Talk:Flags of New Caledonia

Second official flag

@Weegeerunner: You reverted with an edit summary: "Please cite that in the article". However, as I explained in my edit summary "It's linked in the second sentence". In fact, the article is cited 6 times in the article, with a explanation of the situation. WP:INFOBOXREF says refs don't need to be repeated in infoboxs, so I'm not quite sure what else it is you want. Could you either self-revert or explain what additional locations you want me to add this ref? TDL (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part, sorry. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Second flag is NOT official

Presently it is NOT an official flag of New Caledonia as there is NO "Loi de pays", and NO "Délibération du Congrès" telling the second flag is official (cf. http://juridoc.gouv.nc) - Damien Raczy (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no reactions to the fact that the FLNKS flag is NOT official (cf no entry in http://juridoc.gouv.nc, the official fatabase for law in New Caledonia). I am willing to modify the article in order to reflect the reality. But, as English is not my first language, I would highly prefer someone could do it for me. - Damien Raczy (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is a good reason why we should not say it is not official. That is that there are no WP:reliable sources which say it is not official. Conversely, there are sources which say it is official. See: "New Caledonian Congress overwhelmingly voted to adopt the emblem of the indigenous movement, which features red, blue and green stripes with a yellow sun and black totem, as the nation's second official flag.".

Pointing to a database doesn't prove anything, as neither you nor I have read every single law ever passed by New Caledonia. And even if no such law exists, that doesn't mean that it isn't official.

If you think the Telegraph sources is incorrect, then provide a reliable source which says that is isn't an official flag, then we can talk about modifying the article. But as long as there are no sources which say it is not official, we should not say in the article that it is not official. TDL (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Have a look to this official source : http://juridoc.gouv.nc/juridoc/jdwebe.nsf/joncentry?openpage&ap=2012&page=10913 (Délibération n° 241 du 27 décembre 2012) and http://juridoc.gouv.nc/juridoc/jdwebe.nsf/joncentry?openpage&ap=2013&page=818 (Délibération n° 255 du 10 janvier 2013). You'll discover that there is still no official "second" flag, as a "commission spéciale" is still working on it. If you have a better ref than the Official Journal of New Caledonia, you are welcome. - Damien Raczy (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, those debates are about creating a single common official flag for New Caledonia, to replace both the French tricolor and the FLNKS flag, not a second flag. That obviously does not refute the point that both flags have official status in the interim, until a single common flag is decided upon. TDL (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

1) The "délibération" (resolution) is about "rechercher en commun le drapeau du pays" and not about "rechercher le drapeau commun du pays". Please, read more carefully.

2) In july 13 2010, the Congrès of New Caledonia voted a "voeu" (a wish) : « Le Congrès de la Nouvelle-Calédonie émet le vœu que soient arborés, ensemble, en Nouvelle-Calédonie, le drapeau dont la description est annexée et le drapeau national. » As you can read, it is a "voeu" (a single wish) and not a "loi de Pays" (Country law) or a "Délibération" (resolution). So, as it is a "voeu", it does not provide any legally binding force, and every "collectivité" (local authority) is free to apply or not the "voeu".

If you do not agree, it is up to you to provide legal evidence that the FLNKS flag is "official", and not only a single "voeu" (wish). - Damien Raczy (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of not reading carefully, perhaps you should take your own advice so as to understand what I actually wrote. I'll repeat it here again, without the word "common" which seems to have greatly confused you:

"No, those debates are about creating a single official flag for New Caledonia, to replace both the French tricolor and the FLNKS flag, not a second flag. That obviously does not refute the point that both flags have official status in the interim, until a single flag is decided upon."

Hopefully that clears that up.

And again, just because it's status is embedded in a vœu rather than a law, does not make it non-official. Government officials have sanctioned it's use. It has official authorization. Yes, clearly it's status is different than the French tricolour, and if you wish to elaborate on this distinction then that would be helpful. But you are attempting make the oversimplistic claim that the flag is "not official", which is clearly not true. If you do not agree, then it is up to you to provide reliable sources which says it is not official, and not simply present your personal WP:original research and opinions on the matter. TDL (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you a good understanding of French or have you to translate ?

