Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Edit request on 13 June 2012

Wikipedia's current description of the Ku Klux Klan is highly inaccurate. The KKK is a terrorist wing of the Democratic party established after the Southern Democratic party after lost the Civil War. They are a far-left organization, not a far-right organization as the article claims. The Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it. "--The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.--"

The Democrats: Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery. Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery. Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision. Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers. Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage. Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty&page_id=93&tp_preview=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredrogers763 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Right wing does not mean "Republican". Neither does left-wing mean "democrat". Argument closed. Achowat (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Nothing worse than a person who thinks he knows a secret "conspiracy" to alter history, and feels the evangelical spirit of the "newly converted" in spamming the world with his absurd nonsense. Of course, he'll probably never read Southern Strategy, which explains why his distorted "Conservative Talk Show Host" version of "history" is nothing but spin, attempting to attribute the misdeeds of Right-Wing Democrats to modern Liberal ones, and the great deeds of Liberal Republicans (like MLK) to modern Conservative ones.

• "The more there are riots, the more repressive action will take place, and the more we face the danger of a right-wing takeover and eventually a fascist society." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
• "The Republicans have betrayed us by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of Right-Wing reactionary northerners. This coalition of southern Democrats and northern Right-Wing Republicans defeats every proposed bill on civil rights." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

--Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your source does not say the Klan was "far left" and in any case is about the first Klan only. TFD (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of KKK

In the first paragraph it reads: "The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[15] They named it after the Greek word kuklos, which means circle. The name means "Circle of Brothers."[16] The word 'kuklos' does indeed mean circle, but I don't believe the interpretation of "Circle of Brothers" is correct, therefore I editted it. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ku+Klux+Klan (no references made to any kind of "brother[hood]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highollow (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't "Clan" mean a familiar group? wiktionary:clan? Achowat (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The source cited says Ku Klus Klan suggests a "circle, or band, of brothers". Sources discussing "kuklos" or "clan" are not discussing "Ku Klux Klan", the topic of this article. That Wiktionary and the freedictionary.com do not say "brother(hood)" is absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. I'm changing the text to read "suggests a circle or band of brothers". If you have other reliable sources discussing the meaning of "Ku Klux Klan" or reason to believe the cited source is not reliable, let's talk. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

List

I just created a list of KKK groups and plan to expand that and pages on the individual Klan factions. I've written this on the talk page, and, if anyone is interested, i would appreciate feedback from wikipedians familiar with the issues around KKK wiki pages.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I approach this list with a little bit of hesitancy over what to include. Any organization with "Ku Klux Klan" in the title is obviously eligible, but what about groups that don't such as the Knights of the White Camilia, Black Legion etc.? I don't think it would be useful to have this page turn into a blanket list of white supremacist/nationalist groups or "hate groups", as those already exist, and I feel the it is best to have a page where readers can find groups specifically from the KKK tradition. Here is the solution I propose for the post reconstruction groups: if the organization either slit off from a KKK, or merged into one, then it could be considered a KKK group. If it merely had overlapping membership, or cooperated with KKK - like the Citizens Councils , National States' Rights Party, American Nazi Party - that should be excluded because those groups were never organically part of a group using the KKK title, nor using the Klan regalia, nomenclature, secret pass words etc. I also think its unnecessary to add front groups or action squads to the list, as these were merely segments of parent KKK groups. I'm of two minds about auxiliaries such as women's and youth groups -- perhaps they should be listed with notice of their link to the parent Klan. That problem really only comes up with the larger groups such as the Twenties Klan and the UKA. Finally, I plan on making pages for generic names that have been used by a number of Klan groups ie, Original Knights, Invisible Empire, Confederate Knight etc. These groups often have historical links with one another, and they may not be notable enough on their own to warrant wiki pages, but could be if put into the large context of the genealogy of the klan movement. i welcome any input that you would like to give me.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential Article Bias

This article is very biased by saying the KKK is right wing. The KKK became the terrorist arm of the Democratic party targeting White Republicans as well as blacks. It is extremely left wing. The KKK was founded by the Democratic party. It is as far left as you can get. Dr Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican and fought the Democratic party at every step. Democratic impact on black America Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it. "--The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.--"

The Democrats

Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws. Democrats fought to keep blacks in slavery and away from the polls, and they started the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize them. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage. Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans. Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt's choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching. Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces. Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever. Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools. Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act. Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI. Democrat President Bill Clinton's mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation. Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67. Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court's 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation: 1. The Emancipation Proclamation 2. The 13th Amendment 3. The 14th Amendment 4. The 15th Amendment 5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867 6. The Civil Rights of 1866 7. The Enforcement Act of 1870 8. The Forced Act of 1871 9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 11. The Freeman Bureau 12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following legislation

15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts 19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs 21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973 22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982 23. Civil Rights Act of 1983 24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988

Programs By Republicans & their Supporters include:

a. Many of our key traditional Black Colleges are named after Republicans Colleges b. The Freedman Bureau c. Historians say that three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices, including the lynching of blacks, founded and funded the NAACP

Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican because: The Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950's and 1960's, over the objection of Democrats. Republicans founded the HCBU's and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats. Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress. Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote. Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools. Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960's. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.26.110 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are uneducated and ill-informed. "Republican" is not a synonym for "Conservative," and "Democrat" is not a synonym for "Liberal." The current dichotomy is only a few decades old. For example, MLK was a LIBERAL Republican, who criticized Conservatives and the Right-Wing CONSTANTLY, (even comparing them to "Fascists") and he was OPPOSED by CONSERVATIVE Democrats. Read a book, and stop repeating the propaganda of uneducated Conservative dropouts who have talk shows. You will not find a single reputable source to back up your ludicrous and absurd "analysis." And next time, actually type something in your own words, instead of just cutting and pasting something you found on the Internet. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He will find those sources, Democrats were the Conservatives until the 60s-ish, and Republicans were the Liberals. That does not mean, however, that the Klan was ever a left-wing organization. Nothing screams "right wing" more to me than the 2nd and 3rd Klan's violent opposition to Socialism and Communism. IP, I've also reformatted your comments a bit for space and readability concerns, though have no changed any content Achowat (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He can certainly find RS backing up the political affiliations...but the ANALYSIS, i.e, his/her insinuation that these were "Liberal Democrats" in the KKK, and "Conservative Republicans" in the Civil Rights Movement, is something no reputable historian would give any credence to... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the IP ever suggested that. The point of hir comments seem to boil down to "Democrats bad; Republicans Good". It's not worthy for inclusion, but the facts are definitely verifiable. (Again, I think the confusion lies in "Right Wing = Conservative" instead of "Right Wing = Republican" ). Achowat (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The first few sentences of his/her comments clearly indicate that he/she thinks that these were "Left-Wing" Democrats in the KKK, and "Right-Wing" Republicans (and he/she apparently believes MLK was one of these.../facepalm) were the ones opposing them. If you Google the IP's statements, you'll find that they have been Spammed all over the Internet. Ignorance sells. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, it seems that was the IP's intention (I'm going to refer you to WP:TLDR as to why I'm not thoroughly familiar with the comments). Either way, this is clearly just a POV rant. Should probably be collapsed. Achowat (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's definition of conservatism: "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism

According to that definition, the KKK is as conservative as it gets. When the KKK was formed, the Democrats were the conservative racists and the Republicans were liberal, and given the questionable opinions on race that some on the right have today, some would say that things have taken a 360 degree turn. The Democrats and KKK looked to uphold the status quo of racial dynamics in this country, whereas Republicans not only freed the slaves, but looked to integrate them into society. When the Dixiecrats split from the Democratic party in 1948, the Democrats took the lead in civil rights and the George Wallaces became the Jimmy Carters and Bill Clintons. Moral of the story: racism falls under extreme right wing ideology not progressive liberal ideology http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166817/Dixiecrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.227.227 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• More worthless opinionating from another anoymous editor. One who restored this drivel opined that all soapbox material should be removed and that would make more sense than adding more and more of this nonsense. This isn't discussing the article or leading to an improvement. But I'll stop opposing it so that some editors won't feel the need to defend the spam and needlessly wikilink more policies that are being misused. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd remind you of WP:HUMAN. You can disagreee with his, you can feel that s/he's opining, and you can feel that that opining has no value to the encyclopedia, but it can't be because s/he isn't logged in. Achowat (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• You need not remind me of anything friend. I never forgot that IP editors can edit, I just don't support that practice. And I'm entitled to that opinion, without your incorrect presumption that I need reminded of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36: For the record, I didn't "restore" anything. I just put it in a more applicable place, and added a signature...since where it was placed by the IP made it seem like it was part of another person's post. And while the IP's post was needlessly overgeneralized, the original post that it was responding to was FAR more historically inaccurate, and FAR more an example of WP:SOAPBOX than anything the IP posted. THAT is what I was referring to in the edit summary. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Semantics about restoring it. I addressed the comment that you made. The rest is semantic diversion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36: Worthless opinionating? Tell me how the klan doesnt fit that definition of conservatism which I provided?

• Yes, worthless. And learn to sign your posts....oh wait, it won't really matter since you refuse to register a completely free account. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just made one, happy? You still have offered no intelligent argument against mine, so I will assume you have none.YungJoker300

• Great, you have an account. How hard was that? Regardless, we don't read dictionary definitions and then apply them to classify groups here. That is WP:OR. We let a reliable source make that connection. That's not just an "intelligent argument" (the one you incorrectly assumed didn't exist), but it is, more importantly, Wikipedia policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• The indication that IP editing is "worthless" is against the Foundational Principles and your 'opinion' on the subject has no value in this discussion. If you want to jump up on a Soapbox about IP editing, fine, be my guest. But in this discussion, in this forum, all it does is complicate the matter and distracted from the real purpose of building an encyclopedia. Achowat (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Achowat, I don't care what principal it is against. My opinion is still mine and if you spent time looking around Wikipedia, rather than nit-picking my responses, you'd see I'm not the only one who holds that opinion. Further, I've made no attempt to soapbox about the issue. In fact, I wouldn't be talking about it now if you didn't keep whining complaining about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Far Right????

How does WP:LABEL not apply to the "label" Far Right? I suggest Removing it from where it currently is and stating later on in the lead that "...Some groups consider the KKK to be a Far Right organization."--JOJ ^Hutton 20:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

How does WP:LABEL apply? Political organizations are given their political leaning in the lede. "Far right" isn't a 'contentious label'; hell, most Klansmen would openly call their movement far-right. I really don't see how this applies at all, so please spell out your reasoning a little more so I can understand what you're getting at. Achowat (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Methinks User:Jojhutton does not understand what "Far Right" actually means. He should click on the hyperlink in the preceding sentence. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the topic and not on the editor.

How is the KKK a political organization? Just looking at this talk page, it's obvious that it's a contentious label. And that's just in the past few months. Why don't you spell out why you think it's not a label, because I don't understand how you feel that this is not a label .JOJ ^Hutton 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Far right" is the term used to describe political organizations such as the KKK. Can you provide evidence that their ideology is normally grouped differently? TFD (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

