Jump to content

Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2017

Please change "For instance, the Red Shirts are credited with helping elect Wade Hampton as governor in North Carolina." to "For instance, the Red Shirts are credited with helping elect Wade Hampton as governor in South Carolina. because Wade Hampton III was governor of SC from 1876 to 1879 and not NC's governor. Preconditioned (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 01:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Add comma

In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan a terrorist organization.[44] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[45]

The excerpted sentence above should have a comma after "South Carolina." See Rule 10 at the following link: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbdouglas31388 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Ku Klux Klan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan in Canada

In the section Ku Klux Klan outside the USA, the hyperlink "Ku Klux Klan in Canada" directs to the Wikipedia page about Canada. If directing to a general page about Canada the link should only be applied to the word "Canada", not to "Ku Klux Klan". Otherwise the link should lead to a separate page entitled "Ku Klux Klan in Canada".--Ennui0102 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Since Ku Klux Klan in Canada is already linked earlier in the article, I have simply delinked the instance you mention. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The KNIGHTS of the KKK

They were always called the "knights", since founding by the Knights Templar -- Freemason; all the founding member were Freemason, including Albert Pike, who has a statue is in DC as a confederate General. Notice religion of the KKK is one of the occult, not "Protestant", as the wiki article claims. The KKK is not a Christian denomination any more than the Freemasons. It is occult. The Grand Wizard is NOT Christian. In fact it could be said about such a statement (Jewish-Masonic) is antisemitic, by those same people who say the "Freemasons are Protestant"... the Freemasons are founded by the Knights Templar, back then, at that time.75.121.248.233 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Protestant model is strongly supported by modern scholarship: 1) Kelly J. Baker, Gospel According to the Klan: The KKK's Appeal to Protestant America, 1915-1930 (University Press of Kansas, 2011); 2) Robert Moats Miller, "A Note on the Relationship between the Protestant Churches and the Revived Ku Klux Klan." The Journal of Southern History 22.3 (1956): 355-368; see first page online; 3) Juan O. Sanchez, Religion and the Ku Klux Klan: Biblical Appropriation in Their Literature and Songs (McFarland, 2016.) Rjensen (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A note placed in the infobox wouldn't hurt.Ernio48 (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The actual Knights Templar dissolved centuries before the Masons began. There is no evidence that Pike ever joined the Klan, but it would surprising if there were no overlapping membership. In any case, you would need reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

Change the word Costume to Uniform because costume sounds mediocre, also the definition of Uniform is "a type of clothing worn by members of an organization while participating in that organization's activities. TheSimplisticCha0s (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Costume works better here SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 15:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

Change Costume To Uniform 208.122.75.252 (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Costume works better here SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 15:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Burning Crosses

I changed the line about Thomas Dixon Jr. creating the idea of the fiery cross, to him borrowing it from the Scottish Clans calling to arms with a bidding stick.

"In his novel The Clansman, Thomas Dixon Jr. borrows the idea that the first Klan had used fiery crosses from the call to arms of the Scottish Clans[1], and film director D.W. Griffith used this image in The Birth of a Nation; Simmons adopted the symbol wholesale from the movie, and the symbol and action have been associated with the Klan ever since.

This symbolism would have been well known to Dixon as it was used as late as the 1820s in Canada[2] The "crann-tara" as the Fiery Cross was known in Gaelic was key to the raising of arms men to be rallied to the clan leader, and these Scottish roots are well documented.[3] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Is this the mainstream scholarly view among academic historians? The source you've cited, a somewhat obscure BBC page, seems less than optimal. Incidentally, please don't mark such edits as minor. (See Help:Minor edit.) RivertorchFIREWATER 15:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The edit was originally one word, so I thought it minor, I later sourced linked the 'fiery cross/crann-tara' to the sentence which did make it a bit more major. Yes, even in Dixon's noval he refers to the cross burning in Scottish historical terms: "the old Scottish rite of the burning cross. It will send a thrill of inspiration to every clansmen in the hills." and going on further to state.
  • "In olden times when the Chieftain of our people summoned the clan on an errand of life and death, the Fiery Cross, extinguished in sacrificial blood, was sent by swift courier from village to village. This call was never made in vain, nor will it be to-night in the new world. Here, on this spot made holy ground by the blood of those we hold dearer than life, I raise the ancient symbol of an unconquered race of men—"
It is obvious that Dixon is drawing on the Scottish traditions he must have learned from his parents' influence along with the plight of his family during the war and reconstruction shaping his view of the South at that time, to produce his works. It was in this mix of tradition and imagination that these works developed, very much a reaction to his youth during the 1870s.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
A sidenote is that in Dixon's novel, 'The Traitor', Dixon almost seems to regret the monster he helped create in the 2nd Klan era.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right, but if it's obvious, perhaps there's an additional source that could be cited. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps use this link [4] as that's were I got the information above? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
You definitely can't use Wikipedia as a reference. (I've undone that last change.) I wasn't saying the BBC page was unreliable—just not quite optimal. Let's leave it for the time being. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The nice thing about using that BBC page is that it is Neil Oliver, a well respected Scottish historian.[5] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow the reasoning that Dixon (from a Southern state) would have known the symbolism because it had been used a century before in Canada. The clans still gather in Nova Scotia where some people speak Scots Gaelic as a first language and most Americans - and Canadians - pay no attention. [https://clanmacneil.org/the-fiery-cross-or-crann-tara/ Here's a link to picture of a crann tara. It appears similar although it is smaller and was used for a different purpose. It could be that the idea of the Klan's fiery cross was inspired by it, but you would need a reliable source for that. What is obvious to you is considered original research. TFD (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Dixon was the child of a Scottish mother and Scots/English father so such information as he describes in his novel would have been common knowledge[6] as it was used in Scotland as late at the mid-1700s and in the Americas as late as the early-1800s[7]. So as the cross burning is first described in Book IV Chapter 2 "The Fiery Cross" on pages 324–326 of the 1905 edition, it was referenced to it's Scottish roots. It is introduced by one of the characters as "the old Scottish rite of the burning cross. It will send a thrill of inspiration to every clansmen in the hills." Many settles in Appalachia and the South were descending from Scots or Scots/Irish roots so this symbolism of a call to arms would have historical roots for the time.[8] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone is trying to hide that Democrats established the KKK

Why doesn't the article say it clearly?

because it's not true. The 1st KKK of 1860s was NOT founded or controlled by the Democratic Party. But it was explicitly anti-Republican. The 2nd KKK of 1920s was non-partisan, but mostly supported the Republicans in the North and the Democrats in the South. The 3rd KKK (recent) is non partisan. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? because on a previous debate on Wiki they admited that was established by members of the Democratic party. Two members of the Democratic Party established the KKK. I asked them why it doesn't say so in the article and they said it did. So now all of the sudden democrats "didn't" established that?

the Democratic Party organization had nothing to do with the establishment of 1st kkk--private indivuals did it on their own without telling any party officials. the 2nd kkk was mostly Republican membership but the GOP and Dem party officials had nothing to do with establishment. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you guys even know who Robert Byrd was?AnalyticalChick (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we know all about Senator Robert Byrd. We also know that between the 1960s and the 1980s, the political party connections with the Klan had flipped. This is why David Duke ran as a Republican and the South flipped from Democratic control at the state level to Republican. Once the Democrats of the South took up the cause of Civil Rights in the 1960s, it began the shift that was completed decades past. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2017

Under "Political Position", "Democrat" should be included alongside "far-right" for historical accuracy. 121.72.173.19 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

If you mean Democratic Party, that's not a political position. If you mean democratic, that clearly doesn't apply. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)@

The First KKK was indeed Democratic. The 2nd KKK of 1920s was mostly Republican. Rjensen (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the 3rd KKK is most definitely Republican. The party of the wealthy Southerners was the Democratic party, this is true until Johnson started the Civil Rights legislation push of the late 1960s and by the 1980s, their transition to the Republican party was complete. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The KKK was always Democratic. Terrorists are on the LEFT, not on the right, except some during the 90s over pro-life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnalyticalChick (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not 1870, and the Compromise of 1877 is long behind us. The KKK has not been associated with the Democrats since the 1960s as Nixon's Southern strategy and Democratic support for Civil Rights began the death of old Dixiecrat system. It has been long dead since the time of Reagan and David Duke. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I think far right is fine, the KKK has helped define what far right means as much as fascism or nazism have. The main article for far right is in need of improvement, but nativism, and the authoritarian structure of the organization itself, as well as its anti-left/anti-labor/anti-Catholic phase have helped generations of scholars define what is far right. They are basically one of the textbook case studies. "Democratic" on the other hand doesn't make any sense here, and the change of affiliation is discussed at length in the article (and merits lengthy discussion). Seraphim System (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
What does "Democrat" even mean in the sense of a political position, anyway? Political parties are not the same things as political positions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC).
"the time of Regan" Who is Regan? Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
And now you know why I don't publish much and what I have done reguires major help from spell chech and grammor  ;) C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a perennial complaint about this article, often from agenda-driven readers who have a superficial understanding of political ideology and American history. The KKK has always been a right-wing organization, irrespective of what party most of its followers belonged to in any given year. Nefarious activities engaged in by members of either party, whether in the 1940s or the 1860s, are no reflections on the parties of today. With so many white-supremacy apologists ascendant as of late, I suppose it's encouraging that there are still some people among the right wing who consider the KKK toxic enough to warrant trying to dissociate their predecessors with it. Maybe some noted scholar will write an article on that, and we can mention it in the article. In the meantime, this is just covering old ground. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Fourth Klan era?

I'm beginning to think that we might be able to see the recent rise in the past decade or so, as the 4th iteration of the KKK. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ku Klux Klan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ku Klux Klan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

More Bad Grammar?