Definitely, the deliberations are NOT "about creating a single official flag for New Caledonia, to replace both the French tricolor and the FLNKS flag". It is to create a flag ("signe identitaire") according to article #5 of the "loi organique 99-209". Reread the délibérations (if you can't read French precisely, I can easily translate the délibérations and the voeux for you, if it can help your understanding of the reality of New Caledonia). - Damien Raczy (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing : you claim I present opinions and original research. I hope you are joking. French and Caledonian laws are not opinions, but facts. Sorry for that - Damien Raczy (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I speak some French, but not natively so it's certainly possible that I'm misunderstanding some subtleties. My understanding was that the ongoing debate was to find a compromise flag between the European/Kanak populations to become the official flag. (Of course, even in that case the French flag would still be used as long as New Caledonia remained a part of France, just like for example in Flag of French Polynesia.)

As for your second point, the dispute is not over Caledonian laws. It is over your argument that anything that is not passed in a law is not official. Officialness is very subjective. I'm not arguing that we should say it is official, I'm just saying we should not say it is not official, since it clearly has some official authorization.

I'm going to try to copy-edit the article with this in mind, removing all mentions of "official" in favour of a more precise description. Rather than arguing about Caledonian law, why don't you point out particular passages that you think need to be corrected so we can try to jointly address them one at a time to try to improve the article. TDL (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I just read the modification. Good job ! - Damien Raczy (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, glad we could find a compromise! TDL (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Second flag revisited

The congress never said the kanak flag was an "official" one. Here is the motion talking about the "adoption on the flag" : http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/pacifique/ncal-voeu-drapeau2010.htm. Can someone translate the "wish" in english here? I'm not familiar with law text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.147.79.226 (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that motion. It cites "la loi organique modifiée n°99-209 du 19 mars 1999 relative à la Nouvelle-Calédonie" as the legal basis for the vœu recognizing the flag. Article #5 of that says, "La Nouvelle-Calédonie détermine librement les signes identitaires permettant de marquer sa personnalité aux côtés de l'emblème national et des signes de la République." So clearly in this context "national flag" means "national flag of the Republic of France" not "national flag of New Caledonia".

Has Congress ever passed a law saying that the French Triclour is official? If not, by your logic we should say that it is not official as well. 18:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)TDL (talk)

So it never says that the Kanaky is a national flag. Wikipedia is not a place for interpretation, it provide knowledge based on sources and not an article in the other part of the world. This matter was already discussed in other page. 203.147.79.226 (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And it never says the French tricolour is the national flag of New Caledonia either. Nor does it, as you claim, refer to the FLNKS flag as a civil flag. In fact, this flag is flown by government institutions, so by definition it is not a civil flag. Please read civil flag if you don't understand what it is.

As you quite rightly point out, Wikipedia is based on sources. If you cannot provide reliable sources which say the FLNKS flag is only a civil flag, you should not be trying to force your interpretation into the article. Also, the geographic local of a source is quite irrelevant. Obviously the The Daily Telegraph is a WP:reliable source. If you think otherwise, I suggest re-reading the policy. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Daily_Telegraph on the matter so someone else can help explain this to you. But please stop disruptively removing sourced and notable content without consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the situation with the double flag in complicated

The only "really" reliable source we have for this matter is the vow from the congress that can be find here : http://www.juridoc.gouv.nc/, search for the "Vœu no 1 du 13 juillet 2010". Here is the french transcript (can also be find here http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/pacifique/ncal-voeu-drapeau2010.htm even if it's not an official site) :

Mercredi, le 21 Juillet 2010 Le Congrès de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, Délibérant conformément aux dispositions de la loi organique modifiée n°99-209 du 19 mars 1999 relative à la Nouvelle-Calédonie; Vu la loi modifiée n° 99-210 du 19 mars 1999 relative à la Nouvelle-Calédonie; Vu la délibération modifiée n°9 du 13 juillet 1999 portant règlement intérieur du Congrès de la Nouvelle-Calédonie; Vu le compte-rendu intégral des débats du Congrès de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, en date du 13 juillet 2010; A adopté le vœu dont la teneur suit :

VŒU Le Congrès de la Nouvelle-Calédonie émet le vœu que soient arborés, ensemble, en Nouvelle-Calédonie, le drapeau dont la description est annexée et le drapeau national. Délibéré en séance publique, le 13 juillet 2010. Le président du Congrès de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, (signature) Harold MARTIN

We can see that this is a "vow", (voeu in French). Now here is the definition of a "voeu" according to Wikipedia (http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Congr%C3%A8s_de_la_Nouvelle-Cal%C3%A9donie#Le_vote_des_lois_du_pays.2C_des_transferts_de_comp.C3.A9tences_et_de_la_r.C3.A8glementation_locale). Sorry for non french speaker, the english version of the article don't mention the definition of a vow :

"...et des « vœux » (qui peuvent être déposés par tout membre du Congrès, ils sont adressés une fois votés au président du gouvernement, n'ont aucune valeur règlementaire mais peuvent donner lieu à un projet de délibération)..."

