Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Template:V0.5

History in the States

I am sure the people writing here know more of the subject than I. However I was trying to write a section in the Ohio history article about the KKK and was wondering if anyone had any links I could use. It was removed because they said at first is was nothing more than trivia. So is there anyone who could like to help me write a small section? I was thinking that all states that had historical klan membership should be linked to this article. --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you David Chalmers' book Hooded Americanism, he describes the second Klan state by state. - Darwinek (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth T. Jackson's Ku Klux Klan in the Cities is also a valuable resource. He goes beyond cities but also notes data about how urban the Second Klan was.--Parkwells (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Knights of The KKK is not racist

I would like to point out that the group mentioned "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" is not a racist organization, but a group promoting white pride and heritage. This can be misleading to people not familiar with this organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.111 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the point of view. ;) - Darwinek (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

.Well I think his point of view is racist... admit your the real founder of the kkk... black pride!!

if you dont want to be perceived as racist then dont call yourslef knights of the kkk its as simple as that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.246.185 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah!! the kkk is a racist thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.3.94 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

White Power!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.41.70 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do KKK really call themselves Christians? It offends me that they overlook the verses in the Bible that say ALL people are equal.. And don't try to say that African Americans aren't people. Because it's been proven that they are just as Human as any Caucasian, or ANY other person, for that matter, and deserve the same rights as everyone else. KKK is racist. It's no different than the Nazi's view, that white people are "superior." Pride is fine. I for one am white, but I say that people of ALL races should have pride in their heritage. All people are equal. No matter their beliefs, outisde appearances, whatever. --The Wolfe22 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Present

Given the small numbers of current KKK, I think at least one of the color photos at the end should be removed. Having two of members in colorful costumes only makes them look more important than they are.--Parkwells (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is full of old, black and white photos. Having some color photos of the current Klan is beneficial to the article. --God Save the South (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not as if the costumes make them look important. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the one picture with the, uh, portly guys could probably be removed. While it may show a greater variety in costume color (shiny!), the picture is dark and not nearly as good as the other one from Mississippi. If a picture were to be removed, which it should because the 3 pictures for such a tiny section seems a bit much, it should be the shiny, portly picture. Baegis (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross Lighting vs. Cross Burning

