Talk:Flag of Alabama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Additional perspectives, deleted heading and paragraph

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.

---

deleted heading and paragraph

Additional perspectives Some historians see the red saltire as a commemoration of Alabama's contributions to the Confederacy. The addition was made during a period of nostalgia for the "Lost Cause" around the time of the flag's change. According to historian John M. Coski, the adoption of Alabama's flag coincided with the rise of Jim Crow laws and segregation, as other former Confederate slave states, such as Mississippi and Florida, also adopted new state flags around the same time when those states instituted Jim Crow segregation laws themselves: References

An editor added the above paragraph and heading at 21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC), but another editor reverted it twice:

• 21:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC) No consensus for this change. Evidence ties the flag to the Confederacy and the Confederate Battle Flag. It is not as "speculative" as the article makes it seem.
• 21:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC) We are actively discussing this on the talk page. You cannot make up your own consensus while misrepresenting sources and ignoring responses. I have stopped editing the page pending WP:CONSENSUS and you should too.

This is a different issue than the The Washington Post article, and contrary to what the edit summary said, there is no discernible discussion of this on the talk page. A problem I have with the deletion edit summaries, is that another editor could use the same wording as edit summaries for edits that restored the paragraph and heading.

Does anybody know what the objections are to the heading and the paragraph?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have any objections myself. Except refrase "the addition was made..." as it makes it sound like something was added to the flag, rather than a flag was adopted. --Spekkios (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Some historians see the red saltire as a commemoration of Alabama's contributions to the Confederacy. The flag was adopted during a period of nostalgia for the "Lost Cause",^[1][2] and coincided with the rise of Jim Crow laws and segregation.^[3] Other former Confederate slave states, such as Mississippi and Florida, also adopted new state flags around the same time when those states instituted Jim Crow segregation laws themselves.^[3] would be better.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. All good changes. Reading it again I'd made a slight change since Florida didn't adopt a new flag, but modified it. Some historians see the red saltire as a commemoration of Alabama's contributions to the Confederacy. The flag was adopted during a period of nostalgia for the "Lost Cause",^[1][2] and coincided with the rise of Jim Crow laws and segregation.^[3] Other former Confederate slave states, such as Mississippi and Florida, also adopted or modified their state flags around the same time.^[3] Nemov (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summaries, "Evidence ties the flag to the Confederacy and the Confederate Battle Flag. It is not as "speculative" as the article makes it seem." Also you seemed to have missed the extensive discussion that took place above this section where I linked two separate newspaper articles supporting this.

From above:

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)[reply]

There is clear historical evidence and significant coverage by reliable sources that make the connection to the Confederacy and the Confederate Battle Flag clear. There is no reason to phrase it as "some historians" when it is clear there is no debate, None of the links cited say "possibly", they say that the flag is based on a confederate flag. Clear confederate symbolism is highly notability as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. Desertambition (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Then presumably you (Desertambition) would like "some historians" changed to "historians". Is that correct? Does anyone object? And if so, why?-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think we are making progress. I don't think the focus on historians is necessary, it seems like we should just present the Confederate history for what it is. If we agree that it's not debated then I believe it makes sense to include this information in the MOS:LEAD.

I also believe we should remove a lot of text focusing on the colonial Spanish flag because it is misleading but I do not know if you would prefer me to make a new section discussing that. Thank you for being receptive. Desertambition (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a separate issue, so please start a new section for that, explaining what you want to remove, and why.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding whether it is debated - well it certainly is for the flag for Florida. I do not know whether it is debated for the flag for Alabama.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, luckily the sources make it clear that it's not debated. So I hope that clears up some confusion. I do not see the relevancy of the flag of Florida in this discussion. Desertambition (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I would object. Most sources seem to refer back to the attorney general opinion or the opinion of the historian John M. Coski. I don't think a couple of newspaper articles are sufficient to state absolutely that the flag is connected to the confederate flag. If there are studies or other historians that have produced work then perhaps it can be changed but until then I don't think it needs changing or to be in the lead. --Spekkios (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The later sources posted above support the idea that the flag was inspired by the St. Andrews Cross and the Confederacy. However in 1906, the New York Times published a piece from the Birmingham Age-Herald[1] that states "the flag has no history woven into it." That's a little less clear than what was published decades later. The Birmingham Age-Herald account was published in newspapers around the country.

