Talk:Betsy Ross flag/Archive 1

Archive 1

George Washington at Princeton

I like the picture, but if you look at the higher resolution version at wikimedia, you'll see that the flag actually has 6-pointed stars, which disqualifies it as an actual Ross flag. It could be that Peale didn't particularly care how many points the stars had... he didn't seem to careful with the stripes, either, although the flags on the ground seem to have some degree of detail. Or perhaps Peale was actually painting a flag with 6-pointed stars arranged in a circle, like Hopkinson is said to have designed. At any rate, I'd say keep the picture, but avoid calling it a "Ross" flag. Mingusboodle (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GFDL license

I, Mandy Barberio (MandyBarberio 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)), am the author of the article "The First American Flag (Betsy Ross Flag)", in its original location at united-states-flag.com. The original article is under a GFDL license and is free for public use. The copyright tag will be visible on the united-states-flag.com when it is published at the end of the day today, July 26, 2007.

Thanks for creating this page, Mandy. I added some links and references. I also added a new intro section to summarize the article. Then I rounded it out a little with some of the reasons people still think Betsy Ross' story is legit. The debate over the flag is as interesting as the original story she told. I don't expect we'll resolve the question here, but I hope people can read this article and understand the two sides. More importantly, I hope people don't get so wrapped up in the argument over the flag that they forget the liberty and unity which is represents. Mingusboodle 03:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thanks for the additions. I think the intro seems one-sided (not really a summary of the article), but otherwise, it looks good. (MandyBarberio 18:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, I suppose it needs more work. I tried to define what's meant by the "Betsy Ross" flag today (cicle of 5-pointed stars), and to present the short version of the "legend" so we know why the flag carries her name. The bit about the Flag Act of 1777 could be moved or deleted, but that was part of your original intro so I tried to incorporate it. I guess I didn't do too well. Mingusboodle 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is also legend: "Betsy Ross never claimed any contribution to the flag design except for the 5-pointed star." There is no record that Betsy Ross claimed any involvement in the making of this flag. Her grandson (Canby) was the one who went on the record with his grandmother's alleged claims. I would change the wording of this to make it historically accurate. (MandyBarberio 15:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

It could be changed to "Canby never claimed..." Ross' daughters gave depositions with the same information, though, so we should be careful not to exclude them. Maybe "Ross' descendants never claimed..."? Or we could be redundant with the reference and say "Mastai argues that Ross never claimed..." I suppose it could be incorpated into the article better, but I do think there's an important distinction between the modern view that Betsy Ross invented the flag all by herself versus the more modest claim that she added 5-pointed stars to an existing pattern. Mingusboodle (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point about Canby made me read his account again ([1]), and it turns out there are other inaccuracies in this article. Not that anyone takes Canby's account as fact, but if we can't even get his version straight, there's no chance we'll figure out the real history. Mingusboodle (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments about the flag

Ross's claiming to have contributed the five-pointed star is suspect for two reasons. First, the most frequently used star at the time -- indeed, the standard shape then implied by the word "star" -- had six points, not five, which would make the Ross's report of "correcting" the six-pointed star to a five-pointed one illogical.

Is there a source for this, or at least more to it? The 6-pointed star being more common is exactly the point behind the Betsy Ross legend. If you read the Canby version of the story, Betsy only claims that 5-pointed stars are easier to make. It's not a heraldric change, it's a pragmatic change. Mingusboodle (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious concidence?

Ross's claiming to have contributed the five-pointed star is suspect for two reasons. First, the most frequently used star at the time -- indeed, the standard shape then implied by the word "star" -- had six points, not five, which would make the Ross's report of "correcting" the six-pointed star to a five-pointed one illogical.

In the debate over the origins of the elements of the flag, I have heard it suggested that the Betsy Ross flag was a perhaps a combination of Washington's "Personal Position Flag" (blue field with white six-pointed stars) and his family crest (alternating red and white horizontal stripes, white top and bottom, red five-pointed stars). Strangely, the Ashburn family crest has alternating red and white horizontal stripes, red top and bottom, and white five-pointed stars. Given the relative timing of the adoption of the Betsy Ross flag and her presumed courtship with and marriage to Joseph Ashburn, the similarities are curious. Were the elements of the Ashburn crest commonplace, such coincidences might be easily dismissed. However, a survey of family crests shows that the elements of the Ashburn family crest, while seemingly mundane, are surprisingly rare. Further feeding my speculation is the fact that the adoption of the U. S. flag (the original flag day) was 14 June 1777. The following day, Betsy and Joseph were married. Wedding gift? Just a thought. —Preceding comment added by jrashburn 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hemp?

I've heard that the first flag was made from hemp fibers, are there any credible sources that state this? 75.71.13.148 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First flag maker

I removed the paragraph about Mary Lou Pickersguild for obvious reasons (yes, 1812 comes after 1776), but I'm ready to just delete all sections regarding the first flag maker. First of all, this article is about a particular design of US flag. Betsy Ross is mentioned because the pattern bears her name, but this article isn't even about Betsy Ross, it's about the flag that's tied to her by folklore. This rambling on and on about who made the first flag is senseless. Not only does it have nothing to do with the topic of this article (the Betsy Ross pattern was likely not the first stripes & stars design), but it's a topic that cannot be proven. No one knows what the "first" US flag looked like, exactly. No one knows who designed it, who sewed it, when it was made, or when it was first displayed. Such unscholarly speculation does not belong here. Mingusboodle (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

First scholarly Betsy Ross biography

This whole article needs revision, after careful consideration of the first scholarly Betsy Ross biography, with many details about her and the first American flags.

• Miller, Marla (2010). Betsy Ross and the Making of America. New York: Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 0805082972.

Thanks for the reference. I'll have to look that one up. There is actually a lot of good information out there about Betsy Ross, but those sources tend to get buried by the kiddie books. I'm with you, this article is in dire need of a rewrite. Let's leave the Biography to the Betsy Ross article and try to keep this article focused on the flag design, or at least this family of US flags. Mingusboodle (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Betsy's Artistic Embellishments To The Flag

Resolved

A new flag was needed because there was confusion on the battlefield, the American flag having the British flag in its canton. The design presented to Betsy (presumably drawn by Francis Hopkinson) by George Washington needed some changes in Betsy's eyes. The original flag design was square (a battle flag is often square) and Betsy thought this should be made into a rectangle; the field of stars was strewn haphazardly on the field of blue and Betsy thought this should be an ordered, geometric pattern (hence the circle of stars); and she thought the 6-pointed stars should have 5 points. --This is what I get from reading the affidavits of 1870-71 by her daughter, niece and granddaughter. Also, Betsy was not the first seamstress to be asked to make a flag. Apparently several others had been approached but their flags were not good enough for the Committee. I think an embellishment to this article would be a graphic showing how to make a 5-pointed star with one snip of the scissors. A lot of schoolkids research the Betsy Ross flag. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Most historians agree the story is not true. Among other problems, the women telling the story were not alive when the story supposedly took place (nearly 100 years earlier). They are retelling a family story they heard at some point. Wikipedia articles are based on independent reliable sources, not multigenerational games of telephone. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The affidavits were all consistent in their re-telling of the flag story as told by Betsy Ross. The question is then: Was Betsy Ross a liar? Apparently not, since she was a Quaker and Quakers are brought up not to lie. Perhaps a new article could be started called "The Betsy Ross Conspiracy Theory". Then all these questions could be researched in depth. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to start a blog discussing Betsy Ross the adulterous, lying, pro-war Quaker and the involvement of the Stonecutters in suppressing these truths. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Betsy's first husband died on Jan. 21, 1776 from a gunpowder explosion and she was meeting with George Washington about the flag in May-June of 1776 so I don't think she can be accused of committing adultry! She was an unmarried widow at the time. She was a very good-looking woman and very amiable, from the accounts in the affidavits, so she'd have had a constant parade of swains about her. As soon as one husband would get killed in the Revolutionary War, she'd get herself another. The "conspiracy" would have to be that all these relatives of Betsy got together and signed sworn affidavits to perpetrate an elaborate, monumental hoax. I think there's no paper trail to prove the Betsy Ross story because Betsy and George Washington knew each other very well, and she certainly wouldn't present him with a written bill. (Cough, cough.) And the ad hoc flag committe probably didn't have any written orders--George needed a new battle flag because the British thought the Union Jack in the canton of the American flag meant that the USA was on their side. He was in charge, he wouldn't give himself a written order to make a flag. One gives written orders to others. And this was during the Revolution--I don't think their first priority was creating a paperwork bureaucracy. Then we have the evidence of the paper star that Betsy made--it's still extant in a local museum. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Perfect for your blog. Don't forget the Stonecutters. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis Hopkinson designed the flag