The opening sentence:

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or simply the Klan, is three distinct movements in the United States that have advocated extremist reactionary positions such as white supremacy...

Should it not be:

"The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or simply the Klan, are three distinct movements in the United States that have advocated extremist reactionary positions such as white supremacy..."

as it is plural? - Freedom Strength Liberty (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither is right. I"m changing it to "refers to". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That works, but it wasn't really wrong before. We wouldn't say "Twin Peaks are a television show" or "the Trinity are a religious concept". RivertorchFIREWATER 05:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No, but it's the plurality of "three distinct movements" which upsets the apple cart, and make the singular verb seem awkward, like Twin Peaks is two television shows..." or "The Trinity" is three different aspects of...." Grammatically correct, perhaps, but really awkward to the ear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanking you Beyond My Ken, it reads better now -Freedom Strength Liberty (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

KKK was formed by Democrats

The KKK was formed by Democrats in the southern Confederate States. NOT by Republicans. Johnefallis (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Johnefallis: Okay, and...? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
And David Duke's only success in politics was as a Republican; parties change over the decades and the party of Andrew Jackson (slave owner) is not the party of Barack Obama, just as the party of Lincoln is not the party of David Duke or Donald Trump. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It is quite true that the Democratic Party before, during and after the Civil War was a states-rights, pro-Slavery, pro-white party while the Republicans were the opposite. The Southern wing of the Democrats remained more-or-less along these lines right up through Dixicrats and then George Wallace. Even now, southern Democrats tend to be more moderate and less progressive then the rest of the party.
In the meantime, of course, the Republicans mutated first into a moderately-conservative party (which even had a liberal east-coast "Establishment" wing) -- a close examination of the policies of the Nixon administration will show that he promoted his fair share of progressive programs. The Reagan Administration marked the beginning of the Republican's second transmutation, as they lurched into becoming the hard conservative party they are now, with a significant far-right presence. The Democrats, on the other hand, have stayed pretty much where they were, but with the Republicans moving so far to the right, the Dems appear to be more liberal.
All of this is accurate, and easily verifiable, and none of it has anything whatsoever to do with the KKK's foundation. It was founded by nativist white supremacists fighting against blacks, Catholics and Jews, and it remains nativist, white supremacist, and antisemitic, although the anti-Catholic strain is now fairly muted.
What changes to the article is Johnfallis suggesting, or is he simply getting in some digs at the Democratic Party of 150+ years ago?
I wanted to add one thing. As amazing as it may seem to anyone who came of political age recently, from Pearl Harbor to around the Vietnam Era, the two parties were very roughly aligned, with the Democrats' center of gravity to the left of that of the Republicans, and the Democrats having a tail going out to the left, with the Republicans' tail going off somewhat longer to the right (but certainly not quite to, say, the John Birch Society, which was fairly fringe then, but would probably be considered to be on the outer edge of the Republican mainstream now). When that rough alignment was in effect, there was a general understanding between the leadership of both parties that National Security issues should, for the most part, be above politics. There was a fairly common hard-line, anti-Communist (after WWII), support-your-local-dictator-as-long-as-he's-not-a-Communist mindset which the leadership shared, and this made reaching consensus and brokering compromises immensely easier.
Of course, when you look at some of the decisions made during the post-War period, you realize that the common mindset might not have been such a good thing, but it did create the groundwork for cooperation and compromise between the parties on other issues. Important work, in other words, could actually get done by the political leadership, since they held a fair number of views in common.
That, of course, has gone by the wayside, as it did in past eras in the US, although there are no longer actual physical beatings on the floors of the Senate and House, as there once were, just verbal ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I miss the 'Radical Republicans', even the Teddy Roosevelt style of Republicans, but back on topic. The reason I brought up David Duke was because he originally ran as a Democrat for state office, but only had success after his switch to the Republican party. It spanned the time during the 1970s and 1980s of the two parties changing ideological positions on racial issues to became what we see today. Political party affiliation in history has nothing to do with the current political parties in the USA, that was the core of my comment. Much like the current stance of the Whig Party (United States) vs. it's historical stance on race, they are not the relevant to this discussion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
And... Perhaps we should change comments like, "are considered right-wing extremist organizations," as they are most certainly not considered right-wing at all by anyone who is right-wing. Sounds more like the left-wing trying to blame the right-wing. In fact, we should probably remove that NPOV comment altogether.Clepsydrae (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are incorrect, as an anti-black, anti-aemitic, anti-immigrant, anti-catholic, ultra-nationalist organization, they are indeed considered by scholars, historians and political scientists to be a right-wing, indeed far-right, organization. That description will not be removed from the article unless and until someone provides a citation from a neutral and reliable source which says that they aren't -- and even then it wouldn't be removed, just qualified. I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong ideological tree.
(Oh, and BTW, the Nazis and the Fascists are right-wing as well, so please don't go posting that particular ideological talking point on those pages.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Johnefallis: The names and at least partial biographies of the six founders of the original Klan (1865) are historically recorded, and there is no known political party affiliation for any of them. Besides which, the Democratic Party officially didn't exist in that place and time, as Tennessee was not part of the United States (it would be readmitted the following year), and during the duration of the Civil War the Confederacy had abolished political parties. As for the second Klan (1915) there is also no known political affiliation attributed to William J. Simmons. I don't really count more than two Klans but some historians do, so just to complete the thought, Samuel Green (1946) also had no known political party affiliation. It's playing very loosely with objective analysis to fuel one's conclusions on dichotomy (they attacked Republicans therefore they must be "Democrats" or the naive belief that all people everywhere are members of a political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.212 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2018‎ (UTC)
Democrats DID create it, it was founded by Nathan Forrest, a democrat, and Eric Foner noted "In effect, the klan was a millitary force serving the interest of the Democratic party".2601:245:C101:6BCC:442C:FB41:63F2:108F (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Bad Grammar

There's a grammatical failure in the 'First Ku Klux Klan' section. There's a full-stop followed by a lowercase 'by' which doesn't make sense. I don't seem to have the rights to edit this. Feel free to have a look at it or grant me rights to edit.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastett (talk • contribs) 21:43, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Similar change--the Greek word kyklos is misspelled.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.6.161 (talk) 05:05, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

thank you. :)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.188.63 (talk) 15:34, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

yes that is right would be useful for a fix thanks.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.22.176 (talk) 17:01, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Numbers of current KKK members

There's this:

As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000 while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total.

Then there's this:

|label9 = 3rd Klan |data9 = 5,000–8,000[1]

Which number is correct? - Either way this article should be consistent.

References

  1. ^ "Ku Klux Klan". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved February 7, 2013.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2018

Resistance and decline SECTION: (MISSING L IN LAUNCHED in 1st paragraph)

X:

Many groups and leaders, including prominent Protestant ministers such as Reinhold Niebuhr in Detroit, spoke out against the Klan, gaining national attention. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League was formed in the early 20th century in response to attacks on Jewish Americans, including the lynching of Leo Frank in Atlanta, and the Klan's campaign to prohibit private schools (which was chiefly aimed at Catholic parochial schools). Opposing groups worked to penetrate the Klan's secrecy. After one civic group in Indiana began to publish Klan membership lists, there was a rapid decline in the number of Klan members. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) aunched public education campaigns in order to inform people about Klan activities and lobbied in Congress against Klan abuses. After its peak in 1925, Klan membership in most areas began to decline rapidly.[117]

Y:

Many groups and leaders, including prominent Protestant ministers such as Reinhold Niebuhr in Detroit, spoke out against the Klan, gaining national attention. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League was formed in the early 20th century in response to attacks on Jewish Americans, including the lynching of Leo Frank in Atlanta, and the Klan's campaign to prohibit private schools (which was chiefly aimed at Catholic parochial schools). Opposing groups worked to penetrate the Klan's secrecy. After one civic group in Indiana began to publish Klan membership lists, there was a rapid decline in the number of Klan members. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) launched public education campaigns in order to inform people about Klan activities and lobbied in Congress against Klan abuses. After its peak in 1925, Klan membership in most areas began to decline rapidly.[117] 71.62.115.196 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

The first Klan actually had around 550,000 members i know that because it's written on a version of this wiki that is written in another language here is the article (in romanian): https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan Almighty3076 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the hatnote to handle the incoming redirect klansman :

{{redirect|Klansman|other uses|Clansman (disambiguation)}}

"Klansman" redirects here. For other uses, see Clansman (disambiguation).

-- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Far-Right" is unsupported and should be corrected.

The entire listing on Wikipedia of the Ku Klux Klan shows affiliation with the Democratic Party, from it's roots through the 1970s. At no time in this article does it produce evidence of a shift of political affiliation, but only listed as such by Wikipedia.

