# Talk:Flag of New Zealand

WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated B-class)
Flag of New Zealand is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject New Zealand / Māori  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

- Removed link to NZ Flag.com petition, as it has been withdrawn. - Removed link to National Front 'save the flag' site, as this has been deleted (points to NF main page) --Lholden 11:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
It would quite cool to broaden out the section on the flag debate. In the coming years of this debate this page could become really useful as a one-stop-shop for those seeking neutral and all-encompassing information, so I'll set about inviting all those who might be interested (flag designers, campaigners, etc.). Christiaan 13:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

## Deletions Update

- Removed section Best design from the talk page as it was off topic - it was general conversation about the article's subject instead of discussing the article
--sinesurfer 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

## Picture shows torn New Zealand flag

In the picture which shows the NZ flag in Auckland International Airport, the left part of the NZ flag is slightly torn!

And the problem with that is?--Lholden 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the NZ flag should not be flown in a dilapidated condition. Wouldn't it be best to show a picture of the flag in a better condition? Kytok 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is a offence to fly the in a dilapidated condition. Brian | (Talk) 07:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, you shouldn't fly a dilapidated flag. But it's not an offence to; according to the New Zealand Flag Notice 1977 (a statutory regulation of the main FLAGS, EMBLEMS, AND NAMES PROTECTION ACT 1981) there's nothing illegal about flying a dilapidated flag, or at least I can't find anything in the law. I am, as always, willing to be proven wrong Brian :-) --Lholden 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is an "offence" in the legal sence, however the flag should never be flown in a dilapidated condition. However if you fly it with the intention of dishonouring the flag, 11 (b) might apply. Brian | (Talk) 08:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I plead freedom of expression ;-) --Lholden 09:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me, as I am new to adding/discussing on Wiki. As an amature vexillologist, I have some photographs I took of the Auckland Airport flag; could it be discussed amoungst the page if one of them could be uploaded, so to speak, on this article? Jayswipe (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Jayswipe

## Vexillological terms & Update

A number of changes to this page have been made in line with vexillogical terminology. First, the flag is described as a 'defaced' blue ensign, which it is. Putting the information regarding the pre-1840 flags after this also makes sense, IMHO there should be a sub-section of historical flags of New Zealand linking to the list of NZ Flags.

I have also removed the sentence relating to the Commonwealth as this is inaccurate, there was never a requirement that member states of the Commonwealth retain the Union Flag, nor was this ever a requirement under the British Empire - there are many examples of this. The Commonwealth flag is somewhat different from the Union Flag. As I mention in the edit, it was only a requirement for Colonial Government-owned vessels under the Colonial Navy Defence Act.

Also, the current flag didn't become the de facto national flag until c. 1899, around the time of the Boer war. Most historical texts I have seen prior to this time either show the United Tribes flag or the Union Flag as the New Zealand flag, and it wasn't until New Zealand sent troops to fight in South Africa that we really needed a New Zealand Flag except for on our ships. This was why Parliament enacted legislation to set out exactly what the New Zealand Flag was, because of the confusion surrounding the exact design of the flag. --Lholden 00:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Added 'Other Flags'--203.97.163.35 06:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The flag of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand is not depicted correctly. The red cross in the blue canton is fimbriated black, not white (see http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/nz_hist2.html). The stars in the blue canton are eight-pointed, not five-pointed. There was a version gazetted in New South Wales which depicted six-pointed stars and white fimbriation, however it is not the version chosen by the chiefs of the United Tribes.

The article refers to the Union flag as "also known as Union Jack". The Union flag is only correctly termed a "Union Jack" when flown at sea (the name comes from the ship's jack-staff). The two terms are not interchangeable.

