Talk:Flag of Manitoba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFlag of Manitoba has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 22, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 12, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the flag of Manitoba (shown) was adopted in 1965 to counteract the replacement of the Canadian Red Ensign with the Maple Leaf flag?

Incorrect Illustration[edit]

The flag of Manitoba illustrated in this article is incorrect. Please refer to Travel Manitoba (an official provincial government site) for the correct version:

http://www.travelmanitoba.com/default.asp?page=134&node=589&menu=436

Note specifically the shape and design of the shield and how it differs.

P.V.

"Hypothetical" Flag?[edit]

What in hell is a "hypothetical" flag? --Walby2 04:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Manitoba Flag was around since 1905 AD[edit]

Manitoba Coat-of-Arms Granted 1905 AD

http://homeschooling.about.com/library/blcambcoat.htm


The Coat-of-Arms of the Province of Manitoba was granted in 1905 AD. The Red Ensign of Manitoba has been in existance since 1905 AD.


Please correct your page accordingly AndyL.


ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The coat of arms was granted in 1905, the flag, however, was not adopted until 1966. AndyL

Change it?[edit]

Hasn't there been any discussion on changing the flag, seeing as how it's only one of two Canadian provinical flags still based on the Union Flag? —Nightstallion (?) 10:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall there have been occasional design contests, but no serious moves to replace the flag. --AlexWCovington (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad; the flag proposal linked to in the article (http://www.mts.net/~hajones/portfol/flag.htm) is really good. —Nightstallion (?) 13:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Manitoba. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Flag of Manitoba
Flag of Manitoba

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:01, 5 May 2020 (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
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I would go with ALT0, which is definitely more interesting. epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I came by to promote this. I see a comment on the talk page that the image on the flag, specifically the shield, does not match the official flag. I do see a difference in the image on the Canadian government page. Also, it's confusing that the article says the new flag was approved in 1965 by the legislature and the Queen, but first hoisted on May 12, 1966, while the hook says it was "adopted" on May 12. Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: The flag image above is the one used day-to-day (as seen in the photograph of it flying), while the other one (near the bottom of the article) is the one registered at the Canadian Heraldic Authority. I'm fine with using the official government CHA-registered image instead. On the second point, the flag was approved and first hoisted on May 12 (albeit one year apart). I mentioned 1966 in the hook because only then did it become official (with the Queen's approval). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bloom6132: OK on the flag. But we'll need a cite for May 12 being the date of adoption. Personally, I think you should say in the hook that that was the date it was hoisted for the first time, since that is sourced inline. Yoninah (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: It's cited in ref 4 ("The Act of Legislature that tabled this flag received royal assent on May 11, 1965."). But it's May 11, not 12 (sorry for mix-up above). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could change the hook to 1965 if you think that'll be more accurate. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bloom6132: No problem, I'll do it. So we're running it on May 12 for Manitoba Day, not May 11 for the adoption of the flag in 1965, right? Restoring tick per epicgenius' review. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack?[edit]

The text currently reads "the British explorer who raised the first Union Jack over what is now Manitoba back in 1612". Hunh? I don't think there was such as thing as a Union Jack in 1612, inasmuch as the Union flags arose from the union of England and Scotland in 1707. If there was some sort of unofficial or private union flag a century earlier, that should be explained. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piledhigheranddeeper: Thanks for pointing that out. The text from the journal said "… how the British flag had flown over Manitoba since it was first erected in the north by British explorer Thomas Button in 1612." I wanted to avoid close paraphrasing, but ended up referring to the wrong flag. I've now changed it to pipelink to the more accurate Flag of Great Britain. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Flag of Manitoba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 16:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review to be forthcoming. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review follows. If you have difficulty distinguishing check marks Checked or other icons, please let me know and I'll reformat. I'm open to discussion on any of the points raised. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very close to a quick pass; a few minor things to be addressed. Checked

Review comments[edit]

