Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

No of members

it says at the beginning there are 8000 members at present and later it says there's only about 3000 (i think) as of 2005. Also the citation for the 8000 members claim is a broken link. It should be changed

There are a lot of KKK memebers today.KungFurules (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand wizard or what?

i have heard that the name of the leader of the KKK is not the grand wizard, but also ultimate wizard or somthing along those lines-(my friend knows the ex "grand wizard") i kno that this is not a liable source, but can som1 check it up? bcoz i couldnt find anything about the name being disputed Addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 10:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The leader of the KKK is called the Imperial Wizard.KungFurules (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This opening sentence indicates Vandalism. Can any expert look into it please ? "Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or the Kool Kids Klub are a bunch of inbred maggots who enjoy sucking their own cock. They can all have a suffering bloody death. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=132172611&oldid=131813395 --Ninad 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lbsrbsxty 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)i would like to helpLbsrbsxty 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with vandalizing this article about a stupid group. 162.84.139.92 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong is that you are not keeping a neutral point of view.KungFurules (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan Was Eradicated under President Ulysses S. Grant?

The suggestion that the Klan was completely eradictated under President Grant in 1871 is misleading and counter-intuitive, as it was revived in 1915. The Ku Klux Klan seriously scaled back its operations and its involvement dropped after the end of radical reconstruction in 1877 and was revived at Stone Mountain, GA in the 1910's. It would be much better to say that the Klan was seriously affected or its power was greatly diminished by the act of '71, but to say it was eradicated is not truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.88.101 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

KKK failures

In the early 1920's the KKK more or less had most of the political control in Vineland, NJ. To make a long story short they planned on attacking a meeting of Italians in a local hall and driving them out of town. The Italians drove the KKK out of town instead. For the past 30 years Vineland's mayor has been an Italian and for an even longer amount of time the majority of its citizens have been of Italian decent. If someone can find the 2nd or 3rd edition of The Grapevine (It was January of February 2008) please finish the story for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.99.109 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Klan

I added to this header "Disfranchisement and the Second Klan", because the Southern states' constitutional disfranchisement of African Americans and many poor whites was important background/setting to the rise of the Second Klan. Because blacks were disfranchised, they generally could not serve on juries. --Parkwells (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence from header, source requests...

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, racism, homophobia, anti-Communism and nativism. These organizations have often used terrorism, violence, and acts of intimidation, such as cross burning and lynching, to oppress African Americans and other religious, social or ethnic groups.

I removed the bold. This sentence will be fine but since its not supported in the body of the article, I removed it. The article needs to be explain how many people were lynched, terrorized etc. According to the Tuskeegee institute, 5,000 people were lynched in the US. Reading this article will make a reader think the KKK lynched much much more. This is shallow education. If I read this article and have to explain why the KKK is bad, I will say "because they use terrorism and violence" but I am not able to really support it with any facts. So someone please find source estimates.

GordonUS (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of broader explanation is not a reason to remove it. This facts are self-evident and can be found in every three-line resumé for the Klan. Numbers will be never available because it was the Invisible Empire and never kept records of its actions. There are only estimates. - Darwinek (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what I requested, estimates. I do not dispute the Klan did violent things, I am requesting it be supported more with facts and details. Articles are not supposed to be self evident. Everything needs to be supported. If we dont have the cold hard facts, then we need to tell the reader and show them what we do know. We are supposed to write with the objective of teaching the reader who has no prior knowledge.

GordonUS (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Currently I do not have time to focus more deeply on the article but I have some academic articles about the Klan from JSTOR on my comp, so if you are willing to contribute to the article, I can send 'em to you by e-mail. - Darwinek (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'd like that. The article can really use estimates of Klan murders and lynchings.

My email is [email protected]

GordonUS (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sent, hope you will find 'em useful. They can certainly be used to enrich this article. - Darwinek (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get your email. This article is very incoherent. I will like to fix it but I need some material to work with.

GordonUS (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you checked out spam box? My e-mail is on the European domain and my mails sometimes end up in the spam box in American e-mail services. - Darwinek (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"The eternal sound of Blues", a play about KKK

Hi, verybody. My name's Farhad.I wrote a piece about KKK and I directed it , We (My friends and I) played the performance in our class,Oh ny the way I'm a university student,It was really good to show the cruelty of some American racists, I'm sure theat American people are great but it's about a small gruop named kkk.I would be very delighted to share your information with me and if u want to understand more about my play,visit my yahoo 360, go there search for Frahad movieman, and u'll find me there or call me : +98(0)662 350 9754. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.240.4 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to tell me why this paragraph was removed?

The Ku Klux Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white. Those assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions."

Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert the deletion. It appears to be one editor's POV about the KKK. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is not removed. It is stated under Activities.

GordonUS (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've currently raised the protection on this article to full, since we seem to have a budding edit war. Probably for a few hours or so. Discuss? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You say edit war, and I say trying to revert massive POV-pushing edits from a KKK-apologist. Matter of perspective I guess. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And if by edit war, we are referring to someone trying to completely re-write history to paint this repulsive group as anything less than that and editors stepping in to protect an article (FA, even). But yeah, it's a lot easier to just lock up the article than actually, you know, explain to that KKK-apologist why his time here won't be long if he insists on his current behavior. Baegis (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Back down to semi. Apologies for the inconvenience. Agree that GordonUS was acting excessively (and that my protection wasn't a perfect response). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Orange, yes, I am removing the liberal POV which is to state how violent the Klan is every sentence. The information needs to speak for itself. I remove interpretive words like violent because facts show violence. People are just accustomed to being told what to think instead of being allowed to form their own opinions so they are not used to non-POV writing. My POV is to stop treating readers like children. Nobody wants to have a POV pushed on them. State the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

GordonUS (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only am I liberal, but I'm a Jew. I bet that just gets you all sad and weepy-eyed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with presenting a non-POV article? Review my edits. I didn't remove anything. The header states information that is stated twice and is not pertinent to all three Klans. I am pretty much done editing this and will like to stop if you can let it be.

Do you even read what I am doing? What edit is offensive to a liberal or Jew? Its a whole paragraph stated twice!

GordonUS (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resistance to KKK- POV issues

In some areas, there was more resistance to the KKK, with formal groups mounting public education campaigns, lobbying legislatures, etc. People seem to remove that information or downplay it here in favor of lengthy accounts of whatever sensational facts they can find. It creates POV issues and distorts the historical account. --Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this to an [[WP:FA]

I really don't have time, but no one reading an article on the KKK should read the drivel put into this article. And an FA should be held to even higher standards. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read? I didn't add any information.

GordonUS (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This could potentially be very, very notable new information.

In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant spelled out for the House of Representatives the true aims of the Ku Klux Klan:

“By force and terror, to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members, to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms and of the right of a free ballot, to suppress the schools in which colored children were taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely allied to that of slavery.”

Yeah, notable information or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its good. Add it.

GordonUS (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More of an opinion than fact. It should not be added. --God Save the South (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC

The quotation should not be added unless it can be sourced, and even then, it does not add any new information. There was enough documentation of the first Klan to establish what they were doing; we don't need to add Grant's statement.--Parkwells (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence from header...

This sentence was removed: The klan had "cross burning to oppress African Americans and other religious, social or ethnic groups."

1. 1) The Klan did not use cross burning to "oppress" other groups but to intimidate.
2. 2) Religious, social and ethnic groups is too vague. For example, it will be better to say "to intimidate blacks, Catholics and Jews."
3. 3) It is stated in the second Klan. Cross lighting was used as intimidation by the third klan.
4. 4) Its not really necessary for a header. It is already stated in the third Klan section when the Klan lighted crosses at the homes of the Native Americans. The Klan didn't light crosses frequently for the purpose of intimidation. They are more known for firebombing and the lynchings in the 60s.
5. 5) Cross burning is bias. As a Protestant Christian organization, people joined to light crosses. Nobody joined so they can "burn" crosses.

GordonUS (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is sufficient documentation that the second Klan also used cross burning - and that's the term people understand - sometimes they burned crosses on the lawns of victims' homes, or burned them at public celebrations. And it was not part of normal Protestant Christian ritual. With advances in explosives, many members of the Klan in places like Birmingham had access to explosives, and used bombing against people they wanted to intimidate. There were so many bombings in transitional neighborhoods that Birmingham was called "Bombingham" well before the activism of the civil rights era.--Parkwells (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro's first paragraph...

This is the first intro paragraph:

"the KKK is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that advocated white supremacy, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, racism, homophobia, anti-Communism and nativism. These organizations used terrorism, violence, lynching and cross burning to oppress African Americans and other religious, social or ethnic groups."

This needs to be changed because it speaks for all three Klans, when:

1. 1) The first Klan did preach antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, homophobia, anti-Communism and did not have cross burning.
2. 2) The third Klan did and does not preach Anti-Catholicism.
3. 3) Most of this is only pertinent to the second Klan and is therefore listed twice in the third into paragraph:

"The second KKK is known for preaching racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, nativism, anti-Semitism and ceremonial cross burning. Some local groups took part in lynchings and other violent activities. Violence occurred mostly in the South, which had a tradition of lawlessness. [3]Its popularity fell during the Great Depression, and membership fell further during World War II because of scandals resulting from prominent members' crimes and its support of Nazi Germany."

1. 4) It assumes the Klan is one group when the first sentence of the article states they are all separate.

In George Orwells book for writers, "Politics and the English Language," the second rule is "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." The article is 68 KB long. This is one paragraph we can eliminate. The more we can reduce, the more likely a reader will read further into the article. So, lets edit the intro accordingly.

GordonUS (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how the "always cut it out" rule can be unilaterally imposed on an article that is meant to be collaboratively edited by countless strangers. I appreciate the sentiment - I'm all for brevity - I'm just not sure that it's always going to be feasible on Wikipedia, especially on potentially controversial entries. Dawn bard (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I keep forgetting this article is FA, and by that standard significant edits require consensus not agenda pushing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawn, when words are unnecessary, it clamps up the article and makes sentences less clear. If we can explain something in two words rather than seven why not? I don't see what collaboration has anything to do with fixing errors and making the article clearer and brief. People are not going to sit and read a huge article with info stated repeatedly. People are busy enough as it is and we need to respect their time. People don't read history because of long articles like this where they are told what to think every other sentence. Plus, the more unnecessary writing we can remove the more room we have for other info.

We are talking about this article. The rule applies well. However, the Orwell rule is the last reason the intro needs to be rewritten. The way it is written now has factual errors.

And what are you saying? We can't follow basic writing rules?

Btw, I think its funny there are two duplicate paragraphs and nobody notices because the article is so clattered with poor writing. People are just skimming over.

GordonUS (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon is on another short vacation, so this article can remain in a stable form for 48 hours, I hope. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed the first paragraph's inclusion of issues that relate more to the second and later Klans: anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, etc. I think it would be more appropriate if these were moved to a later section, or not dealt with until the second Klan. Otherwise you're having to explain them away. It just clutters up the beginning.--Parkwells (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me. The various Klans are related, and scholars tend to study them as a series. Poor writing can be fixed. Bad history cannot--Cberlet (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are related, but the 20th c. ones share more with each other than with the Klan of the 19th c., except for racism.--Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation - delete elements of Prescript, as it was not approved

I'd like to move the discussion along to a rewrite, and think the article should be shorter, with less text given to what the Klan members said about themselves and their enemies, and more to historians/scholars accounts of how they fit into the overall historical and political situation. I think there are too many details and quotes here from primary material that allow the Klan's ideas to be publicized. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be based on scholarly sources that assess and provide context, not just to repeat primary documentation. To that end, I recommend the elements of the Prescript that Gordon tried to get approved be deleted, as the paragraph says that he did not succeed in getting members to approve them. So why have them in there?--Parkwells (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

suggestion: image

I suggest we include the KKK's official logo in the article (Image:Uskkk.png) -- penubag  (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is superseded by better svg version: Image:KKK.svg. The four sides of the cross represent the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The blood drop in the middle represents purity of the white race and the blood Jesus shed for us. - Darwinek (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't that be made smaller? It's depressing.--Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Activities

I added more detail to this section on the first Klan, especially because the long quote about the gentleman callers on the schoolteacher in MS did not capture the true picture of what the Klan was doing in the South, nor that its primary victims were freedmen.--Parkwells (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resistance

One way i think the article can be improved is to show resistance, not just armed resistance, but actions by individuals and governments. Some of that is in here, but it does not get much space in comparison to material about the Klan. The 19th c. and early 20th c. and late 20th c. were all periods of great social volatility - the Klan had appeal in a particular context. They did not have all the power, however. In addition, it's important to show background - for instance that before the Klan rose again, African Americans in the South had been disfranchised by white Democrats in state legislatures and had no formal political power. The NAACP and other groups, however, worked on litigation for decades to regain the franchise and other civil rights. The white Solid South in Congress that resulted from the disfranchisement blocked Federal legislation against lynching. These elements are also part of why the Klan arose and was powerful for a while in the 20th c. --Parkwells (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I made this a sub-heading under "Decline and Suppression". Also, I added an important Supreme Court decision, US v. Cruikshank (1875), that strongly affected the situation of African Americans in the South because it restricted enforcement of Federal gov't. against private groups like the KKK. This was a prelude to extensive violence around the 1876 elections.--Parkwells (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Klan - Activities

I have about a two-sentence paragraph, with a citation at the end of the paragraph, as the source covers the facts of the paragraph. Every separate sentence does not need to be separately cited. This is about the attacks in Ocoee, FL.--Parkwells (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Klan

There is so much text given to Birth of a Nation, Wilson and the Leo Frank Trial, that the article is almost too long already to deal with what happened as the Klan got going in different cities. I will try to add more details for examples of what it did. --Parkwells (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Klan was most powerful in rural areas and small towns, it was their base and remained so after World War II. Note also that not every act of violence aimed at e.g. blacks was committed by the Klan. Common thing were groups of thugs attacking black citizens in the South. They didn't have to be in robes, subsequently it was hard to determine if it was committed by the Klan. - Darwinek (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The second Klan had much more presence and many members in many cities. Its force may have been more pervasive in small towns in the South, but it was definitely also an urban phenomenon in the postwar iteration. This was the place many people had moved to, and cities were the places of the most tension. Yes, in MS and some states with large rural areas, after WWII, the Klan was active there, but they were also very active in Birmingham, AL, for instance, and in Little Rock, AR.--Parkwells (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Present

Given the small numbers of current KKK, I think at least one of the color photos at the end should be removed. Having two of members in colorful costumes only makes them look more important than they are.--Parkwells (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is full of old, black and white photos. Having some color photos of the current Klan is beneficial to the article. --God Save the South (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not as if the costumes make them look important. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the one picture with the, uh, portly guys could probably be removed. While it may show a greater variety in costume color (shiny!), the picture is dark and not nearly as good as the other one from Mississippi. If a picture were to be removed, which it should because the 3 pictures for such a tiny section seems a bit much, it should be the shiny, portly picture. Baegis (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross Lighting vs. Cross Burning

Overwhelming consensus that no change will be made. Save the South is urged to respect this consensus if he chooses to edit the article further. Baegis (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The correct term is Cross Lighting. The reason the Klan lights the cross is not to burn and destroy the cross, but to light it and have it seen. The fiery cross is a symbol that has long been popular with the Christian faith, for example the Methodist denomination uses the fiery cross as their symbol. And furthermore, as to which term should be used in Wikipedia, MOS:IDENTITY states "Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself." --God Save the South (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Have you actually visited the article in question? Visit it and there is your answer, end of discussion. Baegis (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC) And it says that the Klan refer to it as Cross Lighting, which is their self-identification of the activity. It is not our place to deem what is and is not sacreligious. --God Save the South (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Changing "cross-burning" to "cross lighting" throughout the article? Not gonna happen. R. Baley (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC) It is not up to you which MoS guidelines you do or don't follow, just because you want to attach negative connotations to an activity. We are meant to write in neutral terms. --God Save the South (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a newscast covering a clan rally that mentioned a cross "lighting". Cross burning, yes. Regardless, it doesn't matter what 8000 racists want to call their little activity. It is much more widely known as cross burning. 92,000 google hits for cross burning. 26,000 for cross lighting, but that is not taking into account the fact cross lighting can also simply refer to two lights intersecting (films, photography). Cross lighting and KKK searches? 1200. Stop this nonsense. Baegis (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The Google search is not an accepted method of determining what phrase to use on wikipedia. Particulary as the results would be scewed by the masses of liberal media. The fact is that the MoS prescribes self-identification, and the term the Klan uses is Cross Lighting. --God Save the South (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The masses of liberal media? Dear God, this gets better by the minute. Any 9/11 conspiracies you want to lay on us? Baegis (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC) It's not up to me, your right. But I don't have to attach a negative connotation, in many almost all cases the cross *burnings* were inherently negative, that's NPOV -not negotiable and supersedes any guideline. If you persist in wasting bandwith over this triviality, I would have to question your ability to edit this article in a NPOV fashion. R. Baley (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The fundamental difference is 'burning' the cross implies the purpose of the lighting/burning is to destroy the cross. Lighting the cross implies it is lit so it may be seen. Now whether it is lit to guide Jesus back to earth or to intimidate blacks is irrelevant, as it is still being lit to be seen, not destroyed. Can you understand that? I don't know how to make it any clearer. --God Save the South (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC) No one speaks for the Klan any more since it is decentralized. When they light a cross in front of someone's house, they don't stick around to make sure it does not go out. It burns itself out. Cross burning is the way photos have been captioned, and the way the activity has been described for decades, by contemporaries in the South.--Parkwells (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Quite apart from the issue of which term is more appropriate, God Save the South has misunderstood MOS:IDENTITY, which refers to the way people describe themselves. This guideline would be relevant if we were to discuss, for example, the merits of employing the term "Klansmen", but is irrelevant to the current discussion. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Clearly the term "cross burning" is accepted in scholarship about Klan activities. If there is a verifiable reference for making a distinction, there could be room for explaining whatever controversy may exist about the terminology. (But not for editing the article to match the public relations agenda of Klan-sympathizers) --Dystopos (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) And clearly if scholarship uses "cross burning" this discussion should now end. Why do we waste time with one POV-warrior? If a half-dozen historians discussed this name with us, I'd sit up and take notice. What a discussion. Today, Klansmen lit their crosses mostly on their private properties. Burning cross to intimidate others can be prosecuted but U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is your constitutional right to light/burn the Fiery Cross or whatever else. - Darwinek (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks, StAnselm, Dystopos, and Darwinek, let's end it.--Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" section

This needs to either be expanded by a huge amount or removed entirely... Two pop culture mentions is pathetic given the huge amount of KKK references that are out there (it's a great target for parody.) There's also already a long section at Ku Klux Klan regalia and insignia. What do you guys think? I almost think Ku Klux Klan in popular culture could be its own article... Hmmmmmmm... Grandmasterka 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section was only added recently. I agree it needs expanded. There should definately be a mention of Ari Shaffir, a brilliant (in my opinion) Jew Jewish comedian. He did a piece in his series 'The Amazing Racist' in a Ku Klux Klan robe, it was hilarious and has had many hits on youtube. --God Save the South (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• My opinion is that "in popular culture" sections and articles are just ridiculous. (See discussion at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles) --Dystopos (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. This article is already long, so Popular Culture should not be added here. Leave it with KKK regalia and insignia. --Parkwells (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs here, its place is in the KKK article, not one on its regalia. --God Save the South (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jew comedian? I'm not even going to bother asking for an apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, another editor changed it to "Jewish", but I reverted the edit, because I suspected "Jew comedian" is precisely what GSTS intended to say. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's gotta go (the section). It adds absolutely nothing to the article as whole. Baegis (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 'Jew comedian' to 'Jewish comedian'. Hopefully we can put that issue behind us now and obtain a consensus on the issue at hand, whether or not to include a Popular Culture section. --God Save the South (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to a popular culture section. The article is already long enough and I don't think such a section would add much.--Parkwells (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

From what I remember, protection was orginally put in place due to edit warring over whether to call Cross lighting Cross burning. Now that that debate has finished, and consensus found for now, can the article be unlocked so that we might all get back to improving it? --God Save the South (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be best for you if you brought every change you plan on making to this talk page before editing. Short of gross misspellings or grammatical errors, of course. If you can agree to that, then the article should be unprotected. Baegis (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was more or less over edits such as this that were made by other editors. I'm willing to unprotect on the basis that the editors have moved elsewhere, and that they have noticed that pointless edit warring only leads to full protection. seicer | talk | contribs 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you are implying that I (and the other editors who reverted the same nonsense) was the reason for this protection? I surely hope that is not what you are implying by that diff. Surely I am mistaken. Baegis (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I posted the wrong diff. Thanks for pointing out that! seicer | talk | contribs 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscategorization

This article should not be in Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations, as the Klan has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In fact, to Americans, the Klan isn't even "foreign." --71.191.135.128 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed.--Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Five Klan Eras?

Several scholars and some of the Klans themselves refer to five eras of KKK activity. Why reduce that to three?--Cberlet (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to rely on third-party, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, not groups' self appraisals. Given the intense attention and sometimes warfare on this site (it was blocked against all editing for some time), I recommend that you post your proposals for change, with sources, before doing such drastic editing to the main article. It's not clear what purpose would be served, since it seems there have been two major periods - post Civil War and 1915-1930s, with various small groups after that. Yes, they continued to murder in the South and destroy property, but there is no point in giving them publicity.--Parkwells (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC

Well, since the current page reflects social science on organized white supremacist groups that is about 20 years out of date, I thought I was suggesting scholarly cites, but in case you have not read any recent literature, you might glance at David Chalmers. Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.

Also note that another page on Wikipedia already references the Fifth Era KLan [here].--Cberlet (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this article, so don't know why the original editors used three major periods. The Klan is not a chief interest of mine, but my interest has been to try to show how Klan activity came out of other social tensions and context, rather than focus on every act of violence or only their story about themselves, or the most favorable quotes. I just wanted to let you know that there has been a lot of controversy over the article, with editing wars. Thanks for the reference suggestion above. The barely stub article you linked to has no sources, so no reference for the "Fifth Era" KKK.--Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will round up a bunch of scholarly cites and provide them. Most sociologists who write about the KKK and other organized White Supremacist groups refer to five eras. This is not to promote the KKK, but to describe them as a socio-political movement with different phases of growth, ideological shifts, and reframings.--Cberlet (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will be willing to undertake a major rewrite of the article. You can see from the sources that most were historians (which is my background) as opposed to sociologists (they may likely have drawn from sociologists, too, but their own books were considered histories.) That's not to say that there is not material to learn from sociologists, but the article is very long already. It's not up to me to decide, but you had better try to get a consensus here before making major edits.--Parkwells (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KKK v. white paramilitary organizations

After the first KKK was subdued during Reconstruction, white southern efforts to overturn Republican rule did not cease. Some historians have said that for all of the KKK's notoriety, white paramilitary groups that arose during the 1870s, such as the White League in LA, Red Shirts in MS, NC and SC; and rifle clubs throughout the South were more organized, effective and important in achieving political aims of overthrow of the Republican Party in the South. I think there should be mention of them in that respect in this article, but wanted to propose it here first. One historian described them as "the military arm of the Democratic Party" and instrumental in achieving the final overthrow of Republican rule and suppressing the black vote enough for white Democrats to regain office.--Parkwells (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony in your statement is beyond belief. Now the Democratic Party's nominee may well be black. But I digress. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the irony of my statement, but the ironies of history - one of the first was the realignment of conservative white Democrats with the Republicans. Studying history should temper anyone's sense of immutabilities.--Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Knights of The KKK is not racist

I would like to point out that the group mentioned "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" is not a racist organization, but a group promoting white pride and heritage. This can be misleading to people not familiar with this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.111 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the point of view. ;) - Darwinek (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

.Well I think his point of view is racist... admit your the real founder of the kkk... black pride!!

if you dont want to be perceived as racist then dont call yourslef knights of the kkk its as simple as that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.246.185 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah!! the kkk is a racist thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.3.94 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do KKK really call themselves Christians? It offends me that they overlook the verses in the Bible that say ALL people are equal.. And don't try to say that African Americans aren't people. Because it's been proven that they are just as Human as any Caucasian, or ANY other person, for that matter, and deserve the same rights as everyone else. KKK is racist. It's no different than the Nazi's view, that white people are "superior." Pride is fine. I for one am white, but I say that people of ALL races should have pride in their heritage. All people are equal. No matter their beliefs, outisde appearances, whatever. --The Wolfe22 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys are soapboxing and making comments that are not about the article. They can be removed.--Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All new material needs sources

Where are the "Sources" for the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.126.200 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

People who add material without sources will find it quickly removed. Editors have worked hard to base the article on reliable third-party sources, not on opinion and anecdote.--Parkwells (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

i really wish you guys would shut up

Just a reminder

As horrible as some of us may think this is, let's keep a neutral viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of us? I think every sane person finds this despicable. Spykeesam (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how we all feel we should endeavour to keep the article as neutral as possible, this is an encyclopedia after all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.155.43 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation, please, for 'A federal grand jury in 1869 determined the Klan was a "terrorist organization." '

I am doubtful that a grand jury labelled the KKK a "terrorist organization" in 1869, as that terminology was not in common English usage at that time.