I would leave historians out of it. Since the history appears to be clouded I still believe it doesn't belong in the lead. Just craft the history of the flag with sources that say it was inspired by the Conferendacy and the source that says there was not history woven into the flag. Nemov (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Here's a draft to replace the "Current flag" section. I've included many of the sources that have been discussed here and a few I've found during my research. The second section I have alternatively titled "Ties to the Confederacy" but I'm not sure if that's neutral enough based on the content. I'm not exactly sure what to call that section.

Current flag

Alabama's current flag was adopted in 1895. The legislation introduced by Representative John W. A. Sanford Jr. stipulates that "[t]he flag of the state of Alabama shall be a crimson cross of St. Andrew on a field of white. The bars forming the cross shall be not less than six inches broad, and must extend diagonally across the flag from side to side." The saltire of Alabama's flag most closely resembles the saltire of the flag of Florida, which has its heritage in the Spanish Cross of Burgundy. Southern Alabama was originally part of Spanish Florida and subsequently West Florida. Although Alabama's adoption of its flag design predates that of Florida's by five years (1895), the 1868–1900 Seal of Florida depicted a white flag with a red saltire, similar to Florida's current flag or a Burgundian saltire, on top of a steamboat. Alabama's flag is officially a St. Andrew's cross as described in its legislation. This represents the cross on which St. Andrew was crucified.

Theories of origin

In 1906, the New York Times published an article stating the Alabama flag had no historical connections and features St. Andrew's cross in crimson on a white field. There is nothing in the legislative records that indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy, however a few decades after the flag's adoption a number of participants acknowledged the design was drawn from the battle flag. The authors of a 1917 article in National Geographic expressed their opinion that the Alabama flag was based on the Confederate Battle Flag. In 1924, Bell Allen Ross, a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy, said that John W.A. Sanford Jr. modeled his design of the Alabama flag on the battle flag used by his father, John W. A. Sanford's Hilliard's Legion regiment. Sanford's design was meant to preserve some of the distinctive features of the Confederate battle flag, particularly the Saint Andrews Cross. During the Civil War many battle flags were square, and the flag of Alabama is sometimes also depicted as square. The legislation that created the state flag did not specify that the flag was to be square. In 1987, the office of Alabama Attorney General Don Siegelman issued an opinion in which the derivation from the 60th Alabama Battle Flag is indicated, and also concluded that the proper shape is rectangular, as it had been depicted numerous times in official publications and reproductions; despite this, the flag is still often depicted as being square, even in official publications of the U.S. federal government.

Some have interpreted the red saltire as a commemoration of Alabama's contributions to the Confederacy since the flag was adopted during a period of promotion of the "Lost Cause" in the antebellum South. From the late 1870s, the white-dominated legislature passed Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Other former Confederate slave states, beginning with Mississippi, and followed by Florida, also adopted new state flags around the same time that they disenfranchised African Americans and passed laws establishing Jim Crow segregation. Others such as Steve Murray, the Director of the Alabama Department of History and Archives, are unsure of the flag's origins. According to Murray, the flag's connections are thin and based on suppositions. Murray said "I would conclude that if they were wanting to evoke the Confederate battle flag, they would have been more explicit about doing it either in the design which could have more closely resembled the Confederate flag.”

