Talk:Pine Tree Flag

old talk

Is it known as to why the tree depicted is a pine tree? If so, perhaps that should also be posted. Andersr9 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it has something to do Liberty Trees, though the original was an Elm. --70.119.12.223 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Flag of New England... AnonMoos (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read that this flag predates the revolution by as much as a century. The tree represents the timber industry, which was the principle export from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Makes sense to me. Massachusetts was valued by the British for their timber used in shipbuilding. 20:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC) -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.213.18 (talk)

2021

Why is it deemed significant to state the flag was flown during the 2021 Attack on the Capitol? What is the author trying to imply? And it's been flying ever since.... The flag has been flying for centuries. 74.190.22.98 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article properly concerns all cultural and historical aspects of its subject. Thus it consists not only of historical information about the original uses of the flag, but also includes the evolution of the flag over time. Over the past several years, it has become a visible symbol in current political discourse. As it is relevant in our contemporary milieu, it is therefore appropriate that content regarding that stays in the article. As an apt illustration, please refer to the extensive discussion of modern usage found in the Wikipedia article for another historical flag, the Gadsden Flag.--Fathomharvill (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

However, the Pine Tree flag is not remotely as prominent as the Gadsden Flag as a far-right symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The flag is currently being flown around the country as a symbol of support for the insurrection. This is why the fact that it was flown while storming the Capitol is important. Odoketa (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Image

Is it weird that the image for this article is something someone apparently made in MS Paint? 50.108.199.141 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It's an SVG. The photo File:Flag - Museum of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts - IMG 6907.JPG looks somewhat the same, except the lines are more jagged... AnonMoos (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent Events regarding it being used at Judge's house

For some reason we have decided to add that this flag was used at the, January 6 United States Capitol attack and that it was shown at a Supreme Court Judge's house. It being used at the attack only came to light after it was shown at a Supreme Court Judge's house.

This violates WP:RECENTISM, it only seems to be popping up because of a supreme court case coming up and will lose any relevance after. The fact that it being used at January 6 United States Capitol attack only showing up after the news about it being used at a Supreme Court Judge's house proves that it doesn't belong in this article. It maybe relevant to other articles like Samuel Alito but not here. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I see my change posted twice in the edit history. I was trying to preview and post, not going on an edit war. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Sure it's news, but it's also yuge news. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be big news, but does it have enduring importance to the subject to be included in an encyclopedia article on this flag? Doubtful. It’s more likely to be relevant to the associate Josie’ justice’s article or Fischer v. United States, though I think that’s premature too. — JFHutson (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Jfhutson, you just added Johnson to the article, albeit with a bare URL. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Johnson was already in there, but with no explanation that he has used it since before it was used by far-right groups. I added clarification (and sorry, I was away from my computer so used a bare url).-- JFHutson (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

JFHutson, when I do that I sometimes ask for someone to help out in the edit summary. Ha, I don't think anyone's ever done it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is my thought. It is also important to Samuel Alito not to this flag. The numerous other flags used at the capital attack which I am guessing they used every revolutionary flag, do not have this mentioned Edit: nevermind of course the Gadsden flag was but just because some supreme court justice had it hanging, now it gets added.

It bares little WP weight. The importance will be less than a footnote a year from now. Only current events give it importance. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. If anyone wants to improve the article, they should tone down on the history of pine trees and Locke, and instead focus on adding directly verified material verified by proper secondary sources. I'm looking at articles like this, Monsky, John R. (2002). "From the Collection: Finding America in Its First Political Textile". Winterthur Portfolio. 37 (4): 239–264.. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"If anyone wants to improve the article" except it's already locked at the version packed full of left-wing agitprop that you will undoubtedly keep protected until the end of time. Why do you even pretend? 71.173.196.6 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Because very few people read the talk page, and wikipedia is the most popular information source on the Internet due to its first-mover advantage and encyclopaedic nature. The talk page will however, even when censored, tell the real story. 96.8.169.58 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

