Talk:Red Strings

Blacklisted Links Found on Red Strings

Cyberbot II has detected links on Red Strings which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://redstringsbaseball.shutterfly.com/

  Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Red Strings

Cyberbot II has detected links on Red Strings which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://redstringsbaseball.shutterfly.com/

  Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Quote from the article: "One of the main causes for the organization of the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina was to combat the influence of the Union League. Governor William Woods Holden was the first president of the League in North Carolina, and James H. Harris, a Negro, was Vice-president. " Prof. Lefler later recounts: "If there had been no Loyal League in North Carolina, there would have been no Ku Klux Klan, or clubbing together of the white people there… Still the negroes [sic] operate upon each other, so that one dare not depart from the ranks; they are arrayed yet in a solid phalanx…" He later quotes from a Congressional investigation into the origins of the KKK in North Carolina: "It was at a time when the Republican party had three secret organizations in operation in the state, the Union League, the Heroes of America, and the Red Strings. They had a paper called the Red String, printed at Greensorough [sic], edited by Mr. Tourgee (Albion W. Tourgée). Our friends thought it proper to organize a secret society for the purpose of counteracting that influence.- Ku Klux reports, North Carolina Testimony, pp. 8, 309-310, 318, 363."Hugh T. Lefler. "The Red Strings and the Union League in North Carolina." In: North Carolina History Told by Contemporaries. Chapel Hill: UNC Press. 1934. Page 318-321. Also pages 332-333.

The article blames the creation of Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina on the existence of a Unionist organization. The authority for this is a White Supremacist Professor of the Lost Cause School writing in 1934.Its like quoting the writings of Julius Streicher to explain away the Holocaust.

My suggestion is to erase the whole paragraph above. It's a bloody disgrace!Creuzbourg (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you raise an important point which may be more to do with comprehensiveness and presentation than malicious intent. Also at issue here are some pretty serious shortcomings in regards to referencing. The quote you point to is itself a quote from an unspecified source. In addition, the argument is poorly phrased. It begins with a statement that the Red Strings "actively opposed" the Klan before going on to present some one-sided explanations not of the Red Strings actions, but of the motivations of the Klan.

I agree that the passage, as written, is neither accurate nor written in an encyclopedic tone, although it may not necessarily have been written in an attempt to invert blame for the rise of the Klan in NC considering the tone of the rest of the article. I'd imagine that, if any examples of the claimed opposition to the Klan can be produced and cited, that this section could stand for some serious revision, perhaps with one passage describing the aforementioned opposition and another describing the disingenuous justifications for the Klan's actions described as such and better referenced. The quotes at issue have worth in regards to the subject, but must be placed in a different context to do justice to it.

Also, I'm unable to find much of Lefler's work online and have no access to it otherwise, and while he appears to have been a notable academic in the state, this seems not to have been the case outside of it. Therefore, I can't find many summaries of his work or descriptions of his scholarship. I'm curious, then, as to your justification for calling him a Lost Cause advocate. It may well be that you're correct and have a greater awareness of his writings, so please don't misunderstand this as a disagreement. It's more that, as someone unfamiliar with this individual, I'm personally curious as to why you've described him thusly. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph.Creuzbourg (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)