Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"Terrorist organisation" in lead

While the KKK is undoubtedly diabolical, consistency should be applied across similar organizations on Wikipedia. Both the pages of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, despite widely recognised as terrorist organisations, avoid explicit labelling as such due to NPOV concerns. If ISIS's page uses more descriptive language to portray its actions than just "terrorist", then the same approach should be taken for the KKK. Zinderboff(talk) 13:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You have a point, per Wikipedia:LABEL The description should be attributed. Also, the Klan included groups whose primary purpose was terrorism, groups that used terrorism but had other main objectives and groups that did not engage in terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

TFD If this is the case, should the label be changed to something else, as not to violate LABEL and NPOV? Zinderboff(talk) 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Just so everybody's aware this has been discussed before (Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 12#Terrorist) although that discussion didn't really go anywhere despite the amount of digital ink spilled. (I'm going to ping all the {non-banned} people in that discussion: @Rsk6400:, @Binksternet:, @TFD:, @Butlerblog:, @FormalDude:, @Darknipples:, @Rjensen:) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this discussion doesn't get as chaotic as the last.
My fundamental argument is that words like "terrorist organisation" are generally too bloated for Wikipedia, and thus should be avoided, at least in the first sentence. Most if not all organisations referred to as "terrorist organisations" by nations or international bodies do not have such terminology in their first sentence on Wikipedia, later on maybe. I don't think the KKK has been more "terrorist-y" than ISIS, Al Qaeda or Boko Haram to warrant such label when those organisations do not. Zinderboff(talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Cakelot1, thanks for pinging us. Zinderboff, I think that this article is well in line with WP:LABEL (the term is used by a multitude of RS; since the lead summarizes the body, we don't have to add refs to the lead), and I also think that this problem should be resolved locally (i.e. without focussing too much on what other articles do - your examples are all about comparatively short-lived religious terrorism, while this is about 150+ years of racist terrorism). But I do agree that the "2nd Klan" sections should contain more stuff about why and by whom they were labelled as terrorists. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Making comparisons to other terrorist organizations (articles) is unnecessary and does not provide an objective view as to why the KKK is primarily a terrorist organization according to reliable sources. This question has been raised before. It's eerily familiar. The simple answer is, founded by Confederate veterans in the wake of the American civil war, the KKK's primary purpose became establishing political hegemony and committing acts of violence over the Southern US and it's citizens.

The KKK used propaganda, coercion and violence that sought to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience. That's the definition of a terrorist organization. DN (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:LABEL says terms such as terrorist "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That means we would attribute the claim in the text of the lead and not state it as a fact.

Also, reliable sources such as the SPLC do not refer to the various existing Klan organizations as terrorist groups. The implicit claim in the lead that all Klan organizations were terrorist is false.

DN, you are referring to the first Klan but there have been numerous organizations of the Klan which do not meet that description. TFD (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There were three entirely different USA organizations that called themselves KKK. First in 1860s and 3rd in late 20th century = yes terrorist by unanimous agreement of reliable sources. 2nd KKK in 1920s was not terrorist--it had many thousands of chapters nationwide and a few probably did use violence, but not the great majority. However in 1920s its opponents often accused it of terrorism but consensus of historians now reject that false allegation. Rjensen (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not come across any article of the countless organisations labelled terrorist which use such in the first sentence. I am not advocating for the removal of the tag altogether, I am suggesting to include it lower down in the lead.
In the case of recent religious terrorist organisations, I believe heavily that they are relevant, it is not the type of terrorism which is committed but terrorism itself. The usage of propaganda, coercion and violence that sought to create fear, not just within the direct victims but among a wide audience is present in all aforementioned entities. Those pages don't omit the tag, just mentions it later on, which is what I'm suggesting for this article.

The Islamic State article for example says it is "Designated a terrorist organization by the United Nations and others, IS was known for its massive human rights violations.", doing so in the forth sentence of the lead not the first. Using "terrorist organisation" in the first sentence seems extremely odd, no organisation I have come across has that, hard to think the KKK is in itself unique enough to warrant such a difference.

Having something along the lines of "white supremacist organisation" in the first sentence, with the "terrorist organisation" tag later could work. With something along the lines of "The first and third rendition of the Klan is widely considered to be terrorist organisations". Zinderboff(talk) 04:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear how "less like a terrorist organization" during the second wave justifies the removal, meanwhile see the Ocoee massacre. In that time period racism was so commonplace the KKK had to differentiate themselves by adding more new targets...

