Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Civil Flag

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, I was close to closing it as no-consensus, but after some vote changes, a number of the keeps aren't vaild no more. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States Civil Flag

United States Civil Flag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article contains an unverified hoax and is unreferenced by any valid sources to either describe the hoax or as a valid possibility. The only references appear to be informal personal webpages or blog entries (in violation of WP:V#SELF). There are no reference to support the claim that this is a legitimate topic - i.e. that the flag in question actually existed and it existed for the purpose listed in the article. Pursuant to the policy that wikipedia does not allow articles which are hoaxes (unless they are about a well known hoax) this article should be deleted.

IF YOU CLAIM that this hoax is noteworthy, please justify that claim with a definition of what you consider "noteworthy" to be.Jgassens 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete, seriously a hoax. I can't find any proof that this flag existed either, although I did read once about a courthouse that was still flying a 48-star flag in 2004... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is not a real flag of the United States, but its existence "out there" is not disputed. The article does not appear to claim that it's a real flag—in fact, it debunks it. delete, non-notable. Lexicon (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rebuttal I am not opposed to an article which describes a popular hoax, but this article does not describe a hoax, it CLEARLY presents it as a controversy which is not based upon referenced fact. It must either be a controversy with sources describing both sides of the argument (REAL sources, mind you) or it must be a noteworthy hoax and referenced as such. I.E. it should have received media attention at some point and have been believed by academics or the population at large for some amount of time. Jgassens 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The answer, then, is to rewrite the article, not to delete it. There are reliable sources supporting the fact that this hoax exists and is notable. AfD is not the best place to resolve a content dispute. --Charlene 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment It isn't a noteworthy hoax. Unless 'multiple google hits' count it as such. Jgassens 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per above. There are sources to support the "hoax" being real. To be honest, I thought the article was interesting and is exactly the type of random information Wikipedia is good for, and should be good for. The fact there are articles discussing the "hoax" is more than enough for me. CraigMonroe 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I like the issue, however, it does need better sourcing, so delete unless the article is cleaned up.CraigMonroe 03:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment This user has defended placing a spamlink in as a reference. He reverted my edit, calling it vandalism in the description without reviewing the discussion. I would urge caution in accepting his/her arguments. Jgassens 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The article has been nominated for deletion. Your argument for deletion is that it is unreferenced. At the time of nomination, the source was in the article. At this point, removing this information is vandalism. This was already pointed out to you on a similar issue below by an admin. Also, in the future, try to follow WP:AGF. You assume I did not look at the link. However, I did. I saw that it did sell flags. However, it was used as a source. You assume I am defending its use as a source; I am not--talk about a dumb assumption. Even though the source may not be appropriate, the fact the basis for the deletion argument is that there is a lack of sourcing makes it unreasonable to remove a source that someone may find legitimate. You nominated the article for deletion as it was. There is no basisto make the sourcing on the article worse. If you are right, and the article is deleted, the source goes away. If nopt, you can edit the article to remove the source later while allowing people to freely decide if the sourcing is appropriate. On another point, there are points of view that differ from your own. You are not always right, just like I am not always right. It appears on this issue, that you have strong feelings about the image involved in the article, the article sourcing, and the information. That is fine, but remember, we are all here to make Wikipedia better--not worse. The best way to do this is not demean other posters. Try to look at issues from the other side, instead of irrationally jumping to conclusions (like above). It makes things easier on everyone. CraigMonroe 16:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment You've obviously not understanding the reasons for deletion. My problem with this article is that it has misleading and dubious references See: WP:V#SELF, one of which is to a website that sells the purported flag as designed in 2004. I would expect that a website that sells the merchandise to assert that the history behind them is real That is a spam link. It is a violation of Wiki policy to put up spamlinks. I am still allowed to edit the article, as it clearly states in the VERY TAG I PUT UP. Wikipedia is not a place a hawk wares. I obviously wouldn't have commented in the discussion were I trying to subvert the system and act in bad faith. Inasmuch I also recommend you also consider WP:AGF It has been removed by others for that exact reason and has been documented as such. The fact that you acknowledge that the source may not be appropriate is all the more reason to point out that your arguments shouldn't be taken seriously. Jgassens 17:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Again, as an admin told you below, the proper time to remove an image or a source you had an issue with was before nominating the article for deletion. You missed your chance. Whether you disagree with this policy is immaterial. Whether the link will be taken out later, or should be taken out later is immaterial. As it stands now, since you nominated the article with the link in there on the basis of improper sourcing, the source must stay so the article can have as many sources as possible to give it the best chance of beating the AFD nom. This is because it may be possible for other posters to find the source is valid. As for editing the article, of course you can edit it but you should edit to add information and maximize the sources--not eliminate them. Also, please review WP:AGF. No where did I assume you were acting in bad faith. As I already pointed out, it is obvious you are opinionated on this topic. Just understand, people can disagree with you. Also, if you respond to my post, act courteous. Notice how I did not type in all caps (yelling on the internet). If you need to emphasize a point, please be respectful and use italics or bold. Oh, and this is a discussion. Please treat it as such. Everyone's point is given weight. Telling another person their perspective should not be taken seriously is (1) rude, and (2) improper. Please consider this before you respond. I have shown you respect, it is time you showed me respect. It is not so much to ask. Thank you, and have a nice night. CraigMonroe 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Where is this policy that states that I cannot remove spamlinks even after I have nominated an article for deletion? You produce this and I will give you a full apology. Until then, I've acted in as civil a manner as anyone should act after being called a vandal. Jgassens 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The policy has already been pointed out to you by an admin. See below. Also, consider reviewing WP:COOL. I have been nothing but civil with you. I did not call you a vandal, though I did label a deletion in violation of policy against you as vandalism. These are not the same. However, the fact remains, you should have removed the source earlier. Don't get angry at me for it. CraigMonroe 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've also been civil, if not heavy handed, in this discussion (and at no times calling you names or doing anything juvenile, etc.) and I respect your opinions, though I disagree with your assumption that I attempted purposely edit the page to deceive people into thinking that there weren't any substantiated references (i.e. you assumed bad faith). The link, however, was removed before the deletion tag was put up and subsequently it was restored by someone else. I noticed that and reverted it because it was a spamlink - I did it after the tag was up, but the time line doesn't matter. I would have been well within my rights to remove the spamlink for the first time even after I put the deletion tag up. You've provided no policy arguing my actions were anything but in good faith. Further, the discussion below with "the admin" (who's roll in this is immaterial) was about the removal of an image, which I may not have agreed with, but the image violated no policy on wikipedia. The link, on the other hand, is a flagrant violation. In any regard, your problems with my actions don't appear to be germane to whether or not this article should be deleted and I'm sorry I even brought it up (referring to our conversation in your discussion page.) Jgassens 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Although I have some issues with the article and NPOV sourcing is challenging, I believe they are best addressed through editing, not deletion. I don't think "hoax" applies, either, except to the aspects about the Stars & Stripes being evidence of a silent military coup. It may be better to describe it somewhere between "misunderstanding" and "urban legend". Before the era of mass production there was much more craftsmanship and variation in things like flags and even if the notability of this one is "modern", i.e. the urban legend, I think there is enough information to show that it existed and had some usage by elements of the US government. Nailing down what that was is probably not possible using the biased sources online. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a hoax article, just an article (with decent references) describing a (non-Wikipedia) hoax. If it needs to outline that better, fix it, don't delete it. - RPIRED 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What? Decent references? Those are horrible references. They're cheese homepages created by persons of unverifiable repute. Someone even keeps putting the website that is selling a "US Civil" flag up. It's a SPAM link and people keep putting it up. This is nonsense. Jgassens 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If anything, it's a hoax that's promoted by conspiracy theorists. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. Delete. The flag is indeed a lie for marketing purposes, but it is, as near as I can tell, not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• WeakDelete Where exactly is the "significant coverage by independent media"? Only reliable source I see on that page is flagspot.net and they describe it as a "a footnote of erroneous concepts and faulty research". No coverage in google news and I cant find anything else that gives this notability Corpx 02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why does a flag from 1799 have 50 stars? ~ Infrangible 02:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Because it's nonsense, like this article. Jgassens 02:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to bring to attention that I have improved this article as I could, merging the content from civil flag into it, adding & improving the footnotes & references, formulating allegations from both sides as neutrally as possible, and that I think it is actually half-decent now. Should the vote be keep, I'll make a nice little picture like the one for the Iraqi flag affair, giving a family mugshot of Continental, Grand Union, Culpeper, Betsy Ross, 1799 Ensign, Guilford, Old Glory, Bennington, & Co: --Victor falk 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CraigMonroe's argument above and as long as the article makes clear the flag is a ho-ax. Edit to improve, don't delete —  AjaxSmack  05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there are lots of web sites out there claiming that this is the "true" flag of the USA, this article appears to me to be a reasonable NPOV summary of the controversy; the article isn't a hoax, it's an article about an apparent hoax. Capmango 06:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CraigMonroe Taprobanus 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- this debate alone indicates that the topic achieves Wiki-notability; editorial rewriting can solve the issues of POV and hoaxiness. The flag (fictional or not) is a core aspect of the Conspiracy theory field. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete after all the "improvements" there are still no WP:RSes that show that this controversy is notable. Even bizarre controversies (Face on Mars, Starchild skull) and opinions held by fringe groups garner media attention, but this apparently hasn't. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax which fails WP:N. The article takes a complete hoax and promotes it to a "controversy" leaving readers with th impression "Where there is smoke there is fire." It is not presented as a hoax at all. The sources which present it as true are not independent reliable ones and do not satisfy WP:A. The ones which mention it as a hoax do not show that it is a notable hoax. As a hoax it has not been discussed in depth in sufficient reliable sources to justify devoting an article to it. The alleged flag may have been a banner used on customs houses, but falsely purported to be the "True US Flag." Edison 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Whether the topic is about a hoax or about a real event, the topic fails WP:N. There is not enought reliable source material to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about the topic. Not that this is directly relevant, but even the topic civil flags may fail WP:N. Here's all I could find on civil flags: (1) civil flag of the Islamic Emirate; (2) civil flag of the Republic of Lithuania; (3) in some countries of the Americas you find two versions of the national flag," continues Smith. "Private citizens fly a civil flag of plain stripes, but those used by the government bear an additional national coat of arms.[1]; (4) The Red Hand of Ulster flag was the civil flag of Northern Ireland until 1973; (5) The Union Jack, however, remained the official Australian civil flag. [2] -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  OK, I thought that www.civil-liberties.com might be legit, but per whois, that site is owned by GoDaddy.com, the world's largest domain name registrar. I think GoDaddy.com is using content at www.civil-liberties.com merely to hold that domain in its registrar rather than to present verifiable content. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  I can't seem to let this one go. At Google images there are several images of civil flags. This link seems to imply that the U.S. civil flag is a present effort by Brian Farmer in Ohio to establish a type of peace flag for the United States. Uscivilflags.org makes it seems like a marketing ploy to sell the civil flag. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  I am presently stuck in a gridlock with the uploader of the file (who is a Wikipedia Admin). I have attempted to remove it from the article, but it has consistently been replaced. I have requested deletion on Wikipedia, but it is hosted on Wikimedia servers, so deletion is nearly impossible. Which means, that image has "amnesty" and can essentially continue to exist there, even though it has no intellectual merit at all. This whole thing is awful and I'm not going to let it go. I'm currently focusing on whether or not that image is copyrighted by the creator of that flag. If it is, that should be an ironclad reason for its removal. Jgassens 13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Why mention my being an admin? I didn't mention it, and I certainly haven't undertaken any administrator actions in relation to this issue. I uploaded a better version of the image that someone had already uploaded, and since I don't want my images deleted, I have pushed to have it kept. If the flag is being presented as a real flag of the United States, then it is clearly not copyrighted. If it could have been copyrighted (and it may not have been, since it is an unoriginal derivation of the US flag, not much different from displaying it upside down), then the actions of the creators have been to refuse copyright. You should take a look at the images on Wikimedia Commons when you have the chance—the image without a doubt has enough use to justify preservation on Commons. The fact that it may be disturbing to you, or even that it was originally created to make money, isn't a valid reason for deletion. Lexicon (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Your stature as an admin isn't currently particularly relevant, and I apologize. You do, however, appear to be exploiting wikimedia to prevent the deletion of the image in that article and you've refused to upload it to Wikipedia (and your interest in keeping it there is evident since you reverted it after I've attempted to take it down from the article WHILE a dispute in the discussion section is occurring) - something I consider totally unfair since it's in a Wikipedia article. While this may be your prerogative and you may not have malicious intentions in doing this, it nevertheless is completely unfair that you have an image which cannot be removed due to its lack of scholarly content. As for it being a flag or a derivation of the US flag, it is not, in my opinion, and as soon as I can confirm the author's intent I'll post it on wikicommons and allow it to be hashed out there. Again, it's nothing personal and the fact that you're an admin has nothing to do with this - though that's completely public information, and I don't see harm coming to you for "disclosing" it. Jgassens 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  We generally move images which qualify from Wikipedia to Commons, not the other way around. It makes them available to all Wikimedia projects as well as the general public. Commons is not only for current Wikimedia projects, but for any images that there is a reasonable expectation that someone would want them in the future. The fact that someone is trying to defraud the public into believing that there was a civil flag, or a display of images derived from the US flag or the Coast Guard flag, or whatever it was, is absolutely acceptable as a reason for its inclusion. It's as simple as that. As for my returning of the image to the article during the debate for deletion, it shouldn't have been removed before the debate. You should have put the article up for deletion as it was. Lexicon (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Jreferee's excellent research. Not a hoax so much as it is an outright lie or possible marketing ploy; certainly not a notable hoax in the vein of the bathtub hoax. Even if the article were rewritten, the subject would still not be notable; Google hits do not necessarily equal notablity, and certainly not per our standards. Heather 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Kind of interesting as a hoax, but none of the "sources" are reliable, so the entire article appears to be unverifiable and non-notable. PubliusFL 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I strongly renounce Jreferee's assertion that civil flags per se are non-notable -- about half the countries of the world have civil flags which are different from their state flags! Just take any vexillological introduction book and you'll find more than enough material on the concept of civil flags. —Nightstallion 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources and apparent marketing ploy. >Radiant< 12:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have gone searching for sources to suggest notability and have still struck out. From my perspective, this article is one of two things: unsourcable and therefore non-notable, or just a complete hoax. Either way it should be deleted. Trusilver 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep subject to a bit of editing to make it clearer that it's contentious. Short of a relevant expert turning up, I don't think we can say for sure that it's a hoax (although it sure as hell sounds like one to me). However, the article isn't a hoax, it describes the claimed history and the belief that it's a hoax. SamBC 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  We can't say much of anything "for sure" about this subject. Which is a good indication that the article's content is mostly unverifiable and therefore contravenes Wikipedia policy. PubliusFL 22:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Urban legent or misunderstanding, not hoax. Philwelch 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.