Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 7

message: I am not familiar with the KKK's history, but the section on its "creation" seemed odd to me. There was no real explanation for why a group of pranksters suddenly started assassinating people. In the article, this happens literally within a sentence. Either there is an extra link (perhaps in a changing of personel within the KKK at this point) or the organisation was altogether more sinister than the article makes out right from the start. Could someone more familiar with the material have a look at this? --Ajcee7 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Issues 

message: The lead of an article is generally one to three paragraphs, depending on article length. The current state of the lead was ridiculously long and redundant, with the second and third paragraphs describing the same thing entirely. I've reverted to a previous version, on which the "today's featured article" blurb was based, and retained both terrorist and fraternal since they're both used in that. Moulder 06:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions to lead 

message: The statement is "sourced" on an anonymous website that does not list any sources. LYNCHING CENTURY 1.htm It's not reliable--it has lots of exact names and dates but is padded with mystery cases: 
*500 unidentified black people murdered (report) Texas July 1 1868
* 150 unidentified black people murdered (report) Louisiana August 1868
*200 unidentified black people murdered St. Landry Par. Louisiana October 1868
*162 unidentified black people murdered Bossier Par Louisiana October 1868
*300 unidentified black people lynched Vicksburg Mississippi December 1874
*100 unidentified black Republicans murdered Colfax Louisiana April 1873 (The standard history (Foner 1968 p 437) says the bloodiest massacre in all of Reconstruction was at Colfax in 1873 with 50 killed.) Furthermore the source rarely mentions Republican, so some editor added that information with no source whatever. Rjensen 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mystery wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. 

message: Long ago, I have seen the KKK and the ADL on The Jerry Springer Show. The Klan personnel were dressed in what appeared to be "Class A's" of some kind of military uniforms. One was a Captain, two were lieutenants, all looking like the KKK had become a KKK Militia Force or some kind of Private Army of the KKK. Of course, Jerry Springer's TV show was and still is known for the brawls that take place on that show. Martial Law 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be stated in the article:"Militia Some Ku Klux Klan groups have recently formed themselves into militia units." ? I have seen these "soldiers" on the Jerry Springer Show long ago. They were pitted against some ADL personnel, and his show is well known for the fights and brawls. Martial Law 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK [[Militia|Army]] 

message: I didn't know that this article was slated to be on the front page (to be honest, I'd missed the notice at the top of this page). Obviously this article will be hit hard by vandalism in the next 24 hours. If everyone is ok with it, we'll take up where we left off with the editorial dicussions on this article when it is no longer linked to the main page. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started watching it the second I saw it on the front page. Based on the last few minutes, vandalism already is a big problem! The Ungovernable Force 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I wish this article hadn't been linked to from the front page--especially when there was an editorial dispute going on here. --Alabamaboy 01:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a vandal, but I did correct one item after seeing this on the front page. It listed the current KKK as being headquartered in Harrison, AR. The truth is that the man, Thom Robb, lives in a tiny little town outside of Harrison named Zinc. I lived in Harrison for 20 years, and there is NO kkk activity.--69.152.64.166 02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK article on front page and editorial dispute 

message: I just noticed that in the first paragraph, the word "violent" is linked. Is this really necessary? I would assume that simple adjectives such as this should be left to their own devices, rather than have their own accompanying articles spring forth from this one.
If you get my drift...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.180.234 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree - it's overkill.  See Wikipedia's guideline on Internal Links. - Slow Graffiti 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the flow... 

message: In 1991 Thom Robb said that he foresaw imminent respectability for the Klan: "You take Exxon. They had an identity thing to overcome after that oil spill. Well, the Klan has an image problem to overcome, also."
Doesn't this quote need a citation?  I know there's a general reference section at the bottom, but does that suffice? - Slow Graffiti 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 