The first bit is not very interesting but basically, but the rest of the sentence says that a vow has no "juridical value", it is just a recommendation from the congress that we can or not use. So the Vow no 1 of July 13 2010 is just saying that those two flags can, without any obligation, be together and therefore, nothing says that the Kanaky flag is a national flag (and even less an ensign). Actually it's up to the major/president of each town/official building to put the two flag or not. They have to put a least the french flag, and putting the "Kanak flag" is entirely up to them, this was clearly stipulated when this vow came out.

Unless you have a better source than an official text from the congress, and the definition of a vow, as I might be wrong, I think that :

• We should not use this flag on the info box in the page "New Caledonia", because this flag is not the national flag and this will only disturb people, as those two flags don't have the same "value", but you can make a change and include it in the article of New Caledonia. I believe this will unsure that we have a more objective article with less interpretation as I didn't interpret anything here, I just cited the law (and the Wikipedia's definition of "voeu").
• But because this flag has some symbolic value, it should stay here but with a clear mention that it is not a national flag, to not confus people.
• We should remove the sentence "making New Caledonia one of the few countries or territories in the world with two recognized flags" as it could mislead people, also I don't think that this particular sentence is reliable, because there is actually more than quite a few country that actually have one "national flag" and one of more "other flag", such as France, Spain, Canada, Australia, England, Danemark, Argentina, Andorra, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Serbia, Venezuela and maybe more. (source : http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Civil_flag).
• We should not indicate that the Kanaky Flag is a national flag and an ensign, as this is surely not true. I don't know for sure if it's a civile flag, I based this on the french wikipedia page, which I think is reliable but that's not up to me. We should wait for someone with a reliable source to confirm this, and for the moment either says it's a "civil flag" or remove the "Use" under this flag for the moment.

EDIT : I just had a confirmation from a lawyer that a vow don't have any juridic value, I will look at books at the University of New Caledonia for a proper source.

Best regards, 203.147.79.223 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I understand it is complicated, but you are still dodging my questions, and are merely replacing an interpretation supported by sources with your own personal interpretation, based on your WP:original research, which is not supported by sources.

The subject of this article is "flag of New Caledonia". What legislation made the French tricolour the national flag of New Caledonia? Are there any sources which supports this? If not, we should be very clear that it is the national flag of France, and not New Caledonia. The wording was quite misleading on this front.

Yes the French tricolour is flown in New Caledonia, but how is this any different than the union jack in Scotland? We don't depict the star spangled banner at the top of Texas, so why should New Caledonia be special? If the tricolour has no status as the national flag of New Caledonia, then to be consistent with your logic it should not be depicted at New Caledonia either. Depicting no flag would be a much more neutral solution than only depicting one non-national flag. Personally I think showing both flags is the best compromise.

Civil flags are to be used by civilians. But in this case the FLNKS flag is in use by government institutions, so it is not just a civil flag. Additionally, there are no sources which support your interpretation that it is a civil flag. TDL (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FLNKS flag

There is an edit war going on about the flag, so let's settle our differences here. To portray the pro independence flag as the default sole New Caledonia flag simply isn't true. Worse, considering how polemical the matter is, it make wikipedia appear non neutral on the issue. --Aréat (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

