Talk:Ku Klux Klan

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. :)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

I would like to know how the KKK is now considered a Right-Wing Group? Because if History is proof, Hitler also wanted a pure race & his party was the Socialist Party in Germany "Left Winger" 2601:7:5900:878:8947:BC17:BCC0:B63F (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No need for change. The KKK never endorsed socialism in any form. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a "please change X to Y" request. Given that Hitler and the Nazis are not the same group as the Klan (they are only really known to share opinions on race) and therefore could have entirely different opinions about economics, you'll need a reliable source for the Klan not being extremely conservative or left-wing or socialist or anything like that. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the unabridged version of "A short history of Reconstruction, 1863-1877" by Eric Foner.
The Knights of The Ku Klux Klan is a terrorist hate group that started as a social club for confederate soldiers, that coincidentally (feigning shock) hated Northerners and blacks, after "The War of Northern Oppression". It evolved quickly. They were accused, rightly so, of attacking and killing blacks and Republicans both in the former Union and the former Confederacy. AFAIK they don't have a Socialist or Conservative message No matter what the politics of the writer... calling the Klan a Right-Wing-Extremist group is not any more correct than labeling the John Birch Society a Left-Wing-Extremist organization.
The Klan are most assuredly Democrats even though many in that party wouldn't like to admit that fact. The Democrat party is often associated with Left wing causes but the Klan itself is neither Right or Left wing. What they are is a terrorist hate organization that claims superiority of the "White Race" and hates blacks, Jews, and "mud races" and the people that support them. Why do they identify with the Democrat party and not Republican? The Republican party was established for the express purpose of abolishing slavery. The Republican party was blamed, rightly so, for the war between the states and the freedom of Blacks and "mud races" the Klan hates. The Republican party was held responsible for winning the War of Northern Oppression, freeing "Inferior black and mud race" slaves, and worse yet (to the Klan) passing legislation to codify blacks civil rights after the war. Even more distastefully, for the Klan, was the acceptance of black men as Republican Senators and Congressmen as well as state legislators starting immediately after the war. The Republican president went so far as to press for and sign laws to completely outlaw the Klan but the Supreme Court eventually struck that legislation down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.230.43 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please review the talk page archives. Yes, the KKK was established by Democrats. It was and is, however, right wing -- as repeatedly established and discussed to death in the archives. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the talk archives. The placement of political affiliation in the headline of the article is a calculated effort to paint this group as one "wing" or the other. Your reliable sources are hopelessly mired in their own political bias. My assumption that this was an attempt at being scholarly and as unbiased as possible is obviously mistaken. I will leave you to your transparently obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.230.43 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, too long, did not read. TFD (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversial intro change

Regarding SummerPhD's edit here:

It's my belief that the intro to Ku Klux Klan is sanitized to the point of being inaccurate. Per WP:Bold, I support the changes made by User:Runikmehrotra. Similarly, I had to add the word "racism" a few weeks ago, as it was nowhere to be found in the intro section of the article (and is currently only found elsewhere once in the article). Take a look at Encyclopedia Britannica. Or take a look at encyclopedia.com. I realize we're not EB, but they both provide a valid frame of reference and the disparity is objectively quite apparent.

Let's be blunt: it is likely that white supremacists constantly make subtle edits this article to keep it from describing the KKK in any sort of negative light, gradually whittling away at edits that don't sound "historical". Again, I think WP:Bold urges us to not be so protective of the status quo, especially in situations such as these.Strom (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Ku Klux Klan (KKK), or simply "the Klan", is the name of a terrorist organization guilty of starting three distinct movements in the United States."

I reverted on two grounds:

1) Without regard for whether it is correct or not, calling the Klan a "terrorist organization" in the lede is a substantial change that will need to be discussed to withstand the scrutiny it will no doubt attract. Now is as good a time as any to have that discussion. My gut feeling is that it is an accurate description. However, I would prefer that the description be sourced.

