Talk:Disability flag

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mstew27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Warning: All five language versions of this article authored by the same user
Note on the adherence to the principles of Neutral point of view and Verifiability in this article, as discussed in this AfD request: This article currently exists in five languages, namely Catalan, English, German, French and Spanish. All five language versions of the article were created by the same user: NaviNews. Beyond that, he / she has done little else in each of these language versions. This type of Single-purpose account and cross-wiki activity may not always be problematic, but in practice it often is. In the case of a somewhat diffuse topic such as "What does this flag express?" it may inadvertently lead to Original research by favouring a particular, personal take on how to assemble source material etc. So treat this article with caution, and do not look for the other language version for guidance. This is all coming from the same source. --Minderbinder (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, this appears to be promotional activity. I'm fairly active and well connected on a variety of disability rights social media and I've never seen this flag outside of WP. All the significant sources for this flag seem to be Spanish, it clearly does not have global recognition. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get involved in a notability dispute on en:WP, but let me comment on one aspect: Just because a phenomenon only has sources in a particular language (e.g. Spanish) does not mean there cannot be Wikipedia articles about it in other languages as well. --Minderbinder (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's not a matter of notability as such, it's the implied claim that this flag is widely recognized internationally that seems overstated to me. It's nowhere near as known as the rainbow flag of the LGBTQI+ movement. It really looks like Wikipedia is actually being used to promote the flag. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of your points. I will leave the editing of this article to others, though. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless of issues of promotion, this article has stylistic issues, including the use of sentences like "It is important to recognize that the meanings of these colors are decided by the collective community it represents" without attributing opinions/ideas to a person or sources. It also reads like a direct translation from spanish (as someone who reads both english and spanish that stuck out to me immediately from reading this article before even looking at the spanish one) and could be improved for tone/syntax and readability. Finally, the organization of the sections doesn't really flow well. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

How important is it that you have been responsible for all the publications if all of them are verified? the only reason to invalidate this is simply that it has been translated in other communities? It has been approved by users in the community and that is more than enough. also a single user has deleted several disability flags despite people who have tried to prevent it. the excuse is that it "has no relevance in the English community" when it is a fallacy and denies the fact that English Wikipedia is the most universal Wikipedia. You cannot tolerate vandalism and remove this type of content with such poor arguments without permission. It is evident that it is not a very good practice to create articles in this way, but at no time is this spam or anything negative since all communities have been considered approved and of quality content. I can understand the removal of the front line flag in other articles but it can be placed in a section, there is no need to delete it when the flag is fully verified. on average, I'll put the flag back in the relevant articles albeit in a more "hidden" way.NaviNews (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What flag is this about?
It seems this article is now referencing two different flags. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * the flag that is being spoken is the tricolor flag. the flag of the Pride disability section does not represent the articleNaviNews (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree: the title 'disability flag' could suggest this is about THE 'disability flag', or about the phenomenon 'disability flag' in general. In this last case, it is perfectly possible to add information about more than one type of 'disability flag'. Laurier (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * In which case the lede should be updated to reflect the topic, not discuss one flag then have an article within an article about the other Slywriter (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you're right about that! I hope to find the time to work on this soon, please anyone else: feel free to help with this! Laurier (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the designer of the "Disability Pride Flag" (the Lightning Bolt design) that appears in this article. This design was highlighted on a popular Reddit thread, and shared through Tumblr in July of 2021, and the sudden wide exposure revealed that it was dangerous for people with visually triggered disabilities. So it has been redesigned, though a collaborative effort of the people effected, and the version that appears here is now obsolete, and should be removed. Ann Magill (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble finding sources out there for the redesign. Was it mentioned anywhere in the news? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it's not in the news anywhere (That said, the original design hasn't appeared in the news, either -- the design is too new). But the redesign process happened on Tumblr, and the discussion of the original's faults came to my attention through this post (dated 5 July, 2021). I've put the up-to-date design in my introductory Tumblr post, here. Ann Magill (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm tagging here, who added the original flag image for their thoughts. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This source is in the article and lists the flag. — Tazuco  ( talk ) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I found others.(1)(2)(3)(4) The visually safe version is found here as well. — Tazuco  ( talk ) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. I guess I spoke too soon about either design not being in the news. But there are so many more news outlets these days, it's hard to keep up with them.
 * BTW, I've since found that the Flag at the head of this article is now being used as an image associated with the Reddit fora associated with Disability Ann Magill (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this input! I would really love to see the new version on the page, with the sources mentioned. I'm not finding the time to do this right now, so don't wait for me to do this! I'll make a small contribution here, we'll just have to add text with these references between :
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Laurier (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All of the recent sources shown only enhance my concern that the first flag mentioned is not actually notable nor recognized as a "disability flag" by any significant community. (Reddit grabbing the 1st image it sees does not count for much).Slywriter (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While I grant that this current version of this particular design of the Disability Pride Flag is too new to be recognized by a "Significant community," I am Still asking for the zigzag version of this flag be removed. because it is Dangerous to people with visually triggered Epilepsy. Thank you! Ann Magill (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

