Jump to content

Talk:Flag of Alabama/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Cross of Burgundy

Are you really sure that the flag of Alabama could be based on the Spaniard battalion's colours that bore a red Burgundian saltire? So far as I know Spain lost the one-time French Louisiana in 1801 -more or less-, and the flag of Alabama dates from 1895. There's a gap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Saints

  • How is the design more similar to the cross of St Patrick than to that of St Andrew? They look identical to me (color being a separate issue). --Dystopos 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

square

The official flag is always a square! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.246.4 (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Alabama. 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: 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) 23:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

​​​ The claim that the Washington Post article is a dead link,[1][2] is mistaken. Two users: Desertambition and Toddy1 have confirmed that the link works for them. It is true that it cannot be accessed by the Wayback Machine webarchive. I think the Washington Post has blocked that archive.

I added an archive-url for the alabamaag.gov link.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post article about the Attorney General isn't new and it's already included here. If you wish to add it as an additional source in the summary that's fine, but the article itself isn't very in depth. It simply covers what's already included in the article. The AG's opinion is noted. There would have to be some more information to support moving this into the lead. Desertambition has jammed this WaPost article into every state mentioned in the article regardless of whether the information was relevant. Nemov (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It was claimed that the Washington Post article was a dead link, which is incorrect. All the Washington Post says of relevance is Florida's flag is similar to Alabama's. The next statement: consisting of a state seal over a red cross. The cross was added to the flag a few years after Alabama adopted its flag, at the suggestion of Governor Francis P. Fleming. Fleming had enlisted in the Confederate army in his youth, and some historians see his choice of the cross as an attempt to memorialize the confederacy refers to Florida. (Francis P. Fleming was governor of Florida.)
The Washington Post article was there to support the statement: the red cross of the Alabama flag was designed to evoke the battle flag of the 60th Alabama Infantry Regiment used during the Civil War. Alabama is one of only a few states that incorporate confederate symbolism in their state flag. But I cannot see anything that supports that in the Washington Post article. So it fails verification.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe the it was included in the Washington Post article before... there was a dead link to the Florida claim, but that's also already covered on the Florida page. I don't object to the WaPost being cited in the summary. The WaPost is obviously a reliable source, but there's very little in depth or new reporting included in that summary of state flags. There's just not enough there to justify adding it to the lead which is what Desertambition did on several pages with little regard for what was already incuded in the articles. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The claim wasn't that the Washington Post article is a dead link, but that it cites a dead link. Regardless, the WP note on the Alabama flag cites the attorney-general, which is already included later in the article, and a page that doesn't mention the current flag at all. The attorney-general is included later in the article. The information in both of those sources is sparse and shouldn't be in the lead. --Spekkios (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
That is interesting, the archived version has text not in the version that was visible to me on the Washington Post website. I wondered if they deleted the text deliberately.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Curious as to what relevance there is to the link being dead? WaPo is a reliable source and can be trusted for its words with or without the link working.Slywriter (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe that was some confusion. There's a dead link in the WaPost article in regards to the Flag of Florida. I don't have an issue with the source, but in this case the Washington Post is simply reporting what's already mentioned later in the article. The source can be included. As mentioned before, the content is already included in the article. Nemov (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that the article prominently features a Spanish colonial flag when evidence indicates that the flag is actually inspired by the Confederacy, it seems highly misleading. Also, confederate symbolism is highly notable, I think that's clear given the coverage by multiple news outlets and the state's own attorney general. Desertambition (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. It's already mentioned in the article. Those news articles are simply summaries. It's almost like those articles pulled the information from the Wikipedia article. There doesn't appear to be any new research in them. Is your argument that since the AG's opinion received some coverage it should be included in the lead. There needs to be something more than than an opinion to mention it in the lead. It's obvious for the flag of Georgia. It's a replica of the confederate flag. Nemov (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