I have no feelings either way as to whether there should be a link to the petition (which is at least a real paper one and not an online petition) but would like to point out that we now have to links to the same page (www.nzflag.com). Evil MonkeyHello? 23:53, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, what do you recommend? Are such duplications discouraged? Christiaan 00:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't find anything official but I don't think we should have multiple links to the same page. Maybe the link to nzflag.com could mention the petitin. Evil MonkeyHello? 00:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Someone has re-instated the link to the petition. This petition is to change the flag; it is promoting a particular point-of-view. Unless a link to a petition for keeping the current flag is added then the Wikipedia NPOV rule is broken. Please insert a link to such a petition (if one exists), otherwise I suggest you remove the current link.Arcturus 11:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The web page eliciting support by way of petition for a change to the NZ flag imparts little or no knowledge. It is merely the vehicle of a pressure group and is totally biased. It adds nothing to Wikipedia. Thank you for reminding me that I am free to contribute to this and other articles. You must have thought I'd forgotten. Arcturus 13:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I repeat, there is nothing wrong with and there is no policy against POV links. Christiaan 15:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have added a link to the New Zealand Flag Institute. This organisation is opposed to the proposed change to the flag. It is however a vexillological institute, rather than a lobby group. JohnC 16:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great! Good to see you made it John. —Christiaan 08:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not add a link to NZflag.com, it can direct people towards the petition, but in itself just contains information. (Bennyj600 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

## Citing sources

We should work at citing some sources for all the "some think this" and "some think that" sentences we currently have. —Christiaan 08:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

## Reference for opinion polls

The article claims that opinion polls indicate a majority are in favour of keeping the current flag. I cannot recall ever seeing such a poll and this link at the nzflag.com website suggests likewise that this is not true [1]. Of course the nzflag.com is obviously not a neutral site but this is a NZ Herald editorial so I highly doubt it will be lying about opinion polls. If no one is able to source/reference the opinion polls I will change it... Nil Einne 09:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of such a thing.--Exult 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with opinion polls is that their results depend on their sample and question - and in the case of the flag debate, which flag is put in front of those being questioned. --Lholden 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

## Flag ratio

Flag ratio: 1:2 It looks to me as though this symbol is actually 2:3 not 1:2. I know zip about flags, but one would presume that a 1:2 ratio would indicate that the flag is two units across for every one up. But that symbol has three for every two. --LeftyG 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The symbol actually has nothing to do with the ratio. It is unfortunate that the (little-known) symbol is right next to "flag ratio" -- I can see how confusion can readily arise. See Vexillological symbol for the interpretation: the dots (or lack thereof) in the six grid squares indicate how the flag is used. In this case the dots indicate that the flag is used on land by civilians, government, and military, but at sea is used only by government (civilians and the military have different flags). It seems to me that these "FIAV" symbols are useful to so few people that they probably shouldn't be used on Wikipedia, or if they are used they should link to Vexillological symbol every time they are used. Indefatigable 02:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I know nothing about flags :-) Cheers. I think it would be an idea to link it to Vexillogical symbol as that would clear it up for a lot of people. --LeftyG 09:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ċ== Edits of 24 Jan 2006 ==

I removed the text since the previous version was balanced between pro- and anti- change opinions with decent sized chunks for both sides. The new material is inherently NPOV (showing an alternative flag) in the pro-change group's favour.

The removed text can be seen here. (link doesn't seem to work) Greentubing 22:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What you want is this link. I'm in favour of including this design, since it seems to be notable, but the section would have to be NPOVed. Could you do that? —Nightstallion (?) 07:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the link. Unfortunately I can't include the information in an NPOV way since I don't follow the politics of the flag—I just draw them! But I agree that this design is notable and deserves mention. Greentubing 09:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Mh. Do you still think that it would be inherently POV to show this flag? I think it would add to the value of the article to show one of the best designed flags that have been proposed as an alternative, and would not consider that POV in favour of the flag change... —Nightstallion (?) 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should have rephrased my original comment. The flag in itself is good. Its just that the way it was arranged last time was POV imo. But it has to be presented in the context of the pro-change group's argument. I'll put the flag in the "Arguments for Change" section, and maybe someone more informed can flesh it out. Greentubing 04:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry about the mess i made of the NZ flag Page, As you people may have gathered I am very new to Wikipedia (i was invited by somebody to add my info a while back. Sorry for any inconvience caused nzflag.info

Heh, its no problem—this is exactly the way Wikipedia is meant to work! People write things and others come and change it. If anything you should be glad for bringing this to our attention. Greentubing 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. (Besides, it's a *really* good design. ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 13:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've put some of the material back. Comment please. Greentubing 04:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. —Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Just put the flag into a box... --Lholden 19:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

