Talk:Australian flag debate

message: Would it be appropriate to add some proposed "new" flags to this page?  For example, the ones at http://chuq.net/ausflag/ .  The only flag that isn't currently in existence on the page is the Aboriginal/Australia flag hybrid, which for many reasons is inappropriate (Aboriginal flag is copyrighted; top-left corner implies subordination; etc).  It should probably stay on the page in its own section, describing WHY it is inappropriate.  -- Chuq 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is how to decide which to include or not include. The various Ausflag competition designs are the ones that have had the most publicity, so perhaps they are the best option. JPD (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Posting Ausflag's designs on there could set a precedence for everyone uploading their design. It's best to leave it alone (unless an article is created under "Proposed Flags of Australia").To be honest, aside from a few genuinely good designs the vast majority look horrendous - vexillogically speaking, of course (is that even a word???). Dragases 09:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree with you that they don't need to be added. However, what you or I think of the designs is irrelevant - the issue is whether they are important enough to be mentioned. JPD (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed flags

message: In the paragraph "Replacing the Union Flag with the Aboriginal Flag", it says "the suggestion is well intentioned — it implies removal of British ties". Why does implying removal of British ties make it well intentioned?
: It doesn't and I removed it for being non-NPOV.  JAJ 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Im very proud of ties to the old country and I don't make any excuses for it.
58.164.28.8 04:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, please keep your personal opinions to yourself. This is not the place for that - 52 Pickup 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-British/Republican Bias? 

message: This "Abandoning the flag would insult the memory of the nation's 102,000 war dead." from the Arguments in favour of changing the flag, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in an encyclopaedia. Unless there's good argument to keep such a line, I'm going to remove it. Dgen 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it is ridiculous, but it is an argument that the pro-flag crew keep raising.  There is no good argument for it, but as it is one of the emotional arguments used, I think it should remain. Gillyweed 03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dgen, if that sentence appeared by itself, it would be ridiculous, but you have quoted it out of context. It appears in a list of things that "supporters of the current version of the national flag argue". We are reporting on the arguments used, not suggesting that they have any merit. JPD (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. How about giving the line it's own bullet point? I may be wrong, but to me it looks like it's presented as 'here's the argument for keeping the flag' (the part about the navy) then 'here's the fact supporting that argument' (insulting the war dead). If it's made into it's own bullet point then it's clearly part of the 'arguments used' list and not presented as fact. Of course, if I'm the only person seeing it that way, I'll leave it be. Cheers. Dgen 11:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's keep to the facts? 

message: The Southern Cross was known to ancient aboriginies and features in at least 5 of their traditional legends that I know of, including the story of Mululu and his 4 daughters. When I mention this in the article somebody keeps taking it out.
Here's the story anyway (not many modern, urban aboriginies seem to know this one):
Mululu, the leader of the Kandra tribe, had four daughters of whom he was very fond, but to his sorrow he had no son. When he grew old, he called his daughters together to discuss their future. He said that he expected to die soon, so, since they had no brother to protect them from the spite and jealousies of the women or from being forced into marriage with a man whom they disliked, he wanted them to leave the earth when he died and to meet him in the sky. The father then explained that, with the aid of spirits of the night, he had recently visited a clever medicine-man, Conduk, who was willing and able to help the girls reach their new home.
When their father died, the daughters set out to find Conduk, whose camp was far away to the north. They had to travel many days before they reached it, and they recognised Conduk by the long thick beard by which their father had described him. Resting beside his camp was a huge pile of silver-grey rope, which the medicine-man had plaited form the long hairs of his own beard. One end of the rope reached up into the sky.
The girls were terrified to learn that the rope was their only means of reaching their father again. But with the guidance and encouragement of Conduk they climbed to the top of the rope, where they were delighted to find their father waiting for them.
Now, the daughters are the four bright stars of the Southern Cross. Nearby and caring for them as is their father; the bright star Centaurus." 58.164.28.8 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the Southern Cross is not the issue here - that's probably why that bit was removed, even though it's an interesting story. Lead sentence for the article: The Australian flag debate is a low-key but persistent debate over whether the Australian flag should be changed in order to remove the Union Flag from the canton.... The flag debate is not about removing the Southern Cross, but removing the Union Flag. - 52 Pickup 15:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The article clearly states that indigenous people may have objection to the Union Flag, not to the Southern Cross. In particular, the flag makes no mention of indigenous Australians, many of whom regard the Union Flag as a reminder of colonial oppression and dispossession. Please stick to the point. - 52 Pickup 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone here should be using any argument for or against the flag - we are simply reporting on the debate. At any rate, the argument you give about the Aboriginal connections with the Southern Cross, apart from being very lame and possibly more likely to offend Aboriginal people than the UJ is, is at most a very poor rebuttal of an argument for changing the flag. That is not the same thing as an argument for keeping it. JPD (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! 5 Aboriginal legends! It is probably a pity that many modern Indigenous Australians aren't more familiar with their ancestors' culture, but it is pretty stupid to expect someone to know one of your five legends just because they are Aboriginal. What if they come from one of the more than 350 groups apart from the five that your legends come from? But apart from that, I still don't understand how being "known to ancient aboriginies (sic)" (of course it was known!) adds significance to the southern cross as a symbol for a flag. Generally symbols on flags are chosen for something more than simply "being known" and appearing in a legend. There is nothing in what you have written that gives the southern cross any more signficance than many other constellations. ANFA's use of these legends may be a way of relating the flag to Aboriginal history and encouraging indigenous people to identify it, but as an "argument" it is simply lame, especially when combined with your mispelling of "Aborigines". JPD (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you have missed the point that this is not the place for discussing the flag, it is the place for discussing what belongs in the page. I don't see what your statement has to do with anything I have said. JPD (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Cross and aboriginies