The word "terrorist" was not commonly used in English until 1947, according to this source:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=terrorist&searchmode=none

..."Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine"...

Please provide a citation to the actual jury findings. The use of quotation marks implies literal verbiage that seems very unlikely.

Kevindraz (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Oxford English Dictionary, which is probably the leading text for the history of English words states that "terrorist" was used as early as 1795 to describe the Reign of Terror in France, and since 1866, it specifically was used as "any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation." Though "terrorist organization" seems contemporary in usage, it was used to describe the KKK. I find it amusing that you would selectively bring up the definition above regarding Jewish tactics in Palestine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced materials

The exact or approzimate numbers of KKK members of the past and present are unsourced and unverified.

Please resolve this.

88.105.71.197 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Ku Klux is derived from the Greek kuklos (meaning circle). Klan is clan with a k to match the first letter of the other two words (I assume). Source: GCSE Modern World History Second Edition by Ben Walsh, publisher Hodder Education. There's a picture here: http://www.bookrabbit.com/catalogue/detail/bookid/3646496 194.81.36.61 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

KKK: pop culture references

• In the 1989 movie "Fletch Lives"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletch_Lives ), some protagonists in the story are members of the KKK, there's a scene in wich the hero (played by Chevy Chase) infiltrate a Klan meeting. This could be added to the section.

74.12.228.176 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

KKK rumor

There is a rumor going around that the KKK supports Obama: http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227 Probably not true, but it may be worth putting in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.211.36 (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, rumors are not appropriate.--Parkwells (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The KKK do not support Obama. There was a large convention of supremacist organizations late last or early this year, in which the chairperson voiced his preference of Obama over Giuliani, and gave reasons why Obama would be a good choice. Personally, I am not suprised. If the chair of this group can unite the oft-violent rival organizations long enough for a large-scale gathering, then he's certainly got to be charismatic enough and progressive enough to support a colored or woman president if their politics are right. Obama's politics are garbage, on the other hand, so it confuses me greatly to have found their support for him over Clinton. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't like any of the candidates. I would prefer someone like Mike Huccabee, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, or JC Watts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.206.11 (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

kkk

i wonder what was going on in their minds for them to be like this. Well they still are. Many people died because of them. I heard that either the mayor of houston let some kkk leaders into the city. I have never truly experinced them. I only know what i have researched and heard. By:MzElmo 12 july 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MzELMO (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

these bastards make me feel sick... if thats true then thats just messed up (82.32.156.156 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Please edit this article to reflect the truth behind the origins and purpose of the KKK.

I do not advocate hate, terrorism, or racism, but I am a serious supporter of truth in history. One of my biggest pet peaves is the misrepresentation of the South, the Confederacy, the Union, and the causes and aftermath of the War of Secession.

The original KKK was *not* a hate group. It was *not* a terrorist organization. It was *not* a supremacist group.

The original KKK was formed with no political intent at all, as a social club akin to a college fraternity, which evolved into a large organization that served as a contributor of order and justice during the Recunstruction. The Federal Government as well as the Northern media, however, noted *all* organizations as 'Ku Klux,' whether they were truly KKK, impersonating KKK, or had absolutely nothing at all to do with the KKK. This continued even after the voluntary disbanding of the true KKK by the Grand Wizard, Gen. Forrest upon agreement with then-president Grant in 1869.

In truth, the true, original, KKK was a beneficial and ultimately neccessary organization in the South during the Recunstruction, and was comprised primarily of ex-Confederates, with membership also including Jews, Negroes, ex-Union soldiers, and more. It resorted to violence only to combat violence, and the many battles waged between the Federalist organizations and the KKK were caused by political means and manipulations of the local population, both white and black.

Every "KKK" organization since then, and many organizations which acted concurrently with the KKK which were dubbed 'Ku Klux' by the media and Feral Government, have been perversions of the truth, and have served only to besmirch the altruistic and noble intentions of the original. Current groups which claim the title of the KKK, trying to resurrect it in a fashion which is not loyal to its original purpose, are abhorrent, and I am stuttering and stallign in typing because of the extent of my ire regarding the topic.

I recommend that each of you check out the Indiana Historical Research Foundation website on the KKK, specifically at http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm, but also the various other pages throughout the site. It is a wealth of accurate, and fairly frequently updated information.

74.61.78.14 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is, contrary to what this article says, the KKK isn't the US version of Hamas or Al-Qaeda or Abu Sayyaf, or the IRA, or the Revolutionary United Front or the white version of the Nation of Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.206.11 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am saying. Hamas is a political organization which uses violence against people and nations to further their own ends, while at the same time providing beneficial aid to the needy in their own group. The KKK reacted the same way to all, without political motive, harming only those who sought to harm. Al-Qaeda is a religious extremist group. The closest relationship I can give them to anything similar is that of the old-world crusaders. The KKK never attempted to attack the Union, merely to prevent the corruption brought to the South by the Union carpetbaggers et al. I am afraid I am ignorant of what Abu Sayyaf is, but it sounds akin to the name of one of those jihadist leaders that gets tossed about on CNN all the time. The IRA is similar to the KKK in that their purpose was more beneficial than negative, although I would consider them to be revolutionaries akin to our own 'Colonist' armies in the 1700s. They fought to preserve their ways in their own country, and attacked their oppressors (the British). They may also be likened to the French revolutionaries and the resistance during the occupation of France in WW2. In that respect, they may be similar to the KKK... but they have different purposes. I support the IRA's intent, but not neccessarily their methods (I am Irish myself). However, didn't they disarm shortly after 9-11 and become solely political? The Revolutionary United Front and Nation of Islam are also organizations I am not familiar with, but the one thing I can say for certain is that in my time in the USN, each of the above (save Abu Sayyaf, as I do not recognize it) is listed in the US Government's terrorist organizations list, as is the KKK. And do please keep in mind that I do not support those groups currently claiming to be KKK. Skinheads, supremacists, neo-nazis, and the like. I do, however, maintain that the KKK was a neccessary part of the South during the reconstruction. I also maintain that after its original disbanding, their usefulness had worn out, and imitators after the fact were and are abominations. I refer you to - it is a most thorough essay, and those of you who disapproved of the lack of refereces in the last page I submitted for your perusal may be assuaged at least in part by reading through this one, which includes the original credo of the KKK in whole.

74.61.78.14 (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Real nice, deleting my link reference. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Klan was probably the only outlet left for any number of former Confederates to exercise some political and social influence in a rapidly changing "South" while having lost their political rights. How they practiced said influence is another matter. "No one knew how many temporarily lost the vote, but one estimate was 10,000 to 15,000." By the time Nathan Bedford Forest, its nominal leader, tried to organize the disbandment of the Klan in 1869, that was no longer the case. Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama had all rejoined the Union, gained representation in congress and political activities could start once again. The Democrats were back in business with a vengeance. "In 1868, Georgia Democrats, with support from some Republicans, expelled all 28 black Republican members (arguing blacks were eligible to vote but not to hold office.)". Quite a sign that the Klansmen could achieve their goals through relatively legitimate means, methods including political manipulations rather than armed conflicts. Dimadick (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Care to mention specific examples of members of the Ku Klux Klan who were "Jews" and "Negroes"? Suggest sources which mention such members? Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the url, the first website noted above is a KKK website, not the Indiana Historical Research Foundation. It doesn't even bother to try to have sources for its inaccurate and incomplete information.--Parkwells (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to the recent additions above referencing what appears to be an anonymous 19th c. document by someone trying to justify the nobility of the KKK, historians have documented KKK actions (Freedmen's Bureau agent records gave a dismal account of outrages), which went far beyond "simply" trying to prevent or control Union carpetbaggers. Reading the group's original credo is hardly sufficient for understanding all that took place: their many violent attacks and killings of freedmen and destruction of their property, their attacks on white allies, schoolteachers and others. Their actions were political in the large sense of trying to master a situation, and they definitely were trying to enforce white supremacy. Yes, some unaffiliated people probably used hoods and the KKK name to settle private grudges, but the movement was quite well documented. Since members were sworn to secrecy and in widely dispersed groups anyway, it is an overstatement to assert that the "true KKK" was only honorable and others did all the dirty work. (The post-Civil War era anonymous writing on the referenced website is not a sufficiently valid source; it has inaccuracies of fact and certainly is written from within the white community.) The KKK were called terrorists in Congressional hearings, as Congress heard about the many acts of violence committed against freedmen and others. They can be likened to insurgent groups in Iraq since the US invasion. --Parkwells (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That comparison is surprisingly appropriate, as the Iraq war is to increase the civil rights of people living there and the Democrats wanted us out of the South as well.--69.234.209.214 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is "us"? The Union army/Reconstructionists? The Iraq War was not to aid the civil rights of the Iraqi people. That result is incidental to the stated purpose of disarming Saddam of his non-existent WMDs. Tiger Khan (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW

Well, there was very importaint information that was, not to my suprise, omitted. Yes the KKK was formed in part by Gen Forrest, but it was because after the end of the Civil War, Northern industrialists came to the south, and basically forbade former civil war soldiers and the like, to vote, hold land and basically take away basic rights. Now in that time, it was believed that blacks, were inherently superstisious. So they thought that, maybe if they dressed as ghosts, that this would help cause those who came to flee. Well, when the first violence started, Gen Forrest actually DISBANDED the KKK, as this was not the original intent of thier organization. And years later, it was reformed in different factions which have evolved to what the KKK is today, and in my opinion, not even close to the original purpose of the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.216.146 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of mythology being written on this page. You may disagree with the article, but it cites historic research and recognized sources. The KKK claimed it was needed to combat violence, but somehow the odds always ran the other way; they killed many freedmen and attacked whites. This is documented, unlike the musings above. Historians describe the KKK as numerous secret vigilante groups, insurgents, in a contemporary word people might recognize. If they were so honorable, they would not have had to hide behind masks. They were unwilling to live with the terms of defeat and were continuing to fight the war privately.

• Confederate veterans were not prohibited from owning land. The national Congress temporarily did prevent men who had been active with the Confederate government or leading the army from voting - not unreasonable since they had tried to break up the Union. This was not a lifetime disfranchisement, unlike the laws the conservative white Democrats passed later in the century across the South that disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites for more than six decades. Read more history before posting a bunch of views here.--Parkwells (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

'When, in the course of human events, it becomes self-evident...' do you recognize that paraphrasing? It is the right, as declared in that declaration, of every people to have independance. They were not trying to 'break the union,' but were trying to preserve their own economic and social systems. The confederates were, in my opinion, treated exactly as the Continentals were by the British, and were just responding in kind. Read through any of the books about Abraham Lincoln, not the 'Great Emancipator' type books that practically make him out to be a saint, but the ones that delve more into his quotes, personality, and the people who had to deal with him. He was more interested in the breaking of the Union than were the Confederates. I make no claims that even these books are completely objective, and the truth has to lie somewhere in between, but for the people of the North, he was barely tolerable. For the people of the South, he was a tyrant. Although, I believe i read somewhere that Lincoln's plan for reconstruction was a great deal less severe than his successor's. When i can back that up with some reference material, I'll be sure to post it for your perusal. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Relegion Choice

What is the Relegion (Church Choice} of a White person that feels that White people don't have a support group and are ridiculingly nieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.67 (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Tiger Khan (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking, but the overwhelming religious peference of a Klan member is along the lines of Protestantism, usually Baptist or Methodist, although there are a number of Catholics, as well. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure when you found Catholic Klansmen, but they'd be an anomoly. The Klan has always been anti-Catholic, believing that Catholic use of saints and the status of the Pope as God's representative conflict with their Protestant beliefs. They also frequently believe in conspiracy theories about the Vatican. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Baxley, GA. Small Klan presence there. My uncle is both catholic and a Klansman. Jaguitar (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not always. Technically the 19th century Klan was not particularly interested in religious matters and we can only speculate on the religious affiliations of its members. The Anti-Catholicism seems to enter Klan ideas in 1915, along with Antisemitism and Nativism. However the central administration of the Klan dissolved back in 1944. Since then "the Klan" is actually the Klans, a number of independent organizations divergent in terms of ideology. Whether some of them have dropped the Anti-Catholicism of their predecessors would probably be better known to those more familiar with them. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When I say "always" I mean the modern Klan. Whether or not they had Catholics among their ranks over 100 years ago is fairly irrelevent when the question was asked more present tense than anything else. There weren't that many independent organizations until the SPLC lawsuit. And, as I clearly stated, Catholics would be unusual. They'd be more the exception than the rule. I stand by my answer. It was a general answer about the modern Klan. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources that point to numerous Klan-affiliated groups earlier than the SPLC lawsuit, as in Diane McWhorter's book on Birmingham, in which she notes many small KKK groups in the 1940s and 1950s.--Parkwells (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it confused you when I said "weren't that many". Somehow you took that as meaning "none". While there may have been small groups, the majority belonged to larger organizations. Hell, this article mentions their anti-Catholic bias. Why are you quibbling about it. I said there may be SOME, but they'd be the exception rather than the rule. If you're going to argue it, then prove that Catholics are well represented among Klansmen. There is plenty of documentation showing their anti-Catholic stance. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one suggesting there were Catholics as Klan members.--Parkwells (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

While there is talk about the political influence of the Klan during various times, why is there no mention of the fact that a sitting US Senator, Robert Byrd, was not only a member of the Klan, but held a leadership role? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is noted in the article, as well as the fact that he said he regretted his earlier involvement.--Parkwells (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see why I missed it. That is pretty tepid, not showing the inconsistencies of his story. Might have to add to that 2 line summary. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be great if you have information to add - just have a source and cite it.--Parkwells (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the citation for this is, but the NPR Program "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" says that achieving this leadership role is what made him believe that he could achieve something in politics. He was an Exalted (?) Cyclops, I believe. Tiger Khan (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Added material and a cite to the article from a Washington Post article of 2005, when his memoir was published. In there the story was that a KKK organizer, impressed with the 150 men Byrd brought in from a small town in WVA, said he had a future in politics. There was no mention in the article of Byrd's having a named office of leadership, but he had written a letter recommending someone else for Klaneagle in 1946.--Parkwells (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the History Channel or Discovery have any programs on the topic? Not just of Senator Byrd, but the KKK in general? I am interested to see if the mass media actually publishes all pertanent information, or just regurgitates stereotypes and folk fables for the people. (Frankly, I find that I learn more about various topics such as this through the discussion and research pages tha the actual Wikipedia articles, so thanks for the input guys). 74.61.78.14 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC) - Jaguitar (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the History Channel has done a couple of good shows on the history of the Klan. Check their store on their website for DVD's of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not to change the subject, since it fits both here and above, the documentary, Nazi America, the Anti-Catholic movement was actually started by the American Nazi party successor to 'Fuhrer' Rockwell in or about the '60s, and it was later adopted by splinter groups and related supremacist groups. The documentary was, of course, not about the KKK, but it did speak volumes about several other groups with similar ideals. I can't vouch for its impartiality, but it was mostly informative and fairly entertaining. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) By the by, I just registered for the 'pedia. Jaguitar (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Far-right

• So how are they considered far right when they stand in opposition to everything the far right stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.131.27 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't. They stand in favor of everything the far right stands for. Yahel Guhan 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC

But under "political influence" is specifically says that political klansmen were in favor of many "progessive" causes. I'm removing the Far-right designation until a consensus can be reached - or not, it's locked. 71.232.60.16 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The far-right designation is ridiculous when the organization was so closely tied to Southern Democrats. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Southern Democrats of the late 1800's were "far right" especially when they were opposed to just about anything that would be considered progressive. The modern right/left description of our current political parties probably didn't enter common usage until the 1960's, give or take. The KKK is far right by any definition. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article makes it clear that "far right" is being used in modern terms, and it would certainly be wrong if that were the intention. About the only things the Southern Democrats of the late 1800s had in common with the modern right are that they abhorred protective tariffs and rejected mercantilism, but they also differed from the modern Klan on those issues. The modern progressive movement grew out of the populist politics of the agrarian part of the nation, which also followed those who left the farms for factory work. They stood against the monied interests of capitalists in the northeast. Thus these Democrats did come to stand for many progressive issues, such as opposition to child labor, support for labor unions, agricultural parity, income taxes, and also for institutional opposition to those who competed against these factions.

The Klan has almost nothing in common with the modern political right, which stands for global free trade, laissez faire economics, religious freedom, and educational choice. An extreme right-winger, in modern terms, is not a racist, but an extreme advocate of global democracy and free markets to the point of opposing even the most popular social supports and business regulations and even of favoring military intervention (by a volunteer army) in support of foreign democracies and foreign markets. By failing to define the term "far right" in appropriate anachronistic terms, the designation cannot meaningfully serve to describe the KKK, but instead makes the implicit claim that the extreme support for free markets characteristic of the modern far right is inherently racist. On political issues, the modern Klan stands with the left on more currently disputed issues than it stands with the far right--e.g. on the war in Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the outsourcing of jobs. But the defining issue of the Klan is its devotion to racial and ethnic isolationism, and on that issue the modern Ku Klux Klan is a fringe group of a small fraction of one percent of the population, and to apply any mainstream political label, left or right, is nothing more than propaganda, as nearly everyone on the left and right, even at the extremes, rejects their position. Mazzula (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're killing me.

"An extreme right-winger, in modern terms, is not a racist, but an extreme advocate of global democracy and free markets to the point of opposing even the most popular social supports and business regulations and even of favoring military intervention (by a volunteer army) in support of foreign democracies and foreign markets."

Foreign markets, yes, foreign democracies, emphatically not. The American Right (proper, not even the far right) has repeatedly used force in support of keeping foreign markets open to them, but AGAINST the will of the local people and the establishment of "foreign democracy". See the coups in Guatemala and Iran (Eisenhower) and Chile (Nixon), Reagan's support for the Contras (formed from former thugs of the Somoza regime), and Bush's support for the attempted military coup against Chavez in 2002. For the past hundred years the Republican Party has been consistently in favor of freer international trade, but at the expense of democracy and human rights. Some Democratic Presidents have done this also, but attempts to end the practice have always come from the political left, never the right.

Back to the Klan; Since the KKK has never really cared about economics, the words "Right" and "Far Right" are being used here in terms of social policy. In which case the KKK agrees with the present day "Far Right" on two key issues; immigration and fundamentalism. They believe in closed borders, particularly with regards to Latin America, and they believe in the exclusive rightness of conservative Protestantism, (rejection of Catholics, liberal Protestants and other churches, rejection of social liberalism in the form of gay rights or pro-choice politics).

As for their third defining issue, racism, okay, that's a fringe movement that doesn't apply to most right-wingers or even far-right-wingers anymore, but it is nevertheless a right-wing political orientation. And remember, the Klan has always gotten its maximum amount of support while emphasizing nativism and religious fundamentalism, not racism.213.181.226.21 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The only reason we supported those movements that were against Democracy was for our own survival. I'm not sure what the Guatemala mess was about, but the attempt to return the Shah back to power was to restore Iran to a constitutional monarchy, which, considering the relatively weak power of the monarchs in such a system, is somewhat democratic. Furthermore, Reagan opposed the USSR, which was a dictatorship. And why would they reject gay rights or pro-choice politics for all races? If they promoted such homosexuality and abortion among blacks, wouldn't that help them get their goals?--69.234.207.19 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not. Abortion and homosexuality have been available for blacks for decades and contrary to the Planned Parenthood-bashing conspiracy theorists' beliefs, they're nowhere near aborting themselves into extermination. Why is the KKK against gay rights? I don't know, I don't know why anyone is, but the fact is that they are, as were their colleagues in Germany. 147.9.230.146 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A constitutional monarchy? Please. The Shah was a dictator. Not saying that the theocracy (albeit with a president who does have a certain amount of power, subject to the Ayatollah's will) is better, but it's dishonest to suggest that the Islamic Revolution wasn't a popular movement. Reagan opposed the USSR, a [B]communist[/B] country. Likewise he supported the Contras, an [B]anti-communist[/B] group. It wasn't about democracy, it was about anti-communism. Furthermore, even if it's "irrational" to oppose choice and gay rights, that doesn't change the fact that the KKK is an anti-progressive group and does oppose such issues. Tiger Khan (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As the above poster said, the Shah was a psychotic dictator, one who managed to unite not only the conservative Iranian clergy but also the peasants, the merchant class and every political movement that didn't bend its knee to the Shah, like nationalists and Marxists, against him. The "Guatemala mess" as you said was something similar, as was the later coup against Pinochet. In all three cases, the national leader we overthrew was a democratically elected leftist and in all three cases he was replaced by a dictatorship of the worst kind.

"Furthermore, Reagan opposed the USSR, which was a dictatorship."

The essence of Republican foreign policy has never been "democracy versus dictatorship", but "left versus right". The one thing that hasn't changed in the GOP during the last hundred years; they're now as then the party of big business, and it's in the interests of American big business to maintain good relations with right-wing (read: open market) regimes, and to undermine left-wing governments. If said governments are dictatorial (USSR, China, Cuba, North Vietnam), so much the better. But democratic ones (Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile) are just as fair game.

Consider the two parties' foreign policy in the thirties as opposed to the fifties. The Democratic administrations of Roosevelt and Truman were consistent throughout - during the thirties, "all means short of war" mobilization and economic support for the French and British against Nazi Germany, during the post-war forties and early fifties, "containment" with the installment of NATO and the Marshall plan to help defend western Europe against the Soviet Union. The Democrats have always opposed the threat of foreign dictators regardless of their politics (Clinton going after Milosevic despite his leftism would be another example).

The Republicans, by contrast, went from being fanatically isolationist in the face of the Nazi threat during the thirties, to being fanatically interventionist in the face of the Soviets during the fifties. Partly that's because the world and America's place in it had changed - but it's also because the Nazis, for all their faults, were a government that the American business sector could and had made a ton of money trading with, which wasn't the case with the Soviets. The same policy continued during the Cold War and since George Bush's reelection; see the support he gave to the attempted military coup against Hugo Chavez, who may well be a clown but is a democratically elected one, whose political system has checked his power before (a popular referendum defeated his attempt to name himself president for life) and will do so again. 147.9.177.90 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You're taking up TalkPage space for stuff that is way off topic - please get back to improving the article on the KKK, per Wikipedia policy.--Parkwells (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that far-right is reasonably accurate. I have previously raised the argument that the KKK is a fascist organization which I still believe is a pertinent, and accurate point. The discussion at that link may have some relevant information as well. ._-zro ^t_c 08:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I would hesitate to characterize the KKK as fascist (though certainly they are far-right), simply because fascism is a totalitarian ideology that advocates state control of - well, pretty much everything. (Private property is "a right and a duty," as Mussolini once said, which is one of the few differences with communism - but the State still reserves the right to nationalize the property of anyone when it's convenient).