## Anyone have a graphic/image of the NZ Jack?

From 1869 to 1902 the Jack was one of New Zealand's official flags. It was a Union Jack with four white stars,. Anyone? Moriori 07:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the code signals flag? That had the stars of the southern cross within a white disk on the Blue Ensign. I've never heard of the above flag before. --Lholden 07:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jack worn by HM NZ Ships is the same as the National Flag--meaning that the National Flag (NZ Blue Ensign) is the Government Service Ensign when worn at the stern, and the Jack when worn on the jackstaff. Compare that with the UK system where the Blue Ensign is the Gov't service flag and the Union Jack is worn on the jackstaff. Greentubing 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Tks, but we need to step back a little here, I am talking about the New Zealand Jack which was one of New Zealand's official flags from 1869 to 1902. It was basically the Union Jack but with four white stars on it, one each on an arm of St George's cross. Hey, I'm repeating myself ):-. Moriori 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Lol sorry I should have thought about the comment, silly me... I think I've seen one of them somewhere but I don;t remember the name. You're right, this might need some following up. I'll get on to it once my current queue of jobs and requests is finished. Greentubing 09:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
See [2] and [3]. JPD (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) Cheers JPD. If this Governor's flag was indeed used as a nat'l flag then it could be included in the article. IMO if it was just a Governor's flag then it probably doesn't need to be included. Greentubing 09:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made one and uploaded it to Commons. Greentubing 10:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was, as I said above, I've never seen it before --Lholden 06:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that it was only used as a Governor's flag, at the same time as the national flag was first introduced. Of course this means it was an official flag, but possibly not one that belongs on this page. JPD (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think this page shouldn't have all the minor variants and deviations from the Nat'l flag. It should list only current flags in use and historical flags representing NZ (ie United Tribes etc), plus the flag debate. Greentubing 12:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Put it on the List of New Zealand flags page then. --Lholden 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. Greentubing 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This particular flag still bugs me. Yes, the design resulted from a misinterpretation of instructions. But that has nothing to do with the raison d'être. New Zealand Yesteryears, ISBN 0-949-81940-9, (page 29) has illustrations of the Jack (the image shown above right), The Ensign and the Pendant and describes them all as "official New Zealand flags from 1869 to 1902". A passage in the text says the following --" Until 1867 New Zealand flew unadulterated British colours on land and sea. In that year the Colonial Office required all colonial ships to wear the blue ensign with their national ensign in the fly. New Zealand had no national badge so the Postmaster General settled on a large, red and ugly "NZ" to embellish the flag. Two years later finer tastes prevailed and the four principle stars of the Southern Cross were chosen as the country's badge. On the ensign they appeared as four five-pointed red stars with white borders, on the Union Jack as white stars in the red ground on the St George's Cross, and on the pendant clustered in red near the staff." It is extremely difficult to interpret that as not defining the Jack as an official flag of NZ. It is even more difficult to somehow interpret it as saying the Jack was for use only by the Governor, who isn't mentioned anywhere. We risk revising history here and it seems to me further research is needed. Moriori 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I put it in as a Governor's flag becuase of the information on JPD's link above (http://flagspot.net/flags/nz_gov.html#gov69):
The jack is a misinterpretation of the Order in Council of 7th August 1869; "... Governors ...administering the Governments of British Colonies and Dependencies be authorised to fly the Union Jack, with the Arms or Badge of the Colony emblazoned in the centre thereof." It seems to have been assumed that since the four stars of the Southern Cross on the Blue Ensign were spread across the whole fly and not confined to a small circle, the stars on the Union Jack should be similarly spread. David Prothero, 2 January 2005
I think FOTW backs up Yesteryears as well on the first part of http://flagspot.net/flags/nz_hist4.html#gaz. However I'm not a flag historian, I only draw them. Moriori I suggest you edit the information, since I was going on FOTW's information. Greentubing 04:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It was fairly standard for the Governors of British colonies to fly Union Jacks with the badge in the a garland in the centre. The misinterpretation is to have the stars spread out rather than as part of a badge surrounded by a garland. Either way, the flag should only have been used by the governor, and I haven't seen anything to suggest it was used more widely. The governor's flag is an "official flag of NZ" as much as a "national" flag is, so that description doesn't really tell us anything. JPD (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

