Talk:Ku Klux Klan

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 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).

umm u should listen 2 where is da luv by black eyed peas people...gosh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.66.185 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 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)

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. 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)

in fact, we love black people.

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

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)

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)

cfdnotice

The related Category:Ku Klux Klan members and Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

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.

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.

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)

The KKK is one of the worst things that ever happened in America.

Vandalism

This opening sentence indicates Vandalism. Can any expert look into it please ? "Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or the Kool Kids Klub are a bunch of inbred maggots who enjoy sucking their own cock. They can all have a suffering bloody death. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=132172611&oldid=131813395 --Ninad 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lbsrbsxty 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)i would like to helpLbsrbsxty 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No of members

it says at the beginning there are 8000 members at present and later it says there's only about 3000 (i think) as of 2005. Also the citation for the 8000 members claim is a broken link. It should be changed

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)

• Unless you can document the connection, it sounds like original research. --Dystopos 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, the link between the two is tenuous at best and unless its written up in a reliable source it really can't stay. Thanks. JodyB _talk 03:25, 13 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)

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)

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)

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 ^t_c 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note they are listed on the fascism page under 'neo' Fascist#Neo-fascism ._-zro ^t_c 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 ^t_c 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:

• Ku_Klux_Klan_regalia_and_insignia*List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_U-Z*Fascist#Neo-fascism

outside sources

• THE KU KLUX KLAN AND THE AMERICAN NAZI PARTY: CASE STUDIES IN TOTALITARIANISM AND FASCISM
  • http://www.etext.org/Politics/Progressive.Sociologists/authors/Young.TR/kkk-and-american-nazi-party
• "The Five Stages of Fascism" in The Journal of Modern History (1998)
  • http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/Eugenics/Klan.html
• "fascism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 8 Aug. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117286>.
  • http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-324086/Ku-Klux-Klan

I'd like to know what other think as well. ._-zro ^t_c 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"[1]. 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)

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)

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)

• Offensive to whom? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 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)

• Oh. This is the KKK we're talking about. They do evil things. We're showing an example of their evil. If you're not offended by the KKK, something is wrong with you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 11:17, 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)

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)

Grand wizard or what?

i have heard that the name of the leader of the KKK is not the grand wizard, but also ultimate wizard or somthing along those lines-(my friend knows the ex "grand wizard") i kno that this is not a liable source, but can som1 check it up? bcoz i couldnt find anything about the name being disputed Addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 10:17, 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)