message: Is it really necessary to have such graphic pictures of people being hung from trees. We all know that the KKK carried out lynchings but I think it's very disrespectful to the victims of these terrible crimes for these pictures to be shown on here. - Dangerhertz 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon for being blunt, but the victims are dead... --Chris (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So that instantly qualifies them to be paraded on here for no real reason? - Dangerhertz 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not being "paraded" here, they serve to illustrate the barbaric crimes of the KKK. Wikipedia is not censored for minors.  --Chris (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe if their images shock people into realising the atrocities of the KKK, their deaths might have at least some meaning. Iorek85 12:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the images are horrific. However, the deeds of the KKK were often horrific and the pictures illustrate this point.--Alabamaboy 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pictures of Lynchings 

message: Removed Quote
I tried to remove this vulgarity but I cannot find it in the article code.  Can someone remove it? Mike 15:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was worked up? - Slow Graffiti 23:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I just went through the article to see how things fared with all the vandalism and edits while the article was linked to the main page. Overall, things looked really good. People added a number of corrections to minor aspects of the article (misspellings, wikilinks, and so on) while the vandalism appears to have all been corrected. I did take out a few minor additions because the additions lacked references and thus could not be proved.
Now that the fun and games are done, does anyone else have any comments about Skywriter's proposed edits (see above). If there no one else objects to the edits, I propose we add them in. --Alabamaboy 18:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent some time editing this article a while back, but gave up.  I want to leave this comment for those currently editing the article.  As you know since about 1950, no single organization called the "Ku Klux Klan" exists.  The name is in the public domain, anyone can use it.  Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the "The Klan was involved in the 1964 murders of . . .".  What you really should say is "The Aryan Nations Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was involved in the 1964 murders . . ." or whichever specific group it was. The parts of the article about the modern Klan is full of these mistakes.  Ydorb 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall editorial issues 

message: Where does the name Ku Klux Klan come from?
--Gbleem 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states, The name was constructed by combining the Greek "kyklos" (circle) with "clan."  Ydorb 16:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies; still struggling to decipher my watchlist! --TeamCoachingNetwork 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: After surfing through this article it seems to me like both this and the Black Power article were written from a one sided point of view.  Yes yes i know. Those darn white people.  Talk about beating a dead horse. 65.49.129.103 02:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing is that an editor complained not too long ago that this article was essentially a recruiting piece for the KKK and seemed like a Klan member had written it. The truth of the matter, though, is that a lot of readers bring their own biases to this article and read it as they wish to. Such is life.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and on and on 

message: At this juncture , I added this PRIMARY SOURCE on the history of the KKK and it has since been deleted. I'd like to know why.
*KKK Hearings, 46th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Report 693
At that same link, I added the following two recent Klan histories, the first by Chalmers, distinguished professor of history at the University of Florida, and the second by Newton, a journalist. Both references have been deleted. I would like to know why. Both are updated accounts of the Klan, and Chalmers's is a history book.  
*Chalmers, David M., Hooded Americans: The History of the Ku Klux Klan. Historian John Hope Franklin said, "Hooded Americanism is the only work that treats Ku Kluxism for the entire period of its existence. ... It is the authoritative work on the period. Hooded Americanism is exhaustive in its rich detail and its use of primary materials to paint the picture of a century of terror. It is comprehensive, since it treats the entire period, and enjoys the perspective that the long view provides. It is timely, since it emphasizes the undeniable persistence of terrorism in American life."
*Newton, Michael, The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida (University Press of Florida: 2001) ISBN: 0813021200. "The Ku Klux Klan was at least as violent in Florida as anywhere else in the nation, and the sheriffs, juries, judges, politicians, press, and citizens, for the most part, as culpable in its murderous history."
I have repeatedly pointed out, now on archived talk page, that the article falsely states that Horn was a historian. He is not. Why has this fact been continually overlooked? If anyone bothers to click the link, you can read for yourself that Horn was a forestry writer and publisher, in other words a trade journalist. Why does this article call him a historian?
The following is what the article states:
* Horn, Stanley F. Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation: Montclair, NJ, 1939.
Horn, born in 1889, was a Southern historian who was sympathetic to the first Klan, which, in a 1976 oral interview [1], he was careful to distinguish from the later "spurious Ku Klux organization which was in ill-repute—and, of course, had no connection whatsoever with the Klan of Reconstruction days."
Why does this article quote Horn 13 times and exclude the more recent histories that are not as pro-Klan as Stanley Horn?
Horn's book is extremely favorable to the Klan, as the Reference section states, because he ignored the PRIMARY RESOURCE for the era he wrote about, and that is this:
*KKK Hearings, 46th Congress, 2d Session, Senate Report 693
Trelease, Chalmers and Newton use testimony from the KKK Congressional hearings. Why has this primary resource from the Reconstruction era been epeatedly reverted?
Skywriter 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably an oversight. Add the references in.--Alabamaboy 13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why delete references, especially Primary Source? 

