Talk:Ku Klux Klan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleKu Klux Klan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
August 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 26, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
October 31, 2006Featured article reviewKept
May 9, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 24, 2004, December 24, 2005, December 24, 2006, December 24, 2007, December 24, 2009, December 24, 2012, and December 24, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

Edit request[edit]

Please add the hatnote to handle the incoming redirect klansman :

{{redirect|Klansman|other uses|Clansman (disambiguation)}}

-- (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Claimed current membership numbers[edit]

Under the heading "National changes: Membership statistics" is a table which claims that in 2016, membership was at "3,000-6,000", and two years later, at "8,000-12,000". The sources for all of the numbers in the table (going back to 1920) are combined into a list of 5 sources, rather than being called-out for each claimed membership period, which makes it difficult to tell which source is being cited for which period. However, the sources themselves date from 1999, 2017, 1965, 1998, and 2009, which means that the numbers for 2013, 2016 and 2018 can only have come from one source, but it still begs the question as to how the table could purport to have membership numbers from 2018, when the latest source is from 2017. Furthermore, that 2017 source explicitly states that "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 155 KKK groups, with a total of about 5,000 to 8,000 members." (pg. 84; emphasis added) I'm not convinced that the SPLC's claims are accurate (they're notoriously unreliable when it comes to such things), but even if they were, that's still a long way from supporting a claim of "8,000-12,000", when they're being cited a year earlier as saying "5,000-8,000", and no source is given for 2018 figures. If no one can provide a reliable source as to their 2018 membership levels, the table will need to be corrected. Bricology (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In a US News article published August 2017, Anti Defamation League ADL) suggests "Nationwide, there are still an estimated 3,000 Klan members and unaffiliated people who "identify with Klan ideology," according to the ADL. Membership, though, remains spread across dozens of groups. The largest Klans reportedly don't have more than 50 to 100 active members, and most have fewer than 25." Here is link to US News article: Oldgoldtop (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Far-Right" is unsupported and should be corrected.[edit]

The entire listing on Wikipedia of the Ku Klux Klan shows affiliation with the Democratic Party, from it's roots through the 1970s. At no time in this article does it produce evidence of a shift of political affiliation, but only listed as such by Wikipedia.

Credited, proven, and cited evidence should be provided in the context to show HOW and WHEN the KKK changed party affiliation. Otherwise it is correct to assume that Wikipedia has incorrectly listed party affiliation as "Far-Right". This should be removed and properly replaced with "Democratic" or "Far-Left" as described in the context, or left blank, until proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenStahl23 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

the first KKK was linked to Dem party--it died out before 1880. 2nd kkk 1920s was mostly Republican in North. 3rd KKK (today) is not close to either party but see David Duke. all are far-right Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Rjensen, where do these idiots pick up their talking points? Drmies (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen on this - though the term "far right" has changed its meaning, I think the majority of scholarship today is in agreement that the KKK ideology has always been far right (pro-slavery, anti-Communist, racist, etc.) The political shifts are not the same thing. Seraphim System (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
On a separate note, being anti-communist or racist doesn't make one being far-right. --Darwinek (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
being "racist" is one factor in being far-right. it's typically linked to extreme nationalism because both = hatred or disparagement of outsiders. 1) "a common set of far-right, racist, Islamophobic and anti-immigrant ideas do exist across the Atlantic Ocean," in The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate (2014). 2) "Special Issue: Racist and Far-right Groups" in Volume 36 of Journal of contemporary ethnography (Sage, 2007) edited by Professor Kathleen M. Blee. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet it's not a one-to-one relationship. Although you are probably correct that racism is a common characteristic of those on the far-right, there are left-wing racists as well, although -- at least in the modern world -- it's not nearly as common. Anti-Communism is pretty clearly a defining characteristic of the right in general -- not just the far-right -- but it too, is not limited to the those on the right. In the mid-20th Century in the US, for instance, it would have been hard to find anyone in the mainstream of politics who wasn't anti-Communist, whether they were on the right or the left. Come to think of it, that pretty much goes for today as well: although the right loves to paint the left as "pinkos" or "fellow travelers", very few people in the mainstream of American politics are trumpeting the value of Communism: a failed ideology has few friends (except on the far-right, where the spectacular failure of numerous Fascist regimes doesn't seem to have stopped the alt-right from championing it as a philosophy). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Susan Sontag about the visual history of lynching in America[edit]

In June, 1938, Virginia Woolf published Three Guineas, her brave, unwelcomed reflections on the roots of war. Written during the preceding two years, while she and most of her intimates and fellow-writers were rapt by the advancing Fascist insurrection in Spain, the book was couched as a tardy reply to a letter from an eminent lawyer in London who had asked, “How in your opinion are we to prevent war?” Woolf begins by observing tartly that a truthful dialogue between them may not be possible. For though they belong to the same class, “the educated class,” a vast gulf separates them: the lawyer is a man and she is a woman. Men make war. Men (most men) like war, or at least they find “some glory, some necessity, some satisfaction in fighting” that women (most women) do not seek or find. What does an educated—that is, privileged, well-off—woman like her know of war? Can her reactions to its horrors be like his? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdanidam (talkcontribs) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018[edit]

The conservatives of the Democratic Party created the KKK and moved down South and joined the Republican Party.. The conservative ideology, not the liberal ideology, as there were Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats at the time as well, was 100% responsible for the creation of the KKK! The Democratic Party itself did not create the KKK because the other Democrats wanted nothing to do with the ones who created it!

  • Edits not made. Historically inaccurate. Editor should learn not to take their talking points from far-right sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the requester was actually trying to make the opposite point. But where does this article blame all Democrats ever or the left wing for the KKK?--Pharos (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't using far-right sources! Is the publisher an IDIOT?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkevin366 (talkcontribs) 21:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm kinda puzzled by this myself. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
See my comment above - the confusing part is this editor was making an unreasonable request coming from a left-wing perspective, while usually this particular article attracts the opposite.--Pharos (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)