Prose
  • the flag of the neighbouring province of Ontario, which is also a Red Ensign. Perhaps add after Ensign: with a coat of arms. (or similar)
  • Done. Added "… with its respective coat of arms."Checked
  • The Great Canadian Flag Debate that preceded this change showed there were still parts of Canada where imperialist nostalgia was strong, and lamenting the demise of the Canadian Red Ensign, they endeavoured to have it modified as a provincial flag. The underlined part feels a bit awkward to me. How about: The Great Canadian Flag Debate that preceded this change showed there were still parts of Canada where imperialist nostalgia was strong, where the demise of the Canadian Red Ensign was lamented and there was a push to have it modified as a provincial flag.
    • I've actually split it into 2 sentences (since the original is at 40 words, far above the 30 word max. I try to adhere to). I've reworded it to, "The Great Canadian Flag Debate that preceded this change showed there were still parts of Canada where imperialist nostalgia was strong. Lamenting the demise of the Canadian Red Ensign, its proponents in those regions endeavoured to have it modified as a provincial flag." Hope that works fine. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perfect!Checked
  • One of the two flag-raisers at that ceremony was a descendant of Thomas Button, the British explorer who raised the first British flag over what is now Manitoba back in 1612. I feel like "now ... back in 1612" is a bit awkward. How about: the British explorer who in 1612 raised the first British flag over what is now Manitoba.
  • Agreed – changed to the wording you suggested (thanks for that!). —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Checked[reply]
  • Moreover, the flags situated at the province's Legislative Building are lowered to half-mast when a soldier – who was born in or grew up in Manitoba, or was last stationed in the province before being deployed abroad – is killed. I suspect you were trying to change the structure to avoid close paraphrasing, but the dashes make it more complicated than it has to be and I find "grew up" to be too informal. There are only so many ways to state some things, and "born or raised" is natural language. How about: Moreover, the flags situated at the province's Legislative Building are lowered to half-mast upon the death of a soldier who was born or raised in Manitoba, or who was stationed in the province before being deployed abroad.
  • Your suspicions are correct re avoiding close paraphrasing. Changed to your suggested wording (but retained the "last" in "… was last stationed in …"). Hope that's fine with you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. For the "last", I went back and forth on that a little. I wasn't sure if "prior to" in the source meant they were stationed in the province immediately prior to being deployed or that they were stationed in the province at any point prior to being deployed. When in doubt, I tend to generalize. I'm fine with your wording, and agree that it's the most likely meaning in context.Checked
Referencing & verifiability
  • "Manitoba kicks off year-long celebration of its 150th anniversary" Billeck, Scott
    • Verified, but the source is the Winnipeg Sun, not the Winnipeg Free Press. I changed the citation for this. The Sun chain have been described as tabloids, but I don't see any problem with it in this context where it's used for simple date verification and is backed up by a primary source.Checked
  • Thanks for spotting that – I copied and pasted from a "cite news" template I had used earlier but forgot to change the "newspaper=" parameter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Us – Old Manitoba150
    • Verified. The picture of the host committee is dated November 2019 if you wanted to add an approximate date.Checked
  • Encyclopedia Britannica
    • Verified four citations directly and two with support from CIC (below). I feel that the last cited statement (The Red Ensign is a conspicuous symbol of Great Britain, Canada's former mother country.) is generally verifiable so I'm not concerned about the citation.Checked
  • CIC Citizenship and Immigration Canada
    • Verified five citationsChecked
  • MBgov Emblems of ManitobaChecked
  • History of the National Flag Canada.caChecked
  • Canada's flag debate flaps on, 50 years later CBC NewsChecked
  • Flag of Canada at Enc BritannicaChecked
  • Our provincial flag, the lesser-known storyChecked
    • Also found this on ProQuest (ProQuest 1640530699) carried by The Times-Transcript (Moncton, NB).
  • Thomas Manitoba Politics and Government two citationsChecked
  • Grebstad "The Flag of Our Fathers? The Manitoba Provincial Flag and British Cultural Hegemony in Manitoba, 1870–1966"
  • Canada's first (more or less) official flag Radio CanadaChecked
  • NAVAChecked
  • "Lambert WFP" "Manitoba flag called outdated"
    • four citations
    • A motion calling for a change to the flag was put forward at the provincial New Democratic Party's annual convention in March 2009.[Lambert WFP] However, it did not pass because it failed to make the deadline to get voted on.[19] The first source, dated Feb 2009, says it was on the agenda. The second (CBC News) says that "a resolution aimed at changing the provincial flag failed to beat the buzzer." There seems to be a bit of ambiguity between those statements. Was it on the agenda but they ran out of time before the motion was put forward for debate, or was it put forward but they didn't have time for the vote, or something else? Without another source for clarification, I feel like it should be stated in more general terms. Suggest something like: A motion calling for a change to the flag was scheduled for debate at the provincial New Democratic Party's annual convention in March 2009.[Lambert WFP] However, procedures were not completed due to time constraints.[19]
  • I personally found no ambiguity whatsoever when reading those statements. My take on it is that the resolution "failed to beat the buzzer" because it "failed to make the deadline to get voted on" (i.e. the vote regarding the motion/resolution never took place). And that putting forward a motion was the same as it being on the agenda. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, okay, it's clear in what it says, but it lacks the specificity of the statement in the article. Time ran out, but it doesn't say how far the resolution had moved along in parliamentary procedure before time ran out. Essentially a resolution has to be introduced, seconded, recognized by the chair, debated, and put to a vote by the chair (at which point the vote itself takes place). It feels a little odd to me for it to have gone through all the processes except the vote itself. If it had, wouldn't they instead make a motion to postpone it until a later time? I tried searching around a bit but couldn't find the minutes of the convention, and the news tends not to report things which didn't happen. Thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending. My hunch as to why it it didn't get postponed until later is because the next time the NDP met was 7 months later at their leadership convention. Which would push their next convention (focused more on policy) further back. And sure, same party but new leadership. And changing a flag (which seems to come with lots of liability in terms of stirring up emotions and little benefit in terms of substantive action to help people) would probably rank towards the lower end of policies a new leader would want to propose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem; I wasn't clear enough in the first place. Looking at the source again, I probably focused on that one sentence with buzzer (quoted above). The previous paragraph in the source says (in the context of taking "new" out of NDP) that the resolution may not pass or even come to a vote, that "Each year, only a small number of resolutions make it to the convention floor before time runs out." It then immediately mentions the 2009 flag resolution, presumably as an illustrative example of a resolution which never made it to the convention floor, i.e. which wasn't introduced or debated. Does that make sense? Whether or not this is the case, though, I don't feel that the sources support (1) the statement that the motion was put forward, or (2) the causal relationship that it did not pass because it failed to make the voting deadline. So I feel that we either need to find sources to support this, or to change the wording to reflect the sources that we do have. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified the sentence by stating that the motion was "put forward on the program" (as opposed to put forward to a vote, only to be defeated). I'm avoiding the term "on the agenda" due to close paraphrasing. I also re-arranged the sentence following it and dropped the "it did not pass". It now reads, "However, it failed to make the deadline to get voted on and consequently did not proceed further." I think that's a more accurate way of looking at the motion in the grand scheme of things, because simply being voted on and passed at a party convention wouldn't be the end of the road for changing the flag (i.e. it would need to be introduced at the Legislature and passed there). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Flag Bad Flag" NAVA 15-page pamphlet
    • The inclusion of the Union Jack in the canton was viewed disapprovingly by the Association. I feel it'd be closer to the source to say: The Association felt the flag lacked distinctiveness, which could have been achieved had the bison been used as a central figure. (maybe wikilink canton elsewhere) Alternatively, the CTV News source mentions the same thing but also has "Kaye suggested dropping the Union Jack" which is closer to supporting the statement, if you want to add that as an additional citation.
  • I've incorporated some of your wording into the rephrased sentence. Hope that works. In addition to reusing the CTV News source, I've also resued the NAVA source, which wrote that "All British colonial flags (e.g. Ontario) should go.". —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Checked[reply]
  • Flag-lovers via Newsbank
    • Found this at ProQuest (ProQuest 266956583 subscription required) It is essentially RSS coverage of the 10 June NAVA press release, with a bit of interviewing. If you want, here are citation details: cite news|work=The Record|location=Kitchener, Ontario|publisher=Metroland Media Group|title=Flag-lovers flower Quebec's fleur-de-lis with a rosy ranking|agency=The Canadian Press|author=|date=June 20, 2001|access-date=May 12, 2020|id=ProQuest 266956583|url-access=subscription|quote=At No. 44, it was the lowest-rated Canadian flag, according to the association, receiving a paltry 4.60
  • Added – thanks for that! I don't have access to ProQuest anymore. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Checked[reply]
  • Added that source. Thanks for finding it! —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Confirmed[reply]
Media