You can't just dismiss legitimate sources because you personally disagree with them. It's not just the attorney general. You're ignoring the Washington Post, Denver Post, and Huffington Post. All of which say that the flag is inspired by the Confederacy.
Here are two newspaper articles from Alabama explicitly stating the flag is designed to preserve the Confederacy:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/320377572/?terms=%22state%20flag%22&match=1
"The Alabama state flag was designed by John W.A. Sanford Jr., with suggestions from the late colonel John W.A. Sanford a confederate soldier, a distinguished scholarly gentleman of the old school, an able jurist. The state flag was designed to preserve some of the distinctive features of the Confederate battle flag.-particularly the Saint Andrews Cross."
https://www.newspapers.com/image/535697457/?terms=%22state%20flag%22%20sanders%20funeral%20home&match=1
"The Confederate Battle Flag embodies a St. Andrews Cross and the present State Flag is a red St. Andrews Cross on a white field." Desertambition (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
If there's a source that has information that's not included in the article please feel free to add it. The Washington Post article doesn't present new information. You can add it as a secondary source. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm dismissing it. Nemov (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not know what you want Nemov, it seems no sources are good enough for you and the article is highly misleading by using the Spanish colonial flag. There is no confusion about the flag's confederate ties. There is no reason this obviously notable information should not be included in the MOS:LEAD unless you are maintaining that there is no confederate symbolism. Desertambition (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
They literally said that if there is a source that presents new information then you are free to present it and include it in the article. --Spekkios (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Understood now about WaPo.Slywriter (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I added some additional information and created a new section covering the possible ties to the Confederacy and the Lost Cause movement. This section certainly needed some work. Again, the content currently included in the article and the citations I added are speculative. I haven't seen anything definitely connecting the flag to the Confederacy. If the connections are speculative it doesn't belong in the lead. If that changes with further research and citations I'd support it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    The information is not speculative and I am irked that you posted that knowing that it would be controversial. I will revert until we can find an actual consensus. Reliable sources tie the flag to the Confederacy, it's not just "speculative" or "possible ties". Evidence ties the flag to the Confederacy. This should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Desertambition (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    The section I added, in good faith is similar to the section on the Flag of Florida. Your reasoning for reverting is because I "knew it would be controversial?" This is ludicrous. What's specifically controversial about the additions? The section I added is simply what is included in the sources. If you have some specific issue with the content I added please list it below. I'm restoring my sources and section until you have a better reason for content blanking. If there's something wrong with the wording feel free to update the section. Nemov (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    You can't just revert my well cited edits and then make your own consensus because you personally disagree with sources. The sources do not say there is a "potential" link, there is a definitive link between the flag and the confederate battle flag. It's absurd that you think this is ok. You are misrepresenting the sources, which spell out the link clearly. You are also ignoring and dismissing the newspaper articles I linked which also explain the Confederate ties. You have no consensus and sources do not say what you are claiming they say. My edits were in good faith as well, there is no reason to do this when we are actively engaging in discussion on the topic. You ignored my reply above. Desertambition (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    My edit includes the Washington Post article you added! Where did I say I disagreed with the source? The source I've added quotes the research. I am not drawing a conclusion here. That is you. The goal is to report what is cited. The only matter of opinion is where this should be in the lead or not. You appear to be the one jumping to conclusions. If you wish to add those newspaper sections and quote them, please do (I can't read the links since I don't have an account). Nemov (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Including the link doesn't matter if you misrepresent the source. I quoted the relevant parts of the newspaper articles for you so you wouldn't have to access it. Anybody with an account can fact check me. That doesn't even matter given the copious amounts of evidence showing a clear link from reputable sources (they are not opinion articles). Reporting what's cited would mean acknowledging the obvious controversy over Confederate state flags and