ok this is getting ridiculous, we are now mentioning it as a right ring extremist flag, not even the Gadsden flag gets that label. We are well over overboard including the claim that it fell into "obscurity". I am just gonna wait until this dies down and comeback. I think there are parts that may merit inclusion like the Christian nationalism link holds a long term weight but I think this is why WP:RECENTISM exist. It is a hot event and people are just throwing in what they want. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"We" are not mentioning it as that; "we" are citing two reliable sources that indicate that in some circles it's linked with various movements. No, people are not "throwing in what they want"--people used to throw in what they wanted, and JFHutson has done a great job weeding out a bunch of trivial and unverified material. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear I'm compromising by not removing Alito and Johnson while deleting poorly sourced stuff. I think they too should be removed based on RECENTISM, but I thought we should get consensus on the talk page first. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Including Alito and Johnson does not pass the WP:TENYEARTEST. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the best-known flags of the American Revolution. It's been sold in many U.S. flag stores, and all over the internet, for years. Calling it "obscure," even if done by The New York Times, is tendentious and wrong. Not as well-known as the Gadsden Flag, sure. But "obscure"? Language like this wasn't used to describe the flag until it became politically useful to do so. This is mere political wrangling of the kind that brings Wikipedia itself into disrepute. Indefatigable2 ^talk 20:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha I watched it get semi-protected in real time, an inevitability really. I wish you the best of luck trying to rules lawyer it out the proper way Indefatigable and company, Adakiko the recent changes cop sure didn't like a no-name coming in and removing the MSM ragebait slop. I'm tired of awesome historical articles getting trashed by the latest ragebait article of the week. 96.8.169.58 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, two of article sources are from the last 2 days reference 2 is a specific media writer writing harshly on a political topic and behind a paywall, the second the AP article is fair and balanced, but does not support an extremist is the overt meaning.

At the very least a non paywall reference should be used. 2601:83:4202:1580:6C6F:AC7F:CFD7:24AF (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There's not requirement or guideline to use non paywall sources. I can send you the NYT article if that's helpful. If you have good sources or suggestions for improvement, please provide them, preferably using {{edit semi-protected}}.-- JFHutson (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

So the part you are mentioning in reply to me only has one source but reliable sources describe many things as a right wing extremist symbol including the American flag and milk the reason not include those on every article is that the guidelines are based on more than just a reliable source saying something. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a big one here.

The source cites a medium article which isn't reliable and is an interpretation from the title of the medium article, "How one symbol at the Capitol riot connects far-right extremism to Christianity". I don't think calling the flag a symbol of far-right extremism is verifiable from that. It is also giving undue weight to a fringe article and what is probably a minority opinion. A pretty strong violation of NPOV. So yes it is more than just I am adding reliable sources.

I do plan on expanding on the Christian Nationalism ties after the attention has died down. 99.126.127.19 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to start a fifth (or sixth) debate on this page, but isn't "Christian Nationalism" itself a vague, ill-defined accusation that only gained traction a few years ago? There is constant political mumbo jumbo in this debate. The Christian Democratic Union, one of the main German parties for seven decades, is by definition a Christian party that supports the German nation, is it not? England is a Christian country by law, and King Charles III must be Christian as head of state and head of the church. Is the British Conservative Party a "Christian Nationalist" party, too? Well, they're different from the icky Republican Trumpers, you might say—they're not "extreme." Well, if that is the case, why isn't the Catalan Flag getting called an "extremist" symbol? The Catalan government tried to secede from Spain in 2017. The head of government received a European Arrest Warrant and fled the country. Isn't that "fringe extremism" by this standard? Yet, there is one solitary sentence on the flag page saying it's used by "Catalan independence supporters." Odd, isn't it? One needs to stop and ask what is really behind this flag haggling. Wikipedia isn't news, and is not an opinion column either. Indefatigable2 ^talk 20:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Your first instinct to not start another debate was correct. You've asked a lot of questions not about the subject of this page. There is a Christian nationalism article where such a discussion might be appropriate. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who brought up the term. Also, the comparison to the Catalan flag is rational, and not easy to dismiss. What other flag should be cited? I think it's a valid question. Indefatigable2 ^talk 21:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in another comment, literally anything could be used "in some circles". Perhaps they were also wearing socks. Does that mean the political enemies of the left co-opted socks and socks are now a symbol of hate and the progressives should avoid wearing them? Fsckwiki (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. There were multiple reliable sources noting that the flag was used by some of the rioters at the January 6th attack, before the revelations about Alito came to light: [1] [2] Dingers5Days (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Maine

