Talk:Betsy Ross flag

GFDL license

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington at Princeton

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

Arguments about the flag

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

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

Curious concidence?

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

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

Hemp?

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

First flag maker

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

First scholarly Betsy Ross biography

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

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

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

Francis Hopkinson designed the flag

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

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

Betsy's Artistic Embellishments To The Flag

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cooper reference

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

"a only blue flag"

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

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

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

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

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

Your newest version,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Against my suggested version:

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

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

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

White supremacist linkage to the Betsy Ross flag

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

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

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

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

Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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