TFD is correct. In Hate Crimes, Barbara Perry says "Most often associated with the Far Right is the KKK." Michael Newton, in The Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi: A History, describes the KKK as far-right. The connection is widely known. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to mince words. Just because I said that calling them "Far Right" is against WP:LABEL, doesn't mean that there cannot be sources that use the label. I did question the assertion that they are a political organization. I offered a compromise that nobody has commented on just yet.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It would only be against WP:LABEL if the term "Far Right" was a pejorative. The "contentious issue" is whether the label applies to this group, and there is no "controversy" among academics in this regard. They are fairly unanimous. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: your compromise. Saying "some groups" implies that there is no consensus. TFD (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Far Right could be pejorative or it could be pejorative to label the right with the KKK at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of political terms that can be used as pejoratives. Liberal for example is sometimes pejorative in the US, while conservative is pejorative in most of the non-English speaking world. Calling US conservatives "far right" is likewise pejorative, but calling the KKK far right is not. And no calling the KKK far right does not label the right with the KKK anymore than calling Bill Ayers' Weather Underground labels the left with the Weather Underground. TFD (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Far Right", "Far Left", "Ultra Coservative", "Ultra Liberal". They're all the same. Terms used to "label" one group or another. I don't have an agenda if that was what the Weather Underground " example" was suppose to prove. They are all labels.JOJ ^Hutton 00:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There are tens of thousands of articles and books written about the far right. Do you have a problem with the fact that scholars group the KKK with other white supremicists, neo-nazis and similar groups, or do you think that they should use a different term and if so what? TFD (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's talking about whether one group should be grouped together with another? It's about whether Wikipedia rules on labeling should be followed. That's why policies and guidelines exist, so that articles can be written in the most neutral way possible.JOJ ^Hutton 01:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you agree that we can group the KKK with other groups, what name do you think scholars use? TFD (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Now how in tarrnation did you infer that I agree or not agree with that? Not being baited into that type of argument. You seem very hung up on it though. All articles should be written as neutrally as possible. That includes labeling any group with terms or phrases that are and can be considered contentious. JOJ ^Hutton 01:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(out) Do you have a problem with the fact that scholars group the KKK with other white supremicists, neo-nazis and similar groups, or do you think that they should use a different term and if so what? TFD (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure I care what anyone does off wiki. On Wikipedia we should follow the guidelines as written and not label groups with contentious labels. Not sure where you are going with all these grouping comments. My suggestion would be to change the lead to "Some scholars have suggested that the KKK is a far right organization". Rather than label it as a fact. JOJ ^Hutton 02:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LABEL is not a "contentious label", but the term used to describe groups like the KKK. We cannot say, ""Some scholars have suggested that the KKK is a far right organization", because it is a factual description, not a suggestion. TFD (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Far right is a label used by some sources to describe the KKK. But Wikipedia shouldn't regurgitate those labels. That's why we have WP:LABEL, so that articles can be written neutrally. --JOJ ^Hutton 03:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The guideline does not mention the term far right. It does tell us to avoid value-laden labels, but far right is not a value-laden label. If you dislike the fact that mainstream sources are in agreement that the KKK is far right and call it that then you should complain to them. TFD (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Neutrally" doesn't mean "blindly". You're not making any headway here, JOJ. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not "Blindly". That's why I suggested a compromise alternative. The fact that some sources refer to the KKK as a Far Right organization is fine. Never said that it isn't referred to as. But the fact is that its a label, regardless of whether or not anyone here wishes to admit it or not. Just like Far Left, or leftist, or terrorist would also be considered labels. Yes it can be cited many times, but it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should bend the rules in order to accommodate agenda based or even at times biased sources. I felt that I offered a viable compromise solution, but noone has even attempted to discuss that one or any other possible solution.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The WP:LABEL rule does not apply to every "label" that exists. You really need to re-read it. It is not contentious or pejorative to "label" the Tea Party Movement as "Conservative." No scholar would disagree. Same goes with the KKK and "Far Right." I daresay you won't find any scholars that disagree with that "label." Furthermore, when it comes to labels, sometimes a pejorative one is apt. For example, it's against WP:LABEL to describe groups like the National Alliance or Black Panther Party as terrorist groups...but it would be less pejorative to label groups like The Order or the Weather Underground as terrorist groups. Get it? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading over this conversation, it seems JOJ thinks it's contentious to label the Right Wing Movement (for lack of a better term) with the Klan, and not the other way around. That is entirely misappropriating what WP:LABEL is for. the Bleck Panthers are described as "an African-American [[Far-left|revolutionary leftist]] organization". Whether you're a Liberal or a Conservative, (or a fascist or a socialist or any other political designation) there are going to be people and organizations that take your ideology too far. Simply reading Far right will get most Center-Right (US Republican Party, UK Conservative Party) editors to realize that Far-right has as much to do with Centre-right as Socialism has to do with National Socialism. Achowat (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be too quick to assume my motives. Labels, even seemingly obvious ones, should be stricken and removed from a lot of articles. whether it's "Far Left", "far right", "Conservative", "liberal", terrorists", "freedom fighter" ect..ect...ect. There's no encyclopedic value to any of it. Saying "conservative congressman" is labeling, but saying "a congressman who self identifies with the conservative movement." or "a congressman who tends to vote for conservative issues" is more encyclopedic and is not labeling, because it states an encyclopedic fact. Unfortunately society likes to label people, groups, and ideas. It makes them feel better about the world, but its never as simple as one label or another, its about deep rooted social issues that can never be solved in one Wikipedia thread.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting any traction here. The labels are widely used descriptors, the kind used by our best and most reliable sources, so we use them as well. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No I think I'm proving my point quite well and am actually revealing a little bit about human nature and the insatiable need to label things and ideas. We label to make ourselves feel good about ourselves. A place for everything and everything in it's place. --JOJ ^Hutton 04:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How could we accurately describe the politics of say, the Progressive Conservative Party (in Canada), without describing their politics? I'm sorry, but "Far right" is not the same as "terrorist", it doesn't carry instantly negative connotations. The Left-right system is widely used, and Talk:KKK is a bad place to try to change that. Achowat (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And it's not --User:Jojhutton's "job" to change Wikipedia. If he has reliable sources that this is a contentious definition, then he's not showing them. The academics and scholars have spoken...a lot, and their opinion carries a lot more weight than his. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) It looks like Progressive Conservative Party of Canada article does exactly what I am proposing here. It doesn't say Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was a conservative party...., it says was a Canadian federal political party with a centre-right stance.... It describes the party's stance without "labeling" the party as one thing or another. And MOS and guidelines don't need sources to be enforced. And the "contentiousness" of the issue is all up and down this talk page. How's that for a source?--JOJ ^Hutton 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

JOJ's definition of "label" goes far beyond the recommendations in the guideline, which is about 'contentious', 'value-laden' labels, not categorization in general. Numerous organizations are referred to in articles as conservative, and if one wants to change that then one needs to get the guidelines changed. TFD (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And where would be the harm in changing the lead to say Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present organizations in the United States, whose stance has been described as being far right? It covers the same information without "labeling".--JOJ ^Hutton 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Centre-right is exactly the same kind of label as Far right. Exactly. And "contentious" doesn't mean "some people don't want us to use that term", it means contentious. Achowat (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The harm in saying "some people say" is described in WP:WEASEL. Achowat (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Contentious- Causing or likely to cause an argument. Looks like that has been the case several times on this talk page.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present organizations in the United States, whose stance has been described as being far right. Where does it say "some people say" in that proposal?

Far-right isn't likely to cause an argument among anyone who knows what it means. I hate to say it, but you suggesting "centre-right" is acceptable where "far right" is unacceptable leads me to believe you might fall into that group. Also, the problem with "have been described" suggests to the reader that there's some doubt. That there are reliable, secondary sources that call them anything but. Every one of our sources (all linked) use "far right"; the academic consensus is clear and we shouldn't suggest that it's not. Achowat (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Achowat. Just because some people on the Internet find it "contentious," doesn't mean that the academic community does. There are plenty of ignorant, uneducated people in the world who believe stupid things, ("Obama was born in Kenya!", "9/11 was an inside job!", "Jews control the world!") but their opinions carry absolutely no weight on Wikipedia. That the KKK is Far Right is not the slightest bit "contentious" among scholars, academics, or anyone whose opinion does matter on Wikipedia. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

First to Bryonmorrigan - Is this really how you want to phrase your responses, considering you are currently being discussed for similar type attacks?

Second to Achowat - You are confused on exactly what I am trying to say. I'm not comparing "far right" and "Center right" as one being more appropriate than the other. I am suggesting that labeling either group should be avoided. Rather describe both groups as being referred to as. For example don't say: Al Quaida is a terrorist organization, we should say Al Quaida is an organization that has been described as being terrorist. Or don't say Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was a centre right party...., say was a Canadian federal political party with a centre-right stance.... Don't say Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far right organizations in the United States, say Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present organizations in the United States, whose stance has been described as being far right.

Is the same information not presented, without labeling one group one thing or another? Is that not a viable compromise solution?--JOJ ^Hutton 13:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a political conservative and what most would call "right-wing".......the "label" here is correct because it is commonly used by various, neutral sources. If this was a matter of just a partisan group like MoveOn using it to try to villify someone, I'd see the issue. In this case, with (reasonably) neutral sources using it in a non-reckless, non-agenda manner, I think it fits just fine. Leave it in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

JOJ, that was a cheapshot at Bryon; and if I were you, I'd strike it and apologise. As for the issue of "Far right" being a contentious label, I feel you're just having a problem hearing that and I'm going to let you punch yourself out on the talk page. The consensus for the article, I feel, is clear. Achowat (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That was not the first time in this thread that he had to be reminded to stay on topic and not comment on other editors. In fact, just about every comment he made here appears to be a comment directed toward another editor. And yes the majority opinion on the talk page is that it should stay exactly as it is, even if it is a label that violates the guideline. I offered a compromise solution, but apparently it wasn't good enough. I offer anyone else to suggest a compromise viable to all parties.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Achowat, I'm a big boy, and my feewings were not hurt. (In fact, I barely even cried! LOL.) To JOJ: The "compromise" is in itself a violation of WP:WEASEL, as has been previously said by another editor. The current version violates nothing. There is no reason to have a "compromise" with a single editor, based on exactly ZERO reliable sources or evidence, and backed up by no academics whatsoever. You have presented nothing at all in favor of your opinion. All you've done is suggest adding "weasel words" to the article. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why do we need a compromise for "all parties", when "all but one" parties seem to agree on the current version? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The compromise version doesn't violate anything. I'm not some idle ip, so linking a random guideline without any substance or explanation as to why you feel it violates some policy isn't going to work this time. You are going to have to come up with a better argument than that and explain why. Looking at past discussions on this, it's clear that the label is contentious or the same few editors wouldn't be making the same tired arguments every few weeks on why they think that their version is best.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You want an explanation of a link? Gladly. WP:IDHT. The consensus concerning the label is that it's not contentious, that it's not even really a label, and that all sources point to that being the case. The consensus is that "some people say it's far-right" is weaselly and an example of poor writing. You're continuing to just recycle the same arguments even though consensus is against you. WP:IDHT. Achowat (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present organizations in the United States, whose stance has been described as being far right. Some people? Where does it say "Some people"? The fact that you brought it up at ll, leads me to conclude that my comments are not being read, and I should continue adding my good faith opinions on this talk page until they are read, in full. So we can throw out the WP:weasel argument. Other than that, guidelines should be followed. If six editors decided to not follow WP:NPOV on an article, it doesn't mean that they are correct, it just means that the majority opinion is isn't following the guidelines or policies. WP:IDHT also suggests consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. I have considered and I have attempted to find a compromise to the solution and have tried to find points of agreement. It is the other side that has failed to offer any compromise or any solutions. And the archives confirm that I am not the only person who feels this way. This has been brought up before, but usually those who ask the same question are run off quickly with weak but loud arguments. Majority does not rule on wikipedia, guidelines and policies do. Just because I am currently the only one on this thread arguing in favor of the guidelines being followed, does not mean that my point is not invalid, it means that we have yet to find an amicable solution. Continuing to tell me that I'm wrong and that I should go away, or at least hinting at it, is not in the spirit of the talk page guidelines. We should work together to find a solution to a long term problem.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we're not throwing out the the Weasel argument just because you don't use the words "some people" and because you can't understand what the Weasel part of the MOS is about. We're not saying "Ignore the rules on contentious labels", we're saying that we are, and you disagree. As to "saying you're wrong and telling you to go away", you're a little less than half right. What I'm saying is that consensus is clearly against you and you should be looking at other parts of the Article to improve. Achowat (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And furthermore, JOJ seems to think this is all about "editors v. editors," while never addressing the fact that there is a clear, scholarly consensus on this issue. He has yet to point out a single reputable source expressing any "dissent" among academics or scholars of the KKK or the Far Right. This issue is nothing more than an attempt, by one editor, to enshrine his opinion in an article, when the complete weight of academic consensus is arrayed against that opinion. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, for the sake of civility, please keep the comments directed towards the content on not the intentions of other editors.JOJ ^Hutton 14:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this is "all but one" and WP:IDHT seems to apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again WP:Consensus asks that an effort be made to incorperate editor's legitimate concerns. No one has en attempted to offer an alternative solution, nor offer a compromise. Since this same topic continues to be brought up just about every couple of months, I am obviously not the only one. JOJ ^Hutton 14:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've read the guideline. (weren't you the one complaining about linking regulars to policies and not being specific?) It is not, however, a suicide pact. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this is not about "editors'" opinions. Let me make this as clear as possible: You have no academic or scholarly support for your position. There is a clear academic consensus, so the opinions of EDITORS, which are against the scholarly consensus, are only of "merit" when they are backed up by RELIABLE SOURCES. You have no leg to stand on, unless you find some RS that agrees with your opinion. Just because editors propose these WP:FRINGE views every so often, does not mean that they should be treated as legitimate grievances...any more than the page dedicated to the 9/11 attacks should give credence to the conspiracy theories that the attacks were really because of President Bush/The Jews/The Illuminati/etc. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• And which fringe theory am I supposedly proposing?JOJ ^Hutton 15:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a fringe theory that the KKK is anything other than Far Right. And I'm still waiting on the "evidence" that any reputable source disagrees with the academic consensus on this matter. If you can't find those Reliable Sources, then you don't even have standing to propose this edit. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And where did I say that the I did not think they are far right? I said "do not label them far right, but say that they are referred to as being far right". Again it's obvious that my message is either misunderstood, or the same old tired arguments are being regurgatated in thread after thread without any thought to the substance of the concern.JOJ ^Hutton 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By saying "They are referred to as Far Right" is expressing an explicit doubt that they are, in fact, Far Right. As such, some evidence of that doubt must apply. I think your issue comes from a misunderstanding of "Contentious Label" more than any political or other concern. The label is not Contentious because it is not a "loaded word" (like Terrorist or Freedom Fighter are). As such, WP:LABEL doesn't apply and the only other valid reason to express doubt over the politics of the Klan would be if there is some Academic doubt. Absent that, I don't know what we can do for you. Achowat (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't express doubt, it expresses a fact. whose stance has been described as being far right is backed up by reliable sources, and doesn't "label".--JOJ ^Hutton 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm giving this conversation the WP:STICK. Achowat (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 September 2012

Add Reference material:

Crew, Danny O. Ku Klux Klan Sheet Music. Jefferson: McFarland & Co., 2004.