message: In the west coast, despite the distance from the civil war and there was no slavery, the Ku Klux Klan took on other names and plans to subvert power for 80 years. In the 1920's and 1930's, the California chapter of the Klan stirred racial violence against blacks, but expanded the list to include Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Armenians and certain European immigrants esp. Jews are the most hated group after blacks. They appealed to a nativist attitude on the fears of "yellow" and "Spanish" invasions, or immigration of Asians and Latin Americans into the western US. 
Today, the KKK serves as a local race-baiting underground force against illegal immigration, homosexuality (gay rights) and liberal politics they decried is generating "moral decline" and the percentage of whites in the state is much lower, now are another minority group in racial demographics. Because Cal. is a blue state and has never been completely "racist enough" towards black people, the KKK feels Cal. is a failed project, yet most racial/other attacks in Cal. are directed against American Jews, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans. 
The Klan always find a specific regional "threat" like the Northeast, where they formerly harassed Roman Catholics and ethnic groups from Southern or Eastern Europe. It's evident from the group's origins in the Southeast US is the black race was their enemy, but they carried a long list of "enemies": liberals, anti-Klan conservatives, "radical" feminists, certain Christians, homosexuals and globalization will drive down the white race. The KKK stirs fears and fabricated racial issues to create a scare that a few people actually joined the Klan. +207.200.116.69 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klans in California 

message: Anyone know why the KKK are listed in the Category for Secret Societies? Zos
:They are not a secret society, rather, they are a society that has secrets. That may have something to do with it. Ste4k 05:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Society 

message: User:C56C and I appear to have a disagreement as to whether this article belongs in :Category:Conservative organisations. My feeling is that the historical Klan is skew-wise from any conservative-liberal axis, while the current Klan doesn't even really qualify as an "organization", since in reality there are multiple Klans with a range of viewpoints from something that could be called conservative to downright rabid loony bigots. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative 

message: David Duke Opened The Klan To White Catholics in 1975 -- signed by ANON IP
Correct...but often required to take an oath to reject most Catholic doctrine and policies of the church, even resist orders from the pope himself. The klan still refuses to allow most Hispanics (esp. mestizos or mulattos of both black/white and/or white/Amerindian blood) into a white racist organization. Asians are still barred from ever joining the group, despite the majority of Asian Americans are treated as "white" or light-skinned, said to assimilated enough in a few generations. I think Jews, Arabs and Native Americans cannot enter the klan membership, but what about whites who are a quarter "black" (to show or appear on genealogical documents the klan leaders want to read or examine before accepting the new recruit) or "non-white"/"non-Aryan" that may extend to some Sicilian Americans and certain Slavic Americans? + 63.3.14.1 08:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics 

message: Hi. I don't know anything about the KKK but perhaps this image I found on the Dutch Wikipedia could be usefull? -- Face 18:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK symbol 

message: Was there ever a KKK leader named Johnny Lee Clary (or Johnny Clary or John Clary)? Supposedly he quit the group and began preaching 'against hate'. 
His story is in The Day I Met God.  --Uncle Ed 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Clary 

