Talk:Modern display of the Confederate battle flag/Archive 1

Archive 1

Two things

• 1. This article should be semi-protected. (for clear reasons)
• 2. The article needs to be updated, I heard that there was going to be a KKK rally in support of the flag in South Carolina. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As for #1, we don't do preventative protection and there has been zero vandalism from IP/brand new accounts. For #2, yes we definitely need to expand how the flag is used by white supremacist groups in general. I am unconvinced though that a single rally is significant enough to merit mention; this isn't the news. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I can understand #2 but for my first thing, why do you suppose articles like Penis or Vagina are protected or how about things like the Wikipedia main page? In those cases they are prime targets for 4 chan, in this one this is a very heated debate so much so as to cause protests. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are going to need to explain the desire for semi-pro in the context of WP:NO-PREEMPT, which is policy. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversial sentence in intro

A couple for editors have removed the sentence reading "Displaying the flag has long been controversial, due to the flag's historical associations with racism, slavery, and white supremacy." in the intro. I've put it back, and added a couple of cites to WP:RS to support it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Good call and nice work there. I also think the page ought to be protected for 3 days or so, until the current news furor dies down. Seems to be attracting a lot of IP edits. Rockypedia (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In addition to my comments above, I'd add that if anyone doubts the truth of that assertion, they should read the Cornerstone Speech, which clearly articulates slavery, racism, and white supremacy as exactly the "cornerstone" on which the ideology of the Confederacy was founded. -- The Anome (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And on re-reading the Ta-Nehisi Coates article cited: [1]. Good God! What cruel, barbarous, ignorant assholes the leaders of the Confederacy were. -- The Anome (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Approximately 1/2 the article is factually incorrect, etc

on an don in the article are factually inaccurate statements about the confederate flag, esp as underlying all those statements are a fundamental and flawed understanding entirely of slavery in the US South.... e.g. 99 % of white families in the US South never ever owned any slaves ever so imputing slavery as the basis for fighting in the Civil war and so too the battle flag, the confederate flag, has that fundamental flawed distorted view ... Add to that that northerners were almost 100 % the ship owners and ship captains that brought all slaves over to the US South ; and add to that , that black kings, chiefs were the ones who sold into slavery, all the slaves that were in the US South... and so on and on the story is one of fundamental distortion... And of the % of whites in South who owned slaves, they have all been dead 150 years... further add to the fact that for 100 % of white Southerners, the flag has always represented Valor in battle of the 600,000 approximately white southerners who died in the war... Add to that the war began due to invasion by North and the 100 % felt view of white southerners that states rights then was the main issue and to a very small view , slavery way below that esp as those 99 % of confederate soldiers and their families did not own and had never owned slaves.... TO distort and warp all this factual history into black mania about the battle flag, esp of valor, being a rascist symbol further massively distorted e.g. by us media as CNN is simply put, mass HYSTERIA with no , almost no foundation in fact .... please add all this to revise the bottom 1/2 of the article which has those endless wrong factual distortions.... Kareen Abdulla Selassie, Imp of Ethiopia Sr 47.18.43.166 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:V. We write articles based on reliable sources, not say-so. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

all the info above is well known long accurate , factual statement of real history , not say so , stop the idiot BS replies .... big imp 47.18.43.166 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not make attacks on other contributors. Dustin (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization of sections

I did some reorganization of various sections today. I also think '20th-century resurgence' and 'Controversy' should probably be merged.--Pharos (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the merge of the section at Lost Cause of the Confederacy#Twentieth and twenty-first century usage here too, to put all this content under a common heading, and we could call it generally 'Revival and controversy'.--Pharos (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a merge, as you suggest it, would be appropriate. The reverence for the Confederate flag is a key part of the Lost Cause and info on it should remain part of the Lost Cause article. I see nothing wrong, however, in summarizing this article in the Lost Cause article and adding a header that refers a reader to this article as the main one. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've already merged into this article all content that I would consider appropriate from the Lost Cause article. How much of a summary of this material remains in Lost Cause would be primarily up to the editors of that article, and this is something to balance, though generally this article should focus more directly on the flag and that more on the ideology.--Pharos (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Rectangularized"

Not to be picky, but in the second image's caption which reads "A rectangularized variant without fringe, common in modern reproductions. (A similar flag was used during the war by the Army of Tennessee under General Joseph E. Johnston.)", well, a square is a rectangle, so... Dustin (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, in a super-technical way, but surely every reader will understand what is meant, and I don't think there there is another term that can convey the meaning adequately, without a confusing digression on flag height-to-width ratios.--Pharos (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think giving the ratio will be confusing. "Rectangularized" is very confusing because this is the English Wikipedia, and that isn't an English word. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that I don't think the popularly modern "Confederate flag" has a definite ratio, as it's a vernacular thing - giving any definite ratio to this would be positively misinforming, as far as I am aware. I've reworded to avoid the unfortunate ize-ism, but surely readers will understand the difference between a "square" and a "rectangular" flag.--Pharos (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I measured the ratio of some of the antique flags here and ratios were about 1.5, 1.55, and 1.6 (for the ones that aren't square). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

But this article isn't about antique flags, but rather about modern ones, mostly post-1950. I would bet most of those are 1:2 1.5 (not that I have evidence or an RS!).--Pharos (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I doubt there is any official ratio. But the article does say that they are "modern reproductions". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What we'd need is an RS describing the typical proportions of a modern "Confederate flag", and whether these match the erroneous but common proportions for the US flag, which I suspect they do.--Pharos (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Flags of Florida and Alabama

The flags of Florida and Alabama are much more like the Cross of Burgundy flag of Spain, used during the era that Spain controlled Florida and Alabama (parts of it, at least). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Use" vs "usage"

I'm not sure I understand the distinction being made in this recent edit, and whether it is a mere point of grammar, or touches on the substance of the article.--Pharos (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a matter of grammar, and I agree that "use" is right. Here is some explanation]. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And

• this
• that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Modern display of the Confederate 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://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.friesian.com/police.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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Gone With the Wind

I'd like to add something about Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation, neither of which are currently mentioned. I can source it to The Confederate Battle Flag by John M. Coski. Pandas and people (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Maxboost08's edits have been reverted five times by KATMAKROFAN, North Shoreman and me. The changes appear to be based more on Max's opinion than on an objective summary of independent sources. Their edit removes (without explanation) apparently reliable sources (ADL and Salon) in favor of an article from historynet.com, whose reliability I have no current opinion on.

If ADL and Salon are reliable and the material in our article accurately reflect what they say, removal in favor of another source would require explanation and discussion. The same would apply if, for whatever reason, the editor believes they are not reliable.

The questions of whether or not the historynet article is a reliable source and, if so, how to include material from it is a different matter. If the material is reliable, but at odds with other reliable sources in the article, we certainly can incorporate multiple viewpoints in one article, staying consistent with WP:WEIGHT. If the source is reliable and presents multiple viewpoints itself, it would not be appropriate to select one viewpoint from that source over all others, especially as a replacement for other reliably sourced material.