message: Somebody keeps taking this out, this is a reference from the claim the Royal Australian Navy has used the blue Australian flag since 1911:
"On 5 October 1911, the existence of the new Australian Navy was formally advised when the Naval Board issued an historic order promulgating the designation 'Royal Australian Navy' for the permanent naval forces of the Commonwealth and for the ships of the Navy to be designated 'His Majesty's Australian Ships'. 
The order also directed that all ships and vessels of the R.A.N. were to fly at the stern the White Ensign as a symbol of the authority of the Crown and at the jack staff, the flag of Australia." 
George Odgers, "The Royal Australian Navy - An Illustrated History", pp. 41
58.164.28.8 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was removed as part of a mass reversion of all your edits, most of which were not helpful. At any rate, the article definitely does not need such a detailed reference for the fact that the blue flag was used. The text of the reference definitely does not need to be included. JPD (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Australian flag and the Royal Australian Navy

message: I have inserted an image into the arguments for keeping the flag.
Opponents of the flag have two images in their section, I beleive supporters are entitled to at least one. 
Steakknife 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image seems reasonably appropriate, but I must point out that neither supporters nor opponents are entitled to any images. Images should be added in the way that best illustrates the debate. JPD (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: This is said by supporters of the flag and I have included it in the article:
Supporters of the flag counter assertions that it is not representative of Australian Aborignies and that the Union Flag stands for oppression. The Southern Cross was known to ancient aboriginies and features in a number of their traditional legends. [3] They point out that the Union Flag means different things to different people and that for better for worse or indifferent European colonisation of Australia happened and in less than 200 years there was a modern Western nation established because of that very fact. [4]
58.164.28.8 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Good point, except for the bit about the Southern Cross - the debate is not really concerned about removing that. I'm working on a separate section to clarify this. - 52 Pickup 15:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You find me one notable indigenous person who states that they believe that the Australian flag represents them - particularly the southern cross - and I'll agree  to include something in the article.  Not quite sure, except as an indulgence of racial prejudice, what establishing "modern western nation in less than 200 years" has to do with national flag change.  PS, I'd be a lot happier if some of the diehard ANFA-ites would get log-ins, and actively participate in Wikipedia, rather than just sniping at this one article. Slac speak up! 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to be AFS people, not ANFA-ites. JPD (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This needed to be said

message: Ain't Ausflag trying to adance the argument Australia needs a new flag with an aboriginal element?
Have a look at the Australian National Flag Association's website: www.australianflag.org.au 
Ain't these people trying to advance the argument that the Southern Cross device does have something to do with Australian aborignies?
Actually, some people argue that this ethnic minority within the Australian state does not need special representation on a new flag at all.
58.164.28.8 15:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, to say the least, patronising, to insist that a flag represents indigenous Australians without having consulted them or cited their view.  Their viewpoints are the only ones worth consulting on the flag issue.  And the only views of prominent indigenous Australians that I've encountered state that they believe the flag does not represent them. Slac speak up! 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't be stupid. Do servicement get a say about the flag? Sure. Do servicemen get a say on whether the flag is representative of indigenous people? Not unless they are indigenous. Does an indigenous person (such as Bonner) supporting the flag because of it's history justify references to the southern cross in myths? Not at all. Let's use some common sense. JPD (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Cross