2) Saying they are "guilty of starting" three movements is very odd wording. "Guilty"? Is starting the movements a crime? Have they denied starting the movements? I would suggest less loaded language about establishing the movements (incarnations of the KKK) while perhaps punching up the descriptions of those "movements". - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• I support SummerPhD's assessment. It's the right call. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

To say the KKK "started three movements" is highly confusing & does not follow the reliable sources. Note that after the first KKK died out in 1870s, there were no Klans anywhere and the United States. The nonexistent KKK could not and did not start anything. Entirely new people appeared in the 1910s who who had no direct connection with the original KKK. They did have organizational plans--They tried to copy what they knew from history books, folklore, and the "Birth" film. The second klan was indeed an organized national movement. Its chapters in the 1920s were always started by paid organizers assigned by a state organizer & following a specific formula. The first Klan In the 1860s was organized only at the local level. The locals ("Klaverns") were independent secret groups that had no direct connection with any other Klan. That is, local individuals heard about the KKK and decided to emulate it locally. Likewise, the third or current KKK is a matter of individuals secretly forming a local group according to what they read in the media. The historians do not report either for the first or the third KKK that separate chapters collaborated with each other or formed regional or state organizations. As for racism, that was a hallmark of the first & the third KKK. The second KKK is different, for racial issues were much less important than religion. Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Strom's edit. The Klan did not start three movements, the Klan was three distinct movements - probably four, because the modern fourth Klan is different from the post-war Klan of the 40s, 50s and 60s. Also only the first Klan was a terrorist organization, but it is anachronistic to call it that, since it was not until the late 1960s that the term was used to describe violent political groups in the US. By terrorist organization, I mean an organization set up to carry out terrorist acts, rather than an organization that among other things carries out terrorist acts. TFD (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Misreading a poor source -- not what we want in this article

We have the statement by Alesha E. Doan (2007). Opposition and Intimidation:The abortion wars and strategies of political harassment. University of Michigan. p. 26.. Doan is not a historian or expert on the KKK. she is paraphrasing an anonymous pamphlet published by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Center had some anonymous students prepare a pamphlet without footnotes, and it is not a reliable source. However Doan misrepresents what the pamphlet actually says. Doan says: "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, by the 1870's the Klan had proven very effective at getting white southerners sole control of state governments and implementing segregation." The pamphlet says: "By the mid 1870s, white Southerners didn’t need the Klan as much as before because they had by that time retaken control of most Southern state governments." Note also that segregation began in the 1880s, more than a decade after the Klan had completely disappeared (C Vann Woodward, Strange career of Jim Crow). For a topic as controversial and as thoroughly studied by scholars as the KKK, we need to use very good reliable sources... The bibliography is full of such high quality material. Doan's book does not qualify-- she bases her knowledge of the KKK on the pamphlet, and then misreads it. Rjensen (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Note also that segregation began in the 1880s, more than a decade after the Klan had completely disappeared." You're suggesting that the KKK actually disappeared? You don't think it was just driven underground and instead that people just changed their minds and stopped working together to bring about changes (such as segregation) that harmed blacks? That defies logic. Strom (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

it disappeared from sight = everyone agrees. Was it secretly in underground operation? no RS that I have seen claims that it was in operation in any form in the 1880s and 1890s when Jim Crow was set up along with disfranchisement. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Questions: 1) Who is Doan? 2) Where can I see this paper? 3) Why are we quoting her and not the SPLC source? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

