Talk:Ku Klux Klan

Wrong geographical origins

I was taught in three separate college classes taught at two different universities (African American History- Post Civil War, American History II and an English class where we were assigned an essay on the causes of southern violence)that the KKK originated in Harrisburg, PA NOT the Southeast. It is true that it is most associated with the American South however that is not the "birth place" of this group.

>> The first Klan was created in Pulaski, Tennessee. The second was created in Atlanta, Georgia. It is curious you were provided with the same, incorrect information in three different college classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.243.100 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Footnote #2 in the article proper is incorrect. Membership in the original Klan was not restricted in the same manner as its second incarnation. Whether due to ignorance or convenience-of-argument, the method and motive of the two organizations are blurred in the text cited here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tttecumseh (talk • contribs) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is such a highly contested and emotional article, I would like to see wikipedia personally take a hand in the article and contact academics on the subject.

• As it was a featured article, it has long received a good deal of attention, making it one of the better overall articles in Wikipedia. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 13:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

npov

I have not worked on this article and actually only happened upon it planning to refer a friend to it; but as soon as I read the first 2 paragraphs I felt the tags were mandatory. The whole thing needs to be re-written,preferably by editors who have no fixed opinion of the group ( I also have a very negative opinion of the group); but for now, the removal of about 20 critical and non reliably sourced descriptions of the group would be a good start. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

E.G.

Language used in the lede was from scholarly sources and was originally sourced, as I recall - describing the Klan as a secret vigilante group was describing what they did - they operated in secret, and conducted violent extrajudicial murders and assaults - that's what vigilantes are. It's not POV and they weren't just militant.--Parkwells (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present secret domestic militant organizations in the United States, originating in the Southern states and eventually having national scope, that are best known for advocating white supremacy and acting as terrorists while hidden behind conical hats, masks and white robes. The KKK has a record of terrorism,[2] violence, and lynching to intimidate, murder, and oppress African Americans, Jews and other minorities and to intimidate and oppose Roman Catholics and labor unions.

"...There can be little doubt that the hidden KGC spawned the original KKK."[3] The first Klan was founded in 1865 by veterans of the Confederate Army. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by intimidating freedmen and white Republicans, members of the abolitionist movement. The KKK quickly adopted violent methods. The increase in murders finally resulted in a backlash among Southern elites who viewed the Klan's excesses as an excuse for federal troops to continue occupation.

• Is there any question whether the Klan is distinguished by its militancy, violent acts, terrorist activities, and secrecy? Some descriptions are just accurate, even of the terms are used in a judgmental manner elsewhere. --Dystopos (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the reference to the KGC in the lede tilts it too much toward one source - this is not a consensus view among historians as to the rise of the KKK. I've moved it to the main narrative. --Parkwells (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV tag from the article. The article has more than 100 references, and the description of the group as violent and so on is accurate and justified. The KK is listed as a terrorist organisation by the US federal government, and its violent methods mark it out as militant. If there are specific points in the article that need supporting with references, then mark them individually. Ideally, find references to allow us to correct any incorrect statements. Don't just mark the whole article as NPOV. --Duncan (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the biggest problem is use of the word terrorism. By the US Governments view they are terrorists. By the klans view they are heroes. How is labeling them as terrorists a neutral point of view?Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Klan's view is not a neutral, 2nd party view. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The extrajudicial acts carried out in secrecy by the Klan put them in the category of terrorists, as consensus historians have defined them, too. They murdered and assaulted people to serve their own ends.--Parkwells (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point. Thats the POV of consensus historians. You are using someone elses POV to promote your own. The United States government, not a neutral, 2nd party view, calls them terrorists. The klan, also not a neutral, 2nd party view, calls themselves heroes. Even consensus historians do not have a neutral point of view. The point of wikipedia is to provide an unbiased summary of the facts, using no POV. The use of the word terrorist clearly biases the article, and by extension the reader, against the klan. While the klan performed some very gruesome acts, and I agree they are terrorists, it is not our job to put forth a statement that promotes on POV over another.D^rew S^mith 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really liking vigilante, but it's better than terrorist, so I won't fight about it.D^rew S^mith 06:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