It does not portray it as such. Both official flags are in the infobox, but readers can read about the Flag of France at Flag of France. The reader does not learn about the Flag of France on this article, so it is inaccurate to title this article that way. The reason for this article's content focusing primarily on the co-official New Caledonian flag (which is not just "the pro independence flag") is because there is no other article to read about that. You've drawn conclusions that are not there, creating an issue out of a non-issue. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That is simply not true. It's not "France has the tricolour and New Caledonia the FLNKS flag". It's "France has the tricolour and New Caledonia has both the tricolour and the FLNKS". That's simply how it is. Beside, that isn't a non issue, it's a highly controversial move to have the FLNKS flag as the sole New Caledonia flag, which is how Wikipedia portray it right now, as seen in the FLNKS being the default sole flag when using New Caledonia flag template.--Aréat (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You're responding to a strawman, not to my reply. Nobody said "France has the tricolour and New Caledonia the FLNKS flag." We can have this discussion when you actually reply to what was said. Nothing in my reply was factually inaccurate, and your proposal is editorially nonsensical. The "image2" parameter in the infobox template exists for a reason. Having both flags in the infobox means that both flags represent New Caledonia. Your proposal to put both of them in a single image goes against the very purpose of the template. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no strawman. You're aguing that the tricolour shouldn't be there because it's the flag of france. Which is why I'm answering you it is also the flag of New Caledonia, in the same way that it is the flag of the Collectivity of Saint Martin. It thus should be portrayed here on equal ground with the FLNKS, reflecting the reality there, which I sourced. "Having both flags in the infobox means that both flags represent New Caledonia." Yes, that's the reality right now. Thus the need to put both in the template. In fact, the tricolour is always used, while the FLNKS flag is only used most of the time. But let's just stick with the two flag equally represented.--Aréat (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"You're aguing that the tricolour shouldn't be there because it's the flag of france" IS a strawman because NOBODY said that. They were both literally already in the infobox. You can't repeatedly overhaul the article without consensus. If you do it again I'll have to get third party input to resolve this peacefully. The article repeatedly notes that both flags have official status. The infobox uses BOTH flags already (this is exactly what the "image2" parameter is meant for). This article does not suggest that the Kanak flag is the only New Caledonian flag. This article simply spends more time describing the Kanak flag because there's already an article for the French flag. This is why I'm saying you're drawing conclusions that aren't there creating a problem that doesn't need to exist, because you really are trying to solve a problem that wasn't there to begin with, only creating problems in the process. If there are any overhauls made to the article's title & presentation, it should be to title this article after the Kanak flag and have the New Caledonia infobox link readers to both articles for both flags, but any change like that must first achieve a consensus, which you've made no effort to achieve. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It seem I'm not making myself clear enough. They aren't both portrayed as being equally used, the way It does in my edit. Showing one above the other lead to the page being non neutral, as seen with how the FLNKS flag is now being used alone on various articles. As said above, the New Caledonia show only the FLNKS flag. I added sourced content explaining how the current situation is with both flags being equally used. You can't remove these without any argument. --Aréat (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, if you absolutely don't want to use the combined model, The tricolour should be above, as it is always used on town hall and official buildings, while the FLNKS flag only sometime is. Even if you disagree with the use of a biflag model, I find very worrying that you would be going as far as delete all the sourced content on the controversy surrounding the FLNKS flag.--Aréat (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It was a rollback to the previous version. It would be inaccurate to say I was specifically trying to remove sourced content. Each time you reinstated the content, you also brought with it your new version of the article, and you know it. Per the WP:BRD order you've already violated WP:3RR without a WP:CONSENSUS. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no new version of the article if as you said yourself both flags were already portrayed as being in use. The changes I made were sourced, both by the existing ones and new ones I added. You reverted them without any source.--Aréat (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You said "That content you're adding doesn't just add sources, it also removes sources and completely changes the wording in a way that violates WP:NPOV by replacing each and every instance of "Kanak flag" with "pro-independence flag." That's not acceptable." First, show me any source I may have removed, as I am not aware of having ever done that. Secondly. Calling the FLNKS flag the pro indepentist flag is the term used in the sources I added, and a widely accepted term.--Aréat (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit deleted the ulaval.ca source and even deleted a source from the government of New Caledonia. You weren't just adding sourced content, you were thoroughly replacing the previous content with your own content. You replaced all mentions of the Kanak flag with "pro independence flag" which is objectively wrong. It's the Kanak flag. The pro-independence crowds use it because they're Kanak, but you completely reframe the article to make it seem like it exists only for pro-independence people, which is factually wrong. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't remove any source. Look again at the changes in the edit. There's no source being there before my change that is lacking after it. As for your second point, the FLNKS flag is widely being dubbed the independentist flag. It's in the source I added. It is in the source already there.--Aréat (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've already reviewed the changes, and yes, just because it's a symbol of the independence movement does not mean that, after being adopted and flown equally, it's still just a pro-independence symbol. With all due respect, your translation to English in that edit reads very awkwardly. Furthermore, it seems obvious that the sole reason for including an entire speech about the flag is to make a point about how it's a flag for only the Kanak people, which is redundant, unnecessary, and not neutral. On these grounds I am - again - going to return to the previous version, and it seems that we should:

1) Lock the page

2) Open an RFC

3) If necessary, go to dispute resolution

Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see how it would look like that from your point of view. The thing being that the Kanak flag, at the point of the addition, was widely seen as a flag for only the kanak people, if not for only the independentist. Hence the controversy, which was large back then and certainly did subdue in part by now, although certainly still present among loyalists. Would you be opposed to a "controversy" section with a rewording, showing how it was seen back then, hence the controversy, with the sourced part I had added, but that now it's being officially and widely used on the island?

