Talk:Australian Aboriginal flag

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 12, 2011, July 12, 2015, and July 12, 2018.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance Australian Aboriginal flag is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Heraldry and vexillology Australian Aboriginal flag 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.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

On 13 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Australian Aboriginal Flag to Australian Aboriginal flag. The result of the discussion was moved.

in the website Nationstates.net, this flag is shown as the default flag, should we mention this somewhere in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.188.33 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC) This NationStates website is run by; Aborigines? Australians?Some fringe political group? Who? Web geeks? Who and what relevance does a website have to this flag? Has life in Australia become subservient to any website that people create?Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have suggested replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag in the canton of the Australian flag. I don't have the time to research it myself, but if I recall correctly the designer of the flag (who has copyright over it, by the way) does not approve such use. If anyone can find anything, that might be worth noting somehow. El T 13:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a discussion about this somewhere. As I'm only making a brief stop in, I don't have time to find it, but I remember somebody arguing there was no copyright. I agree that any expansion should take into account the flag's potential uses. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very sad thing, but I really, really don't think this flag is PD. Please see Image talk:Australian aboriginal flag.png for discussion.

Would be interesting to see if it survives a copyright-infringement claim by the Belgish or Germans though ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.74.212 (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--pfctdayelise 18:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The book Australian Flags produced by the Awards and Symbols branch of the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2nd edn 1998) is explicit that the flag is copyright and may only be reproduced with the permission of Mr Thomas. I believe that means no legislation would override. I will try to take a picture of the flag flying. In the meantime, I believe the image should be deleted. We can use a current picture of the tent embassy.--A Y Arktos 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the Aboriginal flag at Image:Australian aboriginal flag.png is a copyvio, then so is the second image currently on this article (Image:Aboriginal australian republican flag.PNG), which is derived from it according to that image's description. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that the flag image cannot be used under the provisions of fair use. Just floow the instructions on Wikipedia:Image description page, and add the tag {{Non-free fair use in}}. The images should most probably be removed from the Australian flag template.--nixie 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have added the fair use tag to the republican flag and uploaded to wikipedia rather than commons which didnt allow fair use, so I put it back in the article Astrokey44 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of the Australian Aboriginal Flag was discussed extensively in November 2015 and the result was keep. For use in Australia, see the Australian Government website reference in the present article. Wikiain (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know its popularly said to represent "the people's skin" but I think black on this flag is more likely to represent the night sky. People dont often put their skin colour on a flag? and even if they did it would be brown rather than black. It would be like white people thinking the white parts of the Australian flag also represent the peoples skin. Astrokey44 22:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A quote from Thomas in the article: "The other factor why I had it on top was the Aboriginal people walk on top of the land." Apparently Thomas identifies his people with the colour black, and the colour is intended to refer to the people. I think this quote refutes the "night sky" theory. However, Thomas says nothing about skin colour, so we can only speculate that skin colour forms the basis for this. Snottygobble | Talk 03:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though I did read somewhere that when he created it, it was ambiguous. I think that quote was from the court case in 97. perhaps it was unclear what the colours meant when it was created but he clarified it later? Astrokey44 04:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Snottygobble | Talk 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of featued flag articles, like Flag of Hong Kong and Flag of South Africa which could be used to help structure this article. There should probably also be a mention that despite suggestion- Thomas does not want a hybrid of this flag to replace the current Aus Flag.--nixie 10:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enough reverting! I think I removed this from the article myself at one stage: [[Condom]]s in the colours of the Aboriginal flag won a health award in 2005. [http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1502307.htm] I don't support this being in the article. Maybe if it was explained, as per the article, that it was to encourage Aboriginal people to have safe sex, familiarity etc... or maybe we should put that in some article on indigeneous health. They weren't even in the design of the flag - just the colours.

I also don't support a random news story about the flag being desecrated, as was at one stage being added. To my mind they're similarly irrelevant.