## Flag debate timeline

A timeline of events in the flag debate would be a useful reference, IMHO: May 1973: Labour Party Congress - a call to change the flag was squashed. Nov 1979: a proposal to place the silver fern on the fly appeared. 1980: several suggestions arose, including one from the government to consider a new flag, and a newspaper article calling for the same. One suggestion was to use the NZ-ZN in blue and red on a white field, from the flag that was used for the 1974 Commonwealth Games. Early 1980's: D.A. Bayle introduced a blue-white-blue flag with a blue koru as a proposal. March 1983: F. Hundertwasser introduced the green koru. 1984: a black and white koru with stars was proposed, and a black flag with four white fimbriated red stars was suggested from a newspaper competition. Dec 1988: a modified Titman proposal (almost identical to an AusFlag proposal in 1997 for Australia). 1989: at a party conference a call for a new flag was defeated 144:156. 1990: the winning flag in another newspaper competition was a blue-white-green horizontally striped flag, ratios about 8:2:3, with four white stars on the blue stripe in the fly. Another flag seen around 1990 was a blue-yellow-green horizontally striped flag in approximately 10:1:8 ratio. 1994: J. Park proposed a black flag, the UJ in the canton, with white kiwi and ferns in the fly. 1998: James Dignan initiated discussion leading to a white fern above a red diagonal on a black field. 1999: above design modified to white fern on black. May 2000: proposed designs still appearing, including black-white-green tricolour, with four gold stars and a koru.

--Lholden 07:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that timeline (which comes straight from the FOTW website and is therefore copyrighted) isn't correct. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. James Dignan)

## Blue

Is the blue color of the NZ flag slightly different from the Aussie one? --Howard the Duck 15:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope---Image:Flag of Australia.svg is coded based on a Australian Govt specification for computer renditions of the Australian Flag. Image: Flag of Australia (converted).svg shows the Australian flag in a standard colour scheme used (or "that should be used") on British-based flags on Wikipedia (the colours in Image:Flag of New Zealand.svg come from here). Even then, the Australian govt says they use Pantone 185 C for the red instead of the UK's 186 C. 202.89.152.147 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So which blue is correct (as in the UK blue)? NZ? --Howard the Duck 06:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no single "correct" way of representing a Pantone colour on a screen. Wikipedia generally uses the scheme used for the NZ flag image, but the Australian government recommends a different scheme, which is used instead for the Australian image. Presumably Aust govt publications would also use that blue for the UK and NZ flags. Whether one scheme is better than the other is not an entirely objective question. Whether Wikipedia should stick to one scheme is a difficult question. JPD (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

## Subject Separation

I propose separating general information about the NZ flag from the specific information of Flag Reform/Debate because:

[1] Flag debate is now a majority of the content with 1222 words versus 3146 words for the entire entry so one subject of the page overwhelms the general subject.
[2] The underlying subject matter is significant regardless of the viewer’s opinion on flag reform - both sides through the ferocity of their debate deem this subject as important and important subjects deserve their own page on Wiki.
[3] Separating general flag information from specific flag reform and debate is the same format used by the Australian [ Australian Flag | Australian flag debate] and Canadan [ Flag of Canada | Great Flag Debate ] wiki entries.

The subject of flag debate would not be removed but would be replaced with a summary and link to the new page, I invite your feedback and opinions on this matter.
Sinesurfer (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. --Lholden (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Have finally moved "New Zealand Flag Debate" to a seperate page from the "New Zealand Flag", had a little trouble removing the redirect -twice- but it's now gone and the new page is working fine. (the move was made on 24/12/2009 and this discussion was updated the following evening. --Sinesurfer 10:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talkcontribs)

Hi! Here are the flags you can pick for New Zealand flags. The normal,Red allover then blue stars ${\displaystyle 44*78=}$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.170.14 (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

## Colours

If the blue is PMS 293 C, then the colours aren't the same as the Union Flag, which has PMS 280 C in the latest version of Flags of All Nations (UK MOD flag book) if FOTW is to be believed. Does New Zealand have its own specifications separate from the UK (like how it is in Australia?) 118.90.92.132 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.161.193 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I’ve asked at the NZ Ministry of Culture & Heritage and was told that the colours are not specified in any legislation but in print they use Pantone 186 for red and Pantone 280 for blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.36.126 (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

## Proposed alternative designs

This section is getting very messy, sort of like a free for all. I think we ought to establish some guidelines for adding flags to this section:

• The flag has to have been published and flown at some stage; and
• Flag designs are properly explained.