76.18.38.56 (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This request has been denied as the requesting User did not state where the requested Reference should be added. The request was not made in the correct format. A notice has been left on the requesting Users Talk Page informing the User and requesting more information. King of Nothing (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Basic problems with this article

• At one time an organization called the "Ku Klux Klan" existed. This organization had certain policies and beliefs. It ceased to exist sometime in the middle of the last century.
• The name "Ku Klux Klan" is now in the public domain. It has been since the 1950's. Terms like "Klansman" or the "KKK leadership" or really anything KKK related are inaccurate when applied to events after WWII, because the organization no longer exists.
• Plenty of Klan-like organizations exist today, but these are distinct entities. They should be referred to by their organizational name, United Klans of America, Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Knights of the White Kamelia, or whatever.

See here: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/ under Background. "Background: The Klan has fragmented into more than 40 separate factions of varying sizes. There is no “one” Ku Klux Klan."

I am a descendent of a real klu klux klan member, and i think that my ancestors have done the wrong thing if i had a chance to kill my ancestors i would because they were holes get my redneck m16 and kill all 'em sons o' bit%+'s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairy panocha (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening picture

I was challenged when I tried to make the caption to the opening picture more general. I believe there is not enough evidence from the cited source to make the caption so specific as to include the date and city. The narrative in the source talks about a particular rally in Gainesville, and along side it there is an attached picture with the caption "KKK Rally". That should not be taken to mean that the picture is of *the* exact rally discussed in the story: it could just as well be a stock image that the author included in order to illustrate what a typical rally looked like, as a visual aid to the story.

If anyone has further evidence that this specific picture was of the event being described on that date in Gainesville, FL then that is fine. But I have searched and found no other sites that can confirm this, and as such I believe there is not enough evidence to attribute this image to such a specific time and place.
Dawei20 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that the description is inaccurate then you should challenge it on Wikipedia Commons. TFD (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Different types of bigotry

The initial KKK was white supremacist; but is there any source for it being anti-catholic jewish or well any other non-black group? In light of the way the KKK prevented the rise of an egalitarian system and kept racism alive and in law for as long as it did when it adopted the different forms of bigotry is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.186.182 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2013

This article was very biased.

67.164.213.238 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed template. improper format. You need to state specific edit requests. "This article was very biased" is a rather broad statement not a question or requested change couched in the form of a question. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with associating KKK with the Right

The KKK believe that only whites deserve to live civilly and to vote. They believe minorities should be killed, enslaved, or deported simply for their ethnicity. They believe minorities are unfit for humane treatment and instead fit more comfortably under their boot.

The Right are not racists, their political philosophy is no where near that of the KKK's. Just because some scholar calls the sky is green does not change the fact that it is indeed blue. I'm referring to a comment that was made by someone in favor of calling the KKK far Right. Many people falsely accuse the Right of racism simply because they dare still believe that a country needs borders. The "race-card" as it's been called, is pulled much too often from the Left. I see that same liberal bias in this article.

The Tea Party is a far right organization. By saying the KKK is a far right organization, it is implied that the Tea Party, and other far right political interests, embody the racist principles of the KKK.

I'm sure if I visited an article regarding communism and said something of the opposite nature it would promptly be "corrected", and also with moderator/admin support. Am I wrong? 67.190.1.97 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between Conservative and Far Right. And no, the Tea Party movement is not Far Right. Achowat (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Achowat. Do not understand your comment on Communists. Are you saying we should not call them left-wing because it would offend whoever the left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party happens to be? TFD (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You're making a logical mistake. In effect, you are saying that a Buick is a car, and a Ford is a car, so a Buick is a Ford. That is not the case, of course. The group of people who are Far Right is much larger than the KKK or whoever else. They all fit inside that category without having to define each other. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Echoing many other editors, let me put it this way: Stalinism was a Left-Wing ideology. Do most modern Leftists believe in Stalinism? No. Would most modern Leftists be appalled at being compared to Stalinists? Yes. Does that mean that Stalinism is not really Left-Wing? No. The definitions of words don't get to be changed simply because they might "offend" someone. Saying that the KKK is not Right-Wing, because it might offend modern Right-Wingers, is nothing more than "Political Correctness" as applied to Conservatives. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[6][7][8][9]" Does the editor of this page consider the Reconstruction era “the present” (i.e.“the present far right”)? Please source your proclamation with a credible, non-opinion, statement for any alleged link of the KKK with the present far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

All one needs to do is check any of the modern KKK websites. For example, I just looked at KKK.com, and on the front page, there is this quote:

"Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." -- National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb

I don't know about you, but that looks awfully "Far Right" to me... And since the scholarly consensus is that they ARE "Far Right," you would need, in order to refute this, to present Reliable Sources showing that this is a contentious issue in the academic world, and you will not find these imaginary sources. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record- whether one wants to share an opinion about the KKK being right wing, one could safely conclude that the KKK is associated with the right wing of the Democratic Party (if one requires a “wing” to discuss the KKK). There is no denying that the KKK has always had a strong historical connection to the Democratic Party. Especially in light of the fact that the KKK launched an effective “reign of terror” against not only African Americans, but Republicans as well. I do not think this Wikipedia page effectively conveys this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

While HISTORICALLY, the KKK was associated with the Right-Wing of the Democratic Party, that is no longer the case, as there really isn't such a "wing" of the Democratic Party at this time. And the Republicans, particularly the Radical Republicans who were opposed by the KKK back in the early years, were the exact opposite of "Conservative" or "Right-Wing." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryan- Do you have a source for these courageous convictions of yours or are you basing this on opinion only? One could say that the contemporary media has been successfully lynching Republicans for years (Republicans have grown quite accustomed to this since 1863)! Further, the Occupy movement, for example, more closely resembles a KKK type event with violence than any alleged “Right Wing” organized event including Tea Party- and the movement is clearly "left wing"/Democrat organized. The Democratic Party cannot deny its long standing historical ties with the KKK or its mob/Klan mentality. Instead of lynching in person, contemporary Democrats lynch with media and top down organized mobs. I suggest you correct the citation on this Wikipedia page to reflect an actual valid, non-opinion, source for the “right wing” claim in its first sentence. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of those citations in the article. For example, click on any one of the four that are currently used to back up the "Far Right" label. Do you have any references whatsoever for your absurd opinions that the KKK is anything BUT "Far Right"? Do you have any references whatsoever backing up your opinions about the Occupy Movement? Both are/were Populist movements, but that's as far as the comparisons go. If you want a Populist movement that is more comparable to the KKK, you'd have to look at what became of the Tea Party shortly after its inception, when it became extremely Nativist, Christian Supremacist, and Anti-Communist...all three of which are characteristics of the KKK. (On the other hand, even _I_ am not actually advocating that the Tea Party is really all that related to the KKK. I'm just using it as an example, in contrast to the silly comparison to the Occupy Movement.) But it all bottoms down to this: The scholars have said "Far Right." The citations are in the article. If you want to promote your OPINIONS, you need citations to back them up. Put up, or shut up. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryan- Your KKK.com source leads to the Knights Party webpage. The Knights Party of the KKK was founded in part by then Democrat David Duke in 1956- David Duke can hardly be considered “right wing”. In fact David Duke only joined the Republican Party in 1990’s after his failed races on the Democratic tickets throughout the 1980’s. He was not welcomed in the Republican Party and Republicans successfully blocked his participation, something the Democratic Party had not bothered doing. I know it is hard to accept and admit for some- but history cannot cover-up the long standing links between the Democratic Party and the KKK. This Wikipedia page needs to factually represent this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's denying that the KKK and the Southern, Right Wing of the Democratic Party (up until the "Southern Strategy" of the late 60s/early 70s...) were closely connected. But your absurd OPINION that this link continues to the present is not backed up by any facts whatsoever. Again: If you have proof of the contrary...let's see it. Put up, or shut up. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryan- "Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[6][7][8][9] organizations in the United States….". I checked all four sources (6, 7, 8, and 9) and none reflect this statement in terms of a “present” far right. Further, the historical affiliation with the Democratic Party makes it questionable just how “far right” the Klan was. One source leads to a stated opinion during the Reconstruction era. The citation needs to accurately reflect a source for its claim for “present far right” or omit it as sourced. No need to threaten me with “put up or shut up” and frankly it’s inappropriate and noted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake. You're arguing in circles. Either present some citations to back up your OPINIONS, or stop spamming up the page with your WP:SOAPBOXING. The fact that you keep harping on the Democratic Party as "evidence" that the Klan is/wasn't Far Right, shows that you know very little of the history of the Democrats/Republicans in the USA, as they did NOT become the "Liberal/Conservative" parties until the late 60s/early 70s. Every political position of the current KKK is Far Right (Anti-Immigration, Anti-Socialist/Communist, Anti-Liberal, Pro-Christianity, etc.). You obviously don't know what "Far Right" actually means, so trying to argue with you about it, is like arguing with a blind person about the color of the sky. If you aren't going to present SOME kind of factual analysis to back up your OPINIONS, then I am done wasting my time replying to your comments. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryan- no one asked for your opinions- you presented them to my inquiry. My argument is consistent that the statement in question does not reflect an actual valid source and one of the sources openly states it is an opinion. Therefore it should either be omitted or accurately represented for its “present right wing” claim by a valid source. If you cannot take the responsibility then no need to respond to my inquiry. The first sentence would be valid if it reflected the historical roots of the KKK and the Democratic Party. The last former Klansman to leave Congress was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd in 2010- he left due to his death. Sorry if the history of the United States bothers you but factual history cannot be rewritten to please you or any particular political party. So once again, can someone please edit the statement in question or verify the source or provide the correct one- some integrity please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

When Byrd was a member of the KKK, he was a Right-Winger, and member of the Conservative Coalition. I'm sorry that your ignorance of American history is inconvenient for your attempt at rewriting history to fit your uneducated narrative. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryan, your personal insults are irrelevant and inappropriate to the integrity of Wikipedia. Further, when Robert Byrd was an openly practicing member of the KKK, he was FOR all the historic things the majority of the Democratic Party was- Segregation, Jim Crow, and anti-Civil Rights. If you want to call these things “right wing” that is ok. However, it is far more relevant to label these views as the historical characteristics of the Democratic Party. Frankly, it seems a bit like whitewashing relevant facts. Does Wikipedia at least wish to have some sort of academic integrity or are those such as you going to keep harassing those who question the validity of cited sources? And Bryan- this does not warrant more insults or attacks from you and therefore you have no need to respond. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 November 2012

See Clive Webb's Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era (University of Georgia Press, 2010), p. 10, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[1] In fact many Klan leaders in the Reconstruction era were members of the Conservative Party.

See also Bluecoats and Tar Heels: Soldiers and Civilians in Reconstruction North Carolina, p. 207, "Determined to overturn the Republicans' recent electoral triumph, the Ku Klux Klan embarked on a campaign of terror to facilitate the Conservatives' political resurgence. In effect, the Klan functioned as the terrorist wing of the Conservative Party. Many prominent Conservatives helped to organize the Klan, and some numbered among the leaders. The Klan attempted to secure Conservative majorities by threatening, intimidating, beating, or murdering their Republican opponents."

TFD (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD- Thank you for clarifying that!! Also, notably, the historic “Conservative Party” of the Radical Reconstruction was formed by former Whigs (who did not join the Republican Party) and Democrats. - Of course, in opposition to the Republican Party. If anyone could please correct the citation after: “Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[6][7][8][9] organizations in the United States…." I would greatly appreciate it. Perhaps the quoted sources need to be moved? None of the four sources reflect the “present far right”. Thus either “present far right” is an unsubstantiated proclamation, or, it is not from referenced material and one wants to consider this common knowledge. Either way, the cited links are incorrectly placed or just incorrect. Also, for historic relevance there should be some reference to the Democratic Party in the first two paragraphs describing the KKK. Regardless of one’s political views, this is significant part of the history of the United States. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wav777 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect to refer to the first and second Klans as "far right", only the modern Klan. TFD (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For the 600th time. Right wing ≠ Republican Party (United States). Democratic Party (United States) ≠ Left wing. The Democrats that founded the Klan were conservatives. The Republicans that the Klan was founded to fight against were liberals, and Radical liberals at that (probably the closest thing to Far-left that had existed in American history at the time). That's the end of the discussion. Every month or so we have to deal with modern Center Right Republicans upset that the 'right' label is applied to the Klan. I'm tired of it. It's over. Achowat (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Then the Democratic Party lost the South when FDR ran for office, along with when Woodrow Wilson ran for office, and not to mention how decisively they lost the south when; well actually the dems won the South consistently.