admitting that it is one of the most notable aspects of the flag. There is no confusion about the Confederate ties and you refuse to address that point. Your addition made it seem like it was a fringe idea some historians support rather than the overwhelming consensus. Desertambition (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    How did I misrepresent the source? The Washington Post article says: "that's according to a written account of the flag's history given by the attorney general of Alabama in 1987." That's what's currently in this article. Nemov (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Nemov, please hear me out. Your response is ignoring the Denver Post, Huffington Post as well as both newspaper articles I cited. I am sure I can find more if needed. I feel like you are being unreasonable and not addressing what I am saying directly. All of these sources make the Confederate connection clear and not speculative. Desertambition (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    The Huffington Post source is a video about the Flag of Mississippi that has a vexillologist who briefly mentions the Alabama flag. The Denver Post doesn't got into detail. It links to a page[3] with some history and again mentions the Attorney General from 1987. This is all pretty much covered in what I added. Again, what am I misrepresenting? Nemov (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a video with a vexillologist, AKA flag expert. How is that not relevant on a discussion about the Flag of Alabama? It only makes the source stronger. The Denver Post mentions research done by journalists Kevin Hamm and Dan Schneider. The Denver Post is a reliable source in-and-of itself so I do not understand what you want. You keep claiming "some historians believe" or that the connection is "speculative" when the evidence points to a clear link to the confederate battle flag. Again, you are not engaging with the newspaper articles that I have linked and quoted. Desertambition (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    A vexicollogist making an offhand statement about both flags being saltires is not encyclopedic, certainly not for the lead, and especially when it presents nothing new. I can find no mention of that research the Denver Post article cites anywhere else. --Spekkios (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    They don't just say it is a saltire, they say it is a saltire because of intentional Confederate symbolism. That's an important part to leave out. Desertambition (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    He says that the Alabama flag is reminiscent of the confederate flag because they both contain a saltire. That's it. He says nothing about intentional confederate symbolism. --Spekkios (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with the edit. It breaks up the current section into two clear and concise sections with the relevant information. --Spekkios (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The Washington Post is a great source and there is no reason to remove this. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    The issue was with using the source in the lead. I think it has been moved to the body. --Spekkios (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't understand why the Washington Post article supposedly linking to a dead link would disqualify it from the lead but still qualify for the body. Desertambition (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Because the lead was making an authoritative statement when the body is not. Symbolism discussion is much better left to the body where it can be given appropriate attention. --Spekkios (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    So your issue isn't with the dead link that you have been focusing on for a majority of this discussion? The source doesn't say the symbolism is debated at all, it says there is definitive Confederate symbolism. It is a misrepresentation of the source to say otherwise. Desertambition (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    The Washington Post has two sentences devoted to Alabama. This is the quote:
    The red cross of the Alabama flag, adopted in 1895, was designed to evoke the battle flag of the Alabama infantry in the Civil War. That's according to a written account of the flag's history given by the attorney general of Alabama in 1987. "According to a written account" in 1987 that's mentioned in the article. Where is the word "definitive?" Nemov (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    I never said the article had the word "definitive". I am confused as to what you are saying or what your objection is. I also cited the Denver Post which cited two of their own researchers. The Huffington Post as well which had a vexillologist who said the flag is based on the Confederate flag. I also linked two separate news articles outlining the Confederate symbolism explicitly. Desertambition (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Myself and others have written extensively about our objections. Repeating myself over and over isn't helpful. Nemov (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "dead link." That topic has been beaten to death and is quite clearly resolved. Nemov (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    That was the original rationale given for removing the link. If that is not the rationale being used now, I am not seeing any arguments for why it is bad for the lead and good for the body. Desertambition (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment on Confederate symbolism