User:Pharoz - careful with your Wikipedia:Minor edits. Adding or removing information should rarely if ever be marked "minor". pfctdayelise 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is verifiable information and I think it should stay. The ABC new item references the flag. I have reincluded with the slight expansion suggested by Pfctdayelise. --A Y Arktos 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better in a broader context, mentioning how the colours of the flag are used in many contexts. JPD (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would second the comment above by JPD, placing this issue in a broader context of how the colours of the flag are used in many contexts. I thought the first draft of this comment was inconguent with the rest of the article, and with an entry on a flag; but the current draft is an improvement. How people from outside Australia would read the page might also be considered. My apologies for incorrectly marking my edit as "minor". Pharoz 14:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a stubborn redirect in the way. Deleted that and effected the move. Orderinchaos 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Wikiain (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Melbourne Trades Hall entrance flags at top.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Melbourne Trades Hall entrance flags at top.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has stated for some time that Harold Thomas "is descended from the Luritja people of Central Australia". Let's leave that statement alone just now and have some discussion about its importance. My perspective is that it is important to state which Aboriginal people Mr Thomas belongs to - that he is, in Aboriginal phrasing, a Luritja man. Partly because each Aboriginal people is a sub-nation within Australia. And partly because ownership of the design may belong to that people within its own law - albeit that this traditional property interest may be necessarily represented through Mr Thomas individually in terms of Australian copyright law. --Wikiain (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding Harold Thomas holds the intellectual property rights to the flag exclusively as an invidual, not as part of a group. The only criticism I have with this inclusion is that it seems to focus too heavily on the semantics of the flag's designer when this is intended as an article on the flag itself. Again, granted it is relevant he is Aboriginal, maybe not so much which tribe(what is the correct vernacular here?) he is descended from. This information would make sense within Harold Thomas' own article. (Sir Harry Nessbit 06:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Nessbit (talk • contribs)

Mr Thomas holds copyright as an individual, in terms of copyright law of Australia. There are also forms of intellectual property recognised in Aboriginal laws, which may be collective. Thus Mr Thomas's royalties would be due to him individually under copyright law but might then be liable to be distributed among his people under traditional law (in Australia the term "tribe" is no longer commonly used in referring to Indigenous peoples). The same considerations govern permission to use the flag design. This law would be that observed by Luritja people, whether such law be specific to them or the law of a wider people to whom they belong. Mr Thomas's identity as a Luritja man is relevant in this way to the question of who owns the flag design, an important fact about the flag.--Wikiain (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel the article in question is not the place for such information, however you appear to be better educated in this area than I so will defer to your suggestion and leave it as is. (Sir Harry Nessbit 04:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Nessbit (talk • contribs)

No worries, mate. (Though please sign your posts.) --Wikiain (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 August 2012, 84user added the Aboriginal flag as displayed in the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo. On one level this might seen as just over-zealous. On another, it may suggest that Aborigines belong in a zoo. No doubt that is not why the flag is displayed in the zoo, but when it is taken out of that context and selected here rather than any other display of the flag, it seems to me to take on a different significance. So, remove? --Wikiain (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's inappropriate, so I've replaced it with another photo which has more relevance. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Well done. --Wikiain (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strewth. Who cares? Really. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above 2 editors obviously care. That would be 100% of the participants in this discussion prior to you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a 100% correct observation. Well done. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're extremely welcome. Any time. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would suggest that the opening sentence of the article be changed to say that the flag represents Aboriginal Australians, not Indigenous Australians. Given that Indigenous Australians is a broad term meant to refer to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people collectively, the current statement in the article is incorrect. Anyone think this change shouldn't be made? LizLou (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. Done it. Wikiain (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! LizLou (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Aboriginal Flag. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902154303/http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/reconciliation/flag.htm to http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/reconciliation/flag.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314163339/http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/page/page.asp?page_Id=950&h=0 to http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?page_Id=950&h=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609074118/http://www.ausflag.com.au:80/debate/nma/smh950706.html to http://www.ausflag.com.au/debate/nma/smh950706.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609153108/http://www.ausflag.com.au:80/debate/nma/smh940903.html to http://www.ausflag.com.au/debate/nma/smh940903.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706125805/http://www.naidoc.org.au/about/indigenous-australian-flags/ to http://www.naidoc.org.au/about/indigenous-australian-flags