It is time to discuss the issue. Further changes without discussion leading to a WP:CONSENSUS would be disruptive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Coski (the author of the history.net article) is a reliable source; it appears the article is consistent with his book, "The Confederate Battle Flag". The problem is that Maxboost08 does not accurately reflect Coski's analysis. Nowhere in either work will you find support for this claim by Maxboost08:

" Displaying the flag has long been controversial in the United States, due to some political and social group's misguided understanding of the flag's meaning. It is often thought to have historical associations with treason, racism, slavery, segregation, and white supremacy, however this simply not so." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that the Maxboost08 account appears to have been created specifically to insert that POV into the article, I'd say Tom (North Shoreman)'s and SummerPhD^v2.0's analyses are 100% correct. Rockypedia (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My retort to this ridiculous claim...

North Shirrman writes " Maxboost08's edits have been reverted five times by KATMAKROFAN, North Shoreman and me. The changes appear to be based more on Max's opinion than on an objective summary of independent sources." Of course this is a lot crap. I posted my souces, and posted an explanation for the change. You just didn't like the facts I presented. The little portion of the text you chose to cite, was a few lines of the entire edit. You couldnt dispute the facts, which is why you didnt reprint the entire edit. You could not dispute the information or the sources. The portions of the text that I changed, were the opinions of the original poster, and were not factual. This article was written from a slanted, leftist, politically-correct viewpoint. Politics has no place in the forum of historical discussion. Just because you don't like history doesn't mean you can rewrite and change it to suit your viewpoint. The fact you cite "ADL" and "Salon" as an accurate source, shows your liberal slant. Don't think that the majority of readers don't see through the game you are attempting to play. Your politics and PC viewpoint are characteristics of a dying political party. Feel free to keep wasting your time.

Max— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxboost08 (talk • contribs) 01:35, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

The quote you start out with is what I said, not Tom (North Shoreman) or "North Shirman".

You boldly made a change to the article, you were reverted. At that point, it was time to discuss the issue. Instead, you chose to restore your preferred version four times with a total of three editors disputing your changes. We call this edit warring. It is never productive and always needlessly disruptive. |When you are reverted, discuss the issue.

Now that you have come to the talk page, you launched into personal attacks (whether against me, one of the other editors or all three of us is irrelevant). Personal attacks are never productive and always needlessly disruptive. Personal attacks are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.

Should you wish to discuss the issue, feel free to try again, without the personal attacks. Quoting the source you wish to add to support your changes would be a good start. If you feel there are sources quoted in the article that are not reliable for the material they support, please explain why, without lowering the level of discourse to naked accusations and bland name-calling. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Confederate flag to welcome Trump in Poland

I think that anyone waves the Confederate flag to greet Trump is important enough to mention here. @Rockypedia disagres with me and has reverted it.

Use in welcoming President Trump to Poland

On July 6, 2017, the Confederate battle flag was waved to greet President Trump upon his arrival in Poland for a brief visit before the G20 summit in Hamburg.(Charles P. Pierce, "An American President Was Greeted in Poland by the Confederate Flag", Esquire, July 6, 2017, http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a56168/poland-confederate-flag-trump/.)

deisenbe (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone threw a shoe at President George W. Bush, resulting in far more coverage. We don't include that at Shoe.

The relevant question, IMO, is not "did it happen?" or "is there reliable coverage?" Instead, I propose that we need reliable coverage discussing the subject (the flag) which discusses the incident.

For example, reliable sources about Nixon generally do not discuss the appearance of his reanimated head in a jar in Futurama. Reliable sources about Futurama do discuss Nixon head. As a result, Nixon's reanimated head in a jar is not discussed in Richard Nixon, but is discussed in Futurama.

The source cited is neither an article about Trump in general nor an article about the flag in general. Instead, it is an article about this one event. As a result, IMO, it does not belong in either Donald Trump or this one. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Modern display of the Confederate 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 https://books.google.com/books?id=zs0VJTbNwfAC&pg=PA80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210214605/http://www.ago.state.al.us/oldopinions/8700238.pdf to http://www.ago.state.al.us/oldopinions/8700238.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620033643/http://motor.etax.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/images/2004/cv.jpg to http://motor.etax.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/images/2004/cv.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002104015/http://www.rtbrandon.com/blankplates/USA/nc/socv.jpg to http://www.rtbrandon.com/blankplates/USA/nc/socv.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325120030/http://www.marylandmva.com/bin/c/o/Sons-of-Confederate-Veteran.gif to http://www.marylandmva.com/bin/c/o/Sons-of-Confederate-Veteran.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229003434/http://www.mstc.state.ms.us/mvl/TAGS/Sons%20of%20Confederate%20Vet.JPG to http://www.mstc.state.ms.us/mvl/TAGS/Sons%20of%20Confederate%20Vet.JPG
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626130656/http://www.wboc.com/story/29393858/lawmakers-move-from-confederate-flag-debate-to-grieving to http://www.wboc.com/story/29393858/lawmakers-move-from-confederate-flag-debate-to-grieving

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) 09:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Modern display of the Confederate flag

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Modern display of the Confederate flag's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto3":

• From Jefferson Davis Park, Washington: "Vancouver NAACP leaders call for Confederate flags flying near I-5 to be taken down". FOX 12 news. June 23, 2015. Archived from the original on August 3, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials: Jaeger, Max. "Cuomo orders Confederate busts removed from CUNY Hall of Fame". New York Post. Retrieved 27 August 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think I fixed the Fox News link. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

American Civil War Centennial

This should be mentioned if there are good sources, but not without citation, and certainly not replacing other perspectives backed by scholarlship.--Pharos (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be added and have provided several citations which were promptly undone. It needs to be presented along with several reasons for the resurgence of the popularity of the confederate flag not just a single explanation tied directly to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. Presenting information in this way amounts to stereotyping in itself and assumes that everyone at that time who waived a rebel flag was only doing so to upset the movement in progress. Can we really say this was true in all those cases? There could have been several contributing factors which resulted in the increased visibility of this icon in during this time but only one has been presented.

Also, I realize this is an article on modern presentation, however, there are several references in the current intro and at the end in reference to the President that are based strictly on modern popular opinion such as proposing that racism is the reason for modern visibility. First, know one can even agree on what modern "racism" is, what the parameters of race are, how it has evolved, or how it is manifest today, so it follows that it would be conjecture to deduce that the confederate battle flag's modern popularity is a result of it. After the intro the reader is left with the idea that the modern confederate flag display is a result of racism and the article ends by linking the flag with President Trump. This is unacceptable political indoctrination in the form of only presenting facts supporting a particular political platform. More of an effort should be made to present a diverse source of facts which are as diverse as the meanings projected onto the flag itself.

47.219.32.108 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/01/can-we-all-agree-that-the-confederate-flag-is-racist-apparently-not-according-to-poll/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.9feb8fe9ea73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B217:4704:9699:B8E5:2C19:7397 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Prior to being blocked for edit warring, your last restoration here was this edit, removing Time, The Atlantic and Washington Post with what seems to be someone's term paper.

