Jump to content

Talk:Juneteenth flag

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


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk09:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Bruxton (talk). Self-nominated at 04:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

@Maile66: Thank you for looking. I do not know if it matters, but the Facebook flag linked to differs in that it has the date which was added later in the design. I am certainly not a copyright expert though... and I am not sure what to call this. Is it 3d art? 2d art? When flown over public buildings is it in the public domain since in the US we are allowed FOP for buildings? There are other images which are also labeled commons, and even some like this one apparently flying in a public area on Flickr. I think the article could run without the image as well - but it is a helpful illustration of the flag's symbolism. Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I've posted a query on the thread you opened at WT:DYK hoping someone can give a clearer answer here. I do see that the Facebook page on this specifically mentions that the copyrighted flag has a date on it. Maybe that's what makes it unique. I don't know, but I think this needs to be answered. I'd love to see this article on the main page on Junteenth. — Maile (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: The date itself is not copyrightable, but the design is, and the addition of the date does not make the design fall out of copyright. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flags are 2D works so do not fall under freedom of panorama, and agree that the addition of the date would not impact copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any obvious copyright exceptions for this flag, so we'd need a clear licensing statement / release from the flag's copyright holder. I don't see a good reason to assume that the flag without date has different copyright status from the flag with date. It should be fine in the article with a non-free use rationale but I can't see the image going on the Main Page based on the current information. —Kusma (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about the non-free rationale, but imo, the article should have the design with the date and nonfree rationale, and rather describe earlier flags in text only (so the article is up-to-date so to speak :)). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's on the commons, Commons:Category:Juneteenth_flag, isn't it free? What about one of the others featured there? --evrik (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) No. It just means someone put it on commons, which is not always done correctly. 2) The others there are also problematic from a copyright standpoint. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'll go ahead and pass this, while y'all figure out the image situation. --evrik (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last I checked, the image is still free on the commons. There are also two or three other free alternates on the commons. So I passed this because until somebody challenges the image on the commons, or there is no free alternate on the commons, this should be good to go.--evrik (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Regardless what Commons does or does not do, Commons is not in charge of English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has policy on how to use media where there is a copyright, and Commons has no power or legal standing over copyright, nor English Wikipedia policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all and thanks @Evrik: Question: if these are obvious and unequivocal violations I can tag them now {{speedydelete|Copyright violation}} or more accurate - copyvio-{{copyvio|1=Reason}}. I will remove the image from consideration and attempt to upload one locally, unless someone here has more expertise in the local upload. Bruxton (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset, Theleekycauldron, Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, Kusma, Nikkimaria, Maile66, Evrik, and Alanscottwalker: I uploaded a non free image of the flag's final version. Thanks all! Bruxton (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the forgoing. Thanks to all. Recommend hold for June 19, 2022, and that unless other Juneteenth occasion hook(s) with image is(are) suitably produced in time, this hook go in a first slot even without an image. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker and BlueMoonset: I created an image which may work (see above). I can also change the image. Let me know your thoughts, I will put it in the article but I am ok running the article sans image as well. I also started an article on the flag's creator Ben Haith which I may nominate soon. Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker and Evrik: I like it. Bruxton (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding an edit-war: Revising and editing the Pan-African flag discussion.

[edit]

I went ahead and removed the Pan-African flag discussion due to a lack of sources present in the discussion, alongside myriad other issues with the section. Unless it is revised with sources that state the information included as well as fixing the issues with tone, it cannot be considered appropriate for Wikipedia at this time. Reverting the information without an attempt to correct the issues I pointed to in my edit summary should be considered vandalism due to the clearly-opinionated tone and the clear violations the section presents to multiple Wikipedia principles. This should serve as a warning. If it is reverted without this, I will edit this with warnings and then escalate to administrators if this devolves into an edit-war. JE215 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also attempt to retrieve the original, sourced content in the section and revert it later today. JE215 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done such and will be watching for unjustified revisions for the foreseeable future. JE215 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsa0282 You must provide sources and meet Wikipedia standards with the content that you are reverting. The content clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards of attribution. This is your notice to provide attribution if you believe the content to be appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a timely warning, and I will escalate this to administrators if you continue to revert the changes without explanation or justification. JE215 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juneteenth Flag

[edit]

Discussion of the design elements in the article make no mention whatsoever of the one flag that the Juneteenth Flag most closely resembles, with blue over red and a white device in the center. It is the flag of Haiti, first nation on earth to overthrow the enslavement of Africans by force of arms. It is hard to imagine that this is a coincidence and hard to understand how any reference to this fact has failed to make it into the article. 69.121.242.66 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]