Talk:North American Vexillological Association

Article history

Due to an original copyvio, the original article was deleted. However, before that occurred, the article was incorrected updated rather than following standard copyvio procedure. The following is the article history after the copyvio text was replaced.

18:35, Feb 11, 2005 207.220.216.200
23:52, Feb 8, 2005 207.220.216.97
23:50, Feb 8, 2005 207.220.216.97
23:49, Feb 8, 2005 207.220.216.97
23:49, Feb 8, 2005 207.220.216.97
13:16, Feb 7, 2005 Rhobite (cleanup)
13:11, Feb 7, 2005 Expatkiwi
13:08, Feb 7, 2005 4.30.216.76

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWolf (talk • contribs) March 6, 2005 (UTC)

More members

Does anyone else know any more members to be added to the "Members" list? ANNAfoxlover 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be renamed "Notable Members" and limited to members for whom one could justify having their own entry in wikipedia. A more comprehensive list of members would be appropriate for the NAVA website, but not here. --ScottMainwaring 20:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Since other than Whitney Smith none of the members listed are notable, I've deleted the section. One does not expect to look up an organization in an encylopedia and see a comprehensive list of all of its members. I'm a NAVA member myself, but I can't see how this is an appropriate use of Wikipedia. --ScottMainwaring 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Go, Scott!

Well, thank you, Scott, for editing my list of NAVA meetings and changing it into a table. It looks great! Okay, how about this - I'll work on making some more meeting flags, okay? Thanks again, ANNAfoxlover. 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NAVA meeting flags

We got authorization from NAVA to use the meeting flags, past and present, on Wikipedia. You can use the license at Image:Flag of NAVA.svg on the images. It would be best to take the images from NAVA's website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The images from NAVA's website are of poor quality; however, I may be able to come up with better images. I would love to make SVG image files, but I do not have an SVG-editing program. I hope they turn out okay. A•N•N•A hi! 20:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Grab Inkscape. I use the program myself. The reason why I posted the messages here is that, based on emails with NAVA staff, we can use the images, but I just don't have the time to do it all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to it ASAP. Thanks a lot! A•N•N•A hi! 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I added info on the 2007 and 2008 meetings, but I'm not sure how best to upload the flag images. Any help would be appreciated! --Anietor (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I need to get permission to upload the 2007 image, and the 2008 flag wasn't created yet, to my knowledge. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Useless opinion: These flags are great!137.22.121.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

quibbles

The flag shown for NAVA 28 (Portland, 1994) is that of the city of Portland. According to [1] the conference flag was the NAVA chevron with green in place of the red, and a gold beaver (for Oregon) on the blue. —Tamfang (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

NAVA 21 / ICV 12 - 1987: the description mentions a mural crown but I don't see one. I do see a torse. —Tamfang (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Flag description

There is an obvious error in the descriptive specs of the NAVA flag. I did not correct it, as I am not a NAVA member, and the error originates on the NAVA homepage. The base of the blue triangle is not, obviously, equal to the overall length of the flag: it DOES equal the length of the flag minus the widths of the two white stripes. NAVA members may very likely say, "we knew what we meant, " but an encyclopedia, I think, has to strive for more accuracy. I will copy this note to Scott, as he may want to address the issue himself, or indeed put me in my place if I am incorrect. I believe, however, that I an not. Ragityman (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does "Seal On A Bedsheet" redirect here?

Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F390:2A00:5945:C5DC:A3A2:B7C3 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a common descriptor for terribly designed flags of US states and cities which just slap their seal on to a monocolour field (usually some shade of blue). Hence, a seal on a bedsheet. Although, I am not sure why the redirect itself was even created. boldblazer (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bias and impartiality

This reads like the North American Vexillological Association wrote this themselves. The group seems to have codified modernist flat aesthetics into an ethos and declared themselves an authority on all flag designs. Describing a preference for a style of aesthetic as a "science" is about as laughable as if I were to form the North American Gastrological Association and began ranking all restaurants based on how many of their dishes featured kale and quinoa. Flat aesthetics is all the rage now, but it's simply the latest in a long line of fads in aesthetics and deserves no more or less deference merely because it's the newest. It has no more definitive correlation with the James Webb telescope, 4K graphical displays, or any other technological marvel than bath bombs, siracha mayo, or other contemporary subjects of infatuation. To present it as a "science" is even more laughable. It has apparently never occurred to them that many people did and do find seals, even ones with complexity, aesthetically pleasing or that many find modernist designs simplistic, boring, and "loud." I happen to dislike pickles on sandwiches. But if I gathered a bunch of likeminded individuals, formed an organization, drafted guidelines on the prohibition of the presence of pickles between two pieces of bread, declared this position "scientific," and mocked everybody who disagreed as outdated and ignorant, people would correctly point out it was a matter of taste and I was attempting to codify my personal preference using false credentials and consensus-forcing. I don't see why this particular association is afforded any partiality for its equally arbitrary standards of taste. 38.86.84.183 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article is very biased and sourced in pretty loose terms only. And past the introduction, I don't think there's really any useful information in the article Nathangreer (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree - and as of right now, the article doesn't show any notability - however I think NAVA is actually, notable. I've found a bunch of independent sources and news articles talking about NAVA and/or their influence on local/state flag debates across North America. These could show notability if used in the article:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/insider/state-flags-debate.html
• https://billypenn.com/2023/09/27/vexillology-conference-philadelphia-flag-experts/
• https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2023/12/27/an-issue-that-hasnt-yet-been-unfurled-in-iowa/
• https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/things-to-know-about-minnesotas-new-non-racist-state-flag-and-seal/
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-flag-survey-redesign-1.7079498
• https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesotas-new-flag-gets-a-for-design-expert-says/
• https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/12/19/flag-expert-calls-new-minnesota-state-flag-outstanding-top-ten-in-the-country

Erinius (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Page history shows me as the article creator back in March 2005. This was an administrative action in order to remove a copyvio from the page history from edits made in February 2005 by mostly anon IPs. The copyvio was actually from this organization's website which could lead one to conclude that the page was originally created by someone associated with the organization. I have not made any edits since that time. I would agree that there is insufficient sources (at this time) to confirm notability and its only current sources are from the organization itself. If someone were to incorporate content from the sources identified above, that would probably provide sufficient notability for the page to remain. RedWolf (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Even as a member of NAVA, I think highlighting criticism is absolutely warranted and welcomed, especially considering situations where the specific NAVA members consulted on flag change/design commissions may have expertise in vexillography, but not have personal connections to local community or have a solid pulse on local sentiment - however, instead, the section relies *VERY* heavily (predominantly, even) on one video opinion essay by one creator (JJ McCullough) whose entire business model is contrarianism for clicks (I've been following him for a few years now).

One line in particular stands out: "the standards lack a solid scientific foundation" if it's a quote, let's quote it. If its not, how does he make the argument backing the accusation? Because NAVA has been pretty transparent publishing the methodology and findings/limitations of their surveys/studies (see Flag Surveys and Case Studies).

A lot of criticism also hinges on "Good Flag, Bad Flag" as a set of "rules" for flag design that must not be broken, but ignores that GFBF never once uses the word "rules" and that GFBF explicitly provides examples of deviation from the "five principles" that still produce flags that were well-loved before the modern era of reactionary criticism (California, Maryland, South Africa, etc). In fact, GFBF isn't even cited on the page at all for independent review! (I'll be adding a citation after posting this.)