message: Why is this paragraph that I have edited in being removed????  It's factual information.  Look it up yourself.  I provided a source.  It was taken from that website as well as a History Channel documentary on the history of the KKK.  I should also be noted that the group's founders thought up comical and silly names for the ranks and positions in the groups, such as Grand Dragon and the like.  It was all a hazing joke to them at first.
"The Ku Klux Klan was, in its inception, a social club for young men seeking amusement and entertainment. Members would make midnight raids on the town of Pulaski dressed in elaborate costumes consisting of bedsheets or masks pretending to be ghosts or demons in order to frighten or amuse townspeople. The members soon found a target for their pranks. They used their costumes and raids to frighten recently freed slaves into believing that they were the ghosts of killed Confederate soldiers."
This information is absolutely accurate and important to understanding how the group started, what the original intentions of the founders were and how the group was corrupted and how it became the organization it did.  It is accurate information that DESERVES to be in the article.  Read the source.  Watch the History Channel documentary on the KKK.  It's real information and it deserves to be in the article.  I know this is Wikipedia, and we can make history whatever we want, thank you Stephen Colbert, but this information provides insight into the history of the KKK at its inception.  Please do not remove it without cause.  If you wish to remove it, find a source that refutes it and cite it as a reason for the removal.  It is  genuine information and should be included.  By removing it, you are depriving the article of information based on some personal ideology or agenda. -- unsigned comment by User:Sivazh
* The motivations and amusements of the first night riders would be all but impossible to establish, as reports of people's attitudes are, by definition, subjective. There is, I might assume, some truth to the idea that virulent and violent hatred of non-whites was not the only motivation for dressing in costumes and parading in moonlight, but we should carefully cite the claims made by these sources as claims, rather than as fact. You are wrong to place the burden on those who have removed your contributions. If you will participate in a discussion here about how to include the documentary evidence you have turned up, I think you will find that we can form a consensus and avoid an edit war. --Dystopos 05:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Delete Factual Information Without Cause 

message: Here is the list of all the organizations that represent sub-group of the Ku Klux Klan since her dissolution in 1944.
* Alabama Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Alabama White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* America's Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* American Klan Association 
* American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Aryan Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Bayou Patriots Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* California Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* California's Invincible Empire 
* California Golden Knights (of the KKK)
* California White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Confederate National Congress 
* Confederation of Independent Orders 
* Dixieland White Knights 
* Federated Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in South and North Carolina 
* Fiery Cross Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Georgia's New Order of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Green Mountain Knights 
* Illinois Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Imperial Klans of America, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Independent Northern and Southern Klans 
* Indiana Realm of the Ku Klux Klan 
* International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Invincible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Invincible Empire, Knights of the White Rose 
* Invisible Empire 
* Invisible Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Invisible Empire, Indiana Ku Klux Klan 
* Invisible Empire, Pennsylvania Ku Klux Klan 
* Iowa's White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Justice Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* JWS Militant Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
* Kansas Klan Knights (or Kansas KKK)
* Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Klan Youth Corps 
* Klinton Kounty Knights 
* Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Knights of the White Kamellia 
* Knights of the White Rose 
* Lake County Triple K Club 
* Michigan Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Michigan Realm of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Missouri Federation of Klans, Inc. 
* Missouri New Order Ku Klux Klan 
* National Association for the Advancement of White People 
* National Ku Klux Klan (not the original one) 
* National Knights 
* National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Nevada Ku Klux Klan 
* New Empire Ku Klux Klan 
* New Jersey's White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* New Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* New Order Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* New Order Party, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* North Carolina's White Knights of Liberty 
* North Georgia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Northwest Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Northwest United Klan 
* Nutmeg Knights 
* Ohio Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Ohio's Independent Invisible Knights
* Oklahoma Knights of the Ku Klux klan 
* Order of the Fiery Cross, 
* Order of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Oregon Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Pennsylvania's White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Rangers of the Cross, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Realm of Florida 
* Rebel Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Saints of the South (Christian Klans Knights of the South) 
* Southern Camelia Knights (of the KKK)  
* Southern Cross Militant Knights 
* Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Southern White Knights 
* Stormfront (not affiliated, but allied with KKK) 
* Templar Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Tennessee's United Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Texas Emergency Reserve 
* Third State Empire 
* Tri-State Knights Riders of the Ku Klux Klan 
* U S Klans Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* Union Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* United Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* United Klans of America 
* United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* White Heritage Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* White Knights 
* White and Red Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (Canada) 
* White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
* White Nations of the Ku Klux Klan 
* White Patriots Party 
* White Shield Knights of the Ku Klux Klan 
The majority contains just a dozen of members while some of them are big groups like "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan". Shall we put this list on the page ?
::I think the list is overkill. There are hundreds of orgs that claim the KKK mantel, most with only a few members (as you state). I think I prefer the article as it is, which lists just a few of the bigger overshoots and mentions that there are many more.--Alabamaboy 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the Ku Klux Klan 

