Good articleEureka Flag has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 31, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
July 13, 2021Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 29, 2005, November 29, 2006, November 29, 2007, November 29, 2011, November 29, 2015, and November 29, 2020.
Current status: Good article

Original specimen[edit]

This article ought to be primarily concerned with THE Eureka Flag as in the original specimen. There is a section on the "Eureka flag today" which is adequate.

To add to this page we need an image of the Eureka flag hanging in the local museum in Ballarat.

124.183.35.113 11:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of flag[edit]

True or false: the colours of this flag are known, so that a Wikipedian can put it on a Lists of flags article. 66.245.88.241 02:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

According to the newspaper articles of the time, the stars were blue
"BALLARAT." South Australian Register (Adelaide, SA : 1839 - 1900) 11 December 1854: 3. Web. 25 Jan 2024 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article49203212>. 2001:8003:B180:5700:D5E8:957C:44D2:DD5E (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. I am in the process of a properly proportioned image, a photo of the remains of the original Eureka Flag, and a few other images. If you are patient, they will be up before 0500 UT. =DO NOT USE= the existing image. It is not correctly proportioned! (PS - Please take the time to log in and set up a user page. That way, other Wikipedians can stay in touch with you, and welcome you too. Welcome to Wikipedia!) Denni 03:58, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Modern design[edit]

I have added this infomration to the article:

"The modern design of the Eureka flag is an enhanced a different version to the 1854 original as it features blue keylines around each of the five stars."

(NB: The specimen hanging in the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery features white stars on a white cross. The middle star is barely visible.)

Symbol of nationality?[edit]

If you asked every Australian who knows about the Eureka flag the following question:

Is the Eureka flag a symbol of?

(a) Protest (b) Nationality

then probably 99.9% of people would answer (a). About the only time most people see it is at trade union rallies on the TV news and when they drive past construction sites. Private flying of the Eureka flag in Australia is so rare as to be almost non-existent.

I have added this infomration to the article:

"While some Australians consider it a symbol of nationality, the essence of the Eureka flag for most people is a general purpose symbol of protest used by political radicals for a wide variety of non-conformist causes."

Some interesting informaton about the Eureka flag:

- The Eureka Flag is most well known and respected around central Victoria and national symbols are meant to mean something to all Australians.

It would be more fitting to see the Eureka flag recognised by resolution of the local council as the City of Ballarat flag then as an official Flag of Australia.

- The Eureka Stockade flag is not that historically or culturally important.

The Eureka flag was not anywhere near as widely known by Australian people in the not-too-distant past as some of the more over eager Eureka Stockade aficionados would have us believe.

It is interesting to note that in 1949 - not that long ago - a motion picture entitled the 'Eureka Stockade' was made, which starred Chips Rafferty a famous Australian actor of the day. Although the producers of the film had been to Ballarat to do research for the project the Eureka flag used was not 5 stars arranged on a white cross - it was the Southern Cross from Australia's flag!

Apparently nobody in this great central Victorian town could provide an accurate description of the rebel flag in 1949.

- Senator Marshall's private member's bill proposes to call the design the Eureka (Southern Cross) Flag.

Although some academics and historians like to refer to the Eureka flag design as the Southern Cross, this nickname does not resonate with the general public.

The Eureka Southern Cross design was a version of the NSW Ensign/Australian Federation flag of 1830s and the Australian National Colonial flag of 1820s. The Eureka flag does not feature the constellation of the Southern Cross in natural form. It is a stylised representation on a traditional Celtic Christian cross on which is placed five stars interpreted as the stars of the Southern Cross. The constellation is not distinctively Australian as the Southern Cross is used on no less that five different national flags of sovereign nations. Even the US Confederate flag is known as "The Southern Cross".

- The ownership of the original 1854 Eureka flag continues to be the source of heated argument and litigation.

The original specimen was torn down at the stockade by Police Constable John King on the morning the clash between the demonstrators and the authorities took place. What was left of the flag remained in the possession of the King family who loaned it to the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery in 1895.

In 2001 legal ownership of the flag was transferred to the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery who expect the King family and the gallery to be acknowledged every time a replica of the original flag is displayed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.183.230.177 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC+11 hours)

why is nationality and protest exclusive? 58.104.232.183 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the previous comment;Perception of the "meaning" of the Eureka flag by Australians must allow a range of opinion.To try nailing down one idea as central to this Australian "iconic" flag is to deny a part of the Australian character.Australians,I believe,enjoy their right to disagree,to protest, to take different views on issues.This right is of course symbolised by the Eureka flag, although the flag is not used by all Australians.The USA has many symbols of their beliefs about freedom, and the British hold the Magna Carter amongst their symbols of political development.The potency of any flag as a representation of ideas is incredibly strong.I believe that trying to limit the Eureka flag to two choices misses historical political and cultural facts.ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people in Australia see the Eureka flag as a symbol of nationality, but really, to say most people view it as a general purpose symbol of protest is to speak the truth.

