Talk:Ku Klux Klan

The Klan as "anti-trade union"

In the infobox for the Third Klan's ideology, anti-trade unionism is included. Not one of the any 3 articles cited for the ideologies mentions supposed opposition to trade unions.

There is also a section detailing it further, but the entirety of it cites only one book without even an ISBN. The book uses the example of only one Klan organization in one city. The one specific example used does not make the distinction of whether the Klan opposed the CIO due to an anti-union ideology, or merely because they accepted black members.

Meanwhile, more documented aspects of Klan ideology like their Prohibitionism and opposition to private schools aren't included in the infobox.

I will recant if a decent source is provided that demonstrates the Klan as cohesively anti-union. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Patriot. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The Klan was anti-radical and anti-integration but not ant-trade union in practice. Thomas Pegram's 2018, "THE KU KLUX KLAN, LABOR, AND THE WHITE WORKING CLASS DURING THE 1920S" published in The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, states "Historians usually consider the revived Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s to have been consistently opposed to labor unions and the aspirations of working-class people. The official outlook of the national Klan organization fits this characterization, but the interaction between grassroots Klan groups and pockets of white Protestant working-class Americans was more complex. Some left-wing critics of capitalism singled out the Klan as a legitimate if flawed platform on which to build white working-class unity at a time when unions were weak and other institutions demonstrated indifference to working-class interests. In industrial communities scattered across the Midwest, South, and West, white Protestant workers joined the Klan. In Akron, Ohio, the Klan helped to sustain white working-class community cohesion among alienated rubber workers. In Birmingham, Alabama, the Klan violently repressed mixed-race unions but joined with white Protestant workers in a political movement that enacted reforms beneficial to the white working class. But Klan attention to working-class interests was circumstantial and rigidly restricted by race, religion, and ethnicity. Ku Klux definitions of whiteness excluded from fellowship many immigrant and Catholic workers. Local Klans supported striking white Protestant workers when Catholic, immigrant, or black rivals were present, but acted, sometimes violently, against strikes that destabilized white Protestant communities. Ku Klux sympathies complicated urban socialist politics in the Midwest and disrupted the effectiveness and unity of the United Mine Workers. Lingering Klan sympathies among union workers document the power of reactionary popular movements to undermine working-class identity in favor of restrictive loyalties based on race, religion, and ethnicity." As such, I don't think we can definitively state that anti-union ideology was core to Klan beliefs or behavior.--User:Namiba 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"far-right"

Adding 'far-right' as the lead description of the group makes it sound as if the KKK was an inherently a political organization, which is not necessarily true. Also it's kind off anachronic when the KKK existed prior to the conception of a "far-right". 2800:200:ED80:1A0:D140:CE08:3540:AC25 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The term originated in the French Revolution around 1789, and was well-established by the end of the 19th century. The definitions were further refined in the 20th century. Bearing in mind that the Klan was openly active into the 1960s, after more modern definitions were applied, there is no particular contradiction. See political spectrum and Left–right political spectrum. In any case. we go by what reliable sources in academic political science tells us, not our own analysis. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

@Darknipples this Wikipedia article says "the KKK or the Klan, is the name of several historical and current American white supremacist, far-right terrorist organizations and hate groups." right after, this article says "the klan is America's first terrorist group". The article says this before explaining the kkk started as one group, so the reader might get confused if the first paragraph says the kkk is multiple groups, then describes it as just one without explaining that the historian was talking about the first klan only. @Knitsey reverted my edit where i said the historian was just talking about the first klan, because she said various sources describe the klan as one group, and she admitted she didn't read other citations, citations that describe the klan as different groups which are cited later in this article. I just made my edit, so the reader won't get confused with inconsistency from the first paragraph. this shouldn't even need to be brought to talk page, if a paragraph in an article is not consistent or confusing, it should be changed, and this shouldn't be a long-drawn-out discussion like most talk page incidents I've been a part of. I'm extremely busy tomorrow so if this conversation lasts longer than 6-7 hours, I'm out. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@HumansRightsIsCool I understand your concern and I assume good faith that you believe your changes are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but this normally requires a consensus by editors that agree on how best to apply them. There is not a 6-7 hour time limit and consensus can change. I will take a closer look. DN (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

take a closer look by looking at citations? please explain how you're going to come to come to a conclusion so I know if the process can be sped up in any way. 2603:8080:600:87B:4927:3C3D:B0B2:30DC (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no time limit. Please don’t demand a timetable from other volunteer editors, we’re busy too, and please log in to comment. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

if you're busy too, why do you wanna waste hours of your time discussing something in an article, going against a tiny change that makes a lot of sense. doesn't seem like your busy. my son turns 17 years old tomorrow, i also got to go to work, i gotta do a whole bunch of things, but you're against time limits on discussions. seems like you got all the time in the universe. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Best wishes to your son. We all have things going on in our lives, and like you, we’re all volunteers. You aren’t entitled to demand that other editors accommodate you. The encyclopedia will still be here when you have some free time. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion is right. This article isn't going anywhere. Just like my college professor told me...over....and over... DN (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

HumansRightsIsCool, I was referring to the 4 citations after the sentence you changed. Of those 4 citations, 3 I was able to find on jstor, the fourth I couldn't find to enable me to read it. The citations pertinent to the sentence you wanted to change, describe it adequately.

I don't think your additions add anything and I don't find the lede confusing.

If you don't have time to discuss changes, then in future, after the first revert (to the lede) please consider not making further changes, as it wastes the time of other editors if you're not willing to discuss the edits. Knitsey (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the part that may have been confusing was that there were different iterations throughout time, as opposed to multiple different "group(s)". DN (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples if thats true, change the first sentence which says the "the KKK or the Klan, is the name of several historical and current American white supremacist, far-right terrorist organizations and hate groups." HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. DN (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Done [1] (with minor corrections). DN (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Knitsey first off, how am I wasting the time of other editors. I didn't know this would be brought to talk page and you guys are the ones who want to discuss. Second off, if your only going to read three citions, if it doesn't matter what other citions later in the article say, If your going to remove my edit that describes the KKK as different groups, I guess you have to change the very first sentence of the article which is "the KKK or the Klan, is the name of several historical and current American white supremacist, far-right terrorist organizations and hate groups." Because that sentence I just copied and pasted describes the KKK as multiple groups too, so why are you reverting my edit that removes that the KKK is just one group, because it's inconsistent with the rest of the article. and, just because you don't find the first paragraph confusing, doesn't mean other people won't. My edit made the first paragraph consistent, now it's not, which could confuse people for a second. And articles should be of the highest quality. Tell me why my edit doesn't make sense? Just because you don't find it confusing? Think about the reader. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It bothers me that the new opening is factually untrue. The Klan is not one organization. This is not up for debate. Either the original opening must be restored or you can undertake some effort to reformat the entire thing to fit your gripes. Here's what I propose:

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/), commonly shortened to the KKK or the Klan, is the name of several historical and contemporary American white supremacist, far-right hate groups which share attributes such as their name and ideology.

Besides that, stating that it's a terrorist group only to say "historians say" again in the second sentence is redundancy. Is it a terrorist group or not? I also don't see how this "Fergus Bordewich" guy is notable enough to be specifically mentioned above all other historians.

Think of it like this: If someone says they want to "stick it to The Man", they're not talking about one specific guy. They're talking about an imagined figure of authority. When people say "The Klan", it is as if they are one group (as they share basic beliefs) but in reality, they are different groups from different time periods that just happen to use the same name. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Patriot of Canuckistan all of the sources I've read linked to this article describe the klan as one group with different iterations. If you can find a reliable source that calls the klan "multiple groups with similar ideologies", you can add it to the article, and make sure to remove the sentence about Fergus bordewich if you do that, because he describes the klan as one group, and this article needs to be consistent. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is demonstrably untrue. Wikipedia itself has a list of different KKK organizations.

If your sources said the Earth was flat, would you believe it? Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source in itself, it was written by editors like us. In trying to resolve this issue, reliably sourced citations often referred to the KKK in "waves", "incarnations" or "iterations". There did not seem to be an explicit consensus among citations stating they are mutually exclusive. For example, see David Cunningham (sociologist)'s comments in the article below.

