Talk:Flag of Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Heraldry and Vexillology Portal Flag of Ontario is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

This article is part of WikiProject Ontario, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the province of Ontario, Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 "Defaced" better than "Altered" 2 The Ontario Flag was around since 1868 AD 3 Makepeace link 4 Hello SimonP 5 Change it?

[edit] "Defaced" better than "Altered"

"Defaced" better than "Altered"

I object to the revision of May 31. "Defaced" is the proper term used in vexillology (the study of flags) for this situation. "Altered" makes it sound like the flag was castrated, since it is a euphomism for "fixing" an animal. Jonathan David Makepeace

[edit] The Ontario Flag was around since 1868 AD

Ontario Coat-of-Arms Granted 1868 AD

http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweezer/canada/coaONT.htm

The Coat-of-Arms of the Province of Ontario was granted in 1868 AD. The Red Ensign of Ontario has been in existance since 1868 AD.

Please correct your page accordingly AndyL.

ArmChairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 03:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just because the Coat of Arms was created in 1868 doesn't mean the use of a red ensign flag with the Ontario COA was used then. --Saforrest 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ontario had no official flag until the legislative assembly passed the Flag Act in 1965.AndyL 07:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Makepeace link

this link has been the subject of a low intensity edit war for some time now. I'd be more inclined to keep it if the website were more interesting, as it is I can take it or leave it. But why are some individuals so intent on removing it? I'd like to know your reasons?AndyL 17:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The site seems to be more a political statement for a new flag than any information on the flag we do have, and is not NPOV. Spinboy 17:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's the article that needs to be NPOV, not the external links (though the description of those links must be NPOV). If we banned links to POV sites we'd probably have to get rid of most of the external links we have on wikipedia (at least those no political and controversial topics). What matters is not whether the linki is POV but whether it is relevant and it seems to be. AndyL 17:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am loath to agree with AVD, but the link should go unless some evidence, such as media coverage, is presented to show that this is an important proposal. - SimonP 18:00, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

There's not. It's just one guy's site. If it goes it should go for that reason, not because of its POV. AndyL 18:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But wikipedia isn't the place to link to every guy's site. Spinboy 21:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link a few hours ago. My point is simply that your reasons for wanting it removed were incorrect and that it was necessary to have a better reason for removing the link. It would be a mistake for us to go around wikipedia and start removing external links because the sites linked to were POV. AndyL 21:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-I completly dissagree with removing a link simply because we cant prove that it contains vital information. I found the link interesting. the idea may be only one persons. but so was every idea at one time. if it is relative to the subject and not unreadable I can't see why it should be censored. NPOV is not an issue. as stated earlier, the article must be NPOV not the links. what is the problem? --Olsdude 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it amusing that the link has never been controversial on the French-language page for the province. The Ontario flag pages are by far the most popular on my Website, surpassing even the Res Publica pages that have links from all over Wikipedia. They also generate more mail than the rest of my site combined. --Jonathan David Makepeace

[edit] Hello SimonP

Hello,

I am loath to agree with AVD, but the link should go unless some evidence, such as media coverage, is presented to show that this is an important proposal. - SimonP 18:00, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

SimonP, why would you be loathe to agree with me?

ArmchairVexillologistDonArmchairVexillologistDon 23:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Change it?

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)

See the discussion on the Makepeace link above. Jonathan David Makepeace

It has never garnered significant attention, and likely never will. Ontario is still a loyalist stronghold. WilyD 21:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. The current flag's rather ugly (and contains the Union Jack, but... well, their choice what kind of political statement they want to make with their flag). —Nightstallion (?) 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Give it time. Half of Toronto was born outside of Canada. Imperial mentality is rapidly fading. Jonathan David Makepeace 01:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That sentiment might work if we were discussing the flag of Toronto, but otherwise I must conclude you've never taken a ride along the loyalist highway ;). The flag of Ontario is a beaut, and she's here to stay, eh? WilyD 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with preserving Ontario's loyalist heritage with highway designations and historic sites, but the flag has no symbol of loyalism on it (like an oak leaf). Who do we owe allegiance to? The British crown, or the Canadian crown? The current Union Jack hadn't even been created when the loyalists fled here. It's the flag of another country. The red ensign was rated the worst designed Canadian flag (along with Manitoba's red ensign) by NAVA for very good reasons. It will inevitably be replaced by something that has a symbol of Ontario on it. I'd happily vote for an oak leaf flag. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. J.D. Makepeace, for a tranplanted American now living in the Province of Ontario, within the Dominion of Canada, you have presented above one hell of alot of assumptions. Todays Union Jack (since 1801) is "a Flag of Canada". According to the 1965 Flag Statute, the Union Jack is Canada's alternate standard (representing Canada's membership within the British Commonwealth of Nations). All citizens of Canada are allowed to fly the Union Jack. The Red Ensign of the Province of Ontario is a cherished symbol, and frankly it is not likely to replaced anytime soon. Finally, regarding the guidelines that the North American Vexillological Association (NAVA) presently espouses, they are just that GUIDELINES (i.e., a set of suggestions). By the way, if the State Governments of the United States of America actually decided to follow the "NAVA suggestions" they would have to dump ALMOST ALL of their present State Flags. Personally, I feel that the New England Vexillological Association (NEVA) has a more open minded approach to classifying flag designs. It would seem that its leader, Dr. Whitney Smith has a more sensible outlook on topics such as these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Smith

70.30.193.143 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)