Talk:Flag Institute

Criteria for Inclusion in the UK Flag Registry
Why should only the single criterion for county flags (listed third out of eight in the source) be deemed worthy of note in the article? I'm not sure that the size of the article warrants inclusion of all eight. So, if all eight are not listed, I think it's fair not to give any undue weight by including only one? What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it excludes the Met counties, that is the only purpose of that statement and is such is controversial. If the Institute was neutral it would include flags for all local government areas not just the ones that it approves of.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but why exactly is a link to the Westmorland Association of particular relevance to this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is evidence, if you read the page, that they are quiet happy to take nominations from any ragtag bunch for counties pre 1972. Demonstrating once again there agenda.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are presenting evidence for a particular point of view. But that's contary to WP:POV. It's you that seems to have an agenda here? Why should pre-1972 counties represent a "ragbag"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See above. The Flag Institute state that "In the case of county flags, the flag must normally apply to a historical county rather than a modern administrative area." You seem to be interpreting metropolitan counties as "modern administrative areas" rather than "historical counties".  Why?  The met counties as administrative areas were abolished in 1986, so are just as much "historical" as many other counties.  Without providing any evidence that the Flag Institute has a policy of excluding met counties, the words you are adding are clearly synthesis.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To reiterate what I posted on my talk page: The inclusion criteria do not exclude "the Met counties" or any other type of geographical area — witness the registered flags of East Anglia and Wessex for example. There is currently no Merseyside flag, but if you want to campaign for one then you are quite free to do so. Due to the lack of a history of common identity there is little chance of one being accepted given that there are already historic flags for Lancashire and Cheshire. Owain (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the arguments presented here seem to be perfectly reasonable. But I am still intrigued as to why specific note needs to be made of the rules regard flags for counties. Does this indicate that the work of the Institute is primarily concerned with county flags? Is this the aspect of their work most significant to the public? Or is there some other reason? Perhaps it might be easier, and more informative, to list all the criteria? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That reference was added here by User:Kitchen Knife (now blocked, again) - presumably because he felt it supported his claim that the Institute was in some way biased against the met counties. I agree it should not be given any more weight in the article than any other of the Institute's criteria - and I suppose that in the interests of "building the encyclopedia", it makes sense to list them all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion was a word-for-word copy-paste from the Institute website, so I've removed it anyway. Listing the full criteria for inclusion is probably WP:UNDUE, being cited as it is to WP:PRIMARY sources. We should be sticking to notable facts that have been published independently. Sionk (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

COI
I've added the COI template to the article because the Institute executive, Charles Ashburner, is heavily involved in editing this page. In addition, suspected sockpuppet Wooster49 has also been making major edits. This article shouldn't be a blatant advert for the Institute, it should instead concentrate on summarising the notable facts that have been independently reported. Sionk (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The second account was blocked as a sockpuppet. There are also copyright issues with a number of the editor's uploads, here and on Commons. Still, this article reads like a puff-piece for the organisation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Status of the Charity
I am concerned by recent edits to this article that revert contextual edits made by myself. The page in its form before I edited it implied the charity was an official flag body, or that it was the UK's only flag body. This is obviously not true, as the sources the recent edits removed showed. There are also obvious COI issues reflected in the recent edits, and echoing the concerns of previous editors above. I am new to taking an interest in this page, but given the outstanding multiple issues, taking the page backwards on the path to getting it free of conflicts and issues is not in my mind the right path. I acknowledge these recent edits were in Good Faith so have reverted them pending consensus in here. Ortolan57 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no COI concerns in my edits -- please read WP:COI and consider it, and please do not cast aspersions like that in the future. Contrary to how you've framed it, that the article has been edited before by someone involved in the charity doesn't mean your changes are the "right path".
 * Nothing in the article before your changes (and what I reverted to) implied the charity has any official status, merely that it's an educational charity that maintains vexillogy-related registers and advice. Therefore additions about the ceremonial role of the College of Arms etc appear a non-sequitar.
 * That said, using "unofficial" appears not only unnecessary, but (typical of Britain's mushy handling of things like this) potentially incorrect. The British government has given recognition numerous times to the Flag Institute and its activities in its own publications. This includes the government promoting the Flag Institute's advice about creating community flags (and describes adding a flag to the FI's register as "register[ing] an official flag"). When put in that context, using the word "unofficial" is unnecessary, if not incorrect.
 * Given my edits were substantially to restore the article to its stable state, I'll revert back pending discussion here. --Inops (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In reply to your message on my talk page about me "reverting the page to mention marketing for the charity in the form of its 'campaigning'", the material returned to the article details the charity's activities. The sourcing can do with some work (as noted as a banner on the article), but it's not trivial marketing. E.g. see this House of Commons Library briefing which mentions the Flag Institute's efforts and influence in several areas relating to flags policy. --Inops (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The COI issues remain. The edits you have reverted to are significantly in the voice of the charity and its own primary sources that this article relies on. By reverting to your ‘stable’ edit, it has not removed any of those issues. It is important to mention in the article that the charity does not govern the UK’s flag regulations, as it is clearly stated on the College of Arms’s and Lyon Court’s website and the MoD’s flag regulations that they are the sole authority on the issue. Given that the Institute operate a register, this article should not exist to promote it but to make clear it is not any sort of authoritative list or register. Ortolan57 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's WP:NPOV you mean then, not COI (which can incidentally imbue a POV). The way your first message is worded would imply you meant I was violating policy by not disclosing a conflict of interest, which is not true.
 * I don't understand. Nothing in the article says or implies this educational charity is in charge of UK flag regulations. It would be a bit like saying on Big Ben that "it is not the tallest building in the world". Why would we need to affirm that?
 * "This article should not exist to promote [the register]", how and where is it promoted in the article, other than saying it exists? --Inops (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the COI issues remain. As the structure of the article as edited by those with connections to the Flag Institute largely remains, along with some of their content, the COI issues remain. And as you say, with them, issues around point of view. For instance it's extremely unclear to my why the heading on UK Flag Flying Regulations is on the page at all, as it simply seems to sit there to hold a quote from the charity about the issue. In my mind, you could easily combine the final two headings "nation's flag flying permanently from Parliament" and "UK Flag Regulations" into the heading of history and role. Similarly, as there is only one publication, I'm not sure why that needs its entirely own heading. I'm still not completely happy about the introductory line, but am happy to compromise on that if the rest can be folded into something resembling a more neutral encyclopaedia article. Ortolan57 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Surely the "official" organisation for vexillology in the UK would be the College of Arms, would it not? UaMaol (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)