Four images: two tagged public domain and two creative commons licensed.Checked

Other areas to improve[edit]

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

  • I went back-and-forth on this a couple times. Because only one of the many sources mentioned this, I've concluded that it isn't required coverage by the GA criteria. Nonetheless, it might be nice to include this in a future expansion at some point. This is from ref Grebstad p. 71, which mentions some earlier interest in a provincial flag, preceding Pearson's national flag debate. According to the source they were looking at an altogether different design(s). Then, after the national flag was chosen, the earlier proposals were abandoned and the modified Red Ensign was quickly adopted. I think this is interesting and it makes an even stronger case for the reactionary decision.

General discussion[edit]

This was quite close to a quick pass. Just a few touch-ups. If you want to do the optional expansion mentioned above, I don't mind waiting a few days. Please let me know if you have any questions or if want to discuss any of this. I'm putting the review on hold for now; let me know when you're ready for me to check your changes. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your remaining comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloom6132: I've checked your changes, they look good. I think we're just hung up on that bit about the NDP convention. I am admittedly nit-picky in my role as a reviewer and hope that's alright with you. I have found the article to be well sourced and well written, and it's been interesting and enjoyable to be working on it with you. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fine with me as long as we're both adhering to the GA criteria. Yes, it has indeed been enjoyable working together you! I look forward to doing so again in the near future re the Richard Gagnon GAN (no rush, btw). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, passed! I hadn't realized Gagnon was also yours. I've been trying to give priority to WikiProject Canada GANs, so was bound to bump into the same editor(s) at some point. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Manitoba&oldid=1207243294"