I believe this is an improvement over the current article. I would also like to include the image of the Hilliard's Legion flag that according to Bell Allen Ross, served as inspiration for John W.A. Sanford Jr.'s Alabama flag design. I could be WP:BOLD and make these edits, but I'd rather make sure there's some consensus before moving forward. I'm also open to suggestions for naming the second section. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this change - this is a much better summary of source material. I also agree that incorporating the legion flag into the article, possibly replacing the current Burgundy cross, as while the Florida flag has heritage in the Burgundy cross, the Alabama flag does not. Otherwise, we should consider using the flag of Florida in the article instead of the Burgundy cross to show the similarities between Florida and Alabama, and show the legion flag underneath it. --Spekkios (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thorpewilliam and Desertambition: There is a sentence that editors are arguing about (I have applied strike though to the words that Thorpewilliam deleted and Desertambition restored):

From the late 1870s, the white-dominated legislature passed Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.

The previous page of the source (page 79) says: The Confederate veteran generation insured the surval of the battle flag as an offical symbol of several states. The legislatures of Alabama and Florida in the 1890s adopted new state flags featuring a plain red St. Andrew's cross on a white field. The red cross on the white field was (and still is) the whole Alabama state flag. It goes on (on pages 79-80) The legislative records offer no clue whether the new flags were intended as references to the Confederate battle flag. There is a further discussion of this on page 80.

The statement about the 1870s is contradicted by the source, which says 1890s.

The link between white people making up the legislature of Alabama and adopting the flag is not supported by the source. It appears to be someone's personal analysis. It needs a source that explicitly makes the link between the skin colour of the people on the legislature and the adoption of that feature of the flag.

The bit of the quotation saying "Four years before Mississippi..." is irrelevant. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you are misreading the sources and drawing mistaken connections. The section is about Jim crow laws and racial segregation. Not when the flag was adopted. The source you are citing says clearly that the flags of Alabama and Florida were intended to preserve the Confederate battle flag. I encourage you to read about segregation in America and the legacy of Jim Crow. There was originally a system of chattel slavery that then evolved into Jim Crow laws and efforts to suppress the black population in America by the white population through the legislature after slavery was officially abolished.

Also pinging @Parkwells: because they added the information you are removing. Desertambition (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's not supported by the source it should be removed. The comment that you need to "read about segregation in America" is frankly appalling. Nemov (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Material should be sourced and if it indicates personal analysis it shouldn’t be there. Desertambition is right that I could’ve added a better source needed template, however. The question then is, what use is the statement given Alabama is and was a majority-white state? Does “white domination” simply refer to that, or does it refer to restrictions that were placed on the political rights of blacks, which are encapsulated in the Jim Crow laws subsequently mentioned? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I restored Toddy1's edit. There seems to be enough support for those changes. The source template is a reasonable addition. Thanks for the help! Nemov (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It's appropriate when editors have not actually read the source in question. From the source:

"In the 1910s an officer of the Alabama Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy explained that the legislature did intend "to preserve in permanent form some of the distinctive features of the Confederate battle flag, particularly the Saint Andrew's Cross"

About Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida's state flags:

"The flag changes in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coincided with the passage of Jim Crow segregation laws throughout the South." Desertambition (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused about what your objection is here. The paragraph already mentions Jim Crow three times.

You're trying to add:

Four years before Mississippi incorporated a Confederate battle flag into its state flag, its constitutional convention passed pioneering provisions to 'reform' politics by effectively disenfranchising most African Americans

The article already discusses segregation and disenfranchised African-Americans:

...since the flag was adopted during a period of promotion of the "Lost Cause" of the culture of the antebellum South. From the late 1870s, the white-dominated legislature passed Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Other former Confederate slave states, beginning with Mississippi, and followed by Florida, had also adopted new state flags around the same time that they disenfranchised African Americans and passed laws establishing Jim Crow segregation.