The KKK, however, is not that. They don't want the government to be all powerful; on the contrary, they want the government to be weak and toothless, to the point that the FBI and courts will be unable to stop them, and they can become the law in the government's stead. I'd call the Klan's ideology extreme anarchism, not totalitarianism.

Granted that the results are largely the same - at least for Jews, Catholics, immigrants, women, and racial, sexual and political minorities - but they have a different way of getting there. A lot of people say that if you go far enough to the right and far enough to the left, you'll end up with the same thing (fascism and communism). It's also true of big government and small government. Government too big, it'll control everything. Government too small, someone else will - warlords, robber barons, or the KKK. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say women as much. White women hold as much power as white men in the modern KKK, the only thing is, they support traditional family roles. In fact, in most of the Aryan Nation and KKK rallies I've seen, or in the white power movement in general, the women members were far more rabid and prone to violence than the men. For an example, check out the History Channel documentary [i] Nazi America[/i]. Some of the clips they show are pretty wild. 74.61.78.14 (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Hey all. Took this picture at the Newseum in DC, and figured it might help out the article. Dunno where it should go, so feel free to stick it in the right place.  :) Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 01:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This picture is of a cartoon postcard sent by the FBI to Klan members in 1965-1966, as part of a domestic covert action program that disrupted Klan organizing between September 1964 and April 1971, called COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE (see www.geocities.com/drabbs/working papers for more such cartoons). There is an error on the Ku Klux Klan Wikipedia page regarding COINTELPRO: COINTELPRO operations against civil rights groups began much earlier than 1964 under the COINTELPRO-CPUSA and COINTELPRO-SWP programs, accelerating under the COINTELPRO-Black Nationalist Hate Group program (1967). 1964 was the COINTELPRO-White Hate launch date (see the Wikipedia entry on COINTELPRO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabbs1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

current numbers

The current numbers specify that the KKK has risen, shockingly, to 300,000. I can not find accurate sources on this, and would appreciate clarification.

sep 21/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazed Spy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where did you see that claim? The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks the Klan probably better than law enforcement does. If they saw an increase like that, they'd be losing their minds sending out alerts. I'm on their mailing list and haven't seen anything hinting at that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The claims are actually on this kkk page, scroll down to current numbers/year. 1980 has it at 5000, 2008 has it at 300,000. sep 22/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.221.202 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• What Klan page? Do you have a link? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Resistance_and_Decline Right there. sep 23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.221.202 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• That was vandlaism. I've corrected it to 3,000. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

bottom of page

I only have one question, having read this article- Below the templates, is a string of seemingly random text:

kouyovhbgxzchbdsjzhszbdjhsdgfysdhgfdsfhysbvfjdghrejvf rhgruygrerty4i7567845 yv487

Is there any particular reason for this? 74.69.245.119 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I never noticed it before. Got rid of it. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stucture of the Klan?

The page certainly presents an exhaustive history of the organization, but says little about how Klan groups are organized. Anyone out there have good sources and the inclination to talk more about that?Shuneke (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can point you to the Kloran of the White Knights of Mississippi in the pdf. It contains rules and the process of inducting new members, as well as some local organization structure. - Darwinek (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture references

• Just to go on the record, I fully support User:Jpgordon's decision to remove the "Popular culture references" section per his argument in the edit summary (here) and per WP:TRIVIA. If any such references are truly notable, they can be discussed in the body of the article. --Dystopos (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Original aspects of the KKK

Its original purpose was to stop the pillage of foods and property, and to stop the rape and of women, daughters and slaves performed by the Union Army. Ref: A Brief History of the Ku Klux Klan, http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm

As this "international" site is predominantly operated by Americans, and like most people they do not want their skeletons aired in public, I sincerely doubt that the above correction will ever be applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.112.220 (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos uploaded with KKK slug

I have uploaded several KKK photos that you might be able to use for your KKK page. Photos are from a KKK Cross burning in Ohio in 1987. escapedtowisconsin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapedtowisconsin (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see them? Ottre 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stone Mountain Image unfair

This image is not related to anything in the text. The sculpture has nothing to do with the Klan. This is just some zealot's attempt to defame the figures honored in the sculpture. This image and the accompanying label should be removed. It is only fair. Navy Steel (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should go. Big Techs (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sharkey

The history section makes the following assertion: "In 1866, Mississippi Governor William L. Sharkey reported that disorder, lack of control and lawlessness were widespread; in some states armed bands of Confederate soldiers roamed at will. Southerners seemed to take out on blacks all their wrath at the Federal government. They casually attacked and killed blacks whose bodies were left on the roads." William L. Sharkey was provisional governor only and left office in 1865 when Benjamin G. Humphreys succeeded him. Either the date or the governor is wrong, or perhaps the source has it wrong. I don't have access to Du Bois's book just now to check it. Can anyone shed light on this? Mackensen (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership since Barack Obama nominated as presidential candidate

I read that there was an FBI report showing that membership in the Ku Klux Klan was steadily rising since Obama began the race for president (http://blogian.hayastan.com/2008/02/03/ku-klux-klan-after-obama/) I think this is noteworthy for the history section and someone with better experience then myself should look into if this is true or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.40.214 (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Wizard raped and strangled a young woman?

I recall seeing a documentary on the history channel about the KKK called something along the lines of "The Secrets of the KKK". I remember there was a part describing how one leader of the KKK, while drunk, raped and strangled a girl. The girl died of poisoning and the guy was convicted. However, he revealed a bunch of secrets about other members of the KKK, includin embezzlement. I have not been able to find this here and would like to know - is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.92.129 (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

This part "Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret domestic militant organizations in the As end of the world, generally in the southern states, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as terrorists while hidden behind conical masks and white robes. " does not fit with the NPV [1]. Also the listing for the amount of members of the 3rd Klan has no citation. These should be fixed or removed. In the case of the member count it should be listed as unknown. I will not make the changes myself yet. Unknownerror.int24 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

question

Why isn't the ku klux klan outlawed?--Vindicta (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Because of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It ensures the right of free speech and peaceful assembly. Their right to say or believe how they feel is protected. It might seem distasteful, but the law is really there to protect unpopular speech as much as popular speech. While the Klan members conduct can be criminal (such as committing murder or vandalism), the individuals that commit those offenses are dealt with, generally not by outlawing the organization. There are laws aimed at making it difficult for them. For example, my state has laws prohibiting being out in public wearing a mask, which was designed with the Klan in mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the KKK outlawed in Canada? Just curious. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I just read, some of its propaganda might be outlawed in Canada, but I'm not so sure the group itself is. I also heard Section 13.1 helps against KKK propaganda, online or over the phone anyhow. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why does the same 1st amendmant not allow the existence of terrorist organisations? Obviously individual members that committed offences would not be protected, but organisations such as Hamas should still presumably have the right to put forth their views? It looks like the 1st Amendment only protects white christian organisations....

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.13.147 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• It might appear that way when that's what you are looking to prove. The easiest way to disprove your theory is to point out that the FBI pursued several militia groups as domestic terrorism groups and do yu remember a guy named Eric Rudolph? White guy, religious, VERY anti-abortion. The FBI labelled him as a domestic terrorist for years. In short, terrorist groups aren't labelled soley on WORDS. They are labelled as such when their ACTIONS become criminal. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Patriot Act and similar laws are arguably unconstitutional. But the other difference is that (as I type) Hamas is engaged in a war against a strong US ally (Israel). And Hamas is on the terror watch list because it currently engages in terrorism in Israel. The KKK, on the other hand, is essentially a political party and has not actually been involved in the hate crimes it is most famous for in a while. Consider that the IRA has been taken off the list because it no longer does any terrorist activities. P.S. I may be wrong about some of the above, but that's the way I've always understood it. Anschelsc (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Klan is still considered a domestic terrorist organization by many organizations. But you are correct in pointing out that difference between relatively current activities and older ones being a factor. But Hamas has engaged in terrorists activities against the US as well as Israel. It's not just about Israel. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the political affiliation for the KKK listed as far right? The KKK was organized by the far left and were democrats. In fact Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. Ullyses S. Grant, a republican destroyed the KKK and passed the first civil rights amendment. Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas were all republicans. It was the republicans that pushed all civil rights legislation to include the civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csemler (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to dispute this, in that the Democratic Party was considered "rightwing" and "conservative" during the times. They were against civil rights, and were pro big business. That is basically the opposite of the Democratic stance today favoring civil liberties and standing against big business. They were hardly a leftwing party in the 1800's, especially by modern standards. Also I'm not even sure why someone would be led to assume that the KKK was created by the "leftwing" establishment. I think this entire conundrum can be resolved by asserting the fact that the above user has a very subjective view on what is left and right politically, a view that can be contended. 12 November 2008 Drubin

Csmeler was not keeping up with historical affiliations of parties and changes over time. It's not a simple matter of looking back from current ideas of left and right. In the late 19th century in the South, the Democratic Party was made up of chiefly conservative, formerly Confederate whites, as was the KKK. Paramilitary groups in the 1870s such as the Red Shirts and White League were seen as arms of the Democratic Party, and used intimidation and assaults to run Republicans out of office and decrease black voting. As the party of Lincoln, the Union, and the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republican Party attracted the votes and loyalty of African Americans. In the late 19th and early 20th century in the North, the Democratic Party became the party of immigrants and labor in the cities. The Solid Democratic South continued to be white and conservative. FDR led the national Democratic Party to take on social welfare issues, and set a model of progressivism that was also taken up by some Republicans. The Republican Part in many northern states into the mid-20th c. was moderate and even progressive - it depended on the place, such as NY. Civil rights legislation was pushed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and southern civil rights leaders, who put together a coalition of mostly northern Democrats and Republicans in Congress to pass it. Since then, and the latter part of the 20th century, there was a realignment in the South and Midwest, as many conservative whites began to support Republican candidates. The Democrats continued to be the party of the cities, much of the North and the coasts. The 2008 election shows that the Democrats have increased their appeal and that demographic changes in the country are also changing political affiliations.--Parkwells (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.13.147 (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Now in Europe

Isn't this notable enough for a section? Big Techs (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

KKK and Christianity

What is the relationship between the KKK and Christianity? Do they consider themselves a "Christian" organization or something like that? Do they put a religious twist to their ideology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, they put a twist on it. Like most extremist religious groups, they have an interpretation that deviates from the mainstream. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Position on White Catholics

There needs to be clarification within the article on what the modern-day Klan's position on White Catholics is. I have read that since the 1970s, many Catholics were admitted in the Klan, and that the organization officially reversed its opposition on the issue, alleging that it was bad thing to sow division among Whites. [2] [3] ADM (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Can anybody figure out what this sentence from the article is supposed to mean?

Generally, it Canby reported that in North and South Carolina, in 18 months ending in June 1867, there were 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault.

Is "Canby" a person or place? Or should it be changed to "it can be reported"?

Quebec99 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the correct sentence should be:

"General Canby reported that in North and South Carolina, in 18 months ending in June 1867, there were 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault." --91.66.189.224 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for 3rd Klan membership

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=7 between 5000 and 8000 members would be nice if anybody could do this --91.66.189.224 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

what does that mean

"Take dat f'um yo equal—" i don't understand it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.189.224 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"take that from your equal". I suppose it was supposed to be inflammatory propogand, allowing a black man to hit a white man as an equal.

I hate the KKK fiercly. By the way, have you ever noticed how you hardly ever see any black CEOs for major companies? In america, they think that black people are treated equally as white people-NOT TRUE. They are STILL opressed and rejected by Caucasians. And its not fair-they have feelings like us, they can feel happiness, rejection, pain and anger. The only difreence is our skin-WHY does it matter SO MUCH?!?! All i have to say about the KKK is dont you dare do anything to Obama or I will gang up with my friends and hunt you down like a blind turkey-that goes for all of its members.Seleneface (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)SelenfaceSeleneface (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

X-187: it dosent matter the kkk are nothing but a bunch of misslead rejects that blame everyone that isnt white for all their problems wile screeming "white power". there has never been once in my life where i thought to myself " hmm it must be some black persons falt why im broke" or "hmm ill bet its a hispanic guys falt why i sliped on the ice" their just another group of people looking for somone to blame and HEAVAN FORBID the thought that anything could actualy be their oun falt. Thankfully though they are a dieing breed, its pritty idiotic to burn a cross to the ground and then say your christian or cathic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.64.34 (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) -Spelling please-but i TOTALLY agree!Seleneface (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused sentence

Moving this sentence to talk page for clarification. The organization declined from 1868 to 1870 and was destroyed by President Grant's passage and enforcement of the Force Acts of 1870 and 1871.

Presidents don't pass laws. Congress does. So that part of the sentence is factually muddy. While the Klan was slowed down for a few years as the cited material shows, it quickly arose dba under new nomenclature.Skywriter (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right on the money Skywriter. Any suggestions to improve it? Doc Tropics 18:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No! He is way off! Congress passess the laws, and the president decides whether to veto or approve the bill. It is often said that when a president approves a bill he "passes" it. Leave the article the way it is!Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Name origins

From where does the name "Ku Klux" originate? is it latin for something? Was it just devised on the spot? I couldn't find much information in the article (though my reading and examination of it was fairly cursory - more of a scan), and I understand that this is a rather trivial matter, but I really would enjoy to know should anyone have an answer.Thanks! 67.189.162.43 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The name Ku Klux Klan comes from the Greek word, kuklos, meaning "circle" or "band." The founders chose this as a name to indicate the Klan's unity in purpose and connection with each other. --Dr. Hedgehog (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite for style

The rewrite tag has been added to this article. I don't understand why. There's a lot of material but, considering the volume of talk on this page, it seems that the article has to answer a lot of questions. I do wonder about the introduction, and whether that needs to be in a separate section so the table of contents is higher. But if there are no specif suggestions about which partts of the article need a rewrite, I suggest we remove that tag. --Duncan (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not scholarly writing

This article is written using inflammatory language, which reduces it in relevance and scholarly merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.137.29 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Euryalus (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you remsh m,,,account. It's locked. 98.217.61.141 (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the sensitive nature of this article, I'd much rather have a registered user edit the article instead of someone simply hiding behind an anonymous IP address. Obviously, the lock is in place for a reason. --Ericdn (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I saw the word "terrorist," I clicked on the discussion tab. I have no problem with calling the KKK a terrorist group, but "terrorism" is an undefined weasel word. I have no doubt that someone will argue that it is defined, but it's no more defined than the word "hero." Someone from al-Qaeda could edit Osama bin Laden's article and call him a hero. Article needs more scholarly language. Crushti (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll argue it is defined. It is defned by the US Code and by the Dept. of Justice when they classify them as a domestic terrorist group. That doesn't sound like an "undefined weasel word" to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The United States doesn't have a monopoly on definitions. It would be alright if the article said "is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States," but it says that the KKK "has a record of terrorism." By whose definition are these acts of terrorism? In the article on terrorism: "At present, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism . . . The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.[6]" Citations are provided for each claim, and I excluded other claims that weren't supported by citations. Crushti (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the KKK is very strictly an American organization it is perfectly reasonable to use American definitions when describing them. Furthermore, it doesn't matter which definition of terrorism you use, the KKK will certainly meet any reasonable definition. Doc Tropics 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody said the US had a monopoly on definitions. However, as Doc pointed out, the US definition about a US organization seems relevant. I pointed out the US definitions since you are acting like it's something not supportable by reliable, NPOV sources. You called it an "undefined weasle word". Obviously, it IS defined. And it's far from being a weasel word when it is defined at length. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say on the Klan page in the box on the right that the kkk is a far right in thier political beliefs ? The kkk was founded by southern democrats (far left) after the civil war ended and to this day is controlled by democrats some of whom have power in congress (Robert Byrd, lifelong democrat and kkk member) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boardslydr (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• The Southern Democrats were and to some extent still are very different than the Northern Democrats. The Southern Democrats were much more what one would currently associate with Republicans.

I suggest you review some of the articles on politics. Right wing politics focus on traditional values. Left wing politics are for social equality. The Klan, as a racist and conservative organisation, is on the right. --Duncan (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you should review some articles too. The Republican party was founded in part because they opposed slavery. It was the Democrat party that fractured in 1948 because they opposed integration. George Wallace was a Democrat. Racism isn't a "traditional" or "conservative" value. It's an ignorant "value". That's why we have black conservatives like JC Watts, Lynn Swann and Michael Steele. Conservatism and racism are not the same and your equation of the two is offensive. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

One. This has quickely become an OT discussion. Two. The republican and democratic parties have switched views many times over the years since the nations birth. I "believe" Lincoln was, during his time, a democrat. But by todays standards he would be classified as republican. Three, it doesn't matter what the defenition of terrorist is or whose defenition it is. We are supposed to uphold a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV. By the US governments POV they are terrorist. By the Klans POV they are heroes. Why should we support either POV when we are supposed to have a neutral POV? I suggest we use "is recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States," instead of the current form. Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Lincoln was elected as a Republican. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Saying the US Government POV isn't neutral enough isn't being entirely realistic. That definition wasn't just dreamed up by an administration flunky. The majority of voters in 435 different congressional districts picked 435 different representatives and the majority of voters in 50 states picked 100 senators to debate back and forth until they came up with a definition in the law that was acceptable to the majority of them. Then a president, who was selected by a majority of voters in 50 states, plus DC etc. signed it into law. That is some fairly diverse input for that point of view. And now it is a matter of law, not just opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter how many people agree. Almost the whole world agrees that Hitler was a monster, there are still groups today who practically worship him as god. Until every single person in the world, including the clan, agrees that they are terrorists, we can't put it in our aticle. An acceptable alternative would be "The U.S. government has classified(substitute a better word) the KKK as a terrorist organization". A dissenting statement by the klan would be good as well if one can be found.D^rew S^mith 06:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan - The original group

The original group was not a terrorist group. The group did not "rapidly form" into a hate group. It was a fraternal organization of soldiers. Coming from the Greek "Kuklos" which means "circle". When the organization turned into a terrorist group, the targets were not just those with dark skin color. They murdered, whipped and tortured men, women, children, the elderly and the disabled. The police organized blended color task forces to dears later, beginning in 1915.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_kkk.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.0.86 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in that this group started slowly. It was a Frat-group of soldiers. They would meet in secret and show up in costumes. It was shortly after they met in Nashville that their focus changed, and took it's more negitive bend. I can't remember,"the why".I do know that most Caucasions in the south where frightened by the new laws. It is Clear however that the "Klan" had always disagreed with the governments "Reformation Proclaimation". Even though it never passed. I also had the impression that the original group broke up around "1872" I felt the beginning of this article is a bit too vague. thanks SoskPritt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.195.111 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It may have started slowly, but soon was characterized as a secret vigilante group because of the extrajudicial violence - murders and assaults - which they conducted. They left their fraternal days behind. One thing to remember is that most men were veterans and most were armed. You don't turn off a war easily. The KKK was one group of men who just shifted the war to another sphere, trying to keep white supremacy by their own efforts. --Parkwells (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The KKK was not just known for advocating white supremacy, but more for the acts of violence it committed to serve its goal of white supremacy (as well as settle grudges, intimidate economic and social competitors, and other goals). Violence was the mark of the Klan.--Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong geographical origins

I was taught in three separate college classes taught at two different universities (African American History- Post Civil War, American History II and an English class where we were assigned an essay on the causes of southern violence)that the KKK originated in Harrisburg, PA NOT the Southeast. It is true that it is most associated with the American South however that is not the "birth place" of this group.

>> The first Klan was created in Pulaski, Tennessee. The second was created in Atlanta, Georgia. It is curious you were provided with the same, incorrect information in three different college classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.243.100 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

History in the States

I am sure the people writing here know more of the subject than I. However I was trying to write a section in the Ohio history article about the KKK and was wondering if anyone had any links I could use. It was removed because they said at first is was nothing more than trivia. So is there anyone who could like to help me write a small section? I was thinking that all states that had historical klan membership should be linked to this article. --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you David Chalmers' book Hooded Americanism, he describes the second Klan state by state. - Darwinek (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth T. Jackson's Ku Klux Klan in the Cities is also a valuable resource. He goes beyond cities but also notes data about how urban the Second Klan was.--Parkwells (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #2 in the article proper is incorrect. Membership in the original Klan was not restricted in the same manner as its second incarnation. Whether due to ignorance or convenience-of-argument, the method and motive of the two organizations are blurred in the text cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tttecumseh (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is such a highly contested and emotional article, I would like to see wikipedia personally take a hand in the article and contact academics on the subject.

• As it was a featured article, it has long received a good deal of attention, making it one of the better overall articles in Wikipedia. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 13:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

npov

I have not worked on this article and actually only happened upon it planning to refer a friend to it; but as soon as I read the first 2 paragraphs I felt the tags were mandatory. The whole thing needs to be re-written,preferably by editors who have no fixed opinion of the group ( I also have a very negative opinion of the group); but for now, the removal of about 20 critical and non reliably sourced descriptions of the group would be a good start. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

E.G.

Language used in the lede was from scholarly sources and was originally sourced, as I recall - describing the Klan as a secret vigilante group was describing what they did - they operated in secret, and conducted violent extrajudicial murders and assaults - that's what vigilantes are. It's not POV and they weren't just militant.--Parkwells (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret domestic militant organizations in the United States, originating in the Southern states and eventually having national scope, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as terrorists while hidden behind conical hats, masks and white robes. The KKK has a record of terrorism,[2] violence, and lynching to intimidate, murder, and oppress African Americans, Jews and other minorities and to intimidate and oppose Roman Catholics and labor unions.

"...There can be little doubt that the hidden KGC spawned the original KKK."[3] The first Klan was founded in 1865 by veterans of the Confederate Army. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by intimidating freedmen and white Republicans, members of the abolitionist movement. The KKK quickly adopted violent methods. The increase in murders finally resulted in a backlash among Southern elites who viewed the Klan's excesses as an excuse for federal troops to continue occupation.

