Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Basic problems with this article

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

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

Leo Frank

I see that the section about Leo Frank was deleted. If I understand correctly, the people who lynched him called themselves "The Knights of Mary Phagan". To what extent were or weren't these persons the KKK under another label? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the diff. Since posting my question, I've started looking for sources about this. I do not see anything that says that "The Knights of Mary Phagan" actually were the KKK in any formal sense, but I'm finding several academic sources that describe them as having led directly to the resurgence of the KKK, which I think might be appropriate to add back to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A short version of the Leo Frank story IS included here in the origins section, and that's plenty. the KKK did not exist when Frank was lynched. It was founded later, so all the details of the Frank lynching belong in the Leo Frank article. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are referring to, in the section about "Refounding in 1915". I would tend to agree with you that we don't need a lengthy description here of the entire Frank affair, but I would argue that it's germane to bring back a little more about the ways in which it contributed to the refounding, such as the role of Thomas E. Watson. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Watson was a hater all right, but he had no direct connection with the KKK (Vann Woodward, Tom Watson, Agrarian Rebel p 450, says "If Watson had any hand in launching the new organization, no record has been found that reveals it." Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was influenced by what this page previously said. Would it be accurate to characterize him as having inflamed the social environment in a way that contributed to the KKK's re-emergence, even if he was never affiliated with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish - In view of the Vann Woodward quote provided by Rjensen, I think the standard would be high for mentioning Tom Watson in conjunction with the KKK. I think what you wrote is probably true to some degree but, without a quote from a reliable source to back it up, it's just original research. For my part, I'd be interested to know what else Woodward says about Tom Watson and the KKK on the rest of page 450 or elsewhere in the book. Does he support Tryptofish's argument that Watson contributed to the "social environment"? IMHO, I suspect that Watson did but not in a way as to make him uniquely notable in this regard. I suspect there was a general public sentiment moving in the direction of the KKK and Watson was just one exemplar of a wider social trend. But that's just my personal opinion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Woodward emphasizes that Watson was a leader in stirring up race/religion hatred in Georgia. But keep in mind that the Georgia KKK was a small non-violent group that had little impact until entirely new leadership appeared in 1921 and made it national. Outside Georgia the new national organization had no direct connection to Watson or the Frank lynching. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the thoughtful answers. I really was just asking, as someone who is far from expert and simply trying to make sure we were getting the page right. I'm satisfied with these answers. I think the section could be edited a bit for flow, rather than for content or emphasis, and I'll give that a try when I get around to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Membership list from Buffalo KKK chapter now online

Since this article is locked, I leave it to those who are authorized to determine if it is worth adding a link to one of the few digitized Klan members lists. This one is from Buffalo, NY, ca. 1924 and is accompanied by an essay on how Buffalo fought back against the Klan and won.

http://www.newyorkheritage.org/buffalo-kkk-full.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.34.166 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Founder?

I cannot find any RS that has anyone other than Nathan Bedford Forest as the founder. I can find over a dozen with Bedford. What is the source of the first president claim? I have made no edits to the article, as this is not my field but a dozen sources with Bedford and none with "Brian Scates the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan" is pretty striking. Elemming (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012

This article has a huge political bias and is missing very relevant information. In addition, it is factually incorrect. David Duke did not get requests from the Tea Party to run for president. He endorsed the Tea Party, but the Tea Party did not support, nor would they support David Duke. The KKK is not far right-wing. The far right-wing is Evangelical Christian. As Christians, they do not support inequality based on race. To infer that they are "far right" would to imply 'Republican'. As noted in their own agenda:

"These “laws” given to us by the Democrats and Republicans is damaging to the American worker and will eventually put millions upon millions into desperate poverty."

"Cut off trade with countries that refuse to establish strict environmental laws."

"We should promote a fair system that allows for a clean environment in our own country and does not interfere with the free enterprise system. We also promote an aggressive search for and use of non-polluting and clean energy sources such as solar energy."

Dicon369 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

N Not done, you haven't made any actual request for a specific edit, which is the purpose of the template--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)