Heraldry and vexillology Start‑class

Flag of Alabama is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:Banner/ Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Alabama Start‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:Banner/ AlabamaAlabama articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

• Not true, read the article. --Dystopos 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this opinion --Dystopos (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • Saint Patrick's Saltire was used as far back as the 1500s.78.19.213.77 (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805003027/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/sd109-18/sd109-18.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/sd109-18/sd109-18.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=zs0VJTbNwfAC&pg=PA80

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)[reply]

​​​ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Understood now about WaPo.Slywriter (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• The Washington Post is a great source and there is no reason to remove this. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

I found another link to the article here[5], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[6] Nemov (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Should we include information that the flag of Alabama is based on the Confederate battle flag in the MOS:LEAD?

A: Yes, there is sufficient evidence that the state flag of Alabama is based on the Confederate battle flag and should be included in the lead.

B: No, there is disagreement over the origins of the state flag among reliable sources and no mention of confederate symbolism should be included in the lead.

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

D: No, there is disagreement over the origins of the state flag among reliable sources and that should be mentioned in the lead.

What sources are considered reliable for this issue? Desertambition (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Agree. The discussions above are civil and in good faith. This isn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The source I found yesterday[[7], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• D. 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]