I've blanked out one paragraph that doesn't meet these guidelines. Thoughts? --Lholden (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the flag I added yesterday that you just removed was on this article before, I'm not sure if it was similar reasons it was removed the last time or not, but I've seen the flag flown before and wandered why it had been removed, so I re-added it. Now, while I agree with your argument here, I think that we should find some way of displaying all proposals. Could we perhaps do a gallery? Or, better yet, how about the creation of a separate article on the subject: Proposals for the redeisgn of the flag of New Zealand or similar? What do you think?
There was some debate as to whether the article should be split - i.e. Debate on the Flag of New Zealand or something. That would make sense, as would a gallery. If they flag has been flown then it does meet my criteria, I guess the the only question is how we verify that. --Lholden (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning behind moving flag debate into its own page was because it is more than half of the page (going by word count) so it's overwhelmed the original subject. Second, it's a separate subject and sub-set of the flag in general. To be honest, I thought I'd already moved debate to a separate page a year ago.

For the criteria of a New Zealand Flag then I'd suggest this is a flag that [1] identifies the state of New Zealand and [2] has the consent of the Head of State. This criteria would mean moving flag debate and the service flags (RNZN, RNZAF) to their own pages just as the Flag of the Governor-General of New Zealand has it's own page. Refering to the flag debate and the service flags on the NZ Flag page would be necessary, just don't carry the entire entry on the national flag page. --K Stephens (talk) 11:16, 31 Aubust 2009 (UTC)

## Flag of New Zealand vs. Flag of Australia

Are the blue textures of these two flags the same or are they supposed to be different? The blues of these two flags in Wikipedia are slightly different and I am not sure if this is correct or not. Thanks,Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

the flag of New Zealand has four stars and the southern cross with a blue back round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.241.176 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

## Tino Rangatiratanga Flag in Gallery

Have removed the Tino rangatiratanga flag from the Gallery section of "Many other flags also contain the Southern Cross"?

I have hidden the Tino rangatiratanga flag from the gallery because

1. This flag does not contain the Southern Cross.
2. The gallery is intended for flags that contain the Southern Cross.
3. No reference is made to the Southern Cross (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tino_rangatiratanga#Origins_.26_Etymology).

The flags of Australia, Fiji, Niue & Tokelau are examples of flags that contain the Southern Cross.

-- Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ) 04:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talkcontribs)

I have restored the flag to the gallery. The sentence above the gallery -- "Many other flags also contain the Southern Cross" -- does not apply to the gallery.. Moriori (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You are completely correct, the previous section doesn't affect the gallery. I have removed the Tino rangatiratanga flag because it is not the flag of New Zealand which is the subject of the page. There is an appropriate place for flags that aren't recognized by Govt. on the flag debate page. -- Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ) 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The Tino Rangatiratanga Flag is recognised by the government: The National Maori Flag --LJ Holden 23:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello again Lewis. The subject of the page is the "Flag of New Zealand", I'd like to clarify my point as "aren't recognized by Govt" as the "Flag of New Zealand". The Tino Rangatiratanga flag certainly belongs on wiki, absolutely important to entries on Moari sovernitity and flag debate however it is not the "flag of New Zealand".

-- Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ)

Ok, if we apply that logic then there should only be one picture in the gallery, as only one picture is of the New Zealand flag... --LJ Holden 04:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There's no consensus for removing the flag from the gallery, so I have restored it. One editor appears to be taking a particular POV on inclusion of the flag. --LJ Holden 00:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try and degrade my statement of the facts as an opinion or point of view. I've seen you debate better than that in the past Lewis.

On the point about consensus, there was no consensus to include a flag that is not part of the page subject in the first place. It would have been better to apply a test of relationship to the subject and the consensus test when the flag was included.