If liberals want to reject all democrats who were anti-civil rights then I am sure you won't mind relabeling Wilson, and FDR as conservatives; oh and republicans like TDR were capable of being racist to.

Tell me was TDR a liberal? If so racism and the source of the KKKs agenda and values is not linked to left/right in any modern sense of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.186.182 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

well the klan certainly can`t be called the far left can they? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Right Wingers?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics - looks like all democrats to me. Not to mention the republican party was formed to end slavery. Something the democrat party and their KKK wing opposed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.148.84 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A bunch of Right-Wing Democrats. Read a book. There were Radical Leftists in the GOP at the time (See Radical Republicans and Thaddeus Stevens for examples), and the South was dominated by Far Right Democrats (See Dixiecrat, Strom Thurmond, etc.). The talk radio guys are deliberately misinforming you. (Not that you'll actually do any research to see how woefully ignorant you are on this subject...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Klan Kids and the photo that was just removed

I think that this photo is a fine addition to the article. In his edit summary Rjensen says that there were not kids in the Klan. First of all, this is irrelevant, as nothing in the caption used for the photo suggested that there were. Second of all, there were in fact kids in the Klan. E.g.

• Leonard J. Moore (1 February 1997). Citizen Klansmen: The Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, 1921-1928. Univ of North Carolina Press. pp. 47–. ISBN 978-0-8078-6349-7. Retrieved 29 May 2013. "There is no way of knowing...how many children belonged to [the] Junior Klan. These auxiliary groups appear to have been quite active in many communities..."
• Kathleen M Blee (1991). Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. University of California Press. pp. 160–. ISBN 978-0-520-07876-5. Retrieved 29 May 2013. "Tri-K club"
• Kristina DuRocher (30 March 2011). Raising Racists: The Socialization of White Children in the Jim Crow South. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-0-8131-3984-5. Retrieved 29 May 2013. "Tri-K club" and "Junior Klan" (for boys 12-18)
• Craig Fox (1 January 2012). Everyday Klansfolk: White Protestant Life and the KKK in 1920s Michigan. MSU Press. pp. 142–. ISBN 978-1-60917-135-3. Retrieved 29 May 2013. Junior Klan in 25 states by 1925.

Consequently, I think that the photo should stay in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo by itself does not illustrate any content in the article. However the text by Alf just above does that and is more impt than the photo; it should be incorporated into the article. Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of information on women in the Knights of the KKK

User:Rjensen just removed the following:

The Klan organization known as the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan has been undergoing radical reforms in recent years, one of which has been to embrace women into the group.<ref name=TSTWM>{{cite book|last=Shah|first=Tahir|title=Travels With Myself|year=2011|publisher=Mosaique|location=London|isbn=9781447805823|pages=237–245|url=http://www.tahirshah.com/travels-with-myself-book/}}</ref> Thom Robb, the national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, stated in an interview with writer [[Tahir Shah]] that "My two sons and Rachel are very much involved in the Klan. Women have an important part to play in the KKK." [[Rachel Pendergraft]], Thom Robb's daughter, emphasized the importance of the role of women and children to the future of the Klan.<ref name=TSTWM/> Shah included her reflections on the future of the Klan in his book ''[[Travels With Myself]]'', in the chapter entitled "Queen of the Ku Klux Klan". In her very candid interview, Pendergraft discussed plans for the future, including the development of a Youth Corps program for American children between the ages of 12 and 17, a Youth Klan Training Camp located deep in the Ozark Mountains, and a two-year KKK school for leadership.<ref name=TSTWM/> In the same series of interviews, Pendergraft's sister-in-law Anastasia Robb also focused on the importance of women and children as the future of the Klan: "'Women are important members of the KKK, as the Klan becomes more liberal it's attracting more and more women who see its message as the future they want for their children. It's important for kids to be involved.'"<ref name=TSTWM/>

I think that Tahir Shah's book is a perfectly reliable source for this quite specific and uncontroversial information about one particular Klan group. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No it's self published and that's not allowed by Wiki rules. He is no an expert on the KKK -- he never wrote about it before or since the short interview. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey, artichokey!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

self published books and a host of problems

WP:UGC says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, ....—are largely not acceptable." The author of travel books spent a few hours interviewing a Klan family--Mormons no less! and wrote up his essay which is mostly quotes. he is not an expert on the KKK and had written nothing else on it. His book is self published and fails the WP:UGC rule. The topic is fringe-- a couple sentences of quotes from Tahir suddenly becomes a full section on a major article on the KKK. That is wildly disproportionate and fringe. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC).

Edit request on 19 June 2013

I have expertise on the subject and feel I could be of service. Additionally, there are a multitude of grammatical errors that would benefit from edit. NoburuWatanabe (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Until you are autoconfirmed, feel free to suggest specific changes here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2013

far-right[7][8][9][10] The sources for this claim are all from obvious leftists. There is no data to substantiate the politics of the members of the Klan. 71.216.154.25 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There are four scholarly citations backing up that assertion, and you will likely not find any scholarly sources countering it. It's likely that you are ignorant of what "Right-Wing" and "Left-Wing" actually mean. I suggest you look here: Left–right politics. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

IP, you are wrong, and even if you were right, you would need sources supporting what you are saying. TFD (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2013

This page states and cites that the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a far-right, which is incorrect. Please SEE first sentence of article and the link to far-right:"The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as the Klan or the "Hooded Order", is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[7][8][9][10]." This page should read The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as the Klan or the "Hooded Order", is the name of three distinct past and present far-left.

David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem. Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, David Barton said.

Also Hiram Wesley Evans (September 26, 1881 – September 14, 1966) was Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white supremacist group, from 1922 to 1939. A native of Alabama, Evans attended Vanderbilt University and became a dentist. He operated a small, moderately successful practice in Texas until 1920, when he joined the Klan's Dallas chapter. He quickly rose through the ranks and was part of a group that ousted William Joseph Simmons from the position of Imperial Wizard, the national leader, in November 1922. Evans succeeded him and sought to transform the group into a political power. Hiram Wesley political party was the Democratic Party.

Reliable sources: Barton, David (2004), Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White, WallBuilders, Incorporated, ISBN: 9781932225273. Phillips, Michael (2006), White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in Dallas, 1841–2001, University of Texas Press, ISBN 978-0-292-71274-4.

Alanhoffer (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Alan Hoffer

None of your sources say that the KKK was not far right or that it was far left, and the article already mentions its connection with the Democratic Party. In any case Wallbuilders is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur on all points and am closing request. Rivertorch (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest News

Historical meeting between the KKK and the NAACP. Shouldn't it be mentioned? CyberSeraph (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. If it receives widespread news coverage over a significant length of time or if it signals some sort of trend that can be documented using reliable sources, then that's something else again. Rivertorch (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

KKK, Slavery and the Democrats

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democrat Party http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty

Black Louisiana Senator Explains Why He Left Democratic Party and Became a Republican https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oOysfAAsmQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not intelligent enough to actually READ this talk page, are you? Your uneducated "position" has been debunked countless times, and nobody except people whose IQs are lower than their internal body temperature actually "buys" it. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

IP, I will take your words at face value and reply. The link you provide to the National Black Republicans cites Eric Foner. The extensive statement from him is quoted verbatim in the article already. Also, in the video you provide, the Louisiana state senator does not mention the KKK. Ironically, David Duke, who was the Imperial Wizard of the KKK, was a Republican state senator in Louisiana, the Republican's candidate for U.S. senator in 1990 and won 32% of the vote in the state gubernatorial primary in 1991. TFD (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The KKK was never "far right", and those so-called "multiple sources" just beat around the bush and say nothing about the KKK being far right. Its totally ridiculous how such misinformation could be allowed on Wikipedia, then again, that is why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. As a matter of fact, the KKK was far-left, just like most of the south in the mid-1900's. Looks like whoever is in charge here is a hardcore liberal using the oldest trick in the book, lying to the low-information voters, for blue votes. So obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clairyc (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Clairyc. It sounds like you feel very strongly about this. Please be aware of two things: Wikipedia works on consensus. You are unlikely to gain support for any position based on name calling and accusations.

As for the issue at hand, we have discussed this repeatedly. While you might not believe or like the "far right" label, this is not "totally ridiculous...misinformation" or a "hardcore liberal...trick". Rather, it is a historical fact that runs contrary to your assumptions about what "far right" means. Please review Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_8#Far-right, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_8#Right-wing_fallacy, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_8#Right_Wing_versus_Left_Wing, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_9#Political_Ideology_is_WRONG.21, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_9#Just_a_minor_change_with_the_.22Right-wing.22_issue, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_9#Political_Orientation_.26_Religion, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_10#Potential_Article_Bias, Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_10#Far_Right.3F.3F.3F.3F and Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_10#Right_Wingers.3F. There are probably other places we've discussed this. We should probably create a FAQ. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Costumes

Add a section discussing their costumes. Jidanni (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

|label12 = Political position |data12 = Far-left |label13 = Religion |data13 = Protestantism

|belowstyle = background:#ddf;

|below =

}} The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as the Klan or the "Hooded Order", is the name of three distinct past and present far-left ref O'Donnell, Patrick (Editor), TFD (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan was formed and funded by the Democratic Party during and after the Civil War, NOT the Republican Party.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JNS70982 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 January 2014

• Disagree. You can read through similar discussions on this talk page for an explanation. TFD (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - No sources provided. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Republican doesn't mean right; Democrat doesn't mean left. Achowat (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

FAR RIGHT?? ARE YOU INSANE? DEMOCRAT PARTY MEMBERS ESTABLISHED KKK!!

Resolved

Why are you blaming the Right in everything on the planet? Racist organization that established by members of the DEMOCRAT PARTY is far "right"? The Republican party was AGAINST slavery. Every day, Wikipedia become more and more - Left Biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk • contribs) 17:08, March 27, 2014‎

You are confusing the current left/right = Democratic/Republican with a past that was very different. Please see the repeated and extensive discussions on this point in the talk archives linked toward the top of this page. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Larry McDonald, leader of the John Birch Society was a Democrat too. That does not make the John Birch Society far left. TFD (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert W. Welch, Jr. was a religious right guy... so..

and you know what? even if you believe democrat members' organization is a "right", you should mention in the article the democrat members established it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It says right in there that "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy" and "Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen" and "The KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact." and so on and on and on... what more in particular would you have it say?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

He won't be happy unless it says that the Klan was/is some kind of Left-Wing, Socialist, Liberal organization, just like Glenn Beck says on his ignorant talk show. Of course, that would be ridiculous, and no intelligent person would believe that kind of nonsense, but you know...it's all a "conspiracy" or something.  :::rolls eyes::: --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

but it is left organization Byron, so what do you want? lie and write "the stupid republicans did it"? and from what I read, it seems that KKK was more armed group of the Democratic party (as one said on "nazi" article talk), rather than pure hate&racist org. cause they did infact killed white people also (not *only* black) and "the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party". My point is that it SHOULD BE WRITTEN AT THE OPENING. it's a very important fact that most people don't know. at least not overseas. (again, ESL. glad for comments). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC) oh, and how come KKK is presented as "distinct past and present far-right" if you just admitted Democrats established it (?!). thnx, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.143.24 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No. You don't understand what "Left" and "Right" mean. Read a book. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

He or she is having the exact same problem over at Talk:Nazi Party. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIR. This is a waste of time and bandwidth. Rivertorch (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The solidly documented WP:CONSENSUS here is as it always has been: The KKK was established by Democrats and is a far right group. Repeated ranting to the contrary does not change that. Only reliable sources would. There is nothing more to say here. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is in way to convince you that this post is historically incorrect because you have your minds made up that this is the way YOU want to protay the KKK. As for the Nazi's, they were then communist, now today known as Socilaists or Liberals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.99.35 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What you should be seeing is that Wikipedia is not about your opinion or my opinion. It is about reporting what reliable sources say. That you disagree with verifiable history is the result of a rather simple misunderstanding on your part which we've tried to explain. That's all we can do, the rest is up to you. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The way you could persuade us is to find a reliable source that draws that conclusion. Unfortunately none do. TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Django Unchained in the IPC section

According to our article Django Unchained takes place in the antebellum period. According to all reliable sources the KKK was founded postbellum. Thus it's not possible for the movie to have an encyclopedic representation of the Klan. It would be anachronistic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It is anachronistic, but it's a deliberately and wildly anachronistic movie. That's just part of the artist's style.--Pharos (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Isn't there a link between KKK and Freemasonry? --41.150.230.167 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a link of fashion and silly names and uniforms, not of ideology.--Pharos (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Klan trends and WWII