The Mississippi information is already included. Since this article is about Alabama, further details about another state aren't necessary. Your defense for this latest revert is that editors have not actually read the source in question. This is a disturbing pattern that has been discussed over and over. Please stop accusing other editors. Please stop telling other editors to learn history. It's disrespectful and presumptuous. Nemov (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Pages 79-80 of the cited source explicitly makes the link between the 1890s adoption of state flags featuring a St. Andrew's cross with the adoption at about the same time of formal Jim Crow segregation laws. Desertambition appears to be arguing that what the source says is all rubbish, because Jim Crow laws and racial segregation started 20 years earlier. But Wikipedia policy on verifiability is that all material in articles must be attributable to reliable, published sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The general Lost cause/Jim Crow information is already sourced and sufficient.

This passage:

Four years before Mississippi incorporated a Confederate battle flag into its state flag, its constitutional convention passed pioneering provisions to 'reform' politics by effectively disenfranchising most African Americans

This was removed and reverted. I don't see a logical reason for the revert given what the article is about (Alabama) and what's already included in the article. Nemov (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Reconstruction

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 making this a new section since the other one is difficult for anyone to read through. Parkwells added this sentence:

Following Reconstruction and withdrawal of federal troops, from the late 1870s white Democrats regained control of the Alabama and other former Confederate legislatures.

Since this is an article about the Flag of Alabama I don't think this content is necessary. This is the paragraph without that addition:

Some commentators have interpreted the red saltire as a commemoration of Alabama's contributions to the Confederacy, since the flag was adopted during a period of promotion of the "Lost Cause" of the culture of the antebellum South. Other former Confederate slave states, beginning with Mississippi, and followed by Florida, had also adopted new state flags around the same time that they disenfranchised African Americans and passed laws establishing Jim Crow segregation.

That summary doesn't need additional context. This article's focus should be on the flag and its history. Coski has made the connection between the flag, Jim Crow, and the Lost Cause movement. That's what should be cited. If people want to learn more about reconstruction they can go to the articles for those topics. Thanks for the help! Nemov (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The source about reconstruction does not mention the flag being adopted about 20 years later. This is not meant to be a coat rack article. It should be about the flag. Tangential subjects such as racial segregation, the end of reconstruction, the Hayes presidency, etc. should only be mentioned if sources make an explicit connection. If the cited sources do not make that connection, then it is not allowed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Nemov, when you reverted the addition of the stuff about reconstruction, you also removed the fact that the Coski8081 citation was being cited for, namely that the flag changes in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida in the 1890s coincided with the passage of formal Jim Crow segregation laws throughout the South. Instead the citation is left next to "Some commentators have interpreted the red saltire as a commemoration of Alabama's contributions to the Confederacy...", but it is not there for that. So please fix your edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the citation. Nemov (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Flag dimensions

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.

---

Editors have done a good job fleshing out the "theories" section. Reading the article now, the discussion of the flag dimensions seems out of place in the "theories" section. The 1987 letter by the Attorney General should be moved to the "current flag" section. Anyone object to removing the AG section from theories and moving it to the "current flag" with this quote?

The legislation that created the state flag did not specify that the flag was to be square but defined the width of the bars of the cross. In 1987, the office of Alabama Attorney General Don Siegelman stated in a letter that the proper shape of the state flag is rectangular, as it had been depicted numerous times in official publications and reproductions. Despite this, the flag is still often depicted as being square, even in official publications of the U.S. federal government.

Earlier drafts leaned heavily on the AG's letter to connect the flag to the confederacy, but the additional sources do a good job at this and his letter is better suited for the dimensions section since that's the topic of his letter. This change should make two sections flow better together. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we should work on the discussion above before starting another discussion. We have not implemented some of the changes discussed in the discussion above. ie. Quoting the 1900 and 1906 sources. Desertambition (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Just updated the citations with quotes. Desertambition (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I moved the flag dimensions information into the current flag section where it belongs. The AG references to the regiment flag remain for now. The 60th Alabama Infantry Regiment included the Hilliard's Alabama Legion so I'm not sure it needs to be spelled out, but either way is fine. Nemov (talk) 03:49, 15 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.

Supposed link to colonial Spanish 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.

