Talk:Flag of Canada

Removing unreferenced paragraph

In this edit, a unreferenced paragraph was added on a commericial establishment that has a flag collection. I checked the (3) other edits by that IP. In another article, Canadian flag collection, there are a couple of references, but they're to the Arts and Leisure section of a local newspaper. This typically wouldn't meet WP:FAC's requirements for sourcing, so I'm going to remove the paragraph. It won't bother me if anyone re-adds it ... if you have proper sourcing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Colours

The colours on the image do not match the colours of the flag in the file provided by the Canadian Government the page on https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/flag-canada-description.html. If I'm wrong can someone please educate me on why lol. The image in the article is specified as using Pantone colours but after trying to read the specifications under the colour specifications I could not find anything mentioning Pantone.

Edit: From what I could see the source listed in wikipedia links back to a wayback machine article version of an old Canadian government page which may be outdated, I don't know, but none of the colours mentioned there are mentioned on that page I mentioned earlier today.

Edit 2: The proportions on the image on the government website are also slightly different. Most noticeable at the base of the leaf. Comparison: https://imgur.com/a/dhdplKB

also fwiw this my first time using wikipedia so if this is the wrong place to put this or whatever let me know Jamiscus (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Was this addressed? InFact2024 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

FIP red, 032.... the 032 number is the pantone

Flag of Canada using pantone colours

Flag of Canada using RGB colours

The RGB specifications result in a brighter red than the Pantone colors that are recommended by the Canadian government.

Moxy🍁 04:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I go to QC often - this should be fixed. No escalation yet? InFact2024 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

nothing yet im still new to this wikipedia thing idk if im supposed to do anything formally lol

also btw, the file from the government website is still different to the "Flag of Canada using RGB colours" posted here

im no colour expert or anything so im just gonna use hex codes

the flags from the website are #ee1c25 and the flag posted here following the specifications are #ff0000 Jamiscus (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct the red colour used here is named FIP red and represented by the hexadecimal triplet FF0000 as per the original source.....can't explain why the .can page uses some unnamed color. Moxy🍁 02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

alright makes sense.

i wouldve assumed the government page would know better than to use the wrong colours lol Jamiscus (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I said this wrong.... I don't think it's the wrong color I'm just not sure what "Colour Code" they're using. We have multiple codes ranging multiple paint types and purposes all a bit different if not used in the proper context. Let alone how different monitors/screens versus silk screening of a real flags look.... I can be seeing this red on my PC vastly differently than you are on your phone, monitor or television....'see here for all the different color codes for FIP red and their usage . Moxy🍁 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverse Copyvio Report

Resolved

Hey Moxy, if you look at the (reverse) copyvio report, 2015 report you'll notice that a lot of phrasing in The Canadian Encyclopedia article, published in 2019, are taken from User:Miesianiacal's diff from 2015.

That seems like a clear case of wp:circular to me.⸺(Random)staplers 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem here....There's only two sentence and one is a quote? Moxy🍁 01:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Moxy It's the phrasing that's the problem. And not just the names-it's how those names are joined together with phrases such as "stylized, 11-pointed, red maple-leaf," "viewed as a 'concession'", etc. plus to two sentences. It kind of suggests that The Canadian Encyclopedia took a lot of inspiration from Wikipedia, if it isn't close paraphrasing to avoid easy detection.

Not that it helped-it's still scoring 49.2% on the copyvio score. For something where good paraphrasing could bring it down to 0%.

IMO, pretty beyond a reasonable doubt that there's sourcing issues, unless Miesianiacal committed a copyvio.⸺(Random)staplers 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd use "Social Crediter", but aside from that passage the rest looks fine to me. If I understand correctly, such descriptions as the white square and the 11-pointed leaf are heraldic and should not be changed.Newimpartial (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• But with that said, it doesn't seem like all of The Canadian Encyclopedia is a reverse copyvio, have a look at this: copyvio report⸺(Random)staplers 01:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  These are historical quotes? Moxy🍁 01:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Quotes are not copyvios, obviously.

