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)

As meaningless terms like left or right are in themselves, Hitler and the Nazis never were considered "left-wingers" either. Hitler's party wasn't the "Socialist Party" but the "National-Socialist Workers Party]], located on the extreme right of Germany's political spectrum back then. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In contemporary America, support for integration, civil rights (in its colloquial sense), and racial justice are concerns that are classified as "left wing." The Klan opposes the "left wing" positions on these matters, and is therefore "right wing." That's not to say the Klan is Republican, or even that people who are "right wing" on other issues sympathize with the Klan. But there's no credible argument that the Klan is not "right wing" in its positions.

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)

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)

All the historians pay attention to the costume issue. 1) It really grabbed attention and still does; (eg "Birth of a NAtion") 2) it permitted 2nd KKK--a secret organization--to operate in public--Especially in terms of parades and marches. 3) Sales of the costume was the chief funding for the 2nd KKK. 4) In terms of activities, public costumed operations were the major activity of the second KKK. Rjensen (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Strom, you wrote, "The guideline only says that it is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"". You left out the last part of the sentence, "in which case use in-text attribution." "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source." It means we would not say they were racist, but that they have been described as racist. And of course, while racism was the raison d'etre of most Klan organizations, many focused on anti-Catholicism, anti-radicalism or other issues. BTW, the United Klans of America now allows African Americans to join,[1] although Canadians are still excluded. Of course that does not mean they are not racist, but if we were to say sources consider them racist, we would have to mention that they deny it. TFD (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but you are simply repeating the mistake of this article: spending so much time going out of your way to painstakingly describe all of the exceptions that you barely mention, let alone explain, the core race-oriented beliefs that are endemic to many (but not all) groups of the KKK, independent or otherwise, across many (but not all) time periods. Strom (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, you can't paint with that broad a brush. Many 2nd Klan groups were closer to Elks then anything best described as 'racist'. I think this conversation might go easier if you could tell us what specific changes you'd like to make. Not just "the tone needs to be harsher", but "In this sentence, it should be phrased this way". Achowat (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling of one word

In the first line, it is written "leasers" instead of "leaders", someone please edit this.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Please change the following:

"All have called for purification of American society, and all are considered part of right-wing extremism" at the end of the first paragraph to: " All have called for purification of American society." because the original formation of the clan was entirely of the democratic party, and the 2nd iteration was mostly of the democratic party as is mentioned further down the article itself. Here are some excerpts from the article that back up the reason for my suggested edit:

In relation to the first formation of the klan, "the Klan's primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments..." "Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic" "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party" "The members of the first Klan in the South were exclusively Democrats"

In relation to the resurgence in the 1920's, " It had a national base by 1925. In the South, where the great majority of whites were Democrats, the Klansmen were Democrats. In the rest of the country, the membership comprised both Republicans and Democrats, as well as independents" "In the South, Klan members were still Democratic, as it was a one-party region for whites. Klan chapters were closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government"

In fact, nowhere in the article is the Klan membership referenced as being comprised of a majority of Republicans. Therefore, the last sentence of the first paragraph is misleading and should be changed to show either no party affiliation, or that it has been mostly comprised of Democratic members.

Artistmcgill (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: There are sources cited in the lede that support the KKK being considered right wing extremists. This sentence does not say anything whatsoever about party affiliation, nor does it say anything about the Klan being primarily composed of Republicans. You are confusing Far-right politics with being the same thing as Republicans. Cannolis (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)