I live in Maine and there's a big movement here to restore the original Maine flag. This can easily be confused with that flag. I, myself, thought at first that it was about the Maine flag. I strongly recommend adding a "not to be confused with the Flag of Maine (1901–1909)" notice at the top of this page. I'd do it myself but I only know how to use the talk page and basic edits, not advanced stuff so I don't want to screw anything up. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a hatnote, let me know if you think it should be revised. -- JFHutson (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's perfect. Thank you. Maybe also add one on the old Maine flag's page to not be confused with this one. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Comically biased Wiki administration, as usual

It really is amazing that @Ymblanter rushed in to protect the version of the page that was full of left wing political vandalism, not revert it to the pre-vandalized state then lock and allow discussion. You guys don't even pretend to not be political operatives, do you. 71.173.196.6 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems unfair to me. Yes, the current version of the article fails on WP:NPOV, but it's just semi-protected, which is hardly a full lockdown. I think the right approach here is to get back towards NPOV by finding decent edits that stand up, not by complaining on the talk page. Alsadius (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If anything, seems Wikipedia has bent over backward not to condemn those who may deserve condemnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:ee90:d932:9e7a:54fd:f86e (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Just had my edit reverted by Drmies for being a Reddit link, but I linked it because it was a dated photo. That seems like a perfectly fair use of Reddit - I'm not citing to an argument someone made there (obviously, that'd be silly). I confess that I don't know all the WP policies in detail, but did I actually do something wrong here? Or was this just another editor seeing a sketchy-looking link, and reverting out of reflex?

To be clear, I wouldn't blame them too much for a reflexive undo in this case. I can see why that looked like someone screwing around with the page. But I think this specific usage is actually legit, and I'd like to see it (or something similar) put back into the article. Alsadius (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source, per WP:RSREDDIT. If there are reliable sources demonstrating usage of the flag across the political spectrum, then they should be given due weight on the page. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Alsadius, there are two problems here. First, it's Reddit, as Dingers5Days says, and it's a photo, which is not OK in so many ways. I don't see a date, but it really doesn't matter; photos are rarely if ever considered acceptable on-wiki. But second, it's Reddit, where millions of people post millions of things, and one of the uses of a secondary source is that it indicates that something matters. Reddit can't do that; why does it matter that there was a flag up outside some building, which I can't even identify? Also, the thing about introduction credits for a TV show--that's also unverified, and it is also unclear why it would matter. This might be covered in Wikipedia:Handling trivia or, better yet, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Attack on Justice Alito

The recent edits on this page are intended to provide cover for attacks on Justice Alito and are malicious in nature. The accusations that the flag is associated with White Nationalism only started getting play after a previous attack for flying a US in the "Distress" position failed to gain traction.

Modern use

The use of this flag has a long history in the United States. The use by Trump supporters during January 6th is well documented and deserves inclusion, but the use by other high profile Americans seems undue unless there are reliable sources connecting them to the Trump movement. Most of this is just speculation and should be avoided. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nemov, if you're talking about Alito, for instance--well I don't get it in the first place. His use of the flag (or his wife's, whatever) is noted in the press and thus in our article because he's a Supreme Court judge etc., not because he is necessarily connected to the Trump movement, whatever that is. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • An American flying a historical American flag isn't particularly notable, it's in the news because of speculation it's associated to Trump. Unless something definitely connects the two it's not worth mentioning unless this article is to have a section noting every famous person who has ever flown it. Nemov (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Don't be silly. YOU are saying "it's notable if it's connected to Trump" and if it's not, it's not relevant? No, it's in the news because Alito, in case you didn't know, if a Supreme Court justice and is involved in Jan. 6 cases, which are, in case you didn't know, not necessarily Trump-cases. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @Drmies He's a citizen of the United States so I don't understand your argument. Nemov (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
        • That he is a citizen of the US also has nothing to do with it. You seem to be confusing yourself on purpose. Again, Alito matters not because of Trump, and what citizenship has to do with that is a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
          • I'm not confused. I'm not silly. You've yet to explain why an American citizen flying a historical US flag is notable in this article. Nemov (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
            • For real? The first 50 items in Google News for "pine tree flag" are all about him, and they're all reliable sources, except for a shitty hit piece from the Daily Mail. Wikipedia works by way of reliable secondary sources. I'm wondering if you oppose this for political reasons. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