<----But it isn't POV to say, as in the lede, that the KKK has a record of terrorism. That's a straight up fact; they have an FBI record. It also isn't POV to point out that "In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization." Again, that's a fact. Really, though, I agree with Parkwells - the actions of the Klan put them in the category of terrorists. If you don't believe that the US government is a reliable source for this, who would you believe? Dawn Bard (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not about them being a reliable source. Its ok to say that the U.S. govt categorizes them as terrorists. It is not ok to say they are terrorists. Do you see my point?D^rew S^mith 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point, I just disagree that we need to somehow use only the US government to show that the KKK commits terrorism (I also disagree that the FBI isn't a neutral, 2nd party source on this, but that's actually beside the point.) The KKK's actions have shown that they fit the definition of "terrorists." Here's what it says in the lede at Terrorism: "an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants." There is well-sourced that the Klan has done all of that. Therefore, they are terrorists. Do you see my point? Dawn Bard (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I do see your point, however we cannot use the word because not everyone agrees that they fit that description. Klan members have argued that 1)they weren't all like that, so branding the whole organization terrorists is not correct, 2)The ones who were like that contest they comitted any wrongdoing. They may all be liars and assholes, but who are we to discount their claims?D^rew S^mith 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Klan members aren't neutral, 2nd party sources. Who are we to discount their claims? We are judging them by their actions as compared to a generally agreed-upon definition of terrorism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that "we cannot use the word because not everyone agrees that they fit that description", I must disagree. We do not need the agreement of everyone, just a clear consensus of reliable sources. --Dystopos (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly dawn bard, you are judging them by their actions. thats not what we do on wikipedia. we present the facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. And no, we dont go by a clear consensus of reliable sources, if there are minority groups who have a different POV. Seriously, whats so bad about using "The US recognizes them as terrorists"? It's the says the same thing as it did before, without pushing a POV. Check out the Hitler page. They did a very good job of remaining neutral. D^rew S^mith 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

<---(undent) Okay, I shouldn't have used the word "judging" but I think it's pretty clear that what I meant was "pointing out that the Klan has acted in a way that fits the objective definition of terrorism." The US doesn't recognise them as terrorists for no reason; the US recognises them as terrorists because they have used violence and threats of violence to induce fear in targeted groups for ideological reasons. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what word you used. We are just suposed to present the facts. We shouldn't have to point out that they are terrorists. the article will speak for itself. It doesnt matter what the US govts reasons are, there are always people who have a different POV than the govt. You have to have both sides of the issue, or if you cant, phrase it in a way that states that a "majority believes" this to be true. That is what I have done by rephrasing the KKK=Terrorist to USGovt believes KKK=Terrorist. There really is no difference. Most people take the word of the USGovt as law, so to most people it is tantamount to saying KKK=Terrorist. On the other hand if a KKK member where to come here and say "Hey ya'll there computer nerds! We isn't Terrorisers! Take that there shit off yer article!" We can say that it is a simple fact that the USGovt considers them terrorists.D^rew S^mith 04:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I hope I haven't come across as too belligerent - I enjoy a good debate, but my friendly tone of voice doesn't translate well across the interwebs, so thanks for keeping it civil. Anyhow, I still don't agree that "because the Klan says so" is a good reason not to call it a terrorist organisation (and I also have no problem with "vigilante"), but you can see that I don't disagree enough to undo your edits - I'm basically OK with the page as it is. I am curious, though - what if the Klan objected to being called white supremacists or violent or something like that? A line would have to be drawn somewhere, right? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the generally accepted policy is that if something is stated as a fact, but that someone might consider disparaging, wrong, or otherwise objectionable, it needs to be removed or rephrased. I don't particulary care for the Klan, and agree they fit the label of terrorist, but it's not our job to push our (or even that of the USGovts!) opinion. The best we can do in situations like these is to say that "a large group of people believe this to be true." And no, you didn't come across as beligerant or uncivil, and hopefully neither did I.Drew Smith What I've done 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Creation

A sourced item (#10), from historian W.E.B. DuBois, is marked as dubious. The Klan committed public violence against freedmen for intimidation, as documented by DuBois and numerous historians. I'm deleting the dubious tag.--Parkwells (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a dubious source, as it is a first hand, and also a very heavily biased(with good reason, but nonetheless biased), source. I am putting the dubious tag back.D^rew S^mith 05:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the information (ie, that the Klan committed public violence against freedmen for intimidation) being disputed? I thought that the "dubious" tag was generally used in cases where the content seems dubious or unlikely. Also, how did you determine that DuBois is biased? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the info is not being disputed. Everyone knows they used violence for intimidation. But first hand accounts are not generally used as sources. It's biased because he is not a neutral 3rd party observer writing for a newspaper. He was in the middle of the conflict and wrote to cause an upstir.D^rew S^mith 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Du Bois's history was not a firsthand account, but that of a major historian writing after the events in question and using documentation of the time. He drew from records of the military and Freedmen's Bureau, letters to the president, etc., as have all historians when reporting on that time. They are not required to draw only from newspaper accounts, but to weigh all the evidence with their accumulated knowledge of a period. It does not make sense to mark this a dubious source, as there were numerous accounts of the assaults and fatalities caused by the KKK activities. If you disagree, you're welcome to introduce another historian who can document that KKK fatalities were overestimated. --Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

---

TRUEHISTORY WRITES: Consider: sometimes a first-hand account is all we have to render a personal perspective to a particular event,which, due to prejudice, space constraints, or ignorance, would otherwise be left unreported/under-reported via secondary sources. Accounts of a particular event may vary, or not take into consideration (often due to prejudice) certain elements/events a first-hand account alone makes known or emphasizes to its true level of importance. Example: from the account of a Titanic survivor:

"Many brave things were done that night but none more brave
than by those few men playing minute after minute
as the ship settled quietly lower and lower in the sea...
the music they played serving alike as their own immortal requiem
and their right to be recorded on the rulls of undying fame." -Lawrence Beesley, Titanic Survivor

To deny access to THAT first-hand account on the basis that it's not "neutral" would leave us with only an inferior, secondary report -- if reported at all. Would such an omission create a superior article? Of course, judgment must be exercised as to the utility and value of including any first-hand account. Good scholarship and intellectual integrity, however, demand inclusion of certain first-hand accounts as a component of balanced reportage, particularly in the case of controversial articles, where such omissions sometimes amounts to censorship. Yes, a good article can be written about Martin Luther King's March on Washington -- without quoting any of his personal statements about it. But which article would be more valuable, if all other data remained identical? One can write about July 20, 1969, when Commander Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon without a single sentence about Armstrong's personal feelings about standing there, but is it "biased" to include his personal, first-hand account? Nor does exclusion of a first-hand account guarantee honest reportage or lack of prejudice. I intend to attempt an edit of this article to improve its flow and remove redundancies. I'll also check this page to review all comments and suggestions. As a long-time resident of the South, born in the North, who lived in Louisiana during the height of White Knight activities there, with experience as a longtime newspaper reporter, and degreed in anthropology, I'll do my best to improve this article, and will rely on your input to improve it. However, I suggest that the first-hand account in question be retained due to its historic value and context in this article. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Giant blockquote

There's a significantly-sized blockquote in the article beginning with "Whereas the number of indictments across the South was large,..." which seems to be from a textbook. The writing style of the blockquote is similar to the style in the article, and nowhere is it indicated that the paragraphs are quoting a source, so the indentation is confusing. I suggest, first, that it is not necessary to quote so significantly from the source, second, that the source is probably not the type which should be so extensively quoted and, third, that if it is quoted in such a manner, the fact that it is a quote needs to be indicated in the article to properly characterize the text. Kellen^T 10:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

It has much repetitive language and is too long and detailed. I shortened it some, but it needs more editing.--Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

White political disenfranchisement during Reconstruction period under Ironclad Oath? People, hello!?

How can you understand the first KKK without explicitly noting that at the time pretty much the entire white male population in the South was disenfranchised, i.e. prevented from voting and holding political office, because they could not (at least honestly) take the Ironclad Oath? Which, btw, makes it much easier to understand the quoted sentence from the Rescript: "the reenfranchisement and emancipation of the white men of the South, and the restitution of the Southern people to all their rights." Whereas these people were indeed racists and "not nice guys", this does not change the fact that they were ALSO very much validly aggrieved people stripped of their traditional political rights. Like, government with consent of the governed and all that jazz. Unfortunately, the traditional American historiography prefers to minimize and/or ignore this issue, as is e.g. reflected in this current article. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)