I thought the debate had been settled: Francis Hopkinson designed the American flag; there's all kinds of records extant where he demands that he be paid for the design and the government denying him payment on the grounds that he was already employed by the government. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the debate is hardly resolved. Most of the debate, however, comes from the misunderstanding that the US flag was simply created out of nothing. In reality, it evolved over a number of years. People can't even agree on what the "first" US flag is, let alone who designed it or who made it. As for Francis Hopkinson, yes, he demanded money for the flag, and Congress denied him those payments. That's interesting history in and of itself, but it isn't "proof" that he created the flag out of thin air. Canute (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Betsy Ross flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220070301/http://www.ushistory.org:80/betsy/more/canby.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/canby.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404104129/http://www.common-place.org:80/vol-08/no-01/ulrich/ to http://common-place.org/vol-08/no-01/ulrich
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150220070301/http://www.ushistory.org:80/betsy/more/canby.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/more/canby.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Betsy Ross flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://common-place.org/vol-08/no-01/ulrich
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050520092251/http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/ to http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/

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) 03:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cooper reference

Question about the Cooper reference in the intro paragraph. The intro says the first "documented usage of this flag was in 1792." When I read the footnote, however- and thank you very much for including the text in the footnote- Cooper is specifically talking about the Trumbull painting. Throughout this "Betsy Ross flag" article, there are two other references to flags with stars arranged in circles that pre-date 1792. I recommend the intro paragraph be re-phrased so it doesn't give the impression that this design was never used until after the Revolution, since this same article later contradicts that. Canute (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"a only blue flag"

No, it is not "a(n) only blue flag". Rather, it is a blue flag with white stars.

(A flag which is only blue does not have white stars. An only blue flag is not with other blue flags.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Step 1; so it seems you're in trouble about admit your last change on this article was wrong ("most of the lag is not shown="WRONG")
Step 2; instead to admit your wrong editing, you put another wrong idea - 'cause in fact it was right written "a only blue flag with 13 6-arrow stylized white stars arranged in a circle" - just to apply again your point of view (instead to admit your error and - better more - do something useful)
Step 3; please change in better your way to do.
--151.38.108.62 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not "in trouble". The current image is cropped. From it, there is no way to tell if that's the entire flag (side to side) or not. This image makes it clear.

No "a only blue flag with …" is not correctly written. That is not my "point of view", that is English rules of grammar.

Your newest version,

The original 1779 portrait of "George Washington at Princeton" (referred to events of january 1777) features a blue-only flag (no red and white stripes), with 13 6-arrow stylized white stars arranged in a circle.

is an improvement. However, it needs a few nips and tucks. I'd suggest the following:

The 1779 portrait George Washington at Princeton shows a blue flag with a circle of 13 stylized 6-point white stars.

That includes changes for clarity, WP:MOS, and brevity. (Given the painting in question is not discussed in the text -- so including it here is a bit "iffy" -- I'm trying to keep it brief.)

Your thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I still think you're in wrong; look again this:

20:38, 28 April 2019‎ 151.38.210.11 talk‎ 19,713 bytes +5‎ ...maybe "SummerPhDv2.0" intended "most of the *F*lag is not shown", but in really there is nothing to see more; with zoom on the 459x720 version, the top-right corner of the flag is visible: blue only; and nothing more is below - no white/red stripe below (look with zoom even to the other picture about first copies commons:Category:Washington_at_the_Battle_of_Princeton_(C.W._Peale,_1779)); so, ONLY BLUE FLAG.

Why you do not have check the first link above (George_Washington_at_Princeton-PAFA.jpg the 459x720 version), before to say with error "The current image is cropped. From it, there is no way to tell if that's the entire flag (side to side) or not"? Is evident by current picture - when viewed at max resolution available (459x720) - that the flag was intended to be pictured as blue-only (no r/w stripes was present)

Out from this, i really want to make evident on the text what in the picture is easy to misunderstand, what is not fast to recognize, so i reject your suggest - that anymore just point to delete the explicit reference about that the january 1777 flag about the future "USA" used by George Washington was blue-only (no red and white stripes); maybe this reference can be moved on the paragraph on the side of the picture instead than below the picture, but i think is good to keep well exposed this fact in this article about the Betsy Ross flag origin.

Note: You are right about my bad english - sure - but i suppose we are not here for a race about this; if you find gram/language error, please simply correct, not to delete.
--151.82.60.134 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we cannot add anything to the text about this painting as we do not currently have anything sourced that ties this to the "Betsy Ross Flag", the topic of this article. That's also why I am trying to trim the caption. (If pressed, I can't say the image belongs here at all. There is nothing sourced here to show it is relevant to the topic at all.) Here are the changes I am suggesting, point by point:

• "The original" is superfluous here. It adds no meaning as we are not talking about the original and a copy. I cut it.
• The wikilink is to an article on the painting, I've shortened the linked text to reflect that.
• WP:MOS uses italics for painting titles, not quotation marks. I changed that.
• Additionally, the title does not seem to include "George" and should be changed to reflect that.
• I removed that word "of" after "portrait" as a matter of grammar.
• The phrase "referred to events of January 1777" has nothing to do with the topic (both dates are after the date in the Ross legend), so I removed it.
• The flag is not "blue-only". It is blue with white stars.
• The "no red and white stripes", while true is added only to separate the design shown from the Ross flag. As no sources are discussing this, the addition is WP:OR.
• I rearranged the order of "13 6-arrow stylized white stars arranged in a circle" to separate the "13" from the "6" and to provide better flow in English.
• I changed "6-arrow" to "6-point" as that is how it would be said in English.

I am unsure which parts of this you are contesting. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Having missed (?) the discussion above, we now have a new version;

The historical portrait Washington at Princeton (1779, referred to events of January 1777), shows a blue flag with a circle of 13 stylized six-pointed marian stars, white colored.

Against my suggested version:

• "historical" is superfluous here. It adds no meaning
• "referred to events of January 1777", as previously mentioned, has nothing to do with the topic of this article.
• "marian stars"? No, I see nothing to indicate that Ross (at the time, a Quaker), Washington (nominally Episcopalian) or anyone else in this intended to use a Roman Catholic symbol.
• "six pointed stars white colored" is very unusual wording in English. "six [or 6] point stars" is typical construction.

To draw your attention back to this discussion, I am reverting your edit to your previous version. Unless there is discussion in the next few days, I will add my suggested version. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As there have been no further comments (while the other editor has edited at Talk:Flag of the United States), I am making my suggested change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Statements from Julian Castro and Robert O'Rourke

I'm not getting into the middle of the edit war or the thicket of text in Talk. I don't suppose that there's any turning back from yesterday's decision to edit-war a "controversy" into existence.

I only wanted to state that a "controversy" section which does not address the statements made by Democrat 2020 hopefuls Julian Castro and Robert O'Rourke would be a whitewash atop balderdash. Notanipokay (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This would come across as WP:RECENTISM, and in any case the point should not be to exhaustively recount the details of the sneaker controversy but merely use it as an illustration of how the flag has at times been a contentious symbol. What I don't think we should have is something like this revision, whereby the section lists what is essentially peanut-gallery commentary from various public and semi-public figures. --Varavour (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"WP:RECENTISM". LOL!