• Is there any question whether the Klan is distinguished by its militancy, violent acts, terrorist activities, and secrecy? Some descriptions are just accurate, even of the terms are used in a judgmental manner elsewhere. --Dystopos (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the reference to the KGC in the lede tilts it too much toward one source - this is not a consensus view among historians as to the rise of the KKK. I've moved it to the main narrative. --Parkwells (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV tag from the article. The article has more than 100 references, and the description of the group as violent and so on is accurate and justified. The KK is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US federal government, and its violent methods mark it out as militant. If there are specific points in the article that need supporting with references, then mark them individually. Ideally, find references to allow us to correct any incorrect statements. Don't just mark the whole article as NPOV. --Duncan (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the biggest problem is use of the word terrorism. By the US Governments view they are terrorists. By the klans view they are heroes. How is labeling them as terrorists a neutral point of view?Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Klan's view is not a neutral, 2nd party view. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The extrajudicial acts carried out in secrecy by the Klan put them in the category of terrorists, as consensus historians have defined them, too. They murdered and assaulted people to serve their own ends.--Parkwells (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point. Thats the POV of consensus historians. You are using someone elses POV to promote your own. The United States government, not a neutral, 2nd party view, calls them terrorists. The klan, also not a neutral, 2nd party view, calls themselves heroes. Even consensus historians do not have a neutral point of view. The point of wikipedia is to provide an unbiased summary of the facts, using no POV. The use of the word terrorist clearly biases the article, and by extension the reader, against the klan. While the klan performed some very gruesome acts, and I agree they are terrorists, it is not our job to put forth a statement that promotes on POV over another.D^rew S^mith 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really liking vigilante, but it's better than terrorist, so I won't fight about it.D^rew S^mith 06:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

<----But it isn't POV to say, as in the lede, that the KKK has a record of terrorism. That's a straight up fact; they have an FBI record. It also isn't POV to point out that "In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization." Again, that's a fact. Really, though, I agree with Parkwells - the actions of the Klan put them in the category of terrorists. If you don't believe that the US government is a reliable source for this, who would you believe? Dawn Bard (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not about them being a reliable source. Its ok to say that the U.S. govt categorizes them as terrorists. It is not ok to say they are terrorists. Do you see my point?D^rew S^mith 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point, I just disagree that we need to somehow use only the US government to show that the KKK commits terrorism (I also disagree that the FBI isn't a neutral, 2nd party source on this, but that's actually beside the point.) The KKK's actions have shown that they fit the definition of "terrorists." Here's what it says in the lede at Terrorism: "an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants." There is well-sourced that the Klan has done all of that. Therefore, they are terrorists. Do you see my point? Dawn Bard (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point, however we cannot use the word because not everyone agrees that they fit that description. Klan members have argued that 1)they weren't all like that, so branding the whole organization terrorists is not correct, 2)The ones who were like that contest they comitted any wrongdoing. They may all be liars and assholes, but who are we to discount their claims?D^rew S^mith 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Klan members aren't neutral, 2nd party sources. Who are we to discount their claims? We are judging them by their actions as compared to a generally agreed-upon definition of terrorism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that "we cannot use the word because not everyone agrees that they fit that description", I must disagree. We do not need the agreement of everyone, just a clear consensus of reliable sources. --Dystopos (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly dawn bard, you are judging them by their actions. thats not what we do on wikipedia. we present the facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. And no, we dont go by a clear consensus of reliable sources, if there are minority groups who have a different POV. Seriously, whats so bad about using "The US recognizes them as terrorists"? It's the says the same thing as it did before, without pushing a POV. Check out the Hitler page. They did a very good job of remaining neutral. D^rew S^mith 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<---(undent) Okay, I shouldn't have used the word "judging" but I think it's pretty clear that what I meant was "pointing out that the Klan has acted in a way that fits the objective definition of terrorism." The US doesn't recognise them as terrorists for no reason; the US recognises them as terrorists because they have used violence and threats of violence to induce fear in targeted groups for ideological reasons. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what word you used. We are just suposed to present the facts. We shouldn't have to point out that they are terrorists. the article will speak for itself. It doesnt matter what the US govts reasons are, there are always people who have a different POV than the govt. You have to have both sides of the issue, or if you cant, phrase it in a way that states that a "majority believes" this to be true. That is what I have done by rephrasing the KKK=Terrorist to USGovt believes KKK=Terrorist. There really is no difference. Most people take the word of the USGovt as law, so to most people it is tantamount to saying KKK=Terrorist. On the other hand if a KKK member where to come here and say "Hey ya'll there computer nerds! We isn't Terrorisers! Take that there shit off yer article!" We can say that it is a simple fact that the USGovt considers them terrorists.D^rew S^mith 04:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I hope I haven't come across as too belligerent - I enjoy a good debate, but my friendly tone of voice doesn't translate well across the interwebs, so thanks for keeping it civil. Anyhow, I still don't agree that "because the Klan says so" is a good reason not to call it a terrorist organisation (and I also have no problem with "vigilante"), but you can see that I don't disagree enough to undo your edits - I'm basically OK with the page as it is. I am curious, though - what if the Klan objected to being called white supremacists or violent or something like that? A line would have to be drawn somewhere, right? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the generally accepted policy is that if something is stated as a fact, but that someone might consider disparaging, wrong, or otherwise objectionable, it needs to be removed or rephrased. I don't particulary care for the Klan, and agree they fit the label of terrorist, but it's not our job to push our (or even that of the USGovts!) opinion. The best we can do in situations like these is to say that "a large group of people believe this to be true." And no, you didn't come across as beligerant or uncivil, and hopefully neither did I.Drew Smith What I've done 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Giant blockquote

There's a significantly-sized blockquote in the article beginning with "Whereas the number of indictments across the South was large,..." which seems to be from a textbook. The writing style of the blockquote is similar to the style in the article, and nowhere is it indicated that the paragraphs are quoting a source, so the indentation is confusing. I suggest, first, that it is not necessary to quote so significantly from the source, second, that the source is probably not the type which should be so extensively quoted and, third, that if it is quoted in such a manner, the fact that it is a quote needs to be indicated in the article to properly characterize the text. Kellen^T 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation

A sourced item (#10), from historian W.E.B. DuBois, is marked as dubious. The Klan committed public violence against freedmen for intimidation, as documented by DuBois and numerous historians. I'm deleting the dubious tag.--Parkwells (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a dubious source, as it is a first hand, and also a very heavily biased(with good reason, but nonetheless biased), source. I am putting the dubious tag back.D^rew S^mith 05:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the information (ie, that the Klan committed public violence against freedmen for intimidation) being disputed? I thought that the "dubious" tag was generally used in cases where the content seems dubious or unlikely. Also, how did you determine that DuBois is biased? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the info is not being disputed. Everyone knows they used violence for intimidation. But first hand accounts are not generally used as sources. It's biased because he is not a neutral 3rd party observer writing for a newspaper. He was in the middle of the conflict and wrote to cause an upstir.D^rew S^mith 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Du Bois's history was not a firsthand account, but that of a major historian writing after the events in question and using documentation of the time. He drew from records of the military and Freedmen's Bureau, letters to the president, etc., as have all historians when reporting on that time. They are not required to draw only from newspaper accounts, but to weigh all the evidence with their accumulated knowledge of a period. It does not make sense to mark this a dubious source, as there were numerous accounts of the assaults and fatalities caused by the KKK activities. If you disagree, you're welcome to introduce another historian who can document that KKK fatalities were overestimated. --Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

TRUEHISTORY WRITES: Consider: sometimes a first-hand account is all we have to render a personal perspective to a particular event,which, due to prejudice, space constraints, or ignorance, would otherwise be left unreported/under-reported via secondary sources. Accounts of a particular event may vary, or not take into consideration (often due to prejudice) certain elements/events a first-hand account alone makes known or emphasizes to its true level of importance. Example: from the account of a Titanic survivor:

"Many brave things were done that night but none more brave
than by those few men playing minute after minute
as the ship settled quietly lower and lower in the sea...
the music they played serving alike as their own immortal requiem
and their right to be recorded on the rulls of undying fame." -Lawrence Beesley, Titanic Survivor

To deny access to THAT first-hand account on the basis that it's not "neutral" would leave us with only an inferior, secondary report -- if reported at all. Would such an omission create a superior article? Of course, judgment must be exercised as to the utility and value of including any first-hand account. Good scholarship and intellectual integrity, however, demand inclusion of certain first-hand accounts as a component of balanced reportage, particularly in the case of controversial articles, where such omissions sometimes amounts to censorship. Yes, a good article can be written about Martin Luther King's March on Washington -- without quoting any of his personal statements about it. But which article would be more valuable, if all other data remained identical? One can write about July 20, 1969, when Commander Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon without a single sentence about Armstrong's personal feelings about standing there, but is it "biased" to include his personal, first-hand account? Nor does exclusion of a first-hand account guarantee honest reportage or lack of prejudice. I intend to attempt an edit of this article to improve its flow and remove redundancies. I'll also check this page to review all comments and suggestions. As a long-time resident of the South, born in the North, who lived in Louisiana during the height of White Knight activities there, with experience as a longtime newspaper reporter, and degreed in anthropology, I'll do my best to improve this article, and will rely on your input to improve it. However, I suggest that the first-hand account in question be retained due to its historic value and context in this article. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

It has much repetitive language and is too long and detailed. I shortened it some, but it needs more editing.--Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

KKK Founding Revealed

According to famous historian David Barton, http://wallbuilders.com in his DVD set, the KKK was founded by Democrats not for racism but to kill anti-slavery Republicans, both white and black. The true history of the KKK and its derivatives should be declared. The fictional history popularized by various sources should also be exposed.

Also, in talking with a member of the KKK derivative Aryan Nations, and reading his recruitment literature, it is clear that their claims of Christianity are equally false. They invented a completely false concept and label it Christianity to recruit dumb young men who don't know the difference because of the failures of both church and state to teach the Bible. 75.139.213.230 (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

David Barton is not a reliable source for American history. But if there are more reliable sources that make the same assertions then they should be added. The article already says that the first KKK was formed to oppose Reconstruction and carpetbaggers.   Will Beback  talk  19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

removing templates

The article has templates at the top saying that the lead is too long, the article is too long, and the article may need a rewrite. However, the person who put the templates there doesn't seem to have posted anything on the talk page to explain what he/she thinks the issues are, and I notice that there have been edits to shorten the lead that postdate the addition of the templates. Looking over the article, I don't agree that there is any problem. Since nobody seems to have made a case here on the talk page that there *is* a problem, I'm removing the templates.--Fashionslide (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

logo removed from infobox

I replaced the logo in the infobox, File:KKK.svg, with an image of a Klan rally. The main issue I have with the logo is that we have absolutely no documentation to back up the idea that this logo is widely recognized, and absolutely nothing to indicate how far back in the Klan's history it goes. The illustrations in the article provide quite a large sample of the Klan's iconography over a period of a century and a half, and it looks to me like the specific logo never appears in any of those illustrations. The logo at File:KKK.svg has three elements: a circle, a Greek cross, and drop of blood. In the historical images, I see the Greek cross appearing most of the time, the circle appearing less than half the time (often the cross is surrounded by a shield, or by nothing at all), and the drop of blood never. I suspect that the KKK.svg logo is one particular logo being used by one of the many recent splinter groups of the Klan, and it has no greater significance than that. We need to watch out for this kind of thing, because this article has a long history in which various tiny and insignificant Klan or white supremacist groups have tried to use it as a platform to promote themselves.--Fashionslide (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian?

So I came to this article to learn a little bit about the Ku Klux Klan so it goes without saying that i'm not exactly well-versed on the subject but there isn't a single mention of the fact that the KKK are motivated by their religion, or even what religion they affiliate themselves with.. So I went to the KKK's homepage at KKK.com .. no idea if it's official or anything but it does say right there "America, Our Nation is Under Judgement from God!" which leads me to believe that this article has a SERIOUS POV problem.. someone who knows more should probably look into this.. if there are many chapters of the KKK and not all of them are motivated by religion, I still feel that the variety of motivations between the chapters should be mentioned.. if you don't feel that the Christianity of the Klan is genuine because they deter from basic Christian values like "Thou shalt not kill" as I can kind of guess will happen by looking at the talk page I would suggest you A)Study the nuances of Christianity a little bit more, there are many facets to the religion (it's big) and just being Christian doesn't mean you know about them and B) take a look at the article for Al Qaeda, if the Muslims have to associate themselves with those people than Christians should really have to swallow their pride and realise that for the sake of fair journalism, if a group claims to be a religion than they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.133.201 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't see the discussion of the religious aspects of the Klan, you need to read the article again, more carefully.--71.186.232.189 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

White political disenfranchisement during Reconstruction period under Ironclad Oath? People, hello!?

How can you understand the first KKK without explicitly noting that at the time pretty much the entire white male population in the South was disenfranchised, i.e. prevented from voting and holding political office, because they could not (at least honestly) take the Ironclad Oath? Which, btw, makes it much easier to understand the quoted sentence from the Rescript: "the reenfranchisement and emancipation of the white men of the South, and the restitution of the Southern people to all their rights." Whereas these people were indeed racists and "not nice guys", this does not change the fact that they were ALSO very much validly aggrieved people stripped of their traditional political rights. Like, government with consent of the governed and all that jazz. Unfortunately, the traditional American historiography prefers to minimize and/or ignore this issue, as is e.g. reflected in this current article. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ironclad Oath article makes it sound like any such disenfranchisement was much less widespread than you seem to be saying. In any case, do you have a verifiable source for this theory about the reason the original Klan arose? If not, then it doesn't belong in the article.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

statistics cited by that article (of no more than 20% disenfranchised) are simply dubious. Case in point: in the Reconstruction period some Southern states had black governors. BTW, Booker T. Washington alludes in his "Up from Slavery" book to once meeting such a former governor, who was a construction worker by trade. My point is, given that the South was majority white and that back then Southern whites (enfranchised or otherwise) would not have been likely to support a black officeholder, it stands to reason that to get them elected would take A LOT of disenfranchising. Perhaps quite enough to make quite a few people to sign up for the Klan and/or at the very least give those militants tacit support. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the South was about two-thirds white, several individual states had black majorities (South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi, for instance). Thus, it was possible in some states to elect black officeholders even with zero white support and zero disenfranchisement. Furthermore, in states with black near-majorities, white "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" could and did unite with blacks voting as a bloc to elect black candidates, even with small numbers of whites disenfranchised.

Even so, I agree that the Ironclad Oath deserves to be mentioned, and is surely important to explain such Klan goals as the "reenfranchisement" of Southern whites. Pirate Dan (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Disfranchisement and Great Migration

The whole section on disfranchisement and the Great Migration contains not a single reference to the Klan, for the obvious reason that the Klan did not exist from about 1874 until 1915. So what is this section doing in the article? I say we remove it. It should be enough just to note briefly that the end of the Klan did not end the oppression of black people in the South, but rather the contrary. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted the section.--Fashionslide (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think that the blanket deletion of an entire section of referenced content is improper, at least without more discussion. I agree completely that the section is overly long and goes into unnecessary detail. However, the basic information lays important groundwork for understanding the social and political climate of the period. I'd like to replace the section, then work to reduce and rewrite it in a more appropriate fashion. Thanks, Doc Tropics 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I would agree that there needs to be a smoother transition between the sections about the first Klan and the second Klan. One thing that might help would be switching around the subsections "Resistance" and "Decline and Suppression." That would result in a more logical flow from the suppression of the first Klan to the re-emergence of the second.

The social and political climate during the disfranchisement/Great Migration period appears relevant to me only insofar as it explains 1) why the Klan disappeared in the 1870s, and 2) why it came back in the 1910s. Possible answers to question 1 are: the Klan was too hard to control, was too high-profile and was thus giving the South a bad name, and the Klan ultimately proved unnecessary as Southern Democrats found other means of disfranchising, terrorizing, and impoverishing blacks while marginalizing white Republicans. Possible answers to question 2 I think are already adequately discussed in the section on the second Klan: industrialization, urbanization and immigration, although I think there should be more emphasis on Catholic immigration, which many Protestant Southerners and Midwesterners particularly hated (the Klan's Prohibitionism was partly motivated by a desire to stop Catholics from drinking wine during communion). Pirate Dan (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable and I'm more than willing to agree to individual changes that bring it down to a more compact form. Feel free to start editing; I'll just follow your edit summaries and let you know if I have any specific suggestions. On a side note, I've never heard that bit about the Klan supporting Prohibition in order to harrass Catholics; very interesting... Doc Tropics 22:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the other sections now address everything that was relevant in the Disfranchisement and Great Migration section, and we have achieved an adequate transtion. If there are no other concerns, I will re-delete the Disfranchisement and Great Migration section after a day or two. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Dan, I've read through your changes and you did great work. Based on your extensive (and useful!) revisions, I agree that it's now appropriate to remove the section. Thanks for having taken my concerns seriously, and for putting such effort into article improvement. Doc Tropics 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks

What is the source of the blockquote following the section on Madge Oberholtzer ? Skywriter (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From Leonard Moore's Citizen Klansmen, p. 186, the citation immediately preceding the blockquote. Maybe we should move the footnote to the end of the blockquote? Pirate Dan (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Skywriter (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a transition between the end of this sentence. 'This contributed to white Democrats regaining political power in the southern states. and the beginning of the next: In 1915, ... As in what happened in the intervening years? Skywriter (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exalted Cyclops redirects here but there's no mention in the article. I assume it's a title... 216.165.95.70 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth of KKK

{{editsemiprotected}} The date of December 24, 1865 is a post-fact reinvention, and is not historically accurate. Allen Trelease, in his book White Terror, has a good discussion on this (pp. 1-2). Most probable date of the first meeting is June 1866 (we have nothing more accurate than that, although the Pulaski KKK celebrated its first birthday on June 5, 1867). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frhoo (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It seems there is some contention about the date; the Time article lists the earlier date, for instance. Is there any source to support the fact that the December date is mistaken? Celestra (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the change would need concensus. I had reviewed this request shortly after it was posted, but it seems we have two sources making conflicting statements, so I refrained from editing until there is some agreement from other editors. If one source is clearly more reliable (ie, scholarly rather than specualtive), then that would certainly be the prefered reference. If they appear equally valid, then we might need to list both possible dates, mention the conflict, and cite both sources. I've seen this done in many other "historical" articles where the facts can't be known with certainty and there are different interpretations. Doc Tropics 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought, as well. If there is a good reference that claims the (somewhat dubious) Christmas Eve date is a revisionist construct, so be it. If there isn't, some mention of the conflict seems appropriate. Celestra (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me argue that the Time article and the Allen Trelease book are of different authority. The Time article is a newsweekly article that mentions the date in passing while giving no reference to check its information. Allen Trelease's book White Terror is a major scholarly book, written by a recognized historian, cited many times by other historians ( http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?start=10&hl=fr&as_sdt=0&sciodt=0&cites=1644879006359020515 ). The scholarly status of both sources are thus different. Yet the date of December 24, 1865 is probably worth mentioning, since it was part of the mythic reinvention of the first KKK during the emergence of the second KKK. Frhoo (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Liberators - "Dutch propaganda poster from 1944"???

It's a Nazi propaganda poster! Holland was occupied by Germany in 1944. And B-24 Liberator was an American bomber. --83.13.135.170 (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. Thanks for noticing that. Fixed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Creationists

The Scopes Trial says that the KKK were one of the groups which was strongly for creationism and against the teaching of evolution, presumably because of their Christian beliefs. Might be worth mentioning this in the article as I hadn't heard about their anti-evolution activities before. Josh Keen (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

is all of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.70.91 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not

I object to saying that the KKK is Christian. How can an anti-Semitic, racist, fascist murder group be even close to Christian? All true Christians love the Jews! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.97.73 (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

They believe they are Christian, and in America, you cannot change someone's beliefs, even if they seem morally wrong. I object to this institutions statements that they are christian as well, but there is not anything I can do about it, which defeats the purpose of declaring in order to persuade some change be brought about.

69.201.159.52 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree with IP 69, and want to add that they were indeed christian as individuals, and where not so much ignoring their faith when performing the lynchings and such, as they were misinterpreting it. This is the same way hitler considered himself christian, and convinced most of germany that his acts were chrisitian, and that to oppose him would be un-christian.Drew Smith What I've done 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew,

Hitler & the Nazis absolutely did not consider themselves to be Christians or religious in any way. They were as "Godless" as Lenin and Stalin.--TL36 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. the nazi movement were comprised by christians, and was supported by the churches. Himmler tried to found a cult based on mysticism within the SS, but the average nazi was as good a churchgoer as anyone else. As for Hitlers personal feelings:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.232.98 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer the original poster, there has actually been a long history of conflict between Christians and Jews, see Christianity and antisemitism. Many German churches were decorated with the Judensau. A quote from the antisemitism article for you:

“ Without centuries of Christian antisemitism, Hitlers passionate hatred would never have been so fervently echoed...because for centuries Christians have held Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. On Good Friday Jews, have in times past, cowered behind locked doors with fear of a Christian mob seeking 'revenge' for deicide. Without the poisoning of Christian minds through the centuries, the holocaust is unthinkable.[3] The dissident Catholic priest Hans Küng has written that "Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism... ”

So in conclusion, yes, the idea of a Christian organisation like the KKK being antisemitic is not that surprising. Josh Keen (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in the 1920's some smaller KKK groups formed in the north that were strong Christians. Some of theses groups were not against blacks but were against Italians. It depends largely on geography and crime in the area the way some of these groups developed. This was during a period when there was strong mafia control in some neighborhoods that these short lived KKK groups were trying to eliminate.--Windowasher (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is basly confused. Almost all of the second Klan hated Italians: the KKK hated all immigrants and all Catholics, and the Italians were both. A considerable number of Italians were lynched by Klansmen, and it had nothing to do with alleged Mafia connections. The Klan also considered itself as strongly Protestant Christian, and would not accept any other religions; that was true regardless of whether it was concentrating its hatred against blacks, Italians, or any other minority. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dud link

The link at http://reactor-core.org/original-kkk.html does not connect to anything related to the Klan. The only reference to the Klan that I found at that site is at http://reactor-core.org/imperium.html - wertperch (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

KKK Australia branch

Apparently a branch of the KKK in was formed in Australia back in 1999 according to this BBC News article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/358783.stm

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Cab88 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

there's plenty of articles about klan presence in Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/national/we-have-infiltrated-party-kkk-20090709-der4.html http://www.news.com.au/kkk-offshoot-targets-australia/story-e6frfkp9-111111348150 http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/07/06/5218_news.html http://silverfernlotie.net/

There should be a headline about international klan chapters, since it's not only in America these days but in many other countries like Scotland, England, Australia, New Zealand & Germany. --Vernex3 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting data for peak membership

The opening paragraphs of the article state the peak membership in the 1920s was 4-5 million. The sidebar shows it to be 6 million. Both have footnotes referencing independent sources. Does anyone know which is correct? LarryJeff (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Derivation of the name?

What's the etymology of the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.213.44.66 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's in the 1st paragraph of the section "First Klan; Creation." It's from the Greek word for "circle." LarryJeff (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) It also promotes brothership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.1.171 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms & Definitions

"A member may use the acronym AYAK (Are you a Klansman?) in conversation to surreptitiously identify himself to another potential member. The response AKIA (A Klansman I am) completes the greeting."

In this quote from the bottom of the article, pronunciation is not specified. Are these pronounced as acronyms ("A.Y.A.K."), or as words (Kayak - k)?                     ~Rayvn  09:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia redirects "Exalted Cyclops" to "Klu Klux Klan", but the entry for "Klu Klux Klan" does not contain a definition or description of what "Exalted Cyclops" is. Can someone who knows something about this please add a definition or description?

Founding

I may have been misinformed, but the way I was taught it, the KKK wasn't originally a racist hate group. I thought was just a fraternity for Civil War vets to get together and talk about the war, but then some renegade members starting lynching blacks and that the eventually, the lynnching Klansman outnumbered the legit Klansman and that the first KKK was disbanded by the very people who created it because it had turned into something that it wasn't supposed to be. Like I said, I could've been misinformed, but if I wasn't, should the article actually mention it? Emperor001 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My dad told me the same thing more than once, so there may be at least a grain of truth there, but without a documented reference I don't think it's appropriate to include. LarryJeff (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I once saw a History Channel program that confirms this, but I don't know how to cite it. Emperor001 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm no Klan lover but the entire article is biased and does not reflect Wiki's policy of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.96.102 (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Issues?

The article seems to have an anti-Ku-Klux-Klan point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.150.45 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The neutral point-of-view is neither a "centrist" point-of-view nor no point-of-view. However, if you can find some well-sourced material to add to this article which casts the KKK in a more positive light, please, by all means, add it. Groupthink (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

False Information

This article is written for someone who knows very little about the clan and only believes the first thing they here without checking it.The clan was started to rid carpetbaggers and scallawags form the southern state governments who were under military rule and couldn't vote for there officials and weren't allowed in congress black or white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.119.228 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have verifiable information from reliable sources that you would like to add to the article, please present it. From what I can tell, the Klan was started before the scalawags and carpetbaggers showed up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there are two posts here that are basically the same, I just put it in a new paragraph. I don't see anything that violates neutral point of view. There is nothing that says the Klan is bad or evil. It is a fact that members of the Klan, until modern time, committed heinous crimes, that is not disputed.                      ~Rayvn  09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

Colored suits

I don't know exactly what those robes are called, but most of them are white. What is the meaning of red, blue or purple ones? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're posting from an IP but you're editing a bunch of things. I suggest to you to get an account, unless you just forgot to log in, right now I don't have a way to contact you other then this which don't really count.