This graph gives a interesting illustration of the social visibility of the different iterations of the Klan over time. Most of it makes sense from the article, but does anyone know what's up with the 1940s spike?--Pharos (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The period is from the depression until U.S. entry into the Second World War. The Klan enjoyed a resurgence as the Black Legion (political movement) during the depression and as part of the isolationist movement, until the depression ended and opposition to the war became considered subversive. Here is a link to a brief description of the group. Lipset and Raab wrote about them too in The politics of unreason: right wing extremism in America, 1790-1970. There are really an offshoot of the Second Klan, although more extreme and perhaps not even true Klansmen, and we should mention them in the article. TFD (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I've been looking into it, and indeed it looks like the modest upswing of the last decade of the Second Klan (1934-1944) was related to their adoption of an anti-leftist agenda (adding on top of the old racist and nativist agenda). And the sources about the Black Legion are heavy on their extreme "moralism", including anti-New Deal type rhetoric. See KKK#Labor and anti-unionism.--Pharos (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That would not explain it since the Klan was in terminal decline. But the the Black Legion at its peak had 40,000 members, and has substantially more coverage in literature about the period. TFD (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you know a good source for membership numbers? We have nothing between 1930 and 1980, and casual reading suggests the Third Klan numbers (100k+) are way above the Second Klan of 1930 vintage (30k).--Pharos (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article on James A. Colescott, who wound up the Second Klan, says he testified in Jan 1942 they had only 10,000 members. This book has membership numbers in the timeline section, pp. xiii ff. TFD (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

Would someone like to explain what the grammatical problem is with this edit, which Drowninginlimbo reverted? A response would be courteous. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much optional I think. My edit summary didn't convey that properly though, I apologise for that. Feel free to revert back if you choose --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that "gay persons" sounds stilted. No one I know talks about "gay persons." I have never even heard the expression used. "Gay people" sounds more like normal English. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

KKK was "unconnected in fact with the lynching of Leo Frank" say historians

Wiki can drop the Leo Frank lynching as a cause of KKK. Historian Thomas Pegram reports "historians have found no firm connections between the lynchers, who called themselves the Knights of Mary Phegan and the revived Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and The KKK was "unconnected in fact with the lynching of Leo Frank." Pegram notes that two men who became prominent KKKers called for clemency for Frank (Frank was lynched when the governor did give clemency.) Thomas R. Pegram (2011). One Hundred Percent American: The Rebirth and Decline of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Ivan R. Dee. p. 158-59. What happened says Pegram is that the KKK founders later repeatedly claimed the connection in order to get publicity for themselves. There is no point in Wiki repeating the old false KKK claims as true. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplify the lede

I tried to simplify the lede by explaining in a nutshell the KKK history. I dropped a bunch of footnotes that talk mention the Klan as a "far right" movement--all these cites refer to the current Klan, not to the pre-1950 era. I read through the first 50 abstracts of 115 scholarly articles & book reviews that deal with the "far right" (using "America History and Life). All of the articles and books start after 1950, and usually after 1980. Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You realize, though...that you're opening a can of worms, considering the average "But the KKK was started by Left-Wing Democrats!" troll's absurd "arguments". The "over"-footnoting was intended as a kind of shock & awe campaign to try to pre-emptively stop at least SOME of the conspiracy wackos... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. While the modern klan is far right, sources do not describe the first or second klans, or perhaps even the original third klan that way. Also, the changes were a helpful improvement. Don't worry about the trolls. TFD (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

The Ku Klux Klan was a left wing movement. It was started by defeated members of the southern states after the Civil War. In the Wikipedia KKK page it is even stated that the KKK promoted violence against african americans and REPUBLICANS. The southern democrats, in response to the reconstruction efforts of the federal government, carpetbagers and southern collaboraters, formed the KKK. Refreshit (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You are completely misrepresenting the facts, as the Southern Democrats who started the KKK were Right-Wingers, and the Radical Republicans that they opposed were about as Left-Wing as you could be in 19th century America. Please stop getting your "history" from the dropouts who pollute the AM radio waves with their crackpot, wacky conspiracy theories, and read the talk page before making edit requests that have been rejected a bajillion times. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The Southern Democrats were right-wing and would remain so until after the Civil Rights Act, when African Americans, who had formerly supported the Republicans, moved to the Democratic Party and conservative whites moved to the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I've been playing with this a bit, thought I guess really we should use {{Infobox militant organization}} instead.--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan/Archive 10
The cross with "blood drop", a common symbol since the 2nd Klan.
Leader	Velupillai Prabhakaran
Dates of operation	1st Klan: 1865 (1865)-1870s 2nd Klan: 1915 (1915)-1944 3rd Klan: 1946 (1946)-present
Motives	Support of racial segregation and voter suppression of minorities in the United States, as expressed in the Jim Crow laws. Historically, opposition to Reconstruction.
Active regions	United States, particularly the Southern United States.
Ideology	1st Klan: White supremacy, Vigilantism 2nd Klan: White nationalism, Christian terrorism, Nativism, Anti-Catholicism, Antisemitism 3rd Klan: Anti-communism, Homophobia, Neo-Nazism
Major actions	Numerous lynchings, other violent crimes.and crimes of intimidation
Notable attacks	16th Street Baptist Church bombing and many others.
Status	No national organization, numerous independent chapters.
Size	8,000 members
Annual revenue	?
Means of revenue	British Tamils Forum, Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora and other NGOs.

Why do you have a leader of the Tamil Tigers listed as leader of the KKK? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Because he copied the Tamil infobox and forgot to change several fields. I suggest having very few fields because the purpose of the infobox is to provide key data. Where this is ambiguous complex or disputed, it is better to omit it and discuss it in the article. I would limit the fields to the following:

Active region: United States

Ideology: far right

Size: 8,000 members

Years active: 1865-present

Rjensen has pointed out that they were not always far right, but that is their current ideology, just as 8,000 members is their current size and the United States is their current active region. (They were once active in Canada too, although Canadians were not allowed to join the klan in the U.S.)

TFD (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although I didn't so much forget to fix the fields, but rather got stuck on filing them all out, and planned to post a half-completed version that others could help finish :) I can see the value of conciseness in the infobox in a number of aspects (the Tamil Tigers one is quite bloated), but I think a shortening more like at Red Army Faction would work. While "far right" is accurate to the current Klan, it's a very generic description, and I think it provides value to the reader to see how their ideology has radically evolved over time (e.g., the introduction of nativism in the 2nd Klan, the introduction of neonazism in the contemporary Klan).--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the current status is sufficient. Organizations change. The United States infobox for example shows current flag, capital, president, area, population, etc. TFD (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

Isn't it anachronistic to call the first KKK a right-wing movement? The left vs. right view of politics is a European concept, had it reached American shores by then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.150.238 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists 26 Confederate Governors. ALL Democrats.

"...the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s."

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Confederate_state_governors http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwalt2990 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and? You're not likely to find any Confederate governor who was of the party of Lincoln. The traditional racist Southern Democrats became Republicans only in the mid-20th century. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's a pretty broad (and flawed) generalization. Plenty of racist Democrats still left in the south. Racism isn't limited to a party. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You should explain what changes to the article you wish to make, but I will anticipate them. The article explains the relationship between the KKK and the Democratic Party. And the Southern Democrats were right-wing or "conservative." TFD (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we see this sorta stuff because someone somewhere is encouraging people to troll the "libs" by pointing out that the KKK was a Democratic operation, assuming somehow that the "libs" are as ignorant of history as the trolls themselves are. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The only way that this will EVER end...is through ridicule. You can show these uneducated, ignorant types all the facts in the world...and they'll just claim it's "Left-Wing Propaganda" or some other wacky conspiracy. They're egged on by the dropouts that pollute the AM waves with their nonsense, and apparently they are going to continue this kind of stuff until people shame and ridicule them. Take off...nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do Southern Republicans insist on flying the Stars and Bars at state capitals, keeping statues of Nathan Forrest, celebrating Southern Heritage, re-enacting the Civil War and calling the Civil War a war of Northern aggression? TFD (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are INFANTILE and irrelevant. Why don't you just EXPLAIN why the Democrat Party considered to be "right" in its darkest times?? he is completely right. Instead of calling him a troll, Show me the source telling the Democratic and Republican party have switched.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.142.136 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC) 

No one has suggested that the Democratic Party was ever right-wing, just that it had right-wing elements such as the Klan and in more recent years the leader of the John Birch Society. Similarly, the Republican party had left-wing elements. But other editors are not here to provide history lessons. TFD (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

"They have all emphasized secrecy and distinctive costumes, and all have called for purification of American society, and all are considered right-wing"

Poorly sourced and blatantly political statement. The books cited are clearly biased sources with their overtly political conclusions baked right into the titles: "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort" and "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics". Furthermore the association is not explained or developed elsewhere in the article, which betrays entirely the lack of substance behind it. Anyone can find a source these days that accuses a political wing of racism, fascism, neo-Nazism etc (i.e. Liberal Fascism, ISBN 0-385-51184-1). Such contentious shots across the bow should be well-explained to eliminate any doubt of bias or omitted entirely.

186.108.64.98 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Articles should be based on reliable sources, which is met by both books you cite as used in the article. The source you present (Liberal Fascism) is not. TFD (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. We could easily add even more RS sources describing the KKK as "Right-Wing", but it is moot, since the above sources are sufficient. No RS describes the KKK as "Left-Wing", and Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" has been ridiculed by historians ever since its publication. Goldberg has no credentials whatsoever, and is simply a journalist who wrote a polemic book of silliness. It is as much "RS" as it would be to include a book written by Michael Moore or George Clooney on a page as "sources" regarding Conservative groups. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as explained above, and as you have not supplied even one reliable source to try and contradict the sources cited - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He did supply reliable source, you just ignored it. This book is reliable and available in the most Prestigious libraries in the world, including The Congress Library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.142.136 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

^I'm gonna have to point the editor to Wikipedia:Competence is required. If you really think that being in a library...even the "Congress Library" (I assume he meant the Library of Congress)...somehow makes a book ridiculed by every Historian that ever commented upon it into "reliable", then you are not competent to be making any changes whatsoever to an encyclopedia. Oh yeah, and here's a link to a book entitled "The Proper Care and Feeding of Zombies"...at the Library of Congress: [2].  :::drops the mic and walks off the stage::: --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All publishers in the United States are required to submit copies of their books to the Library of Congress. It does not mean that the library endorses the "facts" presented in them. TFD (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

165.155.204.109 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC) kkk is a violient group

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

134.225.177.227 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC) References to Popular culture:

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's miniature story "The five Orange Pips" tells the story in which the famous Victorian detective Sherlock Holmes investigates a case of a client who's uncle was a former member of the Klan. In the story, the Klansmen are said to warn their victims by sending them a letter with five orange pips, with the letters "KKK" on the inside seal, then to subsequently dispatch them. Interestingly, the dictionary entry for the KKK desribes their name etymology as having derived from the "sound produced by cocking a rifle", rather than from the Greek "Κυκλοσ" (Circle).

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

There's a grammatical error on the very first paragraph. It says "3 movements [..]. They first..." in a sentence that refers only to the first Klan and then it continues "The second..." "The current..." That Y has to go, so it says THE and not THEY 95.61.117.82 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)  Done - although if someone disagrees, the other alternative was to add "movement" after second - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Back to FA?

I noticed this article is a former featured article, and doesn't seem to be too far away from that status. It might also be nice to try for Today's Featured Article on October 16 of this year, the centennial of the rebirth of the Klan on Stone Mountain. If this sounds good, I'll request a peer review and probably a Good Article status before FAC. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

3 or 4 Klans?

The info box has the 3rd Klan going till 2000, then the 4th from 2006-onwards, but the text of the article only talks of 3 iterations of the Klan, the 3rd being ongoing, and mentions events in 2004, which according to the infobox couldn't be by the Klan (no Klan between 2001-05). No idea which is correct. 109.149.66.141 (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The RS identify three clans. The fourth in the info box is based on a self published essay by an undergraduate, so I deleted it. The info box must reflect the article, and must be based on reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversial intro change

Regarding SummerPhD's edit here:

It's my belief that the intro to Ku Klux Klan is sanitized to the point of being inaccurate. Per WP:Bold, I support the changes made by User:Runikmehrotra. Similarly, I had to add the word "racism" a few weeks ago, as it was nowhere to be found in the intro section of the article (and is currently only found elsewhere once in the article). Take a look at Encyclopedia Britannica. Or take a look at encyclopedia.com. I realize we're not EB, but they both provide a valid frame of reference and the disparity is objectively quite apparent.

Let's be blunt: it is likely that white supremacists constantly make subtle edits this article to keep it from describing the KKK in any sort of negative light, gradually whittling away at edits that don't sound "historical". Again, I think WP:Bold urges us to not be so protective of the status quo, especially in situations such as these.Strom (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), or simply "the Klan", is the name of a terrorist organization guilty of starting three distinct movements in the United States."