• "The Klan's following has tended to rise and fall in cycles often referred to as "waves." The original KKK incarnation was largely halted following federal legislation targeting Klan-perpetrated violence in the early 1870s. The Klan's second -- and largest -- wave peaked in the 1920s, with KKK membership numbering in the millions. Following the second-wave Klan's dissolution in the early 1940s, self-identified KKK groups also built sizable followings during the 1960s, in reaction to the rising Civil Rights Movement. Various incarnations have continued to mobilize since -- often through blended affiliations with neo-Nazi, neo-Confederate, and Christian Identity organizations -- but in small numbers and without significant impact on mainstream politics. Between the group's periods of peak influence -- say, during the 1880s, or in the 1940s, or the 1980s -- the Klan's fortunes have always appeared moribund. But in each case, some "reborn" version of the KKK has managed to rebound and survive." PBS

Yes, "the Klan" was widespread and certainly evolved over time. Each KKK "organization" or cell had to adapt to it's location and time period, which explains diversity over time and place. Sources do refer to "groups", so it's understandably confusing, but the implication that they were "unrelated" was not apparent AFAICT, and so it appeared to come across as WP:SYNTH. If after discussion, consensus does not seem possible, perhaps an WP:RFC may be prudent in resolving this issue. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Infobox flag

I had never heard of the "Duke Flag" until I saw it used at the top of the infobox in the article. The most recognizable symbol of the KKK is the Blood Drop Cross by itself. The Duke flag looks as if someone took the flag of Peru and slapped that symbol on to it.

Therefore, I believe the flag should be changed to the symbol alone. The Duke flag could be moved to this section where the standalone symbol currently is. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

“Far-right”

“Extremist” would be more accurate than “far-right.” The KKK began as an organization of Southern Democrats after the Civil War; for the group’s political coloration through the early 20th century, see https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-guide-to-african-american-history/ku-klux-klan-kkk/AF98C32F011BFB6DBD98879DE0F08C73, which notes, “In the 1868 elections, alongside Knights of the White Camellia, they murdered 1,000 black and white Republicans in Louisiana alone. […] Between 1877 and 1910 the KKK fueled Democrats’ push to establish one-party rule and Jim Crow.” While members of both parties have been supported by or even affiliated with the group, historically the association with Democrats has been stronger; for instance, Wikipedia’s own article on “Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics” lists ten US Senators in this company, seven of them Democrats (Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics). At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, “The Klan endorsed William Gibbs McAdoo, the frontrunner for the nomination. Senator Oscar Underwood of Alabama and Governor Al Smith of New York both called upon the party to repudiate the Klan by name in the platform. This motion failed by four votes” (https://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/Eugenics/Klan.html), although Underwood and Smith were able, after considerable maneuvering, to block McAdoo’s nomination and eventually to include the repudiation in the party platform. As an illustration of one prominent Democratic politician who got his start via the Klan, longtime US Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) joined the KKK in his youth to further his political career and advanced to the rank of Exalted Cyclops, recruiting some 150 new members (https://www.newsweek.com/did-joe-biden-attend-kkk-leader-funeral-ted-cruz-fact-check-1823670). While Byrd later repented of these actions and sought to distance himself from them, it is telling that by his own account, he believed that active Klan work would be a good path to political success in the heavily Democratic West Virginia of the 1940s. By no stretch of the imagination can figures such as Byrd, Justice Hugo Black, and various other stalwarts of the Democratic Party be described as “far-right.” HezekiahLee (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This topic has been brought up many many times. There really should be an FAQ on this at the top, though I'm not sure how effective that would be. As has been said, "we go by what reliable sources in academic political science tells us, not our own analysis." DN (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Klan did not formally exist from Reconstruction until it was re-established in 1915. The Klan backed Republicans where there was a Republican majority (see Owen Brewster in Maine, for example) and Democrats where there was a Democratic majority. Nothing you've stated disputes the Klan being considered far-right. Does an organization which murders 1,000 people in a single year to prevent black voting rights sound otherwise to you?--User:Namiba