Talk:Red Peak flag

On the necessity of a Peak Engineering logo subsection

To all editors concerned, but especially recent participants @Papataunuku, Hshook, and HitroMilanese:

I think it is time for us to place the edit war of yesterday behind us and to move constructively toward a solution on the aforementioned issue (full disclosure, I am a Red Peak supporter and I live in the U.S.). With this goal in mind, I have made a good-faith edit to the content I wrote a few days ago. In doing so, I have eliminated all language that I believe some editors and readers could find as offensive or accusatory (e.g., stolen, plagiarism, etc.). I have, however, retained information both on the logo and the controversy, however manufactured it may be by the media/anti-Red Peakers and however much I may disagree with its charges. In my opinion, Wikipedia has a responsibility to report not merely on what we, as editors, personally agree with, but on whatever is part of the topic's history. For better or worse, a connection between Red Peak and Peak Engineering has been drawn, by top newspapers in both NZ and the US, and thus, it is now part of Red Peak's history and story. Not reporting on such a matter, especially in a section about similar designs, seems to me an omission. I hope that we can all agree that: 1) the designs are objectively similar; 2) the media has covered this topic extensively; 3) charges of plagiarism have been made, thus generating a controversy; but that, and importantly, 4) this does not mean Red Peak's design is NOT original. Based upon these four points, it seems our path forward is to narrowly and neutrally report on the matter, with proper and well-documented citations, rather than merely blanking the section because its content is offensive to one or more of us. I hope this memo and the resulting edit on the main page help to quell this edit war and that we can move on to other ways of improving the quality and content of the Red Peak article. Respectfully, Sgvrfjs (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with everything above. I'm happy with the section as it stands, but if others have an issue then we can definitely make changes. – Hshook (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@210.86.73.204 and Clpo13. Thanks for your recent edits to this subsection. I was actually in the process of changing 210.86.73.204 edit's back as well, but Clpo13 beat me to it with the revision. I do, however, want to explain in general why I think 210.86.73.204's edit was unproductive: the section is about designs that are similar to the Red Peak flag, and as such the subsection of Peak Engineering's logo should logically begin not with its role in the controversy (as 210.86.73.204 edited it to be) but rather with the fact that it is similar as a design. I also thought various other minor edits, such as changing the quote of "red herring" to 'irrelevant' was not particularly helpful and I did not care for the unsourced expansion of the controversy from Peak Engineering to multiple corporate logos. That said, 210.86.73.204 may be correct that the part about Dustin could be improved with the "different in form and colour" bit, followed by a ". Despite the controversy, Peak's..." In fact, I think I'll make this change now. Happy to discuss, and please let me know if you disagree, especially with the first point! Sgvrfjs (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a fact that bears mentioning, given the media attention. clpo13_(talk) 01:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13: are you okay with the subection as it now stands? And just to clarify, you are saying that the controversy should be mentioned (which it has been since the subsection was written) but that it shouldn't be the paragraph lead. Or am I just putting my opinions in your mouth?! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sgvrfjs: I think your suggestions are fine. I just want to avoid any non-neutral language like some of the previous IP edits. clpo13_(talk) 01:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Clpo13: On that point, and considering our earlier edit back-and-forth with Papataunuku, we are in agreement. I earlier edited out any language that could seem remotely charged or insensitive. Thanks again for your help. Sgvrfjs (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The improvements are great - a step in the right direction for sure. Thought the entire Similar designs section is questionable in my opinion. I feel it is propagating the argument that the design isn't original when there is absolutely no evidence of that. One can find similarities between anything. I mean should we include the farcical NZ first argument comparing it to Nazi symbolism? The two subsections combine take up almost half the article and this coverage seems disproportionate. The Wā kāinga section is a full description of that flag rather than information pertinent to Red Peak.

I think the solution would be to do two sections 1) pro red peak and people pro 2) criticisms of it people anti. If the Wā kāinga flag is deemed wikipedia worthy it should be broken out into its own article or included in a Morgan Foundation one. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I can completely understand your concerns. I am probably a bit biased, seeing as I wrote the similar designs section (although I add that I was not the first to include the Wā kāinga flag reference and image in the article). I should add that the similar designs section seem disproportionately long because, in my opinion, the History section is so very underdeveloped. Once that is properly expanded (hopefully by others), the disproportion may disappear. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that a similar designs section propagates the unoriginality point of view, but I very much can understand your reasons for thinking this. I will say that I have seen other flag pages with such info before, but perhaps not in such detail. Irrespective of what we rule on a similar designs section, I of course stand by the positions that the Peak Engineering controversy should be diplomatically and neutrally covered, for the reasons I stated at the top of this chain.

I think, since I have been dominating the writing (similar designs, new and improved lead section), I am going to step back for a day or so and let the community talk so that I can listen. I am, of course, happy to help out further as needed. Thanks, ShakyIsles for your thoughtful analysis. Sgvrfjs (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thnaks Sgvrfjs I'm just making the point that many things could be compared to a triangle/chevron design and there is a bunch of media coverage that isn't covered in the article.

• Just yesterday NBR had this https://twitter.com/TheNBR/status/646931405520265217
• There was of course the ludicrous Nazi comparisons.
• There was an also an earlier comparison to the Sydney Roosters uniforms - http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5609374-3x2-700x467.jpg

Maybe it doesn't propagate the unoriginality but it seems a bit of a bottomless pit that doesn't really seem integral to the article. ShakyIsles (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing that has seemed a bit off in Wikipedia's coverage of flags is the 'similar flags' section. It's completely subjective. I agree with ShakyIsles that this could become a bottomless pit of similar ideas. I don't know where we draw the line though; Peak Engineering, Wa Kainga or the other flag that's been added here. I propose keeping Peak Engineering and either merging the two flags or removing the second one (with the stars). – Hshook (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree with the two of you. I suppose I'm not a fan of including the second flag (with the Southern Cross), primarily because I feel that any flag that did not make the government's longlist of 40 designs is, more or less, insignificant. At least Wa Kainga / Home 1) made the longlist; and 2) won a $20,000 prize! Indeed, the effort to reverse Red Peak's tide is really starting to heat up (worryingly), and so perhaps ShakyIsles is on to something when s/he recommending doing pro/con arguments sections.