Aside from that and what's already in the article and in the archives, here's another RS to consider:

1. PBS Has the KKK always functioned as a violent terrorist group? "The KKK's emphasis on violence and intimidation as a means to defend its white supremacist ends has been the primary constant across its various "waves." - David Cunningham (sociologist) DN (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Historian David Chalmers asserts: "the evidence does not point to Klan responsibility or participation in the election day race riot in Ocoee in 1920" see David Chalmers, "The Ku Klux Klan in the Sunshine State: The 1920's." The Florida Historical Quarterly (1964): 209-215 at p. 210 online here. Rjensen (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

I suppose that is one way to see it.

The full quote reads...

• Although the evidence does not point to Klan responsibility or participation in the election day race riot in Ocoee in 1920, or in the clash at Rosewood, in Levy County, two years later in which eight people were killed and the Negro community was burned out, the In-visible Empire was very active elsewhere in the State.
• The West Indian rector of a church in the Negro section of Miami was flogged and tarred and feathered for “preaching Negro equality” and was warned to leave town under pain of death. In another community, the Klan reportedly threatened to lynch a local judge for enforcing the traffic laws, and Colonel Simmons suspended the Pensacola Klavern for unauthorized violence when it threatened a Greek restauranteur. Initially, however, such episodes were sporadic as the Klan concentrated on politics and expansion. As elsewhere in the South, the Klan sought to keep Negroes from the polls, and in Jacksonville and Orlando open parades and covert warnings of violence were used. By 1922, the Klan had emerged as a direct participant in politics.

What is Chalmer's assertion about the KKK as a terror organization?

Britannica "In Ocoee the Klan began threatening the Black community three weeks before the 1920 election, claiming that “not a single Negro would be permitted to vote.” Moreover, the Florida Klan’s grand master sent a letter to two local Republican officials, threatening to retaliate if Black and white officials continued instructing local African Americans on how to cast ballots and pay poll taxes. “We shall always enjoy WHITE SUPREMACY in this country,” the letter read, “and he who interferes must face the consequences.” DN (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Cunningham does not say the Klan is a terrorist organization. TFD (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Where did I say he said that in the citation? DN (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If he didn't say that, then what is the relevance of his comments to the discussion? We are discussing whether or not the article should refer to the KKK as a terrorist organization. TFD (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have come to a screeching halt over a week ago, with no one saying anything since. Has any sort of consensus been reached within this discussion or no, and what should happen the "terrorist organisation" tag in the lead (I'm replying to this message because it seems the most recent)? Zinderboff(talk) 18:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Terrorist organization" is the longstanding WP:STATUSQUO, so it should remain in the article absent a consensus to remove. And I don't see any consensus to remove from this discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that's the case. Hopefully this discussion could continue, not stopped in a middle of discussion like it is now. Also to note the "terrorist" tag was put on in 2021 without discussion nor consensus, hopefully some can be reached here. Zinderboff(talk) 06:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to ping people thus far involved in the discussion, sorry if this bothers btw @Cakelot1@Darknipples@Rjensen@Rsk6400@The Four Deuces (I think this is how you do it?) Zinderboff(talk) 06:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I said it once, I said it twice, so why should I have to repeat my statement ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

there are three entirely different organizations that used the KKK name . #1 and #3 were terrorist. #2 had tens of thousands of chapters of which historians identify well under 1% that ever used violence. So "terrorist" for #2 is bad history in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to keep pinging editors, also I don't see a consensus for this change happening. If you feel the community at large needs to weigh in on continued use of that descriptor in the first sentence, make sure to follow WP:RFCBEFORE. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It not only violates WP:NPOV but also MOS:TERRORIST and WP:VOICE. Wikipedia has this systematic leftist bias, where the policies and guidelines are overlooked for right-wing topics, while the same guidelines are strictly followed for leftist and Islamic topics (ironically, Islamic is right-wing but never labelled as such by the media or leftist academics). Even ISIS has no mention of being a terrorist organization or the ideological label of "Islamic terrorism" (in Wikipedia's own voice), but KKK is not only a terrorist organisation but also a Christian terrorism, both written in Wikipedia's own voice. Wow. Can smell that Islamo-left Wikipedians who dominate the stage. 2409:4073:4E02:DDD:ED58:6EC8:ABBD:350F (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The KKK and ISIS are actually different groups (shocker, I know) so they're handled differently. There is a much clearer consensus amongst reliable sources on the KKK's designation as a terrorist group than there is on ISIS's designation as a terrorist group. There's no reliable sources that I'm aware of that disagree that the KKK is a terrorist group, however there are RS that disagree that ISIS is. (Though most RS agree ISIS was considered to be one at one point, and as such that is expressed in the lede of that article.)