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a representation of a government, military, regimental, family, or other symbol such as a flag, seal, emblem, coat of arms or crest. This symbol may be copyrighted by its holder. As well, it is known that the representation of this symbol is either copyrighted by the holder of the symbol or is not available under a free licence. There may also be other restrictions on reproduction, including but not limited to article 6ter of the Paris Convention. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols to illustrate the symbol in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as non-free use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Aboriginal_flag true

To the uploader: Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

"|image has rationale=yes" has been added. Wikiain (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page was making contadictory claims of both a proportion of 3:5 (infobox) and the "width is 1.5 times its height" (introduction).

However flags for sale are all 1:2 (the same as the Flag of Australia)

• https://www.australianflagmakers.com.au/shop/aboriginal-flag
• https://www.flagworld.com.au/aboriginal-flag.html

This is also backed up by the World Flag Db.

I have taken the liberty of changing the text of the article but someone with a bit more experience may like to update the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly F Thomas (talk • contribs) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I simply changed the info box to say "3:5 or 1:2". I'm guessing that the original design or early versions may've been 3:5, and that the 1:2 is a lengthening to match the stature of the Australian civic national flag. You'll see variants of the Maori and Quebec flag for this reason as well. That's only a supposition though. In any case, "3:5 or 1:2" encompasses the contradictory info which is in the article! Traversetravis (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good guessing, but I've researched the matter and amended accordingly. What proportions did Harold Thomas use? Errantius (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion to resolve copyright issues could be worked into the article.^[1] The report also provides useful background. HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added that report, which is all I've seen on the matter. I'd like more information before attempting discussion. Wikiain (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahudhara: Hello, when I removed the link, I wasn't referring to this Wikipedia article, but about the news report on Birubi Art having breached Australian consumer law. However, the news report does not mention anything about the art studio having produced the flag illegally, nor was the creator Thomas involved in ligitation against the studio itself either on behalf of his flag, or Aboriginal communities. I have reread the news article but I am still failing to find its relevance to the article about the flag here.

May I understand the point of your revert? Seloloving (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was "The article does not mention anything about the Aboriginal Flag or its creator." (my emphasis), so I took it to mean the Wikipedia article, rather than the reference article cited, which I acknowledge doesn't specifically mention the Aboriginal Flag.

The preceding paragraph mentions that Birubi Art was licensed by Thomas "for the manufacture and marketing of the flag and of products featuring the flag's image", which is supported by a reference.

In this context it is appropriate to mention that Birubi Art was later convicted and fined for "selling thousands of pieces of fake Aboriginal art" (per the deleted ref). Bahudhara (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I acknowledge that I was referring to the news article here when removing the link. It is still my opinion that the sentence on the company's fine and liquidation is unnecessary, as it doesn't pertain directly to the copyright status of the flag, and nor was the company alleged to have misused it in their misconduct. But I will leave that up to your decision if the sentence should be further clarified or a better citation found. Seloloving (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-Aboriginal person not directly involved in Aboriginal issues, I have the impression that the copyright status and use of the flag, and fake Aboriginal art, are very sensitive issues that will continue to evolve over time, and that it would be best to leave that sentence in for now. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, for the same reasons. Errantius (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aboriginal Flag, Invasion Day march, Redfern, 26 January 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion says it was deleted, but it was not, and the page history has comment "flag is now free". I don't know what's true. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change to "The Australian Aboriginal flag (officially Australian Aboriginal Flag)", with a hidden remark that the lower-case "flag" is the result of discussion and is not to be changed. Errantios (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Some further discussion has vanished, perhaps because I didn't put the above into a new section.

