Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Question

Isn't it anachronistic to call the first KKK a right-wing movement? The left vs. right view of politics is a European concept, had it reached American shores by then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.150.238 (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bad Grammar

There's a grammatical failure in the 'First Ku Klux Klan' section. There's a full-stop followed by a lowercase 'by' which doesn't make sense. I don't seem to have the rights to edit this. Feel free to have a look at it or grant me rights to edit.

Similar change--the Greek word kyklos is misspelled. thank you. :)

KKK was "unconnected in fact with the lynching of Leo Frank" say historians

Wiki can drop the Leo Frank lynching as a cause of KKK. Historian Thomas Pegram reports "historians have found no firm connections between the lynchers, who called themselves the Knights of Mary Phegan and the revived Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and The KKK was "unconnected in fact with the lynching of Leo Frank." Pegram notes that two men who became prominent KKKers called for clemency for Frank (Frank was lynched when the governor did give clemency.) Thomas R. Pegram (2011). One Hundred Percent American: The Rebirth and Decline of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Ivan R. Dee. p. 158-59. What happened says Pegram is that the KKK founders later repeatedly claimed the connection in order to get publicity for themselves. There is no point in Wiki repeating the old false KKK claims as true. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplify the lede

I tried to simplify the lede by explaining in a nutshell the KKK history. I dropped a bunch of footnotes that talk mention the Klan as a "far right" movement--all these cites refer to the current Klan, not to the pre-1950 era. I read through the first 50 abstracts of 115 scholarly articles & book reviews that deal with the "far right" (using "America History and Life). All of the articles and books start after 1950, and usually after 1980. Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You realize, though...that you're opening a can of worms, considering the average "But the KKK was started by Left-Wing Democrats!" troll's absurd "arguments". The "over"-footnoting was intended as a kind of shock & awe campaign to try to pre-emptively stop at least SOME of the conspiracy wackos... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 02:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. While the modern klan is far right, sources do not describe the first or second klans, or perhaps even the original third klan that way. Also, the changes were a helpful improvement. Don't worry about the trolls. TFD (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

I've been playing with this a bit, thought I guess really we should use {{Infobox militant organization}} instead.--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan
The cross with "blood drop", a common symbol since the 2nd Klan.
Leader	Velupillai Prabhakaran
Dates of operation	1st Klan: 1865 (1865)-1870s 2nd Klan: 1915 (1915)-1944 3rd Klan: 1946 (1946)-present
Motives	Support of racial segregation and voter suppression of minorities in the United States, as expressed in the Jim Crow laws. Historically, opposition to Reconstruction.
Active regions	United States, particularly the Southern United States.
Ideology	1st Klan: White supremacy, Vigilantism 2nd Klan: White nationalism, Christian terrorism, Nativism, Anti-Catholicism, Antisemitism 3rd Klan: Anti-communism, Homophobia, Neo-Nazism
Major actions	Numerous lynchings, other violent crimes.and crimes of intimidation
Notable attacks	16th Street Baptist Church bombing and many others.
Status	No national organization, numerous independent chapters.
Size	8,000 members
Annual revenue	?
Means of revenue	British Tamils Forum, Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora and other NGOs.

Why do you have a leader of the Tamil Tigers listed as leader of the KKK? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Because he copied the Tamil infobox and forgot to change several fields. I suggest having very few fields because the purpose of the infobox is to provide key data. Where this is ambiguous complex or disputed, it is better to omit it and discuss it in the article. I would limit the fields to the following:

Active region: United States

Ideology: far right

Size: 8,000 members

Years active: 1865-present

Rjensen has pointed out that they were not always far right, but that is their current ideology, just as 8,000 members is their current size and the United States is their current active region. (They were once active in Canada too, although Canadians were not allowed to join the klan in the U.S.)