message: Maybe we should have a section for the Commonwealth star.
I've heard some republicans who support a unitary state say it should not carry over to a new flag.
Steakknife 08:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you been around long enough to know that "I've heard some..." are some of the worst ways to start a sentence on Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources for whatever you want to include, then go ahead, be bold, and we'll see where it goes. JPD (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth star

message: I'll take legal action if the two images in the Keeping the flag section are removed dogs. You big bow wow dogs!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.132.224 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The images

message: Saying "the current Australian flag" is implying it is only here for the moment. Is not "existing" a more neutral term?
Steakknife (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Slac speak up! 03:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current vs existing

message: The president of the Western Australian chapter of the Australian National Flag Association told me some members of the community have put it to him that the three Christian crosses of the Union Jack offend Muslim Australians.
I inserted this argument into the appropriate section of the article but some filthy rotten no good animal took it out.
I hate you I do hate you.
Steakknife (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to find a reliable source for the idea that this is a common argument for changing the flag. A personal conversation is not a reliable source for anything and we need a bit more than "some people put it to him that it offends". This page shouldn't be galvanising anyone in any direction, simply reporting the debate. JPD (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: By who? Where? Show us the reliable sources and then we can talk. If we want to throw up anecdotes, my friend's brother's friend's uncle's sister-in-law's friend's mother's friend's niece's stepson told me that supporters of the current flag argue it should be kept because it highlights the good old days before all these Indigenous Australians (isn't the word they use) and non-white immigrants (again not the word they used) came along. In case it wasn't obvious I made this entire thing up but it highlights why we can't use personal unsourced anecdotes Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To be fair, it doesn't matter whether it is a valid argument so much as whether it is actually used. The article is reporting the debate, not arguing either side.  However, since it is uncited and not on of the common arguments, there was no problem with removing it. JPD (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The union flag is made up of the flags of England, Scotland and Ireland. It isn't related to Christian crosses. However they have forgotten to add Wales which should be included.--Mutley (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity v Islam

message: The caption says "The Australian Red Ensign, sometimes used as the national flag up until 1953". I cant work that out. The Australian Flag Society would tell you it was never used on land.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.176.170 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Used as the national flag is questionable, given the status of the Union Jack, but never used on land??? Surely the AFS are not that stupid? JPD (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Ensign

message: Anybody else see a horrible gap about half way down the page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matty2002 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible gap 

message: "The Southern Cross was also used the first time that any part of the Australian continent was claimed as a Republic."
Lies, lies, lies.
121.216.154.215 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsubstantiated claim scheduled for destruction

message: I find it strange that this (the section heading) is the very first argument attributed to supporters of the current flag. Given the flag's extreme similarity to the NZ flag, it would be a very strange thing to say. It clearly does not "uniquely and distinctively represent Australia". In fact, the single reference at the end of the section mentions that very point, thereby contradicting the claim the paragraph makes. This is not a criticism of the current flag in any way at all. It's a criticism of the article for saying that supporters of the current flag would use words like that to defend the flag. The claim should not be there without a reference to support it (rather than contradict it). HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...uniquely and distinctively represents Australia? 

message: The Southern Cross is not uniquely Australian. It is equally relevant astronomically to every other nation in the southern hemisphere, and already is used on the flags of several. Since this article is about the debate, I have added a recent contribution to the debate from a respected source expressing this view. HiLo48 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Southern Cross 

message: Australian actor Yahoo Serious proposed his own design. Very appealing, IMHO. Worth mention? -- Stormwatch (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's worth mentioning, it should have garnered enough attention to be covered in reliable third-party sources such as newpapers or magazines that can be cited, per WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoo Serious' flag 

message: USER:ThisguyYEAH has just added a proposed new flag. I'm not sure I like the idea of users just randomly adding their own preferences to this article. I also have concerns with the caption, which claims "The Crux and Commonwealth Star remain as pure Australian icons." I have no concerns about the Commonwealth Star, but the article already lists several other flags from around the world which use the Southern Cross (Crux), so it's not a pure Australian icon. There's no point in adding nonsense to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Propose removal of this Flag Design .  As lovely as it is, has this design won any competition or received any recognised third party support?  If not it does not serve any encyclopedic value and should not be given weight as an alternative flag design. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated the image at Commons for speedy deletion as a clear copyvio per this site, where it is copyrighted to the cretor, Brendan Jones. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New flag idea. Southern Cross "pure Australian"? 

message: Just a minor point:
The caption under the flag currently reads: The current Australian flag.
1.  This might seem biased as the word "current" might imply it is likely to change.
2.  In an article such as this, it should be called by its proper name (ie the Australian National Flag).
Proposal:
Change the caption to:
"Australian National Flag, (1934 - Present)"
'''
Note the date 1934 rather than 1901 as the specifications changed (ie the Commonwealth Star)
Daeld1 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the debate. The possibility of change is the reason this article exists. Nothing wrong with "current". HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Point: Caption under the flag 

message: The article says "Variations of the National flag have been used by the Royal Australian Navy since its inception in 1911".
In fact the Australian National Flag as we know it today has been used by the RAN since 1911: http://www.flagsociety.org.au/Australian_National_Flag.htm
139.168.124.180 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is that it is not the only flag used by the Navy. The Australian White Ensign article explains at least part of this. Pretty sure the Red Ensign fits into this story somewhere too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Australian Navy and the Australian National Flag

message: This article is lacking we can do a lot better.
Captainjcook1770 (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your specific concerns? HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one can cite problems regarding neutrality the tag should be removed.Wayne (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was added by the above user, Captainjcook1770, on 10 December, with no Edit summary and no explanation here, so we have no idea what his concerns were. That user has only made around 20 posts on Wikipedia, all to this article and its Talk page, all between 9 and 11 December, and hasn't been heard of since. It's not a great article yet, but I don't think a lack of neutrality is the issue. Since there's nobody else supporting the tag, I'll remove it now. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm actually a bit concerned about the way the "arguments for" section, rather than simply outlining arguments in favour of a new flag, decides to debunk opposing arguments (such as the "fought under that flag in wars". I know that one POV must appear first; however, the pro-change argument is given needless weight by pre-addressing claims likely to be made by the opposing viewpoint.Mandurahmike (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article was affected by anti-change POV pushing for years, so go ahead and fix any problems Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Why can't we leave the image HMAS_Hobart.jpg in? It's relevant to a point in dispute.121.217.113.158 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to debate the issues, but if you misrepresent what others are saying it will never help to get your point of view across. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMAS Hobart image 

message: The article says there are 2 lobby groups involved in the debate but what about this organisation?: http://www.flagsociety.org.au  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriousrevolution (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Flag Society

message: Of all the flags that include the Southern Cross (the Crux constellation), the Eureka flag is the odd one out - a Black Sheep. There are two asterisms in the Southern sky which are commonly mistaken for the Southern Cross: they are known as the False Cross and the Diamond Cross. The true Southern Cross has a distinctive kite shape. The Stars on the Eureka Flag make a diamond shape. By the look of the design, the Eureka Flag may have been based on the False Cross asterism (or the Diamond Cross asterism) rather than the Southern Cross proper. The Eureka Flag is probably not a suitable example for the section on the Southern Cross - there are many other examples of flags with the true Southern Cross in the design. SilverWattle (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask any Aussie to name a flag with the Southern Cross in it and most will say the Eureka flag. A smaller number will say the National Flag. Ask them to name another and those two would generally be the only ones mentioned with perhaps a few mentions of New Zealand. I doubt anyone would even think of any of the State flags. The Eureka flag is widely recognised and thus suitable. Wayne (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The Eureka Flag may not contain the Southern Cross

message: As you can see from the following link this section needs expansion:
http://www.flagsaustralia.com.au/newflag.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriousrevolution (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your proposed changes? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I applaud you finally coming to talk but you had already added most of those edits a week ago and had them rejected then. The edit you added to include the "artificial nature" of the "aboriginal separatist agenda" bordered on racism so is unsuitable. If we added every minor detail that supports keeping the flag we would also need to expand detail for rejection and the article would be several pages long. Wayne (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify? The figures for the aboriginal exogamy rate have been in the article on indigenous Australians for years and I updated it myself in December. See here. Also I cant find anything by you on the Talk page.This was your edit in the section "Arguments in favour of keeping the flag""there is no national non-funded aboriginal voice, which points to there being no such thing as a collective aboriginal identity and suggests the artificial nature of the separatist agenda being foisted on the Australian people. All that remains for radical Aboriginal rights activists to do is to reconcile themselves with the fact their future lies not in statements of separateness but as an ethnic minority with equal citizenship subject to one law in a united Australian Federation."This may be ok in an editorial but it smacks of racism in an encyclopedic article as it is irrelevant here.Wayne (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against changing the flag