message: If other editors agree, the material from the pro-KKK history can remain, but placed in context as part of a propoganda campaign by the KKK to sanitize its real nature as a White terror organization. It is somewhat disheartening to see an editor acting as an apologist for White terror, and pretending that inserting a claim from a KKK source is merely a way to make accurate the "intentions of the founders...and how the group was corrupted." Historians minimize these claims, recognizing them as dubious and perhaps mythical. --Cberlet 13:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information should not be included. First off, the pro-KKK source is questionable. While the KKK did start as a social club (as our original reference to a well-known history book said) the other so-called facts about what they did are mere annecdote and legend. Unless a more reliable historic source on par with the other well-known sources we have used in this article can be provided, these additions should not be added. The second reason for not adding all this stuff is that it doesn't add anything to the article. Mentioning that the KKK started as a social club as the article orginally did is fine since it is a short mention. Going on for a paragraph about this is too much of a minor detail. The KKK are not known for their social club pranks. Finally, before adding this info consensus needs to be gained to do so. Since I see no consensus to add the info, I say it remains out.--Alabamaboy 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't be an apologist for White terror 

message: Negroes in the United states never retaliate when Klansmen kill negroes.  The Ku Klux Klansmen slay soft targets, and they have always slain soft targets.  Jews have finally said:  "Never again!"  Jews are no longer being attacked by Ku Klux Klansmen, therefore.  Negroes are permanent soft targets, therefore the Ku Klux Klan will have available a supply of soft targets.  The Ku Klux Klansmen avoid people who retaliate.  Negroes will never retaliate, though.  Superslum 05:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft targets 

message: Please help clean this up  -  I moved it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Potters_house/Knights_of_the_Ku_Klux_Klan
Potters house 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for inclusion on kkk article 

message: The article is currently blocked so could someone please remove the link to Westboro Baptist Church in the See Also section. They are not affiliated with the KKK and have nothing to do with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.211.4.19 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing with you, 141.211.4.19, since, as far as I know, the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church are organizationally unrelated.  I see that someone has made your requested change, which is fine with me.  But there are similarities between the two organizations: Both are pseudo-Christian hate groups, which no bona fide Christian church or denomination recognizes as being actually Christian, with doctrines strikingly at odds with real Christianity, and with behavior which defames the name of Christ. NCdave 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edit 

message: First read the defintion of "homophobia" then justify its use here. The Klan is considered a "hate" group, not a group with a "phobia". Explain how and when the Klan obtained their "fear" of homosexuality... and source it. --Britcom 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the word Anti-homosexualism is not used by almost anyone (only a few hundred google hits). The word is a neologism, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. In addition, the article you created for Anti-homosexualism is being considered for deletion, which is further evidence most editors do not agree with you on this one. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a final point: This article is not the place to fight this battle. If you can win the AfD over Anti-homosexualism and convince the editors at homophobia to go with this alternate term, then come back here and I'm sure everyone will be more receptive to the use of the term.--Alabamaboy 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Anti-homosexualism" is irrelevant. You didn't justify use of "homophobia" did you?   I don't recall asking for anything else. I suggest that it is falsely applied here. --Britcom 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 76,000 google hits for Klu Klux Klan and homophobia. How about , , Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, and Bethany A. Lohr. “Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1996. Volume 105, No. 3. Pages 440-445; The Ku Klux Klan and Related American Racialist and Antisemitic Organizations by Chester L Quarles, page 123; Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price, edited by Warren J Blumenfeld, page 66; and so on. And those are only a few of the references. Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support your use of this neologism and you don't seem to have the consensus here to use the word. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justify use of the term "homophobia". 

