Talk:Flag of the Black Country

Racism controversy
I see that the previous content relating to Eleanor Smith's comments on the flag was deleted without explanation, despite being sourced. I have put this back into the article and added a further BBC source on the response to the controversy and her subsequent comments. The incident is clearly notable in terms of the article. Jellyman (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The controversy was not started by Eleanor Smith. It is reported that in July 2015

"" Mr Vernon, 54, of Wolverhampton, West Midlands, said: "The chain being used as a symbol in the flag is insensitive. Shackles and manacles that were made by chain-makers in the Black Country were used to incarcerate slaves in North America, on plantations and in colonial Africa. The chain is not a swastika or a Confederate flag, but it is offensive."


 * Patrick Vernon received an OBE in 2012 for helping to promote equal rights in black and ethnic communities.
 * At the time some local politicians criticised Vernon's comments, these included:
 * Ian Austin, Labour MP for Dudley North
 * Mike Wood, Conservative MP for Dudley South
 * Bill Etheridge, UKIP MEP for the West Midlands
 * Source:
 * The Smith generated controversy ended up as a political football at Prime Minster's question time
 * The thing is that the iconography in the flag is fairly clear to someone who knows the Black Country. Every child in the region knows that it was black by day and red by night and that the chains for the Titanic were manufactured in Cradley [Heath]. However it may be interpreted differently by people who do not know the region. It is a bit like looking at an optical illusion and only seeing it one way until it is explained.
 * This probably explains why politicians across the region (as well as ordinary people) sprung to its defence and were flummoxed by those who interpreted it as representing the chains of slavery. Vernon was born in Wolverhampton so I am surprised that he read the icongraphy the way he did, I wonder where Smith spent her childhood and early adulthood. -- PBS (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the iconography in the flag is fairly clear to someone who knows the Black Country. Every child in the region knows that it was black by day and red by night and that the chains for the Titanic were manufactured in Cradley [Heath]. However it may be interpreted differently by people who do not know the region. It is a bit like looking at an optical illusion and only seeing it one way until it is explained.
 * This probably explains why politicians across the region (as well as ordinary people) sprung to its defence and were flummoxed by those who interpreted it as representing the chains of slavery. Vernon was born in Wolverhampton so I am surprised that he read the icongraphy the way he did, I wonder where Smith spent her childhood and early adulthood. -- PBS (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Express & Star
Should the Express & Star be considered a reliable source for controversies about this subject? It's tough because as the region's biggest newspaper it's one of only a handful to report on this subject in any detail, and is certainly the most widely read. But it also has a very clear and fervent editorial line that is designed to impose a high political cost on anyone who dares question the meaning of the flag. The article about Eleanor Smith MP was their most read article of 2017, and in a readers' poll 95% of readers unsurprisingly agreed with the paper's editorial line that the flag was not racist. Here are some examples of the tone of coverage this subject receives in the Express & Star: Arguably the Express & Star has not reported this story but generated it. But the story is clearly notable and has had real world effects such as threats of violence, being raised in PMQs, national press coverage, etc. – but I'm not sure what is the proper way to document this and the local paper's campaigning role in it. Mekshift (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Town and village flags of the Black Country" section
While I appreciate the collection of images as an artistic project, I'm not sure Andy Slater's proposed town flags belong on Wikipedia and would suggest removing them from this article. @Alexphangia added the section (perhaps mistaking them as official flags?), and the person that uploaded the flag designs to Wikimedia, @AndyUnderscore, appears to be the creator – which doesn't seem right.

As far as I can tell, none of Andy's designs have seen widespread adoption. On this page, his designs are presented alongside the, , and  flags, which are used on their respective town pages and have been adopted by popular vote via the Flag Institute. Andy's flags are not recognised by the Flag Institute.

To play Devil's Advocate, there are a couple reputable articles which highlight Andy's work, but I'm not sure if that merits its inclusion on the page for an otherwise-unrelated flag design. Perhaps an alternative would be to add a sentence to the 'History' section mentioning that these new flag designs were inspired by the Black Country Flag.

Here are the articles I found referencing Andy's work:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-59968531

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/new-flags-created-black-country-22757987 Littimer (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I added a note pointing out that most of the flags were Andy's speculations. I agree that they're not really helpful for this article. 82.46.53.19 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks for that. Though to be honest, I think seeing a note attached to the section – well written as it is – just reinforces my belief that the flags should be removed. It suddenly feels like we're trying to justify a section that doesn't belong.
 * Would you support moving your note to the 'history' section and slightly expanding it with the sources I linked? Then we can delete the section as a whole.
 * Alternatively, could we rename the section 'Proposed Town and village flags of the Black Country' (it's a bit wordy, I know) and expand the section further? Littimer (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, I'm just a simple internet rando on a Virgin Media IP, and Wikipedia's byzantine and dogmatic editing culture frightens and confuses me. Frankly I think this section should be deleted altogether and that it's pointless, confusing, and mainly serves to gratify Andy Slater, whoever that is. However, I'm afraid that if I were to try to do a WP:BOLD here and delete it myself, some robot would revert that change as "vandalism". The option for me that remains, then, is passive aggression, the animating spirit of my edit, but just because the motive isn't virtuous doesn't mean that the note isn't helpful.
 * If we can't just delete the section, then I recommend whatever approach makes it as obvious as possible that the flags are phony. Perhaps one option would be to replace the "Flag of Aldridge" with a new emblem: which is 100% as legitimate as the current design! 82.46.53.19 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I share your caution! As someone who signed up as an editor only a few weeks ago, I'm reluctant to start deleting others' work, but I do think we've done our due dilligence in tagging @Alexphangia and documenting our discussion here on the talk page.
 * Personally, I'm willing to be WP:BOLD here, as I think adding the section was a bold move in itself, and undoing it could surely only be half as bold. I'll wait another week or so to see if there's anyone else that wants to contribute to the discussion, then go ahead and remove the section and fold your note into the 'History' section. Thanks for your spirited input! Littimer (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been more than a week. I just deleted the section wholesale. I hope a bot doesn't revert it. It wasn't helpful. 82.46.53.19 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)