Credited, proven, and cited evidence should be provided in the context to show HOW and WHEN the KKK changed party affiliation. Otherwise it is correct to assume that Wikipedia has incorrectly listed party affiliation as "Far-Right". This should be removed and properly replaced with "Democratic" or "Far-Left" as described in the context, or left blank, until proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenStahl23 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

the first KKK was linked to Dem party--it died out before 1880. 2nd kkk 1920s was mostly Republican in North. 3rd KKK (today) is not close to either party but see David Duke. all are far-right Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Rjensen, where do these idiots pick up their talking points? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen on this - though the term "far right" has changed its meaning, I think the majority of scholarship today is in agreement that the KKK ideology has always been far right (pro-slavery, anti-Communist, racist, etc.) The political shifts are not the same thing. Seraphim System (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
On a separate note, being anti-communist or racist doesn't make one being far-right. --Darwinek (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
being "racist" is one factor in being far-right. it's typically linked to extreme nationalism because both = hatred or disparagement of outsiders. 1) "a common set of far-right, racist, Islamophobic and anti-immigrant ideas do exist across the Atlantic Ocean," in The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate (2014). 2) "Special Issue: Racist and Far-right Groups" in Volume 36 of Journal of contemporary ethnography (Sage, 2007) edited by Professor Kathleen M. Blee. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet it's not a one-to-one relationship. Although you are probably correct that racism is a common characteristic of those on the far-right, there are left-wing racists as well, although -- at least in the modern world -- it's not nearly as common. Anti-Communism is pretty clearly a defining characteristic of the right in general -- not just the far-right -- but it too, is not limited to the those on the right. In the mid-20th Century in the US, for instance, it would have been hard to find anyone in the mainstream of politics who wasn't anti-Communist, whether they were on the right or the left. Come to think of it, that pretty much goes for today as well: although the right loves to paint the left as "pinkos" or "fellow travelers", very few people in the mainstream of American politics are trumpeting the value of Communism: a failed ideology has few friends (except on the far-right, where the spectacular failure of numerous Fascist regimes doesn't seem to have stopped the alt-right from championing it as a philosophy). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Claimed current membership numbers

Under the heading "National changes: Membership statistics" is a table which claims that in 2016, membership was at "3,000-6,000", and two years later, at "8,000-12,000". The sources for all of the numbers in the table (going back to 1920) are combined into a list of 5 sources, rather than being called-out for each claimed membership period, which makes it difficult to tell which source is being cited for which period. However, the sources themselves date from 1999, 2017, 1965, 1998, and 2009, which means that the numbers for 2013, 2016 and 2018 can only have come from one source, but it still begs the question as to how the table could purport to have membership numbers from 2018, when the latest source is from 2017. Furthermore, that 2017 source explicitly states that "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 155 KKK groups, with a total of about 5,000 to 8,000 members." (pg. 84; emphasis added) I'm not convinced that the SPLC's claims are accurate (they're notoriously unreliable when it comes to such things), but even if they were, that's still a long way from supporting a claim of "8,000-12,000", when they're being cited a year earlier as saying "5,000-8,000", and no source is given for 2018 figures. If no one can provide a reliable source as to their 2018 membership levels, the table will need to be corrected. Bricology (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In a US News article published August 2017, Anti Defamation League ADL) suggests "Nationwide, there are still an estimated 3,000 Klan members and unaffiliated people who "identify with Klan ideology," according to the ADL. Membership, though, remains spread across dozens of groups. The largest Klans reportedly don't have more than 50 to 100 active members, and most have fewer than 25." Here is link to US News article: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2017-08-14/the-kkk-is-still-based-in-22-states-in-the-us-in-2017 Oldgoldtop (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Susan Sontag about the visual history of lynching in America

In June, 1938, Virginia Woolf published Three Guineas, her brave, unwelcomed reflections on the roots of war. Written during the preceding two years, while she and most of her intimates and fellow-writers were rapt by the advancing Fascist insurrection in Spain, the book was couched as a tardy reply to a letter from an eminent lawyer in London who had asked, “How in your opinion are we to prevent war?” Woolf begins by observing tartly that a truthful dialogue between them may not be possible. For though they belong to the same class, “the educated class,” a vast gulf separates them: the lawyer is a man and she is a woman. Men make war. Men (most men) like war, or at least they find “some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in fighting” that women (most women) do not seek or find. What does an educated—that is, privileged, well-off—woman like her know of war? Can her reactions to its horrors be like his? [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdanidam (talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

The conservatives of the Democratic Party created the KKK and moved down South and joined the Republican Party.. The conservative ideology, not the liberal ideology, as there were Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats at the time as well, was 100% responsible for the creation of the KKK! The Democratic Party itself did not create the KKK because the other Democrats wanted nothing to do with the ones who created it!

I wasn't using far-right sources! Is the publisher an IDIOT?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkevin366 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm kinda puzzled by this myself. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
See my comment above - the confusing part is this editor was making an unreasonable request coming from a left-wing perspective, while usually this particular article attracts the opposite.--Pharos (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Far-Left?

This is not a forum to discuss the history of political chances in the USA. The vandalism was reverted and the immediate issue has been resolved. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

This page says that the the political position is Far-left.

To me they seem more far-right. Is this a Vandal edit or is there an explanation for this?

--TheSpaceFace Let's Chat 23:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It's vandalism, which I have reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


No, they're far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.112.196 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

far left = destroy capitalism, nationalize banks, RR, mines, landholdings, all corporations; promote labor unions, support Blacks, ridicule religion. Was this the KKK agenda??? Rjensen (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You know views of a party can be changed right? Back when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were passed, there was barely any democratic support. That would mean that after the majority of the right supporting the rights of African-Americans, they then make a hate group? Instead of changing it from "Far-Right" to "Far-Left" we should have it say, "Founded by the democratic party." Or something like that. Because that is what it is, a hate group started by the democratic party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Roe234 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to begin, but to start with "right" and "left" don't mean "republican" or "democratic" (and, of course, as the article describes, the second iteration of the KKK enjoyed at equal Republican support, while the latest one is a fringe group). Few historians would describe the 19th century Democratic party as left-wing in any case (most scholars identify the roots of its leftwards drift in Bryan's Cross of Gold speech, although it didn't really become defined as the country's more left-wing party until FDR.) You should review Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. On the whole, right-wing politics are those that support hierarchy in some form as either right or natural (whether economic, racial, based on noble bloodline, etc) whereas left-wing politics are those that oppose hierarchy. Both are fairly broad terms - hence why right-wing politics can include both capitalists and monarchists, while left-wing politics can include both Communists (who want an all-powerful state enforcing 'equality' on everyone) and Anarchists (who want to abolish the state entirely), views that are in some other vital respects precisely opposed to each other. On the whole racial-supremacist organizations like the KKK are described as far-right because they support a racial hierarchy for society. But all that aside, we rely on citations for the description of left-right groups (I'm just explaining why these scholars identify the KKK as a far-right group); if you wanted to dispute that, you'd have to find better sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2019 (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.

Industrial Workers of the World

i found a fair bit of stuff relating to the second KKK. there's no mention of the I.W.W. or Green Corn Rebellion. In the doctoral thesis links with the cited pages you can see the arguments for why so many people were attracted to membership in the KKK. there was a genuine and justified fear of industrial sabotage. weirdo socialists, from all different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, did actually start migrating across plains and did actually attack peoples homes and livelihoods and did encourage tenant farmers to get involved although it got a bit blown out of proportion over time. the attraction was to the promotion of 'americanism,' that the KKK waged a highly publicised war against a Bolshevist 5th column which actually endeared them to many members of the american public as sort of heroic vigilante group. now i dont agree with these views personally but this is what has been written about them.

there were attacks perpetrated by branches on socialist unions. one particular example dedicates a kkk abduction and tar & feathers incident to the people of Belgium. [1] [2]

"The I.W.W., at all times arrayed against law and order, are now the active enemies of the United States. They are a branch of the kaisers army...when the home of one of their citizens was dynamited and only by chance this man and his wife escaped assassination-when the I.W.W. comes as close to you as that, indignation takes the form of action...these reptiles have no more standing in the court of public opinion of this state than a German spy. In point of fact that is what some of those loathsome traitors are-German spies and tools and in the pay of Germany...while fighting the huns of the kaiser our boys are not going to be attacked from the rear by the bums and hoboes and assassins that make up the I.W.W." Harlows Weekly also explains the contemporary connection between Belgium, the I.W.W. and the Knights of Liberty. The article sympathetically explains the actions as economically and politically motivated rather than racially motivated. [3]

"By 1917 any political tolerance, accommodation, acceptance or support the Socialist party enjoyed in the South came to an abrupt halt with America's entry into the european war...Socialists and the IWW became convenient scapegoats to rally the population."[4]

