Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Join the klan. The Media is a Bitch.

pov labeling

Note: Talk:KKKK / Archive 8 - section: Christianity (previous related discussion). -PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#WP:LABEL_and_categories, I attempted to relabel ("recategorize") the KKK with "Protestant organization" instead of "Christian terrorist". The reason is as follows: The organization is labeled "terrorist" by the government. The category explains that. It calls itself Christian, so using that is okay. But couldn't find a proper category. It does not call itself "Christian terrorist", which is no surprise, and labeling it that way is WP:OR because it joins the two categories into one by inference.

My changes were reverted.

There are a bunch of "punching bags" like the KKK: Nazis, Hamas, that sort of thing, that the media gangs up on and "everything goes." It would actually be a good test of the encyclopedia to label things objectively no matter what the media does.

This is why "Christian" or "Protestant" should survive and "Christian terrorist" should not. Lets keep this encyclopedic. Too often, we have concentrated on text in the article and overlooked categorizing. This should stop. Categorizing should not be more pov than the article. Quality needs to be kept up. For those interested, join the discussion on this matter listed above. Student7 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a "Protestant Organization" which engages in "Christian Terrorism." This just appears to be part of the recent Revisionist attempts to pretend that Christian Terrorism doesn't exist. Nobody calls THEMSELVES a "terrorist organization," so your attempt to base it on that logic fails. By your "logic," one could not label Al Qaeda an "Islamic Terrorist" organization. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the KKK are not normally referred to as Christian terrorism, but are seen as ethnic/nationalist terrorism. Al Qaeda is considered an Islamic terrorist organization because its objective is to set up an Islamic state. Note that earlier Middle Eastern terrorists who were Muslims, such as members of the Abu Nidal organization or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are never referred to as Islamic terrorists. Christian terrorism btw is extremely rare, as was Islamic terrorism until recent decades. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The KKK's aims and stated goals are openly Christian Supremacist, as I have pointed out on the Christian Terrorism page. Michael [1] and Rosen [2] describe their intent to, "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," [3] and extensively quote many senior Klan officials and publications showing their clear religious orientation: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why...Christian white men are...to give the Jews some of their own medicine..." and "We honor Christ as the Klansman's Only Criterion of Character." Furthermore, one only has to look at any modern KKK organization to see that Christian Supremacism is still as important to their goals as their racial motivations. [4] Either way, Student7's attempt to replace Christian Terrorism with Protestantism is like going to Al Qaeda'a page and replacing Islamic Terrorism with Sunni Islam. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is all original research. The sources describe their actions as "Christian terrorism"? The KKK does not meet the criteria for religious terrorism, "the use of violence to further divenely commanded purposes".[5] TFD (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How is that "original research?" It's a bunch of quotes from Klan officials and publications, some as old as the early 20th century...including claims that Jesus was the "first Klansman," and that the KKK represented "militant Christianity." The whole organization is filled with Christian symbolism (Burning crosses, anyone?) and their own members are quite open about their motivation being based on their interpretation of Christianity. Furthermore, their opposition to Jews and Catholics is based solely on religious grounds, and particularly with their targeting of Jews as "Christ-killers," they are indeed meeting the criteria of "the use of violence to further divenely commanded purposes." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." You may believe that the actions of the KKK amount to Christian terrorism, but you need a source that makes that conclusion. BTW, do you not believe that the ideology of the Klan may have been motivated, at least in part, by racism? TFD (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the above references are from a well-respected academics. The mere fact that they don't use the term "Christian Terrorism," while they lay out the case for the KKK being an organization based on a racist interpretation of Christianity...amounts to nothing. Furthermore, your final comment is irrelevant. Many Islamic Terrorist organizations have multiple ambitions. Al Qaeda wants to get Western bases out of places like Saudi Arabia...but that doesn't mean that they are simply an "Anti-Western" organization. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The KKK is described as "terrorist" by many authors.[6] However "Christian terrorists" is not so common. In fact, it's specifically rejected by some.[7] Since they were anti-Catholic for much of their existence, the term seems inappropriate anyway. If we were looking for a descriptor, "racial terrorists" would seem closer to the mark. But we should use which terms is most common among reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I also commented at Talk:Christian terrorism, there seems to be relatively little sourcing to establish the KKK as "Christian terrorists", per se. However, there are plenty of sources that discuss the extent to which things like the burning cross have Christian terrorist overtones. Perhaps what would be most useful for this page would be to include more material about the role of Protestantism in the KKK, not with the effect of concluding that they are or were "Christian terrorists", but of putting into context the extent of Christian identity in their history, and in their perception by others. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion (now archived here) also included the relevance of burning crosses, which put me on the fence about using the label of 'Christian terrorism' for the KKK. There are (at least) two separate but related issues I see here: (1) WP:Category as de facto label or not -- which I'm still not sure of, even after discussing this at other articles; and (2) semantics of 'Christian terrorism' -- ie, whether that means they are terrorists in the name of Christiandom or terrorists who happen to be Christian. However, I agree with the OP of this thread that it is the latter connotation. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much like discovering that the KKK were all over six feet tall or under 5 feet, and labeling them as "Six foot terrorists" or "Five foot terrorists", the implication being that people of that height are "inclined" to be terrorists when the relationship is somewhat more non-causal than that.

