Talk:Flag of Minnesota

Untitled

The introduction looks plenty long, not sure why there is a warning that the introduction is too short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:37F:A760:C5FC:F055:5F37:3D39 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

May 11, 2024, Changes

The flag will be replaced on May 11, 2024. Much of the article above "History" can be moved to the section "1983 revision" (the current flag). The new top of the article then needs similar information which is relevant to the new flag. If someone wants to do this and have it ready, perhaps in a sandbox, maybe mention it here? SEWilco (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC) f

Sources

@David Gerard: In-line attribution is allowed when it comes to Blaze Media as stated at WP:RSP

In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions.

The content being verified is a attributed opinion of Tim Pool. The removal of the Blaze Media source, only attributes the content to a source Media Matters of America which itself is at RSP and is a partisan source, and thus creates bias and non-neutrality. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You've misunderstood. That would mean WP:RSOPINION and it's talking about a tweet - David Gerard (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does the 2024 flag criticism have its own section?

So I noticed that the latest 2024 flag just got its own page on criticism and my question is, why doesn’t the 1983 flag’s criticism have its own criticism placed in the criticism section if that’s the case, if the 2024 flag criticism is not history (even though there have been events of attempts to get rid of it which counts as historical imo) then why is the 1983 flag’s criticism in the history section, shouldn’t it be moved to the criticism section as well. 94.204.98.207 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

My initial take is that the current flag itself is not history; criticism on the current flag is applicable to the overall topic and, while some of the criticism was initially levied prior to adoption, we can expect additional criticism to remain a contemporary/not historic topic over time. The previous flag is itself 'historic' now, so criticism of a historic flag belongs in history.

BUT Its not a settled question … my main stance is just not to completely remove anything, and on looking more into established practices, there's not one consistent answer. It does make sense to put "criticism around adopting the flag" in history if we reframe it to be more time specific.

Some of the flags with recent referendums redesigns (Flag of Georgia (U.S. state), Flag of Mississippi), don't have criticism gathered anywhere, either as a section or subsection. Flag of Utah does have a subsection on "attempts to remove" in the history section. That's why thinking of a good title specific to the moment in history and keeping it under history might be a good move. Malvoliox (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

New flag proposals

I'm new to editing so please bear with me, your feedback is welcome! I recommend removing the language "Herold had opposed the official state flag since its creation when he was in high school.[19] In 1995, he left his career as an accountant and opened a flag store, Herold Flags, in Rochester, Minnesota." Biographical information about one of the two designers of a flag that was never adopted does not seem to be necessary information for this page. Does anyone else agree? --Greenbison (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that statement so I'll explain my reasoning here. The information about Herold comes from a source about the history of the North Star Flag. I think it's relevant to the section to explain Herold's motivation to make a new flag, and also that owning a flag store became his career. I understand why you think it seems more like biographical details than information about the flag, but I personally think it belongs in the article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)