I have moved this for you. When adding a new topic to a discussion page, add it to the top, not the bottom. When added to the bottom users are not likely to see it.                     ~Rayvn  10:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when is posting at the top a custom? On topic, do you know what those different colours mean? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see from the topic above that others share my concern. I am not a constant editor but I do think I understand the spirit of the NPOV concept. I made a slight change [4] with this edit summary "(removing some non-npov labels. smear terminogy doesn't belong in an encyclopedia even if we all agree with the smears or the terms.)" Subsequently an Editor reverted my change which was then reverted by another editor to what I had done. Then a 4th. Editor reverted it again back to what it was before my initial edit...we made 2 revert edits each and then that editor in essence issued warnings (3R)and name calling (edit warring) on my talk page. All I'm trying to do is improve the article, as I AGF is the case with of the others who have tried to address the issue both here and by editing the article. Given that multiple Editors have expressed concern just in the past few days, (99.187.150.45, 69.179.119.228, Darwinekand myself) I'm tagging the article so that the matter can be fully addressed. If someone can show a rational argument that "far right hate group" is not intrinsically a POV Smear and that "avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans by violence and intimidation." is not giving the likely false impression that violence and intimidation were the only ways they furthered their cause then maybe I can be swayed and a consensus can be reached to leave this termin ology in the article. At least the words "mainly" or "primarily" should be included in front of "by violence and intimidation" if reliable sources in fact confirm that to be the case; maybe the KKK did a whole bunch of more friendly things in the community? I really don't know. In any event, perhaps there can be a real substantive discussion about the POV status of this article and the tag stays until a consensus on the matter is reached. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion that the KKK did a whole bunch of more friendly things in the community. However you are the one who is making the claim that NPOV has been violated. Absent reliable sources that make such a claim regarding KKK benevolence -- and I don't see any -- it seems like the tagging is frivolous and unjustified. I would have no objection if someone remved the tagging now, but in any event the burden is on YOU to show that there is a POV represented in reliable sources that is not in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow; what an awfully misleading and manipulative thing to do, leave out the word "maybe" before,and "I don't really know." after my words " MAYBE KKK did a whole bunch of more friendly things in the community." Most Editors,I hope, are not influenced by your making such a blatant out of context mis-quote and then extrapolatiing that into a claim of "benevolence". FOR THE RECORD; my own personal views are as state in my original edit summary "..we all agree with the smears or the terms". and the fact I am being put in the absurd position of having to state my personal, very negative opinion on the KKK in defence of being assigned a pov I never expressed and do not have only shows me that the NPOV tag is absolutely needed here. I have asked a few other Editors to weigh in so that a true consensus can be reached. If a few editors here don't want to operate by consensus, then I suppose we can try Arbcom but I'm not going to accept what I think is an outrageous "Smear" article with blatant POV terminology without a community consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you or do you not intend to produce reliable sources that demonstrate there is a significant POV missing from this article? As it states at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." As far as "far right- wing" or "hate group" being smears, in fact they are widely used and understood terms that accurately describe the KKK from its origin right up to today. How is telling the truth in a proper context ever a "smear"?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok "hate Group" is an Opinion "White Supremacist" is not. i think the text below is more tha sufficent, if people wanna see it as a hate group let them see it that way. Saying the Southern Poverty law Center has classified them as a hate group is ok. In anthropology i might find canibalism disgusting and shocking another culture finds it socially acceptable. lets stick with facts. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is true that Mr. Grant Evans should bring sources. Yet, honestly the KKK did a lot of community work especially in the interwar period. Nowadays it is certainly a far-right hate group, yet in the past, with whole towns joining the Klan, Klansmen helped the community, especially the poor. This of course is not lessening the extent of violence they used. It is like with the Hamas. They are officially a terrorist group, yet they do a lot of community work. - Darwinek (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant point, I think, is that the KKK was a "far-right hate group" even if it did, from time to time, stray from its sole reason for existence (i.e. the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate people because of their race, religion, or national origins) to help its members and sympathizers with econonic issues. Even if there is anecdotal evidence produced of this community outreach, it certainly does not belong in the article lede since it is such a minor part of the overall picture. At best it may merit, if sourced, a paragraph somewhere in the body of the article.

A possible rewriting of the sentence in question might be:

Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate group organizations in the United States whose avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans, mainly by the use of violence and intimidation.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue I see is "far Right" and "Hate group", While certainly far right in its modern incarnation it was certainly middle of the road in past two incarnations. How about something like "white Sumpremiscist political movement" instead of hate group; and instead of "far right" declare modern incarnations to be "considered far right". Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In its first incarnation the hate was directed at Carpetbaggers, Scalawags, and African Americans -- violence and intimidation were the KKK's most effective tools. Its second incarnation expanded the number of groups that were targets of hatred; the violence was not as extreme but it still was a recognized tool. Having said that, however, I have no problem (although others may) with using your suggestion and rewriting the sentence something like this:

Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present White Supremacist and Nativist organizations in the United States whose avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans, mainly by the use of violence and intimidation.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Much more effective summary. I could support this.Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support this. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I support this one. It is much more precise than the previous lead. - Darwinek (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For reasons stated below, I no longer accept my proposed compromise. Grantvans has decided to change this to a referendum on the legitimacy of the term "hate groups" and I find it to be a commonly used term with a clear meaning. While there may be room for debate on whether all groups classified by the ADL or SPLC deserve the term (as there is debate on many other classification systems), there is no question that the KKK merits the hate classification.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see where the term "far right hate group" stated in a factual way helps the article. Derogatory name calling is ironically one of the things these very groups are known for themselves. Maybe we should put ina "past" and "present" differentiation if Darwinek is correct.? I really don't want to go hunting for references to the KKK helping the poor but if you, Darwinek, suggest a RS i will go have a look, because I do think the article needs some POV mitigation if at all possible. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the other aspect of alledging that they ONLY used violence and intimidation

Thanks for trying to improve this article, Mr.grantevans2. With respect, I think you're misunderstanding the intent of WP's neutrality policy. NPOV stands for "neutral point-of-view", not "no point-of-view". In other words, it's OK for an article to take a perspective on its subject, as long as that perspective is balanced and supportable. Just as truth is an absolute defense against libel in civil law, verifiability trumps charges of bias. Delineating a widely held, prominent viewpoint is just fine, even if doing so comes off as "derogatory". If this weren't so, Joseph Stalin couldn't be labeled a brutal dictator, Osama bin Ladin couldn't be called a terrorist mastermind, and Wing's singing couldn't be described as shrill and atonal. With regard to the Klan, "far right hate group" is a more than fair descriptor. Groupthink (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to Groupthink for a clear and effective summary of the NPOV policy, a misunderstanding of which seems to be at the root of this. I certainly assume good faith in Mr.grantevans2 and his initial edit, however, NPOV is not something that applies to technically accurate descriptive labels, especially those describing political ideoligies. Specifically, terms like Left, Right, Far Left, and Far Right describe positions on a political spectrum and are not normally considered smear terms, as they describe a position without passing moral or ethical judgment.

It is easier to understand that many would consider the term "hate group" to be a non-neutral, but again, it is a descriptor that is technically accurate; the Klan was founded primarily on a shared hatred of blacks, Jews, and other non-whites. Any term which accurately describes that will likely be perceived as non-neutral, simply because the act of hatred itself is non-neutral. By way of analogy, the term retarded was not originally an offensive term, but a technical descriptor of a specific IQ level. It quickly took on offensive connotations though, because it described such a negative and undesirable condition. Note however, that on Wikipedia, the "politically correct" phrase Mentally handicapped redirects to Mental retardation. We use the technically correct terms, regardless of public bias.

Finally, regarding the phrase "violence and intimidation", this is what the Klan is best known for, both historically, and in the popular imagination. While it is certainly not true that every single act by a Klan member was violent, this was indeed their primary modus operandi and as such merits a clear mention, not obfuscated by less direct words with less clear meanings.

I'm sorry this was so long but there were several points to cover, and I wanted to avoid sounding like a DICK. Thanks for your time, Doc Tropics 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i would Disagree with hatred as being the root of the group, White supremacy at its core not hate of the those races but rather putting them on proper stratification. It is an opinion on the message of the group; saying they are white supremacist is a fact, if people want to interpret that as a hate group that is fine. I do not like the klan but lets be accurate. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to put Tom (North Shoreman)'s rewrite in place and remove the NPOV tag. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think editors here may have to escalate their unusual interpreation of NPOV to the WP:NPOVN. Verbal chat 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard# Ku Klux Klan Issue for discussion there. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, thanks to Verbal and Weaponbb7 for suggesting/implementing the noticeboard venue for wider participation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the one who gave grantevans a justified 3RR warning. He had reverted the same material 3 times in 27 hours, twice in a short period, all while refusing to engage in discussion about it. The idea that neutral has to remove anything negative is wrong-headed. The sources have to be neutral. If we can't find neutral sources that say something positive, that doesn't mean we exclude the negative criticism and that is what we're doing here. When numerous reliable third party sources call them a "hate group", it is valid for inclusion. Trying to determine where hate is in the "stratification" starts looking a lot like WP:OR. Who is making that determination? Is it a neutral third party telling us where it is in their beliefs or is it the opinion of editors? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that grantvans has decided to change the discussion into a referendum on the legitimacy of the term "hate group." As such, I am withdrawing my support for the compromise that I proposed above. "Hate group" is a commonly recogized and used term and the KKK should be the term's poster boy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. I waited a day before jumping into this, to see where he was taking it. Neutral doesn't equal non-critical. The sources neutrality is the issue. If this were an isolated source, then there could be an argument made about WP:WEIGHT. But there are numerous, reliable sources that call them a hate group and I'm not seeing any reliable sources that refute that characterization. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for new Text in lead paragraph

Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present White supremacist and nativist organizations in the United States whose avowed purpose is to protect the rights and further the interests of White Americans. The first such organizations originated in the Southern states and eventually grew to national scope. They developed iconic white costumes consisting of robes, masks, and conical hats. The KKK has a record of using terrorism, violence, and lynching to murder and oppress African Americans, Jews and other minorities and to intimidate and oppose Roman Catholics and labor unions. The group has been labeled a "Hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

This is all i meant with my issues with presenting "hate group" as Fact; it is opinion of several notable organizations not a fact. Citations for these statements are easy does this satisfy everyone? Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, this creates a few new issues. The "avowed purpose" of the group is problematic given the various missions of contemporary Klan groups. That aside, the notion that it is the rights and interests of white Americans that are being protected and furthered is lending far too much credence to a decidedly non-neutral point of view. As regards "hate group", I personally think that particular label has probably passed beyond the need for specific attributions and into the realm of neutrality. If we are going to credit specific organizations for applying the label, we should at least endeavor to be comprehensive and add relatively unbiased academics and historians who have used the term instead of just the Klan's avowed opponents. Perhaps a wikilink to Hate group is enough to explain the problems with the term itself. --Dystopos (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Couple of questions. 1) Why are we suddenly including "nativist"? They are anti-immigrant than being anti-immigrant about certain countries (ie non-white). Never heard of them complaining about Scandanavian, German etc. immigrants. Second, I've said in another discussion, I'd prefer to use someone other than the SPLC and ADL as a source solely because it can be argued that they are biased. The FBI is "biased" against crime because they have a mandated governmental duty to be. But the SPLC/ADL are private organizations with the avowed purpose of going after organizations like the Klan. They do it because they want, not because they have a duty to. That could be argued as a display of bias. I have attended training from the SPLC, get their publications and use them as a resource routinely. But I've also found errors and exaggerations. I'm not demeaning them, but keep in mind, they need the problem to exist for their existance to continue. They have a vested financial and status interest in the topic. There are other sources, so why not use them? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I simply named notable orginzations that say it is; i think it rather redundant to say it is a hate group when it says white sumpremiscist and all that. However there is vocal concensus on this board that the term hate group be used thus i am trying middle ground. Are the SPLC, ADL, and FBI neuteral? no but by atributing it to them and putting down facts in the article people can decide if they agree Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that you consciously chose non-neutral sources when numerous neutral sources are available? That seems like a very POV approach. You want people to decide for themselves while making it appear that only non-neutral sources call the KKK a hate group.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No source is completly neutral, Every source and person has a bias. WP:DECISION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows us to Give POV statment to third parties.Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV states, "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation." Ignoring for the moment whether "hate group" is biased since no reliable sources contest the use, the section throws us right back to the guideline that only requires footnoting rather than attribution in the text. Strangely nobody is claiming that "White Supremacist" needs to be attributed in the text -- how is calling the KKK white supremacists any more a fact than calling the KKK a hate group?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a large nativist uprising in the U.S. after World War I and the KKK's second coming was deeply involved in this movement. The targets included Irish, Italians, and a variety of east Europeans. A couple of sources include "Strangers in the Land:Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925" by John Higham and "Structural Incentives for Conservative Mobilization: Power Devaluation and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan, 1915-1925" by Rory McVeigh in Social Forces, Vol. 77, No. 4 (Jun., 1999), pp. 1461-1496.

• I am not convinced that the term "hate group" needs to be included at all, but even so, I can support Weaponbb7's proposal as it is. One big associated problem I see is that from the few fraternities/clubs I've belonged to, like the Rotary Club for one, the group mentality,focus and behavior can be quite varied from one branch to another, so that's an aspect we haven't even addressed, which is tarring every branch of the KKK with the same brush. Now maybe all the branches of the KKK are identical to each other, I don't know, but unless we can find a RS which says they're all the same then maybe we shouldn't write the article as if they are. But, regardless of that, I can still support the suggested text above. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've never seen a reliable source detailing a divergence from the main premises of hate by any chapter. Even if there were one (or two), that would be such an exception that it wouldn't be relevant. It's like calling everyone on the US "Americans", but they're not all Americans. Can you show a reliable source that shows any Klan chapter that is not racist or biased against certain religions or ethnicities? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the proposed lead is not perfect but is written very well and is still much better than the previous one. Therefore it has my support. - Darwinek (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is no reason or requirement that the use of "hate group" be attributed in the actual text of the article. The only requirement in Wikipedia:Citing sources in for an inline citation. At WP:CITE#CHALLENGE this issue is addressed directly:

"The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion."

We will have met that requirement when we place a footnote after "hate group" and attribute it, in a footnote rather than in the text, to as many reliable sources as we feel like typing out. This is a significantly different situation from that in which reliable sources have DIFFERING OPINIONS on the subject. Despite my repeated requests, nobody has produced any reliable sources that dispute the fact that the KKK is a hate group.

If we're bound and determined to clutter up the lead with unnecessary language, then a more accurate wording would be, "The group is referred to as a "Hate group" in newspapers, by broadcast news organizations, in scholarly journals and books, and by such groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mereley again Vague statment Who? Which? when? I merely named well know and generally well respected groups. Simply putting hate group by popular opinion does nothing to satisfy the requirments for wikipedia. Hate Group is not a fact. it is popular opinion, i do not challenge whether or not its a hate group rather the way present it must be as a opinion of majority population. We do that by giving example of notable well respected groups that have called them that. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You ignore, again, the fact that there is no requirement to make any attribution in this case other than in a footnote. Whatever your intention may be, your text leaves it unclear how widespread the use of the term is. Since you say you don't deny that the references to the KKK as a hate group are both widely reported "in newspapers, by broadcast news organizations, in scholarly journals and books," and offer no reliable sources to dispute this, why is it necessary to include specific reliable sources anyplace other than in a footnote?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

read WP:LABEL We can't state an "opinion" of a group Fact. We can't label the group as something then find a cite that fits the opinion even if it majority of americans agree with it. I can find numerous sources that say W. Bush was a warmonger during the lead up to iraq war but it is an opinion since it can't be proved; was as it is an opinion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You can probably find reliable sources on both sides of the issue of Bush while you OBVIOUSLY can't do so regarding the KKK. It is not whether the "majority of americans agree" but what reliable sources say. You again fail to explain why, according to Wikipedia policy, it is not sufficient to simply footnote the reference.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have given you WP:LABEL WP:DECISION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV That work in with and expand on WP:Verifiability. Indeed Advise you to read WP:ENEMY to assist in you understanding of the issue. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me give you a head start on answering the question that you repeatedly fail to address. "A footnote does not meet wikipedia requirements in this instance because..."Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IT IS NOT that the footnote is not insuffient to esatblish "x" says "x." it is the way it has opinion has been presented as fact. The Term hat group is not defined any where it is a "label" x has applied to x. Even if it is a commonly held view point does not make it fact. I will not write cliffnotes for you read what i have suggested youu read above. So far i have given you examples yet you hold to the quote in the rule book that fits you view. Disregauding the part of the rule book that say explains exceptions to that rule Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• It seems that the point regarding the attribution of "hate group" as a description of the KKK is that it is such a basic, uncontroversial and closely-aligned label that it seems ridiculous to have to assign it to two or three sources. It approaches the obvious error of saying that "Many primary math textbooks, such as those published by Scholastic and Holt, claim that 2 + 2 = 4". When you use that construction, the effect is to reduce a very general and accepted understanding to a narrow constituency. --Dystopos (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:DECISION covers this very well Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think my analogy above is closer to what we're dealing with here than the example cited in the essay. Given that the term was originated more or less to describe the Klan and groups that operate in a similar fashion, I think it's nearly unavoidable here. On further reflection, since the term itself is controversial and has been mainly bandied by the ADFL and SPLC, then I think those attributions are worthwhile (but perhaps not in the lead). Even if we shy away from the compact "hate group", we need to make clear that the Klan has historically engaged in hostility and violence toward ethnic minorities and those championing equality. And for that we can cite whichever references are most authoritative and established. --Dystopos (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more than clear in my proposed text Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hate group is a specific term and the KKK as a hate group should be cited, at least in footnotes. Wikipedia dealt with similar terrorism issue long time ago and the result was, that we don't label any organizations as terrorist, unless it is properly cited by reliable sources. The same process should pertain to the KKK, and I am sure the sources could be provided quickly, as other users stated above. - Darwinek (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A similar argument has gone on for years at the article Holocaust denial over these sentences in the article lead, “Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[6] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[7] conspiracy theory.[8]”

There are 19 sources cited in the footnote to justify antisemetic and I believe there may have been more at one time. Obviously it would be absurd to require that specific sources be listed in the body of the article to support such a widely documented finding. Yet that is exactly what is being asked of the KKK article. While “generally considered” sounds weasely, in fact Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words provides an on point exception:

“When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify—for example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."

I would suggest the following rewrite:

Ku Klux Klan (KKK), informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that have a record of using terrorism,[2] violence, and lynching to murder and oppress African Americans, Jews and other minorities and to intimidate and oppose Roman Catholics and labor unions. The first such organizations originated in the Southern states and eventually grew to national scope. They developed iconic white costumes consisting of robes, masks, and conical hats. While its self-avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans, it is generally considered to be a hate group.

In addition to the changes regarding "hate group", this emphasizes what the KKK is most noted for rather than leading with its own description of itself. Your argument regarding "terrorist" is also right on point. WP:TERRORIST directly addresses the situation where there are multiple reliable sources -- it only requires attribution in the text when there is only one source is used. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My only argument here is gernerally considered to specify the most notable "organizations/people/governments who consider it such since again it is vague." if we say US Government, ADL and SPLC say so. WP:LABEL WP:DECISION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOVseems most appropriate to apply. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the several policies Weaponbb7 has brought to our attention should simply be respected and followed until such time as they might be changed. We are fortunate that the policies he found are not vague,ambiguous or even nuanced. Btw, I am uncomfortably working to locate less damning RS, as several Editors have challenged me to do, and they are surprisingly not that hard to find but I'm not throwing them into this discussion because that would likely serve as a deflection away from simply following the clear policies in place telling us specifically how we are supposed to be dealing with this. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From osama bin laden:

"Bin Laden is on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation's list of FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives[1], though he is not on the list for 9/11 nor has he been charged for these attacks." This is the stance i want to take with hate group. Not state Hate Group as fact but say x and x Call KKK a hate group. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with stating who has labelled them as such as part of the text. A similar thing was done in the Stormfront (website) article. Again, I'd suggest using someone other than less neutral sources like the SPLC or ADL. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The very first sentence of that article says, "Stormfront is a white nationalist and supremacist[1] neo-Nazi[2] Internet forum that has been described as the Internet's first major hate site.[3]" The attribution as to the source comes in the footnote, not in the text. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I guess it changed again. Oh well. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maintain the Status Quo and Remove the Tag

The above discussion eventually reached the point where everyone participating, to some extent, agreed to the inclusion of "hate group" -- the only issue was how to attribute it. I have added a footnote to the text which lists about a dozen sources that include scholarly journal articles, published books, and a few popular news magazines. It seems like limiting the text to the proposed The group has been labeled a "Hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and the Federal Bureau of Investigation]. would be EXTREMELY MISLEADING to any reader. As proposed, the text would present a POV that the classification is driven ONLY by the SPLC, ADL, and FBI.

The current status on "hate groups" in the lead is:

1. Multiple and varied reliable sources support the categorization, and

1. NO reliable sources exclude the KKK from the categorization.

Where is the violation of NPOV? IMO, it is time to put this baby to bed and remove the tag. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Groupthink (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

North Shoreman, you have tried to put this as a debate of whether or not this is a hate group. Your flaw in this debate has been has been trying to make it that; this about HOW TO CONTEXTUALIZE it in the text. You have used with snippets of text rules that fit your views and ignored a statement that in the rules that say "Thou shall not" and have commmited a wiki-sin. (i love word play). There seems to be noconsensous by my count 3 have agrreed with sopme variation of my idea; and three seem to be on agree with you needless to say it is premature. i plan to invite members of Projects that have the KKK in thier scope to discuss this.Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "thou shall not" anywhere on wikipedia. I assume you are referring to your misreading of WP:LABEL. The fact is, wikipedia editors are not labelling the KKK as a hate group -- we are just reporting how RELIABLE SOURCES LABEL THE KKK.

It may or may not be a FACT (such as 2 +2 = 4) that the KKK is a hate group, but it is a FACT that it is virtually universally classified as one. Why do you refuse to accept text that accurately reflects the diversity of sources that agree to this classification? In additon to the status quo, I have proposed two other ways of saying that. The only response I get is your opinion that only three sources should be listed? Why do you want to hide the fact from readers of the article that scholarly journals and books also make the same classification?

It is wikilawyering at its worst when the whole gist of your argument is that we are somehow prohibited from reporting what virtually all reliable sources agree on? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I merley suggested three i never said, it had to be three. [unsigned edit by Weaponbb7]

Not true. You rejected both of these proposals that would have made it clear the wide diversity of sources available:

1. The group is referred to as a "Hate group" in newspapers, by broadcast news organizations, in scholarly journals and books, and by such groups as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

1. While its self-avowed purpose was to protect the rights of and further the interests of white Americans, it is generally considered to be a hate group.

The footnotes that I have added support both of these statements. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

By problem was "in newspapers, by broadcast news organizations, in scholarly journals and books" Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• That gets answered by the citation at the end of the sentence. Northshore is correct, totally wikilawyering. The tag has been removed and should stay removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, journals and books are now covered. How mant newspapers (already have The Christian Science Monitor) and broadcast news organizations would you feel needed to be added. But, seriously, do you REALLY doubt that these additional sources exist? It seems like if that were your only concern then you would have said you conditionally agreed with it rather than rejecting it out of hand. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Reached I concede to Groupthinks edit, if this topic come up again i doubt my position will change. But for now this seems the consensus is in agreement. Closing discussion shortly Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Also Needs a Re-write tag.

If there are so many RS backing this articles contents, then imo there is a lot more work to be done. Although I won't be placing another tag, I definitely think a re-write tag is needed. I just spent a lot of time reading the entire FBI report [5] shown as footnote #2 which is used to justify using a "record of Terrorism" label. On page 46, which lists the groups that committed Terrorist actions, the KKK is not even on the list. The only reference to the KKK at all in the 49 pages is this:

• "DECEMBER 4, 2001

Leader of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan sentenced On December 4, 2001, Jeff Berry, leader of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, was sentenced to seven years in prison for conspiracy to commit criminal confinement with a deadly weapon. The charges stemmed from a 1999 incident in which Berry refused to allow a local reporter and his camera-"

and that was one charge 9 years ago against 1 man, not against the group, and it was not a charge under any of the terrorism laws.