So your problem is actually with the academic reliable sources that cover these issues. Reality has a well known liberal bias. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024

Request that the label Right winged be removed and replaced by political bipartisan hate group 2603:8080:7C00:E5:C04E:D3F6:3BDE:9ADB (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

How about the history documented in the Wikipedia entry? The organization started as an arm of the democrat party. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:91C6:5C23:FF72:18CE (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:WINARS. Plus, I am not sure you've heard of this concept, but: things change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably time for an FAQ that we can at least point the history-impaired to. Not that it will make any difference to someone who imagines things today are just like they were in 1865, but ... Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, things change over time, such as the political influence of the klan. At one time it had significant political influence and today it has none or even negative. So pick a time when it has political influence to try to define the ideology, perhaps the early 1940s. I wouldn't consider the party of FDR far-right. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

So I guess you are conceding that far-right may be an appropriate label today? And the party of FDR was a complicated one. The right-left distinction is, at the best of times, reductive, but when dealing with a splintering like the Democratic party experienced with the Dixiecrats, it can often be misleading. The article as currently presented does not hide the Klan's origins and alignment with the Democratic party, but neither should it downplay its current or historic stances and how they are described in reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that if you want to ascribe an underlying ideology, then maybe a weighted average of the predominant ideology weighted by political influence over time would be more meaningful. Or, even better, since there is no specific ideology over time, apolitical would be a better description. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This all strikes me as sort of antithetical to the way an encyclopedia organizes information, but to each their own. As mentioned, reliable sources would help, and when you have consensus for the changes you would like to see, by all means make them. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Antithetical, I suppose in that an encyclopedia must be continuously updated or becomes antiquated. Perhaps that results from defining something that ultimately does not exist, such as an underlying ideology for this organization. It seems to me that its ideology is fluid and ascribes to whatever is willing to support its principles of tribalism and hatred. For example, today I would say antisemitism is more aligned with a far-left ideology. I'll see what I can come up with. Have a great weekend. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are there any negative traits you would ascribe to right or far-right ideology? Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

anarchy and lack of empathy come to mind. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wholly agree that this edit needs to be made. There is and never has been a right-wing connection with the KKK. Yet it started out as a left-wing hate group and for the vast majority of its history that's what it was. Now it may be neither left nor right leaning in modern history, since they are all but defunct, though as even up to the last decade or two they predominantly professed and backed socialist agendas. And as this editor said, anti-semitism has very much been the province of the modern left. Brianiac5 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

My recent edits

I have been trying to clean up the references for this article and have come across a serious issue. Many of the "sfn" refs cite a book or an article without any page numbers or chapters or quotes... To keep WP:VERIFY valid, this article needs to provide more specific information, we can't have a ref cite an entire book or an entire article to back up statements. I apologize for what might seem like drive-by tagging but I didn't know what else to do - 1)verifiability is a WP:POLICY and is important and 2)I don't have the wherewithal or the ability to research many of these sources. Someone who has the book or the article at hand or who has more knowledge of the material will have to do that. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

The kkk was not founded my far right republicans. It was founded by ex confederate general and most members were southern democrats CaptKenEarl3 (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC) The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 by ex-Confederate soldiers Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe in Pulaski, Tennessee. The group was originally a “social club” but quickly became a violent white supremacist group.

Its first grand wizard was Nathan Bedford Forrest, an ex-Confederate general and prominent slave trader.

Experts agree the KKK attracted many ex-Confederate soldiers and Southerners who opposed Reconstruction, most of whom were Democrats. Forrest even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

“The KKK is almost a paramilitary organization that’s trying to benefit one party. It syncs up with the Democratic Party, which really was a racist party openly at the time,” Grinspan said. “But the KKK isn’t the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party isn’t the KKK.”

Did you read the article? Where does it claim that the KKK was founded by "far-right Republicans"? (Which did not exist at the time). The Republicans of the mid-19th century were the progresdsive party, the Democrats were the reactionaries, at least in the South. The parties exchanged positions in the mid-20th century. History and party ideologies are not static. Acroterion (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That is the frustration I have. When you read about the KKK herein, it clearly places blame on Republicans. Those that "Read further" can read some truths but few make it that far. It needs to start out with historical facts FIRST and then other parts could be added like David Dukes 'KKKK' after he switched parties from Democrat to Republican. David7541 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you really read the article? The first KKK sought to overthrow Republican power, or to oppose its policies. It was a reactionary movement. That is historical fact, and stated clearly in the article. Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

KKK founder was a Democrat. Not far-right. Correct this. 2603:7081:3B40:C52D:4967:8E07:A7A3:ED02 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You think the Democrats of that era were just like they are 150 years later? Read this page, and read the article. Learn some history. Acroterion (talk)

I want a full-blown edit done too the inaccuracies regarding the Klu Klux Klans history.

When you read about the KKK in this Wikipedia, it states that the KKK is a right wing extremist affiliated organization. It doesn't even mention that it was founded by what was a Democrat named David Duke until you read deeper. It only reads that David Dukes party affiliation is Republican, which he switched for the purposes of giving him a better chance at winning office, "per his own words." Some aggressive editing needs to be done to this article now. People have been asking for the edits and nothing is getting done. I am about to put in a formal complaint regarding this matter.