A Kansas detective reported over 200 members of the I.W.W. and their affiliates migrated to Oklahoma to organise an open rebellion among the working class against the war effort planned for November 1, 1917. It was reported that police beat the I.W.W. members before delivering them to the Knights of Liberty.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.196.38 (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "I.W.W. Members Are Held Guilty". Tulsa Daily World. November 10, 1917. p. 2.
  2. ^ "Modern Ku Klux Klan Comes into Being". Tulsa Daily World. November 10, 1917. p. 1.
  3. ^ "Harlow's Weekly - A Journal of Comment & Current Events for Oklahoma". Harlow Publishing Company. November 14, 1917. p. 4.
  4. ^ Paul, Brad A. (January 1, 1999). "Rebels of the New South : the Socialist Party in Dixie, 1892-1920". University of Massachusetts Amherst. p. 171, 176, 189.
  5. ^ CLARK, CARTER BLUE (1976). "A HISTORY OF THE KU KLUX KLAN IN OKLAHOMA" (PDF). The University of Oklahoma. p. 23-25.
"Justified fear", is it? No bias here - those damned wacko socialists are to blame for the popularity of the Klan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The Klan first reached Tulsa 4 years later --in August 1921. on 1921 see Charles Robert Goins; Danney Goble; James H. Anderson (2006). Historical Atlas of Oklahoma. p. 165. The 1917 group did NOT call itself the KKK (the headline writer added that) it called itself the Knight of Liberty. There were many such groups under various names. they were not connected to 1st or 2nd kkk klan., (the newspaper headline says it was like the at kkk--they did not know about the 2nd kkk yet). Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
did you read the two doctoral theses i referenced or did you only click the first reference and give up? idk i guess throwing dynamite through windows like members of the I.W.W. did is accepted civilized behaviour that should not alarm anyone.175.36.196.38 (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
i did read them. but they do not link the kkk to iww in 1917. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
"Detectives reported that over two hundred organizers for the International Workers of the World and their agricultural affiliate , the Working Class Union, migrated from Texas into the oil fields to organize the workers into an open rebellion planned for the first of November, 1917.^^ Hooded Tulsans, members of the Knights o f Liberty, struck first. Police raided the local IWW hall and arrested several men who were released into the waiting arms of the Knights o f Liberty who applied the horsewhip, as well as tar and feathers. Vagrants and suspected IWW sympathizers were beaten . National attention focused on the affair . Editors in Oklahoma lauded the hooded Knights who drove the IWW from Tulsa and called for similar actions in other communities in the state." p.25
"The bonanza climate in the mine and oil regions of Oklahoma contributed to lawlessness in the state after the war. Quick wealth and loose money drew disreputable characters to the camps and the towns. The church-going Klansman was horrified at the spectacle before him of licentiousness in his area. He believed that it was unsafe for his wife and children to travel the roads with out insult. Knights struck out against vice and crime in an effort to reform the moral climate. Promiscuity and the liquor traffic were the targets, as well as the corrupt sheriff and politician who allowed the immorality to continue. The Klansman wanted to reform his local community to clean up the crime and moral laxity , and to purify his county." p.158
"The Southwest was a region in turmoil from its earlier years of white occupation because of the conflict between Indians and whites for possession of the land, and because of the presence of horse thieves, c a t t l e rustlers, and other parasites upon front i e r l i f e . Klansmen often referred to their victims in 1922 and 1923 as parasites upon the community who were told to leave and never return to the county or the state." 159-160
"Vice flourished where municipal corruption thrived. The Knights pledged to negate the influence of these threats to order through the control of the ballot box."p170
"Types of Number of Offenses Outrages
Whiskey/bootlegging - 16
Immorality with the opposte sex - 12
Economics - 5
Abuse/non-support of a family - 4
Crime - 8
Personal grudge - 4
Opposition to school officials - 3
Racism - 3
Immoral living/wife-beating - 2
Opposition to Klan - 2
Being German - 2
Unionization/Radicalism - 2
Narcotics traffic - 2
Gambling - 1
Discourtesy to a teacher - 1
Registering blacks - 1
To extract information - 1
For talking too much - 1
Pimps/prostitution - 0"
pg148
if you check the C. Blue Clark dissertation he does actually say that Oklahoma was a pretty lawless place and the attraction to the KKK was the PROMISE of law. I know its propaganda but it apparently got a lot of people to sign up. I can copy and paste more quotes but im probably already breaking the copyright rules by copying so much. check the green corn rebellion and I.W.W. articles to understand why they were seen as part of the lawlessness. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, can you suggest better phrasing? The reality is that extremist groups exploit and exaggerate actual incidents. Islamophobes for example exploit the "justified fear" of terrorism. On the other hand they fabricate such concerns as the transformation of European states into Islamic republics. There were violent radicals in the early decades of the 20th century, although their influence and threat was greatly exaggerated by the KKK and the U.S. government. And they had no connection with the Socialist Party of America. TFD (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The Oklahoma case is an outlier but the KKK did NOT arrive until 4 years after the supposed non-insurrection of Oct 1917. The KKK great enemy was Catholicism. They revived old false stories about Catholic plans to take control of America. IWW was dead years before KKK started to expand out of a small unit in Georgia. There is a VERY large RS scholarship on both KKK and IWW But I cannot recall seeing any RS that links the two directly. --Lacking a RS I think we have a case of false synthesis here. Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
the tulsa daily world article is titled, "Modern Ku Klux Klan Comes into Being" and describes the Knights of Liberty committing the Tulsa Outrage. Harlow's Weekly provided a very long apologetic for the Ku Klux Klan. both of these articles were contemporary reports. Clark in his, "A HISTORY OF THE KU KLUX KLAN IN OKLAHOMA," describes it but doesnt directly state that they were a KKK branch. So i suppose you could be right and he went completely off topic for a few pages in his thesis.
if the IWW was dead for years then these articles probably need revising. Wheatland hop riot 1923 San Pedro maritime strike Green Corn Rebellion There also seems to be evidence that the I.W.W was still very active. http://depts.washington.edu/iww/yearbook1919.shtml. it seems like false synthesis to suggest that the I.W.W. was, 'dead' by 1917. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
nationwide and in Oklahoma the IWW was active in 1917. The original kkk was long dead and there was a small 2nd kkk just starting up locally in Georgia. the 2nd kkk did not reach oklahoma until 1921. In 1917 numerous vigilante groups across the western USA attacked the IWW, but none of these vigilante groups was associated with the either the 1st or 2nd kkk. The 1917 headline in question is saying the Knight of Liberty in 1917 resembles the old kkk of the 1870 era but the article itself says no such thing. the headline writer is making an analogy to a dead 1st kkk--it demonstrates the risk of interpreting a primary source, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
ahh, you are correct. they made a minor foray into Oklahoma in 1919 but didnt seriously recruit until 1920.[1] which would mean the 1917 incident was unlikely to have involved the Klan. I will keep an eye out for other references but you are most likely correct. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ KU KLUX KLAN. Oklahoma Historical society. https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=KU001

User:Rjensen, would you mind taking a look at the article, W. Tate Brady? a previously unknown author, unqualified and having never written any journalistic work before, published an article in an indie magazine claiming that Brady was a member of the Klan based on basically the same information. the article now states that he was a member of the Klan, in Oklahoma in 1917. The author provided only a partial document as evidence and it wasnt by any means peer reviewed or placed under any journalistic scrutiny. It has served to inform public policy in Tulsa, so as to lead city leaders to publicly label him as the lead perpetrator of the tulsa outrage and proceed to rename a number of streets and a district as a result of this 'discovery.' the wiki article currently states, "Brady was identified as one of the organizers behind the Tulsa Outrage of 1917, in which members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) were tarred and feathered by the black-robed Knights of Liberty, a short-lived group associated with the Ku Klux Klan.[4] All 17 members of the IWW identified Brady as the man who applied the tar and feathers." now my point of contention isnt that he was a member at some point. he admitted in the 1923 military tribunal to possessing membership until 1922 when he was kicked out. my point of contention is that he was identified as the ringleader of the tulsa outrage according to a note from a NAACP investigator possessing no verifiable details and that the knights of liberty were a branch of the KKK. 175.36.196.38 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

editors get pretty mixed up when they stray from RS on fringe groups. --for example when they try to interpret primary sources like 4 words from a headline from 1917. the headline writer in Tulsa newspaper in 1917 said the Knights of Liberty resembled the 1st KKK of the 1870s--he called it a "modern" version. And indeed the Knights of Liberty did resemble the first KKK. But the 1st KKK never operated in Oklahoma (it was dead by late 1870s) and the RS agree that the 2nd KKK appeared in Tulsa in 1921 --with Brady involved. The Tulsa World 1917 article text as written by the reporter does not mention kkk--the headline was added by a staffer in the newspaper office who was not referring to the 2nd kkk. Wiki does not allow its editors to draw conclusions from primary sources (like the newspaper headline) because mistakes are so easy to make. It's much safer to go with published reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Political ideologies: Anti-Europeanism

That's odd. No citation and also no explanation in the article. EDIT: So the edit that added "Anti-Europeanism" was made by User:Kingsland96 on Feb 5, 2018, with no message, citation or reference. That user was also warned for vandalism. The entry should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.211.109 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, done. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Political Position

To display that the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has a political position of “Far-Right” is misleading. Whatever the current political position of the 3rd...whatever....The KKK originated by, and as, a part of the Southern Democratic Party. Brainchamp295 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and? Or do you think "Democrat" means "Left" throughout history? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
To Jpgordon, But saying it is "Far-Right" can, will, and has purposely mislead people. It should be changed to far-left, because that is where it would be now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Roe234 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

The Ku Klux Klan is a Far-Left organization, and was founded as such, it has never shared any views with the Republican party. The modern one still holds views that oppose the Republican Party, such as desegregation, as seen by the fact that Republicans oppose separate black dormitories as segregation, and civil rights, which Republicans were always pushing through congress. Krazydude100 (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"Yeah no." What does that mean? I ask you to please respond instead of just telling me I'm wrong without a reason. -Krazydude100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazydude100 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done until and unless you can find some reliable sources to back up your claims, to which I say, "Good luck with that." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say that the comment by @Drmies:, "Yeah no", translates into "Yes, I know that people on the far-right are trying to disassociate themselves with Fascists, Nazis, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other similar ideologies and organizations, but here on Wikipedia we report what reliable sources says, and the consensus of reliable mainstream historians and political scientists says that those things are on the far-right side of the political spectrum, not on the far-left side, so we're not going to make the suggested edit no matter how many people ask for it without providing a single reliable source to back up their contention."
Anyway, that's what it meant to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, now I understand what is going on, we disagree on it. So let me leave for a month or so (I have much schoolwork to deal with since finals are coming up soon), and I will gather as many sources as I can, and we can discuss this. I was just frustrated that people kept shutting me down without telling me why. -Krazydude100 —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You are going to need a boatload of sources -- and make sure that they are reliable sources; if you haven't read that policy already, you should -- to overcome the prevailing consensus, because I guarantee you that for every source you come up with (if you indeed can come up with any reliable ones at all), a dozen ultra-reliable mainstream sources can be stacked up against it. But if your thing is tilting at windmills and trying to prove the unprovable, have at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your mainstream sources are wrong look at the membership of the klan it was all democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philratio (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Question involving trivial or irrelevant information in the lead sentence: Ku Klux Klan vs. Klu Klux Klan