I reverted on two grounds:

1) Without regard for whether it is correct or not, calling the Klan a "terrorist organization" in the lede is a substantial change that will need to be discussed to withstand the scrutiny it will no doubt attract. Now is as good a time as any to have that discussion. My gut feeling is that it is an accurate description. However, I would prefer that the description be sourced.

2) Saying they are "guilty of starting" three movements is very odd wording. "Guilty"? Is starting the movements a crime? Have they denied starting the movements? I would suggest less loaded language about establishing the movements (incarnations of the KKK) while perhaps punching up the descriptions of those "movements". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• I support SummerPhD's assessment. It's the right call. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

To say the KKK

thumbnail

"started three movements" is highly confusing & does not follow the reliable sources.  Note that after the first KKK died out in 1870s, there were no Klans anywhere and the United States. The nonexistent KKK could not and did not start anything. Entirely new people appeared in the 1910s who who had no direct connection with the original KKK. They did  have organizational plans--They tried to copy what they knew from history books, folklore, and the "Birth" film. The second klan was indeed an organized national movement.  Its chapters in the 1920s were always started by paid organizers assigned by a state organizer & following a specific formula. The first Klan In the 1860s was organized only at the local level.  The locals ("Klaverns") were independent secret groups that had no direct connection with any other Klan.  That is, local individuals heard about the KKK and decided to emulate it locally. Likewise, the third or current KKK is a matter of individuals secretly forming a local group according to what they read in the media. The historians do not report either for the first or the third KKK that separate chapters collaborated with each other or formed regional or state organizations.  As for racism, that was a hallmark of the first & the third KKK.  The second KKK is different, for racial issues were much less important than religion. Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Strom's edit. The Klan did not start three movements, the Klan was three distinct movements - probably four, because the modern fourth Klan is different from the post-war Klan of the 40s, 50s and 60s. Also only the first Klan was a terrorist organization, but it is anachronistic to call it that, since it was not until the late 1960s that the term was used to describe violent political groups in the US. By terrorist organization, I mean an organization set up to carry out terrorist acts, rather than an organization that among other things carries out terrorist acts. TFD (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Misreading a poor source -- not what we want in this article

We have the statement by Alesha E. Doan (2007). Opposition and Intimidation:The abortion wars and strategies of political harassment. University of Michigan. p. 26.. Doan is not a historian or expert on the KKK. she is paraphrasing an anonymous pamphlet published by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Center had some anonymous students prepare a pamphlet without footnotes, and it is not a reliable source. However Doan misrepresents what the pamphlet actually says. Doan says: "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, by the 1870's the Klan had proven very effective at getting white southerners sole control of state governments and implementing segregation." The pamphlet says: "By the mid 1870s, white Southerners didn’t need the Klan as much as before because they had by that time retaken control of most Southern state governments." Note also that segregation began in the 1880s, more than a decade after the Klan had completely disappeared (C Vann Woodward, Strange career of Jim Crow). For a topic as controversial and as thoroughly studied by scholars as the KKK, we need to use very good reliable sources... The bibliography is full of such high quality material. Doan's book does not qualify-- she bases her knowledge of the KKK on the pamphlet, and then misreads it. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Note also that segregation began in the 1880s, more than a decade after the Klan had completely disappeared." You're suggesting that the KKK actually disappeared? You don't think it was just driven underground and instead that people just changed their minds and stopped working together to bring about changes (such as segregation) that harmed blacks? That defies logic. Strom (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

it disappeared from sight = everyone agrees. Was it secretly in underground operation? no RS that I have seen claims that it was in operation in any form in the 1880s and 1890s when Jim Crow was set up along with disfranchisement. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Questions: 1) Who is Doan? 2) Where can I see this paper? 3) Why are we quoting her and not the SPLC source? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

we are discussing the removal of this text from the article: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, by the 1870's the Klan had proven very effective at getting white southerners sole control of state governments and implementing segregation. Alesha E. Doan (2007). Opposition and Intimidation:The abortion wars and strategies of political harassment. University of Michigan. p. 26. The text was added on april 11 by a now-blocked User:Bullets and Bracelets (a sock puppet). Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I know what we're discussing. I'm asking questions about what we're discussing. Isn't Doan the author? My question is: who is she? What are her credentials? What context was this paper? Was it a doctoral dissertation? Asking for some info. Then I asked where I could see the paper myself, so I could discuss it intelligently. So I'm not sure what makes you think you needed to tell me what we're talking about... 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I provided a link to the book below and a quick Google search finds her page on her university's website.[3] TFD (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to leave the wrong impression of my denigrating Professor Doan. She is an excellent political scientist and I admire her work. As more or less an aside, she commented on the KKK in useful fashion, but I think she made a mistake in one sentence about it. That is the sentence that got added to this article. Rjensen (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen. I would also point out that we should always use the most relevant sources. A book about the modern abortion debate is not the most relevant source for the Ku Klux Klan in the 19th century. In this case, the error about the start of segregation is unimportant to what the author was writing about and hence less likely to be detected when reviewing the book than say in reviewing a book about segregation. And yes the KKK disappeared. Here is a link to Doan's book, the page used was 26. While the SPLC is a good source for the current KKK, I would not use them for topics outside their expertise. TFD (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

On the demise of the first KKK, here's what leading expert Eric Foner says: "By 1872, the federal government's evident willingness to bring its legal and coercive authority to bear had broken the Klan's back and produced a dramatic decline in violence throughout the South. So ended the Reconstruction career of the Ku Klux Klan." [Foner, Reconstruction (1988) pp 458-459] Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• From looking at her CV and the context of the paper, I don't think using this is appropriate. While she is a professor in poli-sci, her area of expertise seems to be women's studies and abortion issues, not 19th century US politics. Using it is hanging a lot of weight on what is merely a passing mention in a paper about a different topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Great discussion. I now fully understand why this edit was reverted. Thanks to all for their thoughtful comments. Strom (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Too much focus in the intro on costumes instead of actions and beliefs (?)

I have a fairly simple point of feedback on the current introduction: there is far too much weight given to the discussion of costumes (especially in the 3rd para) and very poor summarization of the negative viewpoints or actions of the KKK. I realize this article has many regular, dedicated contributors, and that you may have read and debated over the intro so many times that you may not see it, but the intro is extremely watered down to the point of barely explaining what the KKK actually is/was. There seems to be a fear of mentioning anything negative. For example, the word "racism" is only in the intro because I added it a few weeks ago. It is okay to say factual things that are negative about an organization that has done bad things. It's not pushing a point of view to mention murder or lynchings, with appropriate context, in the summary of the KKK.

In contrast, I think it's worth glancing through the Encyclopedia Brittanica article. While I appreciate the enormous amount of detail in the Wikipedia entry and would agree the Brittanica article is embarrassingly short, the contrast in tone with regard to topics of terrorism, murder and hate is striking. I really think the current Wikipedia article does a poor job of actually explaining (especially in the intro) to a 5th-grader or anyone else who isn't familiar with the KKK, what the organization is/was about. It reads like a historical dissection at the beginning of an academic paper instead of an actual summary that captures the essence of the KKK for a layperson -- which is certainly not just costumes and parades (in the second KKK of the 1920s), as the intro would have one believe. Strom (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the KKK is actually numerous independant groups that have emerged over 150 years, It is difficult to say much that applies to all of them. Some Klan groups for example were not racist. Also, the "Contentious labels" guideline explicitly restricts the use of terms such as racist. The tone is supposed to be non-judgmental. The factual statements we make should be about what they did, and we should not add "and those were bad things." TFD (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are entirely incorrect in stating that "Contentious labels" guideline explicitly restricts anything at all. There is nothing that should cause us to be so ignorant as to be afraid to use the word *racist* in an article on the Ku Klux Klan. The guideline only says that it is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Surely we can find a few reliable sources that associated racism with some of the Klan groups (!!). While I agree that not every one of the KKK movements and groups is necessarily defined by racism, I think it is willfully ignorant to suggest that it is not a relevant theme worth mentioning or that it isn't common amongst many of these independent groups.Strom (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I revised the lede to emphasize the key characteristics (of which costumes was indeed important--to this day they grab your attention.) Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how all the detail about the costumes needs to be in the introduction; I think it muddles up the timeline that the 3rd pargraph is attempting to lay out, e.g. "a standard white costume (sales of which together with initiation fees financed the movement)" is too much detail in the intro. Just my opinion, though. Strom (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

All the historians pay attention to the costume issue. 1) It really grabbed attention and still does; (eg "Birth of a NAtion") 2) it permitted 2nd KKK--a secret organization--to operate in public--Especially in terms of parades and marches. 3) Sales of the costume was the chief funding for the 2nd KKK. 4) In terms of activities, public costumed operations were the major activity of the second KKK. Rjensen (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Strom, you wrote, "The guideline only says that it is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"". You left out the last part of the sentence, "in which case use in-text attribution." "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source." It means we would not say they were racist, but that they have been described as racist. And of course, while racism was the raison d'etre of most Klan organizations, many focused on anti-Catholicism, anti-radicalism or other issues. BTW, the United Klans of America now allows African Americans to join,[4] although Canadians are still excluded. Of course that does not mean they are not racist, but if we were to say sources consider them racist, we would have to mention that they deny it. TFD (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but you are simply repeating the mistake of this article: spending so much time going out of your way to painstakingly describe all of the exceptions that you barely mention, let alone explain, the core race-oriented beliefs that are endemic to many (but not all) groups of the KKK, independent or otherwise, across many (but not all) time periods. Strom (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, you can't paint with that broad a brush. Many 2nd Klan groups were closer to Elks then anything best described as 'racist'. I think this conversation might go easier if you could tell us what specific changes you'd like to make. Not just "the tone needs to be harsher", but "In this sentence, it should be phrased this way". Achowat (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Please change the following:

"All have called for purification of American society, and all are considered part of right-wing extremism" at the end of the first paragraph to: " All have called for purification of American society." because the original formation of the clan was entirely of the democratic party, and the 2nd iteration was mostly of the democratic party as is mentioned further down the article itself. Here are some excerpts from the article that back up the reason for my suggested edit:

In relation to the first formation of the klan, "the Klan's primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments..." "Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic" "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party" "The members of the first Klan in the South were exclusively Democrats"

In relation to the resurgence in the 1920's, " It had a national base by 1925. In the South, where the great majority of whites were Democrats, the Klansmen were Democrats. In the rest of the country, the membership comprised both Republicans and Democrats, as well as independents" "In the South, Klan members were still Democratic, as it was a one-party region for whites. Klan chapters were closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government"

In fact, nowhere in the article is the Klan membership referenced as being comprised of a majority of Republicans. Therefore, the last sentence of the first paragraph is misleading and should be changed to show either no party affiliation, or that it has been mostly comprised of Democratic members.

Artistmcgill (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There are sources cited in the lede that support the KKK being considered right wing extremists and left wing socialists. This sentence does not say anything whatsoever about party affiliation, nor does it say anything about the Klan being primarily composed of Republicans or Democrats. You are confusing Far-right politics with being the same thing as Republicans. Cannolis (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

I would like to know how the KKK is now considered a Right-Wing Group? Because if History is proof, Hitler also wanted a pure race & his party was the Socialist Party in Germany "Left Winger" 2601:7:5900:878:8947:BC17:BCC0:B63F (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No need for change. The KKK never endorsed socialism in any form. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a "please change X to Y" request. Given that Hitler and the Nazis are not the same group as the Klan (they are only really known to share opinions on race) and therefore could have entirely different opinions about economics, you'll need a reliable source for the Klan not being extremely conservative or left-wing or socialist or anything like that. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As meaningless terms like left or right are in themselves, Hitler and the Nazis never were considered "left-wingers" either. Hitler's party wasn't the "Socialist Party" but the "National-Socialist Workers Party]], located on the extreme right of Germany's political spectrum back then. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In contemporary America, support for integration, civil rights (in its colloquial sense), and racial justice are concerns that are classified as "left wing." The Klan opposes the "left wing" positions on these matters, and is therefore "right wing." That's not to say the Klan is Republican, or even that people who are "right wing" on other issues sympathize with the Klan. But there's no credible argument that the Klan is not "right wing" in its positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.181.180 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the unabridged version of "A short history of Reconstruction, 1863-1877" by Eric Foner.
The Knights of The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist hate group that started as a social club for confederate soldiers, that coincidentally (feigning shock) hated Northerners and blacks, after "The War of Northern Oppression". It evolved quickly. They were accused, rightly so, of attacking and killing blacks and Republicans both in the former Union and the former Confederacy. AFAIK they don't have a Socialist or Conservative message No matter what the politics of the writer... calling the Klan a Right-Wing-Extremist group is not any more correct than labeling the John Birch Society a Left-Wing-Extremist organization.
The Klan are most assuredly Democrats even though many in that party wouldn't like to admit that fact. The Democrat party is often associated with Left wing causes but the Klan itself is neither Right or Left wing. What they are is a terrorist hate organization that claims superiority of the "White Race" and hates blacks, Jews, and "mud races" and the people that support them. Why do they identify with the Democrat party and not Republican? The Republican party was established for the express purpose of abolishing slavery. The Republican party was blamed, rightly so, for the war between the states and the freedom of Blacks and "mud races" the Klan hates. The Republican party was held responsible for winning the War of Northern Oppression, freeing "Inferior black and mud race" slaves, and worse yet (to the Klan) passing legislation to codify blacks civil rights after the war. Even more distastefully, for the Klan, was the acceptance of black men as Republican Senators and Congressmen as well as state legislators starting immediately after the war. The Republican president went so far as to press for and sign laws to completely outlaw the Klan but the Supreme Court eventually struck that legislation down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.230.43 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please review the talk page archives. Yes, the KKK was established by Democrats. It was and is, however, right wing -- as repeatedly established and discussed to death in the archives. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the talk archives. The placement of political affiliation in the headline of the article is a calculated effort to paint this group as one "wing" or the other. Your reliable sources are hopelessly mired in their own political bias. My assumption that this was an attempt at being scholarly and as unbiased as possible is obviously mistaken. I will leave you to your transparently obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.230.43 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, too long, did not read. TFD (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015

THE EMBLEM has an error under the Political Position. The political affiliation is incorrect! Someone has put the far right and that is changing history and needs to be corrected as soon as possible. Anyone who knows history, without a shadow of a doubt knows that the KKK was created by and affiliated with the Democratic party (Far leftist as opposed to the conservative right for equality) in resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. So this should be changed and stated as the FAR LEFT or simply Democratic affiliation. Source: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ku-klux-klan-reconstruction-era; and http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan If you deem to use far right racism in the section than political position should be eliminated because it is misleading. Mickelli38 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
FYI the last time this article was edited was 13 days ago, not 19 hours. - Arjayay (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is Robert Byrd?