Overwhelming consensus that no change will be made. Save the South is urged to respect this consensus if he chooses to edit the article further. Baegis (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The correct term is Cross Lighting. The reason the Klan lights the cross is not to burn and destroy the cross, but to light it and have it seen. The fiery cross is a symbol that has long been popular with the Christian faith, for example the Methodist denomination uses the fiery cross as their symbol. And furthermore, as to which term should be used in Wikipedia, MOS:IDENTITY states "Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself." --God Save the South (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Have you actually visited the article in question? Visit it and there is your answer, end of discussion. Baegis (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC) And it says that the Klan refer to it as Cross Lighting, which is their self-identification of the activity. It is not our place to deem what is and is not sacreligious. --God Save the South (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Changing "cross-burning" to "cross lighting" throughout the article? Not gonna happen. R. Baley (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC) It is not up to you which MoS guidelines you do or don't follow, just because you want to attach negative connotations to an activity. We are meant to write in neutral terms. --God Save the South (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I can't remember the last time I ever heard of a newscast covering a clan rally that mentioned a cross "lighting". Cross burning, yes. Regardless, it doesn't matter what 8000 racists want to call their little activity. It is much more widely known as cross burning. 92,000 google hits for cross burning. 26,000 for cross lighting, but that is not taking into account the fact cross lighting can also simply refer to two lights intersecting (films, photography). Cross lighting and KKK searches? 1200. Stop this nonsense. Baegis (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The Google search is not an accepted method of determining what phrase to use on wikipedia. Particulary as the results would be scewed by the masses of liberal media. The fact is that the MoS prescribes self-identification, and the term the Klan uses is Cross Lighting. --God Save the South (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The masses of liberal media? Dear God, this gets better by the minute. Any 9/11 conspiracies you want to lay on us? Baegis (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC) It's not up to me, your right. But I don't have to attach a negative connotation, in many almost all cases the cross *burnings* were inherently negative, that's NPOV -not negotiable and supersedes any guideline. If you persist in wasting bandwith over this triviality, I would have to question your ability to edit this article in a NPOV fashion. R. Baley (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC) The fundamental difference is 'burning' the cross implies the purpose of the lighting/burning is to destroy the cross. Lighting the cross implies it is lit so it may be seen. Now whether it is lit to guide Jesus back to earth or to intimidate blacks is irrelevant, as it is still being lit to be seen, not destroyed. Can you understand that? I don't know how to make it any clearer. --God Save the South (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC) No one speaks for the Klan any more since it is decentralized. When they light a cross in front of someone's house, they don't stick around to make sure it does not go out. It burns itself out. Cross burning is the way photos have been captioned, and the way the activity has been described for decades, by contemporaries in the South.--Parkwells (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Quite apart from the issue of which term is more appropriate, God Save the South has misunderstood MOS:IDENTITY, which refers to the way people describe themselves. This guideline would be relevant if we were to discuss, for example, the merits of employing the term "Klansmen", but is irrelevant to the current discussion. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Clearly the term "cross burning" is accepted in scholarship about Klan activities. If there is a verifiable reference for making a distinction, there could be room for explaining whatever controversy may exist about the terminology. (But not for editing the article to match the public relations agenda of Klan-sympathizers) --Dystopos (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) And clearly if scholarship uses "cross burning" this discussion should now end. Why do we waste time with one POV-warrior? If a half-dozen historians discussed this name with us, I'd sit up and take notice. What a discussion. Today, Klansmen lit their crosses mostly on their private properties. Burning cross to intimidate others can be prosecuted but U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is your constitutional right to light/burn the Fiery Cross or whatever else. - Darwinek (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks, StAnselm, Dystopos, and Darwinek, let's end it.--Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" section

This needs to either be expanded by a huge amount or removed entirely... Two pop culture mentions is pathetic given the huge amount of KKK references that are out there (it's a great target for parody.) There's also already a long section at Ku Klux Klan regalia and insignia. What do you guys think? I almost think Ku Klux Klan in popular culture could be its own article... Hmmmmmmm... Grandmasterka 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section was only added recently. I agree it needs expanded. There should definately be a mention of Ari Shaffir, a brilliant (in my opinion) Jew Jewish comedian. He did a piece in his series 'The Amazing Racist' in a Ku Klux Klan robe, it was hilarious and has had many hits on youtube. --God Save the South (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• My opinion is that "in popular culture" sections and articles are just ridiculous. (See discussion at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles) --Dystopos (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. This article is already long, so Popular Culture should not be added here. Leave it with KKK regalia and insignia. --Parkwells (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs here, its place is in the KKK article, not one on its regalia. --God Save the South (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jew comedian? I'm not even going to bother asking for an apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, another editor changed it to "Jewish", but I reverted the edit, because I suspected "Jew comedian" is precisely what GSTS intended to say. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's gotta go (the section). It adds absolutely nothing to the article as whole. Baegis (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 'Jew comedian' to 'Jewish comedian'. Hopefully we can put that issue behind us now and obtain a consensus on the issue at hand, whether or not to include a Popular Culture section. --God Save the South (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to a popular culture section. The article is already long enough and I don't think such a section would add much.--Parkwells (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