WITHDRAWN
Clearly this rfc is not popular. Going to revise the rfc and try again. Desertambition (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the MOS:LEAD say that the flag of Alabama is based on the Confederate battle flag?

A: Yes, there is a general consensus among reliable sources that the state flag of Alabama is based on the Confederate battle flag and therefore this should be included in the lead.

B: No, there is disagreement over the origins of the state flag among reliable sources and therefore no mention of claimed Confederate (or Spanish, or other) origins or symbolism should be included in the lead

(i) and neither should the fact that there is disagreement.
(ii) although the fact that there is disagreement should be mentioned.

C: No, the state flag is based on the Spanish colonial flag; and therefore this Spanish origin should be included in the lead instead.

Desertambition (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spekkios, Nemov, North8000, Writethisway, and SMcCandlish: Rfc has been revised with input from the WP:TEAHOUSE. Hope this works better. Desertambition (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


  • Close as bad RfC it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to determine what a flag is based on, but rather to write articles that reflect what sources say about a flag. --Spekkios (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    This is clearly a contentious issue that could use more attention. "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." Desertambition (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. And this is a bad RfC because it doesn't suggest changes to the article content, but rather asks Wikipedian's to determine the historical basis for the Alabama flag, which is not our role. We summarise and write articles that reflect scholarship, etc. We don't determine what the history of a flag is and is not. --Spekkios (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    The changes are directly related to article content. We are trying to determine the correct sources to use as well as whether or not the flag is based on the Confederate battle flag. This is what was suggested by some users at WP:ANI. I listed it on both the History and geography and Politics, government, and law rfc channels. The rfc is not badly worded or biased so I really do not see any issue with this rfc. Desertambition (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. The discussions above are civil and in good faith. This isn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spekkios: @Nemov: I have changed the rfc to only refer to article content. Does this satisfy you? Desertambition (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's plenty of people involved in the discussions above. I just don't see the point and further obfuscates the discussions. It should be closed altogether. Nemov (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that the question is clearly about article content. But IMO the clearly correct choice is not even listed as a choice and so IMO the RFC is very problematic. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot) Real feedback would require a deep dive into the sources. But I did read some of the provided ones. Amongst those, there were NO sources that said either. The sources just reported what people claimed or said, specified as such. And there are significant amounts of people saying both things. "A" and "C" state an origin in the voice of Wikipedia and are so are doubly unthinkable. The lead should be a summary of the the article and this question is a significant part of the article so totally leaving it out per "B" is not a good choice. "D" has several problems. One is using Wikipedia jargon "reliable sources"....the Wikipedia meaning of that term is different than the real world one. And the sources per the wiki term that I saw didn't say either.