124.183.35.113 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of original flag[edit]

The image of the original flag has been deleted as it was a non-commercial use only image :-( The image had been tagged as "This image is provided by the Eureka Centre for education and study purposes only. Please do not download this image for commercial use."--Golden Wattle talk 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is wikipedia 'commercial use'? Morgan Leigh 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link[edit]

The reference link does not work so I am removing it. I'll try to track the pdf down and if I can, I'll change it back. M0rt 06:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed it up. It's Australia day tomorrow, so I'll be sporting the Eureka flag: it represents the aussie spirit much more than the bland one we have now! M0rt 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status[edit]

I think without a doubt, the current use of the flag is almost invariably associated with union protests. There should be a paragraph preceding the current "Current Status" section which describes this. I agree with the comments in the above section: it is almost always used at Union rallies.

Article[edit]

Monarchists in Australia are quite pleased with this article.

124.183.35.113 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes monarchists have really went to town on this article. Reading it really turns me on.

God Save the Queen!

Victory to ACM!

124.179.65.62 07:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of article[edit]

Why is the neutrality of the article in dispute? Why does the truth leave such a sour taste in republican mouths?

Steakknife 07:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the Roll Up Banner[edit]

It seems very racist to my race, and I'm sure other Chinese are also offended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.4.138 (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the "roll up" banner was based on the Eureka flag is a documented historical fact.

124.179.65.62 07:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find this a real stretch and from what I can see I certainly do not believe that it is a "documented historical fact". The closest I could find is this statement from the Historical Flags of Australia website "It is possible that this emblem was intended to refer to the Eureka Flag with its white cross and stars of the Southern Cross." The only other vague reference can be found on the Ballarat Reform League website "This movement really began the tradition of radical working class use of the flag in the fight for improved working and living conditions, rather than for more esoteric nationalist uses. In this context the use of a flag derived from the Eureka flag at Lambing Flat, New South Wales, in 1861 can be understood." Neither of these are citations of fact and given that the elements of the Eureka flag including the Southern Cross predate it there is an equally strong possibility that any resemblance of this or the Barcaldine shearers strike to the Eureka Flag is purely coincidental. Certainly, the Lambing Flat Riots page could link back but I don't find that strong enough to warrant a citation to mention in this article, so I have removed it until such time as a conclusive citation can be found.--Biatch (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claim for design[edit]

It appears that Ross may not have designed the flag, as claimed in the article. Powerhouse Museum claims that it was Mr J. W. Wilson, as evidenced by this 1949 newspaper article. Lionfire (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eureka-restored.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Eureka-restored.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 9 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Jack[edit]

We should really put the information about the Eureka Jack back. There was testimony at the committal hearings a few days after the battle as to a "flag like a Union Jack" being captured on the person of a rebel prsioner. There are references to the Eureka Jack in the popular culture from the 1940s and 50s. Modern authors are starting to mention the Eureka Jack in their Eureka books. I think someone needs to drop this idea they know more more about what went on that day then a reporter on the spot. Australians today cant even be sure where the Eureka Stockade was erected to the nearest square acre!

Do a vox pop survey at your local supermarket. No one much knows who Peter Lalor himself is anymore either.

