Talk:Pine Tree Flag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old talk[edit]

Is it known as to why the tree depicted is a pine tree? If so, perhaps that should also be posted. Andersr9 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has something to do Liberty Trees, though the original was an Elm. --70.119.12.223 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Flag of New England... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that this flag predates the revolution by as much as a century. The tree represents the timber industry, which was the principle export from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Makes sense to me. Massachusetts was valued by the British for their timber used in shipbuilding. 20:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.213.18 (talk)


2021[edit]

Why is it deemed significant to state the flag was flown during the 2021 Attack on the Capitol? What is the author trying to imply? And it's been flying ever since.... The flag has been flying for centuries. 74.190.22.98 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article properly concerns all cultural and historical aspects of its subject. Thus it consists not only of historical information about the original uses of the flag, but also includes the evolution of the flag over time. Over the past several years, it has become a visible symbol in current political discourse. As it is relevant in our contemporary milieu, it is therefore appropriate that content regarding that stays in the article. As an apt illustration, please refer to the extensive discussion of modern usage found in the Wikipedia article for another historical flag, the Gadsden Flag.--Fathomharvill (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Pine Tree flag is not remotely as prominent as the Gadsden Flag as a far-right symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is currently being flown around the country as a symbol of support for the insurrection. This is why the fact that it was flown while storming the Capitol is important. Odoketa (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Is it weird that the image for this article is something someone apparently made in MS Paint? 50.108.199.141 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an SVG. The photo File:Flag - Museum of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts - IMG 6907.JPG looks somewhat the same, except the lines are more jagged... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Events regarding it being used at Judge's house[edit]

For some reason we have decided to add that this flag was used at the, January 6 United States Capitol attack and that it was shown at a Supreme Court Judge's house. It being used at the attack only came to light after it was shown at a Supreme Court Judge's house.

This violates WP:RECENTISM, it only seems to be popping up because of a supreme court case coming up and will lose any relevance after. The fact that it being used at January 6 United States Capitol attack only showing up after the news about it being used at a Supreme Court Judge's house proves that it doesn't belong in this article. It maybe relevant to other articles like Samuel Alito but not here. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see my change posted twice in the edit history. I was trying to preview and post, not going on an edit war. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Sure it's news, but it's also yuge news. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be big news, but does it have enduring importance to the subject to be included in an encyclopedia article on this flag? Doubtful. It’s more likely to be relevant to the associate Josie’ justice’s article or Fischer v. United States, though I think that’s premature too. — JFHutson (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jfhutson, you just added Johnson to the article, albeit with a bare URL. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson was already in there, but with no explanation that he has used it since before it was used by far-right groups. I added clarification (and sorry, I was away from my computer so used a bare url).-- JFHutson (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JFHutson, when I do that I sometimes ask for someone to help out in the edit summary. Ha, I don't think anyone's ever done it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my thought. It is also important to Samuel Alito not to this flag. The numerous other flags used at the capital attack which I am guessing they used every revolutionary flag, do not have this mentioned Edit: nevermind of course the Gadsden flag was but just because some supreme court justice had it hanging, now it gets added.
It bares little WP weight. The importance will be less than a footnote a year from now. Only current events give it importance. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. If anyone wants to improve the article, they should tone down on the history of pine trees and Locke, and instead focus on adding directly verified material verified by proper secondary sources. I'm looking at articles like this, Monsky, John R. (2002). "From the Collection: Finding America in Its First Political Textile". Winterthur Portfolio. 37 (4): 239–264.. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If anyone wants to improve the article" except it's already locked at the version packed full of left-wing agitprop that you will undoubtedly keep protected until the end of time. Why do you even pretend? 71.173.196.6 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because very few people read the talk page, and wikipedia is the most popular information source on the Internet due to its first-mover advantage and encyclopaedic nature. The talk page will however, even when censored, tell the real story. 96.8.169.58 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok this is getting ridiculous, we are now mentioning it as a right ring extremist flag, not even the Gadsden flag gets that label. We are well over overboard including the claim that it fell into "obscurity". I am just gonna wait until this dies down and comeback. I think there are parts that may merit inclusion like the Christian nationalism link holds a long term weight but I think this is why WP:RECENTISM exist. It is a hot event and people are just throwing in what they want. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We" are not mentioning it as that; "we" are citing two reliable sources that indicate that in some circles it's linked with various movements. No, people are not "throwing in what they want"--people used to throw in what they wanted, and JFHutson has done a great job weeding out a bunch of trivial and unverified material. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I'm compromising by not removing Alito and Johnson while deleting poorly sourced stuff. I think they too should be removed based on RECENTISM, but I thought we should get consensus on the talk page first. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Including Alito and Johnson does not pass the WP:TENYEARTEST. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the best-known flags of the American Revolution. It's been sold in many U.S. flag stores, and all over the internet, for years. Calling it "obscure," even if done by The New York Times, is tendentious and wrong. Not as well-known as the Gadsden Flag, sure. But "obscure"? Language like this wasn't used to describe the flag until it became politically useful to do so. This is mere political wrangling of the kind that brings Wikipedia itself into disrepute. Indefatigable2 talk 20:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha I watched it get semi-protected in real time, an inevitability really. I wish you the best of luck trying to rules lawyer it out the proper way Indefatigable and company, Adakiko the recent changes cop sure didn't like a no-name coming in and removing the MSM ragebait slop. I'm tired of awesome historical articles getting trashed by the latest ragebait article of the week. 96.8.169.58 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, two of article sources are from the last 2 days reference 2 is a specific media writer writing harshly on a political topic and behind a paywall, the second the AP article is fair and balanced, but does not support an extremist is the overt meaning.
At the very least a non paywall reference should be used. 2601:83:4202:1580:6C6F:AC7F:CFD7:24AF (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's not requirement or guideline to use non paywall sources. I can send you the NYT article if that's helpful. If you have good sources or suggestions for improvement, please provide them, preferably using {{edit semi-protected}}.-- JFHutson (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maine[edit]

I live in Maine and there's a big movement here to restore the original Maine flag. This can easily be confused with that flag. I, myself, thought at first that it was about the Maine flag. I strongly recommend adding a "not to be confused with the Flag of Maine (1901–1909)" notice at the top of this page. I'd do it myself but I only know how to use the talk page and basic edits, not advanced stuff so I don't want to screw anything up. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a hatnote, let me know if you think it should be revised. -- JFHutson (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Thank you. Maybe also add one on the old Maine flag's page to not be confused with this one. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comically biased Wiki administration, as usual[edit]

It really is amazing that @Ymblanter rushed in to protect the version of the page that was full of left wing political vandalism, not revert it to the pre-vandalized state then lock and allow discussion. You guys don't even pretend to not be political operatives, do you. 71.173.196.6 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unfair to me. Yes, the current version of the article fails on WP:NPOV, but it's just semi-protected, which is hardly a full lockdown. I think the right approach here is to get back towards NPOV by finding decent edits that stand up, not by complaining on the talk page. Alsadius (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Just had my edit reverted by Drmies for being a Reddit link, but I linked it because it was a dated photo. That seems like a perfectly fair use of Reddit - I'm not citing to an argument someone made there (obviously, that'd be silly). I confess that I don't know all the WP policies in detail, but did I actually do something wrong here? Or was this just another editor seeing a sketchy-looking link, and reverting out of reflex?

To be clear, I wouldn't blame them too much for a reflexive undo in this case. I can see why that looked like someone screwing around with the page. But I think this specific usage is actually legit, and I'd like to see it (or something similar) put back into the article. Alsadius (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Justice Alito[edit]

The recent edits on this page are intended to provide cover for attacks on Justice Alito and are malicious in nature. The accusations that the flag is associated with White Nationalism only started getting play after a previous attack for flying a US in the "Distress" position failed to gain traction.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pine_Tree_Flag&oldid=1225567440"