Next, again, the sources (at least the ones I read) didn't say either, they merely reported what others said and specified/ attributed it as such. IMO you should cover the question with at least a few sentences in the lead. I don't know the topic well enough to recommend the wording, but something like "according to some sources, the flag was inspired or based on ........" "According to others it was inspired or based on.......". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I have been unable to find such ambiguity and I would appreciate if you could link the reliable sources you read that disagree. I know you haven't had a chance to deep dive into every source but the ones I have seen have supported an understanding that the flag is based on the Confederate Battle Flag. Including the Washington Post (which finds a written account by the state's attorney general to be authoritative enough), the Denver Post (who cite two of their own researchers), the Huffington Post (who brought on a vexillologist to explain the saltire is a direct reference to the Confederacy) and two newspaper articles from Alabama specifically saying the flag was designed to preserve the Confederate battle flag. I do not see the need to phrase the article as if there is disagreement when there is none that I can see among reliable sources. An understanding that the flag is based on anything other than the confederate battle flag seems to be a WP:FRINGE view bordering on historical revisionism. I am open to more research but there really have not been many sources that say otherwise.
Thank you for the input on the rfc as well. I am definitely open to adding any option you would like me to. Just let me know and I will add it (or tweak existing options if they are really bad). Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The source I found yesterday[[4], from 1906, was published in newspapers throughout the United States including the New York Times. That's not WP:FRINGE.
So we have conflicting information here. I can only speculate and Wikipedia isn't for speculation. As editors our job it to write what is supported by reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Your source does not conflict with anything I said. All it says is that the Alabama state flag uses the "St. Andrews Cross", which the Confederate battle flag does as well. So yes, any understanding that the flag is not based on the Confederate battle flag appears to be a WP:FRINGE view given the lack of reliable sources saying otherwise. Desertambition (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention the Confederacy and says "the flag has no history woven into it." There are tons of flags that use the "St. Andrews Cross" that are not connected to the Confederacy. This source has a chance to connect it to the Confederacy and instead goes the opposite direction. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
That seems to be WP:POETIC wording more than anything given that every flag has a history. Nothing in the article contradicts what other sources have said. It just focuses on the "St. Andrews Cross", which is not in question. Numerous sources have explicitly said the flag was designed to preserve the Confederacy. Desertambition (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
It's a notable, reliable source, that does not connect the flag to the Confederacy. It's also the closest source time wise to the adoption of the flag in Alabama. We have other sources, years later, saying the flag was inspired by the confederate flag. This source is a contradiction since it plainly says the flag has no history woven into it. That source and quote cannot be ignored. I don't have anything further to add. The source speaks for itself. Nemov (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • D B ii. It is not our "job" as encyclopedists to decide which theory is true, but to accurately reflect that sources are divided on the question, and to give the different hypotheses WP:DUE weight in our own article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that we must accurately reflect what sources say. However, the sources do not seem to be divided and I would kindly ask that you expand on what reliable sources are divided. No one is saying that it is the job of encyclopedists to say what theory is true. Desertambition (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    If the sources were not divided then option B (and D which is now changed to B ii for some reason – after people have already voted for it) wouldn't exist. I agree with others here that this RfC is improperly forumlated and should just be closed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    I am sorry but that argument doesn't make much sense. An rfc should have multiple options, surely. Even if some of the options aren't correct. It's why the rfc is made. I have also revised the rfc recently so I encourage you to take another look at it or propose changes that you think would improve it. Desertambition (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    Not interested in arguing with you about any of this. This RfC is a bust.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    You're being incredibly hostile and rude but I am closing the rfc for the time being. Desertambition (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This Rfc is a bit dodgy in that it assumes the four options provided are the four best options. I add my voice to others who have called for the closure of this Rfc. The question posed is a leading question (and the options provided are too restrictive and incomplete). The genesis of the Alabama state flag, its intended symbolism, and its journey of stylistic changes throughout the years is murky and an ever-present topic of dispute among historians. A simple appeal to settle things through a multiple choice WP Rfc won't do much to clear things up. In fact, it will probably just add to the confusion.Writethisway (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    Editors keep saying it is a "topic of dispute" and then don't elaborate. That is not what reliable sources say. How should the rfc be written? This was explicitly suggested on the WP:ANI. The question is not leading at all and if you believe it is then by all means propose an alternative rfc. I am ready and willing to make any changes necessary to make it an appropriate rfc. Desertambition (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

information Note: fixed header 💜  melecie  talk - 04:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Rucker's Brigade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm working on draft for the "inspiration of the flag" section. As I comb through it I have a question about this section:

Another remote, but possible inspiration was the flag carried by Co. "F", 7th Alabama Cavalry. The regiment was the only Alabama regiment in Rucker's Brigade, commanded by Col. Edmund Rucker of Tennessee (later Alabama), who became a prominent Birmingham businessman after the war. The flag of Rucker's brigade used a white background with a red saltire charged with 13 blue/green stars. This flag was given to Co. "F", 7th Alabama Cavalry by Rucker so that they might act as his Color Guard, and is held by the Alabama Department of Archives and History as part of its Alabama Civil War Period Flag Collection.[1] But the flag carried by Co. F 7th Alabama was not an Alabama flag, it was the flag made for Rucker's Brigade a month before the 7th joined his brigade; the 7th was color party only after September 24, 1864. A bunting flag that exists, in the white and red configuration with 13 blue stars, is not believed to be Alabama-associated, but rather to be tied to Rucker's Brigade, as well.

Is there another source that ties this specifically to the origins of the Alabama flag? I reviewed the source[5] and unless I'm missing something there's nothing in the source that specifically ties this to the state flag of Alabama.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemov (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the source contains no content that asserts anything about this flag inspiring that of the state of Alabama flag. It is just a history of this flag. I suggest that its origin (being made by women of Mississippi) be noted, and have some copy edits to suggest. I can do those on the main page. Or maybe this should be deleted as Original Research, since the source does not support the speculative assertion of inspiration. Parkwells (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Flag: Rucker's Brigade (Carried by Co. F, 7th Alabama Cavalry) Catalogue No. 86.1876.1
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confederate Flag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

StellarNerd reverted my updated caption almost immediately after I posted it. The reasoning is More neutral. If Washington Post says it, then it is undoubtedly true, but that doesn't really make sense. I'm not sure you read my update to the caption.

