Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French ensigns

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French_ensigns

the basic concept is based on flawed research, namely, that there exist a certain number of plain flag with the french flag in canton used to design colonial flag. some french posession do have a tricolore in canton but these are either pre-existing flag to which a tricolore was added or flags that were created in toto. --Marc pasquin 01:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the article is more about British Ensigns than French. Several French ensigns are illustrated and there is a claim that they are used by French Overseas Territories but no actual example is given (ie which territories). Given that AVD has a history of misusing sources (Ground Zero has looked up AVD's sources in the past only to find that they don't say what he claims they say) we should probably delete this. Homey 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Okay, there are problems with factual accuracy on the page. But that just means the article needs to be revised. It's not grounds for deletion. Justin Bacon 03:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - all these flags are referenced (in the 10 references listed on the article page), and I shall cite each one on the discussion page. As per HOTRs statement that I misuse references, I would suggest that HOTR use his words carefully. If I have to obey the No Personal Attack Rule then so does HOTR. Please visit the French ensigns discussion page, were ALL the Flags will be referenced. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying you've been found to have misused sources in the past is not a "personal attack", it's criticism. You'd do well to learn the difference. Homey 07:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Misusing references? Please cite specific cases of me doing that.

HOTR, you would also do well to attempt to keep a civil tone.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge - Being told that using sources that are not correct is not a personal attack. That means that either you need to find the correct sources or just remove the non-factual information. Remember, me and Marc, David and Grutness are vexillologists, if you need information (or perhaps drawings) of flags, just let us know. But since, from reading this, I still personally believe that this article is nothing but original research. I strong suggest merging to Flag of France and perhaps have a gallery of various French ensign (which I could draw easily). Zach (Sound Off) 15:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Next up, Zach, I have studied Flags as well, and I quite capable of arguing that permise that the French ensigns is a valid article, and deserving of its own page.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article does provide sourcing although there is some discussion on the article's talk page about the accuracy of the contents. That is the proper place to discuss any problems with the current contents of the article not in AfD. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

*Merge/Redirect with Flag of France. Given that these are variations of the French Flag and that the objection seems to be over whether these are truly "ensigns", it may make sense to move whatever pertinent info exists in the article to the Flag of France article. Homey 07:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

HOTR, I see you have changed your vote from Delete to Merge. It is nice to see that you conceed that the French ensigns article I created has some value on Wikipedia. However, as for Merging the article with another Flag of France article, I would strongly disagree with that suggestion. The French ensigns article touches on a subject that is not generally known in Vexillology, and it provides a compact, specialised article to highlight these French Flags, which are commonly overlooked, and un-emphasised. I submit to you that the French ensigns article is quite appropriate, and educational in its present location (i.e., with its own separate article). ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect with Flag of France for correct material and Delete for fictional material. Original research based on a flawed premise and a fundamental misunderstanding of vexillology. David Newton 12:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A fundamental misunderstanding of Vexillology? What precisely are you refering to?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry Marc, but you're incorrect. There are a number of flags that have used the tricolor canton. Togo has, Wallis & Futuna has and Morocco has, to name just three off the top of my head. A quick glance at some of the pages on the Flags of the World website (many of which I had a hand in writing, I venture to add) will show that what Don is saying is basically correct, though some of the things said on the page do need their accuracy checked. The use of the word "ensign" is also a little wayward, to say the least - these are colonial flags, not ensigns (ensigns are flown from ships, not used on land). (BTW Don, are you on the fotw mailing list?) Grutness...wha? 12:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay - Marc's explained to me a bit more clearly what his beef is with the page, and I understand now. That there are flags like this in general is accepted, but their direct relation to British ones is questionable, especially given their usage. Also, some of the 'templates for flags" shown on the page in question never existed as flags in themselves. Many countries have used or do use flag designs similar to those probably first used by the British navy, either deliberately or coincidentally - and that is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The current article, though, is not that article. This needs a thorough rewrite, a split and a move to titles like Similarities in European colonial flag designs and Similarities in European naval ensign designs (or possibly something a bit more catchy). Grutness...wha? 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is no parallel -- none -- in the use of British and French ensigns. The British have a system: red for merchant vessels, blue for government, white for naval (I have somewhat oversimplified) that France never had. Please act along the lines of Marc Pasquin's and James Dignan's ("Grutness") arguments. The parent article is just plain wrong; I don't know where the author got his information. ASKirsch
  • Is everyone from FOTW on Wikipedia? Where's Antonio, Andre and Ron? :) Grutness...wha? 10:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, in the sense that the French Ensign is worthy of an article. Much of the page belongs elsewhere, if at all, but that is an issue for talk pages, not AfD. JPD 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I want to comment on two issues, espeically since my name came up with regard to one of them. In a previous debate on AVD's contention that the Canadian flag was based on what he calls the "republican tricolour", AVD provided a list of references to support his argument. (This was on an article he wrote entitled "French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag", which was deleted.) Most of them were for books published decades before the maple leaf flag was introduced in 1965. I looked into a recent book to which he referred, and could find nothing to support AVD's claim. Part of the problem was that instead of providing the page number to support his claim, which is what would normally be done, he provided the number of the page from which he took the publisher's information, which is not useful in any way to someone trying to verify the references. And he never provided the pagge number to support his claim at any time later. The other issue is his statement, "If I have to obey the 'No Personal Attack Rule' then so does HOTR." When has AVD ever obeyed the NPA rule? Several editors have pointed out his violations, and he has never withdrawn the attacks (as far as I know). There is currently an RfC about his personal attacks, and he made a personal attack against me on the RfC page, which he has not withdrawn or apologized for. Because of his behaviour, it is hard to known whether this article has been written in good faith based on the references cited, or if it is original research. His past behaviour suggests the latter. Ground Zero | t 15:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, you are misrepresenting our conversion. The conversion is also recorded on my talkpage.