we are discussing the removal of this text from the article: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, by the 1870's the Klan had proven very effective at getting white southerners sole control of state governments and implementing segregation. Alesha E. Doan (2007). Opposition and Intimidation:The abortion wars and strategies of political harassment. University of Michigan. p. 26. The text was added on april 11 by a now-blocked User:Bullets and Bracelets (a sock puppet). Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I know what we're discussing. I'm asking questions about what we're discussing. Isn't Doan the author? My question is: who is she? What are her credentials? What context was this paper? Was it a doctoral dissertation? Asking for some info. Then I asked where I could see the paper myself, so I could discuss it intelligently. So I'm not sure what makes you think you needed to tell me what we're talking about... 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I provided a link to the book below and a quick Google search finds her page on her university's website.[1] TFD (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to leave the wrong impression of my denigrating Professor Doan. She is an excellent political scientist and I admire her work. As more or less an aside, she commented on the KKK in useful fashion, but I think she made a mistake in one sentence about it. That is the sentence that got added to this article. Rjensen (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen. I would also point out that we should always use the most relevant sources. A book about the modern abortion debate is not the most relevant source for the Ku Klux Klan in the 19th century. In this case, the error about the start of segregation is unimportant to what the author was writing about and hence less likely to be detected when reviewing the book than say in reviewing a book about segregation. And yes the KKK disappeared. Here is a link to Doan's book, the page used was 26. While the SPLC is a good source for the current KKK, I would not use them for topics outside their expertise. TFD (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

On the demise of the first KKK, here's what leading expert Eric Foner says: "By 1872, the federal government's evident willingness to bring its legal and coercive authority to bear had broken the Klan's back and produced a dramatic decline in violence throughout the South. So ended the Reconstruction career of the Ku Klux Klan." [Foner, Reconstruction (1988) pp 458-459] Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• From looking at her CV and the context of the paper, I don't think using this is appropriate. While she is a professor in poli-sci, her area of expertise seems to be women's studies and abortion issues, not 19th century US politics. Using it is hanging a lot of weight on what is merely a passing mention in a paper about a different topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Great discussion. I now fully understand why this edit was reverted. Thanks to all for their thoughtful comments. Strom (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Too much focus in the intro on costumes instead of actions and beliefs (?)

I have a fairly simple point of feedback on the current introduction: there is far too much weight given to the discussion of costumes (especially in the 3rd para) and very poor summarization of the negative viewpoints or actions of the KKK. I realize this article has many regular, dedicated contributors, and that you may have read and debated over the intro so many times that you may not see it, but the intro is extremely watered down to the point of barely explaining what the KKK actually is/was. There seems to be a fear of mentioning anything negative. For example, the word "racism" is only in the intro because I added it a few weeks ago. It is okay to say factual things that are negative about an organization that has done bad things. It's not pushing a point of view to mention murder or lynchings, with appropriate context, in the summary of the KKK.

In contrast, I think it's worth glancing through the Encyclopedia Brittanica article. While I appreciate the enormous amount of detail in the Wikipedia entry and would agree the Brittanica article is embarrassingly short, the contrast in tone with regard to topics of terrorism, murder and hate is striking. I really think the current Wikipedia article does a poor job of actually explaining (especially in the intro) to a 5th-grader or anyone else who isn't familiar with the KKK, what the organization is/was about. It reads like a historical dissection at the beginning of an academic paper instead of an actual summary that captures the essence of the KKK for a layperson -- which is certainly not just costumes and parades (in the second KKK of the 1920s), as the intro would have one believe. Strom (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the KKK is actually numerous independant groups that have emerged over 150 years, It is difficult to say much that applies to all of them. Some Klan groups for example were not racist. Also, the "Contentious labels" guideline explicitly restricts the use of terms such as racist. The tone is supposed to be non-judgmental. The factual statements we make should be about what they did, and we should not add "and those were bad things." TFD (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are entirely incorrect in stating that "Contentious labels" guideline explicitly restricts anything at all. There is nothing that should cause us to be so ignorant as to be afraid to use the word *racist* in an article on the Ku Klux Klan. The guideline only says that it is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Surely we can find a few reliable sources that associated racism with some of the Klan groups (!!). While I agree that not every one of the KKK movements and groups is necessarily defined by racism, I think it is willfully ignorant to suggest that it is not a relevant theme worth mentioning or that it isn't common amongst many of these independent groups.Strom (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I revised the lede to emphasize the key characteristics (of which costumes was indeed important--to this day they grab your attention.) Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't see how all the detail about the costumes needs to be in the introduction; I think it muddles up the timeline that the 3rd pargraph is attempting to lay out, e.g. "a standard white costume (sales of which together with initiation fees financed the movement)" is too much detail in the intro. Just my opinion, though. Strom (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)