Senator Robert Byrd's odious history in the KKK is highly relevant to this discussion. Why is it not included here?65.49.186.5 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in his article but his contribution to the KKK was too insignificant to be included here. He was also a member of the Democratic Party, and actually had a significant leadership position, but he is not mentioned in that article either. TFD (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):*It's a matter of weight. The Klan features prominently in the article about Byrd because it was an important chapter in his life. However, in the history of the Klan, Byrd's membership was fairly inconsequential. Sort of like how the very notable Jeff Bezos or Jay Leno worked at McDonald's, but it's not mentioned in the McDonald's article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Political affiliation on emblem states far right racism which is misleading and incorrect.

Every time I try to post this and add the links it is incorrect. So hopefully someone who knows what they are doing and cares about our history in America (enough where they don't want it to be changed just to fit someone's ego or agenda); please take over and help to resolve this issue. It is misleading for the overwhelming ignorance that has plagued our country. People are really believing this klan was initiated by the republican party and that is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickelli38 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

it was initiated by far-right wing Democrats. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with you that Wikipedia should take that off because the Klan are extreme Democrat and Far left not Right so this article about KKK should be edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickyfast (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Far left???? your source please. Rjensen (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That amusing train of thought: (a) The political affiliation of the Klan and its followers was, on the whole, aligned with the Democratic Party of the period; (b) the current Democratic Party is considered the "left wing" in American politics; therefore (c) the Klan is left wing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Congressman Larry McDonald, long time head of the John Birch Society, was a Democrat too. TFD (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ku Klux Klan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101126110805/http://majorcox.com/columns/edwards1.htm to http://www.majorcox.com/columns/edwards1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070217200558/http://www.canadiancontent.ca:80/articles/031401reddog.html to http://www.canadiancontent.ca/articles/031401reddog.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

KKK are being called right wing extremists.

I don't think this is right because many right wing extremists are against the Klan. I would like Wikipedia to take that off the article because this would confuse alot of people

which right wing extremists are against the Klan?? when?? source?? Rjensen (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The author of this article is a biased leftist Democrat. In the opening paragraph, the author elusively mentions that the KKK was "...the first organization sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era," which only vaguely implies it was founded by that other party, the Democrats in the south. Then the author unabashedly concludes in the same paragraph that the KKK is "considered part of right-wing extremism." "Considered by" does not make something true, and upon just a little investigation, we could easily trace this "consideration" back to leftist Democrats, the same party that invented the Klan. Once again, leftist extremism manipulating the media ... Peter Litwin 9/9/2015 2602:306:3A86:1FE0:3195:42DC:5525:CFF4 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

See Conservative coalition, Southern strategy, Dixiecrat, Southern Democrats, Solid South, and dozens of other articles for explanations of the well documented historical fact that the Democratic and Republican parties are very different from what they used to be, especially in the south. So yes, the KKK was formed by people who where aligned with the Democratic party against the Republican party, but that was at a time when it was consistent to be a radical right-wing Democrat. By definition, Far-right politics includes support for social hierarchy (such as slavery) and disdain for egalitarianism (such as desegregation). Far-left politics would be similar to communism, which the KKK was and is rabidly opposed to. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Historically there have been left-wing and extreme right-wing elements in both parties, and still is albeit to a far lesser degree. TFD (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

start dates

Confusing: The lede paragraph talks about second KKK movement beginning in 1915; the section on that, however, says it started in 1921 in Atlanta, Georgia. --Lquilter (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of one word

In the first line, it is written "leasers" instead of "leaders", someone please edit this.

New scholarly books

Two new scholarly books may be relevant for article authors: White Robes, Silver Screens: Movies and the Making of the Ku Klux Klan by Tom Rice, 2016, Indiana University Press

Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction by Elaine Frantz Parsons, 2016, University of North Carolina Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Here are the Google Books links:

• White Robes, Silver Screen
• Ku-Klux

Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

imaginary rule is POV

Sometime in the past an editor imposed his own secret warning in the categories section: "Please do not add Category:Far-right politics in the United States or Category:Anti-communist organizations here as Category:Ku Klux Klan is already a subcategory of these." Well no, I object for 4 reasons. 1. Wikipedia has NO ironclad rules--There are exceptions to everything, including categories, and instead of engaging in an edit war, an editor with a different opinion should be on this page trying to explain his position. 2. Wikipedia has no rule on that particular overlap issue . 3. Identifying the KKK with right-wing politics, and anti-Communist organizations is a help to users. 4) Minimizing that identification can be seen as a POV decision on the face of it: that is, one editor who likes right-wing organizations, or likes anti-Communist organizations, tries to eliminate any connection to the KKK. Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is merely about redundancy. The article already identifies the KKK as far-right and anticommunism. Users are more likely to see that on the leading paragraphs and taxbox than the categories. LittleJerry (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Ku Klux Klan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719151209/http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/granthist4.html to http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/granthist4.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113204618/http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/99999999/CUSTOMERSERVICE01/91026023/History-Montgomery-Advertiser to http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/99999999/CUSTOMERSERVICE01/91026023/History-Montgomery-Advertiser
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050827194827/http://faculty.smu.edu:80/dsimon/Change-CivRts2.html to http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-CivRts2.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081006171314/http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/hand11182004/ to http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/hand11182004/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050406181750/http://www.splcenter.org:80/intel/map/hate.jsp to http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101006202846/http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/16/us/aclu-lawsuit-backs-klan-in-seeking-permit-for-cross.html to http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/16/us/aclu-lawsuit-backs-klan-in-seeking-permit-for-cross.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100412051638/http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/Klan-vs-Rhino-Times.htm to http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/Klan-vs-Rhino-Times.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090716065944/http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/25151/life-goes-inside-todays-kkk to http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/25151/life-goes-inside-todays-kkk

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Klan eras

It is perfectly clear why the first era is distinguished from the second - the movement was completely defunct for more than forty years. But the distinction between the second and third is not clear at all. It is not like the second Klan suddenly disappeared in 1949 and then the third one started in 1950. It seems to me that there are really only two movements, with the second movement having many phases.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The gap is 1946-1950. The Klan became defunct during the war, although it is possible a few isolated groups remained. The groups that emerged after 1950 had no connection with the Second Klan. TFD (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. A few klans from era 2 persisted into the 1940s then died out (Senator Byrd's bio is useful here.) there was no actual link with era 3 klans. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is so, it would be good for the article to say so, because presently it really doesn't.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OK I tried to make it clear there was no continuity between 2 & 3. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It´s not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.178 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 April 2016

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ku Klux Klan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217200558/http://www.canadiancontent.ca/articles/031401reddog.html to http://www.canadiancontent.ca/articles/031401reddog.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Advocated extremist reactionary currents?

What does "advocated extremist reactionary currents" mean? The KKK advanced certain causes and groups, but not "currents".101.98.74.13 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2016

This page incorrectly identifies white supremists and the KKK as being right wing organizations. They are in fact left wing organizations as the KKK is a Democrat created entity and the whit neo-nazis are in fact a socialist organization. Please correct this for the sake of historical accuracy 66.168.88.191 (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Copy-pasting my response the last time someone brought up this argument a few months ago: See Conservative coalition, Southern strategy, Dixiecrat, Southern Democrats, Solid South, and dozens of other articles for explanations of the well documented historical fact that the Democratic and Republican parties are very different from what they used to be, especially in the south. So yes, the KKK was formed by people who where aligned with the Democratic party against the Republican party, but that was at a time when it was consistent to be a radical right-wing Democrat. By definition, Far-right politics includes support for social hierarchy (such as slavery) and disdain for egalitarianism (such as desegregation). Far-left politics would be similar to communism, which the KKK was and is rabidly opposed to. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not as extreme as suggested

The first and second KKK were not as extreme as the later groups. But even the third incarnation of the KKK is not as extreme as suggested. The article variously describes it as "extreme reactionary" and "often using violence and murder to suppress activists". Only a small extreme minority within the modern KKK commit violence and murder. The groups as a whole do not. We can see the same extremism within an extreme group with far left groups as well. I would suggest that the article is misleading and anti-KKK, rather than encyclopaedic.101.98.74.13 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia relies on, disagree with you. If you know of other, reliable sources, you can bring them here for further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"We can see the same extremism within an extreme group with far left groups as well." And where we can, this is also noted in Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia has a problem with neutrality sometimes, and if you feel an article isn't neutral you may read this page and follow its instructions. However, you are very unlikely to find support if you disagree with our virtually every reliable source and attempt to promote fringe views, such as that "the KKK is not as extreme as suggested". Claiming a Wikipedia page to be "anti-KKK" is another thing that will not particularly help your point. Note that Wikipedia reflects the tone of reliable works and will never "soften" these just because they are critical of something. See also: WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2016

Under the header "Michael Donald Lynching" (under Contemporary Klan: 1970s–present,) please add citation: "After Michael Donald was lynched in 1981 in Alabama, the FBI investigated his death and two local KKK members were convicted of having a role, including Henry Francis Hays, who was sentenced to death.

SamanthaG2009 (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. The NYT source was already there. I think the "citation needed" tag was for some of the details, like the names of the attorneys, although that wasn't mentioned until later. I'm going to poke around and see if I can't find something better. This source may be more useful. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I've added the Deseret source, and an additional one from the New York Times Magazine from 1987. Sources I looked at didn't mention Joseph J. Levin. I don't doubt he could've been involved, but without sources it's probably not worth including. Grayfell (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Ideology section

It's redundant to include white nationalism, white supremacy, anti-semitism, and homophobia while also including neo-nazism. Neo-Nazism is a catchall term for those other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

While neo-Nazism does include all those things, it's not that simple. Neo-Nazism describes a specific set of movements, and is not a catch-all. The KKK started in the 1860s, while Nazism started many decades later, in 1919. Neo-Nazism is even later. Many, but not all, KKK are neo-Nazis, and historically, many of their beliefs were different, although how different is debatable. Since "neo-Nazi" covers more than just those specific ideologies, it should not be used as a catch all here. Grayfell (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of what is listed are not ideologies and should be removed. There are for example homophobic Communists and conservatives. The best term would be "far right" which includes groups such as neo-nazis. While one could argue that the first and second Klan were not far right, the description should be for the modern Klan. Similarly we describe Germany as a Federal parliamentary republic in the infobox, although it was originally an Empire. TFD (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

sooooooooooooooo the first mistake is thar kkk was first formed in 1840 not 1890 92.232.190.235 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Homophobism", antisemitism, anti-Catholicism etc. as political ideologies?

Surely these do not count? GringisMan (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? It seems like the wikipedia article List of political ideologies starts with a pretty operational definition that a reasonable person should agree with:

In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, and/or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used.

The various KKKs have professed that Catholics, Jews, and homosexuals work against the proper functioning of society. Do you agree with this characterization of their positions? What definition of political ideology do you rely on?

BTW, it was bad faith on your part to ignore Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and simply revert w/o allowing any discussion. IMHO on an article like this it is important for an editor to establish, especially if you are a relatively new editor, whether he/she have a good faith argument or is simply trying to advance a POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not advancing any points of view, I certainly believe the KKK are homophobic, anti-immigrant and the rest of it.