---

A large majority of the article focuses on the resemblance to the Spanish colonial flag and features a picture of the flag prominently in the article, those sections are not supported by citations and every citation on the history of the flag mentions the intentional resemblance to the Confederate battle flag. The picture of the Spanish flag should be replaced with a Confederate battle flag. I believe the sections talking about the Spanish colonial flag should be removed entirely because they are highly misleading. Desertambition (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What "large majority" are you refering to? There is one paragraph which mentions the resemblence to the Burgundy cross. --Spekkios (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone were to skim the article, they would come away with the idea that the flag is based on the Spanish colonial flag. However, reliable sources tie the flag to the Confederate battle flag. So it makes sense to have the Confederate battle flag displayed prominently instead of the Spanish colonial flag. The speculation is entirely unsourced and should be removed. Desertambition (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how. There is more information about possible confederate ties than there is to the Burgundy cross. --Spekkios (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. Please elaborate. Desertambition (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There is one line on the relationship to the Burgundy cross. There are three parapgraphs discussing possible confederate links. --Spekkios (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, what is your objection to removing the unsourced information on the Spanish colonial flag and the picture of the Spanish colonial flag? Desertambition (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the wrong question. Surely the right question is, can we provide sources that directly supports the various statements in the following?

The saltire of Alabama's flag most closely resembles the saltire of the flag of Florida, which has its heritage in the Spanish Cross of Burgundy. Southern Alabama was originally part of Spanish Florida and subsequently West Florida. Although Alabama's adoption of its flag design predates that of Florida's by five years (1895), the 1868–1900 Seal of Florida depicted a white flag with a red saltire, similar to Florida's current flag or a Burgundian saltire, on top of a steamboat. Alabama's flag is officially a St. Andrew's cross as described in its legislation. This represents the cross on which St. Andrew was crucified.

I suspect it is going to take time to do this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That it should first be sourced. I've added a source for the statement. --Spekkios (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spekkios: I cannot access the source you provided. It seems to focus on the flag of Florida rather than the flag of Alabama. Can you quote where it says the flag is not based on the confederate flag but is instead based on the colonial Spanish flag? Desertambition (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I found another link to the article here[2], but it just says the flag resembles the flag of Florida. That source covers a lot of what we have discussed here. I'd edit this down to:

The saltire of Alabama's flag most closely resembles the saltire of the flag of Florida, which has its heritage in the Spanish Cross of Burgundy. Southern Alabama was originally part of Spanish Florida and subsequently West Florida. Although Alabama's adoption of its flag design predates that of Florida's by five years (1895), the 1868–1900 Seal of Florida depicted a white flag with a red saltire, similar to Florida's current flag or a Burgundian saltire, on top of a steamboat. Alabama's flag is officially a St. Andrew's cross as described in its legislation. This represents the cross on which St. Andrew was crucified.

There needs to be a source for the strike-through text. Nemov (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Which flag are you referring to when you say the flag is not based on the confederate flag but is instead based on the colonial Spanish flag? The statement in the article says that the Alabama flag closely resembles the flag of Florida, which has connection to the Burgundy cross. Anyway, I can't quote 6 pages but I guess the most relevant part is on page 134 which states Our original-meaning analysis cannot end with the canon of fixed meaning, however, as the State of Alabama adopted a flag that bears a striking resemblance to Florida's red bars in 1895 Indeed, one commentator has even suggested that "the recently-adopted Alabama state flag" inspired Floridians to add red bars to their flag in 1900. --Spekkios (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That does not contradict the overwhelming number of reliable sources that tie the state flag of Alabama directly to the Confederate battle flag. I am referring to the Spanish Cross of Burgundy, which is pictured prominently in the article. The paper you are citing focuses exclusively on the flag of Florida and the most relevant line just says the flag of Alabama resembles the flag of Florida. That is not sufficient evidence for featuring the Cross of Burgundy so prominently and phrasing the article like there is ambiguity when there is none.

