Talk:Modern display of the Confederate battle flag

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)

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)

Marion County, Florida

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

This link says nothing of the sort. 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.