Listen. You don't need to wikilawyer me. I've already expressed that I wasn't interested in participating. The brigade of editors which rushed to this page this Wednesday to edit the silly "The Betsy Ross flag is a Hate Symbol" claim into existence solely to support Kapernik's ignorance and Castro's and O'Rourke's gaffes ratifying his ignorance is quite visible. 147 edits in 48 hours. On an article which had only 36 edits for the prior seven months, is not a subtle or particularly covert act of information control. For the section to be constructed in language which endeavors to support the premise as if it were a neutral fact while eliding the rather particular context from which the premise has sprung is itself a cynical effort to disinform readers. For the editors to insist on eliding the statements of the 2020 Presidential contestants from whom they've taken their cue is, as I said it above, to heap a whitewash atop balderdash. I am only suggesting that, as a concession to the superior will (and free time) of the brigade, editors trying to undo the vandalism insist that some breadcrumbs leading the reader back to the scene of the precipitous inception of this fake fact are included. Notanipokay (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"line of enquiry"

The above phrase is found in what is currently the last line of the article. Enquiry is rarely used in American English. I realize I can change it to inquiry myself but I'm wondering if there's a better phrase than line of inquiry. —⁠184.248.251.195 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yea. "concept" or "framing" would be better. Notanipokay (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

I added a new "Controversy" section regarding the recent stories in the news about Nike. Time will decide whether this story is worthy of Wikipedia, but I figure people will see the headlines and will come to Wikipedia to learn more about this particular flag. (This might also be a good reason to quickly clean this article up and make it more neutral, if anyone else feels like contributing.) Regardless, the fact that the flag has also been used by the American Nazi party seems relevant to this article. Perhaps this belongs under the "Symbolism" section? I'll let someone else decide that. Canute (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

To add to the above, there's clearly sources related to the Nike shoe that are going back to point out the previous appropriation, as to give some idea why Kap. is complaining about it (importantly the NAACP is named as one of the chief complaintants.) There are likely more reliable sources to talk about this, just having a hard time right now shifting through the shoe coverage. --Masem (t) 16:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I would not put any of these "appropriation" uses under Symbolism. That would fail FRINGE. They do fall under "Controversies" though. --Masem (t) 16:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I like the term "appropriation" in this sense, in that we're talking about hate groups hiding behind patriotic symbols. Is that neutral enough for the article? (I'm developing some pretty strong opinions as I learn more about this, and I might not be as neutral as I was this morning, so I have to ask.) Canute (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's used by RSes eg NBC News, so I think its fair game for us to say it, might need to qualify who claims appropriation. I have not found (nor do I think I want to look for) any RS sourcing that comes from the far right that claims what they think the Betsy Ross flag stands for - we know why, for example, they have picked the Confederate battle flag, but not the Ross one. If such sources exists, those could be added too but I doubt there are any good RSes at the time. This Nike thing may reveal more though as its gets coverage. --Masem (t) 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The BBC link showed an old B&W photo of the American Nazi Party with a BR flag. With no explanation given, I'm led to believe they used it because their swastika flag wasn't viewed too favorably by U.S. adults in the 1960s. That's why I like the "appropriation" term in this context, because it seems to be used correctly, as long as we're not implying that the appropriation was complete and the flag is now only a racist symbol. If I can find a credible source to explain this appropriation, I'll definitely add it. Canute (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I notice we've now had at least 3 different sources giving 3 different reasons why Colin Kaepernick found the flag offensive. I suppose that's part of the deal when you include recent news in an article, but it might also lend some credence to the idea that this controversy doesn't deserve a great deal of space just yet. Canute (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canute: If you use the term "appropriation," I fear that the average Wikipeida reader might now see the flag as a symbol of neo-Nazism in the U.S. The use of this flag by a few hate groups here and there isn't notable unless we reach a point where the flag is widely seen as a Nazi symbol. I would advise against the use of the term "appropriation" or even mention of the flag's use by hate groups until we reach some sort of a tipping point, lest this Wikipedia article become a self-fulfilling prophecy which causes the flag to become a hate symbol.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Thanks. What would be a better word to use? Canute (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who came to Wikipedia hoping for some clarity. It's one thing for someone to claim it's a racist symbol, it's another thing to have a source that verifies that. There's the above section on the talk page where user Chess states "it's near universally agreed by reliable sources that the flag is racist to display now" but I haven't seen anything to support that, especially such a broad sweeping statement - universal agreement?? Maybe Colin thinks its racist and that's fine, but what is the historical background? Is every historical flag from the US automatically racist because racism existed in the USA during that time period? I don't have an opinion yet, just hoping for neutral facts from an encyclopedia... 198.103.109.141 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware that it was used by hate groups until today (as most of us apparently were, since it never came up). After doing some digging around, there is evidence that hate groups have used it in the past, but no one has yet found a good source explaining why this is. (I have my suspicions, but I don't have facts.) I think this "Controversy" section would be more relevant if we could write about that. I don't mean that we need to exclude the current Nike controversy, but write about its use by hate groups (as neutrally as possible) so that we have more context when we mention the Nike controversy. Canute (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canute: The Betsy Ross flag is not the Nazi flag. Okay, so a few hate groups may have used it here and there. Plenty of US hate groups use the US flag. Are we to classify that flag as hateful too? Just because a few hate groups here and there use something does not make it a hate symbol. Is the Christian cross a hate symbol? How about the Muslim crescent moon symbol or the Star of David? All three of those symbols have been used by terror/hate groups but they do not define the symbol's meaning. Let's not blow a handful of uses of the Betsy Ross flag in the entire history of the U.S. out of proportion.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Personally, I agree. But if more than 1 group is hiding behind this particular design, or if there's a controversy about it (there is today; Twitter will move on tomorrow), then I think it's worth mentioning. To reiterate, I don't think this deserves a lot of space, but I don't think we should ignore it, either. Canute (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canute: Any mention of this controversy in this article will snowball into the flag being branded a hate symbol. This shit has happened before. If you don't think that this flag deserves to be rebranded as hate - based on the facts - let's ignore today's Twitter controversy. It's just one controversy that's less that 24 hours old. It's not a significant part of the flag's history.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

The controversy on the use of the flag by extremists is a few years old, but was rather quiet (the triggering event appears to have been a Grand Rapids MI high school football game where the flag was put out alongside a Trump-for-President sign. The NAACP got extremely upset over that) But today's news is re-highlighting these past events. It is not the case that suddenly on July 2 2019 the Ross flag was suddenly a symbol of racism. There's a few years of history to succinctly summarize here. --Masem (t) 20:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canute: Again, a few scattered instances of the flag being used by racists are not noteworthy. If you allow this stuff to be on Wikipedia, the flag will become a racist symbol. There's no in-between.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

'If you allow this stuff to be on Wikipedia, the flag will become a racist symbol.' That's not the way we should make decisions. It's not up to us to decide whether the flag should be considered racist or not. The only question is, is this recent controversy significant enough to deserve mention in the article? And I think it is. Like it or not, plenty of people will be coming to this page to ask the question 'is the Betsy Ross flag racist?' and it's only right that Wikipedia says something about that. Currently, it says that at least one person (Kaepernick) thinks it is, but that view has been strongly criticised by others. That seems reasonable to me. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Betsy Ross flag, not an alleged modern controversy related to it. As a historian, I believe it is appropriate for the flag to be discussed in the context and times for which it was created. This is the only way to properly understand its story. There is no evidence I am aware of that the flag was created wholly or in part as a symbol of racism, or that this was ever in the minds of Ross (if she did sew it) nor anyone else we know associated with it. Furthermore, there have been several versions of the flag from the time Ross is alleged to have sewn it to the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. Are all of these variants also to be considered offensive? If there is material modern controversy then I suggest it be 1) Properly rendered in a dedicated article on the topic with a link to same, or 2) Appended to another existing article with a relevant theme. cshashaty (talk) --Cshashaty (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand the concern about "appropriation" and agree that there is no way we can factually say "the Betsy Ross flag has become appropriated" in Wiki-voice. (We can say that the NAACP claim it is , but that's not factual). And while this situation around the Nike shoe could be a flash in a pan, it has shown verifyable that extremists groups have mis-used the flag for their own ends, and groups like the NAACP have called this out as appropriation, which seems to be significant aspects related to the flag. Is that calling the Ross flag a symbol of extremism? Absolutely not, but it is documenting a significant factor of the flag in modern times. Now, unlike the Confederate Battle Flag , where we have more than enough info as to discuss its appropriation by extremists, there's nowhere close to a separate article for this for the Ross flag but it is information that should be documented on WP, so this article makes the most sense. --Masem (t) 23:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

All of you are making good points. People are coming to this article due to the controversy, so we can't ignore it. But if we overplay it, then we lend it more credence than it probably deserves. I'm not sure what the right balance is, but I appreciate all of you keeping this article clean, especially with the trolls we've attracted over the past 24 hours.   Not that we have to follow another article's format, but just out of curiosity I looked to the Gadsden flag article. It has a section for modern usage and pop culture. I don't think that would work here, but it's an interesting idea. We could have a similar section that discusses some of the common places we find the flag today (such as presidential inaugurations) and give the Nike controversy the 1 or 2 sentences it needs to acknowledge it. That would be a decent sized format change, so I'll wait for your opinions before I try it out. Canute (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canute:@Cshashaty:@Robofish:@Masem:How about mention of this controversy is relegated to Kaepernick's article? This controversy appears to have more to do with him and his views than the flag and its history.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@Randy Kryn: just thanked me for my last edit to this page so clearly he agrees with my plan.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieSt

My thanks was for your idea which seems sound. The flag stands on its own historically, and, as pointed out on the page, was used at President Obama's second inauguration. That it somehow became controversial to some people in the intervening six years isn't really relevant to the topic but more about the parties involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS:That sounds like a viable option to me. I won't stand in the way. The controversy might be a little bit older, but it's still not as big of an issue as it's made out to be, from what I can tell. Again, I'm only going by the news articles, and they can't seem to get their story straight (guarantee you they're reading this article, though). The flash point seems to be in 2016 when some high school kids flew the flag next to a Donald Trump sign, and the high school principal apologized to the local NAACP chapter. Every news article I've read is citing random tweets as their source, because that's all journalism is these days, apparently. So there you go, we're all re-writing history based on the actions of a high school republican. Canute (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Canute: Currently, three Wikipedians like my idea - you, me and Randy Kryn. Should we go with the plan now or wait until the three other Wikipedians that I pinged respond? Obviously,there's always a chance that they won't respond.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS:Your call. I'm comfortable with the move; can't say what the folks on that article will do. I've wanted to re-write this article for a long time just to clean it up and simplify it, but I'll wait until the Nike thing settles down. Thanks again for all your work on this. Canute (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm feeling that something needs to be said here as briefly as possible still even if the details of the Nike thing go elsewhere (though I don't agree to it should to Kaepernick's article, the issue seems more directly with Nike as the focal center). I see good quality RSes to say something briefly like "In the 2010s, far-right culture like the Patriot movement has mis-used the Betsy Ross flag as well as other icons of early America to represent their heritage, which some groups like the NAACP see as supportive of slavery. Nike came under criticism when it opted to pull a shoe design featuring the Ross flag under concerns that some found its use offensive." or something like that (see [2], linking the last part to where the details of the shoe controversy ends up. --Masem (t) 15:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for your input. So far, a majority of the Wikipedians who have commented on this issue - myself included - would prefer than this controversy not be mentioned in this article. If you would like me to move the info from Kaepernick's article to Nike's article, I would gladly comply.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I know you have a few people to back you up, but I don't thinks its right to completely bury the issue about this. There's a "build the web" aspect here. Whether on Nike or Kaepernick's article, there's going to be a link to this page but not a link back if you remove the information. I do think we don't have to rush the decision on this and can keep the information out for the time being, and see how the coverage continues to develop, but do consider that we don't try to hide information that may be seen as negative. We can wordsmith everything to make sure we are not saying factually "the Ross flag is a sign of extremism / slavery" in Wikivoice, which appears to be the concern. --Masem (t) 16:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I mean, we're getting "new" information, such as the American Nazi Party, as early as 1939, using the Ross flag as one of its main symbols. BBC. I completely agree it is discomforting to talk about the disrespect of the flag by these types of uses, but this is encyclopedic information about the flag. --Masem (t) 16:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: we can see how all this develops - hopefully it develops in such a way that it warrants no coverage. After all Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and Wikipedia policy says that not all info is Wikipedia-worthy. Until we know how all this will develop, we should leave the info off this page. Ping me if/when you want to talk. P.S. the BBC article is wrong, as the American Nazi Party was not founded until the 1950s.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I thikn BBC was pointing out that the predecessor of the ANP, the German American Bund, was using that in 1938. And no, we're not talking "news" here, at least with respect to the use of the flag by these groups in the past. The news aspect is currently the Nike/Kaepernick part of the controversy, and I agree that that itself has undue weight here. But we have an historical aspect of the flag here. Again, I want to stress that adding in no way is meant to consider this mis-use appropriate or acceptable, nor, now, do I see enough to factually state "appropriated" we could say with the Confederate Battle flag or with Pepe the Frog. But if we know historically from RSes that this flag was used by extremists groups, it should absolutely be given brief mention. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Should we also add info about how the Star of David and the Muslim crescent moon symbol have been used by extremist groups, because they certainly have. Let's not add anything here until there reaches some sort of tipping point a la Pepe the Frog, which may never come.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I have not looked into the Star of David issue but first glance appears to be a very short term gaff that came from a -chan board, with no historical context. That is a case where NOTNEWS prevails, and it makes no sense to include. I'm stressing the point here that there's historical context going back 80-odd years to concern, not just a brief burst of news, even if the sources supporting that 80 year story are from the brief burst of news. --Masem (t) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, a few rare instances of uses by extremists is not notable. Also, there have definitely been violent Zionists who have adopted the Star of David, that's undeniable.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I strongly agree with moving all coverage of the Nike incident to the Colin Kaepernick article, which was my thought from the start. If it has any staying power or implications for Nike it might warrant a mention in the Nike article. A flap instigated by one man that wasn't a lead story for even a day of this flag's 243-year history is not notable enough for inclusion here and the fallout can be adequately covered over at Colin Kaepernick. As for the Grand Rapids high school incident two years ago, the presence of the Betsy Ross flag was incidental there; the controversy was more about the MAGA banner, chants, and other context that some interpreted as racialized in that very local occurrence. Further, the Betsy Ross flag is simply identified with incipient American nation at its birth; it does not have the rebellious political "Don't Tread On Me" implication of the Gadsden flag. Let's put this breaking-news 2019 outrage-of-the-day in its proper context and not weaponize Wikipedia to advance a fringe new interpretation of this flag. NTK (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If the Grand Rapids high school incident is worthy of mention in Wikipedia, it should be put into it's own article or a similar article about high school controversies. Of note, [[3]] contains a number of 1st Amendment cases, a handful of Confederate flag cases, and a couple cases of high schools. The Grand Rapids case is not found on Wikipedia because no one has found it noteworthy until now. If that has changed, then it should be given its own article. If the topic doesn't warrant a unique Wikipedia article, then it should be left off Wikipedia, not coat racked onto an established article with a defined subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canute (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to promote an opinion or stir the pot further, but IF we were to re-introduce the Nike controversy, I don't think it's worthy of it's own section. Instead, I'd recommend a type of "Modern Usage" section which talks about the flag design as a symbol. This would be a good place to move the VA logo and the Presidential Inauguration photos. It'd also be a good place to show a historic flag display (that should be easy enough to take a picture of, this week). In that same area, we could mention the Nike controversy; not just the allegations of racism that simmered in Twitter for a day, but the fact that Nike thought American flags belonged on shoes. The subject of this proposed section would not be the flag itself, but rather how popular culture continues to reference the popular design. Beyond that, we have to keep our own opinions to ourselves and hope that we've given the average Wikipedia reader enough information to form their own intelligent conclusions.

In agreement with the line of thinking that the Nike controversy does not merit a separate section, I reintroduced mention of the Nike controversy in the opening paragraph. Most who are coming to the wikipedia article specifically for this information will thus quickly find several links to investigate this on their own. Aslightrain (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Many Racist/White Supremacist groups have often used the regular old American flag, trying to portray patriotism... but that does not make the American flag a racist/white supremacist symbol, and clearly the same applies here. Even if possibly some racist group or groups have used the Betsy Ross flag on some occasion in the past, that does not immediately make that flag a racist symbol. On the contrary, I think it's fair to say that the Betsy Ross flag is NOT commonly recognized as in any way being a racist symbol, and has no historical connection to any racist ideology or group. It seems to me that this is just something Kaepernick came up with, and shouldn't be given any weight at all, and should not be mentioned in this article. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

TheOriginalVegan: "...but that does not make the American flag a racist/white supremacist symbol". Wait for it. This is a "fact" bound to be discovered in due time. Notanipokay (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I read the Snopes article referenced in the Inauguration photo. It essentially says the flag wasn't racist under the last president, but now it is. (We really need to vet our sources more carefully so that opinions aren't being presented as facts.) But to your point, yes, it's only a matter of time until the Twitter-verse decides everything is racist. That's partially why I like that this article is ignoring the marketing blitz disguised as a controversy. Canute (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Before we unlock this article, I want to say in advance that I don't like the Tea Party flag at the bottom. I get that it's supposedly based on the Betsy Ross flag, but it's not the Betsy Ross flag. It's some political party flag. This article is about the Betsy Ross family of American flags, which are a subset of Congressionally recognized US flag designs. A flag with a giant Roman II in the middle is not a US flag. What's more, if the Tea Party flag were of any significance, then someone ought to have an actual photo of one instead of an SVG. I have several other thoughts now that we've all had some time to sleep on it, but I'll leave this one for now. Canute (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no compliant sourcing for an invalid claim. You don't get to question-beg an absurdity into existence and then comb through the microfiche in search of post-hoc support for it. What the vandalss are trying to do here would be a lot easier if the project was to establish that McDonalds cheesburgers is a "hate food". Notanipokay (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Original Betsy Ross Star Orientation?