You reverted to:Battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Believed by many to be the inspiration for the Alabama state flag, including the Washington Post, Denver Post, Huffington Post, and academic Stanley A Hutson.
Over: Battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Sources have said the Saint Andrews Cross was meant to preserve some of the distinctive features of the Confederate battle flag

The caption is a summary of what is already included in the article (including the Washington Post). It's WP:OR to speculate what those publications "believe." They simply have reported on the topic. I'm restoring my updated caption. Please find some support before making further reverts. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely WP:OR to deny that the majority of reliable publications have said the state flag of Alabama is based on the Confederate battle flag. This article is replete with WP:OR so if you are concerned with it, we should start with removing information on the Flag of Florida and Spanish Cross of Burgundy that is entirely speculative and only works to downplay the Confederate symbolism. Desertambition (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
We should remove most of the second sentence, except for the date part. The rest is fine, as it's relevent information to point out the similarities betweent the Florida and Alabama flags. --Spekkios (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Surely we should include information about the strong similarity to the Confederate battle flag as well. You're also forgetting the flag of Scotland and the flag of Gascony. Many flags look similar, it's hardly notable. Desertambition (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
We do include that. The similarities of the flag of Florida is extremely relevent given the states are part of the same country and right next to each other. --Spekkios (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
What's the date part? I didn't follow. Can you write it out like you want it? Nemov (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I would write {{tq|The saltire of Alabama's flag most closely resembles the saltire of the flag of Florida, which was derived from the Spanish Cross of Burgundy. Southern Alabama was originally part of Spanish Florida and subsequently West Florida.Alabama adopted its flag design in 1895, five years earlier than did Florida.}} I think that's all we need to say. --Spekkios (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's why I was confused. That should be set aside as a separate topic since this is about the caption on the confederate flag. Nemov (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confederacy Ties in MOS:LEAD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've updated the summary with the new research that came up during discussion. Thanks for everyone's contributions. The heart of the disagreement was whether the origins of the flag belong in the lead. I go back and forth on this because it's still not 100% clear if the flag was inspired by the confederacy. I'm not sure I trust someone who was a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy. During that period they saw the confederacy in everything. Even so, there's plenty of coverage about it. Anyway, I'd say no for now, but my mind could change if there's more evidence that comes to light. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It doens't matter if it is clear, sources cover this quite a bit. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree - we need to summarise the article in the lead, and sources mention it quite a bit. We just need to be careful about wording. --Spekkios (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
As long as being careful means being clear that the majority of reliable sources explicitly say the state flag of Alabama is based on the Confederate battle flag then I agree as well. Desertambition (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Something like this if y'all want to put it in the MOS:LEAD:
No legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag, but some sources believe the design was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Nemov (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
That's an extremely misleading MOS:LEAD sentence given that the vast majority of reliable sources have said that the flag is based on the Confederate battle flag. Desertambition (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It appears there's consensus that there's enough coverage about this in the article to mention something in the lead. What should it say? I'll start with my suggestion and we can work from there.
No legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag, but there are sources that believe the saltire was intended to memorialize the Confederacy.
I do not believe that lead sentence gives WP:DUE weight to the proportion of sources that say the state flag is based on the Confederate battle flag. From how I am reading the sentence, and perhaps I am misinterpreting it, it seems to imply that the Confederate symbolism was only connected by a minority or handful of sources rather than the majority of them and that any connection at the time of its creation was not intentionally made. I believe it is worth mentioning that many reliable sources believe the state flag is one of a handful that preserve Confederate symbolism, like the former flag of Mississippi or the current flag of Georgia. What do you think? Desertambition (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Where in that sentence does it imply "minority?" How is it in conflict with the current summary? Nemov (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I personally have only seen the Savannah Morning News report that said "No legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag". I would appreciate if you could provide more sources that say the same thing. Sources like The Washington Post, The Denver Post, The Huffington Post, and CNN have all said that the state flag of Alabama was based on the Confederate battle flag. That seems like a fairly large amount of reliable sources saying the state flag is directly based on the Confederate battle flag. I also believe the focus on the saltire is misleading because most sources say the state flag was based on the Confederate battle flag, not just the saltire (although that is a prominent feature of the flag). I am not trying to misinterpret anything so please tell me if you believe I am as it would help elucidate the issue. What do you think would be the best way to convey this information? Do you believe these sources are adequate, and if not what sources should we be looking for? Desertambition (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that this wouldn't be in the legislative record, as the lawmakers back then could have been accused of treason against the United States. Despite this not being in the records the resemblance is obvious and the preponderance of reliable sources point this out. It belongs in the lead, right in the beginning of the article. StellarNerd (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Georgia's flag during this period was a replica of the Stars and Bars flag. It had been the flag for decades. Your argument is wrong historically and it doesn't matter anyway since that's WP:OR. Nemov (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I asked a very simple question. I'm not asking to debate the current summary, that's a separate topic. The question here is what to use the lead based on the current accepted summary.
What in this quote implies minority: No legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag, but there are sources that believe the saltire was intended to memorialize the Confederacy Nemov (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The sentence does not give WP:DUE weight to the amount of sources that say the state flag of Alabama was based on the Confederate battle flag. As StellarNerd mentioned above, the inclusion of "No legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag" can be pretty misleading, especially when we consider the amount of reliable sources supporting a direct connection to the Confederate battle flag. Many Southern states adopted state flags based on the Confederacy because of Lost Cause mythology. It is not up to us to judge the research of reliable secondary sources, especially when multiple reliable sources come to the same conclusion. Therefore, the lead should reflect what the vast majority of reliable sources say. Desertambition (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
If you can't be bothered to answer direct questions there's no sense continuing this thread. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Apologies if I am misunderstanding you, I was just trying to offer my opinion on what should be included in the lead. Desertambition (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • What if we invert the sentence? "There are sources that believe the saltire was intended to memorialize the Confederacy, but no legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag." I think there's more work to be done on it, but is that at least an incremental improvement? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, the order makes no difference to me. Nemov (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    It should be noted that the second state flag of Mississippi also has no legislative records that indicate Confederate inspiration for the flag. However, a large amount of reliable secondary sources indicate that the flag is based on the Confederacy. Desertambition (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    How is that in any way relevant to a discussion about the flag in Alabama and MOS:LEAD? Nemov (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    I think it's important to demonstrate how misleading it can be to include "no legislative records indicate the inspiration for the flag". Both states are closely related and border each other. The Mississippi flag was also adopted in 1894, one year before Alabama adopted theirs. Although there may have been no indication that either flag is based on the Confederate battle flag in official legislation, reliable secondary sources have said that both flags are based on the Confederate battle flag. I am not saying this information on Mississippi should be included in the article, I am just bringing it up to illustrate why the inclusion could be misleading. Desertambition (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    The Mississippi flag is completely irrelevant to the current discussion about the MOS:LEAD on the flag of Alabama. The lead is a summary of the current article. Please set separate topics aside. It's very confusing for the current discussion for you to keep changing the subject to something else. Please focus on the topic of the discussion. Nemov (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    That's ok, good suggestion. StellarNerd (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"no historical connections"

The 1906 New York Times/Birmingham Age-Herald source says "The flag in question has no history woven into it." The way the article is currently using the source is as evidence that the flag was not inspired by the Confederate battle flag. Specifically, the status quo is "another newspaper stating the flag had no historical connections". If that's not meant to imply a lack of Confederate influence, it needs rewriting or placement elsewhere.