That paper does not even make a definitive statement one way or another for the flag of Florida (let alone the flag of Alabama) as far as I can tell, but you are the one with full access. Desertambition (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This source also ties the flag to the Confederacy.

"The modem Alabama flag saw use during the Civil War. According to a 1941 publication by the members of the WPA: "The model for the first Alabama state flag was designed and made of white long cloth and oil-boiled calico by Mrs. John W. A. Sanford, daughter-in-law of Colonel John W. A. Sanford, a Confederate veteran."14 The flag, consisting of a white field crossed by two red bars in the form of a cross, commonly referred to as resembling the shape of ‘suspenders’, was used by some Alabama forces during the Civil War, but it was not until near the turn of the century that this flag became the official Alabama state flag." Desertambition (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. That quote is stating that the Alabama flag has a "striking resemblance" to the Florida flag, as it says in the Wikipedia article. The article notes the connection between the Burgundy cross and the Florida flag, and the Florida flag and the Alabama flag. Anyway, the article does state that there is evidence to suggest that the Alabama flag is Confederate in origin, which is why we have 2-3 paragraphs discussing Confederate ties. --Spekkios (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, then what is your objection to including that information on confederate symbolism in the MOS:LEAD? Desertambition (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Because stating outright that the flag is confederate symbolism doesn't accurately reflect what the variety of sources state about the flag. All connections are inferred, such as attempting to conclude what the intent of the people involved was, or noting the timing of the passing of the flag act. --Spekkios (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources I have cited say explicitly the flag is based on the Confederate battle flag. The strongest source you have found says the flag of Florida has strong resemblance to the flag of Alabama (despite the flag of Florida being designed after the flag of Alabama). Many flags look the same, that doesn't make it WP:VERIFIABLE information. The implication that they are related violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Desertambition (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I keep providing sources and you keep dismissing them without reasons rooted in existing guidelines. I am at a loss as to what you want or what would satisfy you to place this information in the MOS:LEAD. Desertambition (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing your sources without reason. You've cited a WaPo article briefly mentioning the Alabama flag and referring to information that is already included in the article, a HuPo Youtube video with a vexillologist stating that both flags are saltires, a DePo article that cites an opinion by Dr Owen in 1915, and a couple of newspaper articles stating that Sanford intentionally designed the flag to resemble the Confederate battle flag. According to the scholarly sources it is likely that Sandford was trying to retain Confederate symbolism in the design of the Alabama flag, although there is no direct evidence for that being the case. That is based on Sanford's history and trying to infer his intent. I do not believe that we should state outright that the Alabama flag is a Confederate symbol given that there is no direct evidence. Given that Alabama and Florida border each other I consider it reasonable that we state that the flags are similar. I provided a source stating that they are similar. --Spekkios (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction: A Huffington Post youtube video that says the saltire was added to preserve the Confederacy, you keep leaving that point out. The Denver Post article actually cites two of their own researchers: Kevin Hamm & Dan Schneider. It was written by Eric J. Lubbers. Clearly, multiple reliable sources find the information authoritative enough. The research article I cited to you also says the flag was intended to resemble the Confederate battle flag.

The policy of WP:DUE weight says:

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views"

It is beyond clear what the vast majority (if not all) reliable sources have to say about the history of the flag of Alabama. Doesn't matter if you disagree or think their research is bad, it should be mentioned in the MOS:LEAD. It is not our job to make determinations of fact when reliable secondary sources say otherwise. Any view that the flag is based on Florida or the Cross of Burgundy is a WP:FRINGE, minority viewpoint that should either not be mentioned or included as a small note at the end. The implication that is currently in the article violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because reliable sources do not tie the flag of Alabama to the Cross of Burgundy or the flag of Florida. Desertambition (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be mentioned in the lead for the reasons I mentioned above. We shouldn't be outright stating something when the sources don't properly back that up. The HP video only mentions the Alabama flag to say, and this is the full quote: Many of the southern states, even if they don't actually have a true Confederate symbol, have a flag that's reminiscent. Florida and Alabama have saltire flags, though they're not in the colour of the Confederate flag. That's all he says. The Denver Post article's only source for their information is this which references a the opinion of Dr. Owen. WP:DUE states that ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint... and I hardly think that a couple of lines or an offhand statement is enough to include an authoritative statement in the lead. The article reflects what scholarly consensus on the Alabama flag is.