There's warranted criticism, and there's both-sides-ism (that often hinges on mischaracterizations). We ought to be judicious about this. TheTaraStark (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

While GFBF may not directly say that the principals are rules, it is heavily implied to the reader that they should be followed during the design process and that is reinforced when NAVA explicitly tries to position itself as a scientific organization. You can see that in real time when every committee charged with redesigning a flag in the last decade and a half seem to be citing, or in the case of Burlington VT, explicitly requiring those tasked with redesign to read it along with watching Roman Mars' Ted Talk. The idea that GFBF flag are explicit rules seems to be confirmed when in many instances, the finalists that are chosen strictly adhere to NAVA's principals while eschewing the exceptions that are mentioned.

Regarding JJ McCullough, I mentioned to @Avenflight in another thread to keep in mind that anything that could be said about McCullough could also be said about Roman Mars and his support for NAVA. Mars really popularized the fundamentals that NAVA promotes and aligned his criticism of city flags with NAVA's but he is simply a podcaster, an online personality with no vexillological background much like McCullough on YouTube, though I'm sure that NAVA and its supporters do not take offense to him. It is fair to give both people equal footing on this subject. PaulRKil (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness I am adding that I responded to these statements in my comments below. Don't want to repeat myself three times.

Avenflight (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A.FLOCK (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Connected Contributor

A.FLOCK (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Annual meeting section seems like bragging?

It doesn't provide much useful information, really. It looks to me like it's someone associated with the organization bragging about all the neat flags they made. I think it should be removed unless something of value is added. Nathangreer (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree and removed it in favor of an impact and criticism section. I think the impact this org has had on flag redesigns in North America, for better or worse, over the last two decades is more important than their annual convention flags. PaulRKil (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that the criticism section is a valuable and important element in any page, especially when it comes to organisations, I'm not sure if criticism by JJ McCullough is exactly relevant. To my knowledge he has no vexillological or vexillographic experience, nor has he been in any way involved in scientific vexillology or political or cultural aspect of the flag design processes through which he criticises NAVA. This raises the question whether the relevance of his criticism isn't based solely on the fact that he has a large audience. Without it, it would be equal to any other individual raising objections to NAVA and thus not notable at all.

Avenflight (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, Vexillology is not really a hard science and the only people that really promote it as such is NAVA themselves. There aren't any college accredited courses regarding Vexillology and no university issues degrees in Vexillology and again only NAVA members tend to describe themselves as scientists, not that it could be treated as such in the future.

In regards to using a Youtuber as a critical voice for NAVA, keep in mind that your argument could be made about Roman Mars and his support for NAVA. Mars really popularized the fundamentals that NAVA promotes but he is simply a podcaster who, like McCullough, also has no vexillological background though I'm sure that NAVA and its supporters do not take offense to him. PaulRKil (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, that depends on who and how is conducting it. There are actually university vexillology courses (eg. Charles University in Prague), but they are mostly grouped together with heraldry and sphragistics into auxiliary sciences of history. However, scientific vexillology does occur regularly and often, its results are just generally limited to vexillological journals. I don't want to needlessly take up space so you can read more about it in my comment lower on this Talk page. Just feel it is important to clear that misunderstanding up.

Regarding McCullough, my issue isn't that he is a YouTuber. As you correctly state, Roman Mars is also an individual who spreads his content via audio-visual platforms. However, I would argue Mars's vexillographical credentials are significantly more relevant (not least due to his experience in the design sector) than anything McCullough has to offer. After all, there's a reason why he was invited to Ted Talk and the effects of his presentations are reverberating around the USA (and further abroad too!). As I explained in my previous comment, McCullough's criticism is only "relevant" due to his large following. When it comes to backing up his words, he cannot back them up anything more than any other random person without a vexillological background (nor can we really speak of any effect resulting from his criticism). If this imaginary random person made a blog where he criticised NAVA with the same words, it wouldn't be included here. So why are we including McCullough? Simply because he has a million people listening to him. That seems an unfortunate credential to focus on when we are trying to decide about relevance of criticism. Much like (some) TV broadcasters have standards for whom they invite to debates (and these standards generally aren't simply based on following), Wikipedia surely must do the same.