Secondly, I think the controversy section is needed to let it be clear how "touchy" the matter is on the island. There's still a clear split between the population, which is in part ethnic and even geographical (please take a look at the french article on the referendum to see the distinct vote split, if you will). We have two groups here, one of kanak mainly using the kanak flag, and one of loyalist mainly using the tricolour, Both being on equal official use. It is important as for neutrality to not seem to portray one flag as "more neo caledonian" than the other.--Aréat (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Tomorrow I will try to organize our differing proposals into a request for comment so other editors can join in. That should hopefully be a lot more productive than us going back and forth. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That may be needed, indeed.--Aréat (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently working on drafting an example of how a potential solution to the controversy might look; hopefully this won't take very long. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My idea for a solution would be a request for comment with 3 ideas to start

1. Preserve the pre-discussion version (We both support modifying it, but exactly how we do that will be decided by the editors

2. The version you proposed, which emphasizes the status of the two flags as equally official

3. An alternative approach, which I believe would eliminate the possibility of future edit wars, would be as follows:

On the New Caledonia page, we keep both flags in the infobox, but say "New Caledonia's two flags: the French flag and Kanak flag. This ensures that we emphasize the equality of the two banners.

A separate article (perhaps on this page) would serve to inform readers about the Kanak flag. Neither page is explicitly titled "Flag(s) of New Caledonia" because each flag gets its own article, both of which will be linked to on New Caledonia.

I intend to further organize these thoughts into a formal rfc so any interested editors could comment, support, oppose, or amend these ideas. Because it's not as easy as a direct "support/oppose this 1 idea" it might take a while, but it should settle this dispute in a way that's beneficial for both the readers an the editors. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The only official flag is that of France.

The flag of FLNKS, an extreme left-wing party, which is not the Kanak flag at all, is by no means the flag of New Caledonia : its raising is not provided for by any text with legal value. To present it in this way alongside the French flag is therefore a violation of the principle of neutrality. I therefore call for the removal of this flag, the only one that is official in New Caledonia being that of the Republic. It is not acceptable for the flag of party which has committed armed attacks to represent New Caledonia on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Géographe96 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The number of times you've copied and pasted that exact paragraph probably constitutes spamming at this point. You've pasted it on edit summaries at New Caledonia, on the talk page of Talk:New Caledonia, on the edit warring noticeboard (which ultimately resulted in you being blocked for 31 hours), in edit summaries on this article, and now on edit summaries at this talk page. I already replied to you at Talk:New Caledonia, and then you deleted my reply for some reason. Please kindly cease; this is not constructive. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Géographe96 was a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. I've struck out their comment. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment 7 November 2018

There is a clear consensus for Proposal B - One article, two flags.

Summary of proposals:

• "Proposal A - Pre-discussion version" – one editor opposed.
• "Proposal B - One article, two flags" – three editors supported.
• "Proposal C - Two articles, two flags" – one editor supported and one editor opposed.

Cunard (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please comment on the following proposals for the presentation of the New Caledonian flags. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Other editors are welcomed to offer their own alternatives if they choose to.

Proposal A - Pre-discussion version

• View proposal
• One article for both flags, but content primarily focusing on the Kanak flag
• The infobox displays the two flags using the image1 and image2 parameters

Support

Oppose

• Oppose: The page currently used has led many readers and users to wrongly believe the Kanak flag is solely the New Caledonia flag, as could be seen with its flag being the one appearing for the mini New Caledonia template, it being used on various templates like the NC elections one, the kanak flag solely used on the recent referendum page, etc. It's not only wrongly portraying the reality on the islands but, worse, it's doing so on a very controversial matter for its communities whose recent history has been marked by unrest and blood. I believe necessary for Wikipedia to portray the flag situation by sticking to what's currently going on, in a neutral way, even if the result halas clearly look bad on a vexillologist point of view. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Proposal B - One article, two flags