From what I remember, protection was orginally put in place due to edit warring over whether to call Cross lighting Cross burning. Now that that debate has finished, and consensus found for now, can the article be unlocked so that we might all get back to improving it? --God Save the South (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be best for you if you brought every change you plan on making to this talk page before editing. Short of gross misspellings or grammatical errors, of course. If you can agree to that, then the article should be unprotected. Baegis (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It was more or less over edits such as this that were made by other editors. I'm willing to unprotect on the basis that the editors have moved elsewhere, and that they have noticed that pointless edit warring only leads to full protection. seicer | talk | contribs 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you are implying that I (and the other editors who reverted the same nonsense) was the reason for this protection? I surely hope that is not what you are implying by that diff. Surely I am mistaken. Baegis (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I posted the wrong diff. Thanks for pointing out that! seicer | talk | contribs 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscategorization

This article should not be in Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations, as the Klan has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In fact, to Americans, the Klan isn't even "foreign." --71.191.135.128 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed.--Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Five Klan Eras?

Several scholars and some of the Klans themselves refer to five eras of KKK activity. Why reduce that to three?--Cberlet (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to rely on third-party, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, not groups' self appraisals. Given the intense attention and sometimes warfare on this site (it was blocked against all editing for some time), I recommend that you post your proposals for change, with sources, before doing such drastic editing to the main article. It's not clear what purpose would be served, since it seems there have been two major periods - post Civil War and 1915-1930s, with various small groups after that. Yes, they continued to murder in the South and destroy property, but there is no point in giving them publicity.--Parkwells (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC

Well, since the current page reflects social science on organized white supremacist groups that is about 20 years out of date, I thought I was suggesting scholarly cites, but in case you have not read any recent literature, you might glance at David Chalmers. Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.

Also note that another page on Wikipedia already references the Fifth Era KLan [here].--Cberlet (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this article, so don't know why the original editors used three major periods. The Klan is not a chief interest of mine, but my interest has been to try to show how Klan activity came out of other social tensions and context, rather than focus on every act of violence or only their story about themselves, or the most favorable quotes. I just wanted to let you know that there has been a lot of controversy over the article, with editing wars. Thanks for the reference suggestion above. The barely stub article you linked to has no sources, so no reference for the "Fifth Era" KKK.--Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will round up a bunch of scholarly cites and provide them. Most sociologists who write about the KKK and other organized White Supremacist groups refer to five eras. This is not to promote the KKK, but to describe them as a socio-political movement with different phases of growth, ideological shifts, and reframings.--Cberlet (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone will be willing to undertake a major rewrite of the article. You can see from the sources that most were historians (which is my background) as opposed to sociologists (they may likely have drawn from sociologists, too, but their own books were considered histories.) That's not to say that there is not material to learn from sociologists, but the article is very long already. It's not up to me to decide, but you had better try to get a consensus here before making major edits.--Parkwells (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KKK v. white paramilitary organizations

After the first KKK was subdued during Reconstruction, white southern efforts to overturn Republican rule did not cease. Some historians have said that for all of the KKK's notoriety, white paramilitary groups that arose during the 1870s, such as the White League in LA, Red Shirts in MS, NC and SC; and rifle clubs throughout the South were more organized, effective and important in achieving political aims of overthrow of the Republican Party in the South. I think there should be mention of them in that respect in this article, but wanted to propose it here first. One historian described them as "the military arm of the Democratic Party" and instrumental in achieving the final overthrow of Republican rule and suppressing the black vote enough for white Democrats to regain office.--Parkwells (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony in your statement is beyond belief. Now the Democratic Party's nominee may well be black. But I digress. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the irony of my statement, but the ironies of history - one of the first was the realignment of conservative white Democrats with the Republicans. Studying history should temper anyone's sense of immutabilities.--Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder

As horrible as some of us may think this is, let's keep a neutral viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberwolf116 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Far-right

• So how are they considered far right when they stand in opposition to everything the far right stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.131.27 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't. They stand in favor of everything the far right stands for. Yahel Guhan 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC

White Power

All new material needs sources

People who add material without sources will find it quickly removed. Editors have worked hard to base the article on reliable third-party sources, not on opinion and anecdote.--Parkwells (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction.

Third paragraph of the article, third sentence, in "Great Migration" should link to the Great Migration (African American). - LafinJack (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)