Footnote #1 to something called socyberty seems to now be on Wikipedia's Blacklist,at least that's the message I'm getting when I try to insert the link here. I'm not sure where the content is that it relates to, but the link goes to some kind of blog by something called socyberty which does not immediately seem like a RS.

So, I think some of us can be trying to improve the article with better RS supported content and there also needs to be a lot more flags in the article, I think.

None of this topic is meant to distract from the current NPOV discussion but the need for RS improvement is another important matter that eventually will need to be addressed to drag this article (kicking and screaming I imagine) up to Wikipedia standards, imo. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Those are good points. May I suggest that it's more productive to work on the article than to throw nagtags around telling others that they need to work on the article? --Dystopos (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's a good suggestion. I'll get at it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Because of re-writing efforts, especially in the footnotes, the article is better than it was. But it is still, I fear, in blatant violation of several important policies in both tone and content, especially Words to Avoid. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• There are exceptions to everything. If we were dealing with a BLP of an actor some of the words that are extremely appropriate in an article about a hate group like that Klan probably would be out of place in the bio. But you have raised objection after objection (calling them "concerns") and for the most part, everyone has jumped through all your hoops. Despite your best efforts to pretty up the history of the Klan, we've proven that numerous reliable sources say exactly what we've been saying. AGF isn't a suicide pact. I'm calling a duck a duck. All of your "concerns" have just coincidentally been things that cast the Klan in a bad light. The axiom in military intelligence is "Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action". I can't sit here an accept that it is a big coincidence. And spare me a fake litinany of how many black friends you have some other nonsense. Or maybe you'll just come back to my talk page and spew trash. Either way, you can claim you have the best of intentions, but everything I've seen is hinderance and pedantic nit-picking over things that all happen to make the Klan look bad. I'll provide you the link to WP:WQA so you can go report that I was mean to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

how are footnotes removed?

Footnote #1 appears to be a blacklisted source. How do I remove it? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see someone got rid of that blacklisted footnote: thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk archive

Currently, the template at the top of this page only displays links to archives 1 - 6. Does anyone know how to get numbers 7 and 8 listed? Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. :) - Darwinek (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.183.225.9, 8 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "A Short History of Reconstruction" by the renowned historian, Dr. Eric Foner, revealed that: (a) the Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by Democrats as a Tennessee social club; (b) the Ku Klux Klan became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy; and (c) the Ku Klux Klan spread into other Southern states, launching a 'reign of terror' against Republican leaders, black and white. 99.183.225.9 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and will will make the change.

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.

Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan's The Kourier Magazine: "I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: "Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a 'reign of terror' against Republican leaders black and white." Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life."

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner's recitations of the horrific acts of terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: "Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi - assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins - was 'president of a republican club' and known as a man who 'would speak his mind.'"

"White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up Republican meetings," wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page 186, he wrote: "An even more extensive 'reign of terror' engulfed Jackson, a plantation county in Florida's panhandle. 'That is where Santa has his seat,' remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150 persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly with black customers." The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s. During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.152.162 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're pretty obviously trying to push a view point here. We could potentially add any well cited connections between prominent politicians and Klan organizations, but you should find another forum in which to slander the Democratic party. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really slander, but it's basically crap. If folks want to criticize the historic Democratic party for its racism, that's perfectly fair; the Klan controlled the Democratic Party in various places at various times, but by the time the Southern Strategy co-option of the old-line Yellow Dogs was complete, the Klan had no base in either party. Certainly small remnants remained -- those like Byrd who spent the rest of careers living down the idiocy of their youth. Historically, the relationship between the Klan and the Democratic Party is clear; there's no such connection anymore. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed that the editor is trying to POV push. Also agree that Clovis picked the wrong word with slander. The truth isn't slander. Most Everything he said is factually correct. POV pushing, yes. Slander, no. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In this defense of Thurmond, he forgot to note that Thurmond himself was a former Democrat. If he really did defend blacks, it was as a Democrat! 174.124.168.180 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This brings up a point that I was going to bring up - Using sources - ADL and the Southern Poverty Law center - It was concluded the KKK is a far right hate group - Although history and the Page shows 100s of years of Democratic involvement - to say the least - Now we have Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, is one of this country's most prominent historians. He is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians. I guess if you do not eat Tou Food and read "David Chalmers, and give broken links Or whole books as your citations you can not make it on the page ! Here is the citation - On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”--Kimmy (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SPLC and ADL have been involved in numerous discussions and The RS Notice board and consistently has been held up as a RS. Secondly Democrats of a hundered years ago are different than the ones running around today so your point is moot. 13:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

that is where you are mistaken. The democrats haven't changed much other then not liking groups of people to 'saving' them. They were the progressive party when the KKK was at their peek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Bryan.2C_Wilson.2C_and_the_Progressive_Era:_1896.E2.80.931932

--OxAO (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The 'Westboro Baptist Church'. We absolutely repudiate their activities."

Reference to this quote needs to be taken from this website:
http://www.kukluxklan.bz/
Native94080 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• And why does this need put in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The quote is self-explanatory. Native94080 (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• No, it's not. That quote looks like a press release and Wikipedia isn't a news service. I don't see any encyclopedic value in the announcement and you apparently would rather respond with sarcasm rather than something helpful, I doubt we'll see it in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This quote is relevant, since it shows a belief that the KKK holds, from a WP:NPOV standpoint. I don't understand your statement saying "Wikipedia isn't a news service" when there are certainly many Wikipedia articles that would include recent news and events. Other opinions from other editors/administrators would are appreciated along the rules of WP:NPOV. Native94080 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I find this whole issue to be bizarre. There are any number of organizations that are not associated with the KKK. Why exactly is this relevant to this article? Even if it is somehow established that it is relevant, why should we consider a KKK website disavowal as a reliable source? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If it can be proven that the quote above is false, and/or the website I provided above is fraudulent, then that would be relevant. Native94080 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. As the person who wants to add the material, you have the burden of establishing both the relevance of the material to this article and the reliability of the source. You apparently consider KKK websites as reliable -- most of us probably don't. While I find it somewhat interesting that the KKK doesn't want to "taint" its "image" by being associated with the apparently even more extreme (in the KKK's opinion) Westboro Baptist Church, this still requires a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Tom clearly understands. Hundreds of groups announce thousands of things. That doesn't mean they belong in this article. I'm sure the Klan doesn't have a connection with NAMLA, GLAAD, NOW, the Jewish Defense League or a thousand other organizations. So what? Where is the notability in NOT having a connection? If there had been widespread allegations, covered by reliable sources, stating that the Kaln DID have a connection, then this might be relevant. But since that allegation hasn't been made by reliable sources and isn't in this article, insterting this is just a) using wikipedia as a press release and b) an attempt to draw some attention from Westboro's current infamy. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to state in this talk page that the quotation above from KKK is true. Only three (out of numerous) news link sources, searched via Google, are provided below.
Gazette.com, Pink News, Anorak.
Native94080 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, this statement from KKK should be included in Westboro's article.
Native94080 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again: I'm sure the Klan doesn't have a connection with NAMLA, GLAAD, NOW, the Jewish Defense League or a thousand other organizations. So what? Where is the notability in NOT having a connection? If there had been widespread allegations, covered by reliable sources, stating that the Kaln DID have a connection, then this might be relevant. But since that allegation hasn't been made by reliable sources and isn't in this article, insterting this is just a) using wikipedia as a press release and b) an attempt to draw some attention from Westboro's current infamy. You done nothing to show why is belongs in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want to dispute this in Westboro's article, or unless there are other editors who would like to give their opinion about this statement as it relates to KKK's wiki-article, your feedback is now appreciated. Thank you.
Native94080 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how the editors who care about the Westboro article will receive it, but that is a matter for them. I have no interest in that article. I have strong opinions about them and couldn't remain neutral about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is mention of some link as alleged by others then certainly a comment that the KKK disavowed responsibility should be here. Maybe a controversies section could mention that they were blamed but refuted this. (of course that could very well just go on the relevant page with a link from here)Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is eugenics and progressivism left out of the page ?

I have a lot of Citations and a rich history to add -

If I list the facts of the above mentioned "here" will a more advanced editor help me? please! --Kimmy 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sure. If you have WP:RS that shows this as an ideological rally for the KKK then it absolutely has to be here. Obviously some fringe claim to the KKK and eugenics wouldn't, as a potentially touchy issue it needs absolute proof. if you have that highlight what youw ant to add with sources and we can discuss it here.Lihaas (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• eugenics
• Duke admits that his interest in ‘the effects of evolution on races’ was originally stirred by professor Carleton Coon - Duke
• The International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics (IAAEE) was a prominent group in the promotion of eugenics and segregation, and the first publisher of Mankind Quarterly [[6]]
• Coon was also one of the most aggressive of all Anthropologist's appealing to the violence prone Southern Segregationists who took his advice to heart when they murdered Emmett Till, Medgar Evers, Jr., the Birmingham, Alabama Baptist Church Choir Girls and Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman: [[7]]
• The works of Anthropologist and Professor Carleton "Carl" Stevens Coon were often cited by those in the IAAEE, The Pioneer Fund grant recipients given by Wickliffe P. Draper, as well as those in the segregationist south involved with the White Citizens Councils because Coon's research supported their concept of the separation of the races and the inferiority of the Negroid strain. Elmore D. Greaves published the Southern Patriot which often cited the works of Professor Carleton S. Coon, Elmore D. Greaves provided Byron DeLa Beckwith with funds for his defense [[8]]
• Byron DeLa Beckwith: Based on new evidence that he had boasted about the assassination at a Ku Klux Klan rally, De La Beckwith was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1994 link
• eugenics movement did not invent racism. it did strengthen it, ...
• Sanger and the Negro Project - Influenced strongly by both the eugenics movement and the progressive welfare programs of the New Deal era, the Negro Project was, from the start, largely indifferent to the needs of the black community and constructed in terms and with perceptions that today smack of racism.[[9]]

Here is David Duke Using Eugenics to peddle his hate - http://www.davidduke.com/general/whatever-happened-to-eugenics_29.html david duke

• the KKK's ideas and Margaret Sanger's ideas concerning race are so similar.
• In Sanger's autobiography, Margaret Sanger tells us that in 1926 in Silver Lake, New Jersey, she spoke at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
• Historian Eric Foner observed:"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party"Foner 1989, p. 425-426 , during this time Progressivism was at it's high point in American politics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Bryan.2C_Wilson.2C_and_the_Progressive_Era:_1896.E2.80.931932

link

• Keep in mind Margret Sanger is from the progressive Era /and was progressive and,she spoke at many kkk rallies -
• Well this is a good start - Thank you for replying to my Thread !--Kimmy (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The peaceful faction

The Ku Klux Klan only does this because they had got money stole from them but that was because they had stole their crops i know because i am a person who the kkk tryed to kill but they didn't kil me.

Somewhere out there, there is a "peaceful" faction of the KKK, granted, they're relatively small, but are significantly different from the other factions. I didn't look in great detail, but I didn't spot any mention of them anywhere. 140.158.253.4 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Three word for you: Just Say No. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

citation for you - the invisible empire in the West: ... By Shawn Lay--Kimmy (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't say they are "peaceful". It describes what is nothing but a marketing tactic on their part. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lay's study of the Klan's activities in El Paso:was a counterpoint not just to the organization's original image but to Alexander's portrait of its efforts elsewhere in Texas. "If, in fact, the Klan was composed largely of unrestrained racists, bigots, and moral authoritarians," Lay later wrote, "then El Paso would have been one of the most likely places for the order to engage in roughshod tactics. But such was not the case. The El Paso klavern largely ignored the Hispanic majority, never employed violence, and spent most of its time challenging the policies of fellow Anglos who dominated city government, focusing on such issues as better public education, honest elections, and road construction." The El Paso Klan, he concluded, was "quite similar to earlier reform efforts in El Paso's history."Lay's study --Kimmy (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Hundreds Go to KKK Rally in Nahunta; Scene Remains Peacefu

One-man KKK rally draws onlookers "However, Bradley had insisted the rally would be peaceful and stepped in when one man went too far. The man, who spewed curse words and shouted about white rights, was escorted away."We just want to let everyone know we aren't the hate group of the '50s and '60s," Bradley said. "We just want our rights, just like the NAACP wants theirs." KKK rally draws onlookers Klan rally - loud, but peaceful - loud, but peaceful --Kimmy (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

99% of Klan rallies are peaceful, its what allows them to keep protesting unhassled by law enforcement, i dont think these sources are exactly what we are looking for. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly. Not acting like an idiot in public doesn't make you "peaceful". Ted Bundy was considered by most who knew him to be polite, well-mannered and sociable. Did that make him a "peaceful" man? It's a sales pitch and self-preservation. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

sales pitch and self-preservation - Now we are not pushing a "POV" are we ? What I gather (I do not buy into it but that is my POV ) The New Klan is trying to be Peaceful - And I have provided Citation from "Respected sources" showing Actions backing up the Klans words - I noticed on the Black panthers page -Black panthers-way down at the bottom of the page was listed as a "hate group" Mention of them being far Far left "missing" From the same sources used for the same claims against the Klan on this page .Why the huge Difference? ( not at top of Page like the KKK page was done ) but the New black panthers POV was wrote into the page.Why does it frighten people so much to look at all sides of Life ? This is turning into nothing more than a witch Hunt - now you have me defending a group I really do not like , I fell dirty - But I remain Honest at least --Kimmy (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not POV pushing. It's called actutally reading more than one or two sources and using common sense. The Klan started their "re-branding" under David Duke. Duke was a well-dressed, polished spokesman in a suit, trying to erase the image of a fat "good old boy" in a sheet. They further tried this shift in public appearence when they joined up with certain militia types to oppose Vietnamese fishermen on Texas. They tried to gain support by supporting a cause that people who normally wouldn't associate with the Klan supported. There are other examples....but no, it's not POV pushing, it's looking at their history over the past 50 years, reading a lot and being aware of the blatantly obvious. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Black Panther article refers to them as revolutionary left-wing. That's about as "far left" as you can get. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

African-American revolutionary left-wing organization working for the self-defense for black people.Ask DR,King what he thought of the Violence - - Huge , Huge ....differences - In the way the two Left and Right Hate groups are treated - revolutionary left-wing - KKK Far right hate group - But the two share the same exact same sources that label them Left and RIGHT hate groups - ADL -

The Black Panther Party was(it no longer exists) far from a hate group. They were nothing of the sort. The New Black Panther Party IS a hate group. The KKK(it doesn't really exist anymore either) is (among other things) a hate group. Personally, I don't believe in linear dynamics at all, certainly not with politics, but since everyone still uses them they should be labeled "Far Right Wing". Any political scientist would agree. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tell the nine police officers killed and the 56 wounded by Black Panthers that they weren't a hate group. And while you claim the Klan no longer exists, plenty of reliable sources, academics and the Klan themselves disagree. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to complain about Black Panthers, we are here to talk about the KKK Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point; and if something about Black Panthers bothers you, discuss it there; consensus and reliable sources agree that the nomenclature in this article is appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not worried about the Black panthers - --Kimmy (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew it would not be long - This is always the drum beaten by Lefties - David Duke. - Even though the (R) party never really embraced him - Please do not tell me you are claiming the (R) and (D) changed places ? Shall we mention Robert Byrd ? Now make the excuse , His hatred "Byrds"was way back in his youth ! BTW - I am the one providing and asking for sources for the Article - I'm not the one Pushing POV - Using blanket statements.Example - I have Read this , or saying everyone knows that , If so provide the source and put it in the article - - This is why people turn to an - encyclopedia - Good sources - --Kimmy (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The Klan Claims- they are peaceful they have changed . And there are examples well sourced that I have provided showing they have been in many situations !- Take it or leave it - --Kimmy (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the history Of the Repulican Party! its why we wikilink to explain the Nuggets of history we dont have time to explain here on this page, and yes they did switch leanings over the years. Also a American Government 101 at your local community college might be benificial tooWeaponbb7 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• LMFAO! This is a historic date. I've been called a neo-con, conservative, ultra-conservative and a few other things on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've EVER been called a "leftie", either on Wikipedia or in the rest of the world for that matter. Kimmy, I just have to be blunt here. You have to be totally and completely clueless to call me a "lefties". A brief look at my userboxes would probably give you a clue. A look at my edit history would be more informative. I'll put my conservative credentials up against anyone. Seriously, try knowing what you are talking about before shooting your mouth off. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to think we're dealing with willful ignorance here. "Please do not tell me you are claiming the (R) and (D) changed places" -- indeed they did, and that's what we've been saying all along, and I don't think it's worth pointing out again; you're pretty much alone in your misunderstandings. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling you a lefty - But it is a period of time the left does try too exploit - GO to Wiki and look up the Dixiecrats - ask the left to name some Dixiecrats and all they come up with is Thurmond,BTW -the most powerful committee chairmen, including Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi remained in the Democratic Party.. But this is not my point Either - My point - The Editor Asked for Examples of a peaceful Faction within the KKK - I provided Examples - And good Citations - Now if you think this is "Subversion" on the Part of the KKK ( I agree with you ) - what a wonderful new section this would make on the Page - Ok your smarter than me - You know more - So put your knowledge on the wiki page ! And I am sorry if I offended anyone, never was my intentions ! This article's introduction may be too long. Please help by moving some material from it into the body of the article. So delete all Info from the line Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan , ....the history of the Klan is gone over twice on this page - A little top heavy - Then add in a Section Called - New Klan Subversion - David duke Turning sheets in for suits ! Or something like that? --Kimmy (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Um, yeah, you did call me a leftie/lefty. I used Duke as an example. Then you said "I knew it would not be long - This is always the drum beaten by Lefties - David Duke". You may not have intended to, but in reality, you did. You say "go to the wiki article and readf about Dixiecrats". I say I don't need to, I read other books, magazines etc.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• sorry about that I guess it does read like that ! Not my intention - I did not mean to be rude --Kimmy (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Klan groups have always used attention-getting stunts to spread fear and attract publicity, as well as to help spread their racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigration message, including participating in “adopt a highway” programs, attempting to sponsor public radio stations, and participating in museum donations programs, among others. The resurgence in Klan activity in 2006 has been accompanied by even more such attention-grabbing tricks.subversion--Kimmy (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Attention-grabbing tricks" is exactly what I mean when I talk about it being a sales pitch. Let me give you an example. For years, the group ABATE started in 1972 fought helmet laws for motorcyclists and to keep choppers legal. ABATE stood for "American Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments". They porptrayed themselves as rebels, free-spirits etc. They were largely unsuccessful. In 1986, they changed tactics. They changed their sales pitch. They started lobbying for things besides helmet laws, like making sure bikes were considered in transportation planning. Then they changed their acronym to mean "American Bikers for Awareness, Training & Education". That's smart. Who could opposed education, awareness or training? That sounds family friendly. They got involved with charaties, rider education programs and other projects that average people found perfectly acceptable. They allied themselves with more mainstream groups like the American Motorcyclist Assoc. As a result, they gained legitimacy, more lobbying power and found themselves more successful with their lobbying because people found them to be less extreme and more credible sounding. Duke wasn't stupid. He knew they needed an image make over. Having the Klan adopt a piece of highway isn't about their desire to hug a tree and save "mother earth", it's about putting a good face on their activities. BTW, that was one of the most hollow gestures around. 1 group adopted 1 stretch and didn't even meet the clean up requirements. Yet they got a ton of publicity over it. People still talk about it but totally ignore the fact that thousands of small businesses and groups have done the same thing and actually did the clean up they committed to doing. It's all about branding, packaging and sales pitch. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I did not know all this until I started Reading this page - SO to a young person the Sales pitch might just work, if not exposed Then again it can turn into a Witch hunt also - Never the less whom ever cleaned up the Page sure did a Nice job - --Kimmy (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC) -

No original research

The page opens with the comment ... "Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2]"

Kim, the lead, the opening paragraphs of each article, summarize information and material that is presented at greater length in the full article. These summaries do not require individual citations. As summaries, it does not mean that they are verbatim quotes from another source, but a drawing together of the most important information given in the article. The KKK article is well-documented with sources which fully describe the actions of KKK members of the two periods of primary activity. So the lead can say it was a "far right hate group" without those explicit words appearing in one source. It's an accurate summary of their actions and policies, although it is in more contemporary rather than historical terms.--Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Citations do not match the above claims ... 2.The Citation links are dead links ...

The Statement " The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate group"

No original research should be Tagged on the opening Statements ...

I find it Sad that a huge part of American history is being left out of this page ...

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest --Kimmy 14:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with the citations for the first sentence - the statement is quite well supported by citations. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask where this is supported on his talk page ? "The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate group"

Going over the Citations .....

Some examples of the application of the term “hate group” to the KKK

IS supported by citation .... However the statement "The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate group" Is not supported ...No original research

why would someone delete mention of The first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention..the mentioned was well supported ? --Kimmy 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, first of all, the "hate group" characterization is very well sourced; there are a dozen sources to it, as you would have seen if you'd followed the link rather than putting in spurious {{cn}} tags. Also, your insertion is inappropriate for a few reasons, not the least of which it doesn't belong in the lead section of the article; the relationship between the post-Civil War Democratic Party and the KKK is well established in the article. And, not to pile on, but the language of your insertion is very ungrammatical. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

1.I did go over all the citations ..... none of them support the claim ..The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate group .... how could the past clan be a far right hate group "The Klan attacked black members of the Loyal Leagues and intimidated southern Republicans and Freedmen's Bureau workers. "

2. doesn't belong: in the lead section, I would agree with that .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC) A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion; it cannot be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about the fact that someone holds an opinion, e.g.: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some recognized subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. --Kimmy 18:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

further down the page is more support of my stance .

"Unlike its predecessor, which had been an exclusively partisan Democratic organization, the second Klan was courted by both Republicans and Democrats in the Midwest, and endorsed candidates from either party that supported its goals; Prohibition in particular helped the Klan and the Republicans to make common cause in the North. In the South, however, the Republican party was powerless; thus, the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government."[10]

How can the page open with the statement ""Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate groups" when there is nothing to support the claim ? --Kimmy 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

to be honest with history and true facts and not fall into "Political ideology" The opening should read ...""Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present far left and Far right hate groups" Based on the provided Citations ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC) For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion; it cannot be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about the fact that someone holds an opinion, e.g.: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"far left hate group"? Wherever is that from? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok now I see the word game here ...

the Key word "Far right" Tied with the "Hate group " expresses an opinion. If one would simply follow the citations ... One could Easily see it was both Left and Right in the KKK ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center:"the KKK is a mixed political ideology" KKK: is a far left hate group and a far right ..--Kimmy 20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you're making no sense at all now. Are you saying "mixed political ideology" means "far left and far right"? By the way, please pay attention to the message on your talk page regarding signing your posts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

you hit the nail on the head ...no sense at all

Making a statement: ""Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2]"

the Key word "Far right"

I have taken the time to read all Citations linked with [2]

Anti-Defamation League - broken . Citation [2] Southern Poverty Law Center "1865, the Klan has typically seen itself as a Christian organization, although in modern times Klan groups are motivated by a variety of theological and political ideologies." Citations Doesn't establish "FAR RIGHT" [2]Citations:Only show, KKK as being a "hate group" with mixed political Base....

Support for the KKK also being a Far left group (other words Racism has no bounds and is not bound by political ideologies ) better opening ...The KKK . Is the name of a Republican and Democrat "hate group"...