  Maybe we should just exclude the authors Auguste Vachon and John Matheson instead for committing a likely copyvio. Presumably, it's a one time thing, but the copying seems troubling. If they copied on this one, have others been able to get away with it as well...?⸺(Random)staplers 01:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  • One more report from 2015 - I think it's the right call to undo this for now.[1]⸺(Random)staplers 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

    Simply not seeing a problem....I've asked for input from editors with copyright experience. Moxy🍁 01:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

    The date is wrong. That's why I was confused. It says it's published in 2019, but it's actually published in 2006, now that I'm looking at it.⸺(Random)staplers 01:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

    User:Nikkimaria makes a good point as well the Canadian Encyclopedia source included that phrasing by 2015, not 2019. Let's see what Miesianiacal has to say. Moxy🍁 01:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Miesianiacal left Wikipedia several months ago.Wellington Bay (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• • You do know who John Matheson was, I hope? He was the Liberal MP who was Pearson’s point man on getting a new national flag. He was the friend of Stacey, who designed it. If there’s any overlap between the Canadian Encyclopedia article and the Wikipedia article, I would be very careful before suggesting the CE article is a copyvio. Note that Matheson died in 2013 and the CE article is dated 2019. It may be sourced from the old hard copy CE. I will check my copy. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The phrase ""stylized, 11-pointed, red maple leaf" comes up a lot when you Google it. While it's possible a lot of sites are lifting the phrase from Wikipedia or CE, I suspect it's a phrase vexillologists have been using for decades to describe the flag. In fact, it is used in the official technical description of the flag on the Government of Canada website: "The National Flag of Canada is a red flag, twice as long as it is wide (proportion 2:1, or 64 units in length and 32 units in width or depth, as shown in the accompanying diagram). In its centre is a white square the width of the Flag, with a single stylized 11-point red maple leaf in the centre. The flag is horizontally symmetric." (bolding added)[2]. The same page states "The specific design of the maple leaf that appears in the centre of the National Flag of Canada is known as the stylized 11-point maple leaf." If that is how it is known then using the phrase cannot be a copyright violation. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Distinct modifier

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: "Distinct" may not have been the best choice of wording, but I believe the sentence as it stands is confusing at best and contradictory at worst. The latter part implies there was an "official flag" before 1964 by stating that the debate was about replacing the Union Jack: "In 1964, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson formed a committee to resolve the ongoing issue of the lack of an official Canadian flag, sparking a debate about a flag change to replace the Union Jack."

The sentence shifts from stating there was a lack of an official flag to stating that an existing flag was being replaced (inferring there was a prior flag). I do understand though the first part is speaking of an official flag representing Canada while the latter is on the replacement of a national flag. But this would be confusing for any readers unfamiliar with the historical context as they could easily conflate the two separate items into one, which is why I think some clarification is owed in that sentence. So I'd be happy to workshop it with you, but I do think some edit is needed. Leventio (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I use this wording because it's historically accurate and during the actual debate there was a phrase used "distinctly our own" that is actually covered academically. It's also terminology used by heritage services like. Academics also state Pearson's intent in this manner. Even none academic travel guides will quote Pearson.

References

Moxy🍁 19:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, I acknowledged that "distinct" was a poor choice of wording on my part (in hindsight, probably shoulda named this discussion something else), and I'm not disputing the accuracy of the two ideas presented in the sentence, nor the use of the phrasing "official Canadian flag".

However, what I am contending is the consolidation of these two separate points as currently constructed. The way they are structured together creates a contradiction and a risk of conflation. The sources presented similarly do not discuss both the lack of an official flag and the replacement of the Union Jack in the same sentence, I imagine specifically to avoid confusion. That’s the issue I’m highlighting—the current wording merges two distinct ideas into one, making it unclear what is meant by the "lack of an official Canadian flag" when it is immediately followed up by a debate about a "flag change to replace" another flag in the same sentence.

This needs clarification for an uninitiated reader, as the sentence states that X did not exist before 1964 while simultaneously describing a debate about replacing Y. There exists a disconnect on why the two points relate, leaving room for conflation and misunderstanding. The sentence should either be restructured or split into two separate statements to improve clarity for the reader. Leventio (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)