Wikipedia articles are based on what independent reliable sources say. Time, The Atlantic and Washington Post are clearly reliable sources. Whether or not you agree with what reliable sources say is immaterial. Presenting an argument in favor of your opinion is immaterial. If Time, The Atlantic and Washington Post reported that Abraham Lincoln was a bologna sandwich, Wikipedia would report that Lincoln was a bologna sandwich.

If you feel one or more of the sources cited do not meet the criteria for reliable sources outlined at WP:IRS and another editor reverts your change, you'll likely need to discuss that here.

If you feel the article does not accurate reflect what the sources say and another editor reverts your change, discussing it here would again be a good idea.

If you find other sources that you believe are reliable that disagree with the existing sources, you'll likely want to discuss the issue before even trying to make the change.

The main problem with your edits, however, is summed up at WP:BRD. When you boldly make a change and someone reverts your edit, it is generally time to discuss the issue. Repeatedly restoring your change seldom resolves an issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate to add American Civil War Centennial to the intro, after mention of the Dixiecrats campaign. I also think it is probably wrong to say it was mostly limited to historical films before mid-20th C; it was used in cemeteries, etc, for memorialization of war dead, but not for flag-waving as became popular later.--Pharos (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Usage outside U.S. South

While the bit about 'Pacific Northwest' use is interesting, it seems kind of disproportionate, and it may be better to fold it into a more general section on 'Usage outside U.S. South', including parts of the rural U.S. North and even Canada (which in most cases doesn't really have to do with Southern migrants, but rather with non-Southerners adopting an outside symbolism).--Pharos (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's even seen in Europe sometimes. The picture below is from Sweden, 2013. Dinsdagskind (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think it is really WP:UNDUE to give so much space to the Pacific Northwest, when it's not particularly more popular there than other parts of the rural non-South.--Pharos (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Pacific Northwest of the US has the highest membership rates in white supremacist organizations in the country IIRC. The sources in the article point it out as being notable; what makes you think it is undue? VQuakr (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: About highest membership rates in white supremacist organizations, that's an anecdote that exists, though I don't think it's statistically supported by hate group monitors. It probably comes from the frequency of pro/anti clashes in the region. In any case, most people who fly this flag are not members of white supremacist groups, and many such groups actually prefer other symbols nowadays. So, I don't think there are any RS that systematically compare regions across the US, and find the flag is more popular in the Pacific Northwest than elsewhere. What is significant is its relative popularity outside the former Confederacy, in the former former border states and lower Midwest, and also more widely in rural areas across the country (including the Pacific Northwest, but also parts of, e.g., rural Pennsylvania).--Pharos (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on what sources? The level of coverage we currently give the NW is based on a source that focuses on it, Searching for Whitopia. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization

While looking at this page, I noticed that the page could use a major reorganization. The sections on the Charleston shooting and on Trump rallies could/should be combined with subsections of the revival controversy section such as the University of Mississippi subsection, the Six Flags subsection, and the American University subsection. The South Carolina State Capital subsection from the official use section could also be added. The revival controversy section could be focused a bit more, and then an examples section written up with these as subsections. The official use section could also be tightened a bit. I would support someone being bold and taking a shot at it, and would consider doing it myself. Is anyone interested in it, or have a problem if I go for it? I don't want to put too much brainpower into a proposal that isn't likely to succeed, so if their isn't support, I'm happy to let it go. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A proposal

I took the existing framework and rewrote a proposed new table of contents arranged more chronologically. Sections 3.1 through 3.5 and section 5 probably need major rewrites. This, in turn, would necessitate the addition of two paragraphs to max out the article lead. Comments?

3 Revival and controversy

3.1 Post Civil War (1865-1940) include state flags and state seals

3.2 1940s (include new info on non-political use)

3.3 Civil Rights opposition (1950s)

3.4 Civil War Centennial (1960s) include part of SC raising of the flag

3.5 Latter 20th Century (largely absent from the current article -- this is era when civil rights groups and heritage groups articulated and hardened their positions)

3.6 21st Century

3.61 Religious groups

3.62 Public opinion (2011-2015)

3.63 University of Mississippi statue

3.64 House bill banning flag at VA cemeteries

3.65 Six Flags Over Texas

3.66 Display at American University

3.67 Vehicle license plates

3.68 Retailer bans

3.69 Washington National Cathedral

3.70 Trump rallies

3.71 South Carolina (include Display at South Carolina State Capitol, Reactions to 2015 Charleston church shooting, and Removal from South Carolina State Capitol

4 Popular Culture

4.1 In film and television

4.2 Use by musicians

4.3 Popularity outside the southern U.S.

4.3 NASCAR

5 Historical and modern meaning

4 Official usage in southern U.S. states include in Post Civil War section

Is racism the biggest cause of the modern display of the flag?

The article said, until today, "Racism has played a major role in its new popularity."

Now it says, thanks to @Codark2, "Some Americans view racism as the reason for the renewed popularity of the Confederate flag while others see it as an expression of Southern pride .

Neither article cited supports what he says.

I reverted him and he reverted me. Would someone please help out? deisenbe (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The sentence refers back to the late 1940s and early 1950s when the "new popularity" of the flag occurred. A poll conducted in 2016 is hardly relevant to the motivations of folks a half century ago. Nor should the results of a poll be given equal status with what reliable academic sources say. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. Reading through it I assumed the last line of the intro was about the current use of the flag. My main reason for editing was to give it a more neutral point of view. If the line is referring to the late 1940s and early 1950s then I would suggest it be moved to the revival and controversy section in the article.

If it stays in the intro it would make more sense if written as: "The flags revival came about with Senator Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats in 1948 and was later used to show opposition to school integration and the Civil Rights Movement, where racism played a major role in its new popularity. The American Civil War Centennial in the 1950s and 1960s also led to a major increase in the popularity and use of the flag."

I will wait to edit again but I believe that better matches the intent of the last few lines than what is currently there. CodArk2 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it the last sentence IS about the current use of the flag. To say that since the 1960s there’s no racism, or that racism is secondary, is ridiculous (and no support is cited). As it is to say there was nothing racist in the Civil War Centennial. deisenbe (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. so I this is slightly outside of my usual focus, but I decided to look into the most recent research. I found two papers from 2017 dealing directly with the issue of popular belief regarding whether or not the flag is racist. The PPRI result is based on their 2016 American Values Survey.[2] I think PPRI is a respected pollster, but their result is of limited use, as people's responses may not reflect their true beliefs, etc. There is a Mechanical Turk survey-based study with similar results and similar problems published in 2017 by Wright and Esses.[3]

So from these I think the last paragraph of the "Public Opinion" section is correct and could be updated.

However, there is also a the Strother et al. 2017 study which is currently referenced in the lede.[4] This uses a 2004 Georgia State University survey. In this last survey, racial resentment is not measured by simply asking the respondent if they believe the flag is associated with racism, but rather the relationship is estimated by asking about support for the flag and then asking a group of questions about policy and personal beliefs whose answers are used to create an index for the individual of their racial resentment score. This group of questions is based on a number of other studies and is probably a better way of measuring racial attitudes than the simpler questions in the AVS or the MTurk surveys. A weakness is the data is from 2004 and isn't national. However, their result is different in nature than the other two. Where the other studies find that racial resentment is a strong driver of support for flying the flag and support for southern pride is less strong. They use additional more limited surveys from 2014 (in South Carolina) and 2008 (national) to support their thesis, but neither of those two surveys are well suited to analyze the question in the same way.

