Talk:H. K. Edgerton

ONE SIDED!!

This is a very one sided article which shows nothing about what H.K. believes in other then one small quote! I am going to notify H.K. about this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.15 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Please feel free to expand the article if you have additional information that can be cited. - N1h1l 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur, this article is virtually worthless because it says nothing of the man and what he believes or has done based upon those beliefs.

Well I wouldn't call it exactly one sided but if you were to call it one sided it isn't intentional. The article just severely lacks information. He's one of the best known southern activist but this article is just way too short. TheHoustonKid

Question notability

There seems to be not much substance to establish his notability.Parkwells (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTABILITY, all it takes is coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources already cited seem to meet this standard easily, and if not, ten seconds on Google Books makes up any difference. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

War about Slavery

Just a second! How can Wikipedia call itself a neutral site with that note about the War being over slavery? This is unacceptable! My ancestors fought and died for the South, and none of them, repeat, none of them owned slaves. I the war was over slavery, why did free blacks fight under the Southern flag? When Jefferson Davis was ready to abolish slavery if Britain and/or France would aid the south? When only 6% of Southerners owned at least one slave? (Somme from Louisiana were free blacks by the way). Just because some Yankee historians and scalawag Southerners decide the war was over slavery, doesn't make the hypothesis correct. History is a blurred science. Lastly, history is written by the victors. To quote the great Liam Clancy of Ireland, "Written history is nothing more than the propaganda of the victor... whereas folk songs were the true histories of the people who lived through it." [Scottish TV, Corries 1985]. Obviously the victors write Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.186.13 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hack Piece

Just why would anybody consider the Southern Poverty Law Center as an actual source?

Well, the title really answers that one already--the SPLC is a liberal group that makes its money by smearing anybody more than half a step to the right of Karl Marx' French Poodle as a racist and/or terrorist. The fact that Wikipedia actually allowed the use of this "source" to remain is proof that the site cannot actually be trusted for accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.118.116.193 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"Southern heritage" is an ambiguous and inaccurate description

There's some very Newspeak about describing Edgerton as an "activist for Southern heritage". I don't see anything that any sort of scholarly anthropological or historical pursuits. Rather than a political activist in favor of promoting the belief that the Confederacy was a good regime (and in support of KKK figures like Nathan Bedford Forrest). Slaves were Southerners, too, so it's odd that preserving Southern heritage is conceptualized by some people is conceptualized as supporting the oppression of one group of Southern by another group. I would replace "activist for Southern heritage" with something like "activist for promoting a pro-Confederate view of U.S. history. --JamesAM (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. with the above. I noticed this comment was in place 2013.''''Bold text' - A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.9.118 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on H. K. Edgerton. 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://archive.is/20140811110459/http://archive.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327/Critics-Cecil-Bothwell-cite-N-C-bar-atheists to http://archive.citizen-times.com/article/20091208/NEWS01/912080327/Critics-Cecil-Bothwell-cite-N-C-bar-atheists
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051108102424/http://www.slrc-csa.org/site/updates/1999/01-25-1999-udt.php to http://www.slrc-csa.org/site/updates/1999/01-25-1999-udt.php

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) 07:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"Uncle Tom"

Does it not seem a bit derogatory to include a racial epithet to describe a living person, where the citations (one of them a blogspot) doesn't use the term? KRLA18 (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)