Talk:Flag of Alabama

On the 1906 Age-Herald quote

The 1906 article doesn't actually discuss the flag's origins or inspiration. Its statement that the flag "has no history woven into it, for it was not adopted until 1895" is only noting that it was recently adopted. Since the source doesn't address why the flag was designed as it was or what symbolism was intended, it doesn't add meaningful information to the origins section. Femfem5 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not my interpreation of this citation. The article makes no mention of the Confederacy as an inspiration for the flag and that would be the history woven into it if such a thing existed. Perhaps this could be rewritten to be clearer? Nemov (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The 1906 article literally explains "no history woven into it" by saying "for it was not adopted until 1895." That is a factual statement about the flag being recently adopted, not a statement about its symbolism or inspiration.

The part about Confederate symbolism is entirely absent from the source. So any interpretation that the author would have considered Confederate inspiration as "history" is speculative, not grounded in the text.

In other words: the article only addresses the flag's adoption date, not why it was designed that way or what it symbolizes. Any claim that it refers (or would refer) to Confederate history goes beyond what the source actually says.

No matter how you reword the 1906 Age-Herald reference, it only conveys that the flag was recently adopted. Femfem5 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The writer was noting that many Alabamians didn't even recognize their own state flag because it was recently adopted,

it wasn't based on any longstanding emblem of Alabama and it had not yet acquired historical significance or emotional meaning. So again, I don't agree with your narrow interpretation of the quote. Nemov (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The article does not support the interpretation that the flag "wasn't based on any longstanding emblem of Alabama." The passage only states that most Alabamians wouldn't recognize the flag if they saw it elsewhere than on the capitol, explaining that it "has no history woven into it, for it was not adopted until 1895." Later in the same article, it notes that few states had flags at all, which helps explain the unfamiliarity.

The article mentions the St. Andrew's cross design but does not discuss its symbolism or any possible inspiration. Overall, it only indicates that the flag was relatively new and had not yet become widely recognized as representing the state of Alabama. Per WP:NOR , we should avoid inserting interpretations of a primary source that aren't supported by reliable secondary sources. For that reason, it's best not to imply that the article comments on the flag's origins or symbolic basis.

The reference belongs in the "History" section, not in the "Origins" section. You can summarize it neutrally like this:

A 1906 Age-Herald article observed that most Alabamians would not recognize their own state flag if they saw it outside the capitol. The article noted that the flag "has no history woven into it, for it was not adopted until 1895," and remarked that few states had flags at the time. This suggests that, even a decade after its adoption, the Alabama state flag was not yet widely known or used. Femfem5 (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the stable version of the article that has been discussed before. We’ve gone back and forth on this, but your interpretation of the quote still doesn't make sense to me. This is an Alabama newspaper, and if they had viewed the flag as a symbol of the Confederacy, especially during the height of the Lost Cause movement, it would almost certainly have been mentioned. Instead, they specifically say there's no history attached and go on to discuss the St. Andrew’s cross. Nemov (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Femfem5 that removal is appropriate. We're clearly including the quote in order to imply a claim that the source itself is not making. I also liked Fem's inclusion of the Confederate flag image, as it's being referenced heavily in the text and visual comparison would aid comprehension (that's why we include all the other flags). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm 50/50 on including the battle flag, since its presence also carries an implication. What I find strange is that you're disputing a direct quote about the flag and its history from a highly reliable source from the period, 11 years after the flag was adopted, one that explicitly discusses the flag and its origins. I could understand the concern if the article had rephrased it to imply something else, but it's a direct quote. Nemov (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a direct quote that doesn't explicitly support the claim being implied. I'd be fine with including it in another section about reception, as evidence that one writer felt it was unrecognizable to most Alabamans. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What's the claim being implied that's not in the text? the flag in question has no history woven into it, for it was not adopted until 1895. In other words, there's no historical legacy with the flag. I guess we need more eyes on this because I'm reading something completely different than what you and Femfem are reading. Nemov (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• FWIW - I forgot we've discussed this before. At least we're consistent. The other two editors aren't active at the moment.

Nemov (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I was sure we had talked about it, but for some reason I only checked Archive 2. The implied claim is that the Age-Herald writer disagrees with the Confederate battle flag theory. I see that implication, since we're including the quote in a paragraph about that theory. I'm reading your reasons for supporting inclusion as being based on that implication, hence your points like "if they had viewed the flag as a symbol of the Confederacy, especially during the height of the Lost Cause movement, it would almost certainly have been mentioned". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I support inclusion because it's a 1905 article, from Alabama, discussing the flag, that clearly claims there's no history woven into it. The readers can infer all they want from that, but the cited reliable source is relevant. Nemov (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledge that the author immediately explains the statement "no history woven into it" with "for it was not adopted until 1895." Omitting that explanatory clause removes the context and misrepresents what the writer was saying.