121.217.209.17 (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Eureka Flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eureka 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eureka 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I've been doing a little bit of work on the article in the hope that it can be upgraded to A-class. So I'd appreciate some suggestions from more experienced editors about what's the best way to go in relation to the references? Like what's the recommended system for Wikipedia really? I've been using the notes-bibliography Chicago style. But now I've noticed there are similar articles that use a system more in keeping with the Chicago author-date style.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no "house style" when it comes to citations as explained in WP:CITEVAR, and generally editors are expected to follow the style introduced by the first major contributor to the article and avoid unilaterally switching to another style whenever possible. Sometimes for articles which have been around a long time, it might require a bit of digging to find that "original style" and it may turn out to be a style that had subsequently been deprecated or otherwise been superceded by something easier to use. As I posted in my response to your Teahouse question, this article appears to be a mixture of citations using templates and citations not using templates; both are fine, but that sometimes can lead to some inconsistencies with how citations appear to the reader. Although it would seem to be not too much of a big deal to convert everything to WP:CITATIONTEMPLATEs, that is something that actually has lead to some serious diagreements among editors since there are some editors who have a strong dislike for using templates. There are ways to tweak the formatting of non-template citations so that they appear the same as their counterparts, but it's a bit time consuming.
One thing about this article is that it has an extensive bibliography in which many of the entries are also being cited inline. This might conducive to using a WP:CITESHORT style for many citations in which the main citation is listed in the bibliography section and then inline are WP:SRF types of citations linking back to the bibligraphy. This has the advantage of reducing the need for fully formatted citations to be added multuple places inline since they need to only be added to the bibliography section. This would be a major change, however, which probably needs a consensus to implement.
Other than that, there are some minor things that could be cleaned up per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful that wouldn't really involve a switch in citation styles; for example, things like WP:BAREURLs or WP:REFNAME. I would also suggest not using the |author1= syntax, but instead using |last1= and |first1= per WP:CS1#Authors since I think makes things a bit easier and also avoids any possible Wikidata issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robbiegibbons: There are a couple of ways using either WP:REFNAMEand WP:CITESHORT to combined multiple citations citing different pages of the same source into a single citation as explained in WP:CITEPAGE. For example, Frank Cayley's book Flag of Stars is cited five times and mentioned once in the "Bibliography" section. This is a bit redundant and it's possible to reduce all of that to a single reference. One way would be to provided a complete inline citation for the book for the first instance it's cited in the article and then use a combination of REFNAME and Template:Rp for each subsequent citation. Another would be to format the bibliography entry as a citation and then add WP:SRFs inline each time the book is cited in the article. Since there are no direct links provided to Cayley source, there's no need to worry about linking to specific pages of the book and thus no real need for multiple citations. There are a couple of other sources for which this could be done as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is another thing you could show me. How do you go about citing the following report written by the officer who commanded the government forces at the Eureka Stockade that is presently held by the Public Records Office in Victoria? I see there are templates for both reports and letters/documents but how do you choose between them?
John Wellesley Thomas, 14 December 1854, J54/1430 VPRS 1189/P Unit 92, J54/14030 VA 856 Colonial Secretary's Office, Public Record Office Victoria.
Robbiegibbons (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reports such as that are generally considered to be WP:PRIMARY source which means their usage as a source is quite restricted. You probably could use ((cite report)) with the |via= parameter used for the public records office. The |last= and |first= parameters would be the name of the report's author and the |title= parameter would be the title of the report. You could use the |others= parameter for any other relevant information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eureka Flag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 04:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'm fairly busy in RL, so this might be a slower process to get all the way through this moderate-length article. Not a flag expert, so there's an off-chance I might have to ping someone in if I get stuck on a vexillogical point.

Lead
History

That's just a start, there'll be quite a bit more to come. Hog Farm Bacon 06:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin and symbolism
Oath swearing

"During the whole of the morning several men were busily employed in erecting a stage and planting the flagstaff. This is a splendid pole of about 80 feet and straight as an arrow. This work being completed about 11 o'clock, the Southern Cross was hoisted, and its maiden appearance was a fascinating object to behold. There is no flag in Europe, or in the civilised world, half so beautiful and Bakery Hill as being the first place where the Australian ensign was first hoisted, will be recorded in the deathless and indelible pages of history. The flag is silk, blue ground with a large silver cross; no device or arms, but all exceedingly chaste and natural."" - Use the block quote template to format this

Post-battle preservation
Customary use
Standardized design

More to come later. Hog Farm Bacon 05:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives and variants
Vintage star spangled Eureka Flag
Eureka Jack

Okay, so there's a lot here. I'll leave this open for a week. If there's no response within a week, I'll have to fail this. Once these gets addressed, I'll take a look at sourcing. Hog Farm Bacon 06:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failing. Significant issues, no response here, and nominator has not been working on the article since the review opened. Hog Farm Bacon 16:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags[edit]

If we can all help to find the required sources to clear the remaining citation needed tags then it might be possible to renominate the article for A-class status.

Robbiegibbons (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eureka Flag/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points should be considered. It's okay if you disagree.

All those changes have been made except I've looked up the articles on a bunch of historical flags and they don't seem to use infoboxes.
Robbiegibbons (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. It's not necessary and you did consider it. I have made a few more minor changes related to style and links. If you want to take the article to FAC, then there is one thing. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, because the two can be separated for some purposes, but the lead of this article, while sourced, contains material not covered in the article. You would want it all covered in the body as well. Anyhow, great work here. I like articles that tell me things I did not know before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Article looks pretty good

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I would be inclined to split some of the large paragraphs and merge some of the one-sentence ones but meh.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are correctly licensed
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Ren Wenban image copyright[edit]

The article currently uses the image EUREKA JACK INSET.jpg, which is a cropped version of Union Jack at the Eureka Stockade.jpg. There is currently a deletion request for the latter (deletion request page), due to a possible copyright violation. The copyright status of both images is unclear at this time, and it appears likely that both will be deleted soon.
If you have any information regarding the issue, please comment on the deletion request page. Renerpho (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

today in London[edit]

The flag was flown today by someone in the crowd protesting at the court hearing Julian Assange's final appeal against extradition. —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories