Jump to content

Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Archives

History Issues

I am not familiar with the KKK's history, but the section on its "creation" seemed odd to me. There was no real explanation for why a group of pranksters suddenly started assassinating people. In the article, this happens literally within a sentence. Either there is an extra link (perhaps in a changing of personel within the KKK at this point) or the organisation was altogether more sinister than the article makes out right from the start. Could someone more familiar with the material have a look at this? --Ajcee7 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)ILOVEKODEY

A Terrorist Organization?

I just noticed that the most recent article states that the KKK is a terrorist organization. While I do not disagree with this, I was wondering if it could be clarified as to whether the government recognizes it as a terrorist organization or not? --PaladinWriter 12:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Grand Jury found it to be so. Details in Trelease book et al. Skywriter 12:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have been edited out of the lead. Why? Sam 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


The reference to terrorism was removed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&oldid=57056313 by (cur) (last) 20:42, June 5, 2006 JayW m (rm pov: we don't even flat out say Al-Qaeda's terrorist; see WP:WTA)

and then in a separate edit, the following was deleted (and imo should be re-instated): . It quickly adopted violent methods. For example, during Reconstruction, Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a single county in Florida.[The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida, by Michael Newton ISBN: 0813021200] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=56994630&oldid=56985145 During the above edit, the following was reinstated (after it had been, apparently, accidentally deleted). . It quickly adopted violent methods, and was involved in a wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. A rapid reaction set in, with the Klan's leadership disowning it, and Southern elites seeing the Klan as an excuse for federal troops to continue their activities in the South. The organization was in decline from 1868 to 1870, and was destroyed in the early 1870s by President Ulysses S. Grant's vigorous action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).

I realize the above phrasing might cover the example of the Florida county but the Florida example has two-fold advantage: 1. it is sourced, and 2. it gives an idea of the scale of terror in just one county. What do you think? Skywriter 03:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would reinstate. If saying the Klan is a terrorist organization is a problem because of the connotations that word has taken on, it can be said that the Klan advocated the use of terror against blacks and others. Sam 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

'Terrorist' is a POV term that will not be used; for example, if Wikipedia was writting from a JPOV, the opening paragraph on the US military would contain the word 'terrorist' (several times - it might beat out 'the' as most used word, in fact). WP:WTA specifically disclaims its use, and the issue has been debated many times. I don't care what else you decide to use, as long as it's neutral and sourced, but we won't be using the T word. </verbiage> JayW 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the phrasing as it was used implied all modern KKK organizations advocate using terror against their 'Untermensch' - such an assertion wouldn't be neutral, however, since many modern Klu Klux Klans claim to condemn violence. JayW 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the word terrorist linked to Lynching in the United States made it clear why it was being called such, but I suppose the picture of the burning cross makes the point as well. You might want to raise the point at its entry on the today's featured article though, since that states it even more explicitly. Moulder 19:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
My first comment is addressed to JayW: I'm afraid you do not get to decide if the word is used here. Whatever wording is decided upon here by consensus is the wording we will use. The word "terrorist" is not POV and can be used at Wikipedia.
That said, the use of the term "terrorist" is not accurate in this case and probably shouldn't be used here (to my knowledge, nowhere in the article is the term used, least of all with a reference). Instead of that word, I would support using the phrase "advocated the use of terror against blacks and others." This phrase could be used like this: "Ku Klux Klan is the name of a number of past and present fraternal organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism; and in the past century, anti-Catholicism, and nativism. These organizations have often promoted the use of terror against blacks and others." Any comments?--Alabamaboy 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact is this, and I did put this in an earlier version, and it was deleted: the Grand Jury in 1869-70 found the Klan to be a terrorist organization and issued indictments against hundreds of members. That began its first decline. Trelease documents this.

The following sentence is imprecise in that it confers the idea that the Klan was into equal opportunity thuggery and bullying. It was not. Eighty percent of the people it terrorized in all years of its existence are and were black. That the lead defines the KKK as fraternal is akin to calling the Vandals good ole boys. Ku Klux Klan is the name of a number of past and present fraternal organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism; and in the past century, anti-Catholicism, and nativism. Skywriter 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a supposedly cited reference to terrorism in the extremely bloated lead I reverted (which is where the first image was removed by mistake, thanks for putting it back). That said, I think it's safe to say terrorism carried different connotations in those days. Your version works for me, as I do agree about the use of the word. Moulder 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Any other supporters? I should also thank Sam for first mentioning this possible consensus language.--Alabamaboy 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Support to Alabamaboy on all counts. My biggest worry with this sentance as JayW has it is is that it makes the Klan sound like a friendly old frat, and thus itself constitutes clear POV. I find JayW's language much harder to support on a POV/NPOV basis that any of the alternatives. Sam 19:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That was also a concern of mine with the current language.--Alabamaboy 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I protest that this article which distorts the history of the KKK will be displayed as a featured article that downplays the terroristic murders of thousands of black people over a period of 100 years and romanticizes their activities. It does not even include the fact that the Klan murdered four school girls on a Sunday morning in Birmingham Alabama, and gives only passing notice, near the bottom of the article, to the recent trial and conviction for murder of Klansmen who killed civil rights workers. This article discriminates against black people.

I can not say enough how sick to my stomach this article makes me, and I fear it will make many readers sick too.

Point of information: when the term "terroristic" was added to the KKK article, it was quickly removed, repeatedly. Not only was it removed but also citations to examples of Klan terror were removed. And yet, this article conflicts with articles on lynching in the United States and African American History, which are more honest in that they hold the Klan responsible for the murders of thousands. If this is not terror, what is?

When I pointed out that this article directly conflicts with the article on African American History, and placed a tag to that effect because the article on African American History cites sources showing the Klan's history of terrorism, the tag was removed. Instead of terrorism, the user put "fraternal" organization.

This is a sick and disgusting distortion of history, horrifying to families who mourn kin murdered by the Klan. Romanticizing their actions in the same dishonest way as the film The Birth of a Nation dishonors the memory of the people they murdered. The Klan was at all times eagerly into public humiliation in these murders of black people, and this article ignores completely that Klan activities, in many cases, were led by "leading citizens" in areas where they terrorized innocents.

  • The article ignores the Klan murder of a black serviceman, which the history encyclopedia by the State of Georgia attributed to the Klan.[1]

"and Lemuel Penn, an African American military officer from Washington, D.C., who was murdered while driving through Madison County."

I added the following two books to the reference section of the Klan article and they were deleted. Why is that? I re-added both, and the Newton book was deleted, along with copy discussing its content. I expect that the Trelease history of the Klan will be removed too, again, before long.

This was the text of the reference that was removed.

  • Newton, Michael, The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida (University Press of Florida: 2001) ISBN: 0813021200. "The Ku Klux Klan was at least as violent in Florida as anywhere else in the nation, and the sheriffs, juries, judges, politicians, press, and citizens, for the most part, as culpable in its murderous history."

(here's more information about this book: http://www.upf.com/reviews.asp?id=NEWTOF01&name=The%20Invisible%20Empire]

I added the following text to the article and it has been removed several times, along with the citation to Newton's history of the Klan, which is still deleted. Newton's is a valid history published by a university press. Its repeated deletion is another in a long string of POV changes to this article whitewashing and romanticizing Klan history.

e.g. of POV deletion: ... It quickly adopted violent methods. For example, during Reconstruction, Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a single county in Florida.[The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida, by Michael Newton ISBN: 0813021200]

Trelease is widely respected among historians and widely quoted, and yet, the following reference was also removed several times. It is another POV deletion: '* Trelease, Allen W. White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, (Louisiana State University Press: 1995). First published in 1971 and based on massive research in primary sources, this is the most comprehensive treatment of the Klan and its relationship to post-Civil War Reconstruction. Includes narrative research on other night-riding groups. Details close link between Klan and late 19th century and early 20th century Democratic Party.

Finally, I included the fact that the Klan was determined to be a terrorist organization by the Grand Jury that led to hundreds of indictments in 1870. This information is in the book by Trelease. Skywriter 21:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a fair bit of that information back in, but I have to say, this has been a pretty actively edited article and you shouldn't assume bad faith of other editors. For example, the removal of the conflict tag was done by someone who commented in their removal of it that the discussion on the use of terrorism would be held on this page on the consensus reflected in the final - and he is someone who has advocated using the term. On the other hand, the person removing the terrorism statement is someone altogether different who has been somewhat hostile to explaining himself and given an ultimatum to all of us that we aren't using that word. But, of course, it's hard to find a word that better describes an organization that wages widespread campaigns to murder and do violence to people in order to invoke terror. Sam 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from on the deletions, and I agree with you insofar as that information is significant enough for inclusion; the reason I removed it was that, as stated in the following section, the lead of a Wikipedia article (see WP:LEAD) is not necessarily the place to include all of it. Moulder 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Then it should have been moved, not deleted. The action by whomever changed "terrorist" to "fraternal" is over the top. The deletion of references from the Reference section suggests cover-up POV. (It would take too long to figure out who did that, and at this point who did it is immaterial.)

I contest this: "After World War II, the Klan's victims began to fight back."

Black people fought back in every way possible from the beginning. Ida Barnett fought back. W.E.B. Du Bois fought back in the Crisis. A. Phillip Randolph [2] fought back, and the Klan tried to bully him too. People don't forget. Even now. [3] There should be a section that reflects continuous fight back against the murderous Klan over the entire period of its history. And that even in modern times, victims are forced to accept what passes for justice. [4]

Instead of using photos that serve only to humiliate blacks, this article could show that people did fight back right from the beginning. [5] That Thomas Nast cartoon is out of copyright and Wikipedia uses lots of his cartoons, including on the Nast page.

Eighty percent of more than 4,000 victims of lynchings carried out in the name of the Klan were black, yet this article names four victims, three of them white. No one denies the pain and injustice committed against the white victims, especially civil rights workers. [6] But there does seem to be POV insensitivity as to proportionality and what this article chooses to emphasize.

For example, in the inclusion of the word even in the following sentence, as though doing this to a white woman is worse than lynching black women, a fact that occurred far more often than Klan attacks on white women: One local Klan group even "kidnapped a white divorcee and stripped her to her waist, tied her to a tree, and whipped her savagely." In other words, the emphasis seems wrongly placed. A little more exploration of the children murdered by Klansmen on Birmingham Sunday would help balance the article. I do not assume bad faith of the editors who obviously worked hard on this article but there is an apparent viewpoint problem as the history continues to be viewed from white eyes, leaving out the viewpoints of blacks. I have softened my earlier remarks. Skywriter 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a scary article to put on the front page; I hope you've deleted that "even" - I only saw this article when I saw it was going on the front page, and the first thing that jumped out at me was the deletion of the word "terrorist". Sam 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See my comment below about the word "even." It was taken out of an appropriate context. --Alabamaboy 01:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't make assumptions that this article has been only "viewed from white eyes." The article is rather clear about all that the different KKKs have done. The problem is that, popular beliefs to the contrary, there were 3 distinct KKKs, with the third reincarnation of the Klan being scattered groups that did such acts as the 16th Street baptist Church bombing. Because this article has to cover such a massive ammount of info and history of these 3 distinct knlans, it can't give massive details about every atrocity the KKK did (that's what the individual articles on those atrocities are for). Of course people fought back against the Klan throughout the years. However, the fight against the Klan took a major step forward after WWII. In addition, you read too much into the word "even." That word came after the sentence "In Troy, Alabama, the Klan reported to parents the names of teenagers they caught making out in cars." As the person who wrote those words, I used "even" to contrast the step up from harrassing teenagers to kidnapping a woman, not (as you put it) to say that a white woman was more important than a black woman.
I agree with you that the KKK is a terrorist organization. The problem with that term is that it has modern connotations which don't totally fit what the KKK was. That's why we're calling it a hate group that practiced terror. As for the info you want to add, please go for it after first seeking consensus on this talk page. This article has been through a lot of tough discussions among a number of editors. In addition, some of the info you are adding in is incorrect or out of place. For example, the source for your addition on lynching (seen here) is not appropriate. From the source you added this to the article: "The murders of 4,743 people who were lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968 were not often publicized." That is correct (if an undercounting of lynching in the country during those years) but the fact is that the first KKK went out of existence in the 1870s and the second KKK didn't form until 1915. As a result, the Klan couldn't have been involved in 1000s of those lynchings. That, however, is what your addition seemed to imply. So while that source and information is appropriate for the article on lynching, it doesn't work here.
As I said, please raise any issues you have with the article on this talk page. I'd love to keep improving the article and hope you will help us with this. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: You are totally correct that there should be a complete section on how people fought back against the Klan. The section could include info already in the article while also bringing in Ida Barnett, W.E.B. Du Bois, and others. Is there consensus among the editors here to do this? If so, why don't we add it right before the "The Ku Klux Klan today" section. The section could cover how people fought back against all three klans.--Alabamaboy 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the article some more, I can also see how this information on fighting back should be distributed throughout the article. So any thoughts on which it should be, in its own section or throughout the article. I lean more toward "throughout" at this point because the fighting back against the Klan explains why the first and second klans disbanded.--Alabamaboy 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As the person responsible for changing the word in the lead from "fraternal" to "terrorist", I disagree that this is a POV issue. Unless you dispute that there is such a thing as a "terrorist organization", I don't think you can come up with a better example than the KKK, which has, in all three of its incarnations used fear and intimidation through violence to achieve political ends. The word fraternal, however, could be used to describe a much wider variety of group, such as the Cub Scouts. In my opinion, good writing uses narrow terms to provide optimal description, and general, albiet not unanimous consensus, is that the KKK is a terrorist organization, as witnessed by the various citations above. My favorite use of this descriptor for the Klan comes from the 1959 movie, "FBI Story", where Jimmy Stewart uses the term "terrorists" in reference to the KKK. I don't think this is POV at all. Its a perfectly reasonable, and historicaly accurate, description. --Dwcsite 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, I just wanted to say. Why the US didn't kill that dirty asses klan for nowadays? Thay are the biggest "pee" of nation. To my mind everyone of that dogs must sit or in jail or on electric chair. I hate them. And of course they are the terroristic organization. Please tell, if NORMAL human can kill anyone because of they are catholic, jewish, or because of the melanin number in humans skin? They fighting for NORMAL people degradation. That Idiots are cowards. I wish them all death, and burning in hell forever.

The grammar and spelling made it extremely hard to tell but I think your ideas are almost as bad as some of the klan's. You're right however they are laughably stupid and overly paranoid cowards.

Recent additions to lead

The lead of an article is generally one to three paragraphs, depending on article length. The current state of the lead was ridiculously long and redundant, with the second and third paragraphs describing the same thing entirely. I've reverted to a previous version, on which the "today's featured article" blurb was based, and retained both terrorist and fraternal since they're both used in that. Moulder 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

mystery wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868.

The statement is "sourced" on an anonymous website that does not list any sources. LYNCHING CENTURY 1.htm It's not reliable--it has lots of exact names and dates but is padded with mystery cases:

  • 500 unidentified black people murdered (report) Texas July 1 1868
  • 150 unidentified black people murdered (report) Louisiana August 1868
  • 200 unidentified black people murdered St. Landry Par. Louisiana October 1868
  • 162 unidentified black people murdered Bossier Par Louisiana October 1868
  • 300 unidentified black people lynched Vicksburg Mississippi December 1874
  • 100 unidentified black Republicans murdered Colfax Louisiana April 1873 (The standard history (Foner 1968 p 437) says the bloodiest massacre in all of Reconstruction was at Colfax in 1873 with 50 killed.) Furthermore the source rarely mentions Republican, so some editor added that information with no source whatever. Rjensen 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is good PR for KKK

This article continues to be told from the Klan perspective and with little sympathy for those whom the Klan murdered and terrorized. The names of people murdered by the Klan are left out yet we are treated to the rosy view that the Klan "was at first a humorous social club centering on practical jokes and hazing rituals." Oh yeah, the guy who wrote that was NOT a historian and he liked the Klan he wrote about it (the first Klan.) Jensen proudly admits that in the reference section.

This article refers to Stanley Horn as a historian yet he was not a historian. The URL that Jensen so kindly provided tells us what he was: [7] "Horn, Stanley F. (1889-1980) Full Text PDF Transcription Oral history interview conducted 1976 by Charles W. Crawford. Final transcript. Horn, editor and co-owner of the trade publication Southern Lumberman, discusses his career as a reporter for the forest products industry, trade associations, tree farming, reforestation, log transportation, and sawmill equipment in Tennessee; twentieth century. Produced by the Forest History Society. vii + 184 leaves."

I'm all for leaving the lie. When researchers track down what's in this article, the bias and lack of factual basis will be clear.

Professor Jensen further has insisted for months (and reverted any attempt to get rid of this) that the following be included in the reference section describing Horn's book. Horn, Stanley F. Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation: Montclair, NJ, 1939. Horn, born in 1889, was a Southern historian who was sympathetic to the first Klan, which, in a 1976 oral interview [1], he was careful to distinguish from the later "spurious Ku Klux organization which was in ill-repute—and, of course, had no connection whatsoever with the Klan of Reconstruction days."

Oh that's instructive because Horn only wrote about the first Klan. Thirteen citations from a journalist who liked the Klan and the most prominent historian (David Chalmers) writing about the Klan is cited nowhere in this article, not even in the references.

What Jensen insists on being included suggests that the first Klan was somehow less violent that than the 2nd and 3rd Klans. Horn's book is genuinely sympathetic to the Klan of Reconstruction days, and reading this 1939 book we get a warm, fuzzy view of the KKK. This despite the fact that there have been much better and more recent histories, written by historians. I guess if you are going to rely that heavily on the pro-Klan viewpoint, it is useful to include the writer's apology. Anyone critical of the Klan, particularly families of its victims, might say the Klan owes Wikipedia payments for this fantastic free publicity.

I have previously added Hooded Americans: The History of the Ku Klux Klan by David Chambers to the reference section and it has been repeatedly deleted.

Here's what historian John Hope Franklin said about Hooded Americans-- "Hooded Americanism is the only work that treats Ku Kluxism for the entire period of its existence. ... It is the authoritative work on the period. Hooded Americanism is exhaustive in its rich detail and its use of primary materials to paint the picture of a century of terror. It is comprehensive, since it treats the entire period, and enjoys the perspective that the long view provides. It is timely, since it emphasizes the undeniable persistence of terrorism in American life."

Here's what the American Historical Review said of Hooded Americans --"Chalmers has steeped himself in the details of KKK organization, personalities, and intrigue, and particularly their relation to the entire nation. Chalmers has not only read widely; he has pondered the meaning and destiny of the Klan."

Chalmers is the University of Florida's Distinguished Alumni Professor, and has written widely on American social history. Hooded Americanism first appeared in 1965, and the third edition was originally published in 1981. The Duke edition contains a revised set of illustrations."

So, yeah, if I had a pro-Klan viewpoint I was trying to push, I'd keep on deleting all references to the Chalmers history, and I'd keep pumping up Stanley Horn.

Professor Jensen has insisted for months that the following be included in external links, yet if you bother to read "the long interview" referred to [8] most of it is not about the Klan at all. Why is the following linked in this article several times? A long interview with Stanley F. Horn, author of Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871. Why is it here? Oh, I know the answer-- because this is a pro-Klan article that ignores Klan victims.

For example, I added the following, and it was reverted. I wonder why? The article continues to ignore the Klan murder of a black serviceman, which the history encyclopedia by the State of Georgia attributed to the Klan.[9] "and Lemuel Penn, an African American military officer from Washington, D.C., who was murdered while driving through Madison County."

I added the following book to the reference section of the Klan article and it was removed several times. I re-added it, and Newton's book on the Florida Klan was deleted, along with copy discussing its content. It is a detailed book that has received wide praise I wonder why it was deleted from this Wikipedia article? Maybe because the folks who keep it deleted don't want crticiism of the Klan included?

This was the text of the reference that was removed.

  • Newton, Michael, The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida (University Press of Florida: 2001) ISBN: 0813021200. "The Ku Klux Klan was at least as violent in Florida as anywhere else in the nation, and the sheriffs, juries, judges, politicians, press, and citizens, for the most part, as culpable in its murderous history."

(here's more information about this book: http://www.upf.com/reviews.asp?id=NEWTOF01&name=The%20Invisible%20Empire]

The article has no area that discusses Klan terrorism. I wonder why. Oh, I know-- it is because books written about Klan terrorism have been excluded from this article. Klan history of terrorism has been replaced with "fraternal organization" and the emphasis in the lead to everything but the murders of blacks and civil rights workers.

Just remember that "nativism" nor "anti-catholicism" resulted in massive numbers of murders.

Oh, and by the way, as if it matters, the footnotes are often wrong in terms of what they point to.

Skywriter 21:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


There have been efforts to balance this article but facts and references have been removed. (Jensen is hardly the only one doing this.) Balancing this article is an uphill battle.

Here's where the accurate description of Horn's book appears, which was reverted by Jensen and replaced with his own version sympathetic to Horn and the first Klan. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=54052909&oldid=53591320 Horn, Stanley F. Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, (Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation: 1939). Sympathetic to the Klan during Reconstruction period.[10]

The following is a good example of terorism that was removed, along with the reference. [11] For example, during Reconstruction, Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a single county in Florida.[[The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida, by Michael Newton ISBN: 0813021200] Skywriter 21:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


As was mentioned before on this talk page, please raise specific issues you wish to change or add to the article on this talk page instead of merely ranting about the article. Because this article is so contentious, major changes to it must first gain consensus here. This isn't hard to do. Merely state a section of the article that is incorrect or that you want to add to, give the sample rewrite or addition, and provide the reference for what you wish to change or add. Newton's book would be a great addition to the article but to be useful it must be referenced to specific items in the book. For example, I'd be happy to add this item of yours to the article: "For example, during Reconstruction, Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a single county in Florida." The problem is that you didn't give the page number within Newton's book which refers to that fact. Do so and we'll add it in. As I also previously mentioned, I'd support adding in more info on other victims of the KKK.
The other reason your edits were reverted is that you made some POV edits and/or wrong edits (see my earlier comment about lynchings, which was factually correct but wrongly implied the kkk did all lynchings, when the kkk didn't exist for part of the time your reference refered to). As for Jensen's references, it is common historical process to use even biased historical accounts if they contain useful information. To Jensen's credit, his references state exactly when a reference is biased to the Klan, so readers can know that information. In addition, the KKK was formed in 1866 as the social club you slam--this is from a mainstream book by Wyn Craig Wade called The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America published by Simon and Schuster in 1987. Just because this social club quickly became one of the worst organizations in American history doesn't mean we should ignore how it was formed. That would be like ignoring that Al-Qaeda initially formed to fight the invasion of Afganistan by the Soviet Union. Al-Qaeda later morphed into the terrorist organization it is today.
If you feel like raising specific issues on this talk page, please do. The other editors do not respond well to ranting but if you care to join in and help improve the article, we'd love to work with you on it. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have added to this earlier but have been working too many hours. I worked on it some tonight, trying to balance the bias. It still has many problems, not the least of which is the too lengthy section on the film Birth of a Nation, which has its own Wiki article, and does not need such length here. Leo Frank also has his own lengthy article. As stated earlier, Ida Barnett, Paul Robeson, and W.E.B. Du Bois were prominent opponents of the Klan and fought hard against the many lynchings, which I have shown by linking to articles tonight, has long been a major Klan strategy to bully and intimidate. Before tonight, the link between Klan members as convicted criminals (killers) had not been made.

Articles on serial killers like Geoffrey Dahmer give more attention to victims than this article does, and that is its major weakness. I tried to address some of that tonight. It is quite something that the Reconstruction Klan (federal) hearings were not directly referenced until I added them tonight. There's a number of books written on them, and they are loaded with examples, eyewitness accounts and other primary sources. As I said earlier, Horn is one source but he is also a pro-Klan source on only the first Klan. This article relies heavily on Horn, and that really does not do justice to the subject. What is the evidence of that? The voluminous KKK hearings in Congress during Reconstruction is front and center in most articles on the Reconstruction Klan but was nowhere to be seen here. Why is that? Reliance on Horn who glosses over the KKK hearings and the laws passed in reaction to that testimony. Simply put, Horn wrote the nicest possible book about the Klan, and it was published in 1939 when Jim Crow was legal.

Many people fought back against the Klan, and that is not reflected in this article. I added some of that tonight but it still is a partisan article, not ready for prime time, as it were. I did the best I could. I wish other people were interested in the Klan's criminal history and had added it earlier. That's what I see as so unfair about this article. Cheers. Skywriter 10:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm fully agree that this article is good PR for KKKs.I was shoked when i read it. Who wrote that all? KKK- dirty criminal organization that was created by dirty maniac. They are the biggest "pee" of nation, which must all sit on electric chairs to my mind. I cannot see that stupid article, it sucks me. Wiki must delit this "pee" or write the TRUTH. About the people that that dirty asses killed.

Skywriter's proposed changes (seeking comment from all editors)

I have reverted Skywriters recent changes. While many of them appear to be very good, Skywriter has ignored numerous requests to first raise changes on this talk page. As everyone here know, there are numerous editors who have worked on this article in the past and, as has been said, the article went through a lengthy mediation to reach the stage it is currently in. Because of this mediation and previous work, Skywriter has been asked to discuss changes on the talk page first. As I've also said before, I'm sure the editors here would agree with many of Skywriter's changes and that, by first achieving consensus on his/her edits, those edits and the article itself would both become stronger. However, b/c Skywriter refuses to answer questions that have been raised here about some of his/her edits or to take part in the discussion, I have protected the article until the changes here are discussed.

That said, Skywriter's edits are worth considering. What follows are the changes Skywriter proposed (found here in this history diff). If the editors here can reach consensus on these changes, we will add them in.

1) Adding this phrase to the lead, ", and in recent years, some of its members have been convicted of murder and manslaughter in the deaths of Civil Rights workers and children."
favor, but the words "some of its" are unnecessary; it will have the same meaning without them. (note, I am not a regular editor, so weight my comments as you see fit). Sam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
2) Deleted the Greek spelling of the KKK's name. I'm not sure why this was done.
needs explanation; no comment at this time. Sam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
3) Added info on "Launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders black and white. Those assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who had served in constitutional conventions." (Foner,Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 p. 342). Personally, I think this info on the assassinations should be added. Any other thoughts?
Seems well sourced; if there are no objections to underlying facts, I would favor. Sam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
4) Added the unsourced comment "The Klan had no objections to whites being armed." While this is probably true, the fact that there isn't a reference troubles me.
I worry about the way it is phrased; having "no objections" is different from advocating and much less relevant. So I would not favorSam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
5) Added the statement, "However, a federal grand jury in 1869 determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization." Hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism were issued. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina. (Trelease, Allen W., White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction)" The issue of using the term terrorist was previously discussed on this page and consensus reached not to use it. But do people have a problem with this usage in the body of the article?
I do not, so favor. Sam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
6) Added these two paragraphs: ""One should not think of the Klan, even in its hey day, as possessing a well-organized structure or clearly defined regional leadership. Acts of violence were generally committed by local groups on their own initiative. But the unity of purpose and common tactics of these local organizations makes it possible to generalize about their goals and impact, and the challenge they posed to the survival of Reconstruction. In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern Society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life." and "On pages 425-444 and 454-459, Foner quotes from testimony at the federal KKK Hearings in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, and other primary sources to describe widespread terror and extraordinary brutality, including rape and murder by Klan members that led to the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Foner wrote also (p. 435) of the resistance to Klan terror. "Occasionally, organized groups successfully confronted the Klan. White Union Army veterans in mountainous Blount County, Alabama, organized "the anti-Ku Klux," which put an end to violence by threatening Klansmen with reprisals unless they stopped whipping Unionists and burning black churches and schools. Armed blacks patrolled the streets of Bennettsville, South Carolina, to prevent Klan assaults."" While these paragraphs need to be rewritten to fit Wiki style, I'd support adding much of this info (I particularly love the Blount County item, which I knew from growing up in Alabama). Any comments?
The first section, through the close of the quotes, doesn't have support, and would be interesting to add with support, so favor, if rewritten and substantiated'. I think the idea that the Klan was a military force serving interests of particular groups has potential POV problems that could be alleviated with some careful wording; can support be found for the idea that the Klan actively coordinated military training and exercises for its its members, and that the Klan regularly served interests of particular classes, parties and groups. The Foner reference strikes me as worthy of inclusion, so favor that, but the final section in quotes needs support, so not favor at this time. Sam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
7) Added "But "the bloodiest single instance of racial carnage in the Reconstruction era was the Colfax massacre which began when black citizens fought back against the Klan and its allies in the White league. "Louisiana black teacher and legislator John G. Lewis later remarked. "They attempted (armed self-defense) in Colfax. The result was that on Easter Sunday of 1873, when the sun went down that night, it went down on the corpses of two hundred and eighty negroes." (Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, p. 437) and KKK Hearings, 46th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Report 693, and Joe G. Taylor, Louisiana Reconstructed, 1863-1877 (Baton Rouge, 1974), p. 268-70.)
favor.Sam 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
8) Added "During Reconstruction, Klansmen killed more than 150 African Americans in a single county in Florida, and hundreds more in other counties.(The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida, by Michael Newton) (pp.1-30) Newton quotes from the Testimony Taken by the Joint Select Committee to Enquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States. Vol. 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1872). Among historians of the Klan, this volume is also known as "The KKK testimony."
Any questioning of source or context? If no substantive dispute, I'd favor.Sam 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
9) Took out "Horn, a very sympathetic Southern historian of the first Klan, was careful in an oral interview to distinguish it from the later "spurious Ku Klux organization which was in ill-repute—and, of course, had no connection whatsoever with the Klan of Reconstruction days." [12], retrieved August 11, 2005."
That "very" needs to be taken out, and a mere characterizion of Horn as sympathetic to the Klan without a footnote or the like where he admits it strikes me a potential POV.Sam 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
10) Added "Despite the noble rhetoric, Klan members lynched and burned to death veterans returning from World War I. American historian John Hope Franklin wrote in his book Race and History: Selected Essays 1938-1988 (p. 145) that "Few Negro Americans could have anticipated the wholeseale rejection they experienced at the conclusion of World War I. Returning Negro soldiers were lynched by hanging and burning, even while still in their military uniforms. The Klan warned Negroes that they must respect the rights of the white race "in whose country they are permitted to reside."" If this section is kept, the POV statement "despite this noble rhetoric" would need to be removed.
I agree on removing the POV element of the statement, but putting the discussion in context makes sense. There should be further footnotes specifically tracing the later quote to its speaker, no just to the secondary source, and a footnote to an example of a hanging in military uniform would make it much stronger. Sam 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
11)Added "The Ragen Colts, an Irish street gang in Chicago, directed its anger at the Ku Klux Klan for its anti-Catholicism. In 1921, "In September, 3,000 people from the stockyards district (of Chicago) watched as the Colts hanged in effigy "a white-sheeted Klansman."" (Tuttle, p. 257)" While this is a nice item to note, is it worth adding to an already long article?
Could it work in footnotes? I found it interesting. Sam 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
12) Deleted this paragraph: "A new focus of the postwar Klan was to resist the civil rights movement of the 1960s. In 1963, two Klan members carried out the bombing of a church in Alabama that had been used as a meeting place for civil rights organizers. Four young girls were killed, and outrage over the bombing helped to build momentum for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Klan used threats, intimidation, and murder to disrupt voter registration drives in the South, and to prevent registered black voters from voting. The Klan was involved in the 1964 murders of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in Mississippi, and also murdered Viola Liuzzo, a Southern-raised white mother of five who was visiting the South from her home in Detroit to attend a civil rights march." and replaced it with " The criminal history of Klan members has been better documented in recent years than previously, and its members have been sent to prison for murder and manslaughter in the deaths of civil rights workers. Here is an incomplete list." and a list of murders done by the KKK. Personally, I don't have a problem with inserting the list or the expansion of the Civil Rights period Klan activities (found here in this history diff) as long as more detailed references are provided.
What was the problem with this section? It would be good to get an explanation. Sam 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I believe that Skywriter deleted the original section b/c his/her new edits expanded that section. If that was the case, it is understandable that the old section was replaced by the new, expanded section, as long as no relevant info was last.--Alabamaboy 15:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
13) Finally, in the references section Skywriter enters info on some new references, which is fine with me and, since these are legit references, I'm assuming no one else has any objection to.

That sums up the overall changes Skywriter proposes to this article. As I've said, I am irritated that Skywriter has ignored repeated requests to discuss these changes on this talk page. That said, many of his edits appear to be good. I hope other editors will comment on these proposed edits in the coming days. If any particular edit is not disputed, I say we add it in. If any edit is disputed, please explicitly state why you believe the edit is wrong or incorrect and also, if possible, propose alternate language you could support. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one appears to have an issue with these edits, I've worked them into the article. I appreciate Skywriter's work on this and thank him for helping to expand the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

KKK Army

Long ago, I have seen the KKK and the ADL on The Jerry Springer Show. The Klan personnel were dressed in what appeared to be "Class A's" of some kind of military uniforms. One was a Captain, two were lieutenants, all looking like the KKK had become a KKK Militia Force or some kind of Private Army of the KKK. Of course, Jerry Springer's TV show was and still is known for the brawls that take place on that show. Martial Law 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Their uniforms were jet black in color, similar to what Special Forces, U.S. use, only that they were also similar to the Class A's Which is the military Dress Uniform in the U.S. Military. Martial Law 00:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Can this be stated in the article:"Militia Some Ku Klux Klan groups have recently formed themselves into militia units." ? I have seen these "soldiers" on the Jerry Springer Show long ago. They were pitted against some ADL personnel, and his show is well known for the fights and brawls. Martial Law 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KKK article on front page and editorial dispute

I didn't know that this article was slated to be on the front page (to be honest, I'd missed the notice at the top of this page). Obviously this article will be hit hard by vandalism in the next 24 hours. If everyone is ok with it, we'll take up where we left off with the editorial dicussions on this article when it is no longer linked to the main page. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I started watching it the second I saw it on the front page. Based on the last few minutes, vandalism already is a big problem! The Ungovernable Force 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I know. I wish this article hadn't been linked to from the front page--especially when there was an editorial dispute going on here. --Alabamaboy 01:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a vandal, but I did correct one item after seeing this on the front page. It listed the current KKK as being headquartered in Harrison, AR. The truth is that the man, Thom Robb, lives in a tiny little town outside of Harrison named Zinc. I lived in Harrison for 20 years, and there is NO kkk activity.--69.152.64.166 02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And someone had already reverted it! Even though I live there!--69.152.64.166 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also as a friendly warning, as someone who did a little supplementary work on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and nominated it for the Main Page once it was promoted, brace yourselves for angry messages here (and on the Main Page talk page) denouncing Wikipedia for promoting the Klan (not understanding that featuring an article about something doesn't mean we're endorsing the subject, just recognizing good work on an article). (see here and scroll down. Some people actually got blocked over those, uh, discussions. Daniel Case 03:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the flow...

I just noticed that in the first paragraph, the word "violent" is linked. Is this really necessary? I would assume that simple adjectives such as this should be left to their own devices, rather than have their own accompanying articles spring forth from this one.

If you get my drift...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.180.234 (talk • contribs)

I agree - it's overkill. See Wikipedia's guideline on Internal Links. - Slow Graffiti 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
K is the eleventh letter of the alphabet the masons love the number eleven they are trying to duplicate GOD thereby "they believe eliminating GOD"

I really think that adding that many links is definently overkill. (You get the point, right?) ~user:orngjce223how am I typing? 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation?

In 1991 Thom Robb said that he foresaw imminent respectability for the Klan: "You take Exxon. They had an identity thing to overcome after that oil spill. Well, the Klan has an image problem to overcome, also."

Doesn't this quote need a citation? I know there's a general reference section at the bottom, but does that suffice? - Slow Graffiti 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal alert

"The Klan was upset because that is their job to do-the sexually assaulting young boys." I don't think the belongs in the article...

The article is thoroughly vandalized, the name of Bill Clinton appears in 19th century events, etc. It is not easy to repair, it should be reverted from backup!

  • It is actually extremely easy to repair. Just go to the History tab and select the date before the vandalism. Then click Edit and Save. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 17:43


Hi, there's another piece of vandalism on there that I can't believe no-one's spotted: "They hate niggers like keanthony and angelo all them niggers suck.". It's in the opening paragraph.

I would delete it, but the page is protected - can someone sort this out? 14/12/06

The Pictures of Lynchings

Is it really necessary to have such graphic pictures of people being hung from trees. We all know that the KKK carried out lynchings but I think it's very disrespectful to the victims of these terrible crimes for these pictures to be shown on here. - Dangerhertz 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon for being blunt, but the victims are dead... --Chris (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
So that instantly qualifies them to be paraded on here for no real reason? - Dangerhertz 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
They are not being "paraded" here, they serve to illustrate the barbaric crimes of the KKK. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --Chris (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if their images shock people into realising the atrocities of the KKK, their deaths might have at least some meaning. Iorek85 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the images are horrific. However, the deeds of the KKK were often horrific and the pictures illustrate this point.--Alabamaboy 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored for the offended. If you have a sound argument for the images' removal, such as POV, historical inaccuracy, or image licensing problems, let us know. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-22 21:43

Vandalism

Removed Quote I tried to remove this vulgarity but I cannot find it in the article code. Can someone remove it? Mike 15:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was worked up? - Slow Graffiti 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You should find that fucking hilarious.

Picture speaks a thousand words, doesn't it guys?


Overall editorial issues

I just went through the article to see how things fared with all the vandalism and edits while the article was linked to the main page. Overall, things looked really good. People added a number of corrections to minor aspects of the article (misspellings, wikilinks, and so on) while the vandalism appears to have all been corrected. I did take out a few minor additions because the additions lacked references and thus could not be proved.

Now that the fun and games are done, does anyone else have any comments about Skywriter's proposed edits (see above). If there no one else objects to the edits, I propose we add them in. --Alabamaboy 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


I spent some time editing this article a while back, but gave up. I want to leave this comment for those currently editing the article. As you know since about 1950, no single organization called the "Ku Klux Klan" exists. The name is in the public domain, anyone can use it. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the "The Klan was involved in the 1964 murders of . . .". What you really should say is "The Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was involved in the 1964 murders . . ." or whichever specific group it was. The parts of the article about the modern Klan is full of these mistakes. Ydorb 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Where does the name Ku Klux Klan come from? --Gbleem 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask ths too. Doesn't anyone here know the origin of the name? --TeamCoachingNetwork 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states, The name was constructed by combining the Greek "kyklos" (circle) with "clan." Ydorb 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was once told that name name is the combination of there 3 main enimies, jews (kike's) blacks (koons) and... catholics? im not so sure about the last one.

My apologies; still struggling to decipher my watchlist! --TeamCoachingNetwork 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It came from the greek word "Kyklos" I forgot what Klux meant but it wasnt anything to do with jews and then they made the Klan because it made an alliteration. I got my information from a book called Backfire by David Chalmers.

and on and on

After surfing through this article it seems to me like both this and the Black Power article were written from a one sided point of view. Yes yes i know. Those darn white people. Talk about beating a dead horse. 65.49.129.103 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that an editor complained not too long ago that this article was essentially a recruiting piece for the KKK and seemed like a Klan member had written it. The truth of the matter, though, is that a lot of readers bring their own biases to this article and read it as they wish to. Such is life.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why delete references, especially Primary Source?

At this juncture [13], I added this PRIMARY SOURCE on the history of the KKK and it has since been deleted. I'd like to know why.

  • KKK Hearings, 46th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Report 693

At that same link, I added the following two recent Klan histories, the first by Chalmers, distinguished professor of history at the University of Florida, and the second by Newton, a journalist. Both references have been deleted. I would like to know why. Both are updated accounts of the Klan, and Chalmers's is a history book.[14]

  • Chalmers, David M., Hooded Americans: The History of the Ku Klux Klan. Historian John Hope Franklin said, "Hooded Americanism is the only work that treats Ku Kluxism for the entire period of its existence. ... It is the authoritative work on the period. Hooded Americanism is exhaustive in its rich detail and its use of primary materials to paint the picture of a century of terror. It is comprehensive, since it treats the entire period, and enjoys the perspective that the long view provides. It is timely, since it emphasizes the undeniable persistence of terrorism in American life."
  • Newton, Michael, The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida (University Press of Florida: 2001) ISBN: 0813021200. "The Ku Klux Klan was at least as violent in Florida as anywhere else in the nation, and the sheriffs, juries, judges, politicians, press, and citizens, for the most part, as culpable in its murderous history."

I have repeatedly pointed out, now on archived talk page, that the article falsely states that Horn was a historian. He is not. Why has this fact been continually overlooked? If anyone bothers to click the link, you can read for yourself that Horn was a forestry writer and publisher, in other words a trade journalist. Why does this article call him a historian?

The following is what the article states:

  • Horn, Stanley F. Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation: Montclair, NJ, 1939.

Horn, born in 1889, was a Southern historian who was sympathetic to the first Klan, which, in a 1976 oral interview [1], he was careful to distinguish from the later "spurious Ku Klux organization which was in ill-repute—and, of course, had no connection whatsoever with the Klan of Reconstruction days."

Why does this article quote Horn 13 times and exclude the more recent histories that are not as pro-Klan as Stanley Horn?

Horn's book is extremely favorable to the Klan, as the Reference section states, because he ignored the PRIMARY RESOURCE for the era he wrote about, and that is this:

  • KKK Hearings, 46th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Report 693

Trelease, Chalmers and Newton use testimony from the KKK Congressional hearings. Why has this primary resource from the Reconstruction era been epeatedly reverted?

Skywriter 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


That was probably an oversight. Add the references in.--Alabamaboy 13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Klans in California

In the west coast, despite the distance from the civil war and there was no slavery, the Ku Klux Klan took on other names and plans to subvert power for 80 years. In the 1920's and 1930's, the California chapter of the Klan stirred racial violence against blacks, but expanded the list to include Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Armenians and certain European immigrants esp. Jews are the most hated group after blacks. They appealed to a nativist attitude on the fears of "yellow" and "Spanish" invasions, or immigration of Asians and Latin Americans into the western US.

Today, the KKK serves as a local race-baiting underground force against illegal immigration, homosexuality (gay rights) and liberal politics they decried is generating "moral decline" and the percentage of whites in the state is much lower, now are another minority group in racial demographics. Because Cal. is a blue state and has never been completely "racist enough" towards black people, the KKK feels Cal. is a failed project, yet most racial/other attacks in Cal. are directed against American Jews, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.

The Klan always find a specific regional "threat" like the Northeast, where they formerly harassed Roman Catholics and ethnic groups from Southern or Eastern Europe. It's evident from the group's origins in the Southeast US is the black race was their enemy, but they carried a long list of "enemies": liberals, anti-Klan conservatives, "radical" feminists, certain Christians, homosexuals and globalization will drive down the white race. The KKK stirs fears and fabricated racial issues to create a scare that a few people actually joined the Klan. +207.200.116.69 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Secret Society

Anyone know why the KKK are listed in the Category for Secret Societies? Zos

They are not a secret society, rather, they are a society that has secrets. That may have something to do with it. Ste4k 05:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Site as external link.

Per guideline WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. Is there any reason why this guideline shouldn't be practiced on this page? Please forgive, if this is an frequently asked question. Thanks. Ste4k 04:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Klu Klux Klan no longer exists, so they don't have a web site. However, many different organizations use the phrase as part of their name or identity, for instance the Imperial Klans of America. These should be linked directly to the organization's web site. Ydorb 16:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What makes the IKA different, specifically, from the earlier "1st KKK", "2nd KKK", "Later KKK's", etc.? They appear to me from an objective perspective to be another rendition of the KKK just as it has come and gone before. The basis of the first KKK was that "Ku Klux Klan" was how they referred to themselves. The IKA appear to me to be referring to themselves as the "Ku Klux Klan". Why should I, a reader of this article, believe that they are not the KKK? Ste4k 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that they hold no legal rights to the name "Ku Klux Klan." Since it is a rather powerful name, many other organizations also use it: for instance, this one. The name "Ku Klux Klan" is no longer trademarked. It's in the public domain. Members of the IKA might all be klansmen, but not all klansmen are members of the IKA. It is like referring to a US Army corporal as a "soldier". It is true, but not all soldiers are in the US Army.
This was not true of the 1st and 2nd KKKs. At the time a Klansman referred to a member of a single organization. Ydorb 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Are these two afore mentioned groups at odds with eachother over the name? Is there a legal court suit or something similar? It seems to me that in your analogy about soldiers you are speaking of a strictly heirarchical chain of command that extends to the President, and a heirarchy which has been democratically adopted by a nation. If there are only two known groups that are actively pronouncing themselves as KKK, then unless they have some sort of grievance between them over their legitimacy then it could equally be constured that each of them is only acting as a public representative arm of a larger secretly associated group and/or associations with each other. Per your analogy again, there are thousands of Christians, many are Methodists, many are Anglican, they only establish themselves as Christians based on their individual beliefs which are self declared. I'm sure that the label "Christian" is also public domain. Ste4k 10:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Christian is a good analogy. No single organization called "christian" exists, therefore the Christian page cannot link to it. Instead it refers to a List of Christian denominations, which in turn link to specific web pages. For a sampling of current organizations related to KKK in the name, see the list maintained by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ydorb 16:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm on vacation so I can't engage in a deep discussion on this but I support Ydorb's Christian analogy. There are a large number of groups claiming to be the real KKK these days. I don't think we should link to any of these b/c almost all of them are fringe groups with just a few members and not any "official" version of the KKK.--Alabamaboy 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservative

User:C56C and I appear to have a disagreement as to whether this article belongs in Category:Conservative organisations. My feeling is that the historical Klan is skew-wise from any conservative-liberal axis, while the current Klan doesn't even really qualify as an "organization", since in reality there are multiple Klans with a range of viewpoints from something that could be called conservative to downright rabid loony bigots. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The motivation for organizing the Klan was profoundly "conservative", in the literal sense of "opposing change". However the category is obviously intended to aggregate articles on groups with mainstream conservative views. The distinction may be fuzzy and so I propose using a narrower category. It appears that the article falls into several categories which are already redundant with Category:Ku Klux Klan, so I will endeavor to clean those up a bit. To satisfy the urge to identify the Klan's extremist views with the political spectrum, it may be useful to create a new category withing Category:Conservative organisations to separate those with extreme views. This is, of course, an invitation to POV abuse, so I will proceed slowly. --Dystopos 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Upon further reflection, I decided to move the other category links to the existing Category:Ku Klux Klan. Those categories (White Supremecist groups in the United States, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Catholicism, etc etc) better define the aims of the KKK than "Conservative organisations", so I removed that link. If anyone wishes to restore it, I again recommend doing so through another layer of categorization indicating that the views of supremecists are outside of mainstream conservative political thought. --Dystopos 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholics

David Duke Opened The Klan To White Catholics in 1975 -- signed by ANON IP

Correct...but often required to take an oath to reject most Catholic doctrine and policies of the church, even resist orders from the pope himself. The klan still refuses to allow most Hispanics (esp. mestizos or mulattos of both black/white and/or white/Amerindian blood) into a white racist organization. Asians are still barred from ever joining the group, despite the majority of Asian Americans are treated as "white" or light-skinned, said to assimilated enough in a few generations. I think Jews, Arabs and Native Americans cannot enter the klan membership, but what about whites who are a quarter "black" (to show or appear on genealogical documents the klan leaders want to read or examine before accepting the new recruit) or "non-white"/"non-Aryan" that may extend to some Sicilian Americans and certain Slavic Americans? + 63.3.14.1 08:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

KKK symbol

Hi. I don't know anything about the KKK but perhaps this image I found on the Dutch Wikipedia could be usefull? -- Face 18:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there I read about this on Johnny Lee Clary's site just the other day. I was actually responding to the post below but just glanced at what you asked. I am sure the drop of blood in the centre is a sybol of Aryian blood. Anyway he has it under his questions section @ www.xkkk.org Potters house 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

John Clary

Was there ever a KKK leader named Johnny Lee Clary (or Johnny Clary or John Clary)? Supposedly he quit the group and began preaching 'against hate'.

