Talk:Seal of Minnesota

Copyright Violation?
I don't think copywright laws apply to a government webpage but maybe i am wrong
 * Oh, I didn't realise it was a gov webpage. My bad, restored. --fvw *  23:26, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia considers works by the Minnesota State Government to be in the public domain. I have added a template stating the source of this page. --Falcorian (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this article and copyright issues: Please see Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 3 and the related commons discussions for some reasons why we no longer presume that MN state works are free for use without an explicit release. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Vote speedy delete: Looks like all version of this page have been somewhat copied from sos.state.mn.us, see 2004 Wikipedia and 2004 sos.state.mn.us. I say speedy delete so we can start rewriting this page ASAP. To help get the new page started I have created a stub at Talk:Seal of Minnesota/Temp --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

History of the Seal
Here is a great article that talks about the history of the seal incase someone is looking to update this page: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/leg/symbols/sealarticle.pdf --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to that, the seal was changed in 1983, so the Native American is not riding toward the setting sun. SlowJog (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Seal of Minnesota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?doctype=Chapter&year=1983&type=0&id=119
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/leg/symbols/sealarticle.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=1.135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Symbolism
This section lacks balance and neutral POV. Very cleary has a bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcb133aco (talk • contribs)
 * I think the "Criticism of Symbolism" section is from as neutral a position as possible, though I disagree with the information given. It's still criticism that has been levied against the seal. I would disagree with the inclusion in the opening paragraph of the article, however, and move for its removal from there. Horizons 1 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove the criticism from the opening paragraph, as it's nearly verbatim a clone of the entire section later in the article. Horizons 1 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Redesign
Added links to redesign commission authorization. Note: this does not mean the seal has or will be redesigned, the commission's proposal must be approved by the legislature. Mrfeek (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is something I've just realised, but in media releases by other organisations as well as images across Google shows the motto not being an indigenous one and it being L'Etoile du Nord instead. (See https://www.fox9.com/news/the-loon-will-be-on-minnesotas-new-state-seal).
 * There seems to be some inconsistencies with the actual designs so I'd advise probably having two designs or removing the current one as most if not all have L'Etoile du Nord as the motto in some form. PC 49.186.75.82 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The redesign section says there are 19 stars to represent MN being the 19th state (as the old seal had), but in the new redesign image, I don't see 19 stars. Was that changed? Or does our image need updating? (Or are my old eyes just not seeing them?) Dcs002 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Critique of previous seal
Hey all,

I think one of the this article's difficulties is the fact that the criticism of the previous seal(s) is not unique to any one individual seal, but to the entire motif and series of historic seals. So the problem arises, where to put the section on criticism. After the most previous seal? In its own section under history? I don't know the right answer here. I think a potential rewrite could be History section, subheadings for each of the various iterations, followed by one criticism subheading for the historic seal. Calling it the 1858 seal in the context of criticism is confusing since the critique is for multiple versions, not just that one.

Sorry for rambling, I'm just trying to make my thoughts coherent about this.  The Savage  Norwegian  16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)