The lead sentence of an article is supposed to contain pertinent information about the article itself. Notice that the introduction to the Ku Klux Klan article contains information that the KKK is frequently misspelled as Klu Klux Klan instead of Ku Klux Klan. This is trivial information that should not be in the opening sentence of the lead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, not a spelling bee, and not a primary school educational tool. There can be no question that the KKK is frequently misspelled as Klu instead of Ku, but this information does NOT deserve mention in the opening line of the article. A lot of people don't know how to spell, and these same people also make grammatical and punctuation errors. It's rather silly to tell people that a proper name (Ku Klux Klan) is frequently misspelled.Anthony22 (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019

The KKK was a left wing extremist group. Change all the right wing references to left wing for it to be correct. 1.136.108.104 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong -- check the archived discussions where this has been explained several (many?) times before. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019

"its opposition to the Catholic Church at a time of high emigration from the mostly Catholic nations of central and southern Europe": should be immigration. From the point of view of Europeans they emigrated (left); from the point of view of Americans they immigrated (arrived). Leslierscott (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

the kkk surged long after the major Catholic/Jewish immigration stopped in 1914, so I dropped the whole line of error. Rjensen (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Historical leap-taking

Current text under "Political Role" reads in part: "The members of the first Klan in the South were exclusively Democrats". citing no source. This completely ignores the fact that Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, McCord, Lester, Reed, the founders of that Klan, themselves had no known political affiliations, and also presumes that everybody in the Klan, or everybody in general, is either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican, which has no basis in fact. No political party affiliation was ever required to join the KKK, and there has never been a time when citizens have been required to register to vote,. with or without a political party. So this leap-of-assumption is flatly based on a False Dichotomy.

And it also directly contradicts the cited quote from historian Elaine Franz Parsons on the same page under "Creation and Naming" where the demographics of Klan members are spelled out in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.212 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, since I doubt it is sourced. In fact, I'm not sure exactly how it could be sourced in the way it was expressed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Good edit. The first KKK attacked Republicans all right, and it included Democrats, Conservatives, and non- partisans. The notion that KKK equals Democrats is a fringe notion popular on the far right with no RS support.-- the second KKK was strongest in Republican areas in the North. The 3rd kkk is mostly nonpolitical or Republican. 04:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It also ignores that the 1st Klan had no formal membership, was very loosely organized, and that anyone with a mask could describe himself/herself as a member.: "the Klan had no membership rosters, no chapters, and no local officers, so it was difficult for observers to judge its membership." We don't know the identities of most of these people, much less their backgrounds and political affiliations. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan location

(Current Klan Organizations) The location for Knights of the Ku Klux Klan is wrong, I've proof read the source a couple of times and nowhere does it say Zinc, Arkansas. It's located in Harrison, Arkansas, I don't have sufficient editing privileges since this article is protected. Could someone do the edit for me? These are my sources which clearly say Harrison: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xd5yew/the-kkk-embraces-diversity-in-harrison-arkansas . https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/knights-ku-klux-klan 2001:5B0:4BCD:8AB8:9414:2F8C:C359:7DFD (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Army123456789 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Date conflict

The "Overview: Three Klans/First KKK" section seems to be unsure of the historical origin date, citing "sometime [sic] between December 1865 and August 1866" while several paragraphs below "First Klan: 1865-1871/Creation and Naming" correctly pinpoints it as December 24, 1865. Seems to me if the date is known, it's not "some time between". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.212 (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Membership statistics

I was looking at the Membership section. It gives a KKK membership estimate for 2018 (8,000-12,000), but none of the sources appear to be later than 2017. What source is the 2018 estimate based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnabiotin (talk • contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Good question. It was added in February 2018 with the summary "CNN report", but it's not clear which report, so I have removed it. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I've reformatted the table to eliminate excess whitespace, and to clearly indicate specific sources for each entry. I've removed the History channel source, since I do not think it's particularly credible for this. This source says At its peak in the mid-1920s, its membership was estimated at 4 million to 5 million. Though probably much smaller, the Klan declined with amazing speed to an estimated 30,000 by 1930. This is consistent with other sources I have seen. Linda Gordon's book The Second Coming of the KKK, for example, also challenges this claims of millions of members, and she mentions many examples of KKK chapters exaggerating membership to absurd degrees. I don't have the book on-hand for a proper citation, but I do not think this number should be passed-along without indicating that it's historically dubious. Grayfell (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
While Gordon questioned the Klan's own estimate of 4 to 6 million members, she provides no explanation or alternative number. She acknowledges that there were 500,000 female members so one would expect that total membership was in the millions. TFD (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
She didn't? Again, I don't have the book on hand, but I recall that she provided multiple specific examples of local exaggeration and double-counting, which seemed to be common. Since this was the basis of the total estimate, this total number would also be an exaggeration. That seems like an explanation, but perhaps I'm mis-remembering the details and Google Books is not showing me the specific pages.
Regardless, this number apparently came from the Klan itself, which is obviously suspect for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
dishonesty was its strong point. on exaggerations read Gordon at https://books.google.com/books?id=dZhYDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT91 page 91. Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph ignored "Anti-Black" mention

First paragraphs gives no mention of the main group KKK targeted and still do: African-Americans, blacks. --68.173.189.62 (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done That's a fair complaint, so I've added that their primary target is African Americans, which is supported by the same SPLC reference already supporting the lede sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

trunfo estava no kkk na década de 1970 e ainda suporta o kkk 2600:8805:BC82:2300:45FF:5A67:9844:15A0 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Talk 00:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

The Ku Klux Klan is a Left-Wing Organization founded by Democrats. It's listed as Right-Wing in the description, which is not accurate. 172.220.104.49 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"33/5" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 33/5. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

The kkk was created by DEMocRATS and is still a far left organization. I’m seeking legal counsel to see what can be done about you trying to rewrite history. How pathetic and weak liberal ideas must be to have to lie for them. 70.19.65.88 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Why does this say the KKK has always been a right wing organization. It was founded by democrats. The same democrats lived and died as democrats. They supported planned Parenthood then and now. Fix this or ill be pursuing this with a few people that have a little more mainstream media pull. 2600:6C64:7800:47F2:980F:D4C0:D881:5EA6 (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I'm tired of teaching history to uninformed people. Your answer is in the archives.Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Read Dixiecrat and learn that history doesn't consist of the last twenty minutes. Acroterion (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Klu klux klan political affiliations is far left not far right 2603:9000:BA11:4C00:2913:E13C:1AE9:532D (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Nope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist Group, not hate group

Why are they labeled as a hate group? They have been labeled by multiple government agencies as a Terrorist Group. Freedomandequality1776 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We reflect what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that the Klan is a hate group, so we report that they are a hate group. They, of course, can be a terrorist group as well, and historically they were. No so much anymore, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
They are labeled as a "hate group" because they are, and have stated as much, especially their hatred of Jews and Black & brown people. They use chants and other utterances such as, "Jews shall not replace us" which is a chant popular among KKK and other White nationalists/supremacists groups. The slogan is a reference to the popular white supremacist belief that the white race is in danger of extinction by a rising tide of non-whites who are controlled and manipulated by Jews (in fact, one variant of “You Will Not Replace Us” is “Jews Will Not Replace Us”). A source here: https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/you-will-not-replace-us IrishLas (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the Political Position and history Tab in the interest of Historical accuracy

  • Political Position needs to be adjusted to something like: Far Left (Previously), Far Right (current)
  • In the history tab of the article some research must be done and added explaining, for the sake of historical accuracy, that this group was started by men politically aligned with the Democratic Party.
    • As an example:
"The Klan used public violence against black people and their allies as intimidation. They burned houses and attacked and killed black people, leaving their bodies on the roads.[56]"

As it stands this specific quote is fairly ambiguous on who the allies are and as such the quote should be made clear to represent the fact that the KKK targeted the right wing Whig party until it's collapse in 1856 and then the newly formed (1854) Republican Party as the Whigs integrated into that party. Danpapua (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Danpapua:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It's not appropriate for you to make an edit request that requires editors to do a lot of research themselves. If you simply want to suggest improvements, that's no problem and what this page is for, but please don't use {{edit semi-protected}} unless you're fully ready and have a specific, verifiable and immediately actionable request. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

KKK is a white supremacist terrorist group. They match the requirements to make a terrorist group. Just because they are white does not excuse their treatment of other human beings. They are racist, against other religions and against political leaders. They are dehumanizing, derogatory, and heinous people who feel that are above others. Wikipedia is an educational website and should provide a non-bias report of a group of people. So my request is for you to change your bias bio of the KKK to the correct categorization of them which is a terrorist group. AnnaBananas7765 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is for editors who are unable to make changes to get editors who can to make them. But first you need to get consensus. TFD (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
We had a similar discussion with antifa. First, the KKK is not a group but a collection of groups. Second, per WP:LABEL, we don't usually call groups terrorist, even if they are non-white. Third, we do not report the conclusions of editors, but what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1872 condemnation in Hebrew newspaper

An interesting reader's letter condemning the clan, dated December 1871, was published January 24, 1872 in Hamagid. --87.71.9.42 (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Insurrection Act

This article says the governor of South Carolina appealed for assistance from federal troops, but doesn't say whether or not they were sent. Insurrection Act of 1807 says that President Grant invoked the Act on October 17, 1871, with a referenced source. If someone has access to this or other sources, it would be interesting to expand this article with more details on whether troops were actually sent, and if so what they did. -- Beland (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it now a terrorist organization?