              I'm confused, I'm silly, writing because of political reasons... Is this your standard overtures at good faith? January 6 rioters and Trump are connected because they're his crazy supporters. Unless Alito says he's using an American flag as some kind of statement of support of the "stop the steal" nutters this just seems trivial. Nemov (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

              It's notable that the criticism/controversy is going on, justified or not, but it bears noting that it does appear to be an astroturfed controversy, and the "association with the far right" exists only in the minds of certain left wing bloggers, which are then amplified by left-leaning publications. That seems to be the extent of the "controversy". agomulka (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The only mentions of actual politically relevant modern usage characterize it as a far-right Christian nationalist symbol used at Jan. 6th, and that it was flown at Alito's vacation home. The issue I have is that I worry this presents a distorted view of the flag's usage. Multiple paragraphs about the 17th and 18th centuries followed by incredibly brief, un-noteworthy mentions that frame it as being a historical flag give the impression that the flag fell out of use and into obscurity until it was appropriated by far-right groups; it gives the impression that today the flag is predominantly a far-right Christian nationalist symbol and that it is very seldom used elsewhere.

That a particular flag is flown at a museum is completely un-noteworthy unless it is the case that the flag being flown at all is noteworthy, and the inclusion of these usages and exclusion of any other recent usages, I fear, will mislead people. Unless there is very good evidence that the flag was never used in any noteworthy way during the 19th and 20th centuries, the stamp and city hall additions are un-noteworthy and should be replaced with other examples of usage.

I do not deny that some people on the far-right have appropriated the flag, but having this be the sole mention of its modern usage is ridiculously misleading. Hanoi89computerlover (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Mention of this page on a viral Twitter post

TBH I'm not really sure if this classifies as viral, but some of the recent activity on this page is probably linked to this tweet which has ~4K likes [3] decrying the recent changes as politically motivated. Just a heads-up if any brigading goes on. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added a canvas warning. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

X does not disappoint. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

source

[4] @Drmies: is this anything? jp×g🗯️ 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ha I'm glad you're not endorsing anyone--nice work! That Bill O'Brien is also a nice piece of work. Those apologies for that flag ("we've always had it", "it's not intended to be blah blah") sound a lot like what you hear down here from old timey white Southerners ("I'm not racist"). I'm struck by the closing sections--"But if Democrats truly are offended, O’Brien says he has a solution"--which sounds like those Facebook people who in real life may be really nice, but who take pleasure in hurting others on the internet. "Come here and we'll really offend you." What did you want to use it for? It's an opinion piece, but the guy is a former speaker for the House, so his opinion counts for something. But I wouldn't base any kind of historical statements on this piece. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of WP:TALKOFFTOPIC blather for "Bill O'Brien hurt my feefees by stating simple, objective truths".