A couple of questions: 1) Are we happy with the lead now (I thought it should include the most essential facts of its history/how it came back, as well as information on the design and symbolism)?; 2) do we agree the history section needs to be expanded and that it is, actually, already out of date?; 3) Do we want to delete the support for referendum spot section and replace it with pro/con arguments against the flag, now that the flag is on the ballot paper. Again, I'll step back and listen before working on any major facelift. Sgvrfjs (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with the first part of your comment.

To answer your questions:

1) I'm happy with the lead as-is, can't think of anything to add apart from what you mention.

2) Yes.

3) Yes, however I think the section should be called something like 'Debate' or 'Public opinion' rather than 'Pros and Cons', because it might sound like we are pushing a POV, and it also isn't very eloquent. We can incorporate the flag supporters into the history section. Since most of them are politicians, they could go in a paragraph about the parliamentary vote.

Unrelated, but whenever I look at the flag I see some different symbolism, and I know there have been a lot of different takes on it. Should we have a symbolism section where main viewpoints are represented? I was thinking dot points. I suppose this comes back to notability, and whose ideas are worthy of inclusion. – Hshook (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the warring but I felt the removal of the malicious Peak Engineering material was urgent given the speed of events concerning the flag and the scrutiny. ShakeyIsles has correctly pointed out how this is a bottomless pit, and I believe the editors might be seeing this now. I appreciate the desire for 'completeness' but I argue that Peak Engineering does not warrant such a prominent mention on this article. However widely the story has been broadcast - it is opinion and an incorrect one at that - the actual similarity between the two designs is tenuous (they are different shapes and colours) and the story is clearly an attempt to undermine the integrity of the First to the Light design. Will other Red Peak conspiracies also require a mention here for the sake of completeness? The Swastika? The Illuminati all seeing eye? The innumerable other red triangles that are being gleefully paraded about? Consider the "birther" movement with Barack Obama - that too was widely reported and yet there is no mention of it on the POTUS page. I see "Similar flags" is common to Wikipedia flag articles rather than similar designs. I respectfully suggest the section be renamed as Similar Flags and the Peak Engineering content is removed. Please consider that this flag design has received a large amount of positive media coverage and endorsement and there is no extended mention of these on this article. Presently this article appears to be disproportionately negative, which is disappointing, given the amount of popular support and positivity for this flag.Papataunuku (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2015 )

Thank you, Papataunuku, for meeting us at the proverbial table for relating your thoughts on the matter to us. You make very valid points, and eloquently, too. It seems that, during your 72 hour sojourn, Hshook, ShakyIsles, and I have determined that the way forward is to develop further the History section and to create a new section called Public debate; correct me if I'm wrong, but such a way forward seems to complement rather than contradict your thoughts on the matter. To this end, and because you have pointed out the negative slant (although inadvertent, for sure!) of the article due to its coverage, would you like to begin compiling a list of important/notable pro and con individuals, editorials, etc.? I would volunteer myself, but not being from NZ, I don't know all of the key players. This could be a great opportunity for you to channel your passion for Red Peak into something constructive to your community!

As for the Similar designs section, I suggest deletion, with the caveat that some material should be retained, albeit in new sections and more briefly. First, Wa Kainga / Home: I suggest creating its own page (this flag is notable, due to its Morgan Foundation win), with just a sentence or two on its relevance to Red Peak in the Red Peak article; I am happy to do this, and already a have a sentence/way to work it in in mind. Second, Bond of a New Origin: It hurts to say, because the editor did such a nice job on his/her first ever edit, but I think this material unfortunately has to be deleted, for reasons we have all raised above...it is both not notable (didn't make the 40 long list) and almost anything can be compared to Red Peak. I suggest whomever deletes this content should write a message on its author's talkpage, stressing the reasons why and thanking them for their contribution (don't want to discourage new editors!). Finally, Peak Engineering logo: we can chop this section quite a bit, but under the proposed Public debate section, much of this content could be retained. This might meet Papataunuku's concerns: because Peak Engineering will no longer have its own subsection, it's prominence in the article will be less obvious.

I'm glad we are all good on the lead. That means we can set our energies toward the History and Public debate sections, which we really need! Sgvrfjs (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Have created the Public Debate section as discussed. Am in the process of creating a separate page for Wa Kainga Flag but wasn't sure if there was one already in sandbox/draft somewhere?Papataunuku (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to scratch some notes here, I've removed the logo for Red Peak Engineering since I think the rational for adding this non-free logo is weak. The logo is not a flag, and is unrelated except for a few visual similarities. I also don't think that the dozen other logos with visual similarities should be added to this article either. I think Papataunuku's edits generalised the issue, and retained the multiple references to news articles that display the unrelated non-free logos. I'm OK with Wā kāinga displayed and discussed in the article (or a separate article), since it is a related flag design in the same referendum. +mt 23:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mistaken criticism of the referendum process

The section on criticism of the referendum process repeats a mistaken argument. For the time being, I have added a brief rebuttal of the argument, along with a relevant wikilink and a reference that discusses why the argument is mistaken. I would be in favour of removing this section entirely. If others believe it is worthwhile to keep both the flawed argument and its rebuttal, I would agree that it should be kept. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)