Is it possible that the image is wrong? Looking at the circle of stars, they all point outwards. But in the other photos and paintings it looks like they might all point up. Images on the internet show both configurations. What pattern do the oldest versions show? Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question. No description (that I've read) of the flag mentions the alignment of the stars, only that they're arranged in a circle. FWIW, flags of this era were all hand made and many created by good amateurs; on surviving examples, it's common to see stars mis-aligned. Canute (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked around. Most versions of the "Betsy Ross Flag" arrange the stars so that they all point outward, like this one from the American Legion. I've never noticed the discrepancy. Thanks for bringing it up. Canute (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

folded in from similar question

I have been looking at many images of the "Betsy Ross" flag...

I see that some have the stars arranged in a circle with them all standing upright ( the top of the stars all in the same direction) And some I see with the orientation of the stars as if they were around a circle with the orientation differing for each star ( some are upside down on the bottom)

Which is the way the "ORIGINAL" flag had it's stars orientated?

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Xray 1966 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there's any real evidence on this. There wasn't any official quasi-exact specification for the United States flag until 1818, and even that was a Navy document, and only covered flags to be purchased for the Navy... AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, what did it say? Abductive (reasoning) 18:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

20 star flag

I've seen a photograph of it before, but I can't find it now. In any case, it specified the 20-star flag of 1818, not the "Betsy Ross" flag... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This is correct. 4 U.S. Code Chapter 1 defines the flag and outlines proper use and courtesies. At no point has it ever described the orientation of the stars. You could make a U.S. flag and orient all the stars pointing down, with a different height to length ratio, and it would still meet the legal definition of a U.S. flag. The Navy has always been more particular about their flags because they were born in an era when flags were the primary means of communication between ships, and a mistaken flag, ensign, or jack could mean the difference between a salute or an armed volley. President Taft tightened up the federal standards for federal standards. The exact dimensions of US flags are still defined by the US Navy, but if you're not selling Ensigns to the government then you don't have to follow Navy standards. (Interestingly enough, the US Navy only just switched back to a 50-star Jack last month.) Canute (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

History & Mythology

One more topic for improvement on this article, while it's getting so much attention. There's a distinction about the Betsy Ross mythology that isn't made very clear. The Canby story, in which young Betsy Ross persuades General Washington to use 5-pointed stars in his new flag, is generally discounted as mere family lore. The idea that the "Betsy Ross" flag design emerged from a big bang to become the first US flag is American mythology. But the individual components of the Betsy Ross story are not all false. It's quite likely she met Colonel/General Washington at some point, and her business diversification from upholstery to tent and flag making is well documented. A lot of (probably) good faith editors continue to miss this distinction, asserting that either Betsy Ross invented the entire American flag all by herself, or that she never did anything noteworthy and has no legitimate role in history. My question to all of you is, how can we make the distinction more clear between the known facts, the uncertain history, and the mere mythology that surrounds this person and this flag, so that the average reader can understand? Canute (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Symbolism

I recommend that the "Symbolism" section be significantly reduced. Most of this information is duplicated in Flag of the United States and other related articles. This information is best found there, since it is not specific to the Betsy Ross design, which is the subject of this article. Readers should be directed to Flag of the United States#Symbolism for additional information. Reducing the Symbolism section would help maintain the focus of this article on the design, history, and use of this specific version of the US flag. Elements of the design that are more specific to the Betsy Ross design, such as the 5-pointed stars or the arrangement of stars in a circle, should be kept in this section. Canute (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The symbolism section should be slightly expanded to include the racism/Nike controversy. Abductive (reasoning) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I had offered that last week when the story first broke, but it was shot down by other editors and with pretty good reason. If you read the "symbolism" section, it's about the intrinsic meaning embedded in the flag itself- what the colours mean, what the stars signify, what the circle might mean as opposed to the "constellation" designs, etc. (This is the part of the reason I want to move it off this page as much as possible, because people continue to Nicholas Cage the hidden meaning of the flag and decode heraldry to find the location of the lost treasure, but this article is about just one variation of the US flag and I don't think we need to duplicate this information on every flag-related page.) By contrast, the most recent Nike self-inflicted-controversy/marketing-scheme has to do with extrinsic meaning only recently applied to the flag by a few people. In other words, flag makers in 1777 didn't choose a blue canton because they were making a statement about Black Lives Matter. Does this distinction make sense to you? I'm still not completely opposed to a mention of the mis-use of the flag by extremist groups or of the Nike controversy, but it definitely got out of control last week and violated a number of Wikipedia policies regarding advertising, neutrality, and recentism. If we can responsibly include this, though, it still wouldn't belong in the "Symbolism" section. Canute (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's review the cites for the new "Controversies" section

So, on July 2nd, 2019, it was decided by a handful that the Betsy Ross flag is a "hate symbol". This claim being previously unheard of, history had to be brought up to speed, and so a brigade of editors came to the Wikipedia article to make this non-thing into a thing. We can pinpoint the moment, 4:07AM, July 2nd, when this block of wood became a real boy with a contrib which heralded, "Adding the fact that it is now a white supremacist icon". The effort which goes into manufacturing a new doctrine is evident in the edit history which followed: 147 edits in 48 hours. For the entire seven months leading up to this new diktat, there had been 36 edits. The "white supremacist" significance of the Betsy Ross Flag had escaped the attention of Wikipedia's vexillologists for the entire span of Wikipedia's history until that point.

So, what supports this new truth? What have these editors presented to support the claim?

First, we may do away with any cites which are nothing more than post hoc reasoning issued on or after July 2nd. Thus, we may exclude the cite to EJ Dickson's Rolling Stones piece [33] to which the text refers twice and for virtually all of the claims made in the inclusion.

The next cite is to liberal Pundit, Alan Colmbs' blog. If such a source passes WP:RS, that speaks to another problem entirely. The Alan Colmbs cite is used to support the hysterical inference that the appearance of a version of the Betsy Ross flag at Governor Scott Walker's 2011 victory rally was intended to incite or signal the offing of a "literal" civil war. A second, superfluous cite is appended, linking only to a video clip depicting a Tea Party rally. The video is non-functioning, but we can presume it shows someone flying the Betsy Ross flag. The intent in the second cite appears to be similar to the idea that evidence that cookie dough is a real thing supports the contention that unicorns shit cookie dough.

Having implicated a just-elected Governor and his supporters as belligerants in a hot civil war which must've escaped all our notice, the edit introduces us at last to the "Nazis breathe air, therefore air is a Nazi Gas" thesis of the inclusion, mentioning the anecdotes of KKK and IE appropriation of the Betsy Ross flag motif in some small portion of their activities, such as they are. The cite for this, again, is EJ Dickson's post-hoc effort in Rolling Stone.

Also referenced in the EJ Dickson piece and virtually all other cites pushing the "The Betsy Ross flag is a Hate Symbol" diktat is the only instance of the claim prior to this past Wednesday. Two students at a Michigan high school football game unfurled a Betsy Ross flag beside a banner for the Trump 2016 campaign. Here, we are back to the premise that all which is not-Democrat or not-left/liberal is "extremism" and it's clear that the brigaders are coatracking their partisan grievances. There are three cites about the Michigan controversy, the third being a WP:OR violation which draws in the ethnic demographics of the school districts involved as if such information demonstrates anti-black intent on the part of the students [38]. The first cite [36] is to Washington Post's story about the false controversy and the second is to the NAACP's heated statement alleging that the Betsy Ross flag is a "hate symbol". The NAACP, of course, is not a neutral or credible arbiter of such things, as is evidenced in past escapades such as |the time the NAACP lobbied to get a Hallmark greeting card pulled from shelves. The card was an astrophysics-themed congratulations/graduation card which played a clip of sound when opened. The NAACP insisted that the words "black holes" were in fact "black hoes". They gripped onto that claim with no less fervor than they did with the Michigan football game claim. In both instances, the world just kinda moved on from it. Here, the latter claim is resurrected [37] and applied to the new diktat.