Claims of Far Right Association

Everything I have seen suggests that the claim this flag is associated with the Far Right or Christian Nationalists all stem from Jared Holt, a senior analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and Bradley Onishi, author of “Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism". The Institute for Strategic Dialogue is a political advocacy organization, and Bradley Onishi appears to have written multiple editorials with a far left-leaning bias. Neither of these sources seem credible, despite the veneer given them by the AP. The claim that the flag has associations with the far right appears to be entirely generated by political activists, which the intention of inflaming controversy, which Wikipedia appears all too eager to indulge. agomulka (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you directly tie the statements of Holt to the AP article? If so, then the AP is not stating that it is true, it is stating that Holt said it was true. In that case, it has not been supported by the AP, but only by Holt. But you must show this. DenverCoder19 (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The leftists are out of their mind. Anything could be used "in some circles". For example those "white supremacists" or whatever they called them were probably wearing socks at their rallies. Does that mean they co-opted socks and socks are now a symbol of hate and the progressives should avoid wearing them? Fsckwiki (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dubious Citation to Flag's Appearance at Black Lives Matter Protests

I looked at the citation given for the flag's appearance at BLM protests, but the article only discusses the upside down american flag making appearances at those protests. Nowhere does it mention that the Pine Tree Flag was seen at those protests. Either better citation needed, or should be removed.

Original sentence: In the 2020s, the flag was flown at events attended by various far-right groups, Christian nationalists and Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" campaign, along with protests associated with the Black Lives Matter movement and other causes.

Original citation: https://gazette.com/news/wex/what-are-the-flags-alito-is-under-fire-for/article_2b8e993e-34f8-50fc-a7c8-2df36ff84072.html Dexteritee00 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the cited article (archived non-paywall link) supports the claims either, so I (in effect) reverted the edit that introduced this. The idea of the flag being used for BLM (or "other causes") was introduced in two places.

For the record, the article was cross-posted to the Denver Gazelle but the original source appears to be the Washington Examiner, which is noted to be partisan per WP:RSPS.

There was an intervening edit that still references that article which I haven't scrutinized yet. Although I don't wish to conclude bad faith, this combined with the same editor's very charged message in the section above suggest giving today's edits closer scrutiny. —AySz88\^-^ 22:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Denver Gazelle cross-posting gives weight to the claim.

Examiner should not be used to support extraordinary claims, but is acceptable for non-extraordinary claims (in this case, that a flag with vague American political sentiment that could be applied to most movements would be used in a particular American protest).

There were many BLM protests. The flag was a relatively minor point until recently. It is not to be expected that every fact of every protest would have coverage from more than a few outlets. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the cited article makes no attempt to connect this flag (Pine Tree) with BLM protests - instead, that text is about the "distress" upside-down flag. It talks about this flag in a different section. (I just fixed the broken link; sorry about that.)

Regardless, there's a fairly big gap between the hypothetical "could be" and if it actually was, especially since we have other sources claiming that (e.g.) this flag has been recontextualized, and is now more understood as a predominantly a symbol for a particular movement. (The religiosity also makes it seem less likely applicable to "most" political movements, but that's a different discussion.)

But to zoom out: IMO the main assertion is about whether there is one predominant interpretation for the flag given the time and context, as opposed to multiple competing (and non-overlapping) claims to its meaning. What I've seen so far asserts the one predominant usage, not multiple, but I could be convinced otherwise if there are any higher quality sources about this.

But given that there are sources already pointing at a different conclusion, trying to suggest an opposing view via something like usage at protests is starting to get towards synthesis and WP:OR. —AySz88\^-^ 01:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Add additional citations for context: Flag has been flown outside of San Francisco City Hall for decades since the 1960’s

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/appeal-to-heaven-flag-civic-center-plaza-19483162.php

https://sfist.com/2024/05/29/appeal-to-heaven-flag-part-of-city-collection-for-decades-quietly-removed-from-sfs-civic-center-plaza/ 2601:400:8000:C8E0:D8A8:265C:1CE0:CFB3 (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Already done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Need to check search results.

When I ran a Bing search for this flag "Appeal to Heaven Flag", it brings up the Wiki page, but the short text that goes with the result states "green background with a white pine tree". Granted when you click on it and go to the Wiki, it has the correct description, but could confuse someone just doing a quick search but not going all the way into the site. Lord-Nelson29 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lord-Nelson29 That's an issue with Bing, not us. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Laughable

"In the 2020s, the flag was flown at events attended by various far-right groups including a Christian nationalist strand of Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" movement."

Does this include the black lives matter protest pictured in the same paragraph. 68.129.198.125 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)