Originally Nazis pushed an "Aryan" agenda (under the mistaken idea that they were Aryan, BTW). Should they be called "Aryan terrorists"?

Putting two modifiers together into one is generally WP:POV. We don't generally see pov much in article text. We see a lot of it in categories, because categorizing has been ignored by the bulk of serious editors for far too long. And dismissed as "filing nonsense." It is a bit more than that, IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And since much the Klux's activity in the 20s was against Catholics, you'd have to be even more specific. --Dystopos (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That last point is a good one, and shows one of the complicated issues in using such descriptors. There are groups that are widely characterized as Islamic terrorists, but who take sides in disputes between Sunni and Shia. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Protestant terrorism"? Somehow, that doesn't sound sufficiently threatening. Let's go with "Christian terrorism." To heck with accuracy in categorizing! Student7 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Under that "logic," all references to "Islamic Terrorism" must be removed...or at most replaced by new ones like, "Sunni Terrorism." The stated goals and aims of the 2nd KKK onwards are explicitly "Christian Supremacist" and oriented towards more than merely racism against African-Americans. They clearly are aimed at "Christian Nationalism." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that supports your views, otherwise it is just original research. TFD (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I already did...above...You just didn't like them.  ;) Regardless, the comparison to "Islamic Terrorists" under Student7's "logic" is apt. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is related discussion at Talk:Christian terrorism#KKK & cross burning concerning sourcing for Christian motivations behind some of what the Klan did. Perhaps this page, here, needs to be corrected to better reflect what these sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Article merge suggestion

I am recommending that the article 33/5 be merged into the KKK article. For one its a little one line stub and I doubt it will ever be longer than that and it would be better to incorporate into the article as part of the symbology. --Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Call it a "merge" if you want, but there's nothing sourced in the from article. Just make it a redirect here and call it a day. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge or redirect. --Fang Aili ^talk 04:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Merge"/redirect per SummerPhD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If the 33/5 article is merged into the KKK article and a user types 33/5 into a search box, what happens? Is the user taken to the subsection of the KKK article that describes 33/5? --Mikebrand (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The user would be taken either to the top of the KKK page, or to the particular section within it. It depends on how the merge and redirect are done. It's certainly possible to set up a redirect to go to a section of a page, instead of to the top of the page. (See Help:Redirect#Syntax.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support The 33/5 article is too short to stand alone. When a merge is created, that article will become a re-direct to this article and the parts of that article that are notable, neutral and properly sourced will be added to this one. If there is sufficient material for a section, then the re-direct would be to that section. TFD (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge or redirect, especially if 33/5 is incorporated into a symbology section as described by Kumioko and a 33/5 search lands on that section as described by Tryptofish. --Mikebrand (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The 33/5 article contains no information other than the meaning of "33/5" and I don't see the need for a separate article for that Pi (Talk to me! ) 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternative source of KKK name