I think we should remove the claim entirely. We're stretching the limits of acceptable interpretation, when a more reasonable interpretation is just "This flag hasn't been used for very long." It can't mean that there were no historical influences, as it acknowledges the influence of St. Andrew. We also shouldn't be referring to the source as "at the time of the flag's adoption" when it was published more than ten years later. I know there was prior discussion about this above, but I figured we could use a dedicated section. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That citation was published in newspapers over the United States and discusses the flag and the saltire. It makes no mention of the confederacy. The other citations in the 15-20 years or so are all framed in the opinions of others. The phrasing can change, but it's a early source that has the opportunity to connect it to the confederacy and does not. Nemov (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't make claims based on what our sources don't mention. Doing so would be original research, "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree, but when the question is the history of the flag and there's article a few years after adoption that says there's "no history woven into it" then that should be noted as the exact quote at least. Obviously, we disagree on meaning here, but that's not how I read that article. The other articles we're citing had no issues drawing a connection even if it was a matter of opinion. Leaving this out when it didn't draw that conclusion would be an odd decision. Nemov (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it's the right decision, to avoid original research. Just checking, when you say that other articles are "drawing a connection", do you mean there are other sources that connect the 1906 source to the battle flag theory? Any reliable secondary source support for that connection would mean this isn't OR. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
At the very least we should quote the line directly --Spekkios (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
What if we quote the line directly in the first paragraph of Flag of Alabama#Current flag. The source is already cited there, and when the source says "no history woven into it", it leads directly into a mention of the year of adoption and info about St. Andrew's Cross. Both those points are first brought up at the beginning of "Current flag". That way, we're keeping the info, but avoiding the implied claim that the source is commenting on the Confederate battle flag origin theory. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about quoting the 1900 source from the Montgomery Advertiser as well? Desertambition (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure. That one actually comments on the Confederate battle flag theory. I guess I lean slightly toward quoting over summarizing, but don't think it's a big deal. Side-note: if we want to get into whether the flag is meant to be square or rectangular, the 1900 source is one in favor of rectangular. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with removing the claim entirely. If consensus believes we should include the source, I believe the prior edit with direct quotes from both sources was more accurate:
In 1900, the Montgomery Advertiser published an article that advocated for increased public display of the state flag due to its Confederate symbolism, saying "No Alabamian will love it the less because it is evidently a memory and a suggestion of the Confederate battle flag". In 1906, the Birmingham Age-Herald published a piece that said the Alabama state flag "has no history woven into it". Desertambition (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
So a red saltire flag is now automatically racist because some Confederates appropriated it? So in that case is the non-inverted Swastika racist? What about the Spanish processions where Catholics dress in uniforms that look remarkably similar to outfits worn by the KKK, yet it was the KKK who appropriated these uniforms and not the other way around? This is also saying "Oh, log cabins are racist because they were often built in the day of indigenous peoples being kicked off their land" - despite log cabins being present in lands never conquered by modern colonisers. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:1465:AED9:B5DF:F936 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what this has to do with the question at hand. Do you have anything specific to contribute to this discussion? Nemov (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This change seems too long:
In 1900, the Montgomery Advertiser published an article that advocated for increased public display of the state flag due to its Confederate symbolism, saying "No Alabamian will love it the less because it is evidently a memory and a suggestion of the Confederate battle flag". In 1906, the Birmingham Age-Herald published a piece that said the Alabama state flag "has no history woven into it".
Something like this is easier to read and less wordy:
In 1900, the Montgomery Advertiser reported the flag was "a memory and a suggestion of the Confederate battle flag". In 1906, the Birmingham Age-Herald published a piece that said the Alabama state flag "has no history woven into it".
I believe that the current version is more accurate and precise. The length allows the sentence to effectively communicate the full context of both articles. Desertambition (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The advocated for increased public display isn't relevant for this article. What justifies its inclusion? The relevant part of the source is the connection to the battle flag. I fail to understand how it's "more accurate" or "precise." It's just longer. What specifically is missing from my suggestion that's helpful? Nemov (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_of_Alabama/Archive_1&oldid=1149895970"