The remaining eight cites [39-46] are press coverage of the Nike/Kapernic thing; five which assume the validity of the controversy and three which dispute the Betsy Ross flag's new status as a "hate symbol". Regardless of the notability of Kapernic's unqualified assessment of the flag, eight cites are excessive. There is not a large body of historical precedent for Kapernic's claim, so it's unclear what the prevailing editors mean to convey when they suggest Kapernic "reignited" something which they frame in present perfect continuous syntax and for which they can only cite press items written and published yesterday.

The Kapernic/Nike thing sits at the end of the inclusion, suggesting that it is the most recent instance in a long-established conflict over the meaning of the Betsy Ross flag. Of course it is not so, but it must be made to appear that way, and so the brigaders simultaneously dispute and revert all other references to the controversy, be it to Senator Cruz's and Governor Ducy's statements chastising Nike or Former Mayor Castro and Representative O'Rourke's gaffes endorsing Kapernic's claim, citing WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:UNDUE, with the claim of "RECENTISM" being particularly rich in this context. It would undermine the feint being attempted if the section addressed these notable statements, all clustered around these past 48 hours, just as would mention of the flag's prominence at Barack Obama's Presidential inauguration or, indeed, it's living currency as simply a version of the US flag in all manner of state affairs. Were we to assume the legitimacy of the question being being begged, the ADL's answer that no, the Betsy Ross flag is not a "hate symbol" should answer it.

So, all that laid bare, and each of the fourteen cites littering the end of the article found lacking in validity, the section should be removed and attempts to reinstate it should be addressed as vandalism. A discrete mention of the July 2, 2019 controversy with a single, neutral cite could arguably be appropriate, but the remaining text attempting to prove the validity of the claim that the Betsy Ross flag is a "hate symbol" or has, to any significant degree, been "appropriated" as such, should be removed. There is no need to indulge bad-faith vandals attempting to exploit Wikipedia to plant false narratives. Notanipokay (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is fantastic. Thank-you for going through all the citations. I had intended to say something about the scope of this article, but the term coatracking is so much better. I can't add anything to your point, and I completely agree with your conclusion. A mention of the controversy is acceptable if we're going to consider all the ways the flag is used today, but we can't allow this article to become about the controversy. Canute (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Notanipokay: I'm not a "bad faith vandal" who came here as part of a "brigade". I made a singular edit, got reverted w/ no explanation, asked why in another revert, got reverted a second time with no explanation, then asked on the talk page why that was, starting a flame war and realized it was probably a good idea to get out of this discussion considering how toxic it was becoming. I won't be addressing the content specific aspects of your argument here because I want to untangle myself from the political imbroglio, but one thing that isn't up for debate on Wikipedia is basic civility. Clearly you don't think discretionary sanctions apply to you as you haven't been editing the article yourself, but I'd like to remind you that they also apply on all discussion pages related to American politics including talk pages. I'd appreciate it if you refactored or withdrew your comments made here that cast aspersions over me as well as other editors. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

If no mention of Nike, then

It is unfortunate that this aesthetically pleasing design was co-opted by White Supremacists, but there are many reliable secondary sources attesting to this. The article must mention it. Abductive (reasoning) 18:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abductive:This has been discussed. See above. We had a small but decent section on this controversy and decided it belonged elsewhere. The "reliable secondary sources" were numerous but unimpressive. Several of us scoured the internet trying to understand and properly represent this controversy, but invariably the news articles are based on either a single old photograph or random tweets. Twitter isn't a reliable source. I'm still open to the idea that we can mention this controversy here, if you can make a new argument that hasn't been made. The WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS you had mentioned could equally be applied to your own opinions on this. Canute (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Collin Kaepernick, and news media taking his comments as a lead, is not a reliable source. See: his utter ignorance on the Castro regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B126:C064:A15E:B03C:7F0F:26A2 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In the last two days, this article has received 297,072 pageviews. And yet the article does not even point people to the shunted-away Controversies section. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If WP:CONSENSUS is that the current controversy is insubstantial and non-defining of the flag's symbolism, then the last thing we should do is stick a mention of it in the lead. This is contrary to WP:UNDUE and gives the impression that this is a key, defining characteristic of the flag, which is precisely the very thing we're trying to avoid. The best course of action that follows WP:COMPREHENSIVE without falling in the pit of WP:RECENTISM is to discuss the history of the flag's cultural and political symbolism and situate the Nike controversy within that context. I also think that the section should mention the push-back–well demonstrated in this talk page–to negative interpretations. I think the section I have written does this reasonably well, follows WP:RELIABLE, and hews close to WP:NPOV. The last thing we should do is stick our heads in the sand and pretend none of this exists, regardless of our personal opinion. --Varavour (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The current version [4] giving two paragraphs about its use on the right is probably about as much as needs to be say - doesn't bury the mis-use of the flag, identifies these mis-uses as generally negative (in regards to common opinion), and doesn't give FRINGE weight to those views. --Masem (t) 14:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

For once I like the protected version. All that matters is some mention, being in the lead is not necessary. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not quite balanced, but it's headed in the right direction. It's peculiar to call these extremist and fringe groups on one hand, and then say their use of this flag is "prominent." Heck, this article has been around since November 2007 and the numerous editors since that time have never heard of it being used as an extremist symbol until this week. Again, the term "extremist" would imply that most of us know little of them, but that's why I wouldn't call it "prominent." From what I can tell, we're still talking about a few isolated cases, and 3 paragraphs on Wikipedia is probably giving them more attention than they'd ever dreamed of or deserve. Canute (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It'd probably be to much to unpack the non-neutrality of identifying any non-left group as "extremist", but even if it were so, and even if these groups were significant in terms of numbers and influence, the argument would still be a specious one of "Nazis breathe air, therefore air is a "Hate Gas". Notanipokay (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You removed the entirety of the section. I would prefer some mention of the idea that some people believe that the flag is has been adopted as a racist symbol by White Supremacists. Abductive (reasoning) 20:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Some people believe all kinds of crackpot stuff. You don't get to deface Wikipedia with crackpot stuff just because some people claim to believe something. Notanipokay (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You seems to think that certain topics lack validity. But there are numerous secondary sources on this, and, let us not forget, comments and actions by US Senators, sports figures and a huge corporation. Wikipedia follows the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

One thing that also needs to be taken into account is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTHESIS. Isolated incidences should neither be blown out of proportion due to the current controversy, nor should otherwise non-notable usages be strung together to make it seem more prevelent than it actually is. I would suggest dedicating one or two sentences to the political and cultural significance section on the current controversy. EDIT: - Actually strike my suggestion; It seems past consensus has decided that it belongs elsewhere. Garuda28 (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken about what WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTHESIS mean. Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the suggestion that the Ross flag is a hate symbol has no place on the article for the Ross flag.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

How about the controversy about its removal from the shoes? Does that belong in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No. This article is about a specific design/version of the US Flag. It's not about Nike and their controversy-as-marketing strategy. Canute (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but Nike was not intentionally creating a controversy as a marketing strategy (at least no evidence has been presented to support this claim). Nike, responded to a complaint by Kaepernick that the Betsy Ross flag had taken on symbolism among white supremacists a reminder of the good old days (I.e. when slavery was legal). While some historians and the ADL feel the concern was premature, Nike decide to proceed with caution and recalled the shoes. The fact it boosted their sales was purely coincidental rather then part of some marketing plan. As far the controversy, Kaepernick might have brought it to the forefront, he didn’t start it. It was known beforehand that some white supremacists where trying to adopt the Betsy Ross flag as a hate symbol. The fac5 is that the controversy over this goes beyond Nike or Kaepernick and thus at this time deserves a brief mention in this article. If in the future the controversy blows over and we decide it’s not significant then we can remove it from the article. At this time it’s still significant so it deserves a brief mention in this article. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nike loves controversy, and they embraced the "no such thing as bad publicity" strategy long before this recent kerfuffle. I stand by my characterization because it's not something I'm trying to sneak into an article, it's just an observation that helps me place this topic in context. As to the controversy itself, I was among the first to argue that it deserved a brief mention. The problem is that we've thus far been unable to even mention it without giving it more attention than it deserves, given that the article is supposed to be about a popular, 200-year-old flag design and not about modern politics, marketing, and social media campaigns. If you feel up to the task, feel free to try again. I won't stand in your way, although my own opinion has changed slightly over the past two weeks: If the Nike controversy is worthy of Wikipedia, then let it rest on it's own article, and let this article link to it. If it's not worthy of its own article, then neither is it worthy of 2+ paragraphs here. Finally, I would argue that the entire controversy has already blown over (95% contained, if I may reference the wildfire metaphor.) I just did a Google News search and found very little new since the flare up two weeks ago. (Coincidentally, one of the few articles that came up was this one from the Baltimore Sun, which states The Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism has a database with more than 150 "hate symbols." The Betsy Ross flag isn't among them. (Also see Chicago Tribune article with similar information.) Canute (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Nike story keeps coming up in the news. I didn't know anything about an alleged co-opting of the image. I tried to find out what it is all about by going to Wik's Betsy Ross page for at least a link but got nothing. Then I chanced on this site, but the only thing I got was this discussion on the talk page. I think the story is worthy of coverage ... somewhere easily found. ~~