• View proposal
• Article emphasizes the equality of the French and Kanak flags. While both the French and Kanak flags are in the infobox, the image1 parameter shows the two together.
• Plural title "Flags of New Caledonia"

Support

• Support: based on reading the proposed versions, it seems that the legal government of New Caledonia passed a measure in favor of flying the flags side by side, and that this practice is now adopted by a majority of the communes in New Caledonia. The fact that this is controversial, and that the flag also used to be associated with a separatist group, seems irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Kanak flag is currently an official flag of new Caledonia (although of course this should be addressed in both the lead and the body of the article). I don't know about the added qualification that the article should emphasize the equality of the flags–the article's content should be driven by coverage in RS and I think it's outside the scope of this RFC to mandate that the flags should be treated equally within the article body. However, in my opinion, existing coverage demonstrates that both flags should be addressed together as the flag of New Caledonia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  This is a very reasonable !vote. I am commenting to clarify that - while edit wars have been frequent (especially after the recent independence referendum) - controversy is not the sole motivation for my proposal to have a "Kanak flag" article. The content of this article currently focuses primarily if not solely on the second flag, as little to nothing can be said here about the first of the two flags (the French flag) due to the French flag already being described in detail at its own article. This leaves us with an article that's already about the history, design, and symbolism of the Kanak flag. Due to the lack of any one New Caledonian flag, I believe it would be more beneficial both to the editors and to the readers to make this into an article about the Kanak banner instead. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if there are any other territories with similar scenarios that we could draw inspiration from. Looking at articles for various other French overseas territories (Flag of Réunion, Flag of Martinique, Flag and coat of arms of Mayotte, Flag of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Flag of Wallis and Futuna, Flag of the Collectivity of Saint Martin, Flag and coat of arms of Saint Barthélemy) there appears to be an (informal?) precedent to display both the French flag and the territory flag together. That having been said, most of these flags appear to be entirely unofficial, and New Caledonia appears to have somewhat unique legal status among other French territories, so we don't necessarily need to follow this convention. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Even if the local government of New Caledonia didn't pass any "measure in favor of flying the flags", as it is only a wish (read the "délibération du congres", it is perfectly clear), the two flags are un use in New Caledonia. Something is sure, if there is "a" flag for new caledonia, the legal one is the "bleu-blanc-rouge" and not the kanak one. But, since the "lever de drapeau", new caledonia, the provinces and the communes fly the two flags, even if it is not mandatory, as only the french flag is mandatory and legal. - Damien Raczy 21:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raczy (talk • contribs)
• Support: I believe this show with the less misunderstanding possible the current situation of the tricolour and very often the FLNKS flag being used both at once in New Caledonia. It allow for further explanation on the page of the situation, like the history behing it, the controversy over the use the FLNKS flag by so called "loyalists", or the goal of getting a common flag in the future, the various proposal, the models used in sports, etc. These info wouldn't have their place on the french national flag page, and having them all on a FLNKS flag page would further fuel the misunderstanding of many people that the tricolour is akin to the US federal flag and the FLNKS one the flag of New Caledonia like the Lone Star Flag is to Texas. With this, the page is the closest to the somewhat weird yet current reality on the islands. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Proposal C - Two articles, two flags

• View proposal
• The article would just be about the flag's design and history, avoiding the political and legal controversy that comes with the name "Flag(s) of New Caledonia"
• Both flag articles (the French and Kanak flags) would be linked individually in the New Caledonia article

Support

• Support I personally believe this would be the most beneficial proposal because it is aimed at focusing the content on the banner itself. Areat and I are in agreement that it would've been nicer if the Congress of New Caledonia solved the problem by making one flag for the two communities (as they noted at the template talk), but unfortunately we are in a situation where there are two separate flags, and as a result we've seen a lot of controversy surrounding how we can present them in one article. I believe that we can avoid this entirely. Because there is no one New Caledonian flag, but rather one French and one Kanak flag, I believe that one article about each flag will help prevent the excessive amount of edit warring and vandalism we've seen. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: I do believe this solution would be better than the current "Pre-discussion version". The problem is, none of the pages would be fitting places for the paragraphs about the provincial flags, nor for the propositions for this new neo caledonian flag meant to be made to unite all communities, nor for the various flags used in sports over the years. It would eventually mean we would have to create another third page. Better to go with the option B, in my opinion. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, when should we apply the changes? Can I right now? Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there was no answer after all this time and a vote in favor of two flag, one page, I made the changes. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)