Citation from the same page:Unlike its predecessor, which had been an exclusively partisan Democratic organization, the second Klan was courted by both Republicans and Democrats in the Midwest, and endorsed candidates from either party that supported its goals

Asking me "Are you saying "mixed political ideology" means "far left and far right " would be the same as me asking " are you saying mixed political ideology means "far right " taking into account All the citations ...."Hate group" is the only thing supported .

Citations to answer your question .

Under the section Political I find it odd not a mention of the Presidents that were in the Klan or the senators that were in the Klan .... there should be a list for both republican and democrats ..

KKK being a Hate group ...one could make the statement ...KKK is a name of a past Far left Hate group . Nathan Bedford Forrest picture was given ...But no mention of him being the first Grand wizard ? KKK was formed by Democrats & had millions of members in the 1920's nutrality, Must been kept ... " theological and political ideologies" It is not up to the Reader to prove "But for Citations to support the Claim "The Klan, is the name of several past and present far right hate groups[2]" When Citations provided show the Klan as being both democrat and Republican ...--Kimmy 04:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read your page and, I am impressed with your Your Accomplishments..I happen to also love wikipedia.. Thank you for taking the time .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC) --Kimmy 04:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations to support ....KKK is the name of a far left hate group

"At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865."PBS LINK --Kimmy 05:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"The States' Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy" [11]--Kimmy 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

• Am I the only one that finds this discussion difficult to read and follow? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Niteshift36 to sum it up ...The opening of the Page is not in line with Wiki guidelines ...

Opening of the page tries lay claim that The KKK is a Far right hate group . is not supported by the citations given .... The only thing that is supported , the KKK had members in the (R) and (D) Party ..Period . Or can some one show me anything New ?

Other words - this page has tuned into nothing else but a left wing rea-write of History .--Kimmy 12:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

• Kimmy, it's your responses I'm having trouble following. They are all over the place, literally and figuratively. Your "unique" manner of formatting makes it very difficult to follow what you're saying. That and your refusal to sign a post in the prescribed manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, do you somehow think that "Republican" means "right" and "Democrat" means "left" in the context of the history of American politics? --15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is barely worth replying to. Kim0290 has no clear argument, expect for a demonstrated extreme confusion concerning the meanings of assorted political terms and classifications. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with the lack of 'correct' signatures. Frankly, they're strongly encouraged, but not mandatory (or else it'd be a policy, not a guideline). More importantly, poor signatures won't invalidate a good point any more than good signatures can support a bad point.

That said, the phrasing and formatting certainly make your position harder to follow.

I think there are three basic issues here:

1. At least one of the references is dead. In particular: this one. It should probably be removed (I think we'll be fine, even if we're reduced to only ten references).
2. Whether or not 'far right' is cited. Currently, it isn't. However, to be honest, I don't see why you couldn't just add a 'fact' tag right after the 'far right' part. Really, I think the only reason there's only references about them being a hate group is because that's the only part that could, at first glance, seem accusatory.
3. Accuracy of the 'far right' label. It's true, numerous racists (far more than I've been able to count in my life) are left-wingers. The notion of "us" and "them" isn't isolated to any particular political ideology. However, that doesn't mean much. I never could quite understand how hate groups and fascism came to be categorized as "right", but the fact remains that that is the common-use classification. Whether or not it should be considered "far-right" is immaterial. Wikipedia strives to report what is, not what should be.

So, I would encourage you to add the 'fact' tag to, specifically, the 'far right' phrase, because I guess it could use a citation, but until you do so, you really can't complain about the phrasing. :) Additionally, someone should remove that reference I mentioned earlier. (I can't as the article's protected) The remaining 10 or 11 references will have to suffice. 209.90.133.123 (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the ADL link. The references do support the "far right" characterization. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've read the thread, read the citations, now I'm going to "be bold." Izuko (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added back "right wing" with a source to a leading scholar on the KKK, David Chalmers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you properly source it so that we can identify the source? As it is, it remains unsourced, since the source entry is useless. Izuko (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• When it's properly sourced and the consensus is clear that it should be included, removing it isn't "being bold", it's something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Care to specific exactly what "else" I'm being, Niteshift36? I can't refute generalized insults. If you can't assume good faith, then at least have the courtesy to be specific. Izuko (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sorry I searched for Chalmers and couldn't find anything. Could you give me a link, or some more information on how I can find this reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanefarris (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out, once again, that many of the sources for the statement "far-right hate group" use both the terms "hate group" and "far-right". So I really don't see any issue to contend here. ClovisPt (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not contending anything, I am trying to find this reference in the one source that is listed. Where was the source found? All I want is to read the source, I am not disputing anything. Thank you.

David Chalmers adding back the Tag (far right ) based on a opinion ? So the page should read " David Chalmers opinion " Director of the Center for Consciousness. now I can eat Tou Food while reading the page - --Kimmy 18:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

--Kimmy 02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

clovistpt- According to wikipedia - The contemporary Left is generally identified with the Democratic Party. Right:generally identified with the Republican Party. --Kimmy 18:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC) --Kimmy 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Chalmers (2003) p. 163 ( would be nice per Editor guide lines ) to have a quick point of view ? What book ? What page ? Author ? year wrote ? --Kimmy 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

according to the ADL - "The Ku Klux Klan was overshadowed in the late 1990s and early 2000s by growing neo-Nazi activity The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy. Of all the types of right-wing hate groups" ...I have agreed with the above from the start - what I question: "The KKK is a past and present Far right hate group" As the opening for the page - - Key word is " PAST " tied with "Far right hate group" - When it was the Democrats that started the KKK - --Kimmy 19:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC) --Kimmy 19:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no contradiction there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

jpgordon- I agree with your statement - "I never could quite understand how hate groups and fascism came to be categorized as "right", but the fact remains that that is the common-use classification. Whether or not it should be considered "far-right" is immaterial. Wikipedia strives to report what is, not what should be.)" I am however putting together the common link - Progressives - But this will make another exciting exchange of words - I am sure - Thank you for being patient with me - You are the best - meanwhile I will eat some Tou Food and read "David Chalmers" - interesting note - Chalmers does not Tag the KKK as far right until the 4th or 5th emergence of the Klan - I guess there were to many Democratic presidents supporting the Klan b4 that time - Cheers- --Kimmy (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be in some way possible for you to understand that "right" and "Democrat" are not contradictory, especially historically. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course we could turn to The ADL - I would be careful though - They might wrongly Label you - Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado wrote "it is not unreasonable to infer that public charges of anti-Semitism leveled by the ADL will be taken seriously and assumed by many to be true without question. In that respect, the ADL is in a unique position of being able to cause substantial harm to individuals when it lends its backing to allegations of anti-Semitism." The judge concluded that the ADL supported the Aronsons' accusations without investigating the case, or weighing of the consequences According to an April 13, 2001 article in The Forward, a federal judge "lambasted the organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic event" and upheld most of William and Dorothy Quigley's $10 million lawsuit for defamation. ADL --Kimmy (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Which has what to do with their analysis of the KKK? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• An editor who has contributed to almost nothing else on Wikipedia is the only person seeing a problem. Numerous experienced editors don't see a problem. Does this really need responded to further? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You need not; I'll continue to assume good faith. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• This has been responded to over and over. The editor simply doesn't like the answer they are getting. Pointing that out isn't a good faith issue, so your snide remark isn't called for. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • True; I should assume good faith of you as well. Sorry about that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The KKK was from 1882 to 1964 the paramilitary wing of the Democrats. The KKK’s heyday was during the 1920’s when Harding had fully dressed robed klansman at the white house.
There is a contradiction on Wiki:
Democrats according to Wiki are center left party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29
Klansman were all elected democrats until 1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
is there a claim that the Democrat party was the right wing party? If not there is a contradiction. --OxAO (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For much of its history the Democratic Party was more right wing than its political opponents. This isn't some deep, dark secret. Just as the party split sectionally over slavery prior to the Civil War, it started to split sectionally over Civil Rights during the Truman administration. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ditto. In terms of race relations, the Democrats were the "right wing". The Republican party was founded partially as a party opposing slavery. Even in 1948, we have the Dixiecrat party, a breakaway of the Democrats that were socially conservative and pro-segregation. Democrats being the haven of liberalism is a relatively modern event in terms of history. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think of the shift starting as early as the Compromise of 1877, becoming more intense with the exodus of the Progressives from the Republican Party in 1910s and 1920s, made inevitable by the Dixiecrat schism in 1948, and made permanent with the Southern Strategy of 1964. So, yes, the Democratic party contained what we would now consider the extreme right wing of mainstream American electoral politics for more than a century. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The republicans haven’t changed one Iota they have always been for equal rights all the way down the line.
The democrats went from being Anti-black to giving away the farm which started under the new deal
Democrat party went from the party of wanting nothing to do with blacks to the party of pity for blacks.
Democrats call that being liberal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#African_Americans
--OxAO (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing this talk page for a Klan application form. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

jpgordon - I see what you are talking about - far Right wing (D) - SO the Klan is able to slip and slide within the Two parties ! This period is a confusing time in history , I am not so sure this was not done on purpose - --Kimmy (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kim, it would be useful for you to read more history, both of the parties, the various Klans, and the times. Foner is a good source, but you also need to understand the context. The Klan did not exist alone - it is described as far right because it represented conservative interests in the local communities, not because of how it was related to more contemporary politics of national parties - which also have changed considerably since that time. After the Civil War, the Democratic Party in the South continued as the party of the white planter elite (who were generally conservative in protecting their self interests)- it also embraced white veterans and basically everyone unhappy about the Confederates' defeat. After the Klan was suppressed, other militias rose up in the 1870s- namely, the White League and the Red Shirts, which historian George Rable expressed as "the military arm of the Democratic Party." The white Democrats passed legislation disfranchising African Americans and poor whites through stringent voter registration and electoral rules - and established the Solid South - Democratic South, through the 1960s. The second manifestation of the Klan had somewhat different characteristics and causes in the South and in the Midwest, where it grew. It was in urban rather than simply in rural areas, and reacting to increased immigration, urbanization and rapid social change. But it mostly expressed conservative interests--Parkwells (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

I generally agreewith Parkwell's comment above -- except that the disfranchisement of the blacks in the South took place 1890-1910, and the KKK and the other paramilitary groups were long gone and had no role in that movement. Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Got interrupted while writing - I was trying to say that historians have documented the role of the paramilitary groups in helping the Democrats regain political power in the South. AFter they controlled the legislatures, they passed constitutional amendments, legislation, etc. 1890-1910. I agree with you on that. The second KKK was a different movement that outside of the South drew in different members - it positioned itself as another fraternal organization in some areas, sponsoring community-focused events. Leaders drew from the rhetoric of the first KKK.--Parkwells (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do your homework. The democrats at their heyday were progressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Bryan.2C_Wilson.2C_and_the_Progressive_Era:_1896.E2.80.931932

One of the early Klansman Miles, Roger Qurles who was later speaker of the house he organized the Klan in Texas was a big spokesperson for the first Federal income tax based on how much you made.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/KK/vek2.html
--OxAO (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is about time to change this statement saying the Klan was hard right wing. There is no evidence of this thus fix the mistake.
Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans

The Ku Klux Klan was affiliated with the Democratic party and was mostly Democrat until FDR, and still had strong ties to the Democrats until the Civil Rights movement. The reason for this is obvious, the Republicans are the party of Lincoln. There was something in American political history often referred to informally as the party switch, in which the bases of the parties switched due to changing positions on race relations. The KKK was formed during the third party system, we are now in the fifth. At the time the Ku Klux Klan was formed, the Republicans were a Socialist party. They adopted a Labor Theory of Value, which was the major schism in Classical Economics between the Neoclassical economists(who adopted supply and demand) and the Socialists led by Karl Marx. Lincoln himself was influenced by Marx and Americans Henry George and Thomas Paine. This began to shift after the end of Reconstruction.

In no sense do the KKK embrace socialism or any other Far Left stance. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

179 chapters?

Currently the article twice states that there are approximately 179 extant Klan chapters. Does anyone know where this number comes from? I went over some of the sources and couldn't find it, but I certainly may have missed it. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Amish 01, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The KKK page claims the organization has a religion of Protestant and Christian. They burned crosses as the Templars did because it is well known the KKK was founded as a Masonic organization with degrees such as Grand Wizard. Claiming the KKK has a religion of Protestant Christian is in error at best. It would be nice to see the page reflect it's Masonic founding. Some suggest it was founded out of the Knights of the Golden Circle after the Civil War. While Protestants join these they have nothing to do with worship or the Bible. They (KKK & KGC) are political groups similar to LaRaza.

Amish 01 (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide Reliable sources, before anything is changed. CTJF83 pride 05:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The request was for a verifiable reference for the claim the Knights of the KKK is a Protestant religious sect.Amish 01 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

sources about the White Camelia Knights (*not* Kamelia as stated in the article)

http://www.wckkkk.org/

http://media.www.houstonianonline.com/media/storage/paper229/news/2001/11/15/SpecialSection/White.Camilia.Knights.Hold.Rally.In.Conroe-147355.shtml

I wanted to add this info but the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.150.98 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

According to Prof. Gladys-Marie Fry of the University of Maryland, "Ku Klux Klan" may derive from Clocletz, the name given the ghost of an Indian chief who was said by slaves to haunt the woods and swamps of northern Alabama. This apparition was, in turn, based on the Cocletz Indian tribe, which was hostile toward black people, and members of which were often employed to hunt down runaway slaves. See, e.g., Philip Dray, At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America, at 40 (Modern Library 2003). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.105.9 (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar?

"three distinct past and present right-wing organizations... which advocates..."

Get the grammar right if you're going to lock it. I came here to read, not to correct kindergarten homework papers.

Fixed.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing fallacy

The article lists the group as "right-wing" and it's political position as "far right." These, although popular assertions, are both incorrect. The group is certainly racist, prejudicial and bigoted, but it is made up of people from all over the political spectrum. The group doesn't have a political bent that maps onto our over-simplified left v. right model. They are simply xenophobic racists, who otherwise come in all political stripes, from the ultra-conservative, to the ultra-liberal. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.236.9 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC) — 98.231.236.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And your source for this is...? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Déjà vu anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also debated this point and was slandered during the debate. When I brought it to Wikipedia attention they did nothing about the attack even know they were in agreement that i was wrongly treated.

But to answer your question Wikipedia officially has a different definition of right wing then what you and I would think of it as. Wikipidia labels right-wing as a reactionary political view more so then economic views. I looked into it and it originates from a communist by the name of Richard Hofstadter that stated the populism is a right-wing reactionary movement. It would seem whatever he said is written in stone as far as Wikipieda is concerned. In other words wikipidia takes the same philosophy as hofstadter with regards to the right/conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders. I wish I was joking but i have looked into this very carefully.

--OxAO (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Typical misrepresentation by the left, which makes me distrust everything on this website.
-Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.108.206 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) — 68.11.108.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have any sources that indicate Hofstadter introduced the term "right wing" into American politics and why American conservatives chose to use this label to describe themselves? TFD (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The left-wing right-wing spectrum is entirely too linear. Nazism is routinely labeled as being on the "extreme right-wing" of the ideological spectrum. Yet, Libertarianism is similarly labeled as being on the "extreme right-wing" of the ideological spectrum. Nazism and Libertarianism are ideologically polemic. Indeed, it is difficult to find any commonality between these two ideologies. So, how can Nazism and Libertarianism both sit on the "extreme right-wing" of the ideological spectrum? BlueRobe (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "right-wing" derives from Europe where conservatives sit to the right of the president. The Nazis, who were considered ultra-conservative, were seated to the right of the conservative German National People's Party. The GNPP then went into coalition with the Nazis and the two parties merged. After the war, social scientists saw similarities between U. S. conservatives and fascists and called them "radical right". The fact that the U. S. radical right supported libertarianism was an anomaly, but their virulent anti-Communism and rigid social conservatism were similar. Outside the U. S. libertarians are usually considered centrists. In the European Parliament, for example, "conservative liberals", who are strongly pro-market, sit in the center, while fascists sit on the far right. Hayek wrote a good essay on the political spectrum.[12] TFD (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "left" and "right" wing labels go back to the French Revolution. In the French National Assembly, supporters of reform sat ont he left hand side, royalists and conservatives on the right. Since then, "right-wing" has been used to describe those who wish to maintain an existing political/social situation (conservative) or return to an old one (reactionary), while "left-wing" is applied to those who want to institute political innovations, gradually and moderately (progressive) or massively and abruptly (radical).

The Klan's classification as "right-wing" rests on its own reactionary vision of itself. It wishes to return to a previously existing social and political order, with blacks recognized by the white majority as social and political inferiors as in Jim Crow days. It also wishes to restore what it considers to have been Protestantism's total social dominance in the early 19th century, reduce the federal government's power and increase the states' to a 19th-century level, and to preserve traditional moral condemnation of homosexuality. All these are reactionary or, in the last case, conservative. The Klan's support for Prohibition could have been called progressive before 1919, when Prohibition had never been tried before, but today it is certainly reactionary, a return to a previous state of affairs (and Prohibition is no longer important to the Klan's agenda anyway).

Whether the Klan's economics could be considered left or right wing doesn't really matter. The Klan's goals are mainly racial and religious, not economic, and those racial and religious goals are clearly right-wing, whether you agree with them or not. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I too have trouble with the articles use of labeling the Ku Klux Klan as 'right Wing'. Not only is its 'source' from a 2003 book - which seems far removed from the actual dealings of the original Klans, but the proposition itself is defeated by the substance of the article. It is true that there were many 'traditions' that the Klan wanted to keep and that they were fighting against some forms of change, but they were also wanting to 'change' things that already had been changed themselves. They fought -against- republican ideals and embraced democratic ideals, if one reads the article - I see nothing in the whole article, besides them wanting power and the ability to maintain the slavery and some other rights and monetary priveleges they had temporarily had, that would say they were for the support of traditional values. They were slaughtering the people holding -onto- traditional values. I would like to see a lot more sources, from people who lived and worked in the times of the first or second Klan - not today's modern reinterpretation of it, before I would accept a definition of the Klan that is contrary to the evidence laid out in the rest of the write-up. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.204.79 (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As OxAO pointed out, the term "right wing" was introduced to America by Communists and therefore no one used the term during the period of the first or second Klan. When American Communists became "conservatives", establishing the National Review and neoconservatism they called themselves "right wing". TFD (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can't be serious about William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review, being a Communist? Pirate Dan (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not, but the people who persuaded him to set up a magazine (Willmoore Kendall), raised the money (Willi Schlamm), ran the magazine (Frank S. Meyer, James Burnham, Sidney Hook, and wrote for them (John Dos Passos), Whittaker Chambers) were. The same story with Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]]. Meyer and Burnham developed and enforced the NR ideology and retained the same view of the political spectrum they had when they were Communists. TFD (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Buckley also had Brent Bozell and Russell Kirk on the magazine, neither of whom had ever been a Communist. From as early as 1930 writers in the English-speaking world were using the term "right" to describe attitudes opposed to innovation (see K. Feiling); I see no evidence for the assertion that it was an invention of the National Review, much less that it was introduced solely by the ex-Communists among them. Please substantiate. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes he had his brother-in-law on the magazine and he attracted major conservative and libertarian writers. However, the non-ex-Communists did not run the magazine or set its editorial policy, and most of them were "purged" from the magazine: Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Robert Welch, Peter Viereck, Russell Kirk. Can you provide a source that shows Feiling using the term "right-wing" in the 1930s? TFD (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See Hayek's "Why I am Not a Conservative," footnote 6 (viewable here); it quotes Feiling from 1930 saying "Taken in bulk, the Right have a horror of ideas." Note Feiling was himself a conservative. Granted, Feiling was English, not American, but we have a common language and a common literary market; I see no reason to assume that American readers were unfamiliar with English political terminology. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that neither terms conservative or right-wing were applied to the U. S. Feiling uses the term "Right" as a synonym for conservative, but the application of either of these terms to American politics is modern. Until then the terms referred to conservation of monarchy, aristocracy, and the established church, and opposition to classical liberalism. The ideology of Hayek and co. was referred to as liberalism, which was considered to be disinct from conservatism, and inapplicable to the U. S. TFD (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose the right wing label. Most of the Jim Crow lawmakers and politicians from the south who supported the KKK were **Democrats**. I think it is generally agreed that the democrats sit on the left of the political spectrum. Lincoln was a republican. Up until the Democrats reinvented themselves in the civil rights movement of the 60s they tended to sympathise with southern whites. Whilst the modern, but totally irrelevant, white supremacist groups tend to see themselves as conservative, the historical, and far more relevant, supremacist groups belonged to the left. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.73.81 (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC) — 212.201.73.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is absurd. The migration of Democrats to the left wing only began in the 1970s, and Democratic support today for the KKK is essentialy nil; indeed, hardly any Republicans support the KKK either. When the KKK was founded, the Democrats were not particularly left-wing; both parties embraced a wide variety of ideologies. Many Democrats in the 1860s and 1870s were extremely right-wing, and those of course formed the basis of the Klan. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This really needs to be corrected. There is no evidence other than speculation for anyone to make any assertion that KKK was created by or constructed by nor even vetted by 'Right Winged' conservatives. This kind of off the cuff speculation must be factual or removed immediately. Please amend or remove such statements that you cannot substantiate. Thank you.