1. Fact, the subject of the page is the Flag of New Zealand which is the flag that represents the nation of New Zealand, part of the Realm of New Zealand.
2. Fact, the Tino Rangatiratanga flag has *never* represented the nation of New Zealand. It represents a political group and not the entire nation.
3. Fact, you have yet to state the causal link between Tino Rangatiratanga flag and the subject of the page.
4. Conclusion: Without a link between an object and the subject of the page, the object does not belone.
5. Try this test: whatever is your reason, does it eliminate Justin Bieber or a political party flag being included in the gallery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talkcontribs) 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Karl, I'm not "degrading" your statment by pointing out that your edits are POV. I'd also expect the same civility I've extended to yourself, there's no need to make snide remarks about my debating skills. I have cited the relevant WP policies in all my edits and discussed all changes here.
The Wikipedia policy here is clear - see WP:POV. You've changed your stance as to why the flag should be removed (first claiming that it didn't include the Southern Cross, which was wrong, and then that it has no government sanction, which is also wrong) a number of times above, it's not hard to see why your edits are from a particular point of view. Under Wikipedia policy it's not incumbent on myself or any other editor to provide reasons as to why a part of the article should stay, it's incumbent upon yourself, as the editor trying to remove part of an article, to provide reasons as to why it should be removed. If there is no consensus, then the article stays as is. See WP:CONSENSUS.
To respond to each of your points above:
1. That this article is about the Flag of New Zealand is not in dispute. As pointed out above, if the article is to only include the "flag that represents the nation of New Zealand" then all the other flags ought to be removed, including the historical ones, and the flag of the New Zealand Navy, Civil Ensign, the unofficial Antartic flag, etc. That is a ridicolous outcome. The article obviously includes all flags that have represented facets of New Zealand's society since 1834, regardless of our respective views on them.
2. No-one is claiming by including the TR flag that it represents the "nation of New Zealand", and it's not included on that basis. Your assertion that it represents a political group confirms the POV being used to exclude it.
3. As above, I don't need to. Nor does any other editor. You're trying to remove content from this article.
5. A Justin Bieber flag clearly would not have any link to New Zealand. A political party flag might be flown for elections, but as far as I know none exist.
Please take the time to read through the Wikipedia policies I've cited above. --LJ Holden 00:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, the Flag of Australia article includes the Aboriginal flag. --LJ Holden 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to each point.
1. That this article is about the Flag of New Zealand is not in dispute: If the page is about "The New Zealand Flag, it's history and derived flags" then the historical flags show a progress to the current flag giving a logical reason for their inclusion. Derived means based on the New Zealand blue ensign which is the red and white ensigns, RNZAF flag and the CA flag.
2. My POV is that the TR flag is not related to the New Zealand Flag. My definition of related has evolved to “derived from or contributed to the NZ flag”. What in your opinion are the parameters for including content in the gallery?
3. I'm not surpised you didn't answer that point, frankly there is no causal link between Tino Rangatiratanga flag and the subject of the page. The TR flag is not derived from the NZ flag, The TR flag did not contribute to the NZ flag. I have to ask, what in your opinion are the parameters for including content in the gallery?
4. I had already read the MCH link you provided. MCH state that the TR flag is flown in a inferior position to the NZ flag just like any company or house flag. If there is a relationship between the TR and New Zealand flags then any relationship is that the TR flag is inferior and has less significance than a national flag and is always flown in an inferior position. If any flag inferior to the NZ flag is the criteria for inclusion in the gallery then the Auckland City Council flag should be included (along with Wellington, Hamilton and every other NZ city). What in your opinion are the parameters for including content in the gallery?
5. Political Party Flags: Visit the Mana Party site, you'll recognise the TR flag is shown twice in this image. Your reference to Australia, NZ does several things differently to the Aussies. We never bowl underarm in cricket, our [rurby team win on average three out of every four games they play] and [our cops don't carry firearms] all the time. Is your definition involve following Australia? Just what in your opinion are the parameters for including content in the gallery?

-- Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ) 05:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed name of this section from generic Gallery a specific Tino Rangatiratanga Flag in Gallery.
Karl, please read the Wikipedia policies I've cited above. Your question "what in your opinion are the parameters for including content in the gallery" is irrelevant, as is my opinion on the "parameters". I've set out the parameters as defined by Wikipedia's policies. Your insistence that I answer your question shows you've missed the point of this discussion page. I'm yet to see a reason for removing the TR flag from the gallery, your inconsistency only shows you're trying to find one. As I've said, the article obviously includes all flags that have represented facets of New Zealand's society since 1834, regardless of our respective views on them.
The claim that the flags included must have made some sort of contribution to the current national New Zealand flag is nonsensical. It would lead to the removal of the United Tribes flag, RNZAF flag (which is clearly based on the RAF flag, not the RNR Blue Ensign as the current flag is). --LJ Holden 08:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of the edit history shows the TR flag was added by Seselas on 22:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) however this account is a sock puppet of 23prootie and has been blocked indefinitely.
As the content was added by a sock puppet (failing the one user/one account rule) and without consultation (failing the WP:CONSENSUS test) due to the breach of two Wiki Policies I’ve removed the content from the gallery.
Please understand if there is a reason to include this flag then I look forward to the discussion. Lewis was right, I should have read the policies before speaking.

-- Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ) 09:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talkcontribs)

Who added the flag in the first place is now irrelevant, as it has been reinstated several times by established editors. You have now tried at least three different reasons for removing the flag, and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith on your part.-gadfium 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Since admitting that I confused the final paragraph of the preceding section as being part of the gallery I’ve been consistent with the point that “The TR flag is not related to the NZ Flag” when I said:
1. 04:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC): “the subject of the page is the Flag of New Zealand” and later “the Tino Rangatiratanga flag has *never* represented the nation of New Zealand “
2. Paraphrase a long sentence, ‘The Tino Rangatiratanga flag’ …’ is not the "flag of New Zealand"’
3. 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC): “Without a link between an object and the subject of the page, the object does not belon[g].”
4. 05:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC): “My POV is that the TR flag is not related to the New Zealand Flag”.
Lewis Holden challenged me to prove there was no relationship between the flags however being completely unable to prove something doesn’t exist (and understanding logic wasn’t getting me anywhere) I added the two facts that the content was added by a sock puppet without consensus.
It’s sad to hear an accusation of bad faith when *removing* sock puppet content. Until now this assumption was made when the content is changed but not when it’s undone. Further placing a limitation of removing sock puppet content codifies vandalism when everyone (including me) was too lazy to find and remove the content completely ignores the WP:SOCK policy.
Can someone tell me [1] why WP:SOCK is being ignored and [2] the relationship between the TR flag and the page subject that is being so stanchly defended?
-- Karl Stephens (Auckland, NZ) 06:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinesurfer (talkcontribs) 06:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Karl, I never challenged you to prove there was "no relationship between the New Zealand and TR flags." I've challenged you to get consensus as to why we should remove a piece of content from this article. The fact it was added by a sock puppet originally is irrelevant, it's not codifying vandalism in any way if the content itself is not vandalism. Let's stick to the question of what should be included in this article. --LJ Holden 07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[LH] never challenged [KS] to prove there was "no relationship between the New Zealand and TR flags"
1. 06:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC) - KS said: Item (3) "you have yet to state the causal link between Tino Rangatiratanga flag and the subject of the page."
2. 00:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) - LH replied: Item (3) "I don't need to. Nor does any other editor. You're trying to remove content from this article."
To me, that sounds like "When removing content the editor has to prove there *isn't* a causal link [in this case] between objects and subject of the page" even it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Getting Consenus
WP:MTPPT (which is part of WP:SOCK) lists three points and number 1 is "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors".
Vandalism was proven with breach of WP:SOCK ((para 1) that states "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account" and WP:VANTYPES "Account creation, malicious" was also proven to be breached when both the Seselas and 23prootie accounts were ‘’blocked indefinitely’’ - (the standard of proof being administrators outside of this discussion). Vandalism in the recent past hasn't required consensus:
1. 19:56, 18 November 2011 - SkyMachine: Removed derogatory comment directed at the TR flag - WP:VANTYPES "Hidden vandalism" and "Sneaky vandalism".
2. 07:25, 4 October 2011 - Calabe1992: removed vandelism where NZ flag was replaced - WP:VANTYPES "Image vandalism".
3. 11:56, 6 September 2011 - Wayne Slam: removed derogatory name replaced name of NZ flag - WP:VANTYPES "Image vandalism".
4. 11:51, 6 September 2011 - ClueBot NG: Removed derogatory content that replaced an entire paragraph - WP:VANTYPES "Blanking, illegitimate".
5. 19:55, 11 August 2011 - Chipmunkdavis: Removed personal comment of "Hi" - WP:VANTYPES "Silly vandalism".
6. 18:36, 25 July 2011 - ClueBot NG: and again with the personal "Hi" type comments - WP:VANTYPES "Silly vandalism".
I feel we all agree that the correct response to Vandalism is undo however it's not accepted that the WP:SOCK is applicable even though WP:SOCK was proven with a high standard of proof. WP:SOCK (1) does not have a time limit, (2) editors and administrators do not have descretion to ignore policy yet this breach of both polices is treated differently to the 6 cited incidents that all fall within scope of WP:VANTYPES.
Reason to Edit
(I've used this explaination with Gadfium) The page has a great narrative from historical and proposed flags pior to the 1840's to the treaty then to the evolution of the NZ flag and its derivatives. The TR flag doesn’t fit the narrative and even if you change the story there is still no explanation in the text to account the TR flag appearing in the gallery. I don’t feel it is unfair to expect a connection between images in the gallery with the subject of the page (otherwise that horrible example of the Justin Bieber flag is justifiable – which the JB flag is not justified).
All elements of a story have to be connected to the story line or you remove the non-contiguous object(s) otherwise you lose any continuity in your story. I’ve been pretty consistent with the “it’s not related to the NZ flag” argument.