My feeling is that there is not strong evidence that support for contemporary displays of the flag are not related to racial prejudice. I think the Strother paper should be woven into the body of the article, possibly by adding two or three sentence to the "Public Opinion" section. I also think the lede should be clarified, which I think is somewhat in agreement with the previous comment by Deisenbe. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

If its about the revival of the flag around mid-century then I think some rearrangement of things is all thats needed. If its about the current use of the flag in 2018, then the last sentence needs to be changed because its not Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view because:

- Its stating an opinion as a fact. If it said "Many Americans believe racism has played a major role in its new popularity." then it would be accurate, but as it is there is no indication that its an opinion.

-Its stating a contested assertion as a fact. Yes racism is a reason people some people fly the flag, but its not the only reason anyone flies it. Saying racism is the only reason the flag became popular is certainly contested, but is being stated as a fact.

-Its using judgmental language. Especially saying its a "major" reason for the flags renewed popularity now. Racism played a role, but whether its major is a judgement call. it also gives a bias toward one side that is clearly apparent.

-It doesn't indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. The article I cited had a poll stating that a slim majority of Americans believe the flag stands for southern pride, with a substantial minority believing it stands for racism. So if the last line of the intro is stating that racism and ONLY racism is the reason the flag has popularity now its giving undue weight to a minority opinion without mentioning the majority opinion at all.

If its a brief historical context for the flags popularity after along hiatus, then editing it like above would make it clearer. For explaining the modern meanings of the flag the first paragraph does a good enough job of providing a synopsis and the second can be moved to the revival and controversy section like I stated above. CodArk2 (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Smmurphy and deisenbe -- The last sentence in the article lead is, "Racism has played a major role in its new popularity." Every other sentence in the paragraph refers back to an era of over a half century ago. The expression "its new popularity" also refers back to this same time period since this is when the "new popularity" occurred. There has been no recent "new popularity" of the flag -- in fact, as our article shows, the display of the flag has been under attack for its racist origins for the last couple decades. If the intent is to make this sentence about current views by flag advocates, then the sentence needs to be rewritten or, better, a new paragraph describing the resistance to the display of the flag should be added to the lead.

I do have problems with the preceding sentence ("Its revival in the 1950s and 1960s came about because of the American Civil War Centennial, but was also used to show opposition to the Civil Rights Movement...". I don't believe the sources justify implying that the Centennial was the main reason while opposition to civil rights was a secondary reason. The Coski book is the best resource and, while admitting that the Centennial complicated the analysis, nowhere does he subordinate the political aspects of the increased display of the flag to the Centennial. This sentence should be changed and the topic should be expanded in the body of the article.

CodArk2 -- First of all, I took the liberty of further indenting your text for readability. As to the substance of your post, I disagree with your claim that there is a NPOV problem. We base our article on reliable secondary sources and the vast majority of these sources clearly link racism and the support for displays of the flag. When reliable sources make what you refer to as "judgement calls" there is nothing wrong with incorporating their language into the article. The fact that public opinion polls may reflect a different weight should be noted in the article (as it already is), but it should not be given equal weight to the other sources. I'm sure that a poll taken today might show that 35% of the population believe that Canadians burned down the White House in the War of 1812, but that doesn't mean we should give any factual weight to this assertion in the appropriate article. You need to produce reliable secondary sources that claim that the support for display of the flag is unrelated to racism.

Your suggestion of moving material out of the lead to the part of the article where similar material is mentioned is inconsistent with the purpose of the article lead. Material in the lead is supposed to summarize material contained elsewhere in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My issue isn't with linking racism and the revival or use of the flag. My issue is the claim that racism is the sole reason the flag became popular again and the sole reason people fly it now. For the revival of the flag, the recent history should state that the flag became popularized by the Dixiecrats and further by opposition to school integration and the civil rights movement, but the civil war dentinal also played a significant role in why it became popular around that time and should also be noted.

If incorporating the language of a reliable source, the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view page notes: " Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."" Stating that "Racism has played a major role in its new popularity" is using wikipedias voice. If a scholar or historian said it then they should be added, or it should be noted that its a widespread view, not just stated as a fact.

I agree that public opinion and polls are not reliable secondary sources if talking about the historical topics, but when talking about the current opinion on the meaning of the flag a recent poll can be relevant because its not a history issue its a current affairs issue. I did not claim that support for display of the flag is unrelated to racism (which is why I left the mentions of racism alone in my edits), however claiming that the main reason people fly the flag today is racism isn't a fact, its an opinion. It can be noted that its a widespread belief, but there is also a widespread belief that flying the flag is a southern pride thing as well. CodArk2 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You say, "My issue is the claim that racism is the sole reason the flag became popular again and the sole reason people fly it now." Here's the problem -- what we actually say in the contested sentence is "Racism has played a major role in its new popularity." Assuming, as I do, that this refers to the 1940s thru 1960s I have no problem saying this in wikipedia's voice. The only thing that would make me uncomfortable is for some reliable source to say the contrary (i.e. racism had no role or only a minor role in its new popularity). It is you task to provide reliable sources that show there are "significant opinions" expressing the view you want to promote.

As for the current situation, what I see in the article is descriptive language as to what has occurred and what the reactions have been. These certainly suggest the belief of many people that racism is a root cause, but I don't see anything in wikipedia's voice that is a clear as the sentence discussed in the above paragraph.

What I do see in the very first paragraph of this article, in wikipedia's voice, is:

Such displays have been made for a variety of reasons, with Southern heritage, states' rights, and historical commemoration among the stated reasons for particular uses. Displaying the flag has long been controversial in the United States, due to the flag's longstanding associations with treason, racism, slavery, segregation, and white supremacy.

It seems to me that this touches all the bases that you want to touch. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason I said sole reason is because racism is the only thing mentioned dint he sentence. If the sentence was changed to "The Dukes of hazzard has played a major role in its new popularity." most people would see that sentence as downplaying or disregarding every other reason the flag became popular for just one reason. Racism was a major reason the flag became poplar, but that doesn't mean it was the only one, yet its the only one mentioned.

For the current situation the only thing I would add is Southern Pride, since many who fly it see it as a "proud to be from the south" thing which is not the same as the heritage argument ("my ancestors fought under it").

I still think the lines at the end of the second intro paragraph would look better as something like: "The flags revival came about with Senator Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats in 1948 and was later used to show opposition to school integration and the Civil Rights Movement, where racism played a major role in its new popularity. The American Civil War Centennial in the 1950s and 1960s also led to an increase in the flag's popularity." or some variant. CodArk2 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We still have three editors on record as opposing your elimination of the final sentence in the lead, yet you went ahead and deleted it again. I think you mistake boredom with addressing your same argument over and over again with agreement. The language you added is misleading -- the Dixiecrat movement was very much about racism and resistance to Truman's modest civil rights actions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be a valid complaint if I actually deleted the sentence. But I kept the line intact and just moved it after the line about the Dixiecrats and opposition to the civil rights movement.

The edit I made stated: "The flags revival started with Senator Strom Thurmonds's Dixiecrats in 1948 and was later widely used to show opposition to school integration and the Civil Rights Movement, where racism played a major role in its new popularity. The Civil War centennial also led to an increase in popularity in the 1950's and 1960s's."

So what exactly is misleading about it? Where does it deny that the Dixiecrats were racist? Did you actually read the edit or just immediately assume I was arguing there was no racism and undo it? If there is any way I can improve it I would like to know. If not then I don't see any reason not to change it. CodArk2 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear from the way you wrote it that the phrase "where racism played a major role in its new popularity" does not refer to the Dixiecrats but only to when it "was later widely used". If this was not your intent, then the proper way to write it would be something like this:

"The flags later revival was based on racism and opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. It started in 1948 with Senator Strom Thurmonds's Dixiecrats, who opposed the civil rights planks in the Democratic Party platform, and expanded in the 1950s to show opposition to school integration. In the 1960s this opposition became intertwined with the Civil War centennial."

As Smmurphy notes below, the article itself needs reorganization. The sections involving the Dixiecrats and Civil War Centennial are hardly covered at all. Southern justification for flying the flags is also diffused over several different sections and needs to be consolidated. Since the lead is intended to summarize the article, a better use of time would be shoring up the article itself. I don't believe the lead should be changed at all until Smmurphy or deisenbe are given a little more time to check back in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Six Flags Over Texas section

The wording implies that the theme park used the "rectangularized battle flag", but I'm not sure that it ever did. See File:Six Flags over Texas Original Logo.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"but it is impossible"

The last sentence of the first paragraph is written as opinion and should be cited as such or changed

"Southerners associate the Confederate battle flag with pride in their heritage and traditions, but it is impossible to separate the flag from its association with the defense of slavery and racial bias.[4]"

It should say "according to" or "some say" or "many argue". This simply isn't a fact no matter how strongly one feels about it. Feelings are subjective and the flag means many things to many people. Some people clearly are able to delineate, others can't.

This statement is an objective truth and needs put into context. Lemonlimeotter (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope. WP:WEASEL. Too ambiguous. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Article title

A majority of this article is not "displays of the Confederate battle flag‎‎". Many of the examples are flags, seals and such that reliable sources say use imagery from one or more of the flags used by the Confederate states. A seal using the images from the flag is not a display of that flag. Symbols, forms and colors evoking a flag are not a display of that flag.

I suggest we move the article to "Modern uses of Confederate flags". "Uses" covers both flying the actual flag (e.g., NASCAR fans or state capitals flying the actual flag) and incorporating imagery/symbols/colors from the flag (e.g. seals, other flags, emblems, etc. using in part or whole images evoking the flag). "Flags" covers some uses that have been Confederate flags other than the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag (e.g., the three flag designs used by the Confederate States of America).

Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I could support changing it to Modern display of Confederate flags. Garuda28 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. CSBurksesq (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So, is that a !vote to remove everything that is not someone displaying a Confederate flag, over half of the article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I kind of feel like Army of NVa battle flag is the subject here? Maybe I'm not understanding the question. I think there are a ton of flags shown that don't seem to have anything to do with the Army of NVa battle flag, and those could be removed from this article or possibly split off into a separate article. It's the display/use of the one that's heavily associated with racism in the US that's the subject, I think. —valereee (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tennessee Flag is NOT a Confederate Symbol

There is zero evidence to conclude that the Tennessee Flag is based on the Confederate Battle Flag.

Prof. Knowlton's arguments are nonsensical and purely circumstantial. Knowlton flatly admits this:

Unfortunately, there are no surviving records of the legislative debates about the flag, so neither do we know what interpretation the legislators ascribed to the design when enacting the law. The popular press of the day provides no further illumination. A perusal of the daily papers of Tennessee’s major cities reveals no debate or discussion about the proposed flag among the general populace or the opinion-piece writers. A small illustration of the flag appeared in the Memphis Commercial-Appeal, but beyond that the papers were silent except to note that the flag bill was among the new laws enacted by the legislature.18 In fact, the return of a captured Civil War battle flag excited more comment than did the proposed state flag.

Knowlton states there is a "resemblance" to the Confederate flags because of the presence of a vertical bar (Figure 6). This is pure speculation and absurd. Many flags contain vertical bars. France and Italy to name a few.

Likewise, Mr Ingrahm's article in The Washington Post likewise provides no evidence of any actual link, and bases his argument purely off those of Prof. Knowlton.

This article is titled "Modern display of the Confederate battle flag." There is no evidence provided to substantiate that Tennessee's flag is a modern display of the Confederate Battle Flag or any other Confederate Flag. If Tennessee's flag were some ploy by raving segregationists or NeoConfederates to fly Confederate symbols, there would likely be some evidence of it.

This seems to me a violation of the Verifiability principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

I therefore propose removing the offending section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CSBurksesq (talk • contribs) 21:18, June 27, 2020 (UTC)

You are heading down a deadend alleyway here. Reliable sources do not need to provide "proof" of what they say. Wikipedia does not state what sources have proven, only what reliable sources state. This is verifiability, one of Wikipedia's pillars.

Your analysis of Knowlton (in addition to somehow missing his extensive section on Tennessee's broad adoption of the Lost Cause pseudo-history by the time of the flag's design) fails on this front. The source is reliable and says the Tennessee flag is based on the battle flag, so it is verifiable.

The Washington Post does not need to "evidence of any actual link". It verifiably says what it says. Similarly, if the New York Times says it was 82 degrees in NYC on Tuesday, it does not need to provide evidence. It is verifiable that it was 82 degrees on Tuesday. What if it was actually never above 60 degrees on Tuesday? Well, while we still have a reliable source saying it was 82, you can certainly provide other sources directly stating that it was never above 60 -- or, perhaps, reliable sources directly disputing ties between the Tennessee flag and any of various CSA and CSA-related flags. - SummerPhD^v2.0 07:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The belief in the "Lost Cause" is of no relation to the TN flag. If Knowlton had evidence, he would cited it. But he did not. If anything, the belief in the Lost Cause Myth only strengthens my argument. The Knowlton specifically states that the opinions of Black Tennesseans was irrelevant to the political class of the day (p. 34)

So, if it was the intention of the legislature to have a Confederate-based flag, they would have just done it and been very overt about it. Other states certainly were. Mississippi and Georgia, to name a few.

Quite frankly, the absurd suggestions of Prof. Knowlton are, in my view, defamation against the Great State of Tennessee. I will therefore be contacting the Governor's office for an official response (and hopefully) rebuke. CSBurksesq (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing. The relationship between the two flags seems far-fetched. Paulmlieberman (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That you do not like the reliable source's conclusions re the pseudo-history he sees baked into the flag's design is of no consequence, as is the question of whether it would somehow constitute "defamation" of an entire state or merit the governor deciding to try to silence accademic discussion. I'd be particularly interested in how he would avoid First Amendment issues in his "rebuke". (If I may be so bold, please write to him in the form of an open letter to a published source. Otherwise, in the unlikely event the governor does respond, you'll be back here wondering why we can't use an email as a source.)