I saw that this was brought up before in the table of contents. It must remain as a hate group as reliable resources insight. Obviously the KKK checks all the boxes needed to be a terrorist organization and has had its title protected by a structure of racism rooted in the American government and society, but because of reliable sources it stays labeled as a hate group. However, recently the U.S Sate Dept. labeled a white supremacist group as terrorists. While it was partly inspired by foreign involvement, it represents a historical shift in government stance on white supremacist groups [1]. However, this sentiment comes a little late for most American citizens who have faced hate crimes and seen the perpetrator go without proper punishment, been targeted by police due to their identity, seen violence committed against people due to their race, firsthand experienced targeted brutality, or already understood white supremacy and racism as the plague and true terror to American welfare. With the current riots supported by the masses in all 50 states, and even abroad, this mindset against racism is more evident, present, and transparent than ever. With the government and American citizens starting to make historical changes it is time our documentation does as well. Who are we speaking for? Who is it important we speak for? We have the power to help change history for the better, so should we sit here while the American population knows the true terror that has been caused by the KKK? Even the government is beginning to acknowledge that white supremacist organizations present terrorism. Should we lag behind or say it how Americans know it to be from first hand experience. The KKK's wiki page is already riddled with the use of "terrorism" and "domestic terrorism". Not to mention it has been designated as a terrorist group, and is cited as terrorism in the U.S on another wiki page [2]. The least we can do right now is be consistent with the new government perspective, American heartfelt beliefs, and the continuity of wiki. We must at least bring up how white supremacy is affecting society right now. Personally, I believe that an organization carries all of its past actions on its shoulders. Gingerbaxter1234 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC) GB June 8, 2020

References

  1. ^ “State Dept. Labels White Supremacist Group Terrorists for 1st Time Ever.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 6 Apr. 2020, abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-labels-white-supremacist-group-terrorists-1st/story?id=69998908.
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Correction

All three movements have called for the "purification" of American society and all are considered right-wing extremist.

“.....all are considered right-wing extremists” is incorrect. They started off as democrats in the first movement. Starbucks Rocks (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to correct here. They were, and are, right-wing extremists according to reliable sources. Since it used to be fairly common for democrats to be far-right (see the Southern strategy) this point is a non sequitur, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Lol, your reliable sources appear to be a Hodge-podge of revisionist history. I'm old enough to remember the race riots in the 1960s, and I grew up in the South in the '60s and '70's; my father in the North in the 30's and 40's; my grandfather in the 00's and 10's; my great-grandfather in the 1850's and 1860's. Countless historical documents abound which decry your reliable sources as false. Indeed, my shelves are lined with books dating back to the 1600s, and I've read them all. Whether "left," "right," "middle of the road" or "non-partisan," all three waves of the KKK were incontrovertibly of the Democrat Party in nature. President Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. One of his promises was to free the slaves, a promise which he kept. He was subsequently shot by John Wilkes Booth who "decried Northern abolitionism and made clear his strong support of the South and the institution of slavery." In order for you to avoid repeating the mistakes of history, you must first learn what history ACTUALLY says, not the predigested pap of a bunch of revisionist websites telling you how and what to think it says. Study history. Learn the truth, preferrably via good, old-fashioned ink upon cellulose. Get thee to a library! Then come back and correct this abominably incorrect article wrongly attributing to right-wing everything the Democrats don't want to admit about their past.Clepsydrae (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You seem to not understand that Democrats used to be a right-wing, conservative party during this time. That's why it is appropriate to call it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.63.203.221 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Democrat" and "Republican" are words. They do not defend themselves, and so can be made to mean anything. This is a common problem with all words, which change meaning over time and sometimes come to mean the opposite of what they originally meant. Political parties in particular, in all nations, have a pronounced tendency to adopt their enemies' positions in the scrum for votes and render their names meaningless in historical context.
To bring this all home: until the late 20th century, the Democratic Party was the home of racists and right-wing populists in American politics. (It also had two distinct wings in its northern and southern memberships, who warred with each other over these issues within the party itself. Thus, historically, pinning down an overarching Democratic Party ethic is a fool's errand.)
The Republican Party, as founded by Lincoln, Stanton, Frémont, and their generation, was pluralist, pro-federal, and anti-corporate. In short, the opposite of the current party platform.
So faulting or lauding either party for the actions of those who campaigned under their names in the past is pointless and naïve. Laodah 21:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I do find the "right-wing extremist" label misleading. "Right-wing" is typically nowadays used for Republicans and "left-wing" for Democrats. The average reader is not going to know that this has switched at some point in the past, as you suggest. If the Democratic Party used to be right-wing, then I think that bears mention. As written, the inference seems to be that the KKK was related to the Republican Party.Marcpage (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Your understanding of what "right-wing" and "left-wing" mean is flawed, and from that flawed assumption flows your flawed conclusion.
    Historically the KKK was closely related to the Democratic Party, at the time (before and after the Civil War) that that party was a white supremacist party, while the new Republican Party, while hardly "liberal" by today's standards, was generally anti-slavery. Fast forward 150 years to today, and things have changed considerably. Now, the Democratic Party is center-liberal (not "left-wing"), while the Republican Party has, since the time of Ronald Reagan, drifted farther and farther to the right, abandoning its previous center-right (not "right-wing") position to be very far to the right. Due to this shift (and not to any appreciable leftward shift of the Democrats), there is now no longer any appreciable overlap between the ideologies of the two parties, which wasn't the case in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.
    Anyway, to address your underlying complaint, we report what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say the Klan is "right-wing extremeist", so that's what we report. In the meantime, if would do you good to read some of our articles, such as left-right political spectrum, Right-wing politics, Left-wing politics, Conservatism and Liberalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020 regarding the KKK Wikipedia page

Currently on the KKK page it is listed as an “American white supremacist hate group.” Although this is true as far as legality of the group’s status in America, that is not what they really are. I’m asking that an edit be made to call the group what they actually are an “American white supremacist domestic terrorist organization.” If this online database can honestly state what they are, it might be that much easier for that group to be treated accordingly. Dmwallace89 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Darth Flappy «Talk» 23:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

The KKK is not a Right Wing Group. The KKK was created by Democrats. A prime example is Senator Robert Byrd (D) was a high ranking leaderIn the KKK organization. 2600:8801:D300:3FF0:95B1:D0D8:178A:C980 (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

And Byrd was a prominent member of the right wing of the Democratic party - which at the time put him to the right of most Republicans. Did you think he was a Communist? Acroterion (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The truth is that the people who make these requests really have no knowledge whatsoever about the history of the Klan, the Democratic and Republican parties, or indeed of American political history in the past 200 years. They're just repeating the misinformation they've been given without doing anything to check our its accuracy. Unfortunately, they're not the only ones who learn their "facts" in this fashion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Byrd as a young man was a local organizer of KKK in small towns in West Va--he kept some of the $ fees paid by new members. He was not a high official and he left long before he entered politics. Rjensen (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Both parties were broad tent ideologically with supporters ranging from socialist to far right. When the KKK was formed, Karl Marx's followers in the U.S. were mostly Republicans. That doesn't mean Communists are far right. TFD (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Karl Marx's followers in the U.S. were mostly Republicans. You got a cite for that? It seems very unlikely to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised you're surprised because it's a frequent theme in neoconfederate literature. See for example Lincoln's Marxists. It's also discussed in chapter 3 ("Reading Marx with Abraham Lincoln: Utopian Socialists, German Communists and Other Republicans) of a book on the historian of U.S. socialism by John Nichols. But then you didn't expect them to be on the same side as the KKK, did you? TFD (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I've not dealved deeply into neo-Confederate literature so, no I hadn't heard of it. And no, of course, I wouldn't expect American Marxists to be aligned with the KKK, I would rather have expected them to keep distant from both parties since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had strong anti-capitalistic stances (at least as far as I am aware). An interesting sideline that I will investigate if I have a chance. Thanks for the cites. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
So the co-author of Lincoln's Marxists:

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Kennedy as “a member of the hard core of the neo-Confederate movement” and “a founding member of the League of the South,” who has “called for a new Southern secession to escape the ‘overgrown and unresponsive’ federal government.” He also co-wrote a book entitled “The South Was Right!,” which defended Southern slavery.

The other author, Al Benson Jr. is (from the book flap)

the editor and publisher of the Copperhead Chronicle, a newsletter that presents history from a pro-Southern and Christian perspective. In addition to writing for Southern Patriot and other publications, he is a member of the Confederate Society of America and the League of the South.

So I don't think this will be a book that I will be reading any time soon.
Were you being sarcastic in your initial comment? When the KKK was formed, Karl Marx's followers in the U.S. were mostly Republicans." If so, I didn't pick up on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I provided the first book as an example of neoconfederate literature, then provided an example of a reliable source, Nichols' book on U.S. socialist history. Marx explained his support: "The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes."
The left-wing within the Republican Party can be seen in the preceding Free Soil Party, the Radical Republicans, LaFollette's Progressives and congressmen Vito Marcantonio and Fiorello La Guardia.
On the other hand, Larry McDonald was both head of the John Birch Society and a Democratic congressman. That doesn't mean the Society was left-wing.
The point is that both parties had a wide range of supporters across the left-right spectrum.
TFD (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, certainly, except that I think "wide range" overstates the case. The "big tent" nature of the major parties comes about, of course, because the American system is biased against the existence of smaller "third parties", which drives those who in the European systems would be smallish parties that can survive by being sought after for coalitions, into being part of the big parties instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
But also there were other dividing issues other than left-right, such as North-South. The polarization along a left-right axis came about through first the ascendancy of liberalism in the Democratic Party and then the ascendancy of conservatism in the Republican Party. I suppose what made the U.S. system different is that the parties did not enforce ideological discipline. TFD (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
True re: North/South. The parties can't really afford to enforce ideological discipline, can they, if theings are (more or less) a zero sum game. Interestingly, though, the Republicans are as ideologically homogeneous now under Trump as they've ever been. The Dems are showing more political discipline then is normal for them, but ideologically they're still quite diverse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What I meant was the parties do not screen new members and have no formal method for expelling existing members. In some states, they don't even have members. People who show up at primary elections are asked which party's race they want to vote in. (Of course they have informal methods of suppressing candidates' supporters.) So there was less reason in the U.S. to set up new parties. TFD (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the fact that we're not a parliamentary system is more controlling. Since the legislature does not determine the executive, there's no need for coalition building in the absence of a parliamentary majority, so small parties find it difficult to find a functional niche. In addition, over the years the existence of only two parties has been written into numerous laws. Small parties do exist, of course, and they do act as electoral spoilers (probably delivering the 2016 election to Trump, and making the 2000 election close enough that Bush v. Gore decided it), but they have little influence outside of presidential elections. Even "independents" in the federal legislature caucus with one of the two majors in order to have any influence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Back to the OP's original request, it's probably time to offer an FAQ that covers the historical facts of internal diversity among parties, Dixiecrats, the Southern strategy, and other points that are ignored in partisan fora. This might also be applied to articles like Southern strategy where there's a lot of ahistorical drive-by commentary. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