I don't know why you are claiming that there is a view that the flag is based on Florida or the Cross of Burgundy. That isn't what the article states, and that isn't what is being argued. I don't think that it's wrong for the article to note the similarities to the Florida flag and the Burgundy cross, especially when it's only a sentence. --Spekkios (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a waste of everybody's time. You're not the person to make a determination of fact when reliable secondary sources say otherwise. We are not the sole arbiters of what is true and not true or what is good research. I suggest you bring your concerns to the WP:RSP talk page and argue that the Washington Post, Denver Post, and Huffington Post be removed from the list. If it was one off-hand comment, then sure I completely understand. However, at this point we have multiple articles from reliable sources as well as academic articles and the Alabama state government itself.

You also reverted my edits saying "there is a discussion on the talk page" but you did not do that to the other edits despite active discussion. It's patently absurd and a clear example of WP:BADFAITHNEG.

Your argument for not including this in the MOS:LEAD makes no sense. We don't need to say that it is definitively Confederate, but we should reflect what the vast majority (if not all) reliable sources say on this issue. Something like "The flag of Alabama is widely believed to be based on the Confederate battle flag" while giving proper historical context. That is only an accurate descriptor of what the sources say. Desertambition (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that those sources aren't reliable. I'm arguing that the specific pages in question doesn't cite any new information that isn't included in the article, and that the information that you cited when including them in the lead wasn't sufficient for the statement. I assumed that you were wanting the lead statement that you wrote reinstated.

I'm also not sure what edits you are referring to, but a reminder that WP:AGF is a thing. --23:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spekkios (talk • contribs)

Spekkios The productive way to deal with that is to propose a better MOS:LEAD. Not WP:STONEWALL to the point of absurdity. If you had once WP:AGF we could have discussed this instead of you immediately reverting my edits because you made your own consensus. Regardless, does what I proposed satisfy you? Your position has changed so many times I seriously do not understand what you want or what your objections are. Unless your objection was really just for that one sentence, in which case I feel like this whole argument could have been avoided. Desertambition (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

My argument hasn't changed at all. I didn't revert your original addition, and I'm not the only one who has protested the addition. You needed to seek consensus for the addition to the lead and so far I don't see any in favour of it. --Spekkios (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Spekkios, this is absurd. There is no trick question. What would be a better paragraph to put in the MOS:LEAD? Desertambition (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it needs an addition. But if consensus decides we do then I will argue for one that accurately reflects the article --Spekkios (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You ask for more sources, I provide newspaper articles. You ask for academic sources, I provide academic sources. You still say no. I don't know how you can maintain that this is not notable or relevant enough to include in the MOS:LEAD. Even just as a summary of the article it should be included. Desertambition (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's sources mentioning the Spanish Cross this section should be edited to mention the St. Andrews Cross instead since it's mentioned in this article in 1906.[3] Nemov (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a loss with Desertambition. The editor asks for a discussion and then argues in bad faith with everyone. When D doesn't find support they canvass around Wikipedia recruiting help, but only if they agree. After finding no support you make edits without consensus anyway. It's simply not a productive use of my time to have good faith arguments wasted on a hostile editor. I'll just wait for you to finally get blocked and come back later to clean up the mess. Nemov (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am not canvassing around Wikipedia. Rfcs are open to anybody. This is an incredibly hostile comment and not productive at all. I have provided sources and detailed edit summaries. You are free to express disagreement and explain why with an argument rooted in existing guidelines. Desertambition (talk) 22:28, 27 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.