(That the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons Confederate Veterans were actively spreading the Lost Cause negationist nonsense through the South at the time is not the least bit controversial. That they were effective is attested to by the number of mass-produced statues and memorials that were erected at the time, possibly out-numbering the number in reaction to the mid-century civil rights movement.)

Whatever. Wikipedia does not debate the facts, arrive at "The Truth" and write it up as an article. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a subject. If independent reliable sources say it, it is verifiable. If reliable sources said the flag of Tennessee represents a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say it represents a cheese sandwich. Pointing to various photos of cheese sandwiches, saying they look nothing alike to you and your opinion that it makes no sense is immaterial. It would be verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not debate the facts," this is blatantly untrue. While it's true that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are, in essence, compilations of articles by reliable sources, Wikipedia maintains a standard of truth and verifiability. Wikipedia's mission is the compilation of knowledge for the masses. That's why it exists in the first place. The belief that Wikipedia is simply a compilation of articles and nothing more, with no regard for truth, is why there's a perception that Wikipedia isn't reliable. Encyclopedias are built upon the reliability of the cited articles, that's where they derive their academic validity. No, Wikipedia isn't a contest for the truth, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is completely disinvested in truth or validity. When sources are wrong, they aren't reliable. When sources are far-fetched or drawing to conclusions without evidence, they are unreliable. When a source comes up with a grand perception of a piece of fabric, presenting it as though it is academically valid, and then admit the opposite, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say "hmm, maybe that source isn't so reliable?" An independent reliable source's reliability isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's based on previous academic work and the validity of that work. When said independent reliable source gets something wrong, that challenges their reliability. That said source's article isn't immune from criticism, nor is it invincibly reliable, just because what that source said before was reliable. If a source says "the sky is green," I'm going to question their reliability, even if they previously published an article five years ago that found a genomic mutation in HIV. It's prima facie unreliable and wrong. You can't argue that reliable sources don't need to show proof. That's just plain incorrect. Wikipedia depends on reliability, and reliability is built on proof and the application of said proof. Where's this reliable source you so desperately rely on for your argument? It doesn't exist, period. You talk about verifiability, yet apparently don't understand it. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned something about a cheese sandwich in relation to the flag of Tennessee. Wikipedia isn't here to list the opinions of random people such as you, me, or anyone else. Academic validity and notability are the cornerstone. If Wikipedia listed something as ridiculous as a random American's perception of the flag of Tennessee as a foodstuff, it would be so blatantly obvious to anyone that it didn't belong on Wikipedia because it lacks academic validity and notability. Why are you so adamant that some random dude's self-admittedly far-fetched perception of what the flag of Tennessee MIGHT resemble is notable and valid, to the point you contradict the very workings of Wikipedia? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia depends on reliability, and reliability is built on proof and the application of said proof." Not really. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia determines reliability based on whether a source is considered authoritative on its subject matter or whether it reflects "current scholarly consensus" on the topic. We are not seeking proof on what the sources state. What we may be interested in is 1) whether there are other "majority and significant minority views" on the topic that should be mentioned, 2) whether the source is questionable due to expressing extremist views, making promotional claims, or having a reliance on "rumors and personal opinions". On the topic of a flag, can you find reliable sources which counter its connection to Confederate designs? Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Refer to WP:VERIFY. It sounds to me like you lack a complete understanding of what you're talking about, so let's quote the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of 'verify.' "Verify: to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of." Now, let's quote WP:VERIFY, the Wikipedia page on verification. "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

Now, let's refer to WP:GOLDENRULE. "We need significant coverage. This helps show that a topic meets the notability guidelines. We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it." First off, admittedly far-fetched perceptions are neither notable nor verifiable. We're talking about some random person stating that they *perceive* the Tennessee flag to resemble the Confederate battle flag. I can say that the woman in the Mona Lisa looks like a Venetian prostitute, but that's neither verifiable nor notable enough to satisfy WP:GOLDENRULE. Second, it's completely incorrect to say that Wikipedia doesn't find the truthiness of a source's information to be relevant: reliability requires a degree of verifiability. If someone doesn't show proof that supports what they're saying, then their work isn't reliable. Per WP:VERIFY, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Okay, we're talking about "facts" (what WP:VERIFY said, VERBATIM), and there is no "professional structure" to check or analyze a fact in Knowlton's case. He's simply stating his own personal perceptions about what a flag MIGHT resemble and admitting that it's dubious at best. The most that Ingraham could come up with was "it looks like a case of plausible deniability." These are far from reliable sources on the matter. Ingraham's *opinion* is based on the opinion of Knowlton, and Knowlton admitted he was grasping at straws. If the opinions of Wikipedians aren't reliable sources, the opinions of two random dudes aren't reliable sources. Per WP:GOLDENRULE, there isn't enough source material on this to satisfy notability, and per WP:VERIFY, there's no verifiable material from a reliable source to warrant the inclusion of the Tennessee flag and Knowlton's information in the article, so it should be removed. That's baseless support of unreliable, unnotable material. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I've been here for a while (roughly 15 years with somewhere around 150,000 edits. I am fairly certain I have a reasonably complete understanding of what I'm talking about. I am not talking about your dictionary definition of "verify". I am talking about Wikipedia's usage of the term "verifiability".

In this case, the information comes from a reliable source. No, we don't care about the "truthiness" of information. We also don't determine whether the information is "true". We judge whether it is verifiable: does it come from a reliable source.

You seem to be unaware of what a peer-reviewed journal is. Quite contrary to your belief that "there is no 'professional structure' to check or analyze a fact in Knowlton's case. He's simply stating his own personal perceptions about what a flag MIGHT resemble and admitting that it's dubious at best." Having written for both the popular press and peer-reviewed academic journals, I can tell you neither one fits your description. Depending on the publication, popular press fact-checking will, at a minimum, assure there are no claims that may be subject to litigation without covering the bases. You want to say Joe Blow murdered his wife? Careful. They'll want you to say he was "convicted of murdering" her. Peer-reviewed academic journals go much further than that. Yes, they want to avoid litigation. They're also a lot more concerned about simple facts: dates, names, etc. -- that's their reputation. Peer-review is about the findings. Academic peers -- typically experienced academic experts published in the relevant field -- will read the article and tear it apart. Are your claims reasonable? Are your facts correct and relevant? Are your conclusions sound? Writing for a newspaper or magazine is, by comparison, a walk in the park. Were it not for the "publish or perish" mentality in academia, I'd skip the journals and write for the magazines and newspapers all day and cry about "academia" while I cash the checks and sip a mai tai on the beach.

You are misunderstanding the source. Saying it may be a case of "plausible deniability" is not the author saying he is "grasping at straws". He's saying it seems the lack of a specific statement saying where the design elements ("pure white stars", etc.) came from is about being able to reject any charges that the flag was designed to feed the "Lost Cause" mentality so pervasive in that area (the American South) at the time (the nadir).

The "two random dudes" here are the two of you, not the relevant academic expert in an article "vetted by the scholarly community ... where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed source or "reporting from (a) well-established news outlet".

That the peer-reviewed findings strike some random dude (you) as "admittedly far-fetched perceptions" is immaterial. The "some random person" is clearly not Vexillologist Steven A. Knowlton, Assistant Professor and Collection Development Librarian of the University Libraries of the University of Memphis, published in the peer-reviewed academic journal published by the North American Vexillological Association. No, it's "MrThunderbolt1000T", a storeroom clerk from Ohio. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick If a person makes a claim, the burden is on them to prove it, not on everyone else to disprove it. If a professor makes a claim that the TN Flag is actually a confederate flag or "resembles" the confederacy, the burden is on him to provide evidence. Knowlten provided no such evidence.

Fact: The TN flag contains no direct Confederate symbols, nor does it contain the Confederate Battle Flag. This article is about the "Modern Display of the Confederate Battle Flag." Does TN's flag display the Confederate Battle Flag? The answer is no. Therefore, the halfbaked claims of one professor should not be on this page.

If Tennesseans had wanted to "evoke" the Confederacy, they would have been open about it. People weren't shy about such attitudes in 1905. They would have just stuck on the Confederate Battle Flag or made the flag resemble the Stars and Bars. But that is not what happened. TN's flag is a red field with a blue circle and three stars. CSBurksesq (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

CSBurksesq: Please try to maintain indent levels to keep the flow of discussion clear.

Fact: Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. If the New York Times, several peer-reviewed vexillology journal articles, ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Des Moines Penny Shopper all reported that the flag of Tennessee is a crude rendering of goatse.cx in orange on a purple background, that is what Wikipedia would say. That you think it is wrong is completely immaterial. That the sources don't prove it is irrelevant. This is why we don't have to constantly argue that NASA landed people on the Moon, the Earth is round, germs cause diseases, etc. verifiability, in short, says "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

The sources say what they say. You think the reliable sources are wrong, tell us what they don't say, argue what would have been done 100 years ago if the sources are right, etc. It does not matter. Independent reliable sources say something and Wikipedia reports it. Information must be "verifiable against a published reliable source. Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain." That's "verifiable", not "true". Your opinions and beliefs are not part of determining what the article should say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

MrThunderbolt1000T: No, I am not saying we should use what "some random person says". I am saying we report what independent reliable sources say. The sources for the section in question are:

• Vexillologist Steven A. Knowlton, Assistant Professor and Collection Development Librarian of the University Libraries of the University of Memphis
• Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, a joint project of the Tennessee Historical Society and the University of Tennessee Press
• Raven: A Journal of Vexillology, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the North American Vexillological Association
• The University of Memphis
• The Washington Post
• 46th Annual Conference of the North American Vexillological Association

These are reliable sources for the topic at hand. In terms of questioning their reliability, you cannot say, "They are wrong, therefore they are not reliable." Reliability is a question of having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Is The New York Times ever wrong? You bet; probably every day since it started. Is it a reliable source? Without a doubt. If a crackpot source says Democrats are shipping children off to a prison camp on Mars via a pizza shop to serve as sex slaves for the liberal elite, we ignore it. If NYT reports on the source making that claim, saying the claim is nonsense on stilts, the site is a collection of conspiracy theories and fake news and the it's run by someone who has testified in court that his site makes things up, we write up an article about the site, cite the NYT and call it a day. We don't launch a mission to Mars to look for the prison camp, search pizza shops for kids being held hostage or pull court transcripts. It's all verifiable. The possible connections between the flag of Tennessee are verifiable. That an editor considers them defamation against the "(g)reat (s)tate of Tennessee" and wants to call in the governor is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources you listed aren't even cited in the section we're talking about. The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture isn't the subject being discussed, here. Said source was only cited in the article to say who designed the Tennessee flag. The subject here specifically is the inclusion of the Tennessee flag in the article through the citation of Knowlton's article, where he admits he has literally no evidence to back his opinion. Knowlton's article is the one source that the vast majority of the section is based upon, and the only thing supporting him is Ingraham's opinion that the perceived relationship of the Tennessee flag with the Confederate battle flag is "plausible deniability." Nobody here is saying that the material should be removed because they don't like it. You're the one creating that assumption. People are here to propose the removal of said material because it's from a source who lacks reliability on the matter. Knowlton's opinion isn't a reliable source of Tennessee's flag incorporating imagery based on the Confederate battle flag. NYT citing Knowlton wouldn't make his opinion any more of a reliable source because his reliability on the subject is completely fictitious to begin with. Any editor worth their salt can see that the material should be removed in accordance with WP:GOLDENRULE, WP:RS and WP: VERIFY. Knowlton is not a reliable source on the matter, period. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Most aren't cited in the section?!?! All of the sources I listed are cited in the section. They're currently cites 102-106.

"Nobody here is saying that the material should be removed because they don't like it"? You're right. Nobody said that. I'm sure I didn't, so I don't know why you are mentioning it. There are lots of random things nobody said. I said (actually, I quoted) editors "may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You want to remove the WP:SCHOLARSHIP because you disagree with it. That is not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies about the indention. This article is called "Modern display of the Confederate Battle Flag." Even if Knowlton's dubious claims were true, which they are not, it would not justify the inclusion of the TN flag on this article because the TN flag is not a display of the Confederate Battle Flag. Therefore, the inclusion of the TN flag on this page is not relevant. CSBurksesq (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In addition, let's stop pretending that these are separate sources because they are not. The Tennessee Encyclopedia article about Mr Reeves mentions nothing about the Confederacy or the Confederate Flag. Nothing. There is only ONE source here, and that is Steven Knowlton. I highly doubt that KNowlton's opinions are the official positions of the University of Memphis and the North American Vexillological Association. It is ridiculous to take one man's opinion, even if cited on multiple fronts, as "separate sources." CSBurksesq (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not pretending anything. A relevant expert publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal of a relevant academic body, however, is not merely "one man's opinion". Your opinion is "one (person)'s opinion". Presented here is a researcher's findings that have been "been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." WP:SCHOLARSHIP Those findings found their place in a highly-regarded mainstream publication (established several generations ago, the most widely read newspaper in Washington, D.C., dozens of Pulitzers, etc.), making it through their editorial and fact-checking process.