message: We are told "The Australian flag debate is a debate over whether the Australian flag should be changed in order to remove the Union Flag..." But it's much broader than that. A lot of the debate is about choosing a completely new design, perhaps one that uses the official national colours of green and gold, and/or one that more accurately represents Australia today. Would anyone object to changing the wording to something like what I've just written above? HiLo48 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead needs to be broadened 

message: And actually the end needs to be broadened too. ALP figures have been making pro-flag statements.
It's not the best article we can produce.
Gloriousrevolution (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than trying to make points on one side of the debate here, and just criticising, can you please try to do what the Discussion page is actually for - suggest specific improvements to the article, with relevant sources? HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people in the country have opinions on the matter. You would need to explain here why that particular one is more significant than others. And I'm not sure where it fits in with the subheading here of "The end needs to be broadened". HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end needs to be broadened 

message: Whats with all the tags in the Arguments in favour of keeping the flag sections? As the section is long standing what are the specific concerns that were not obvious before? Wayne (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags were added three days ago, with no explanation, by User:Gloriousrevolution, a new user who seems interested only in promoting Australian nationalist issues. I've tried to engage this user in sensible discussion on a number of matters, with no success. I believe the tags should be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it for you and removed the Tags. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: If editors on this article are still seeking a 3rd party opinion, please state it clearly in a sentence or two.  Leidseplein (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if 80% do that doesn't mean the separatist agenda is an authentic expression for all the reasons the Bennelong Society have outlined. At the 2006 census, 31% of aborigines lived in major cities and another 45% in or close to rural towns, a major increase compared with 46% living in urban areas in 1971, with the trend towards intermix set to continue. Modern urban aborigines (and that's 75% of them who self identify as "indigenous") don't want to live separately and be separate and have separate representation be it in the form of ATSIC or a device on the national flag. Gloriousrevolution (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indigenous people generally do not want to "live separately" but they do want to maintain their culture. ATSIC is a politicised organisation not supported by all indigenous people anyway. There is no "separatist agenda" and the section already in the article should be sufficient.  Wayne (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: My response? That's totally irrelevant. It's not constructive discussion that will lead to this being a better article. Please play by Wikipedia rules and policies, or take your views elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I've just blocked  for an indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Apparently Roy Morgan's flag polls are based on 640 responses.
The latest AustraliaSCAN survey which shows support for a new Australian flag is 13% was a sample of 2,000 people.
The updated data is significant: the Ausflag campaign has collapsed under 11 years of conservative rule on those figures.
58.164.34.60 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source which isn't an opinion article. A national survey with a sample size of only 640 is a bit unreliable BTW (you need at least about 1000 responses to produce reliable data at the national level, though Morgan does often publish the results of surveys with even smaller samples than 640 for some odd reason). Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And to be mentioned in the same section as that Newspoll, just as we do for it, we need a link to the survey, plus details of the question(s) asked, who was asked, the context (heard of push polling?), and detailed results. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011 AustraliaSCAN survey