It was objected that this change was 'trivial' and only a matter of 'style'. I pointed out how the official status of the Aboriginal Australian F/flag is of historic importance in the long and bitter struggle for Australian Indigenous recognition. For background see for example Australian frontier wars and 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. The change has now been reverted as 'pedantic' and I have reinstated it. Would anybody who may still disagree with the change kindly contribute to this discussion. Errantios (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the uppercase spelling of 'Flag' should signify "the long and bitter struggle for Australian Indigenous recognition" or have a connection to the frontier wars or the Voice referendum seems to be drawing a long bow. If the uppercase spelling has any significance supported by reliable sources, it should be mentioned in the article. As it stands, the opening sentence, "The Australian Aboriginal flag (official name Australian Aboriginal Flag) is the official flag of Aboriginal Australians." contains several unnecessary repetions and redundancies. Further, the spelling of 'flag' within the article, except in quotations, ought to consistent with its headword. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the spelling of 'flag' within the article, except in quotations, ought to consistent with its headword — This edit should address that. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still pedantic, and we generally don't get lost in such unnecessary detail. For example, the article Flag of Australia starts: The flag of Australia, also known as the Australian Blue Ensign, is based.... In the Flags Act 1953 it's referred to as "Australian National Flag", but this is mentioned only in the last sentence of the lead. And that case is again somewhat different, since the name "Australian National Flag" wasn't used before at all, not even in a different case form. Using two different case forms twice in the same sentence, and in the lead sentence at that, is unheard-of pedanticism, and we certainly don't need it.

Moreover, the "official case" of the name (if there is such a thing) itself has changed over time. A footnote in the "Status" section points out that, when the flag's officiality was extended in 2008: The only significant change from 1995 is that "Australian Aboriginal flag" is altered to "Australian Aboriginal Flag". So the official name was Australian Aboriginal flag from 1995 to 2008, Australian Aboriginal Flag afterwards. Should we mention them both?

If the change from 1995 to 2008 was not just a more or less random administrative decision that nobody gave much though (as I would suspect it to be in the absence of other evidence), but indeed the case of a "long and bitter struggle for Australian Indigenous recognition", that might be worth pointing out somewhere in the article text. But almost certainly not in the lead, and of course we would need a reliable source to back it up. Gawaon (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does it mean that this is an "Official" flag of Australia? What makes it "official", and how does that compare to the flag of Australia? I think it's a bit confusing to word it as such without any further explanation and think the prose could be expanded a bit. TheNewLayoutReallySucks (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Flags of Australia "Other Australian flags", and Flags Act 1953 section 5. Errantios (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was changed by an IP editor last month. I think the previous wording of "the official flag of Aboriginal Australians" is better as it avoids the implication that it is co-equal as a national flag. The official proclamation does not use the term "flag of Australia" either but calls it the "flag of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia". I T B F 📢 12:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I like another earlier formulation: "An official flag of Australia, used to represent Aboriginal Australians". In any case, we must not suggest that it has been formally adopted by Aboriginals themselves. Errantios (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this up because I have encountered multiple people who claim that the Aboriginal Flag has completely equal status with the flag of Australia, and when I checked this page I saw it say it was an official flag, which may have lead to this confusion. TheNewLayoutReallySucks (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Errantios, neither of those pages answer my question. The latter page doesn't even feature the word "aboriginal" on it. TheNewLayoutReallySucks (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My references to them supplement the first paragraph of this article—about the proclamation of 1995, made under the Flags Act. Errantios (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great, it was granted official status in 1995. That's fine, but what does that mean? And I still don't see anything on the Flags Act page that has any relevance to the Aboriginal Flag. TheNewLayoutReallySucks (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "official" here is just popular shorthand for flag "of Australia". The Aboriginal Flag was made a flag of Australia by the GG in a proclamation (a type of regulation) under the general authority of the Flags Act, section 5. The main effect of being a flag "of Australia" is that the design is fixed by law. Errantios (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]