Even if we imagine, for the sake of argument, that "no history" referred to the flag's symbolic origins rather than its recency, the next paragraph goes on to discuss the St. Andrew’s Cross and its biblical background. This would be "history woven into it." So, even without the explanatory clause, it's clear the article is describing the flag's newness, not denying symbolic or design influences.

Again, if the quote is kept, the line should appear in full and in a different section. It doesn't belong in "Theories on Origin," where it's easily read as taking a position on Confederate influence that the source itself never addresses. Femfem5 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Later on the author is simply describing the St. Andrew's cross and its history. There's no reason for the author to say "no history woven into it" unless it's referencing the legacy of Alabama. Otherwise it would just say not one Alabaman in a thousand would recognize it if he saw it elsewhere than on the Capitol for the flag in question was not adopted until 1895. The interpretation you two are arguing doesn't makes sense as written. Nemov (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The author immediately explains the statement "no history woven into it" with "for it was not adopted until 1895."

Example: I cannot attend the meeting, for I am feeling ill. → I cannot attend the meeting because I am feeling ill. Femfem5 (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Here's a neutral approach that stays true to what the article actually says:

History section: For more than a decade after its adoption, the flag was described as little known among Alabamians. At the time, few U.S. states had their own flags, and the idea of a distinct state flag was still relatively new.

Origins section: A contemporary 1906 newspaper article made no specific connection between the Alabama flag and the Confederate battle flag, instead describing only the symbolic history of the St. Andrew’s cross itself. Femfem5 (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I like the addition to History, and I think the change to Origins is an improvement over the status quo, but I still prefer removal from Origins. The proposed change lessens the extent to which we're engaging in original research, but it's still OR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

• Adding full quote for reference: Over the historic Capitol at Montgomery waves not the National flag but the Alabama flag, and not one Alabaman in a thousand would recognize it if he saw it elsewhere than on the Capitol. The flag in question has no history woven into it, for it was not adopted until 1895. It presents a St. Andrew’s cross in crimson on a white field. Such a cross is shaped like a letter X, and the books suggest that the Apostle Andrew died on a cross of that design. Few if any other States indulge in flags of their own. A flag is the symbol of sovereignty, and State sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. When we were a part of Georgia we granted to the Federal Government the executive power of punishing treason, and if any one becomes a traitor to the Alabama flag we might have to call in the Federal Government in order to punish him.

On the Cross of Burgundy flag

It's fine to mention the Cross of Burgundy as a visually similar design, but we cannot state or imply any interpretation of the Alabama flag's intended meaning without a reliable source. Since the current wording suggests a possible design influence without attribution, it needs to be revised or sourced. Until then, I have added an tag. Femfem5 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

On information from Bell Allen Ross

I read this source and noticed several assertions that are not currently reflected in the article. I would like to open discussion on whether to include them:

1. The flag was designed by John W. Sanford, and the bill requesting the legislature to adopt a state flag was introduced by Sanford himself while he was a member of the legislature.
2. According to the source, Sanford designed the flag with suggestions from his father, John W. A. Sanford Sr., who died in 1870. This implies that aspects of the design may have been conceived decades before the flag's official adoption.
3. The first model of the state flag was made by Sanford's wife. This model was presented to the House of Representatives when Sanford introduced his bill, but it was later reported to have been lost.
4. The flag's colors have been suggested to symbolize purity and purpose (white) and courage (red).

These details seem historically interesting and could enhance the article, particularly the history section which is now mostly about design specifications. Femfem5 (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

3. The model or design introduced with the bill to adopt the flag is mentioned in both Bell Allen Ross's 1924 notes and Thomas M. Owen's 1915 notes on the state flag.

I believe this is enough to include a mention of this physical example. Whether it was a drawing or an actual flag. However, only Bell Allen Ross attributes the model to Sanford's wife. Femfem5 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I object as long as it doesn't read like it's getting too far into the weeds. Nemov (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

How about something like this?

When the bill was introduced, it was accompanied by a physical example of the proposed flag referred to in later accounts as "the design submitted" or "the first Alabama state flag—the model". (Thomas owen) (bell allen ross)

A 1924 source reports that the first model was made by John W. A. Sanford Jr.'s wife and presented to the House of Representatives when he introduced the bill, suggesting that this may have been the very flag on which the statutory dimensions were based. (bell allen ross) This model was later lost, leaving historians to rely on the bill's textual description and related accounts to infer the intended appearance of the flag. (bell allen ross) (Thomas owen) Femfem5 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)