message: There's an answer to Indiegnous objections to the existing flag. We might need to find conensus on this page first. Here's what I propose:
* Although flag design protocol implies that Australia is subordinate to Britain, this view of the flag's meaning is not held by many Australians. [14] Less than 200 years after white settlement to Australia began a modern, western nation had been founded based on British political and social institutions, as opposed to colonies by conquest such as India with their own pre-existing host cultures. [15]
Addition: The existing flag does not exclude the large swathe of Indigenous Australians who have integrated into mainstream society and are bicultural with European ancestry.
References:
♦ Bob Birrell and John Hirst, Aboriginal Couples at the 2001 Census, People and Place (2002) <http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/cart/download/free.php?paper=21> as at 26 January 2011
♦ Daily Telegraph, More Aborigines enter mixed marriages, 6 April 2009 <http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/more-aborigines-entering-mixed-marriages/story-e6freuzr-1225696982117> as at 26 January 2011
♦ Gary Johns, Waking up to the Dreamtime: The Illusion of Aboriginal Self-Determination (2007) <http://www.bennelong.com.au/books/pdf/DreamingWeb.pdf> as at 26 January 2011
♦ Peter Howson, Pointing the Bone: Reflections on the Passing of ATSIC (2004) <http://www.bennelong.com.au/articles/pdf/howsonquadrant2004.pdf> as at 26 January 2011
♦ W. Sanders, J. Taylor and K. Ross, Participation and representation in ATSIC elections: a ten-year perspective (2002) <http://caepr.anu.edu.au/system/files/Publications/DP/2000_DP198.pdf> as at 26 January 2011
Otherwise the article is a hum dinger compared to what it was.
58.164.34.60 (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that's where you were coming from. That is a very bigoted, ignorant, POV, forum style comment. I would normally delete such content on sight, but you need to understand that your opinion of what is happening with Aboriginal people is irrelevant, as is mine. All that matters is what the sources say. And you have not provided a source that says what your addition says, or anything like it. It needs to be a source talking about the flag debate, not what Aboriginal people are (possibly) doing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with HiLo's comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. FYI, some 80% of "integrated" Aborigines with European ancestry self identify with their Indigenous culture so no one can assume that integration negates their belief that Australia was invaded.  Wayne (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need better sourcing than that. Whites commenting on what they believe Indigenous people think can not be treated as reliable for what they actually think. You need a reliable survey of Indigenous views. You can make the same argument that white Australian intermarriage with migrants leads to some dilution of sentiment for the Union Jack with each passing generation. It's rhetoric. Wayne (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text: No, that would be participating in the debate, rather than describing it. What you need is a source that says that "The pro-flag people say the symbolism of the existing flag does not exclude decendants of the original inhabitants", or something similar. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken Wyatt is giving his own personal opinion and even says many hold the opposing view, most if you include those who have not voiced an opinion. As a group, Indigenous people, which includes decendants of the original inhabitants, object to the Union Jack in a national symbol as the flag of an invader. Wayne (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Perthnow article is about acceptance of Australia day not the flag and the other ref you added does not mention the flag at all but is merely a statement that the Southern Cross is part of Aboriginal culture. The Good man book is borderline racist in it's claim and is only one persons view. Per HiLo48, you need a source which supports that the view is widespread among supporters of the flag. Wayne (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous Australians 

message: For balance don't we need one more pro-flag image? Can't we replace the Eureka Flag with an image of the front cover of the Review of Reviews when the winning design to the 1901 Federal Flag Design Competition was announced?
There's a link to the Eureka Flag in the change the flag seciton. Thats enough isn't it?
You don't see that many Eureka Flags around Australia. The anniversary of the "Battle of the Eureka Stockade" on 3 December just came and went again without leaving a blip on the radar in 2011.
138.130.71.248 (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you just stop now in your blatant attempts to swing this article towards your obviously very strong POV. It's time to just step back. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand what Wikipedia, and this article in particular, is. This is a place where we DESCRIBE the debate. You seem to want to participate in it. To do that you need to find a forum about the flag, not this encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eureka Flag 

message: Back on 11th April IP editor 124.184.92.33 was blocked for block evasion after a series of strange Edits to this article with wordy Edit summaries. Last night and tonight we've had two similar edits from 124.187.179.152 (very close) and 121.217.144.173 (Look at the address of the IP protagonist in the discussion just above - 121.217.116.168 - also  now blocked). Seems suspicious to me. HiLo48 (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sock alert 

message: It is claimed that when Bob Hawke visited Canada in 1985 (or 84), the New Zealand flag was flown to welcome him (and therefore the Oz flag is not distinctive enough).  Does anyone have a decent reference for this.  My admittedly quite limited archive search could find no mention of it in newspapers at the time of his visit in March '85.  All I could find were passing claims in AusFlag material.  
Also there was a report of Whitlam recounting the same story only featuring one of his predecessor (Menzies?) so it seems to smell of an urban legend.  Can anyone give any details?  Hawke was only in Canada for 48 hours on that trip so it shouldn't be too hard to pin down a time and place if it's true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSciolist (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a look through Trove for "hawke ottawa flag" in 1985 but no luck.  Not all newspapers are covered in the 1980s but some, including the Canberra Times, are. -- Chuq (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veracity of the Ottawa incident 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian flag debate. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602113954/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=20 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=20
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206070055/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A1994-06-02%3BSEQ_NUM%3A27%3B to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE%3A1994-06-02%3BSEQ_NUM%3A27%3B
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't believe it was appropriate to add the Golden Wattle Flag and Unity Flag near the bottom of this article. There is already an article listing notable proposals so those designs should go there. As noted earlier, adding more flag proposals to this article beyond the 2000 Ausflag winner sets a precedent for every designer and their dog adding their own favourite designs, which is the purpsoe of that other list and not this article. If these two new additions were very notable in some way, then perhaps it would be appropriate to include them here, but I see no references that back up that level of significance.
Transparent 6lue (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of other flag proposals