I get that you disagree with his findings, think they are defamation against an entire state (I'm not sure a state is a "person", but it's certainly a public figure if it is), etc. That said, as surely as editors "must not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct", they "may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." WP:NOTTRUTH

Your new argument that the flag is not a display of the Confederate Battle Flag draws into question our inclusion of the flags of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina; the shield of the Confederacy in the Rotunda of the Florida Capitol; the Seal of Texas; the Dixiecrat flag; flag of the Southern Student Organizing Committee; etc. We also have uses of Confederate flags other than the battle flag (seal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy) and multiple places where the Battle Flag itself is not shown, only images from it (Coat of arms of Alabama, seal of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas, badge of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, flag of Americana, São Paulo, the car from the Dukes of Hazzard, etc.). In short, it would seem you are either arguing to remove MOST of the article or to rename it, perhaps something like "Modern uses of Confederate flags" -- or perhaps a more creative name that manages to exclude anything having to do with the "Great State of Tennessee". - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because it is peer-reviewed does not make it the opinion of that journal or that organisation. And it's not like vexillology is a hard science. This isn't physics. Regardless of any mental gymnastics, it is factually one man's opinion -- the opinion of Knowlton. You have still not shown how this is relevant to this article. The TN flag does not display the Confederate Battle flag or any other Confederate flag.

As for the other flags you mentioned, flags either contain the Confederate Battle Flag or they do not. There is either evidence of Confederate symbolism or there is not. (As in the case with Arkansas, a star was added to represent Arkansas belonging to the Confederacy.) With TN, there is no such evidence. Therefore, the TN flag does not display the Confederate flag or other confederate symbols. It does not belong on this page. CSBurksesq (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not say peer-reviewed makes it the opinion of that journal or that vexillology is a hard science. I said a peer-reviewed journal article is not some random person's opinion. It is factually WP:SCHOLARSHIP published in an independent reliable source, then cited by the Washington Post.

Again, your new argument that it does not "display" the Battle Flag would require us to gut the article. Are you arguing all of the rest of that material should be removed also, or just the "defamation" of the "Great State"?

Evidence that the various state flags contain "Confederate symbolism" comes from one place: statements of independent reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, mainstream newspapers and such.

You disagree with the reliable sources and want to remove the material based on that. Wikipedia does not do that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's take care of your ignorance on Wikipedia's rules. Refer to WP:GOLDENRULE. The only source listed is Knowlton, and his material is admittedly far-fetched. Wikipedia requires multiple *reliable* sources on the matter: otherwise, it isn't notable. Knowlton admitted that his beliefs are based on his perception and nothing else. [WP:VERIFY]] requires that the information in an article is sourced from a reliable source and that said sourcing is verifiable. A source's reliability on a specific subject is not tantamount to its reputation and consideration in whole if it can be proven that the source lacks reliability on a specific topic or subject. He's not a reliable source when it comes to whether or not Tennessee's flag is based on the Confederate battle flag, and his work proves it. How this irks you and you continue to defend it is beyond me. According to you, if a professor of history from the University of New York were to publish a scholarly work, wherein he stated that the Titanic sank in the Pacific Ocean, he can't be challenged, nor can that material be removed from Wikipedia, because he previously published articles that correctly stated where HMS Hood and USS Wasp sank. It's blatantly dubious logic and you seem to refuse to consider the futility of it. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, BilCat came to a similar conclusion back in 2015 on the Flag of Tennessee talkpage with another user about the dubiousness of Knowlton's inclusion, but that was on the basis of WP:NPOV. This isn't rocket science, Knowlton shouldn't be included. It's also ridiculous of you to accuse others of POV and dismiss their arguments. More is expected of such an experienced editor. Anyway, either call an RfC if you're so confident, or move on. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

My "ignorance" indicates that a relevant expert in a relevant peer-reviewed academic journal is clearly a reliable source. That you are unfamiliar with peer-reviewed academic journals and WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the problem. That is the basis of your argument. If you wish to change the status quo, you can certainly start an Rfc, but the Reliable sources noticeboard cuts to the quick here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

With these other flags, there is historical evidence -- such as statements from state official linking the flags to the Confederacy (e.g. Alabama). As with TN, this is the opinion of a professor who admits to having no evidence. His opinion, therefore, is speculation. And considering the negative view the public has with the Confederacy, I do consider this defamation, since it harms the image of the Great State of Tennessee and its flag.

It is clear, however, that this is a losing battle for the moment. I will be making an edit to the relevant section stating that Christopher Ingraham is citing Professor Knowlton (the citation in question shows this to be the case). CSBurksesq (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are absolutely not based on evidence. Wikipedia articles are not the work of editors debating the facts and determining what they believe to be true. The statements about the flag of Tennessee are verifiable.

Defamation is false statements about a person that damage that person's reputation. Perhaps you think it's a mean thing to say about the "Great State", but it's not defamation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Alabama Flags - Governor of Alabama and City of Montgomery Alabama not relevant to the topic of the article

@Pharos:, you reverted my edit due to a vexillology issue. You point out that "Defacement" is OK.

Point taken. I see that the word "deface" carries no negative connotation.

However, I have made some other edits to the section and have again removed the information about the Flag of the Governor of Alabama and The Flag of the City of Montgomery because they are not relevant to the subject of the article.

And, it seems that the description of the Governor's flag is not correct. What version of the flag "includes the Confederate Battle Flag in the lower right quarter of a shield composed of five flags?" The image of the Governor's flag shown did not look anything like that. Clearly, this information is misleading at best and at worst not true.

Osomite ^hablemos 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Spin-off of Removal of Confederate flags

As this article has grown exceedingly long, I would suggest the spin-off of Removal of Confederate flags to cover the smaller incidents in greater detail.--Pharos (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Marion County, Florida

A Confederate flag flies on the grounds of the Marion County Courthouse.[151]

This link says nothing of the sort (it's about the Mayor's support of the flag, and says nothing about the courthouse). Furthermore, I drive by the courthouse everyday and I've NEVER seen a confederate flag there. If there ever was one, it isn't there now.

Just to add -- there's a picture of the Marion Country courthouse right in the infobox of the Marion County article on WP. You can see, there's only a US flag there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_County,_Florida 139.138.6.121 (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparently there was an 1865 CSA flag at East Hall (Ocala, Florida) McPherson Governmental Complex that was supposed to be taken down by Memorial Day 2016, and replaced by an 1861 CSA flag at a less prominent site elsewhere on the grounds. I haven't been able to find an update online about this, though.--Pharos (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, the 1863 flag was taken down, and an 1861 flag put up. The old 1863 flag was put in storage inside the Marion County Museum of History and Archeology and the new 1861 flag is part of a public display outside of the museum.--Pharos (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've rewritten and I believe corrected now as a subsection of #Reactions to the Charleston church shooting (and also fixed several related articles).--Pharos (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

San Francisco City Hall

I've edited this section to reflect that the Confederate flag in front of the SF City Hall was removed in 1984, not 1964, as the KQED article is incorrect -- it's true that the flag was removed in 1964, but, per the Snopes article, it was removed only briefly and was quickly restored. The flag then remained until 1984 when it was permanently removed. Talu42 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Display during the Storming of the US Capitol

I couldn't find a confirmation information about Nazi emblems. I am European amd may not know something, because I only saw a short footage, but watched a lot of pictures and I have not seen anything like that. The reference also does not mention for Nazi emblems. please clarify or change this information (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about display of the Confederate flag, which isn't related to the Nazis. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It really depends on who you call nazis, but the usage of the confederate flag, along with the nazi flag at J6 is extensively documented anyway, so the OP is just plain wrong. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)