Specimens of flag

I have seen, in the museum at Fort Ticonderoga, a small flag of the Betsy Ross design, thirteen stripes, square field with thirteen stars in a circle. The museum attributed ownership of the flag to General Phillip Schuyler of the Continental Army. The colors were difficult to discern, having gone brownish with age. This was decades ago, in the 1990's. I have also seen, in the Maryland State House in Annapolis, a closely-similar flag, thirteen stripes alternating red and white, blue field with twelve white stars in a circle and a thirteenth in the center. This was identified as the flag of the Second Maryland Regiment of the Continental Line. This was also long ago. I present this as evidence of the flag design in use in the Revolutionary War. G.ARTHUR 1930 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)G.ARTHUR 1930G.ARTHUR 1930 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

If you read a scholarly book such as So Proudly We Hail: The History of the United States Flag by William Rea Furlong and Byron McCandless (ISBN 0-87474-448-2) you'll find that there's very little reliable evidence that a flag with red-and-white stripes and a blue canton with stars ever flew over any land battle of the Revolutionary war (as opposed to the Grand Union Flag, which lacked stars, or the George Washington Headquarters Flag, which lacked stripes, etc). I assume the second flag you mentioned is similar in design to the Easton Flag... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but I want to make a careful distinction about what AnonMoos said. The stars and stripes evolved during the era of the American Revolution, and it would be a pretty bold statement to claim that it didn't exist at all. Although surviving relics of this era don't conform to modern norms; many people agree that the 1777 Flag Resolution was not a new pattern, but rather a description of flags that the committee members had already seen. Certainly the US Navy vessels were flying early "stars and stripes." But the militias and armies didn't march under a national standard, they carried their own regimental colors. This causes confusion to the casual observers today, because the surviving banners in museums might have elements of stars or stripes, and are misunderstood to be national standards instead of unit colors.

As far as Fort Ticonderoga, it's quite possible/plausible that Phillip Schuyler (a well-known and influential politician) owned a Betsy Ross or similar design of the 13-star flag before the US added 2 more stars at the end of the 18th century. But according to the Fort Ticonderoga webpage, the flag was unlikely to have flown over this fort during the Revolutionary War since the British had control of the fort from 1777 (when the Flag Resolution passed) until it was abandoned near the end of the war. Canute (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The stars and stripes was very real after June 14, 1777, but the immediate reason for passing the June 14, 1777 resolution was to provide the Navy with a flag (it was passed among other Continental Congress resolutions having to do with naval affairs), and the flag didn't really fully establish itself in all the other functions that it would later assume until after the end of the war. Furlong and McCandless give reasons for believing that the flag in question (which they give a photograph of) was not in the Fort Ticonderoga museum's collection until after 1877, and when examined through glass, it appears to have machine stitching (i.e. from after the invention and popularization of the sewing machine)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete reference

From the "Cultural Significance" section:
Canby's recounting of the event appealed to Americans eager for stories about the revolution and its heroes and heroines. Betsy Ross was promoted as a patriotic role model for young girls and a symbol of women's contributions to American history. Reference: What About Betsy Ross, pp. 68–69

Can anyone find and complete this "What About Betsy Ross" citation? I couldn't find it on Google or Amazon. I'm not sure where it comes from. Canute (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The full sentence seems to give the answer: "In the 2008 book The Star-Spangled Banner: The Making of an American Icon, Smithsonian experts point out that William J. Canby's recounting...". I don't have access to the book (at the moment), and that's certainly not APA style. Maybe "What About Betsy Ross" is the chapter title?

"Smithsonian experts" is, to say the least, dodgy. It might not be the best of sources to begin with. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! I have a copy on order from the library; I'll verify the statement and fix the citation when I get it. Thanks! Canute (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I finally got the book, validated the reference and fixed the citation. Thanks for your help. A point of interest: this book is about the flag in American society as a symbol, but it's specifically about the "Star Spangled Banner" that's on display at the Smithsonian. The book starts with the War of 1812 and barely mentions Revolutionary era flags, except to say that, in addition to the Betsy Ross design, there were many others. So it's a good book but probably not the best source material for the subject of this article, because they weren't writing about it. This is not a criticism, just a note for editors of this article who don't need to buy their own copy. Canute (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Stamp

Dumb question but I need some help. The article mentions a 1950s era stamp with Betsy Ross. This is easily found on the internet, but can I use the image? Since it's a stamp, it seems like it'd be covered as a product of the federal government, but I'm not clear. BTW, there are multiple stamps featuring the flag design (including a cool old 6¢ stamp); are any of these appropriate for the article? I don't want to overload the article with images, but if we're building out a "modern usage" section, then perhaps a small gallery would be in order rather than paragraphs of text. Canute (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

United States stamps issued before 1978 are out of copyright -- see commons:Template:PD-USGov... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The Smithsonian has a good online image of the stamp, but they claim copyright, so I'll just link to it for now.Canute (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If that's the same site from which I got File:Korean flag 1944 United States stamp detail.jpg, then such claims would not be recognized on Wikimedia Commons. Faithful scanning or photographing (i.e. commons:Template:PD-art) of an underlying public domain or copyright-expired work (commons:Template:PD-USGov) cannot add up to a valid copyright claim under Bridgeman v. Corel... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll try and see what happens. The other question, though, is whether we want a bunch of photos in this article. I was actually considering whether we already have too many, especially the pics that are not of the subject of the article (like the EIC flag SVG). I still wonder if we'd be better off with a gallery for the modern images. I know a lot of editors hate galleries, but it would be a way to contain the images so they don't take over the article. Canute (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Turns out I'm dumber than I thought. That image is already available and can be seen on the Betsy Ross page. I'm not going to add it right now, though, as we seem to have more images than space allows. Canute (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I just tried replacing the paragraph on stamps with a gallery (roughly the same text and references). The paragraph is merely hidden, in case we decide it's better, but I figured a picture is worth a thousand words. Which do you prefer? Canute (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hopkinson

Francis Hopkinson is recognized by historians as designing the American flag. Hopkinson was also known to contribute to designing the Great Seal of the United States. His many contributions to the nation included signing the Declaration of Independence, serving as a Member of the Continental Congress, membership on the Continental Marine Committee, and Chairman of the Continental Navy Board.

I'd like to remove or edit this statement, for 3 reasons. First, while Hopkinson is widely recognized as one of the people who designed flags (based on his own claims), he is by no means the only person credited with this, and the absolute language used in this statement is therefore misleading. Second, this article is supposed to be about one specific design of a flag, which is only secondarily related to a seamstress. The sentences above read like an opening paragraph to the Francis Hopkinson article, and seems out of place here. Third, the statements are placed in the context of arguments against Canby's claims. The fact that Hopkinson designed national symbols has nothing to do with whether or not Betsy Ross preferred to cut 5-pointed stars. Hopkinson is already mentioned later in the article as one of the potential designers of the Betsy Ross flag, so these sentences aren't needed here. Canute (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Action taken (Wikipedia:Silence and consensus). If someone would like to discuss later, the line is above or in edits prior to 31 October 2019.Canute (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit War

So now that we're breaching the 3 Revert Rule, let's talk about it. user:Humor Editori Regimori, your recent edits were disruptive to a lot of work and consensus over several years. Yes, Francis Hopkinson is one of the people credited with designing US flags. There were others. This is dealt with in a fair amount of detail in this article, and finding one web site that claims Hopkinson created this particular design doesn't prove otherwise, because not everything on the internet is true. If you'll read some of the other sources listed on this page, you'll see that 1) no one knows exactly who created this design, 2) no one knows exactly which design(s) Hopkinson created, and 3) a lot of people in that era were involved in designing flags, which is why it's so difficult to say who created the first U.S. flag or when it happened. The name "Betsy Ross flag" is common use, and this article sufficiently deals with the historical context and problems associated with the name. We do not need big bold lettering at the top claiming that the rest of the article is wrong. Multiple users have reverted your changes. If you would like to make your case, please do so here and get some consensus before making them again. Otherwise, I can no longer assume you're making good faith edits. Canute (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Weisgerber