• PLEASE make these edits ASAP and exercise ACCURACY when doing so.

David7541 (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing you describe is about inaccuracies. It seems, rather, you don't like that it accurately describes the modern KKK as being far right and that the Southern Strategy resulted in the Democrats and Republicans effectively flipping their party platforms. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are inaccuracies.

You are stating that there are none doesn't change the FACT that there are.

You are describing a "theory" of two parties platforms flipping. That is not a fact. Since when was Wikipedia placing articles based off of theory?

- One being at the beginning of the article where it states that the KKK is a "Far right" party. Is that accurate?

- How about another inaccuracy that the KKK 'David Duke founded' states herein that it was founded in Tennessee. That is also inaccurate. The original KKK was founded in Tennessee, not the Knights of the KKK, which has NO political affiliation with the old KKK other than David Duke joining. Regardless of opinion, feelings, our words used, the least that should be done for the sale of historical accuracy is use FACTS. What I stated herein regarding David Dukes KKKK not being founded in Tennessee is a fact. It is also a fact that labeling the KKKK as a 'far right' entity is erroneous and nefarious.

Can we at least address the FACTS?

FACT 1: The KKKK (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE OLD KKK) But the David Dukes "Knights of" the KKK not being founded in Tennessee, but instead was founded in Louisianna where he resided. The KKK was founded in Tennessee, not the KKKK.

FACT 2: The "New" KKK DOES NOT belong to 1 party. There are members of both Republican, Democrat and Independent. Proof? Click on David Dukes name herein and look up his original political affiliation. It will read Democrat, not Republican.

CAN WE FIX THESE HISTORICAL INACCURACIES?

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET THEM CHANGED? David7541 (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The Klan as "anti-trade union"

In the infobox for the Third Klan's ideology, anti-trade unionism is included. Not one of the any 3 articles cited for the ideologies mentions supposed opposition to trade unions.

There is also a section detailing it further, but the entirety of it cites only one book without even an ISBN. The book uses the example of only one Klan organization in one city. The one specific example used does not make the distinction of whether the Klan opposed the CIO due to an anti-union ideology, or merely because they accepted black members.

Meanwhile, more documented aspects of Klan ideology like their Prohibitionism and opposition to private schools aren't included in the infobox.

I will recant if a decent source is provided that demonstrates the Klan as cohesively anti-union. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Patriot. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The Klan was anti-radical and anti-integration but not ant-trade union in practice. Thomas Pegram's 2018, "THE KU KLUX KLAN, LABOR, AND THE WHITE WORKING CLASS DURING THE 1920S" published in The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, states "Historians usually consider the revived Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s to have been consistently opposed to labor unions and the aspirations of working-class people. The official outlook of the national Klan organization fits this characterization, but the interaction between grassroots Klan groups and pockets of white Protestant working-class Americans was more complex. Some left-wing critics of capitalism singled out the Klan as a legitimate if flawed platform on which to build white working-class unity at a time when unions were weak and other institutions demonstrated indifference to working-class interests. In industrial communities scattered across the Midwest, South, and West, white Protestant workers joined the Klan. In Akron, Ohio, the Klan helped to sustain white working-class community cohesion among alienated rubber workers. In Birmingham, Alabama, the Klan violently repressed mixed-race unions but joined with white Protestant workers in a political movement that enacted reforms beneficial to the white working class. But Klan attention to working-class interests was circumstantial and rigidly restricted by race, religion, and ethnicity. Ku Klux definitions of whiteness excluded from fellowship many immigrant and Catholic workers. Local Klans supported striking white Protestant workers when Catholic, immigrant, or black rivals were present, but acted, sometimes violently, against strikes that destabilized white Protestant communities. Ku Klux sympathies complicated urban socialist politics in the Midwest and disrupted the effectiveness and unity of the United Mine Workers. Lingering Klan sympathies among union workers document the power of reactionary popular movements to undermine working-class identity in favor of restrictive loyalties based on race, religion, and ethnicity." As such, I don't think we can definitively state that anti-union ideology was core to Klan beliefs or behavior.--User:Namiba 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"far-right"

Adding 'far-right' as the lead description of the group makes it sound as if the KKK was an inherently a political organization, which is not necessarily true. Also it's kind off anachronic when the KKK existed prior to the conception of a "far-right". 2800:200:ED80:1A0:D140:CE08:3540:AC25 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The term originated in the French Revolution around 1789, and was well-established by the end of the 19th century. The definitions were further refined in the 20th century. Bearing in mind that the Klan was openly active into the 1960s, after more modern definitions were applied, there is no particular contradiction. See political spectrum and Left–right political spectrum. In any case. we go by what reliable sources in academic political science tells us, not our own analysis. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)