His story is in The Day I Met God. [15] --Uncle Ed 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Most people how I have seen who say he wasn't are anonymous. He has been on Oprah, Donahue, Andrew Denton etc. I don't think that these guys would get it that wrong. Potters house 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete Factual Information Without Cause

Why is this paragraph that I have edited in being removed???? It's factual information. Look it up yourself. I provided a source. It was taken from that website as well as a History Channel documentary on the history of the KKK. I should also be noted that the group's founders thought up comical and silly names for the ranks and positions in the groups, such as Grand Dragon and the like. It was all a hazing joke to them at first.

"The Ku Klux Klan was, in its inception, a social club for young men seeking amusement and entertainment. Members would make midnight raids on the town of Pulaski dressed in elaborate costumes consisting of bedsheets or masks pretending to be ghosts or demons in order to frighten or amuse townspeople. The members soon found a target for their pranks. They used their costumes and raids to frighten recently freed slaves into believing that they were the ghosts of killed Confederate soldiers."

This information is absolutely accurate and important to understanding how the group started, what the original intentions of the founders were and how the group was corrupted and how it became the organization it did. It is accurate information that DESERVES to be in the article. Read the source. Watch the History Channel documentary on the KKK. It's real information and it deserves to be in the article. I know this is Wikipedia, and we can make history whatever we want, thank you Stephen Colbert, but this information provides insight into the history of the KKK at its inception. Please do not remove it without cause. If you wish to remove it, find a source that refutes it and cite it as a reason for the removal. It is genuine information and should be included. By removing it, you are depriving the article of information based on some personal ideology or agenda. -- unsigned comment by User:Sivazh

  • The motivations and amusements of the first night riders would be all but impossible to establish, as reports of people's attitudes are, by definition, subjective. There is, I might assume, some truth to the idea that virulent and violent hatred of non-whites was not the only motivation for dressing in costumes and parading in moonlight, but we should carefully cite the claims made by these sources as claims, rather than as fact. You are wrong to place the burden on those who have removed your contributions. If you will participate in a discussion here about how to include the documentary evidence you have turned up, I think you will find that we can form a consensus and avoid an edit war. --Dystopos 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, actually, the motivations for the starting of the KKK are WELL documented. I have provided sources. And, there is no discussion. Calling someone an apologist for White Terror? Yes, there is a perfectly rational editor you can have a discussion with. It's people that like to ignore FACTUAL information simply because it doesn't fit their world view that SHOULD NOT be allowed to edit. History is not made up of facts that are convenient to us, it's made up of facts that happened. If you look at probably any source, the same information will be related. The fact that the editors on Wiki think they can just ignore it when it is solid factual information just confims that Wiki is a joke.
  • You're right, the burden should not be on those who just delete what they don't like. Yeah, they shouldn't have to provide any sources that refute my actual factual sources that I site. Yeah, they should just be able to call me an apologist for White Terror and delete it. What a farce.

Organization of the Ku Klux Klan

Here is the list of all the organizations that represent sub-group of the Ku Klux Klan since her dissolution in 1944.

  • Alabama Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Alabama White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • America's Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • American Klan Association
  • American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Aryan Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Bayou Patriots Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • California Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • California's Invincible Empire
  • California Golden Knights (of the KKK)
  • California White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Confederate National Congress
  • Confederation of Independent Orders
  • Dixieland White Knights
  • Federated Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in South and North Carolina
  • Fiery Cross Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Georgia's New Order of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Green Mountain Knights
  • Illinois Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Imperial Klans of America, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Independent Northern and Southern Klans
  • Indiana Realm of the Ku Klux Klan
  • International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Invincible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Invincible Empire, Knights of the White Rose
  • Invisible Empire
  • Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Invisible Empire, Indiana Ku Klux Klan
  • Invisible Empire, Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klan
  • Iowa's White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • JWS Militant Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Kansas Klan Knights (or Kansas KKK)
  • Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Klan Youth Corps
  • Klinton Kounty Knights
  • Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Knights of the White Kamellia
  • Knights of the White Rose
  • Lake County Triple K Club
  • Michigan Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Michigan Realm of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Missouri Federation of Klans, Inc.
  • Missouri New Order Ku Klux Klan
  • National Association for the Advancement of White People
  • National Ku Klux Klan (not the original one)
  • National Knights
  • National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Nevada Ku Klux Klan
  • New Empire Ku Klux Klan
  • New Jersey's White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • New Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • New Order Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • New Order Party, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • North Carolina's White Knights of Liberty
  • North Georgia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Northwest Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Northwest United Klan
  • Nutmeg Knights
  • Ohio Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Ohio's Independent Invisible Knights
  • Oklahoma Knights of the Ku Klux klan
  • Order of the Fiery Cross,
  • Order of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Oregon Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Pennsylvania's White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Rangers of the Cross, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Realm of Florida
  • Rebel Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Saints of the South (Christian Klans Knights of the South)
  • Southern Camelia Knights (of the KKK)
  • Southern Cross Militant Knights
  • Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Southern White Knights
  • Stormfront (not affiliated, but allied with KKK)
  • Templar Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Tennessee's United Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Texas Emergency Reserve
  • Third State Empire
  • Tri-State Knights Riders of the Ku Klux Klan
  • U S Klans Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • Union Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • United Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • United Klans of America
  • United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • White Heritage Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • White Knights
  • White and Red Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (Canada)
  • White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
  • White Nations of the Ku Klux Klan
  • White Patriots Party
  • White Shield Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

The majority contains just a dozen of members while some of them are big groups like "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan". Shall we put this list on the page ?

I think the list is overkill. There are hundreds of orgs that claim the KKK mantel, most with only a few members (as you state). I think I prefer the article as it is, which lists just a few of the bigger overshoots and mentions that there are many more.--Alabamaboy 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the entire list on a link to wikiquote because I think it's important. Roger_Smith

Don't be an apologist for White terror

If other editors agree, the material from the pro-KKK history can remain, but placed in context as part of a propoganda campaign by the KKK to sanitize its real nature as a White terror organization. It is somewhat disheartening to see an editor acting as an apologist for White terror, and pretending that inserting a claim from a KKK source is merely a way to make accurate the "intentions of the founders...and how the group was corrupted." Historians minimize these claims, recognizing them as dubious and perhaps mythical. --Cberlet 13:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It is proper to cite historians and other tertiary sources on Wikipedia in order to avoid Original Research. It is not up to us to place this propaganda into context ourselves. In my opinion the "pro-KKK" material could appear, but only as direct quotation from its source, and the scholarship that would refute those claims should be produced as soon as possible so that both points of view are represented without the need for our own views. --Dystopos 14:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This information should not be included. First off, the pro-KKK source is questionable. While the KKK did start as a social club (as our original reference to a well-known history book said) the other so-called facts about what they did are mere annecdote and legend. Unless a more reliable historic source on par with the other well-known sources we have used in this article can be provided, these additions should not be added. The second reason for not adding all this stuff is that it doesn't add anything to the article. Mentioning that the KKK started as a social club as the article orginally did is fine since it is a short mention. Going on for a paragraph about this is too much of a minor detail. The KKK are not known for their social club pranks. Finally, before adding this info consensus needs to be gained to do so. Since I see no consensus to add the info, I say it remains out.--Alabamaboy 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sweet Confirmation of bias and agenda by Wikipedia editors

Yes, this just confirms for me that the Wiki editors believe that they can simply manipulate history, they can change facts whenever they see fit, they can use it for personal agenda, and they can simply ignore what they do not like and add what they do. This is why Wikipedia has no credibility in the real world.

And, by calling someone an apologist for White Terror???? Yes, this shows no personal agenda does it. What a joke. It's the fact that people like you can edit this information so that history is reflected the way you want it to is a complete farce.

From History Channel: It (the KKK) was organized at Pulaski, Tenn., in May, 1866. Its strange disguises, its silent parades, its midnight rides, its mysterious language and commands, were found to be most effective in playing upon fears and superstitions. The riders muffled their horses' feet and covered the horses with white robes. They themselves, dressed in flowing white sheets, their faces covered with white masks, and with skulls at their saddle horns, posed as spirits of the Confederate dead returned from the battlefields. Although the Klan was often able to achieve its aims by terror alone, whippings and lynchings were also used, not only against blacks but also against the so-called carpetbaggers and scalawags."

But, if you want to deceive yourselves of factual information and instead live in your little fantasy world of how the world works, feel free.

I have always advised my school kids that Wiki is a joke of a source, perhaps a good starting point, but this confirms that it is a biased and completely unreliable source.--sivazh 10 August 2006.


I'll continue to advise my school kids that Wiki is an amazingly accurate site, AND that the KKK are mentally ill, psychotic, dillusional, savage devil worshippers. That's why they burn that cross kiddies! Cactus Jack

Soft targets

Negroes in the United states never retaliate when Klansmen kill negroes. The Ku Klux Klansmen slay soft targets, and they have always slain soft targets. Jews have finally said: "Never again!" Jews are no longer being attacked by Ku Klux Klansmen, therefore. Negroes are permanent soft targets, therefore the Ku Klux Klan will have available a supply of soft targets. The Ku Klux Klansmen avoid people who retaliate. Negroes will never retaliate, though. Superslum 05:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Whats this gotta do with anything? And mind your language, you sound extremely hostile, basically don't be a dick222.155.12.62 18:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)me

He could be a member, or a racist, if you don't mind my saying. And please, if you aren't, don't take this as offensive. It is just a suggestion, and isn't meant to harm anybody. If you aren't one (or even if you are), please be kinder in those phrases. ~Dreyfus2006 (I forgot to sign in)

Authentic History of the Ku Klux Klan 1865-1877 (1924) - Susan Lawrence Davis

Yes, here is more confirmation of my information that the editors of Wiki just seem to wish to ignore simply because it doesn't fit their world view.

Tell me, was Susan Lawrence Davis an aplogist for White Terror too because she attempted to paint the history of the ORIGINAL KKK accurately?? Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you??

"Is today's Ku Klux Klan fulfilling the original intent of the founders? Learn the truth, go back to the sources and learn what the founder's desires in 1865 were, before disbanding the group in 1877. Susan Lawrence Davis was the daughter of one of the founding members who started the Klan, and she has seen, heard, and accumlated much insiders documentation. Excellently and beautifully reprinted, including many great photos documenting the story. 316 pages."


Proposal for inclusion on kkk article

Please help clean this up - I moved it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Knights_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan Potters house 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also for the inclusion of the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan Potters house 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Ripples of Battle: How Wars of the Past Still Determine How We Fight, How We Live, and How We Think

The quote from the source sounded rather dubious, and I removed it. Its statement doesn't fit or is neccessary for that. In fact, it sounds like trying to drive a point of view home with the democratic party. Kevin_b_er 04:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Search for the word "democratic party" there are other sources talking about the connection between democratic party and KKK. democratic party is mentioned many times in this article. See also * Trelease, Allen W. White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction (Louisiana State University Press: 1995). First published in 1971 and based on massive research in primary sources, this is the most comprehensive treatment of the Klan and its relationship to post-Civil War Reconstruction. Includes narrative research on other night-riding groups. Details close link between Klan and late 19th century and early 20th century Democratic Party.
70.48.100.88 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, pre-civil war. The problem is with quoting the citation which makes it sound overly POV. "championed a return of near-servile status to emancipated blacks" As a whole, it sounds like its trying to discredit a political party of present day. Is the status of the democratic party with relation to the KKK and their supposed position on emancipation relevant? The author's POV should be taken into prospective, and their direct quotes influence the point of view of the article itself. It could be much better served as not being a direct quote in some manner to denote that the KKK had or utilized affilations or relationships with the democratic party then. Kevin_b_er 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthurmore, it would probably be better served as being in the Creation subsection of The first Ku Klux Klan. Would you agree? Kevin_b_er 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the questions raised about this info and think it doesn't belong here. While the dem party was tied in with the KKK back then, the use of the quote here is misleading and POV. Keep it out. Besides, this point is already made elsewhere in the article, which states the ties the klan had with both parties. As has been previously stated on this talk page, before adding anything contentious to this article consensus to do so must be gained. I'd say consensus has not been achieved to add this.--Alabamaboy 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

requested edit

The article is currently blocked so could someone please remove the link to Westboro Baptist Church in the See Also section. They are not affiliated with the KKK and have nothing to do with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.4.19 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm not disagreeing with you, 141.211.4.19, since, as far as I know, the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church are organizationally unrelated. I see that someone has made your requested change, which is fine with me. But there are similarities between the two organizations: Both are pseudo-Christian hate groups, which no bona fide Christian church or denomination recognizes as being actually Christian, with doctrines strikingly at odds with real Christianity, and with behavior which defames the name of Christ. NCdave 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Justify use of the term "homophobia".

First read the defintion of "homophobia" then justify its use here. The Klan is considered a "hate" group, not a group with a "phobia". Explain how and when the Klan obtained their "fear" of homosexuality... and source it. --Britcom 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the word Anti-homosexualism is not used by almost anyone (only a few hundred google hits). The word is a neologism, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. In addition, the article you created for Anti-homosexualism is being considered for deletion, which is further evidence most editors do not agree with you on this one. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As a final point: This article is not the place to fight this battle. If you can win the AfD over Anti-homosexualism and convince the editors at homophobia to go with this alternate term, then come back here and I'm sure everyone will be more receptive to the use of the term.--Alabamaboy 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"Anti-homosexualism" is irrelevant. You didn't justify use of "homophobia" did you? I don't recall asking for anything else. I suggest that it is falsely applied here. --Britcom 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been several days now and no one has justified (or even attempted to justify) the use of the term "homophobia" in connection with the Klan. --Britcom 11:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How about 76,000 google hits for Klu Klux Klan and homophobia. How about [16], [17], Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, and Bethany A. Lohr. “Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1996. Volume 105, No. 3. Pages 440-445; The Ku Klux Klan and Related American Racialist and Antisemitic Organizations by Chester L Quarles, page 123; Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price, edited by Warren J Blumenfeld, page 66; and so on. And those are only a few of the references. Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support your use of this neologism and you don't seem to have the consensus here to use the word. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory: WKKK to Radical Feminism

The titel of this section is inflammatory and imparts to the reader the impression that the author of those passages has not only an agenda, but a personal axe to grind. The section itself does no better; the (purposeful?) conflation of the women's branch of a white supremacist organisation with the modern feminist movement is absolutely shameful. It is more than a presentation of parallels between purportedly common ideas that occurs in those paragraphs. The idea that the radical feminist movement arose out of the WKKK is, indubitably, absolutely false.