-->Below is a source undisputed from wikipedia.org Please note who is sited below as forming the KKK

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest) Ku Klux Klan involvement Early on, Forrest became a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Civil War historian, author and Forrest biographer Brian Steel Wills writes, "While there is no doubt that Forrest joined the Klan, there is some question as to whether he actually was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan."[36] The KKK (the Klan) was formed by Democrats in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1866..... -Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig903 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Craig903 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

They were boll weevil Democrats who joined with Republicans to create the Conservative Coalition to oppose F. D. Roosevelt and later support R. Reagan. One of the first to leave the party was Strom Thurmond, who was later elevated to president pro tem of the Senate by his fellow Republicans. The realignment of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party began with the nomination of Barry Goldwater and the passing of the civil rights act and was led by John Connally who organized Democrats for Nixon, although some southern Democrats, like Larry McDonald, president of the John Birch Society and some Louisiana Democrats (where the Republicans nominated David Duke, former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan to run for Senate) remained. Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were also Democrats, as were the neoconservatives before 1980. TFD (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This statement neither adds to or detracts from the point at hand. 'They were....to oppose F. D. Roosevelt' This has little or no value to the point at hand. The author clearly stated KKK was a 'right winged' order which clearly is unsubstantiated. -Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig903 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC) — Craig9031 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well that is what sources call them. TFD (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"right wing" is standard political science terminology in the 21st century and the question is whether the RS apply it to the KKK. They certainly do. See The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan : Right-Wing Movements and National Politics, (2009) a major new book by Rory McVeigh, re 2nd KKK in 1920s; also "Right Wing Violence in North America" by Jeffrey Kaplan, Terrorism and Political Violence, Spring 1995, Vol. 7 Issue 1, pp 44-95. On today's 3rd KKK: see "The Rise and Fall of David Duke: How Holocaust memory broke the code of right-wing populism" by Lawrence N. Powell, American Scholar, Autumn 2005, Vol. 74 Issue 4, pp 60-72. On the 1st KKK "In our view, this backlash character stamped the Reconstruction-era Klan movement as the United States' first significant right-wing populist movement." in Chip Berlet and Matthew Nemiroff Lyons, Right-wing populism in America (2000) Page 60. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice a Kaplan reference! he is reliable as they get but he is often criticized for being too sympathetic to hate groups becuase he presents as rational human beings. if he says so no one can dispute it. But I guess you can't please everyone Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That last quote is available online here, making the full cite "Berlet, Chip; Lyons, Matthew Nemiroff (2000). Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort. Guilford Press. p. 60. ISBN 9781572305625.", and I have added that as a reference.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted "right wing" from the intro as it is entirely pejorative and doesn't even tie in with the historical text below, which clearly states that although the KKK backed whichever politicans were sympathetic to them, most of the support was from Democrats. De facto, the KKK would be more accurately described as "left wing". The implied suggestion that racist is more likely to be right wing is idiotic and historically inaccurate, particularly in this context. --621PWC (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We are guided by what reliable sources write, rather than our own opinions and arguments. TFD (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell would be proud. You are denying what is in front of us! The intro uses a pejorative and certainly NOT neutral term - "right wing" - and the text CLEARLY states that the KKK attracted people from both political sides ... but mainly from the left! --621PWC (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not say that it attracted people "mainly from the left". TFD (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It says: >> In the South, however, the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. << The article is littered with similar references. There can only be one conclusion from the application of a term like "right wing": that it is intended to be a political label (and to quote a UK libel definition, that would also be the conclusion of "right thinking members of society generally" - in other words, most readers). As a journalist for over 40 years, I would not be allowed to apply such a label if the piece did not have a "byline" indicating that it was a personal viewpoint. If Wikipedia editors are truly concerned that this great encyclopedia should be as neutral as humanly possible, then those two words would be deleted from the intro. Another option would be to include a paragraph on the label controversy; but to leave this wildly inaccurate and politically motivated label is appallingly biased and no different from the idiotic claims made both left and right about the political credentials of national socialism as portrayed by the Nazis in the 30s and 40s. --621PWC (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Are you another one who somehow thinks "Democrat" means "left wing", historically? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, let's look at the Wikipedia entry for the Democratic Party: "The party's liberal platform is largely considered center-left in the U.S. political spectrum."--621PWC (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note the word "historically". Like, during the heyday of the KKK. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is a consensus in the literature then we use the term. Journalists also describe them in these terms. TFD (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a consensus in left-wing literature about the term right-wing, just as there is consensus in right-wing literature about what constitutes left-wing. Both sides use the term as a pejorative when it allows them to paint a negative picture. To quote "reliable sources" here is ridiculous. A subjective remark never becomes objective, just because it is said by more than one person. The introduction would lose nothing by the removal of this contentious phrase - the text more than adequately describes the organization - but the fact that certain admins refuse to allow the deletion shows the sort of bias that should be fiercely resisted in Wikipedia. Indeed, it is this sort of bias and inaccuracy that gives rise to much of the criticism of Wikipedia ... and that is a great shame. --621PWC (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The introductory characterization as right wing is not so much inaccurate as prejudicial. Being in the introduction it is given undue prominence and no doubt deliberately so. The purpose is to render "right wing" a pejorative by linking it to the KKK. The ploy would be clever if it were not transparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.112.29 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC) — 74.160.112.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is not a matter of what those types of sources say, we base articles on serious writing. Show me a reliable source that places the KKK anywhere other than the Right. TFD (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, your request ("show me a reliable source that places the KKK anywhere other than the Right") is utterly devoid of merit. The ONLY sources that suggest the KKK is on the Right are sources that use the label as a pejorative - and that doesn't make them "reliable" it just makes them opinionated. Most sources do NOT label the KKK as left OR right at all - but they are not quoted as "reliable sources" BECAUSE they are sensible enough not to use pejorative labels! My rejoinder to you would be to ask you to quote me ANY policies of the KKK that are in-line with policies generally held to be Right Wing. In truth, the more odious policies of the Klan - past and present - have been condemned by most people on the left or right of the political spectrum; but the text of this very article confirms that at key moments in the Klan's history, its supporters have tended to be from the Left, not the Right. Once again, the simple removal of this pejorative label is all that is required to remove the mischievous political bias from this page. --621PWC (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your opinions. TFD (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be of any value to note that the article Communist Party USA neutrally and quite accurately lists the Communist Party as "far left" in the infobox, and describes the Communist party as on the Left in the lede? That is not a pejorative, nor does it smear all left-wingers as Communists. By the same token, listing the simple fact that the Klan is right-wing does not make right-wing a pejorative, nor does it smear everyone on the Right. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This talk page sees a LOT of claims by single purpose account IP editor(s) claiming the Klan is not right-wing. The reliable sources say the Klan is right-wing. So, the article says the Klan is ring-wing. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are we talking about the KKK or did I click the wrong article? Is anyone seriously debating the KKK isn't right wing? I don't think it even needs a source, just look at the definition of right wing. It's not to make the right look bad, Stalin was far left and that's a fact I don't say it to make the left look bad. --ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It should say "Far-right," not just "right-wing." That's exactly like saying Communist parties are just "left-wing."
The fallacy here is people's misunderstanding of politics. I say this as a U.S. citizen who's a member of neither the Dems/GOP.

Right-wing = Traditionalist (backed by its article & dictionaries)

Left-wing = Progressive (backed by its article & dictionaries)

(Far) Right-wing = (Extreme/violent) Traditionalist

(Far) Left-wing = (Extreme/violent) Progressive

Party name (Dems/GOP) is irrelevant here. The GOP started as a Progressive party (it's in its article). The Democrats started as a Paleoconservative/Traditionalist party. Ideology (progressive/traditionalist) is what matters, which mostly finished switching with the Civil Rights Movement (see: Southern Strategy, conservative Democrat, etc).
(If you don't understand RS; simply ask yourself: "How does the 'furthest left' person I know react to Traditionalists"? Conversely, ask yourself, "How does the 'furthest right' person I know react to Progressives?") 67.171.185.45 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A Few Ideas for the Article

Just a few historical items that might bear discussion: I've heard that Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge were both members of the KKK back when it was regarded as a fraternal organization, but I've been unable to find any verifiable sources that confirm or deny this, since membership rolls were secret. Anybody got any data?

These assertions seem to be based on rumor - no sources, no edit.Parkwells (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, should mention be made of the fact that the Mary Phagan murder was made into the Lana Turner movie "They Won't Forget", the role that made Lana Turner famous?

The movie is noted in the article on Leo Frank, a more appropriate place than here.Parkwells (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The case has many different ramifications. Also, I remember reading that Warren G. Harding was our first black President (he was supposed to be about 1/16 black) but they kept it secret back then for obvious reasons, so it appears Obama is not our first black President...should this be dealt with? It's speculative but I think the Wiki article on Harding mentions it.

Harding's ancestry is not relevant to this article. He grew up in a white culture and was accepted as white, so cannot be considered "black" despite some line of ancestry. Assertions were made by political enemies, so it is questionable what every day people thought.Parkwells (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the KKK after the Civil War used to put padding on it's horses' hooves so that when the Klan rode in the moonlight with white sheets on themselves and their horses, and skulls on their pommels, it was all very silent and eerie and was quite a spectral sight. Maybe the primal superstition aspect of the Klan should be mentioned.

While this detail on wrapping horses' hooves may not be noted, the KKK's trying to create fear in its targets is. It can be added if you have a full source. They also created fear by their physical assaults and murders.Parkwells (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These are just a few ideas I had for improving the article. I'll let Wiki editors decide what to do with them, I'm new to the Internet and don't want to interfere with established protocol. I really like Wikipedia, it has great information and vast potential and I'm a Civil War buff. Silver Bayonet (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's great that you're interested in Wikipedia and the articles. You'll see much interest in the Civil War and Reconstruction topics, and many interested editors.Parkwells (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_democratic_party_associated_with_the_KKK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Ideology The KKK was started by democrats, who, according to wikipedia's own page has always adopted a "liberal" POV since its inception. The word "conservative" does not belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is based on taking what two unreliable sources (wiki-answers and Wikipedia) say and your interpretation.

The article calling them "right-wing" and "conservative" is backed up by two reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Now three.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ku KLux Klan: conservative or reaactionary?

As I've mentioned above, the description of the Klan as right-wing is fully justified by the sources and the common use of the word. I am less sanguine about calling it conservative. I cannot find the two sources cited in the lede online to see how they justify calling the Klan conservative. To say that the Klan is conservative suggests a satisfaction with, and defense of, existing racial and cultural institutions which the Klan just doesn't show. The Klan advocates a return to segregation, widespread lynching, an anti-Semitic foreign policy, and anti-miscegenation laws, plus the repeal of civil rights legislation. That is not a defense of the status quo, nor do most conservatives advocate these causes. Given that, I would like to see how these two sources support the view that the Klan is conservative, as opposed to reactionary. Pirate Dan (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's all that I was asking. I agree completely with you. You'd be hard pressed to find anything on a conservatives agenda that even resembles this. As far the the political spectrum is concerned, reactionary right wing is closer to being radical left wing than mainstream conservative (just like radical left wing is closer to reactionary than mainstream left). JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you "asked" that by removing the well-established "right-wing". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I only removed the the conservative part this time, actually. While you're here do you have anything constructive to say please? JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The best term is probably far right. Whether or not one accepts the political spectrum, this is the most common term used to describe this type of organization. See for example The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right.[13] TFD (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Good source, TFD; I agree with you. JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad we could come to an agreement that putting conservative in there was ridiculous and a complete smear. Thanks for everyone's input, I appreciate it. JahnTeller07 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, JahnTeller07 has been indefinitly blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UGAdawgs2010 for details.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fiery cross

The only real tradition in which still today are heart-shaped bonfire and fiery latin crosses is the Herz Jesu Feuer (Sacred Heart of Jesus). This festival takes place every year in the Tyrol (county across Italy and Austria) since 1796. --Ugoviv (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Costumes particular to one instance of the Klan?

This is just a comment - the way the second paragraph has been laid out would make one think that the costume description only applies to the latest iteration of the Klan - I don't think that's correct, but could be wrong so I didn't make the change. Assuming that it applies to all, it doesn't belong in a paragraph which is specifically discussing the different iterations- perhaps it could be worked into the first paragraph? 77.101.60.220 (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

Okay... so what does "Ku Klux" even mean? Where does the whole 'k' thing come from? Also, can anyone include a section on thier appearance in popular culture? I'm quite interested in secret societies (of all kinds) but I think this article has missed out some of the more "light reading" sections that most wikipedia articles have. There's a list of KKK jargon (all words begining with K) yet again, not explanation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.4.118 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The origin of the name is covered in Ku_Klux_Klan#Creation. As for appearances in popular culture, such references are generally trivial and not included unless they are discussed as such in independent reliable sources. Why? Several reasons: Imagine the length of such a section in God. Next is the "recentism" problem: references from the last 15-30 years would outnumber older references. This would NOT be because more recent examples are more notable or numerous, but because more editors know them. Then there's the matter of interpretation: was that white robe in whatever movie meant to evoke the KKK or was it just a robe (which plugs into verifiability as well). - SummerPhD (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit has removed the following cited statement:

“ The origin of the group's name became the subject of speculation by the media and opponents in their early years, with theories ranging from Mexican mythology to one popularly held idea—still circulated—that the words "ku" and "klux" were onomatopoetic words for the sounds of loading and locking a bolt-action rifle. ”

The ideas as to the origin of the name may have been completely incorrect, but it seems that if this is/was a prevalent misunderstanding, the fact that it was so misunderstood should be noted, at the very least. This assumes that the source is reliable and the information correct, of course. Any opinions on this? WDavis1911 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

the KKK was a secret group and there were LOTS of rumors about it. People speculated without any information about the name and other K-codewords. We do not know what speculations were most prominent, but it's hard to see why uninformed speculation about the name is important enough to crowd out solid info. Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would not know that there were lots of rumors about it, or their range, had it not been for that note in the article. I understand now, a little more, about the effect such mystique might have had on the populace. I think this is useful information. I'm not saying that we should support mass speculation, but rather report the fact that there was mass speculation. We have a source for this, and it is useful information. WDavis1911 (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Klan

The ending of the first paragraph states this "The first and third KKK had well-established records of using terrorism, but historians debate how central that tactic was to the second KKK." Yet this page clearly shows that the second Klan did indeed engage in terrorism a lot, so that sentence does not seem NPOV to me. It's clear that in every single iteration of the Klan it has been a terrorist organization. Can this sentence be removed? 76.105.6.113 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the 1920s the Klan had millions of members, most of whom were law-abiding, even respectable people. However many Klansmen were involved in terrorist activity which led to these members leaving. TFD (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that historians debate how widely the tactic was supported by the membership, as opposed to how central the tactic was. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing versus Left Wing

User:ChristTrekker is making an attempt to label the KKK as a left wing organization. His/her rationale, based on the edit summarries is, "KKK is more left than right, considering that Republicans were often their targets and the GOP platform routinely denounced racism while the Democrat platform did not" and "Republicans (the right) condemned slavery, and were often victims of the KKK. Democrats (the left) did not and were not." Of course, this ignores the historical reality that the Democratic Party for most of its hstory, especially in the South was to the right of the Republican Party, especially with respect to the issues of slavery and civil rights.

No source labelling the KKK as left wing has been provided. The source cited by CT ([14]) does not classify either party as left wing or right wing and does not mention the KKK at all. CT's conclusions are not just original research -- they are bad original research. In any event, since two editors have reverted CT, the case should be made on these discussion boards before attempting to add the claim yet again. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, such attempts at labeling the KKK with terms that did not exist at the time, and ignoring what the major national political parties stood for then, is inappropriate, anachronistic, and inaccurate.Parkwells (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CT has now added the material a third time with the following edit summary, "rv unsourced assertion that 'the Democrats were the right wing party with respect to racial issues'" - citation given here refutes that very claim." In fact, there are already three sources cited in the very first sentence of the article supporting the classification of the KKK as right wing. A fourth source, "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics' by Rory McVeigh could also be added. CT should discuss rather than edit war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have put a notice on his talk page.[15] We cannot say that the KKK is left-wing unless we have a source that indicates that that is the consensus opinion. TFD (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

quite right. The first KKK operated at a time when Karl Marx was active, and calling for the destruction of capitalism. That defines "left wing" for the 1860s and the KKK does not fit, to say the least. On the other hand the Republican attacked by the KKK called themselves "radicals" see Radical Republican. That is, the KKK was anti-radical in the language of the 1860s.Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can see about creating a FAQ to refer people to, Like the one over at Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy, So we dont have to have these discussions? WE get this about twice a month especially over the whole Democrat-Republican ideological shift over the 150 years. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Using language 150 years out of date, that has completely reversed in meaning since then, in the summary infobox where it will be read by people who are more than likely going to take it in the modern (not historical) context, is academically dishonest. If the "wing" appellation is not removed completely for being anachronistic (see my earlier comment), then it should at the very least carry some clarification. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If "attempts at labeling the KKK with terms that did not exist at the time" is anachronistic, then I call for removing the "wing" label completely! That would be fine, and completely address the problems I see with the current article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The KKK still exists, and it is clearly on the right. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OR? Maybe (debatable, I'd say it's putting two and two together to restate the same facts as "four", and if you're calling that kind of thing OR then WP ought to contain nothing but direct quotes instead of paraphrasing the sources), but certainly not bad.

The sources I gave clearly show the Republican Party (right) denouncing racism while the Democratic Party (left) did not. The historical record is clear that Republicans suffered attacks from the KKK, as is mentioned in the article already. The article also already mentions the Klan being made of up Democrats. It makes no sense that the right wing is going to attack the right wing. The Democrats are the left. If the Klan has a "wing" it is definitely the left. To say otherwise, whether you claim that the definitions have flip-flopped over the past century or whatever, provides a summary that is going to be misunderstood by the modern reader. That's dishonest, and a disservice to readers. It smacks of libel against the modern political right. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources you gave (Wallbuilders) are unreliable and partisan. — goethean ॐ 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source that calls the Klan left-wing. Even if your synthesis klan=Democrat=left were accepted, you would still need a source showing that Southern Democrats in the 19th century were left-wing. Next time you see a guy wearing a Confederate flag baseball cap tell him that you think he is a leftist and tell us what he says. TFD (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Republican party = right in 1860s? well no, the ones under KKK attack called themselves "Radicals". (The Dems in the South called themselves "conservatives" -- positions on race have reversed in last 140 years so don't use 2010 model for 1870 groups.Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is well known fact "KKK" has backed both Parties (D) and (R) the SPLC list KKK as far right hate group however - The latest endorsement from KKK - http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?a=1227&c=117 --Kimmy (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your source is a joke. Literally. The KKK did not endorse Obama any more than Kelly Osbourne ate a whole pig in less than an hour[16] or Lady Gaga had a leg amputated as a fashion statement[17]. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

SummerPhD , Same thing could be said about - Stephen Colbert To Testify Before Congress On Immigration - - still Remains a Fact , KKK has endorsed both parties - --Kimmy (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the same! ...Except, of course that Colbert did testify while the KKK did not endorse Obama. So, no, not the same. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

SummerPhD , It is a shame "Congress" did not come to Wiki and learn about , RS . However - speaking in General Through out history, KKK (it is well known Fact ) endorsed both parties , Depending on who fell for their Tattics .--Kimmy (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.180.173.157, 26 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please return white nationalism to the "Political ideology" section in the taxbox. There's a gap. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity

My attention was drawn to this page by edits at Christian terrorism, and I see that references to Christianity have just been deleted from this page [18]. I'm not an expert, but I find this surprising (not that I consider the KKK to be anywhere near mainstream Christianity, of course, but there is the obvious use of crosses). I want to point this out, and see whether this would need some further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found 8 References to protestantism in here and their conflict with the catholics. I think that works nicely... do you think it needs more? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not me, of course not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Being a Christian and being a terrorist does not make one a "Christian terrorist", and more than a Mexican who joins the U.S. army may be considered a Mexican soldier. You need a source. TFD (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean in the diff you just provided, I might agree with that removal as the source did not say so. However It's a grey area to me, as they were christians who committed acts of Terrorism its debatable its inclusion because it's not quite strictly religious motivation unlike Christian blowing up Abortion Clinics, Christian Patriot movement, or the Christian Identity movement. I think what you indicated is a Valid concern that is worth discussing.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be a matter of finding the right sources, but it would seem to me that the sources would have to indicate that their violent actions were related to their religious beliefs. Such sources may well be out there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The first KKK had very little connection to religion (and was not anti-Catholic or anti-Jewish). The 2nd KKK in 1920s did proclaim a religious connection to Protestantism, and was hostile to Catholics and Jews, but was not accused of terrorism against them, (indeed it was much more likely to attack black Baptists).Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then, the second KKK explicitly cited religious motivations for acts of terrorism against blacks. Terrorism does not have to be logical, nor does it have to be directed towards other groups. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

the second KKK (1920s) was NOT hostile to blacks on religious grounds. They mostly shared the same Baptist (& Methodist) religions. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They used burning crosses to symbolize that hostility. Did they cite religious justifications for that hostility, regardless of the illogical nature of those justifications? I persist in asking, because you seem to be arguing, at least in part, that they were not religious terrorists because their positions do not make sense when those religious tenets are applied rationally. And, as I said, religious terrorists can direct that terrorism at co-religionists, not just at those outside the religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They self-identified as white, native-born American (no Canadians allowed) and protestant. Their goal was to protect their position in society against what they saw as less valuable people within and outside the U.S. including socialists, trade unionists, drinkers, Catholics, Jews and African Americans. Religion was not a major part of their motivation although protestantism was part of their identity. TFD (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What I hear in your comment is that being Protestant was part of their self-described identity, and they considered Catholics and Jews, among others, as being less valuable. Editors here may, at this point, just be talking past one another. I'll look for sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still looking, but for what it's worth: [19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

outdent. The KKK was a purification movement against corruption in politics (eg violation of prohibition) & felt that some groups threatened American values, especially Catholics (becaue of their wet politics and control of big city machines) and blacks (issues going back to Reconstruction) & perhaps Jews. Their main motivation was political not religious. For example, they ministers rarely/never held major positions. As for violence or terrorism, the main target in the South = blacks, and they shared the same religion (most KKK and most blacks were Baptists, some were Methodists) so they were not hostile in any way to black religion. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note what I already said: it's not a question of whether they were hostile to black religion. It's a question of whether they were hostile to blacks and others and expressed what they thought were religious justifications for that hostility. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

they always expressed their views in political terms, not religious ones. They said Catholics were a threat because they were controlled by priests and bishops who were controlled by Rome, which they believed was unamerican. They said corrupt politicians controlled the blacks. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd really prefer to look for sources instead of have editors arguing our personal opinions. But, on face value, it strikes me as hard to define the line between political and religion-motivated, when the example is the assertion that Catholics are bad because their allegiance is supposedly to Catholicism. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You may read the literature about them: Lipset, Wilcox, Diamond, Berlet. They all categorize them as radical right/right-wing extremist/right-wing. TFD (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The KKK argued that the Pope would tell the president what to do--foreign control of the president was unamerican. John Kennedy running for president in 1960 explicitly denied he would obey the pope. If you look at the KKK cartoons you will see the emphasis on the Pope-in-control of AmericaRjensen (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's more of the same. Kennedy's successful navigation of the situation was widely credited as a blow against religious bigotry, not merely as a fix to a political issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Radical Muslims flew into Buildings on 911 , does this make all Muslims part of Terror group ? I say no - Any more than KKK claiming they are Christians - This is a tool used to appeal to more people - KKK also studies Hitler - It is well known Fact , Hitler sought "Appeasement" from Christians , Muslims and Buddhist. Like Hitler the KKK just lies in what they follow( only thing constant, HATE) - Hitler told , Christians they were the chosen , Hitler told Muslims they were the chosen , Hitler told Buddhist they were the chosen !--Kimmy 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs)

The Grand Wizard's no more Chiristian than your Freemason Lodge. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Albert Pike Freemasonry and the KKK

Freemasonry is very important to understanding the Knights of the KKK. There certainly should be an inclusion in the article about Secret societies and Freemasonry.

Pike: creation of the KKK -

The leading pro-KKK historian, Walter L. Fleming, disclosed and praised the kingpin role that Pike had played in the Klan's terror spree against U.S. law.[5] (An academic darling of the eastern elite, Fleming was considered the pre-eminent historian of Southern Reconstruction.)

Pike was the KKK's "chief judicial officer," Fleming wrote; Pike thus ruled officially over the Klan's internal disciplinary or counterintelligence department. In the KKK birth-state of Tennessee, Pike was the president of the Bar Association and publisher of the main racist newspaper.

But it was as "Sovereign Grand Commander" of the Scottish Rite, the recognized boss of the southern white freemasonic order, that Pike exercised the great clandestine power that welded the KKK together. Fleming cites Pike's masonic colleagues and Klan co-founders as the main sources for his KKK history. Pike's successor as Scottish Rite masonic Grand Commander, Congressman James Richardson, introduced the 1898 House resolution authorizing the Pike statue; Richardson had been Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives in the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan power in that state.

A Massachusetts tory, Pike went south to incite whites against the Union; he helped lead the Knights of the Golden Circle, which made armed, filibuster attacks against Mexico and Cuba, and organized the Southern secession. As a Confederate general during the Civil War, Pike was in charge of enticing American Indians to war on the United States; his atrocities and war crimes led to his arrest by the embarrassed Confederates, and an 1865 indictment by the United States for treason. Pike fled to Canada, remaining there under the protection of his sponsors until the heat was off.[6]

When Pike returned to the South, the old Knights of the Golden Circle logo was transmuted into the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan--the title taken from the Greek kuklos, or circle. Pike's Arkansas indictment for war crimes against American soldiers was swept aside by the power of Pike's own clandestine terrorist movement over the Southern justice system. Well known in European occult circles for his satanic writings, a sybarite of massive girth, Pike died in 1891. (Anton Chaitkin, March 20, 1998 issue of Executive Intelligence Review)

The Freemasons were founded by the pope's Knights Templar. The Templars use the cross on their shields. And it seems the KKK burned crosses to frighten the Blacks from anything Christian, or have them run to the Catholic Church for help. Involved in US immigration, numbers are power to the Pope. He does not want the Blacks becoming Protestant. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

let's have some exact quotes from Fleming, please. --the "Executive Intelligence Review" is a notorious Lyndon Larouche conspiracy rag with a bad reputation. For example it argues that Queen Elizabeth II was the head of an international drug-smuggling cartel, and that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States. Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it'd be worth the research. 207.119.114.105 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)