More on Flags
While we already have the issue of the article being about two flags, I also reverted the inclusion of a caption on the 2nd flag which NaviNews has now reinserted with new text.

"Disability Pride Flag represents the Disability Pride Movement, designed by Ann Magill. (This flag is only a civil flag, not to be confused with Disability Flag) See Disability Pride"

My question to other editors is whether Reliable Sources support the parenthetical. Slywriter (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid is clearly a SPA dedicated to promoting this relatively obscure flag. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am doing my best to keep AGF at the forefront but it is admittedly difficult. I'm not even convinced that the flag is notable but do not know enough about the UN process to know how common or uncommon their recognition of the flag is. I have also been stripping out several forced placements of this article in see also and nav bars. Slywriter (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence that the UN has shown any real interest in this flag. (One occasion of a UN official being polite to the flag designer does not IMHO add up to any kind of "official recognition".) In fact I'm not at all sure the UN even has a process or protocol about flags that are not the official national flags of countries or supranational organisations. BTW can you read Spanish? I think the cited sources could do with a thorough evaluation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , very weak on spanish. However, more digging shows no evidence of the UN adoption of the flag and even this webpage questioning the claim . Do we have a wiki project for disability or perhaps another suitable page to ask for more eyes on this? Slywriter (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have dropped a note on the Disability WikiProject Slywriter (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I continually have to explain what I have already explained above. I am not an account dedicated to promoting or advertising the flag and this accusation is very serious.  who says the prosecution has no personal or commercial interests?  you are simply saying that it is obvious for no really meaningful reason.  I have edited articles of another nature.  by the way, wanting to remove the information in parentheses arguing that it was already removed by two people is not a valid argument.  why?  because they were made by anonymous, who guarantees me that it was not you who did it?  everything written here has already been verified to be true.  I precisely know Spanish and I have been able to read the references in question.  This debate has already been settled in the past.NaviNews (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The debate is not settled as several editors are questioning. Further, IPs have equal rights to registered users (and I'll ignore your bad faith accussation this time but WP:AGF is not optional)  There is zero evidence that the flag has actually been adopted by the UN(beyond the single source provided). Zero signs they have used the flag in any meaningful way beyond allowing it to fly for a day. The edit has been challenged because all sources point to the flag you are desperately trying to minimize as being better known and in wider use.
 * You are welcome to provide sources that show the edit is correct, but until then it has no purpose being in the article.
 * In sum, engage in discussion with your fellow editors or step away from the article. Further baseless accusations will not be tolerated and will not make other editors cease from challenging the validity of this articles claims.  Slywriter (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * there is evidence because if not the references would not exist and the reason that is little known I am not very sure if it is a very valid reason. you are giving counter-affirmations without giving any contrasting data.  I do not doubt that this article is a bit special, in fact perhaps it would not be a bad thing then to leave what you have eliminated.  I am not saying that anonymous people do not have rights.  I'm just saying that those anonymous names could have been made by the same user.  it could be you like me or anyone.  that's why I say that it is not safe to defend the removal of parentheses with something so insecure.  I am not accusing you of anything, and if so I apologize.  I agree with you but I hope that the respect is reciprocal.  I have already been accused and hinted more than once as a "publicist"NaviNews (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Maverique pride flag
The main flag is too similar to the maverique pride flag. — Tazuco  ( talk ) 16:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn’t the flag we acknowledge anyway. We recognize the five colors against the black background.  The gold, silver, and bronze abomination should be removed from the page and replaced with the accepted Disability Pride Flag. 2600:4041:52A0:9E00:21D4:D8AD:EF25:3773 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the “2021 Redesign”
Disability_Pride_Month section describes a 2021 redesign, this is completely unmentioned in this article  Nithin🚀 talk 21:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)