First of all, sentences such as the following: "In the late 1800s WKKK women basically went around talking about what black men might do to them, while KKK men preached the sanctity of "white womanhood". The sexually hypercharged imagery, together with economic desires of slave-owners,[snip]" are sloppily formulated. The first sentence is so vague in its phrasing as to render itself ridiculous, and the second sentence fragment is just factually incorrect. The phrase would have to be _former_ slave owners to be valid. Then, this: "Many Men's Rights and Father's Rights activists view radical feminist agendas and legislature such as the VAWA as invoking the same profiling and sexual imagery and simply excluding 'black' from the old WKKK jargon while inserting 'oppression' as an added profile of all men." Perhaps, but who cares? What do the purported feelings or views of Men's/Father's Rights activists concerning (hypothetical) modern radical feminist goals and political activities have to do with the organisation being portrayed? Then there's this: "Early WKKK radical feminists also wrote about the drudgery of motherhood and other typical feminist topics we read about today.", which is just totally irresponsible, and makes it abundantly clear that these passages are not at all about a sober profile of the WKKK, but rather the author's personal crusade against radical feminism and/or feminism, period. Seriously, what has this: "A common overarching theme was women using their sexual power to get men to do whatever they wanted – a theme identical to the core ideology of the contemporary V-Day initiatieve pushed by N.O.W. in hopes of replacing Valentine's Day with a murky celebration of misandry.", to do with an impartial report on this group? Such statements--and these paragraphs are full of them--are nothing more than prejudicial pronouncements.

If all that wasn't questionable enough: this section is lifted almost wholesale, word-for-word, from an article by a man named David R. Usher. It is called "From the Women's Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800's to the systematic destruction of American families today". It is from a website called www.dadsnow.org from the year 2000, and can now be found at the following link: http://fathersforlife.org/Table_contents_gj.htm#WKKK. The Fathers For Life website is a Men's Rights/Father's Rights site, as was its old home, Dads Now. So, it is either--in addition to being just plain biased and wrong--plagiarism, or an attempt by Mr. Usher himself to see his personal views validated and disseminated by a forum such as Wikipedia.

Whoever added this section of this Wiki entry did much the same at the entries for 'feminazi' and 'radical feminism', in almost the exact same words. He has apparently read the Kathleen Blee book (if he has actually read it) as a justification for and support of his hatred of present-day feminism. I would kindly suggest that this section be removed and replaced with something a great deal more impartial and substantive. Thank you.

The Beach 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The section sounds like self-promotional copy to me and I've removed it. In addition, the editor who added it should seek consensus on the addition before adding it in. --Alabamaboy 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Loneranger4justice 11 September 2006

I have revised much of the WKK and would like to address the many comments of this edit: 1] use of the bookcover is not self-promotional, it is the only photo of women's KKK I could find, and since it is a bookcover it is fair use, with no copy right violations. 2] WKKK is an important historic fact, and to ignore the involvment by women in the KKK is like ignoring the involvment of germans in the nazi party, certainly many would like to do so, but it is not really truthful. If any of you all can edit the topic better, please do so, but don't just sweep it aside. Any criticism of feminism, on any forum, seems to disappear in a similar manner, contrast this with the pages and pages of criticism found on the Father's rights page. Yes. much of the edit is similar to the 'dad's now' website referenced in this discussion, this same analysis can be found on multiple other websites dedicated to men's and father's rights, and the analysis between the narratives would be more helpful if used to edit, rather than delete, this important topic. The fundamental crux of this section is twofold: firstly, there was a substantial Woman's Klan, and secondly than many of the issues and tactics of the early WKKK were adopted by radical feminists. Please help me with citations or edits to improve this sections, but don't just delete it because it happens to point out some hard facts that you don't want to be heard. I have reverted to the earlier edit, in hopes that it will generate some participation to further improve this section. Thank you: Loneranger4justice.

The problem is that what you are saying is support by only one book. That said, I have no objection to adding a small section about women in the klan, using this book (and anything else you can find) as a reference. However, I do not support summing up the entire book's POV arguements, which, since I have not seen these arguements in any other credible literature, does not strike me as a mainstream historical consensus. What I would support is stating the facts about the WKKK, stating that one author believes their tactics were adopted by early feminists, and let that be about it. Any other comments from people?--Alabamaboy 13:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

-- There should be a section on the WKKK. I have atempted to include some facts and figures and references to the book by Kathleen Blee should be included as a definitive research, or at least a citation, the most remarkable thing about the book is the dozens of first hand interviews of WKKK memnbers conducted by the author/historian. The book cover is a good illustration, because it is free use, and is the only historic photo I know of depicting women in full klan regalia, inclusion of a better photo would be welcomed. The second important issue is the link or convergence of WKKK agendas, tactics, and slogans later adopted by radical feminist organizations. Thirdly the the decline of the WKKK (and the KKK) coincides with the passage of the 19th ammendment, the woman's right to vote. These are all historical matters, and not inflamatory, even if feminists would like to conceal the involement of women in the KKK and the links between these two groups. I suggest that a WKKK section should be included, with invitations for others to provide additional research, citations, or illustrations. The rest of the KKK article is well written, historically factual, nor does it embelish or omit the racism, violence or discrimination by the KKK. A section on the WKKK should be equally truthful, and should not be limited to the feminst POV to portray the KKK as a male-only group, nor downplay the role of women in KKK activities. loneranger4justice 11 September 2006

ps: a quick google of these topics produces dozens of web sites that discuss the link between the WKKK and radical feminism. Most of the writers are men's rights and father's rights advocates.

Another 'credible' source, an overview of the book 'Aryan Cowboys' is found at: http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exschary.html - This book seems to have an overwhelming feminist POV, but none-the-less provides excellent history and analysis of the use of 'sexual imagry' by the klan, ie:

"In her study of the the 1920s women's KKK (WKKK), Blee notes that "gender and sexuality were compelling symbols in the two largest waves of the [KKK], those of the 1860s and the 1920s." Each Klan called white Protestant men to protect white womanhood and white female purity. Both the 1860s and the 1920s Klan "dissolved a myriad of social, economic, and racial issues into powerful symbols of womanhood and sexual virtue." Klansmen of the 1860s insisted that white women benefited from the Southern racial state, without which they would be raped and brutalized by black men, who were considered no better than primitive animals.

White women became highly visible symbols through which the Klan could rouse public fears that blacks' retaliation against their former white masters would be exacted upon white mothers, daughters, and wives. The Klan spread the belief that white men were powerless to aid white women who faced frightful sexual violations by black men. Klan propaganda played on not only the fears of women, but also unspoken fears of men. To a Klansman, the abolition of slavery ended white men's sexual access to black women, and it also potentially ended white men's exclusive sexual access to white women.

Blee notes that the Klan's call to defend white women against rape by black men signified a relation of power not only between white men and women, but also between white men and black men. The Klan's emphasis on the threat of black men raping white women served as a warning to both black men and white women about interracial relationships, but underlying the obvious references to potential sexual violation was a deeper threat to white men's sexual privileges. When mobs of Klansmen sexually tortured and emasculated black men, they were, in a sense, validating their claim that masculinity ("real manhood") remained white men's exclusive prerogative. Blee argued that "southern women, white and black, occupied a symbolic terrain on which white men defended their racial privileges." Symbols of white female vulnerability and white masculine potency, Blee notes, "took power equally from beliefs in masculine and in white supremacy."


"The idea of "white womanhood," however, served as a critical rallying point for the post-Civil War Klan and its violent campaigns. White women benefited from the Southern racial state, Klansmen insisted, because it protected their "virtue" from the lower, more primitive men of color who could not control their animal lusts in the presence of white women. Throughout the writings of the first Klan, the theme of imperiled white womanhood provided a continuous rhetoric of gender roles and true manhood, which was white. Without the Klan, white men were powerless to assist white women who faced potential rape at the hands of former slaves."

It should be readily apparent to anyone aware of men's rights that the same demogoguery, villification, profiling, and discrimination and use of lurid sexual imagry once directed against black men by the WKKK, rides again in radical feminist agendas such as the VAWA.

loneranger4justice 11 September 2006

Since I haven't heard any feedback from you last post, I will post another small section about the WKKK, and include comment the author [Blee's] analysis and father's rights groups that link the early WKKK to certain feminist agendas. loneranger4justice 12 September 2006

I may be an anonymous editor but I support Alabamaboy's comments and don't think more than a brief mention should be made about all of this. Also I looked at Alabamaboy's talk page and it said he was on a short break. His lack of response probably doesn't mean he supports what Loneranger4justice said.--206.165.32.108 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be added. Seems like someone is pushing an agenda with it.--Onedayoneday 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

loneranger4justice, as I originally said I'd support a short paragraph on the WKKK. An entire section, though, is no warranted. You are welcome, though, to create an entire article on the WKKK and we can link to that from this article (i.e., main article: WKKK). I should add, though, that your comment "It should be readily apparent to anyone aware of men's rights that the same demogoguery, villification, profiling, and discrimination and use of lurid sexual imagry once directed against black men by the WKKK, rides again in radical feminist agendas such as the VAWA" suggests you have a strong POV regarding this subject, so try not to insert that into the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) I will create a WKKK stub & link to KKK. thank you for your thoughts on POV, it often seems to me that much of Wikipedia has an extreme feminist, misandric, gynocentric POV, and anyone that tries to insert a differing view is deleted on POV issues. I'll try to keep the stub balanced. loneranger4justice 18 September 2006

star * missing

When i look at other featured articles like India or Pakistan, a star comes on right hand side top of the main article. Can somebody please tell me why cant i see the star here. Thanks.nids(♂) 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be a problem with your web browser b/c when I looked a second ago it was there. --Alabamaboy 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i checked its there. I had to move to right to see the star. Perhaps (for some reason), the width of this article is more than the others. Sorry for bothering you.nids(♂) 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Firefight

I remember this on the news long ago: A firefight happened between some Klansmen, allies and the American Communist Party. Martial Law 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Any Refernces on here about this firefight ? Martial Law 07:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wilson

I had to change the section on Wilson. The entry from the Wilson article from more accurate. I will look up, and add, more footnotes as soon as I can. Hanover81

Second KKK

I note under the Activities section it claims that the second KKK was to a larger degree Republican. There is no reference to back this up. The entry also begs the question as to why, later on in the century, did JFK have to rely on Republicans to push through the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Democrats held the House 60/40. Only 60% of Democrats voted for the Act, whilst 80% of Republicans did. The assertion needs to be backed up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.27.12.230 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

You are correct, 195.27.12.230. That statement is in error. The Second Klan, like the First, was overwhelmingly Democrat. (The Second Klan peaked around 1925, and it wasn't until the 1960s that the Democratic Party broke with segregationism.)
I see that your observation has stood for over 6 months, with no reply or citation offered, so I'll remove the erroneous statement from the article. NCdave 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Klan Appologist

This entire article is very one-sided and at several points is clearly trying to argue a particular point of view. This isn't information being delivered for the purpose of informing, it's an attempt to sanitize the image of the Ku Klux Klan.

Basically it's a collection of cut and paste from writers who are trying to build an arguement with a specific point of view: The Klan was really not so bad. There are too many references to 'lawless' or 'rebellious' ex-slaves with no citation. They're just pastes from these other sources and the sources have a clear point of view. The article is designed to paint the Klan as just a bunch of decent southern boys who were trying to restore order and decency in their community.


Possible vandalism?

Right after the introduction of the article is the message: "Nick Childers is cool!"

Black Members of the Ku Klux Klan

HAHA YEA THERES NIGGERS IN THE KLAN, THEIR IN THE TREES ABOVE THE RALLIIES.

I have seen pictures, and a few notes regarding actual "Black" members of the Ku Klux Klan, however, I lost the information now. Can anyone confirm this?

  • Well the World is an odd place, I just swear I've seen pictures of it, and notes. They might have joined the KKK for the same reason people do as myg0t does(Internet Raging Community, basically likes to piss off people and see their reactions) or as trolls does in online forums, just to piss off blacks. -- Atheuz 17:21, 21 November 2006(CET)

I remember like 1 week ago that we were watching a doctumentary-type movie about Race ad all its aspects. I speciallcy remember that were at a part bout a black man who said he was in the KKK. He said that he had a drink at a bar w/ a white guy. They were talkin n such and the white guy said "this is the 1st time I had a drink with a black man." the black guy said "why?" the guy said "because Im in the KKK.".....they black guy was talkin about bein the KKK like it was no deal.....he had the white robe w/ black stripes on the sleeves (I think it ment to mean that hes black when wearing it), had the books.......it REALLY needs to be added to the KKK article to let people know that there are black people who are in the KKK......hmm. not that I come to think of it, he bore a resemblence to Uncle Ruckus from the Boondocks...."THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There was an African American sheriff's deputy who retired a few years ago who had joined some branch of the KKK by mail and kept track of klan activities through correspondence. He never participated in any meetings or wore a robe, though. I wouldn't recommend adding anything to the article that doesn't have a specific citation. And the Chapelle Show doesn't count. --Dystopos 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say anything about the chapelle show. "THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED!" 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Why in the whole wide world would a black person want to join a group that say 'I hate blacks'? That is mentally retarded no offense to anyone. But why would blacks want to love the "klan"?


--Storkian 14:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Truman References

This may be a stupid question, but why are there several references referring to former US President Truman, if he is not mentioned on the page? - JustinWick 08:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If this question is not answered in 7 days, I'm going to remove the references, as they imply a connection between Truman and the KKK which the article does not substantiate. - JustinWick 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation Quote

Note that the Wikipedia article on Woodrow Wilson questions the accuracy of the quotation about Birth of a Nation. Here is the quote from the Wilson article: "Wilson's words were repeatedly quoted in the film The Birth of a Nation, which has come under fire for racism. Thomas Dixon, author of the novel The Clansman upon which the film is based, was one of Wilson's graduate school classmates at Johns Hopkins in 1883-1884. Dixon arranged a special White House preview (this was the first time a film was shown in the White House) without telling Wilson what the film was about. Wilson most likely did not make the statement, "It is like writing history with lightning, my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." That was invented by a Hollywood press agent. In fact, Wilson felt he had been tricked by Dixon and publicly said he did not like the film; Wilson blocked its showing during the war.[31]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.224.190 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Adam South Lynching Citation?

In "The Ku Klux Klan Today" section, there's the following claim:

Also recent attacks include the lynching of blaenavon schoolboy Adam South by known KKK member 'Silent' Bob Davies.

Do we have any citation? Qnonsense 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If nobody minds, I'll delete the sentence in the next couple of days. I can still find nothing about it. Qnonsense 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan Today

The last line of this section states:

"In 2006, several Klan members tried to beat the shit out of CapnCrack. He responded by killing their stupid asses and then fucking their white women."

Now, I'm no expert on the Klan and not a fan, but it marrs an otherwise good article by leaving this vandalism in. I would have done something about it myself, but it took me ten minutes to work out how to get this far to ask somebody else to do it. God know what would happen if I managed to get anywhere near the edit myself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.129.65 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Reverting an article is simple. Click the History tab, select a clean edit before the vandalism, then Edit this Page, and save. Splintercellguy 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a good article. The whole thing has a pro klan tone to it. They were nothing more than a bunch of un-educated terorists, cowards, and murderers.

As pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, people do bring their own preconceptions to anything they read; this article is no exception. Not all Klansmen were uneducated (as for education, please check your own spelling of "terrorists"), not all were cowards, not all were murderers. The second KKK had, as one of its goals, to end domestic violence (a point that I don't remember being made in the article itself, despite several references to it in more than one of the texts cited). My hat, personally, is off to all the editors who have made it as good and balanced an article as it is. 66.32.35.45 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wilson and the second Klan

User Tony360X changed the third point in the bullet list from

The second Ku Klux Klan was founded with a new anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic agenda. The bulk of the founders were from an organization calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan, and the new organization emulated the fictionalized version of the original Klan presented in The Birth of a Nation.

to

The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson gave rise to the second coming of the KKK. Wilson supported racial discrimination and brought it to the Federal Goverment. Hundreds of goverment administrations were segragated under Wilson's admnistration.

I've reverted the change. The original version was logically connected to the other two points in the bullet list, and to the text above them. The new version violates that logic. Also, the new version is extremely POVish, and assumes a hypothetical link between the institutionalization of racism in the federal government by Wilson and the creation of the second Klan. I don't think any such connection exists, and if it does, Tony360X hasn't offered any evidence of it. There certainly are connections between Wilson and the second Klan, via his endorsement of Birth of a Nation, but the main event being discussed in this bullet list isthe existence of the film itself, not Wilson's endorsement. If Tony360X feels that institutionalized racism in the federal government helped to lead to the creation of the second Klan, I feel he should (a) present some evidence, and (b) introduce it into the article in a way that doesn't violate the logic of the presentation.--Fashionslide 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian identity

I added to the lead that they are a Christian fundamentalist group, and sourced the statement. I hope this self-evident fact will not be controversial. --Striver - talk 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So now the article presents the KKK first and foremost as a religious group. Is this accurate? The cited source says "some Christian fundamentalist beliefs" which suggests the first thing Wikipedia says about KKK should not be "religious group". Weregerbil 09:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. In fact, the reference you provided states that they only have "Some Christian fundamentalist beliefs, Christian Identity, white supremacy." It is misleading and POV to state that they are a Christian fundamentalist group.--Alabamaboy 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why deleted?

Why were these cites deleted?

  • Drabble, John, The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Mississippi, 1964-1971, Journal of Mississippi History, 66:4, (Winter 2004).
  • Drabble, John, "To Preserve the Domestic Tranquility:” The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and Political Discourse, 1964-1971," Journal of American Studies, 38:3 (August 2004): 297-328.

They represent recent research. Also, shouldn't the David Cunningham book be cited?--Cberlet 04:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I see a few places where citations are needed and was tempted to use {{fact}} but wanted to see if maybe we should just mark the article rather than each occurence. GLKeeney 15:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, no comments, {{fact}} it is. GLKeeney 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

After reflection on the "challenged or likely to be challenged " rule, I have not used the {{Fact}} tag as "boldly" as I was intending. Now back to your regular programming. ;) GLKeeney 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Required Edits

Sorry if I didn't put this in the first place, this is my first edit. I think it'd be appropriate to include KKK's current goals in the "Present" section (source www.geocities.com/__izzy__/Dengue/kkk/today.htm):

―Reassert America's White Christian heritage.

―Return prayer to school.

―Stop all non-white immigration.

―Drug testing for all welfare recipients. If they have money for drugs, they don't need your tax dollars.

―Make the purchase of American industry and property by foreigners illegal.

―Do away with free trade that harms the American worker and employ a policy of protectionism.

―Workfare, not not welfare. You work for your check, so should they!

―Troops on our southern border to stop the entry of illegal aliens.

―Stop reverse discrimination by doing away with Affirmative Action.

―Declare all laws attempting to enforce gun control as unconstitutional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonSasha (talk • contribs)


Hey, I don't know how edit this article and I don't have enough time to learn at the moment. The table in this article showing membership of the Klan appears to have a wrong amount for the year 2007. I would appreciate if that would be fixed soon. Thank You.

Hi, I don't know how to edit the article but the first note says: "According to the 1920 census, the population of white males 98 years and older was about 31 million". I assume it means 18 years, this needs correcting.

Had to edit the following paragraph because it is nonsensical.

"The Klan sought to control all of the political and social status of the freed slaves. Specifically, it attempted to curb black education, economic advancement, voting rights, and the right to bear arms. However, the Klan's focus was not limited to African Americans; Southern Republicans also became the target of vicious intimidation tactics. The violence achieved its purpose. For example, in the April 1868 Georgia gubernatorial election, Columbia County cast 1,222 votes for Republican Rufus Bullock, but in the November presidential election, the county cast only one vote for Republican candidate Ulysses Grant.[8]

The second part of the paragraph was removed alltogether because it is an obvious non sequitur "Southern Republicans also became the target of vicious intimidation tactics. The violence achieved its purpose. For example, in the April 1868 Georgia gubernatorial election, Columbia County cast 1,222 votes for Republican Rufus Bullock, but in the November presidential election, the county cast only one vote for Republican candidate Ulysses Grant.[8]

Reasons: 1. Choosing not to elect a public official is hardly a "vicious intimidation tactic." 2. "The violence achieved its purpose," makes absolutely no sense because choosing not to elect a public official is most definitely not an act of "violence." 3. The sentence, "Southern Republicans also became the target..." implies that there were repercussions to "Southern Republicans." Since the Republican candidate, Ulysses S. Grant was not chosen to be president of the USA by some little county in Georgia, AND he was not southern (Grant was born in Ohio, and would have never allowed anyone to call him a Southerner) there is no stated backlash for "Southern Republicans."

I think you misunderstood the point of that sentence, which made perfect sense to me. Within a period of approximately seven months, Republicans who lived in the South (Southern Republicans) were so intimidated by Klan tactics or members that whereas 1,222 of them voted Republican in April, only 1 of them voted Republican in November. I did not re-add this sentence to the article; it was already back there again (someone else must have done the reversion), so I'm happy to see that more thoughtful heads have already prevailed. 66.32.35.45 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Political Parties

Should there be some mention in the article that even though the old KKK was mostly Democratic, the Democratic party of the time is in no way related to the party with the same name today? The way the article is right now it raises the impression that the current party was once associated with the KKK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.190.172 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, 69.152.64.166, the Democratic Party of both the original and the second KKK was, indeed, the Democratic Party of today. It is the same Party, though its positions on racial issues have changed. NCdave 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, originally Democrats were pro-oppressed white Southerners, but then as white Southerners got full rights, they shifted to the poor and then black and now they're shifting toward gays and abortions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonSasha (talk • contribs)

So are you saying that the average person who said they were a democrat was most likely in the KKK or the southern democratic canidates and officials were KKK? --Art8641 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

2005 Kingston, NY KKK Rally

I am unable to add this, so somebody might want to.

On November 19, 2005, renowned white supremacist, Hal Turner, rallied the Ku Klux Klan near Kingston High School, Kingston, NY in response to a brutal assault on a 14-year old white teen named Robert Hedrick by a 16-year old black teen named, Joseph L. Williams Jr,. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkicon (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

That was considered more of a white supremacist rally as opposed to a Klan rally. There were not any identifiable members of the Klan present. It should be noted that there is a World Knights of the Ku Klux Klan that held rallies at national battlefields in 2006.Elyrad 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Anyone know the etymology of the name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PyroGamer (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

It's already in the article: the Greek "κυκλóς," transliterated "kyklos," and meaning "circle," (sorry, don't remember exactly where the accent goes in the Greek; is that right, or can someone correct it?) coupled with "clan." 66.32.35.45 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i don't think you realise what a stupid article this is, making world domination one thing but to reconstruct something that isn't even meant to be... This Ku klux Klan is a total waste, they don't support anything they run by a covenant, they use violence as a methodical strategy. They don't really see the life they see things as if their were born supremecy, they're just a bunch of losers they don't even know what their purposes is really, only to fight for what they believe in but what kind of fighting is that? Really and truly, their fighting for a lost cause, what manaic would go trhough all that!!!

The words: "Ku Klux Klan" refer to the sound the air rifle makes when it get loaded. I am pretty sure that is the answer, though I have to do some research on it. It is a very interesting topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.18.120 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Ku Klux" comes from the Latin word "kuklos", meaning "circle" or "group". At first, in its infancy, the Klan was called the "Knights of the White Circle", and later changed it to the more odd and mysterious "Kuklos Clan", and later "Ku Klux Klan". They thought the alliteration sounded cool. -- 70.46.35.198 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a Sherlock Holmes story in which a Klansman features. In it, Sherlock explains to Watson that the Klan arose from disaffected Confederate officers and that they took their name from the sound of Winchester rifle being racked and loaded. That, presumably, was what Arthur Conan Doyle writing in the 1890s believed to be the origin of the name. --Oscar Bravo 09:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ACLU reference

The statement (at the end of the "Present" section)

"The ACLU has provided legal support to various factions of the KKK in defense of their First Amendment rights to hold public rallies, parades, and marches, and their right to field political candidates."

may well be true, but such an audacious claim really needs proof. Does anyone have a reference on this? If not, it should be deleted. MennoMan 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true. At least the part about rallies, parades & marches is true. I don't know about the political candidates claim, but I suspect that it is true, too.
I recall the famous Skokie NAZI march as a similar example, involving a similarly despicable group, which the ACLU defended. Google finds lots of information on the ACLU's defense of Klan & NAZI rallies and marches as Constitutionally-protected free "speech."
I agree, with you, however, that the ACLU's passion for defending as protected free speech the activities of hate groups seems strangely out of character, since the very same organization also fights even harder to prevent Christian student commencement speakers from praying out loud, which the ACLU argues is Constitutionally-prohibited / non-free speech. To this outsider, the ACLU's rule of thumb when deciding on what speech to defend appears to be: hateful=good/protected, but wholesome=bad/prohibited. Or maybe, as is the common perception, they just like dislike Christians. NCdave 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


_______________________________________________________________

stormfront.org should be included in the see also. The founder of stormfront Don Black was KKK. David Duke was also KKK.

Half-truth

I quote at length from the final paragraph of the First Klan: Activities section:

"In an 1868 newspaper interview,[17] Forrest boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men, and that although he was not a member, he was "in sympathy" and would "cooperate" with them, and he could muster 40,000 Klansmen with five days' notice. He stated that the Klan did not see blacks as its enemy so much the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments like Tennessee governor Brownlow's, and other carpetbaggers and scalawags. This was a half truth since one of the main reasons for targeting these white groups was that they were impediments to efforts against the former slaves. The Klan went after white members of these groups, especially the schoolteachers brought south by the Freedmen's Bureau, many of whom had before the war been abolitionists or active in the underground railroad. Many white southerners believed, for example, that blacks were voting for the Republican Party only because they had been hoodwinked by the Loyal Leagues."

Halfway through that paragraph, the term "half-truth" is used to discredit Forrest's words; however, then much of the rest of the paragraph is used to illustrate the truth underlying his statement. Rather than using the damning "half-truth" (a very negative thought) here, shouldn't the context warrant something more to the point that "There was at least some factual basis behind Forrest's remarks," and then list the ways in which white Reconstructionist groups were targets of the Klan's activities? I haven't been part of the editing behind this page, but I couldn't see any reference to this specific topic here on the talk page, so I thought I would bring up this proposal. StavinChain 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stone Mountain carving

Can anyone substantiate with a reliable source, that the carving on Stone Mountain, Ga was paid for largely with Klan funds? JodyB talk 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I want to edit the caption on the image of Stone Mountain, Georgia as there is no evidence that the carving was largely paid for by Klan funding.12.206.109.91 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (thought I was signed in) JodyB talk 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected so you should be able to edit the article now that you are logged in. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Boy, that was dumb. Guess I ate too much for lunch. Thanks JodyB talk 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of detailed information to support this claim in the Stone Mountain article.--76.81.180.3 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there is no verification of that or sourcing of the claim in the Stone Mountain article. I would guess the information should be out there is true but there is also a real problem with it being an urban legend. I'd just like to see some documentation both there and here. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

K-K-K Katy

Yea, you know, the popular song from 1918...does anyone know whether or not this song includes not-so-overt references to the Ku Klax Klan? I think this would be an interesting culture byte if someone can get a lead on this, given that it was a pretty popular tune. In my research I have discovered that the descendant of the woman it was written about knew nothing (no pun intended) about such a connection, but I'm not sure this little tidbit was something that would be passed down, even if it were true. Any thoughts?--172.166.106.90 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you check the lyrics you'll see there's no connection at all. K-K-K-Katy is a stuttering song. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The NRA and the KKK

The Ku Klux Klan were criminalised and deemed a terrorist organisation by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Coincidentally, the National Rifle Association was founded in the same year. I think this should be mentioned - 82.16.7.63 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Very solid article. I think the single paragraph regarding the FBI disruption of the KKK should be expanded. It appears that the FBI efforts were largely responsible for the near-demise of the Klan. Therefore, an expanded discussion of those efforts would strengthen the article. 64.140.213.3 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

City and state efforts, and individual leaders in communities who spoke out against it, contributed to the demise of the Klan. Its membership went down rapidly in the late 1920s, in some cases after members' names were published in local newspapers. Social adaptations diminished the Klan's appeal in most locations.--Parkwells 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The NRA started out has a sporting group and not a lobbying group. Furthermore, the first gun legislation aimed to prevent free blacks from owning firearms, thus able to defend themselves, which the NRA rigourously sought to overturn. That is a very weak link. 72.192.31.8 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascist Organization?

user:Alabamaboy in this edit removed the word fascist from the lead in of the article, with edit summary: (Removed fascist from lead. Please see fascist for definition of that term. Doesn't belong here.). I would appreciate further explanation for this as in my understanding the KKK is absolutely a fascist organization.

The Klan absolutely holds an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the Nation, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. The Klan's Ideology is rooted in nationalism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism. They use populist tactics in recruitment, and are quite defiantly militant. Also, members explicitly supported the nazi's during WWII and continue to be tied to neo-nazi organizations, sympathizers, and practices.

Also for the record, I understand that fascist organization are not innately racist. This one, however, I must argue is considering its power structure, ideology, and methods.