TFD (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although I didn't so much forget to fix the fields, but rather got stuck on filing them all out, and planned to post a half-completed version that others could help finish :) I can see the value of conciseness in the infobox in a number of aspects (the Tamil Tigers one is quite bloated), but I think a shortening more like at Red Army Faction would work. While "far right" is accurate to the current Klan, it's a very generic description, and I think it provides value to the reader to see how their ideology has radically evolved over time (e.g., the introduction of nativism in the 2nd Klan, the introduction of neonazism in the contemporary Klan).--Pharos (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the current status is sufficient. Organizations change. The United States infobox for example shows current flag, capital, president, area, population, etc. TFD (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

The Ku Klux Klan was a left wing movement. It was started by defeated members of the southern states after the Civil War. In the Wikipedia KKK page it is even stated that the KKK promoted violence against african americans and REPUBLICANS. The southern democrats, in response to the reconstruction efforts of the federal government, carpetbagers and southern collaboraters, formed the KKK. Refreshit (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No. You are completely misrepresenting the facts, as the Southern Democrats who started the KKK were Right-Wingers, and the Radical Republicans that they opposed were about as Left-Wing as you could be in 19th century America. Please stop getting your "history" from the dropouts who pollute the AM radio waves with their crackpot, wacky conspiracy theories, and read the talk page before making edit requests that have been rejected a bajillion times. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The Southern Democrats were right-wing and would remain so until after the Civil Rights Act, when African Americans, who had formerly supported the Republicans, moved to the Democratic Party and conservative whites moved to the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists 26 Confederate Governors. ALL Democrats.

"...the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Confederate_state_governors http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwalt2990 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and? You're not likely to find any Confederate governor who was of the party of Lincoln. The traditional racist Southern Democrats became Republicans only in the mid-20th century. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's a pretty broad (and flawed) generalization. Plenty of racist Democrats still left in the south. Racism isn't limited to a party. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You should explain what changes to the article you wish to make, but I will anticipate them. The article explains the relationship between the KKK and the Democratic Party. And the Southern Democrats were right-wing or "conservative." TFD (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we see this sorta stuff because someone somewhere is encouraging people to troll the "libs" by pointing out that the KKK was a Democratic operation, assuming somehow that the "libs" are as ignorant of history as the trolls themselves are. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The only way that this will EVER end...is through ridicule. You can show these uneducated, ignorant types all the facts in the world...and they'll just claim it's "Left-Wing Propaganda" or some other wacky conspiracy. They're egged on by the dropouts that pollute the AM waves with their nonsense, and apparently they are going to continue this kind of stuff until people shame and ridicule them. Take off...nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do Southern Republicans insist on flying the Stars and Bars at state capitals, keeping statues of Nathan Forrest, celebrating Southern Heritage, re-enacting the Civil War and calling the Civil War a war of Northern aggression? TFD (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are INFANTILE and irrelevant. Why don't you just EXPLAIN why the Democrat Party considered to be "right" in its darkest times?? he is completely right. Instead of calling him a troll, Show me the source telling the Democratic and Republican party have switched.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.142.136 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

"They have all emphasized secrecy and distinctive costumes, and all have called for purification of American society, and all are considered right-wing"

Poorly sourced and blatantly political statement. The books cited are clearly biased sources with their overtly political conclusions baked right into the titles: "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort" and "The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics". Furthermore the association is not explained or developed elsewhere in the article, which betrays entirely the lack of substance behind it. Anyone can find a source these days that accuses a political wing of racism, fascism, neo-Nazism etc (i.e. Liberal Fascism, ISBN 0-385-51184-1). Such contentious shots across the bow should be well-explained to eliminate any doubt of bias or omitted entirely.

186.108.64.98 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Articles should be based on reliable sources, which is met by both books you cite as used in the article. The source you present (Liberal Fascism) is not. TFD (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. We could easily add even more RS sources describing the KKK as "Right-Wing", but it is moot, since the above sources are sufficient. No RS describes the KKK as "Left-Wing", and Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" has been ridiculed by historians ever since its publication. Goldberg has no credentials whatsoever, and is simply a journalist who wrote a polemic book of silliness. It is as much "RS" as it would be to include a book written by Michael Moore or George Clooney on a page as "sources" regarding Conservative groups. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as explained above, and as you have not supplied even one reliable source to try and contradict the sources cited - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He did supply reliable source, you just ignored it. This book is reliable and available in the most Prestigious libraries in the world, including The Congress Library.