Talk:Flag of Minnesota/Archive 1

The three finalists had one flag that included two loons. F944 is clearly two stylized loons. They even mention that one of the loon in the article that is cited for that very sentence. "They also zeroed in on five favorites for a new state seal, gravitating toward representations of snow, the North Star and Minnesota's state bird, the loon." Yes, many flag designs with loons were thrown out, but F944 was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.169.147 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say this question is a little complicated. The quote you use is referring to the loon on the state seal, not anything on the flag options. And the designers of the F944 flag have stated that the design was not intended to represent a loon (see here), though they have called it a 'happy accident' that there's some similarity. Members of the flag redesign commission from Southern Minnesota explicitly opposed designs that they interpreted as containing loons -- to quote the Star Tribune article you referenced:

"While loons may be beautiful, and lady slippers might be beautiful and pines might be beautiful, they don't represent us down here," said Anita Gaul, a commission member and community college history instructor from southwest Minnesota. "The people of rural Minnesota, the southern part, might favor a different design other than loons.""^[1]

~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I haved changed this page's importance rating on the Minnesota Project wiki scale from low-importance to Top-importance. I feel that this is warranted because the top-level subjects contain information that would be useful to people both in Minnesota and outside of Minnesota. I have also added much more content from sources. I would appreciate if anyone would like to review the information and check it for bias. The page could also use some more references. However, I have changed the quality rating from Start-class to C-class, which I feel is warranted by my recent edits. I also believe this article is very close to B-class. Please let me know if you have any questions/concerns!A lover of James Garfield, math, and communism (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The background color was kind of blue-green. I modified the SVG for now to another blue and posted a note at Talk:Minnesota#Minnesota_flag_color. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since 1989, several efforts have been made to redesign the Minnesota flag — most notably the North Star Flag campaign. The North American Vexillological Association (NAVA), in its 2001 survey of US States, US Territories and Canadian provincial flags rated the current Minnesota flag 67th out of 72 flags evaluated.^[2]

i moved this here because it seems more like someone promoting a new design, than an actual new design being proposed. Smith03 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I moved it back since it seems to be relevant to the debate on replacing the existing flag. 156.99.157.122 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What debate? Czechia2016 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There has been debate in the state at since at least 1989^[3]; petitions^[4], several op ed's in papers across the state^[5], bills introduced in both the state senate and house^[6][7][8][9], a growing following on Facebook^[10] and a website^[11]. Perhaps the reason it seems promotional toward the North Star Flag is that it has been one of the longest lasting of the proposed flags^[12] I'll revise it with some more accurate language soon.NewMNFlagSheepherder (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I added more about the proposed change to the article, including the North Star Flag and Guy Johnson's petition. Should the North Star flag have its own article? A lover of James Garfield, math, and communism (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

MN House Representative John Huot sent an email today mentioning the proposed flag change, and gave the above-shown "North Star" flag as well as this loon flag (not uploading directly as I'm not sure about the licensing) as examples of proposed new flags, inviting comment about whether the flag should be replaced. InSimpleTermsJordan (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The settler in the picture is clearly holding a plow, where is this "gun?"

Also, how is the Native fleeing? Maybe he's visiting? What is the source for that being a fact?

24.154.94.169 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The gun is resting against a stump. But, I agree that some of the things said about the seal are possible interpretations. I join you in asking What are the sources? SlowJog (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In trying to provide a clearer image, I went to the Seal of Minnesota page. The talk page there has a link to http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/leg/symbols/sealarticle.pdf , which is from the state explaining the history of the state seal. It says the Native American depicted was riding toward the setting sun, but this was changed in 1983 so he is ridding south. It then becomes more likely that he is visiting. 04:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowJog (talk • contribs)

The Criticism section states that the Native American near the farmer's land represents manifest destiny. This does not have a reliable source, only a few blogs. The Minnesota State Flag's website does not mention manifest destiny at all, and another reliable source says that "The Indian on horseback is riding due south and represents the Indian heritage of Minnesota." As such, I have removed this from the criticism section. Mamyles (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Now we don't know what is the criticism about the flag and why there is a replacement campaign.--Manfariel (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flag of Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nava.org/flag-design/survey/state-provincial-survey-2001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606033347/http://www.nava.org/Flag%20Design/State&Provincial%20Survey%202001/surveyresults.htm to http://www.nava.org/Flag%20Design/State&Provincial%20Survey%202001/surveyresults.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

In the process of revising parts of this article, I came to realized how profoundly misleading the drawings for the 1893 flag are compared the few photos I was able to access through image searches. I tried to correct some key details of the obverse, but if anyone has the skills to do a better job, please have at it. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 20:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Added links to redesign commission authorization. Note: this does not mean the flag has or will be redesigned, the commission's proposal must be approved by the legislature. Mrfeek (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"concerns that the image depicted by the seal offers a revisionist view of Minnesota's settlement by Europeans that conceals the violence committed against indigenous peoples"

Is there a better source about these concerns? Do they expect the entire history of the state to be printed on the flag in a paragraph? Why aren't they concurrently claiming the flag of WA state conceals violence such as the Puget Sound War? What is so special about Minnesota's specifically? Thornfield Hall (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The current article lacks balance and neutral pov. The article identifies current objections to the flag replacement for being politically based when the general public had no input. The current article fails to inform that Minnesota's citizens were not polled to find out if the current flag or seal designs were important issues. The article fails to inform that the citizens were not polled for the majority opinion if the current imagery was racist or not in their opinions. The article fails to inform that the electorate was not polled if this revision was important enough to have tax dollars spent on it. The article fails to inform that Minnesota's citizens did not have any input into any design elements the electorate may have wanted. The article also fails to inform that the electorate had no input into the selection process. The article also fails to inform that the entire replacement process was the effort of the political leadership of a single party without the unanimous support of Minnesota's citizens. The article fails to describe how the democratic process was applied to ensure Minnesota citizens were given proper representation in the replacement process. The article also fails to describe if any citizens were excluded or not represented in the process with the reason and legal justification for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcb133aco (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Moved section down from the top and signed comment. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I don't really know what to say to this. I see that you are frustrated by the new flag, and don't get me wrong, I don't really like it either (personally I liked the tricolor more), but what we think is not relevant.

None of what you are asking for is normal. And when I say that, I mean with regards to both the process of designing a flag and what to include in a Wikipedia article about a flag. It's not normal for any of that to be a part of the process for how a flag is designed or redesigned, and it's not normal for articles to make it a point to talk about how those things did not happen. I'm sorry, I try to assume good faith, but when I read something like "they didn't do polls asking if this is an acceptable use of my tax dollars", all my eyes see is "I don't like it!", not a sincere request to improve the page. It's a bit too "old man yells at cloud" to read as an edit request.

Unless you have sources to cite to demonstrate due weight, there is no reason to consider adding any of that. You are not asking for notable criticism to be added, you are asking for your criticism to be added. You've been an editor longer than I have and you have many more edits than I do, so I am a bit surprised by this.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It's 2024 population has more than 5000000 people Mazeriboy(Minnesotaman) (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Sir, this is the FLAG of Minnesota, not the state itself. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)