The ONLY argument that I could see is that the Klan does not currently explicitly control the formal state, which in my understanding is not a requisite. If this is the matter of contention, then I believe that the term fascistic should please please both camps, but I doubt that is the only point. I would ask how one would politically describe a Klan run state if not fascist. I am curious to hear other views on this, so please respond. Thanks! ._-zro tc 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note they are listed on the fascism page under 'neo' Fascist#Neo-fascism ._-zro tc 16:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this one's easy. Since it's so obvious that you are correct, you should be able to find a reliable source that echoes your evaluation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I sense some sarcasm, no?... is that necessary? I will surely look for one, that is fine. Still I am confused... where the disagreement lies. ._-zro tc 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No particular sarcasm -- I usually don't like the overuse of "fascist", but you well may be correct in this; however, we need more than our personal analyses to add characterizations like this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I agree the over use of the word fascism is quite annoying, and widespread. In regards this particular organization I do believe it is quite appropriate. I have not don't enough research yet, but here are some references to the Klan as fascist.
wp articles that refer to th klan as fascist or neo/proto fascist:
outside sources
I'd like to know what other think as well. ._-zro tc 23:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fascism was a specific political movement which originated during the time of the second KKK (i.e., the early part of the 20th century). The movement is best known for General Francisco Franco in Spain and Benito Mussolini. The first two KKKs were not Fascist--the first not by any term of the imagination, the second KKK being highly patriotic and taking part in the democratic process (although from a perverse racist point of view) and lacking the authoritarianism and statism requirements which truly made a movement Fascist. It appears that calling the KKK fascist is a recent phenomenon related to the broadening of the definition of the word. As it states in the fascism article, "In the strict sense of the word, Fascism covers movements before WWII, and later movements are described as Neo-fascist." So while the first two KKKs were not fascist, the third KKK (the one from the 1950s onward) could be called neo-fascist. Still, since the opening section of the lead is about the common threads of all three KKKs (such as racism and terrorism), it shouldn't be mentioned there. --Alabamaboy 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the references you provided for the KKK bring fascist are either not reliable or, in the case of the Britannica articles, don't state that the KKK is fascist. As Brit states in the fascism article, the KKK "displayed some fascist characteristics"[18]. However, displaying some characteristics isn't enough to historically use this word. It's also worth noting the KKK article in Britannica doesn't even mention the word.--Alabamaboy 12:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What's unreliable about those academic sources? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I should have been more specific. The Wikipedia links don't work b/c we can't reference ourself, while the e-text and assumption.edu links are decent but not overly impressive. The KKK is a subject of which there are a ton of top-level academic and historic book sources and that's what I'd prefer to see here.--Alabamaboy 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The extremist and perverse ideology of the KKK leads to a pathology that can certianly lead individuals to cross over between KKK affiliates and neo-nazi and neo-fascists, so it's a likely phenomenom you would see from individuals. However, the KKK truly stems from Southern liberal tradition in State's right versus republican and federalist doctrine. They take the banner of state's rights to continue their discrimination/slavery social system. That is hardly "fascist" Chudogg (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

KKK holocaust pic

Please remove the pic of the KKK denying the holocaust, its a bit offensive to some who see it. regards anon124.168.115.172 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do i have to explain it? its offensive to those who have been involved in the holocaust, or those who have lost family in the holocaust. To deny the holocaust is like saying 1000 000 jewish people died without cause, or just commited suicide. Its a sick picture. anon124.168.115.172 08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

obviously im outraged about the KKK's actions, as im asking for the pic to be removed! Im suggesting we find somthing a little less offensive. anon124.168.115.172 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I didn't mean you in particular, I meant the generic "you"; I should have said "one" instead. Where it's appropriate, we include images of atrocious behavior; for example, we show pictures of concentration camps. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as with lynching pictures, there's no real argument for removal of the pictures. They represent what the Klan is and did, the pictures aren't nice and nor are the Klan, thus they reflect it. Prophaniti (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Profanity - it is relevant to the article. Also, by the Content Disclaimer, some stuff on wiki may be shocking. mattbuck (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A Return To Saskatchewan

According to a few sources, there have been reports that the Ku Klux Klan is making it's way back to Saskatchewan. During the 1920s or so, the Ku Klux Klan had the most prominant following in Saskatchewan with thousands of members, than died off. I can't remember the reason they died off some. But there still are 250 members in Saskatchewan according to the report. (SaskatoonHomepage.ca) (Saskatoon Star Phoenix) (Regina Leader-Post) (CBC Saskatchewan)

Mr. C.C. 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of subsections

On August 26th, User:Skywriter altered the order of this page's subsections by moving the '20th century resistance to Klan violence' section to the top. I have restored the original order. I feel it makes more sense to keep history sections in rough chronological order, and so this section belongs further down the article, between the sections about the Klan in the 1920s and the Klan today. In addition, it is extremely odd that this article should address 'Resistance to Klan violence' before describing that violence itself.

Skywriter justified his changes in the edit summary by arguing that the murders attributed to the Klan should appear near the top of the article. I sympathise with his aims, but this isn't the best way to do it - instead, we should expand the intro, which already mentions two people murdered by a Klansman, to mention other Klan victims as well.

Also - in future, major changes to this article should be discussed here first, rather than just in edit summaries. Please make any comments on my changes and suggestions below. Terraxos 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Terraxos made major changes to this article without discussing it on this talk page first. And, I strongly disagree with those changes.

I would like to see arguments here on why or why not the article can not begin with the most recent history of the Klan. Readers are forced to wade through six thousand six hundred and sixty seven words before getting to a short summary of a series of murders committed in the last 50 years. This is greatly disproportionate and an insult to the murder victims and their families given especially that many of these murders have not been resolved. In the absence of rationale discussion on re-organizing this article, I would like to take this matter into whatever negotiations exist on Wikipedia. This article relies on Stanley Horn who is not a historian for much of the sympathetic treatment the Klan receives in this article. And, this is despite the fact that there are congressional hearings from the 19th century that are far less sympathetic to the Klan and its terroristic activities.

There is an over reliance in this article on the work of Stanley Horn who is not a historian and who is sympathetic to the Klan while ignoring the readily available congressional testimony from the 19th century and balanced work by real historians. This article is not balanced and its effect is racist disregard for the victims of Klan violence. Every other article on Wikipedia that addresses what criminals have done does not spend 6,667 words apologizing for and glorifying what the criminals have done. It gets to the point. This article does not. And, after raising this issue for the last several years, I am convinced that there is way too much sympathy for criminals that this article is the subject of, and the victims of their crimes are treated like second class citizens.

That is my argument for moving the most recent history to the lede. What is your argument for burying it two thirds down in a ten thousand word article? Skywriter 02:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't apologize for and glorify the KKK; it presents the complete history of their organization. As for Stanley Horn, please point out the specific issues with any specific info or reference and we can address that. However, we need specifics, not generalizations that Horn is bad and must be removed.--Alabamaboy 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Plan to Put Disputed Flag at top of this article

Seeing no reply to the above, I repeat my strong objection to the political viewpoint represented in this article that places multiple 20th century murders by Klansmen, some of them still unsolved, near the end of this long article, after quite a lot of trivia. Skywriter 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • "Political viewpoint"? Odd idea. The article is presented chronologically. It makes no sense to start the history of an organization formed in the middle of the 19th century with a section about the late 20th century; it's as logical as starting an article about the US with a discussion of (say) George Bush. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to Resolve Dispute

This article is 68 kb. Based on Article size, this "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)"

Given that 35 years of the 19th century makes up half the article, and another long section is devoted to a film, I propose that this article be split into two articles: one to cover 19th century, and the second article, the 20th century. This is an attempt to resolve the dispute described above.

A split will resolve the issue of burying of 20th century history in this long article.

What are the objections to a split based on century? Skywriter 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That your intent is clearly POV based rather than convenience or readibility based. Better idea: add a short paragraph for the lead, or flesh out the second paragraph, to highlight your concerns. It could say something like "Though founded in the 19th century, organizations calling themselves the Klan were active well into the latter part of the 20th Century". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack, jpgodon? you can do better.

Let's be clear. Splitting the article into two, by century, looks out for the reader's interest and applies Wikipedia style guidelines as to length.

Other than attacking me personally, your response fails to address why dividing this article into 19th and 20th centuries either makes sense or does not. The content of the article makes clear that there are different Klans, and that they roughly break out by century. The article is long by Wikipedia style standard. Why not break it out by Klan 1 and Klan 2 which happens to correspond approximately to century?

Perhaps an WP:RFC is needed to help resolve this.

Terraxos should weigh in as Terraxos reverted the August 26 correction to burying 2oth century history. Thanks. Skywriter 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Personal attack? Where did I attack you? I commented on your obvious, clearly stated intent. You're asking for a POV fork; we very specifically don't do that. Justifying a POV fork with marginal arguments about the length of the article doesn't stop it from being a POV fork. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While it might be easier for you to continue in personal attack mode, the content of what you are alleging is false AND, you have failed to address the content of the argument that this is a long article that can easily be split, that it fits the criteria established for dividing a long article, and that 20th century material, which is most apt to interest 21st century readers, is buried two-thirds down a very long article, and thus will likely discourage readers from reading through to what is of contemporary interest.

I suggested and continue to suggest it be divided by century. But you don't hear that argument because you choose not to listen. Dividing by century is a natural break and that is a natural break also because the article states very clearly that the Klan that existed in the 19th century was different from its later incarnation.

This will not be resolved among you, me and Terraxos and an WP:RFC will bring fresh minds to help with the decision.Skywriter 02:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to split the article. The table of contents is there so people can find the info they want. Feel free to bring this up for a RFC. However, do note that a large number of editors have worked on this article and arrived at consensus on it and that it covers the entire KKK, not merely the 20th century spinoffs during the Civil Rights era and later. The changes you keep proposing are not based on history, which is what this article is trying to cover.--Alabamaboy 01:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

Skywriter: I understand your frustration about the 20th century murders being at the bottom of both the lead and the article. However, this article is about the entire KKK. The article deals with three separate KKK entities and follows them in chronological order. While the 20th century murders by the KKK were horrible, they were no more horrible than many of the other acts of the KKK. Your rewriting of the lead goes against WP guidelines (which state that the lead should sumarize the entire article) and are also POV because you are selecting certain info to highlight in the lead at the expense of other items. The version of the article as it now exists not only has historic fact and consensus supporting it, it is also a FA. If you want to make your changes, you must first seek consensus on them on this talk page. Until then, please do not make these changes. I also see no reason to split the article b/c it isn't really that large (the size restrictions you reference are in regard to technical issues which are no longer a problem).--Alabamaboy 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the changes made by Alabamaboy, and I agree that an article split probably isn't necessary at this time - although I wouldn't object if anyone wants to carry it out. The key policy here, as I said before, is that major changes to a page shouldn't be made without achieving consensus on the Talk page first. Skywriter's changes were made without even mentioning them on the Talk page, let alone discussing them with anyone.
As for the suggestion of an RFC: as far as I'm concerned, the issue here has already been dealt with in accordance with policy, and there's nothing more to discuss. But if Skywriter wants to start an RFC to get more Wikipedians' views on the matter, he's entitled to do so. Terraxos 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Skywriter did have a valid point that the lead lacked info on the more recent murders and crimes of the KKK; I have now added that in. --Alabamaboy 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Membership

Under "Political Influence" the article says: "At its peak, Klan membership exceeded 4 million". But the table below it says that in 1924 there were 6 million. Obviously, 6 million exceeds 4 million, but it would be nice if these numbers were either a-heck-of-a-lot closer to each other or (preferably) the same (substituting "reached" for "exceeded"). Originalname37 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the table to 5 million. Kenneth T. Jackson's The Klan in the Cities stated the peak of 1920s membership was estimated to be 2-5 million. I'll put that in the other reference.--Parkwells 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

you discust me you white trash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.7.152 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To Parkwells: thanks.
To 90.203.7.152: what?
Originalname37 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting cited text--may be added to this article

I'm reading a book right now that shed some interesting light on the KKK, particularly here in Ohio. I add this text to the talk page so that someone who is more comfortable editing this article could use and cite it at their pleasure.

"The Klan's heritage of violence against blacks made it self-proclaimed law-abiding image seem implausible. The public knew well the Klan's identification with arson, beatings and lynching going back to the Reconstruction Era in the South. Evidently to alter perceptions of the Klan as a lawless organization, Klansmen often denied hostility toward African Americans. Although avowedly white supremacist and segregationist, the Ohio Klan protested that it was not unsympathetic to blacks. In order to demonstrate their "love of the Negro," Klansmen occasionally made dramatic financial contributions to black churches. For example, in December 1923, about forty Klansmen marched into a black Baptist Church at Wadsworth in northern Ohio and gave its pastor a one hundred dollar contribution. Klansmen made a similar demonstration at a black Baptist Church in Cincinnati in April 1926. Such events surely were intended to attract press attention, and they were often reported widely. The New York Times carried the story of the Klan contribution to the black church in Cincinnati.

Ohio Klansmen even presumed to create a separate black branch of the Klan in 1924. Youngstown Klan officials, through a black agent, Paul Russell, organized the Loyal Legion of Lincoln, which was intended to be a national organization headquartered in Youngstown. The Loyal Legion shortly became defunct when Grand Scorpion Russell apparently absconded with funds collected from white Klansmen to finance the organization.

The Ku Klux Klan entered the political arena to gain power and promote its ethnic and racial agenda in Ohio. The Ohio Klan initiated its first intensive political program in 1923. Five Mahoning Valley cities elected Klan mayors that year, and Klan candidates were elected in various other parts of the state. Shortly after the general election in November 1924, Ohio Grand Dragon Clyde W. Osborne claimed that enough Klan candidates won seats in the state House of Representatives and Senate to give the Klan control of the Ohio General Assembly in 1925. Later Osborne more modestly claimed that forty-five members of the House were Klansmen. It appears, however, that there were never more than twenty Klansmen in the General Assembly. Nevertheless, in 1925, Klan state representatives introduced legislation reflecting their organization's anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy attitudes. One of the bills prohibited marriage between whites and (begin page 117) nonwhites. Other such proposed legislation included bills that requires all students to attend public schools, thereby disallowing enrollment in Catholic parochial schools, excluded Catholics from teaching in public schools and required Bible reading in the public schools. These Klan backed bills did not pass the Ohio legislature, excepting the latter, which was vetoed by Governor Vic Donahey."

(Source: African Americans and the Color Line in Ohio, 1915-1930, author: William W. Giffin, pages 116 and 117, ISBN 0-8142-1003-1, The Ohio State University Press, 2005) Jimbobjoe 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

November November presidential elections?

I'm not familiar with US politics so I didn't want to edit without checking, but under Activities, the sentence starts with, "By the November November presidential elections[...]" Is this a redundancy or do November elections sometimes occur in other months if they can't be done in November? StoicalSoul 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed it, so it must have been redundant. Nevermind, then. StoicalSoul 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was redundant - thanks for noticing. Thought I'd thanked you yesterday, but must have forgotten to save it.--Parkwells 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other redundancies. I can't edit the article, so I hope someone else does.

Michael 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation

I've reordered and added material to show the origins of the second Klan of the 1910s and 1920s - the social changes that made so many people fearful. The film and sensational trial and lynching of Leo Frank would not alone have captured people's attention if they weren't already fearing the rapid changes around them. After the Klan was formed,its organizing technigues of recruiting in cities other than Atlanta connected with people's fears.--Parkwells 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes by Parkwells

I appreciate the work that Parkwells has put into this article lately, but many of the changes he/she has made have not improved the article. For example, parts of the article are now too wordy, such as the article's lead (which is also now way too long under WP guidelines). There are also multiple instances where unsourced POV info has been placed in the article. For example, the article states that the first Klan was founded by "a variety of disaffected men." That the Klan "grew because of white people's fears about the future and resistance to changes brought about by their defeat in the Civil War." I'm not saying these statements are wrong (they personally ring true to me) but they use unencyclopedic language which appears to be POV pushing and borderline original research.

This article is the result of large amounts of work by numerous editors; it is also a featured article. As such, Parkwells should first seek consensus on this talk page for these large number of changes. I have reverted to an older version of this article until this discussion can be held and consensus found.--Alabamaboy (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at this article in a while and will try to satisfy your concerns above. Those viewpoints were not mine but historians I had read. YOu could have asked for citations rather than removing my changes. Also, you removed other people's work. In terms of encyclopedic content, I think the lead should reflect the real reasons for the growth of the second Klan, not the film and trial of Leo Frank, which, though dramatic, were not the reasons the Klan grew across the country. I provided sourced information on why the second Klan grew. The film and trial were not the underlying reasons why people were attracted to the Klan. Without social tension and fears as a result of rapidly changing society, neither the trial nor the film would have had much effect, despite their sensational aspects.--Parkwells 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of wordiness, I think the sections on "The Birth of a Nation" and the Leo Frank trial should be edited and reduced, as there are separate articles about both those topics. While the press provided sensational coverage of both events, there were many more substantive reasons for the growth of the Klan in the 1910s and 1920s, and these receive short shrift in the article. There are few facts about immigration, the Great Migration, or the growth of cities. --Parkwells 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is more narrative (some unsourced) about President Wilson in this article than in the one on the film itself. While the film may have been dramatic, it was not the reason for the growth of the Klan. People were reacting to multiple changes in society. Wiki guidelines invited people to improve articles, which is what I was doing. --Parkwells 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm totally fine and agree with these changes.--Alabamaboy (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is wrong

The Ku Klux Klan did not appear in episodes of the Superman radio series. In February and March of 1947 Superman delt with a racist organization called The Knights of the White Carnation. This group was no doubt inspired by the KKK, but not the KKK. The name Knights of the White Carnation was taken from an organization similar to the original KKK the existed in Alabama following the Civil War.Heathcliff (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

KKK and the anti-Catholicism.

"Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that have advocated anti-Catholicism..."

"Ku Klux Klan FAQ"

"The true Klan is not anti-Catholic in any fashion - both Catholics and Protestants rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Klan founder."

So we will include it or not ? The text is from their official site.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, don't include it. That's what they say today, but they were definitely anti-Catholic earlier in the 20th century, as historians have well documented.--Parkwells (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with Parkwells. That is merely propaganda and an attempt to rewrite the KKK's history.--Alabamaboy (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Robert Byrd's affiliation with the Klan not noted under the various sections that describe notable persons associated with the KKK?

I'm not sure why I repeatedly find this lapse in discussions about either Robert Byrd D-West Virgina, or the KKK, but it seems that no discussion of the KKK's contemporary impact is complete without mentioning Robert Byrd's association with the Klan. I find that David Duke's affiliation is dutifully noted, even though he is at best a minor political player and even though he also, like Byrd, quit his membership with them. Robert Byrd is one of the highest ranking senators and easily the most prominent former member of the Ku Klux Klan. It is no doubt but that his racial ideology--the same that led him to sympathize with and participate in the Klan--also led him to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Omitting this entire history to me borders on bias or an outright coverup on his behalf for reasons that escape me. The Wikipedia page on Robert Byrd does an excellent job capturing this history and could easily be referenced here.

71.231.75.150 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Then find a way to add it in a NEUTRAL, brief and well cited way that does more than just makes him look bad for bads sake: ie: notable people who have been members. Pharmboy (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Robert Byrd made himself look bad by ever being a member of the KKK. It's not your responsiblity to try to censor the article for the sake of his reputation.Heathcliff (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that was Pharmboy's intent in his reply. If you can properly and neutrally source the information then by all means add it. If, and I do not know the anserw to this, he has repudiated that position, that ought be included too. - JodyB talk 12:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IVDA;ER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.37.245 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Later Klan

McWhorter's book includes well-documented accounts of alliance between Bull Connor and the Klan in Birmingham, so I've included reference to that (and to Wallace's use of them in AL) as examples of how deeply the Klan was tied/used by some governments to resist desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement.--Parkwells (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good addition. In fact, all of your additions and edits today are excellent. Best,--Alabamaboy (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The information about Harry T. Moore in this section is completely incorrect. Moore was born and spent his entire life in Florida -- NOT Georgia -- and was the founder of the first branch of the NAACP in Florida and later head of NAACP in Florida. He was killed in his home outside Orlando. His killing was the beginning of a period of intense KKK activity in Florida known as the 'Florida Terror.' The information provided in the KKK wiki conflicts with the Wiki's own page on Harry Moore. I would love to correct this, but I don't know how to sign-in to a semi-protected page. Ngoyela (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that error. Correction is made.--Parkwells (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert from banned user

Jerry Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned years ago for aggressive POV pushing on articles like this. His recent sock account has been Jeremy221 (talk · contribs). That account made major edits to this article last month. I've tried to revert most of those edits, but unfortunately I may have undone some good edits at the same time.[19] Please feel free to make any changes necessary. I'll keep reviewing the past edits to see if any changes should be made. Thanks for your patience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured?

This article is 'featured'? Does that mean it's supposed to be 'good'? So the typos, the misspellings, the incredible grammatical mistakes, and the broken sentences - they're also part of this feature?

Notes section missing citation

Horn, Stanley F. Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation: Montclair, NJ, 1939.

Homophobia?

Last I understood, phobia means "fear." Is this a biased term? Perhaps we should replace it with "anti-homosexuality" or something similar to remove the assumption that they all quiver in fear of the Gay Rights Movement. The Klan, love them or hate them, are pretty brave and unafraid. 207.43.79.22 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While phobia literally means "fear," in this context, "homophobia" is used to mean one who hates gays, not actually fears them. The Swagga 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The well accepted meaning of the term "homophobia" is hatred or dislike of homosexuals. Language being relative, words have only as much meaning as we give them (for example, there is no one to say we couldn't make homophobia mean, for example, what we now describe as "cup") and the majority of people give the above stated meaning to the term homophobia. Very few people reading the article will mistake "homophobia" for "fear of homosexuals" unless they are young and this is their first time hearing the term. Jaimeastorga2000 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "the well-accepted meaning" of "homophobia," unless you refer to the "well-accepted meaning" by those who want "homophobia" _to mean_ hatred or dislike of homosexuals. Personally, I've heard the word "homophobia" probably as long as it's been in use, and I still am unwilling to use it to mean "hatred of homosexuals," or allow its use in that particular context to go unchallenged. Our language is still based in words that have other words at their roots, and "homophobia" is still, quite literally, the "fear of," not the "hatred of," homosexuals or homosexuality. I, too, agree that "anti-homosexuality" or something similar sums up the meaning quite admirably, and without pandering to the "gay rights" movement and the misuse of the English language that they may feel they require to make their points, attempting to make it appear that straights are "afraid" they'll become homosexual if they associate with homosexuals (and this was the original usage of "homophobia," by the way). After all, look at what's happened to the use of the word "gay" itself. I suggest "hatred of homosexuality" in place of "homophobia." It is both specific and accurate, whereas "homophobia" is neither. 66.32.35.45 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Homophobia" would technically denote an intense and irrational fear of homosexuals, which isn't what I think the KKK is exhibiting here, I think. JamesMcCloud129 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm 14 and I know homophobia DOES mean fear OR hatred of homosexuals. --• Storkian • 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • English words are defined by how they are used, not by how they should be used. Read the preface to any good dictionary. That said, clarifying the language used in the article is a worthwhile pursuit. Perhaps "violence and threats against homosexuals" is the clearest way to explain the KKK's activities. --Dystopos 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Strictly speaking homophohobia means a fear of the same (see the wiki article). The word's current use came about pretty much from gay rights propaganda (not saying they're wrong, but that's just what it is) in an attempt to make the prosecution of gays sound like the prosecutor's problem and that it is without reason.
IE saying 'He doesn't like spiders' or that someone is 'Anti-Spider' seems like the problem is with the spider and that there's a reason why they don't like spiders. Saying someone has 'Arachnophobia' means they have an irrational fear of spiders and it's basicly their problem not the spiders.
Basicly same deal here they added the phobia suffix to make it sound like an irrational fear and to make it sound scientific. I guess if the kkk has some sort of rational basis for their hatred of gays (unlikely) they wouldn't really be called homophobic...--Reyals 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Just because someone has a fear of something doesn't mean they run away screaming (though generally....) take xenophobia for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyals (talk • contribs) 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I used to hate white people because in my birthcountry which is "Iran", the News showed white men with the american flag on them killing people who attacked the people in israel (or something like that I don't remember i was 5). I was mind controlled by propaganda. I wasn't afraid of the white people when I came to Canada but I did hate them. Then I saw gay pride parades which also made me feel sick (not scared or angry lol). When phobias are stimulated, arbitrary psychological reactions occur. Although in most dictionaries, "Phobia" means "an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations" you may not necessarily find "feeling sick to the stomach" or "urge to defacate" because they are not general reactions found when one's phobia is stimulated. They are classified as manias manics depressions or other psychological abnormalities. But please do remember that a phobia is a psychological term that can lead to psychological patterns that do not necessarily have to be hatred or being afraid. Think of a phobia as a synonym of the word resisting.

Btw, I am not xenophobic anymore. In fact, I am an athiest despite the fact that I was born in an islamic nation.

--• Storkian • 01:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Klan, love them or hate them, are pretty brave and unafraid."

Are you kidding me? Do you really think following mob rule and literally hiding under sheets are signs of bravery?69.232.98.42 23:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

I would have to agree the Klan are pretty brave people. They will act for what they believe in knowing full well what the consequences of those actions are, including the death penalty for pre-meditated murders if caught (though this was rare), and easily including sentences of jail time which would include most of their remaining lives.

Of course, the civil rights advocates of the era were damn brave people, too, also knowing that while speaking for what they advocated, they might get a surprise visit from the Klan one night, or simply be lynched by nearby, not too friendly people.

I don't agree with the Klan in the least, but I think 207.43.79.22 is right. Love them or hate them, they are (or, at least, in the time when they were taking extreme action for their beliefs, they were) brave people, willing to die or be sent to prison for their cause.

One final note on homophobia, lookie here:

"In its more recent usage, dating from 1969, "homophobia" derives from the -phobia ending applied, not to the Latin root "homo", but to a shortening of homosexual. (Here, homo comes not from the Latin for "man", but from the Greek for "same"; see homosexual.) The word first appeared in print in an article written for the American Time magazine, 31st October edition. [1] It was used by clinical psychologist George Weinberg, who claims to have first thought of it while speaking at a homophile group in 1965, and was popularized by his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual in 1971."

Whatever the reason the word emerged, the fact it that it is by far the most recognized word to highlight anti-homosexual feelings and actions, without meaning "being afraid of homosexuals" except in the most literal of senses. It may seem like a slanted word or biased term, but I honestly believe everybody will understand what is meant. I believe I said this before. If what we know call cup, that little thing which we use to hold liquids, we instead called "license," everybody would understand what was meant when somebody said "can you make me a license of tea, please?" It all depends on how a word is used, accepted, and written in the dictionary.

I believe the Bard put it best.

"O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, And I’ll no longer be a Capulet."

"Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself.”

Awwww... that brought back memories. I read that part when we were doing Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade. I think I made a pretty good Juliet, ^.^

Though my friend Karim said I was gay for it. XD Jaimeastorga2000 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on where you live. Where I live on the border of two states, people to the north think it means hatred, and people to the South think it means fear.

Technically using the suffix -phobia to denote a dislike as well as a fear isn't uncommon. Examples include Xenophobia (fear/dislike of strangers or foreigners) and more recently "Islamophobia". Its also worth noting, as posted above, if one defines homophobia by is route words rather than its intended definition it describes a fear or hatred of things which are the same.--Bisected8 11:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're looking at fear in the wrong context. Fear isn't only an irrational response to something, like to a spider. Fear can also mean worry. Homophobes are not afraid of homosexuals, but they are afraid of and worried about the consequences for society if homosexuality becomes prevalent. As a result, they are often guilty of violence or discrimination because of their desire to punish homosexuals and to prevent others from becoming gay. Most phobias are irrational aversions, certainly, but like others have said, the term means what we, as the users of the word, define it to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.6.227 (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested addition

This is an interesting article that I found that I thought would be relevant to the article if some of the information could get added, but I just don't know where! Perhaps a more experienced wikipedian could read through it then add where they feel relevant?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/national/main2454885.shtml

Lincoln Controversy

The Klan has in fact hid many facts about Lincoln. Upon also reading messages on the Knights 311.org forum, posted by a username Michael Smith, I have discovered more and more facts the Klan have hid about these Lincoln speeches.

Um...POV???

Ah, is it just me, or does this article seem to be veering ever-so-slightly in favour of the Ku Klux Klan? It seems to go on about them as if their bigotry and racial hatred was just every day behaviour, which is utterly ridiculous. Maybe it's just me. I don't know. 81.145.242.136 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seemed quite neutral to me, but not sure about this bit:

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, headed by National Director Pastor Thom Robb, and based in Zinc, Arkansas. Mainsite, [4] Claims to be biggest Klan organization in America today. It refers to itself as the "sixth era Klan" and proves to be no longer a hate group.

Shouldn't that be "claims to be"? Or has some official study been done which proved they weren't promoting any kind of hate? Orlando12 23 August 2007

I agree with Orlando12 on the quote proves to be no longer a hate group. At the very least, I would say that the "proof" is lacking. I will give some time for this proof, but in lieu of such I will recommend a change to "claims to be no longer a hate group." Wdavis1911 10:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The declaration that a group is a hate group is tricky as it is really a POV statement unless properly sourced. Likewise the claim that the group is not is also POV. We should say they claim to no longer be a hate group and I have so changed it. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I contest that. I don't think we should even say they CLAIM to no longer be a hate group. Want proof? Here's a reminder of what the KKK itself state they are against: Black people. Jewish people. Gay people. Communists. And Nativists. I'm sure they CLAIM they aren't a hate group. Mind you, so did the Nazis. I'm sure KKK members will be happy enough to ludicrously defend their stupid little organization, in a similar way to how Adolf Hitler basically tried to incinuate that there was no torture going on during Nazi reign. What they claim to be or not to be is irrelevant. I say get rid of that sentence altogether. --172.209.69.126 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

/golfclap 86.144.147.49 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


godwins law. While the KKK and the nazis are certainly related in many respects, the passion about the subject as a whole is getting in the way of making the article better. I share your viewpoint, but try to tone it down and make your comments more productive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.6.227 (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Why is this page protected, I can't find any info on it and there is a stray quotation mark that is driving me crazy... 12.110.35.99 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Realized I wasn't signed inRobert Beck 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Are lynching pictures appropriate?

It just seems unneeded and insensitive to me...what do you guys thing? Mwv2 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They are awful but they do belong as they are part of the undeniable record of the Kluxers. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't belong here. It's alright to talk about the lynching of Michael Donald, but for God's sake, there was no need for that! I had sleepless nights for a week! Changes are in order. 172.209.69.126 10:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to understand the evil the KKK has done, one must present the complete historic record. For example, the Holocaust article has pictures of a child dying in the streets and mass collections of dead bodies. I find those photos just as disturbing as I find the lynching photos here. But this info needs to be part of the historic record so people can learn about the horrors associated with such horrible acts. While I appreciate your offended sensabilties, that is no reason to censure important historic images.--Alabamaboy 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll just ignore the 'Later Klans' section from now on then. 172.206.62.37 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the photo of Michael Donald needs to be included. I think it is offensive, too. We don't have photos of all the lynchings; we don't need to see photos of every murder committed to understand how terrible the acts were.--Parkwells 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some might find lynching pictures offensive. But that's what the Klan is: offensive. It would be offensive to the concepts of truth and honesty to try to hide this. Prophaniti (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Profanity - it is relevant to the article. Also, by the Content Disclaimer, some stuff on wiki may be shocking. mattbuck (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, why don't we just show images of every rape, shooting, stabbing, lynching, or beating to death which ever occured? After all, according to you people, it would be "over-sensitive" not to. Fitzy's Claw (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming those images are relevant to the article, and that article itself is notable. Therefore, it would be not possible to show every rape, shooting, stabbing, lynching, or beating to death as most of them are non-notable. --BirdKr (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the pictures add a lot to the article. While they are distasteful, they are an effective way of communicating how horrible the Klans actions were. And while the words present on the page can be denied by people who want to ignore what happenned or lie to themselves about the truth, the pictures can't be denied. There are far worse pictures out there. Be glad there aren't ones of lynch victims like Emmet Till. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.6.227 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Time Magazine (October), 1969
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ku_Klux_Klan/Archive_7&oldid=1257936295"