So to sum up and go back to my previous statement, I applaud the inclusion of the criticism section and agree with its relevance, I just think the criticism included therein should be coming from more relevant individuals. For instance politicians who are involved in various state flag adoption processes. I'm sure you'll find plenty whose feathers have been ruffled by NAVA in this regard.

Avenflight (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's the same as including the coats of arms of kings on lists of rulers pages. The segment talked about the meetings (scientific conferences) which NAVA has held (a useful piece of information which I myself have used Wikipedia to research) and it includes the flags of those conferences in much the same way as the ruler lists do. Simply put, the conferences are valuable information and the flags are relevant to them, especially in light of this being a vexillology organisation. It can be assumed that a person searching for information on NAVA meetings will also be searching for their flags.

Avenflight (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys I am the person that added the list of flags in the first place, and while I used to be a due paying member of NAVA I have since left several years ago due to it's cult-like adherence to the arbitrary "good flag bad flag" guidelines, but I would like to throw my two cents in that the list of meetings wasn't "bragging" nor did I intend it to be, rather those annual NAVA meetings are almost the only way that the organization actually exists. Sure, they publish Raven, but nobody reads that, or is subscribed to it. 99% of NAVA are the annual meetings.

Think of NAVA like the G7, sure you could make an entire article about the premise of the G7 without talking about their summits, but the G7 summits is 99% of the G7. But if the consensus is to remove the list I'd be fine with that. Scu ba (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

JJ McCullough

Although JJ McCullough brings up some good points against NAVA, I really don't like citing YouTube as a general wikipedia rule, but, as per WP:YOUTUBE, there is no blanket ban on the site, and each case must be determined individually. In this case I'm not sure if this is a good use of a YouYube citation, since the video is solely anti-NAVA, maybe we could try and find some actual published sources to cite instead? Scu ba (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've said in other discussions, I find it to be appropriate to offer a Youtuber as a critical voice of NAVA. Roman Mars is also an online personality and has voiced support for NAVA. Mars really popularized the fundamentals that NAVA promotes but he is simply a podcaster who, like McCullough, also has no vexillological background. And it is an anti-NAVA video but its in the context of a Criticism section within the article. Outside of this section, the article has only offered history and their successes in leading efforts to change flags. PaulRKil (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure yeah, but he actively hates Wikipedia and is openly hostile to this website and it's mission. Giving him a platform, especially being the primary source for criticism of a group, fundamentally damages this site. Scu ba (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact he doesn't like Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to his opinions on NAVA. There is a whole article highlighting the Criticism of Wikipedia on Wikipedia. I don't see why that matters. Bottom line is that he offers a balanced criticism of NAVA's standards in the context of the global push to redesign local flags that NAVA is at the forefront of, and I Don't Like It is not a valid reason to remove an entire section. PaulRKil (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

To add on, McCullough's video is being cited as a statement of opinion, as in "as an example of criticism of the NAVA, here's what this particular cultural commentator has to say". He isn't being cited as any kind of expert. Erinius (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of experts, Vexillology is not a science in spite of what a couple of people have tried to argue here. Vexillology is not a science. It is not a subject at any accredited, degree issuing university. If anything, it may be an art form, yet no art school teaches it as a major. To me, McCullough is just as qualified to give his opinion on flags and Vexillology as any NAVA member. PaulRKil (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Science is determined by the scientific method, namely a systematic methodology based on evidence. You mistake vexillology and vexillography. Vexillography is the designing of flags, mostly an art (though there are many practical elements that need to be considered besides just the aesthetic ones, outside of the US also often requiring knowledge of laws and rigid flag rules). Vexillology is the study of flags. And this can be conducted fully in a scientific manner. While some may limit themselves to "cataloguing vexillology" (simply collecting information about flags and cataloguing them, a segment that can indeed be considered as falling under the auxiliary sciences of history category), there are many who go the step further and apply scientific methods and analysis. This categorises vexillology as a social science - it can tell us a lot about the society we live in depending on how, when, where and by whom they are used and designed; often utilising statistics to paint a clearer picture for analysis. However you are less likely to come into contact with such research as it isn't as popular (or rather it isn't as easy to popularise) and is mostly limited to scientific journals and their subscribers. So while I understand that the first kind of vexillologist is the more visible one (especially on social media platforms such as Reddit), it is incorrect to assess the whole science of vexillology based on it.