Fran Featherston, I thought your information on the Weisgerber painting was a great addition, it just seemed awkward in the intro paragraph. I moved it down to the first section, and in my opinion, it tied the whole thing together quite nicely, so I sorted the various artifacts and stories by chronological order (more or less). I like the "Betsy Ross story" section much better now, it gives early accounts and shows how the story became embellished and popular over time. All this to say: don't take my edit as a criticism, I really appreciate the new info. Canute (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Order of info / sections

It just struck me that although we repeated remind each other that this article is about a specific flag, and although Betsy Ross has her own article, this article leads with 2 subsections dealing with the Betsy Ross legend before it gets into the more literal history (knowns and unknowns) of the design elements used in this flag. Should this be changed? It would require a moderate amount of re-write, because the later sections reference the legend. But changing the order of the subsections would place more emphasis on the flag itself by discussing the "First Flag" and "Symbolism" first, then transition to the section about its growing popularity in American culture and the Canby family legend. I'd leave the cultural significance section last, merely for chronological reasons. One counter-argument is that the flag is named after a person due to a popular legend, so we should keep that section at the top because it's what the average reader is interested in. If you agree that we should change the order, I'm willing to do the work, but I'd like your opinions first. Let me know. Canute (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

White supremacist linkage to the Betsy Ross flag

Pinging User:NTK and User:178.7.243.162 because I'd like to know why they reverted my edit on the Betsy Ross flag being a racist symbol? Not going to edit war further but I'm not getting any feedback here from either of you. Reliable sources have generally acknowledged that usage of the flag is now offensive so I'm unsure why you're reverting with no explanation. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Extreme case of and WP:UNDUE, to say the least. Your edit was completely inappropriate. NTK (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@NTK:Another example of how news articles say it's hateful maybe?Buzzfeed News also states that the flag is racist. Not entirely sure how my edits are inappropriate when it's near universally agreed by reliable sources that the flag is racist to display now. I believe you're getting your personal opinions on the flag confused with the general consensus in the media today, that the flag is a historical design and is racist to use today.Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's entirely appropriate to acknowledge the current controversy (see new Controversy section). It is completely inappropriate to use Wikipedia to bolster claims that it is now merely a racist symbol. You'd have to completely ignore the rest of the article to come to that conclusion. We need to be careful what we glean from sensational headlines. I'd place odds that news companies are reading this article to get more information, so if we recycle their bad information then we're just completing the garbage cycle. (Buzzfeed is hardly an authoritative source for history, BTW). Good Wikipedia articles should present facts, not opinions. Canute (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have conflated BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News. —⁠184.248.121.198 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if it weren't that the cites used to support this silly claim are trash, mostly from the past two days, they would still be cites which argue "Nazis breathe air, ergo, air is a 'Hate Gas'". Notanipokay (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Do white supremacists use the current flag of the United States, too? If they do, does that mean we should stop using the current flag? How about Bibles and Christian references? Those are very commonly associated with white supremacists. The Nazis ruined the swastika, the Roman salute, the toothbrush mustache, and probably several other things. How about we do this?: Don't let idiots ruin perfectly fine things, by giving idiots attention for their stupidity, as long as attention is not required. Ignore them. Instead of letting bad people "steal" the symbols, by negatively altering the associations made in normal people's minds when normal people see things, like the Betsy Ross flag, we should "hold onto" the symbols, by USING the symbols to keep them associated with positive things. The more you talk about associations between the Betsy Ross flag and racism in this article, the more it will form that association in people's minds and "give" the flag to the racists. I'm not sure where I stand on whether to mention the association at all, but I definitely wouldn't make a huge section on it. And I'm leaning towards saying nothing at all about it. Giving white supremacists attention for using the Betsy Ross flag, and shunning the Betsy Ross flag, is giving white supremacists what they want, and handing over the flag to become a symbol of racism and hatred. --Pulse

Yes, white supremacists also use the 50-star US flag, as do civil rights groups. As for the 13-star flags, the controversy seems to have dissipated as quickly as it appeared. For a flag design that's been popular for 240 years, I find it difficult to justify inclusion of a controversy that couldn't even last 240 hours.Canute (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

People were talking about this in my office today (Aug 9_ and I came here looking for a mention or links to the Nike controversy. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to come to a conclusion on this, but it seems to warrant a mention and some links instead of pretending like the controversy doesn't exist. I'm sure it is still driving much of the traffic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.48.117 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been pretty well argued on this talk page. If there's something new to consider, please contribute. I just did yet another web search, though, and I see no evidence that this is an ongoing controversy. There are some political groups that are still using it to raise funds, but this story burned out within days of the news flash. Canute (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Web search is a useful idea. Googling "Betsy Ross flag", six of the top ten entries mention the controversy prominently. Why doesn't Wikipedia mention it at all? According to Google trends, searches for Betsy Ross flag continue to be more than double what they were before the controversy that Wikipedia is trying to pretend doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B80B:876A:D4B1:2AA8:5AF2:CE8B (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Because those search results are all obsolete news stories dated 2-3 July. The "controversy" was a flash in the pan. It's not mentioned here because this article is about the actual flag, not about a shoe company or a former NFL quarterback. This article had a section on the controversy for a short time when it was a thing, but active editors eventually decided that a 2-day marketing controversy was out of place in an article about a 200 year old relic. It failed the WP:UNDUE test. You can find it at Nike,_Inc.#Colin_Kaepernick, where it more appropriately belongs. It has been argued ad nauseum, but if you read through this entire talk page and decide we failed to consider an important aspect, feel free to let us know. Canute (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Having read through the entire talk page, I don't think you've missed anything but I don't understand why a single sentence mentioning the controversy and linking either to the Nike article or a NPOV article never happened. It seems to be as close to a consensus as anything one could hope for. This is not a hill I'm gonna die on though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.48.117 (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That was my original position as well. But if you read through this talk page, you'll see all the arguments for and against it. There were multiple reasons for excluding the Nike controversy at this time. Based on how quickly the story went away, I have to concede that it was the right decision. Canute (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

More recent comment got archived, so if you want to see the full discussion, don't stop here! Kdammers (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted a 4 August 2021 addition, for 2 reasons. First, it was used MOS:DOUBT. Second, it cited an article dated 2 July 2019, back when the press reacted to the Kaepernick generated controversy for two days. I'm still not completely against a mention of the flag's use by racist groups, but it would need to be well-written, cited with very reliable sources (i.e. not sensational headlines from a story we purposely chose to ignore), and be short enough to avoid the wp:undue issue that's been discussed ad nauseum. Canute (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Made another revert 6 August (the text is still there in the old version by that date). Reverted because 1) if we want to talk about racist appropriation, it certainly doesn't belong in the lede, and 2) the article which was cited is (again) timestamped from 2 July 2019, when this was a hot topic for all of about 2 days and we opted to ignore it here. Furthermore, the article cited went on to say that the flag isn't generally viewed as a racist symbol, so it kind of disproves the stated claims.

If we really want to revisit the topic for inclusion in this article, let's talk about it here first. The article recently cited isn't bad, but it would be ideal if we could find another source written before or after the Kaepernick controversy, so it's not in reaction to a hot social media topic. I expect that if we go this route, it should be a short summary in the cultural significance section. I'd want to be careful that we don't give racist groups and militias wp:undue attention in an article that's really not about them. Canute (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@RonWillow: I see your latest attempt, and I appreciate it. I don't want to be the guy that just removes everything you contribute, so here's some feedback and you can decide what you want to do with it. With some cleanup, maybe we can keep your new paragraph.

First, the article you cited is from the same July 2019 timeframe that we purposely chose to ignore. Everyone in the press wanted to jump on this hot story, and then 2 days later it disappeared. We went back and forth on this topic here, but ultimately decided it was wp:undue. As I mentioned before, if we want to include this mention in the article, it should come from a more reasoned source. They do exist, but I would avoid July 2019 altogether. A quick Google search will find plenty of reliable articles about symbols used by hate groups. Also, you should cite your article as an inline citation, not as part of the paragraph.

Second, I suggest you remove the January 2020 riot. It's irrelevant to this article and there's no explanation how it relates. Third, you need to remove MOS:WEASEL. Canute (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No corrections in past two weeks. Removed paragraph. Canute (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)