It is said that the Klan got its name form the Greek Kyklos, meaning a circle. This may be so, but I doubt that there were many persons familiar with Greek abroad in the circles in which the Klan developed. A more likely hypothetical origin is that it derives from ancient Welsh mythology - when the Anglo Saxons and Jutes started to colonise post-Roman Britain many of the Britons were pushed out and fled to Wales, to Ireland, and to Brittany. (Incidentally, persons with the surname 'Walsh' or 'Welsh' in English are called 'Branach' in modern Irish Gaelic, which is a corruption of 'Bretanach', or Briton.)

The KKK name most likely derives from the pre-Celtic mythical character Lleu Llaw Gyffes (Lion of the steady hand) who is a principal character in the Battle of the Trees, an 11th century poetical retelling of a story that was written earlier in the 8th century, which obviously derived from a not only pre-Roman era, but possibly even a pre-Bronze Age time. Lleu Llaw in pronounced in Welsh something like 'clue claw' - the double 'l' calls for a near guttural sibilance at its start, a sound which Anthony Burgess described as a 'swan's hiss'. Thus the sound would have initially been - in the mouths of southern USA Welsh speakers - something like 'klue kla's clan', using the hard Celtic 'c'. The word 'clan' is also Celtic, meaning a family or extended tribal group. It is surely more likely that the Celtic 'clan' was attached to other Celtic names rather than composing some Irish stew of Greek and Celtic words. And the idea of a 'steady hand' in times of catastrophic crisis such as the civil war would surely have been something to be desired.

Lleu Llaw Gyffes was the Welsh / Briton sun-god, very much the equivalent of the Greek Heracles and the Romanised Hercules and the others of that ilk. He symbolised the daily and annual re-birthing of life, he was an 'oak god' who supplanted the previous 'barley god'; he also represented the usurpation of the matriarchal cults of the goddesses Dana and Hera. You can read more about him and others in Robert Graves' wonderful book 'The White Goddess'.

Hugh O'Connor, Sydney, Australia 2011.Swimtwobirds (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

www.swimtwobirds.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimtwobirds (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting speculation, but it contradicts what the reliable sources say. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just goes to show how the 'reliable sources' don't always get it right! They're simply not reliable, if you ask me. That sort of 'sources' are only good for things like 'when it's right to burn witches, and how' and 'the precise numbers of angelic dancers permitted by local ordinances on the heads of pins and associated fire regulations'. Swimtwobirds (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Political Orientation & Religion

How do you know the KKK is/has always been far right christian? Only opinions with no reliable facts are given as evidence.. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.33.151 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not know anything, merely repeat what is provided in reliable sources which you can find by following the footnotes. TFD (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are a multitude of references littered throughout the article stating exactly that. Show me a single reliable source claiming otherwise. Ridiculous. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article links to "Christian Radicalism" under political orientation, yet this article is completely unrelated to the KKK. Indeed, many would argue that the KKK were anything but Christian - surely this article should highlight that in some form or other? 95.144.153.254 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The KKK, at the very least from the "Second KKK" period onwards (which is what most people are familiar with), has been an unabashedly Right-Wing Christian organization. This is easily-verified, and supported by a multitude of references. Their rituals are Christian...They only allow Christians to be members...and if you go to any of the modern Klans' websites, you'll see Right-Wing Christian rhetoric, like this: "Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." -- National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb [8].