Avenflight (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term was coined by Whitney Smith to define the work he was doing with some government entities to design flags in the late fifties and early sixties. All of the scholarly articles on Vexillology are published by NAVA themselves via the Raven which I think can cause a circular back and forth between members and associates instead of peer review by third parties outside of NAVA but if that's not the case I'm happy to yield that. I bring up when it was termed because if Vexillology is a science as said, it is still in its fledgling years.

Flags in the way you and I see them and how they are used by nation states and subnational entities are a relatively new phenomenon when in the past, nations would be represented by seals and coats of arms. Could those studies potentially turn into a definable science in the future? Potentially, but I just don't see it now. PaulRKil (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Raven makes its way via subscription or publication exchange to individuals and vexillological libraries all around the world and vice versa, the vexillological journals of many foreign institutions similar to NAVA (state and private) make their way to the USA. In this way peer review definitely takes place, and on a global scale no less.

You are absolutely right that modern flag use is a fairly recent phenomenon. But it is important to emphasise that vexillology doesn't focus on merely the past two or three hundred years, it studies flag use and evolution to their earliest examples, including but not limited to its namesake, Roman vexillums, and various vexilloids preceding them. Whitney Smith coined the term as the study of flags though he himself likely didn't distinguish between vexillology and vexillography in the early years. However, the fact that vexillography has split to form its own (though closely related) discipline already shows there is more depth to vexillology than simply just an auxiliary science of history.

Avenflight (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Criticism Section

The current criticism section seems to be just content that is non-notable. Most of it is from a YouTuber not even notable to get his own Wikipedia page, and citing only the YouTube video itself, not any secondary sources. It mentions criticism from a representative that a flag redesign for Utah's state flag looks too much like the Delta Airlines logo, but I feel that it's a bit of a stretch to have a benign, semi-humorous critique on one flag redesign that follows NAVA's guidelines to extend to criticism for the whole organization. There is also criticism for the NAVA-supported redesign for Minnesota's state flag, but the source cited does not even mention NAVA itself, which definitely feels like a reason why it shouldn't be included in a criticism of NAVA section. I deleted the section myself a while ago, but was reverted and encouraged to discuss the change in the talk page. So I propose that we delete the criticism section (or possibly just remove the YouTuber stuff) if no valid criticism is added.✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 19:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User:PaulRKil, the user who reverted my deletion, so we can discuss what should be done. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨^blather 18:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As I've said in other sections it is appropriate to offer a Youtuber as a critical voice of NAVA. Roman Mars is also an online personality and has voiced support for NAVA. Mars really popularized the fundamentals that NAVA promotes but he is simply a podcaster who, like McCullough, also has no vexillological background. And it is an anti-NAVA video but its in the context of a Criticism section within the article. Outside of this section, the article has only offered history and their successes in leading efforts to change flags and as @Erinius has also said, "To add on, McCullough's video is being cited as a statement of opinion, as in "as an example of criticism of the NAVA, here's what this particular cultural commentator has to say". He isn't being cited as any kind of expert.

Additionally, your request to delete an entire criticism section of this article considering how many people on this page are admitted NAVA members or have a bias toward the organization is highly suspicious. PaulRKil (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor nitpick on “formation”

We don’t need a “57 years ago” you could just put that in the article. Minor thing but I just wanted to tell people before I edit it because it’s not that bad of a thing on the article. 68.57.163.100 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)