I wish for the KKK to be re-edited as a terrorist organization as opposed to a hate group due to the recent petitions signed demanding that same change. No justice no peace. BLM Cbeebe18 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not accept petitions, however much in good faith they are made, as support for information in our articles. Per our policies, we require WP:reliable sources to do so. I think it's clear from the article that the Klan was, historically, a terrorist organization, but there is no evidence that this is the case today. If you can provide citations from reliable sources that support the contention that the current Klan in a terrorist group and not a hate group (and really, those are not exclusive categories, it could be both), then we can proceed from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I have posted a link to policies and guidelines on your talk page. Basically Wikipedia is not cutting edge, but merely summarizes what sources say, in this case academic writing, mainstream news media and groups such as the SPLC. We cannot consider your request until they unanimously accept the description. Even then, contentious labels comes into play. TFD (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

End of the first Klan: Sourcing for end of regalia

At the end of End of the First clan it states "Klan costumes, also called "regalia", disappeared from use by the early 1870s,[98] after Grand Wizard Forrest called for their destruction as part of disbanding the Klan. The Klan was broken as an organization by 1872.[99]" I've read through the page sourced (98) and it's chapter in The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America, and while it mentions that violence continued in the south by people in broad daylight without costume or regalia, it doesn't actually mention Grand Wizard Forrest calling for the destruction of regalia or them disappearing from use. It's not mentioned in (99) either. It might be earlier in the book, but i'm not sure if it's properly sourced then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipothis (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan (Terrorist Organisation)

Ku Klux Klan is a terrosrist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.17.136.52 (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a citation from a reliable independent source that says that the current Klan -- not the historical ones -- is a terrorist organization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Republican used where Democrat should be

You have it as a far right Klan with no basis to prove that and everything points to the opposite that can be found on this very site. Also it is written that the KKK "sought to overthrow the republican state governments in the south" which is 100% false and easily proven by this very site by researching its leaders at the current time. This is a historical inaccuracy that shouldn't stand. Go Kart Chris (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

During the Reconstruction era, the former Confederate states were led by elected Republican governments. I suggest you read that article closely before commenting further.--User:Namiba 21:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources describe the KKK as far right. The KKK indeed tried to overthrow Republican governments in the Reconstruction era following the U.S. Civil War of 1861-65. None of the KKK leaders at the present time had been born yet. TFD (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
And please read Dixiecrats for a discussion of the disparate positions of the Democratic Party during the late 19th century and the 20th century. The present Republican party absorbed the former southern Democrats, and those who had been allied with the Klan came with them. The Republican Party of the 19th century would be labeled progressive today. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

"Until recently, Catholics" ia not elaborated on by the SPLC, nothing is cited by them. My Catholic church vandalized by recognized 3 KKK members sure would like to wonder why this is put as the intro paragraph on Wikipedia because SPLC has it, yet ADL and countless, DOZENS of other sources have them as anti catholic. This just seems like a lame political attempt to minimize Catholic oppression considering the SPLC's history with the Knights of Columbus. There is nothing even remotely academic or verifiable in this statement from the SPLC and this page deliberately deleted other sources stating the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.255.187 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the historic Klan was rabidly anti-Catholic, but the present splintered Klan is kind of all over the map. Apart from your anecdote, can you find something about anti-Catholicism being a current Klan tenet? Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Add Neo-Paganism to the Espoused religion section, see Ku Klux Klan titles and vocabulary for further information.

Add Neo-Paganism to the Espoused religion section, see Ku Klux Klan titles and vocabulary for further information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelcomeToAmerica (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020 for simple grammar correct

The first sentence contains a small grammar error using an near the end of the example below instead of a.

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/), commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an white American group

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/), commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is a white American group — Preceding unsigned comment added by BWBama85 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. This error was a byproduct of vandalism which has been reverted. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


Sorry I don't know how to create a separate section here, but I wanted to ask about the name. As a high school student in the north in the 1970s, we were taught that the name came from the sound a rifle makes when you chamber a round. Has this never been brought up here at Wikipedia?67.189.148.191 (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

I tried to add a citation for the description of "rifle clubs" after the breaking up of the first klan. I found a reliable source, the South Carolina Encyclopedia, which covers the Red Shirts and talks about how they formed out of the disorganized rifle clubs (https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/red-shirts/). Part of the #1Lib1Ref campaign. Thank you! Kabner789 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source provided does not indicate that rifle club members were veterans of the Confederate Army and seems to only be discussing South Carolina. The sentence regarding rifle clubs probably needs to be rewritten or incorporated into the discussion of the Red Shirts. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Far-right" versus "Ultra-right"

(Pardon'o je skrib'i tiu'n ĉi'n en Esperanto. Se iu pov'as traduk'i ĝi'n por la ne'Esperanto'kon'ant'o'j, tio est'us tre ŝat'at'a)

Tio est'as skrib'it'a "Far-right" anstataŭ "Ultra-right". Kio'n oni met'as ? 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:9898:A120:9256:FDDE (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Extremist positions

"Each has advocated extremist reactionary positions such as [...] anti-communism" Anti-communism is "extremist"? Noxian16 (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Although you don’t have to take our word for it; you can read the cited source. Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it means taking opposition to communism to irrational lengths, usually combined with unfounded conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Brodskie cokkies (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

In the end, they went outside

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Remove the word "terrorist" from the lead. Although it is a vile hate group ad I do not support it, there are no reliable sources that the current Klan is terrorist. 2603:6011:E00:472:8858:1826:A1B6:AB58 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC) 2603:6011:E00:472:8858:1826:A1B6:AB58 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this has been discussed at length on this talk page, there's a very large number of reliable sources in the article attesting to that fact. Volteer1 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

KKK Original Group

I’ve been taught, have verified many times as well, the KKK was originated by Democrats to attack Republicans,to intimidate in order to win elections, as well as every other group mentioned in this article. History.com has a great article about it as well as accurate history books. The early democrat party supported slavery as well as any movement they deemed popular enough to get them enough votes which is why after the republican president (Abraham Lincoln) freed slaves they changed their stance. Only later did the KKK become an extreme right-wing hate group. I could find more specific dates pretty easily if anyone on here finds this wrong. I’m new to this so I’m not sure how to change these inaccuracies/falsities on pages. Qsales37 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Read the article. It's all explained. TFD (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia

Hello, my name is Daniel Ellis and I am an avid history buff. Lately I have been doing research on the KKK and have read this article several times since 2020 and I read last year on your site that it was six former Confederate "OFFICER's" that met in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1865, not six veterans in 1866 and the KKK called itself the "Son's of Malta" before they called themselves the KKK and by 1923 the KKK boasted 10 million members nationwide after the viewing of "Birth of a Nation" not the 4-6 or later 4-5 million members you now claim. In the sense that you say that you want to improve Wikipedia you are going about it the wrong way. Include the greater detail and more facts that you had, don't delete and simplify the truth. It really makes me wonder if the Deep State, Southern Democrat,19:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)184.101.125.116 (talk) KKK hasn't already gotten to you.

No doubt you can provide the sources for your assertions since you've been doing research? Would not officers be a subset of veterans? Are you asserting that Birth of a Nation is a reliable source? Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

All references to the KKK being right wing must be removed and replace with the truth. The KKK was founded by the Democrats to appose Republican policies. Democrats founded the KKK and all members were far left Democrats.

The fact that Wikipedia is spreading lies that the KKK being a far right organisation makes for a lawsuit.