Also, pretty much every RS regarding them describes them as overtly Christian, in ritual, symbolism, and membership. For example: "Though similar to the pagan fire festivals of central Europe during the middle ages, the Klan's cross burnings in the 1920s were invariably constrained by Christian ritual. The ceremony opened with a prayer by a 'Kludd,' or Klavern minister. The multitude then sang, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'" Et cetera. (Wyn Craig Wade, "The fiery cross: the Ku Klux Klan in America," Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 185) [9] That's just the first of many easily-obtained sources I found with a quick Google search... The idea that the KKK was not "really" Christian because of what they proposed is called a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and is completely unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We need a source that the Klan has been described that way. It does not appear that the term is used in a consistent way, and would probably better describe supporters of the Underground Railroad and the Civil Rights Movement. TFD (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no sources describing the KKK as a Christian organization? I just posted a couple, above... In addition, the goals of the KKK included, from an early time on, an intent to, "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," and included the belief that "Jesus was the first Klansman." ...as pointed out in our earlier discussion of this matter, with a veritable crapload of reputable sources. [10] Here's another one for you: "The primary role of women in the Klan is indisputably that of creating a Christian nation by breeding as many white Christian children as possible..." [11] How many sources would it take? Five? Fifty? Five hundred? I seriously don't understand how any intelligent person can look at the Klan...a group that talks more about Christianity, and uses more Christian symbolism...than probably any other hate group in the history of the planet...and try to deny this correlation. This kind of Conservative revisionism is not based on fact, but simply on fantasy. As a Liberal, I'd like to believe that the Soviet Union wasn't a Left-Wing dictatorship...but I don't try to edit pages on the Soviet Union claiming that they were _really_ Conservatives, just because I don't want to be associated with them. You might as well go to the Al Qaeda and Taliban pages and remove all references to Islam, as even they don't use as much Muslim symbolism and rhetoric as the Klan uses in regards to Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And while you will certainly fail to concede the point, as before...rather than Christian radicalism, it really should link to Christian terrorism... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are getting off-topic. The term Christian radicalism has no agreed meaning, but appears to have been used to describe groups that opposed slavery and supported civil rights. BTW the Klan did not allow Catholics, foreigners or non-Whites to join, even if they were Christians. TFD (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So? Many Christian groups, organizations, and churches don't allow people, based on different criteria, to join...even if they are Christian. Aryan Nations, and other Christian Identity churches, have similar beliefs about race as the KKK...and are still Christian. Many other Christian organizations will not allow homosexuals, Catholics, or others to join them...even if they are Christian. Your argument is irrelevant. Also, although there were many Liberal Christians involved with the Civil Rights Movement, describing it as "Christian" does a great disservice to the many non-Christians, particularly the many Jews, who died in their support of that movement. And since the Christian radicalism page does not specifically mention the KKK, but the Christian terrorism one does (with RS), I'm sure you'll have no problem with me replacing them. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I could add that Al Qaeda is rather unwelcoming to Shia, although it seems there is sourcing that they are Islamic terrorists. Given that Christian radicals do tend to be left-wing (and let's not get into that left-right thing again here), I think there is a valid case for the change to Christian terrorism. But I also agree that the sourcing has to go with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another ref I'm adding: "Most right-wing terrorist organizations have a Christian ideology in their agenda. Therefore, more details will be presented in this special section on Christianity and terrorism. However, examples from this wing include the following organizations: The Aryan Nations, The Order, The Sword, The Arm of the Lord, and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)." (Aref M. Al-Khattar, "Religion and terrorism: an interfaith perspective," Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, p. 21) In fact, there is a lot of discussion regarding the KKK in this book, including discussions of the whole No true Scotsman fallacy. FTR: I found this book via a favorable review in the peer-reviewed journal, Terrorism and Political Violence (Volume 16, Issue 1 2004 , pages 182 - 195). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that your source groups the KKK under right-wing terrorism[12] which is a separate category from Christian terrorism. Most sources have read group it under nationalist terrorism, which is mentioned on pp. 25-26.[13] TFD (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The source also devotes an entire chapter (ch.8) to Christian terrorism, mentioning the KKK multiple times in reference to it. Most of that chapter is not available for preview, or I'd link directly to it. All "Christian Terrorism" is de-facto "Right-Wing Terrorism." That's like saying that one cannot be both a "Maoist Terrorist" and a "Left-Wing Terrorist." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles must be based on what experts say not on your own personal reasoning. You might want to read literature about the classification of terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just reading what the source says, in the passage that Bryon quotes and to which TFD linked, the authors are clearly saying that the KKK, amongst others, are part of a group that they (the authors) are calling "right-wing terrorists", and that it is characteristic of these groups to "have a Christian ideology in their agenda". That's what the source says. It seems to me to be twisting the facts to try to argue that, somehow, this makes these groups into a category that is not Christian terrorism. It's a mixture of agendas, including but not limited to Christianity, to be sure, but there is no requirement that Christian terrorists not also be other "kinds" of terrorists. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is they do not call it Christan terrorism, which is normally grouped as a type of religious terrorism. See for example Aubrey's "Typologies of Terrorism", pp. 43 ff. Christianity btw is not necessarily right-wing. TFD (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, we keep having this same discussion over and over, but I find it incorrect to read what they are saying as "right-wing terrorism, but not necessarily Christian terrorism", instead of as "right-wing terrorism that is also Christian terrorism". I fully agree with you that Christianity is not inherently right-wing, and that there could in principle be left-wing Christian terrorists. And I have no objection to also adding Aubrey as a refuting source. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot create our own typology of terrorism, which violates original research. The views expressed must have been presented somewhere else first. TFD (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of the source in question specifically referring to the KKK as such: "Christian terrorists also deny that any kinds of victims resulted from their violence. Victims "deserve to be attacked," for example, because they are non-whites as in the case of the KKK, which looks at minorities, Jews, and non-whites as less than human." (p.91) Also, on pages 55-56, a priest attempts to refute the idea of the Klan as a "Christian organization" by using the No true Scotsman fallacy...but even he notes that they, "swore that what they were doing now is saving and protecting Christianity from the evil..." (p.55) Now, even though the priest is saying it in the context of, "They aren't real Christians..." he's proving my point...that Christianity is used as the justification and ideological foundation of the KKK's motivation. It's not a "mainstream" interpretation of Christianity...but the important thing here is what Klanmembers believe they are doing...not whether mainstream Christians view them as legitimately "Christian." (Oh, and I do take back my overly broad statement about all "Christian Terrorism" being "Right-Wing Terrorism." I was thinking from an American perspective...as there are indeed Left-Wing-associated Christian Terrorist outfits that operate in Northeastern India... My point was that they are not exclusive terms. Al Qaeda is also both an example of "Right Wing Terrorism" that is also "Religious Terrorism.") Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD: Of course we cannot do OR. But it isn't OR to go by what the source says. This is what the source says. For you to say it cannot be Christian terrorism because the authors also call it right-wing terrorism, even though the authors actually say it is both, is to disregard the source and do OR of your own. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are data-mining for passing references that appear to support your POV. Where in the book does it defined Christian terrorism? Where are other books that explain this terminology? And no, searching for rs is not OR. TFD (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First, let's not mischaracterize what other editors are saying. I didn't say that searching for RS is OR. I said that disregarding what the source says is OR. And you should be careful about implying POV pushing, lest it boomerang. OK, now to the merits. Actually, the issue of data mining is a very significant one, and I'm receptive to being shown that the authors of this study say something elsewhere that contradicts what was quoted here, showing that the quote here was taken out of context. I would take that very seriously. But if I AGF that the quote above is accurate to what the source says, and you provided a link that actually shows it, then I don't think it's cherry picking to read, on face value, what the source says. It is defining a subtype of terrorism that is both right-wing and Christian. Are there other books that say something different? As I said above, I'm very receptive to citing them too. If they are the scholarly consensus, then present them as the majority view and this source as an outlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD stated, "Where in the book does it defined Christian terrorism?" Answer: Page 29. Then he stated, "Where are other books that explain this terminology?" Answer: As I have pointed out to you previously, on the Christian Terrorism talk page, even peer-reviewed journals have discussed and defined "Christian Terrorism," like in the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism...specifically the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot. It describes Christian Terrorism as being a group whose actions are, "motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion..." (p. 963) Many RS sources show (all over this page, the article page, and the Christian Terrorism page) that the KKK fulfills this criteria. The only "original research" would be to dismiss all of these RS sources in the face of overwhelming evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)