First of all, "homophobism" isn't even a word; that shouldn't be controversial and should be removed. And, as I mentioned in my other edits, the modern KKK is not unanimous in its anti-Catholicism (see Duke allowing Catholics to join, for example). I suppose the other things could stay given the very unusual definition of "political ideology" that Wikipedia gives here. GringisMan (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The solution to "homophobism" is to change it to the word you agree exists ("homophobia") rather than deleting it in total. While I'm glad that David Duke is limiting his bigotry, the infobox incorporates three versions of the KKK. Rather than eliminating anti-Catholic, a better solution would be to leave it with some sort of clarification as a note -- the current KKK is so splintered that it is doubtful that any one leader can be cited as representing the entire movement.

If you have problems with the wikipedia definition of political ideology, I again request your definition. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The key word in the Wikipedia definition is "set." Ideologies are not individual beliefs but the set of beliefs. Since an ideology is a belief system, individuals each have only one ideology. Common descriptions of KKK ideology are "white nationalist" or more broadly "far right." TFD (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is amazing how it details the racism and other exploits of a hate based group of like minded individuals who's ideas I disagree with. It is a good thing really to see the level of detail upon the article because if the KKK were homophobic like police in other countries then their wiki article would of looked like that of a police service based in another country other then the USA (all happy and smiles with editors pulling histories of civil, and other rights abuses) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.205.53 (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Protestant

The Protestant religious base was an essential part of the 2nd kkk as the RS have stressed, eg "the organization's historical link to mainstream Protestant culture" says Kelly Baker, Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK's Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930 (U Press of Kansas, 2011); KKK stressed the themes of strict law enforcement, traditional morality, and Protestant solidarity says Shawn Lay, Hooded Knights on the Niagara: The Ku Klux Klan in Buffalo, NY (1994). Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the White/European/Protestant base was an essential part of the 2nd iteration of the KKK, saying the historic base of the KKK and the present base of the KKK are both aligned towards the stereotypical "white" flavor of Christianity is verifiable and is backed up by reliable sources. However, I do not think that saying this group has beliefs that emulate Christian beliefs is the same thing as saying this group is a valid, accepted part of Christianity. ISIL and Westboro Baptist Church might be examples to look at - neither of these two subjects are described within the articles or within the articles/infoboxes as being religious groups. Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen. The Westboro Church is basically a large family and their friends, not an organization of millions and has no connection with other churches. Whatever Christian beliefs are, the 2nd Klan enjoyed support among mainstream Protestant churches, while the Westboro Church never has. The Klan elected a governor of Indiana and was a contestant in the 1924 Democratic convention and also enjoyed substantial Republican support in the North. TFD (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And when bringing up Westboro Baptist Church and ISIL/Daesh, my point is not how many members each group has but how their articles treat the matter of their verifiable links to organized religion or religious belief-systems. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with Rjensen and I have no problem saying that this group is a hate-group, that it historically in the past had acknowledged links to mainstream Christian churches in the United Stated but what I am mainly referring to now is this edit. The infobox has gone through some recent edits where the wording of Christianity (present) has been added to or removed from the infobox. I don't think this wording should stay in the infobox since it is not borne out by reliable sources or by the content of the article (which is a summary/overview of the article itself). Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is a problem. Let me add that "Christianity" doesn't work because kkk was Protestant-only and insisted on that. ...the most prominent of their anti-Catholics was Hugo Black in Alabama--he got to the US Senate by giving anti-RC talks at many klaverns across the state. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

Knumpcy (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The founding and reason of the KKK in the beginning is completely wrong and whoever was allowed to publish this needs to be removed. You are allowing false information completely through their history, get the FACTS AND TRUTH straight or I will never support Wiki or ever donate again.

Paul Burba Disgusted and about to end Wiki.

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
More importantly you will need to cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

W.M. The first paragraph references that the three distinct past and present movements are all considered right wing organizations. The rest of the entire document describes southern, confederate/democratic people leading/running the KKK throughout history. The first paragraph is entirely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.108.151 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing politics can include confederates, and/or conservative Democrats such as many Southern Democrats. There is no contradiction there. Grayfell (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

---

I looked at Conservative Democrats, Southern Democrats. In review below, some citations:

Conservative Democrats: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Conservative_Democrat#1800.E2.80.931865:_From_Jackson_to_the_Civil_War - "...The Democratic Party split along regional lines for the first time in 1860 over slavery. This split between southern and northern factions led to a brand new party in 1854, the Republican Party and its candidate Abraham Lincoln being elected in 1860. The Civil War followed shortly thereafter."

Southern Democrats: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Southern_Democrats - "... In the 1850s they defended slavery in the United States, and promoted its expansion into the West against northern Free Soil opposition. The United States presidential election, 1860 formalized the split, and brought war."

Considering the above regarding Conservative Democrats and Southern Democrats who supported Slavery (and so did the KKK at that time), how is this statement in the last sentence of the first paragraph Ku Klux Klan: "... all are considered right wing extremist organizations" accurate? I don't see right-wing extremist or right wing organizations for that matter, anywhere in your citations - @Greyfell.

After the 13th amendment (1865) RS consider support for slavery in the U.S. to be extremism Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If only the same level of detail could be found upon other wiki articles

This article is amazing how it details the racism and other exploits of a hate based group of like minded individuals who's ideas I disagree with but thats besides the point - i'll also consider the lack of argument and detail in some areas of the article a clear reflection upon its creators whom could have other interests that are undeclared; I rated it around 4 out of 10 for its accuracy. It is a good thing really to see the level of detail upon the article because it allows for checking and if the KKK were homophobic like police in other countries then their wiki article would of looked like that of a police service based in another country other then the USA (all happy and smiles with editors that are either police or with government employment whom are pulling histories of civil, and other rights abuses by such police services and insuring the history of civil and other rights abuse is removed because it seems they are 'modern' entities where upon the historic abuses of even modern entities is being withheld by article maintainers and the like) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.205.53 (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension the the KKK is a police force and a terrorist/hate group at the same time, and/or that police forces in other countries are essentially monolithic hate groups, neither of which is likely to be based on reliable sources. And you're repeating yourelf by writing all this twice. As for your personal rating system, no-one really cares. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016

'KKK' is mentioned in the short story 'The Five Orange Pips' written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle which belongs Sherlock Holmes stories. Jeffinjo247 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done:Please rephrase the request to indicate what you actually want done in the format: change X to Y or add X. In this instance you should probably also include a reason why your request is helpful to an understanding of the Klan and not merely trivia. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Introductory passage severely insufficient in conveying scope of group's activities.

The first movement of the group - as is well documented - produced many thousands of lynchings and other acts of violence. Without including an indication of this, or an authoritative historical estimate to that effect, the article fails to adequately summarize the extent of violence attributable to the group's history. In respect to those victims, a clear indication of these fundamental elements of the original Klan should urgently be made clearer. There are estimates of between 1000-3000 murders committed during the Reconstruction era.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151E:42:E83E:B789:6F8A:95D5 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. One thousand to 3000 is quite a range for those estimates, and the page you linked states that there is no consensus (presumably meaning no scholarly consensus) for the number. I'm not sure how to work that into the article. I think the most helpful thing you can do would be to write the verbatim text you'd like to see added, indicate exactly where you think it should go, and post it here. If you can include more than one reliable source that explicitly supports your proposed change, so much the better. Keep in mind that the lede section (or "introductory passage") should summarize the content of the sections that follow. (If you like, you can add the {{edit semi-protected}} template, and a random editor will review your proposed change, but if you're willing to stick around and have some back-and-forth discussion with editors who regularly watch this page, it might be easier.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your source, which is about the first Klan, provides this information in a footnote to the final paragraph. That does not provide any reason to mention that information in the first paragraph of this article, which is about all three Klans. This article does in fact mention that the first Klan killed people, beginning in the second paragraph of its section. TFD (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It mentions that it killed people, but does not mention an the total estimated number of dead victims. From the few numbers mentioned in that section of the article:

• 197 murders in North Carolina and South Carolina.
• More than 2,000 persons killed, wounded, or otherwise injured in Louisiana. The text makes no distinction between those killed and those who survived the attacks. An estimated 200 Black Republicans were killed or wounded.

We could use reports from other states. Dimadick (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Right-wing group

Simply accepting one or more authors's claims that the KKK is a "right-wing group" is really misleading. The Political spectrum is much more than left/right/center. Wikipedia has much to say on this and to oversimplify here is not doing any readers a service. Nazis are often called "right-wing"; but they claimed to be the "true leftists", as compared to Soviet Communism under Lenin and Stalin (see URL redacted, appears to contain malware). I don't claim to be eloquent enough to write this up; but someone here should be able to come up with a better description that is less subjective ad hominem. We all expect Wiki to be objective, thoughtful, and non-partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnaffa (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We use reliable sources which the article you read is not. TFD (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That link is swimming in malware, so I have redacted it as a courtesy to other readers. If anyone still wants to risk it, it can be seen in the talk page history, or here: [5] Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WASP supremacy or White supremacy?

Should not the ideology section and the introduction be qualified in regards to which specific ethno-religious group of White people the KKK were founded by and ran for the benefit of? The Second Ku Klux Klan (historically the largest and most infamous of the KKKs) did not support a broad supremacy or even nationalism of white people in general, but specifically the supremacy of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in America (similar in many ways to the Orange Order in Ireland and Scotland, but with an added hostility to Black people not usually found in Orangism).

It did not for instance, support Irish, Italian, Polish or even German American Catholics (groups who are largely uncontroversially classified as White according to American government censuses) being "supreme," but in fact dedicated most of it's energies and the pages of it's publications to attacking them and trying to keep them out of power. Indeed the anti-Catholicism of the Second KKK was a stronger focus than even anti-semitism. To be fair, later on in the actual body of the article, it does actually delve into some of this and the First KKK can probably be accurately described as advocating a general white supremacy, but how do we deal with the inconsistency regarding it's most famous manifestation (the Second KKK)? Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The term WASP is a specialized term that refers to an upper class elite group which shunned the KKK (all three versions). "white Protestant" is the best description. Rjensen (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, is WASP then synonymous with Episcopalian in some ways? I wonder, did the second KKK differentiate at all between British-descended American Protestants and other white Protestants (ie - Scandinavian and German Lutherans) in America? William Joseph Simmons the founder of this manifestation was associated with Methodism, as was the director of "Birth of a Nation", D. W. Griffith and D. C. Stephenson. While Hiram Wesley Evans, Simmons' successor was of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). These people all appear to be associated with very Anglo and Welsh forms of low-church Protestantism and their names are typically identified with those British-specific ethnicities. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The information should be about the current position of the Klan. That is similar to what we do with other political groups. We do not say for example that the Democrats support white supremacy. And the P in the term WASP refers to establishment Protestant faiths, not the Protestants who typically supported the Klan. And the AS stands for Anglo-Saxon, i.e., English, rather than Scottish or Irish or European. TFD (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Klan #3 (today) is a small fringe group denounced by all Protestant denominations. In 1920s lots of WASP upper class were Episcopalians. (but they only comprised a fraction of the total Episcopal membership). Methodists were less likely to be upper class. The Rockefellers by the way were Northern Baptists. In dealing with WASPs in 1920s, think Social Register Historians find that kkk#2 was centered on the lower middle class, with very few upper class members. Membership was secret so it's a matter of finding old membership records that were not well kept. Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

History is also important. The term WASP was not synonymous with Episcopalians, but upper-class Protestants, also with mainline churches such as Congregational, Presbyterian, and Lutheran in the North. The KKK was generally a nativist group - having to compete with new immigrants, its American-born Protestants became anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish during and after WWI, as they objected to competing with new immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. They operated as a fraternal group as they reached out to new members. Many US southerners in that period were moving north, especially to midwestern industrial cities, where the KKK drew many members. They were also urbanizing in cities such as Dallas, which drew many new residents and workers from across the South. In some places, such as Indianapolis and smaller towns, KKK members were elected to mayor and other city offices, until opinion began to go against them in the 1920s.Parkwells (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the term dates from the late 1950s,[6] so it is difficult to apply it to the 1920s. One definition is "a member of the privileged, established white upper middle class in the U.S." That does not describe the typical Klansman, who opposed the elites. TFD (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Scholars invent new terms & apply them to the past all the time. (for example from political science: party system, critical election, realignment; totalitarian; authoritarian; conspiracy theory, statistically significant--and my favorite: "psephology") Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

Need to add "anti-Italianism" on the KKK ideology list since anti-Italianism was a strong component of the KKK ideology Maltese666 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Besides, there is no such word as "anti-Italianism." 104.169.17.29 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Of course it's a word. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure if you asked a Klansman why, specifically, he hated Italians, his general hatred of Catholicism (mentioned in the article) would be the first thing he mentioned. Achowat (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)