Conclusions
1. Going to consensus to remove content created immediately prior to a blocked account being disabled creates the precedent that we are unfair when we don't seek consensus for all future acts of vandalism.
2. The TR flag is not related to the page subject or the story being told, changing the story line leaves vulnerbilities of clearly unrelated content no qualifying as in-scope of the subject.
---- Karl Stephens (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Karl, I have no idea where you're coming from. You said I needed to show a causal link between the New Zealand flag and the Tino Rangatiratanga Flag, which you are trying to have removed from this article. I pointed out that under WP:CONSENSUS that no-one has to prove that for content already in an article. You took from that that I challenged you to show there is no relationship between the current New Zealand flag and the TR Flag!? No, that's not what I was saying at all.
The sock-puppet issue is irrelevant. We're not dealing with vandalism here. I can't see how you think it "unfair" that content added by an account that's now blocked can't simply be removed because you don't like it.
The issue here appears to be your definition of what this page is about. You haven't been consistent on that point I'm afraid, anyone reading the above thread can see that. You first stated "I have removed the Tino rangatiratanga flag because it is not the flag of New Zealand which is the subject of the page." I then pointed out that if that was the case then we would have to remove all other flags from the page, which would've been pretty destructive.
Then your line shifted to "If the page is about "The New Zealand Flag, it's history and derived flags" then the historical flags show a progress to the current flag giving a logical reason for their inclusion. Derived means based on the New Zealand blue ensign which is the red and white ensigns, RNZAF flag and the CA flag." I pointed out that actually excluded the RNZAF flag, because it's based on the RAF flag, not the Blue Ensign as the current New Zealand flag is.
The reason for these shifts, as I've shown, is that you're trying to find a way to define the TR flag out of this article.
Your line is now "The TR flag is not related to the page subject or the story being told, changing the story line leaves vulnerbilities of clearly unrelated content no qualifying as in-scope of the subject". The problem is that the TR flag is related to the "story being told". As above, the Government has, rightly or wrongly, officially recognised the TR flag as the "National Maori Flag".
This article clearly needs an "Other New Zealand flags" section added to it, along the lines of the Australian article (Flag of Australia#Other Australian flags). That to me is the most sensible conclusion. --LJ Holden 21:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting debate but do you intend to add something about protocol for using the nz flag, when to fly your flag and why do you have almost as many flags on your page as the flags of new zealand page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.158.250 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

## Incorrect Flag Issue

Viewing this page on a Mobile Device displays the incorrect flag -- if you view the desktop or mobile page via a portable device (mine is an iPhone, but it is occurring on android as well) it displays the blue black silver fern with the southern cross stars. Could this be due to caching? It does not occur on desktop PCs. I find this behaviour oddly inconsistent with the website. Can someone please investigate this further.

-Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.57.126 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Stewart, someone's been updating the main NZ flag file used throughout Wikipedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg) with the blue & black Lockwood design. Just an idiot being an idiot. Looks like they stopped a couple of days ago. - Elguaponz (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)