All references made by Wikipedia that the KKK was right wing must be removed immediately and replaced with the truth, that it was and remains a far left wing organisation.

https://www.history.com/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan

StruthCrikey (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Ahistorical nonsense. Read the article... EvergreenFir (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh man ! I just posted a topic saying the exact same thing as you sorry. This is my first day with an account. But you are 100% correct. Qsales37 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The info saying the KKK has always been right-wing is incredibly false. Change this info to the original KKK group was founded by left wing/democrats to intimidate republicans running for office and to hate all non-whites. The rest of the info seems at least somewhat accurate. Qsales37 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time for an FAQ - the politics of the 19th century were not the same as today, which should be to nobody's astonishment. The Republicans were the progressive party of the era, the Democrats were generally conservative. Please learn some history. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Your bizarre assertion that white Southern Democrats of the 19th and early 20th Centuries were "far-left" is WP:Fringe to put it (very) mildly, and would therefore need some extremely impressive sources if you wish it to be taken seriously (i.e. not Dinesh D'Souza, Marjorie Taylor Greene, or an anonymous Facebook page with a name like "Patriot MAGA Warriors for America"). Trilobright (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a wealth of literature distorting history such as Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. People who believe conspiracy theories cannot be persuaded by rational argument. TFD (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Evansville

I notice that Evansville, Indiana is not mentioned in the article, despite being the HQ of the Second Klan's predominant Indiana operations. Should something about it be added? natemup (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely, as long as you cite reliable sources for it which shouldn't be hard to find. Trilobright (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

POV edits

An editor restored a number of edits I had reversed as POV.[15] For example he added, the Klan "strongly opposed school choice and helped elect Democrat Walter M. Pierce to be the Governor of Oregon in the 1922 election." In fact, the source says, "When Pierce supported Wisconsin's Democrat Party candidate Robert LaFollette for the presidency in 1924, he quickly lost favor with the Klan." It doesn't say that he opposed school choice, which would not become a concept until at least the 1950s, but that he opposed Catholic schools.[16] TFD (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Pierce supported the Compulsory Public Education Act which aimed to shut down all private schools in Oregon and force children to attend public schools. And while the KKK opposed him in 1924, they certainly supported him in 1922. Total random nerd (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
School choice is a modern concept where parents can direct state payment for their children's education to a variety of private and charter schools. That was not even a discussion until the 1950s. All states today allow Catholic schools to operate as a result of the Supreme Court decision on this legislation. That does not mean that they all have "school choice." You are misrepresenting the intention of the legislation which was to oppress Catholics as an opposition to modern libertarian education policies.
Also, since the KKK supported him before he supported the Democrat Party presidential candidate and removed their support when he supported him, it is misleading to say that they supported the "Conservative" candidate for governor. If you for example were to support an pro-life candidate who later became pro-choice, it would be misleading to say that you supported a pro-choice candidate.
TFD (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The WP article on Pierce says he was a progressive. Total random nerd (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems mention of gun control was supported by the cited source, though it should probably go into the body of the article before the lead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't make it WP:DUE to include language like It also advocated for gun control laws which prevented blacks from defending themselves nor to add the category "Gun control advocacy groups in the United States". Further, this particular source is an op-ed, not reporting. I would want to see substantially more discussion of this aspect of the KKK in unequivocally reliable sources before I'd consider such additions appropriate. Generalrelative (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
You want to talk about undue information in the article? Firstly, the KKK was conservative. Actual conservatives never opposed the Klan. Also, calling them "anti-abortion" is spot on. Even though that the KKK maliciously murdered pregnant women and their unborn children, the notion that they can be compared to modern-day pro-lifers who oppose the murder of unborn children, period, is downright ridiculous. Total random nerd (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Ridiculous? Pro-lifers can be selective on which lives they are pro. You’re attributing far too much logic to Klan mentality. DeCausa (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Order of Article

Kia ora! I was wondering if it would make more sense to have the origin of the name as the first part of the article. Ordinarily, discussions of etymology are the first thing discussed in a Wiki. Nauseous Man (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021

ARNOLD.SPENCE308 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)The Klux Klux Klan is an American terrorist group that has committed countless murders of US citizens and whose members have at times elevated until serial killers
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

They weren't far right. Proof of that ? Read every history book before the internet. Is that also why nazis (the left) banned books? 120.21.115.101 (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done No WP:RS given. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

The KKK is NOT a far-right group. They are a leftist group established by pro-cessation Democrats of mostly southern states. 208.38.229.50 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Symbols

I think the anti defamation league was an acceptable source for some of the symbols that were deleted, including the lead image. [17], [18]. I am not sure I understood the rationale for deleting those two symbols. I would support restoring them to the article in some way. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. wp:rsp says that "There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S", so I think where such sources exist it would be appropriate to reinstate those symbols. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021

I love how you blame ALL of KKK on the Republican Party! Kudos for trying to rewrite history! You might want to try doing some actual research instead.

https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan 173.81.4.86 (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear which change you are suggesting. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You obviously did not read this article. TFD (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021 (3)

Alabama Democrat governor George Wallce; "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" 2600:387:C:6D33:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Wallace already listed under Third KKK in the overview. Cannolis (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd. 51 years as a Democrat Senator and Klansmen in the KKK. while serving as a DemocratSenator. (These are critical facts that need to be included in your article). 2600:387:C:6D33:0:0:0:4 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: His involvement is more already and more appropriately included at Robert Byrd. We do not list every KKK member ever on this page, and it does not appear that Byrd had any significant impact on the KKK to merit a mention here. Considering your prior spurious request, this is likely another attempt to force more mentions of the word "Democrat" onto this page. Cannolis (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
He in fact left the Klan eight years before his election to the Senate. TFD (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Reword intro to: The Ku Klux Klan is the name of multiple white supremacist hate groups and terrorist organizations... (keep the groups they dislike/target after that)


My reasoning: The KKK has not been a single national organization since 1944, it has been splintering apart for decades and there are many different groups incorporating the name. This article actually goes into depth on that, so it would make sense. Additionally, The 2nd KKK is only loosely connected to the 1st, so this edit would also make sense since it's a shared name, not a continuous lineage.

Finally there is the precedence of this article List of Ku Klux Klan organizations that also makes it clear that there is a bunch of organizations with this name. Hope my suggestion is useful. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

Please change "a white cross on on a red disk with what appears to be..." to "a white cross on a red disk with what appears to be..." AstrumViridis (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the Ku Klux Klan recognised as terrorists by any country or the UN??

It was brought to my notice that Ku Klux Klan was described as a terrorist group. Even though the atrocities committed by them are no less than terrorists, but they aren't actually a designated terrorist organisation. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to not write terrorist until they're actually classified as a terrorist organisation?? Kunal Mystry (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources (see WP:RS). Governments may or may not be reliable sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It's a self designation then Mhatopzz (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

The first klan had 550,000 members the link is here https://www.splcenter.org/20110228/ku-klux-klan-history-racism scroll all the way down to find the chart that shows the number of members Stalemate53 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y". The Article currently says that "[...] the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men [...] However, the Klan had no membership rosters, no chapters, and no local officers, so it was difficult for observers to judge its membership." from Ku Klux Klan#End of the first Klan. Cakelot1 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
the 550,000 number is imaginary--it's from a newspaper interview in 1868 and not supported by scholarly studies. The vote for Greeley in 1872 in the ex-Confed states was 660,000 -- so 550,000 implies 83% of Southern Democrats belonged to the kkk. That's quite absurd. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Please remove these two sentences: 

It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South, especially by using voter intimidation and targeted violence against African-American leaders.
It seriously weakened the black political leadership through its use of assassinations and threats of violence; it drove some people out of politics.

and add these: 

It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South, especially by intimidating voters and violently attacking African-American leaders.
It seriously weakened the black political leadership through its use of assassinations and threats of violence, and it drove some people out of politics.

In the first sentence, "using targeted violence" and "using voter intimidation" are grammatically correct but wordy. In the second sentence, combining the two independent clauses with a conjunction sounds better than using a semicolon. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Only changed the second sentence as I find the first one to be adequate. ––FormalDude talk 03:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Some information of the Ku Klux Klan is not accurate. 203.153.196.226 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

As in? Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Poltical affiliation

Description says far-right, when the Klan was mainly Democrat. 166.182.254.248 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

And Republican. The far right is allowed to belong to both parties. TFD (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
And until the 1980s the Democratic Party had a right-wing segregationist component. See Dixiecrat/ Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
And Democratic Congressman Larry McDonald was head of the John Birch Society before his death in 1983. TFD (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Rifle reload

Why has my edit that the etymology for KKK may be similar to the reloading of a rifle, as Conan Doyle suggests, been removed? I certainly find the explanation unlikely and unconvincing, but it important evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust.TSFL (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Because Doyle's mention in a work of fiction appears to have no basis in fact or support in scholarship, and any mention should be supported by references in secondary sources discussing Doyle, not directly to Doyle's work. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The fiction element is irrelevant, it's still useful and valid information - a lot of people have it as an explanation in their mind because of C-D, and its important to mention it if only to disagree with it. And so we should be looking for a secondary reference to the quote rather than just deleting it surely... Faust.TSFL (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
As I said, you need to specifically reference a secondary analysis of Doyle's work pertaining to Doyle's assertion, rather than using his fictional speculation as a primary reference. You need to do that before you add the material. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
And adding it in anyway is not a good look. Doyle was not an authority on the KKK. Acroterion (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
But, again, this defeats the entire point of an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if Doyle was correct, the fact that he provides a possible etymology (however unconvincing) is significant. And when I put it in a second time, I provided a secondary source to the reference. Faust.TSFL (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are not indiscriminate collections of factoids or mentions, and unless Doyle's speculation has been substantially supported by other scholarship, it's a tangential fictional allusion. The mention by Doyle is the 19th-century equivalent of "this was mentioned on an episode of a TV show." See WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE The article should focus on factual scholarship concerning the organization. If the mention has been "broadly ignored," then Wikipedia must reflect that consensus by ignoring it too. Your secondary source strengthens the argument against inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Political Lies and misrepresentations. Your so called Fact Checkers are liars and a Joke to begin with. It is FACT that The Klan was invented by the Democrats

Political Lies and misrepresentations. Your so called Fact Checkers are liars and a Joke to begin with. It is FACT that The Klan was invented by the Democrats and your site is promoting Hate with these lies and should be disbanded for it. 69.248.204.154 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the article?
After the Klan was suppressed, similar insurgent paramilitary groups arose that were explicitly directed at suppressing Republican voting and turning Republicans out of office: the White League, which started in Louisiana in 1874; and the Red Shirts, which started in Mississippi and developed chapters in the Carolinas. For instance, the Red Shirts are credited with helping elect Wade Hampton as governor in South Carolina. They were described as acting as the military arm of the Democratic Party and are attributed with helping white Democrats regain control of state legislatures throughout the South.[58]
—Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
DFTM. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_11&oldid=1108536604"