ArmchairVexillologistDon talkpage

Back to the Flag (section on my talkpage)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon

Well, I can spend alot of time and effort to clarify and refute your "characterization" of my use o references, and the ideas and points that I was trying to convey to you. However, at the moment I am too angry at you to do so. So I shall "step away from the computer".

Additional note: I mentioned to an Administrated that the article I started French ensigns, was challenged within one hour of me being indefinitely banned. He stated that he was not aware of this, and he had nothing to do with it. Next I asked him permission to defend the French ensigns article, and the Administrator granted me permission to so, with the warning that I was absolutely not to engage in personaly attacks. So far I have kept my end of the agreement.

I will say this, the string of co-incedences that occurs around this French ensigns article is astounding, to say the least. I have one bright spot in this regard so far, a fellow Vexillologist Mysha (from the Dutch Wikipedia) he helped me immeasurabley in improving the French ensigns article. Thanks again Mysha, and it was very nice to make your acquaintance indeed (I learned "light a candle" from you Mysha. Thanks). ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected with reference to the Archibald book. You did provide page references after I requested them, so I will withdraw the remark that I made above. The rest of our discussion shows, however, that the book does not support your claim that the Canadian flag is based on the republican tricolour. You have drawn, on your own, the conclusion that the remote similiarity of the Canadian flags to the flags of other countries, some of which are republics, is basis enough to draw your conclusion that the design of the maple leaf flag was chosen to promote republicanism by undermining royal and British connections and symbolism. In this case, the reference that you provided did not support your claim, but rather showed that what you were writing was original research.

As far as the "coincidences", it is not uncommon for editors to watch the contributions of editors who in the past have violated Wikipedia policies. As you know, the "French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag" was deleted for being a POV fork of what you were trying to include in the Flag of Canada article, which is not permitted. So you should not be surprised if your contributions are being monitored. This is one of the ways that Wikipedia policies can be maintained. Of course, if you are not violating Wikipedia policies, then you should not be concerned that others are watching your work. Ground Zero | t 19:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Also note that along with the RfC, the RfA has been requested to be reopended. Zhatt 17:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article as it stands at this moment is acceptable. Homey 14:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hesitate to enter the conversation here, seeing all the intensity in the conversation above. This is my first encounter of this article and it appears lucid and well written. If factual accuracy is a concern, perhaps expert opinions or fact checking by peer reviewers would be reasonable.--Gaff ^{talk 17:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Update

As it stand now (and as long as it stays that way), I have no problem with the page French Ensigns and unless there are objections, I will withdraw its candidacy for deletion.

However, while that page is now more correct, most of the problems I originaly had with the page have been transfered to a new one. (see its talk page Talk:French_colonial_flags),

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.