the tag? This entry seems pretty neutral to me. There's no partisan sources it's basically all from the journals of record and the Australian War Memorial. And as for being too close to the subject. As an old army cadet I do admire the men and women in uniform greatly but I myself failed the medical test. ~~

The tag was aimed directly at you so it would be inappropriate for you to remove it. Also, please sign your posts properly. Use 4 tildes "~~~~", not two. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. Could I ask you to please remove the tag then? If the article is hard reading for some folks maybe they might just have to question whether everything they have ever been taught about this subject is nothing but a steaming pile of horse manure. Aussieflagfan (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flags_of_the_Australian_Defence_Force&oldid=1202040735"