message: The titel of this section is inflammatory and imparts to the reader the impression that the author of those passages has not only an agenda, but a personal axe to grind. The section itself does no better; the (purposeful?) conflation of the women's branch of a white supremacist organisation with the modern feminist movement is absolutely shameful.  It is more than a presentation of parallels between purportedly common ideas that occurs in those paragraphs. The idea that the radical feminist movement arose out of the WKKK is, indubitably, absolutely false.
First of all, sentences such as the following: "In the late 1800s WKKK women basically went around talking about what black men might do to them, while KKK men preached the sanctity of "white womanhood". The sexually hypercharged imagery, together with economic desires of slave-owners,[snip]" are sloppily formulated.  The first sentence is so vague in its phrasing as to render itself ridiculous, and the second sentence fragment is just factually incorrect.  The phrase would have to be _former_ slave owners to be valid.  Then, this: "Many Men's Rights and Father's Rights activists view radical feminist agendas and legislature such as the VAWA as invoking the same profiling and sexual imagery and simply excluding 'black' from the old WKKK jargon while inserting 'oppression' as an added profile of all men."  Perhaps, but who cares?  What do the purported feelings or views of Men's/Father's Rights activists concerning (hypothetical) modern radical feminist goals and political activities have to do with the organisation being portrayed? Then there's this: "Early WKKK radical feminists also wrote about the drudgery of motherhood and other typical feminist topics we read about today.", which is just totally irresponsible, and makes it abundantly clear that these passages are not at all about a sober profile of the WKKK, but rather the author's personal crusade against radical feminism and/or feminism, period.  Seriously, what has this: "A common overarching theme was women using their sexual power to get men to do whatever they wanted – a theme identical to the core ideology of the contemporary V-Day initiatieve pushed by N.O.W. in hopes of replacing Valentine's Day with a murky celebration of misandry.", to do with an impartial report on this group?  Such statements--and these paragraphs are full of them--are nothing more than prejudicial pronouncements.  
If all that wasn't questionable enough: this section is lifted almost wholesale, word-for-word, from an article by a man named David R. Usher.  It is called "From the Women's Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800's to the systematic destruction of American families today".  It is from a website called www.dadsnow.org from the year 2000, and can now be found at the following link: http://fathersforlife.org/Table_contents_gj.htm#WKKK.  The Fathers For Life website is a Men's Rights/Father's Rights site, as was its old home, Dads Now.  So, it is either--in addition to being just plain biased and wrong--plagiarism, or an attempt by Mr. Usher himself to see his personal views validated and disseminated by a forum such as Wikipedia.
Whoever added this section of this Wiki entry did much the same at the entries for 'feminazi' and 'radical feminism', in almost the exact same words.  He has apparently read the Kathleen Blee book (if he has actually read it) as a justification for and support of his hatred of present-day feminism.  I would kindly suggest that this section be removed and replaced with something a great deal more impartial and substantive.  Thank you.
The Beach 13:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section sounds like self-promotional copy to me and I've removed it. In addition, the editor who added it should seek consensus on the addition before adding it in. --Alabamaboy 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that what you are saying is support by only one book. That said, I have no objection to adding a small section about women in the klan, using this book (and anything else you can find) as a reference. However, I do not support summing up the entire book's POV arguements, which, since I have not seen these arguements in any other credible literature, does not strike me as a mainstream historical consensus. What I would support is stating the facts about the WKKK, stating that one author believes their tactics were adopted by early feminists, and let that be about it. Any other comments from people?--Alabamaboy 13:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I may be an anonymous editor but I support Alabamaboy's comments and don't think more than a brief mention should be made about all of this. Also I looked at Alabamaboy's talk page and it said he was on a short break. His lack of response probably doesn't mean he supports what Loneranger4justice said.--206.165.32.108 14:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory: WKKK to Radical Feminism 

message: When i look at other featured articles like India or Pakistan, a star comes on right hand side top of the main article. Can somebody please tell me why cant i see the star here. Thanks.nids(♂) 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a problem with your web browser b/c when I looked a second ago it was there. --Alabamaboy 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i checked its there. I had to move to right to see the star. Perhaps (for some reason), the width of this article is more than the others. Sorry for bothering you.nids(♂) 19:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  star * missing 

message: I remember this on the news long ago: A firefight happened between some Klansmen, allies and the American Communist Party. Martial Law 07:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any Refernces on here about this firefight ? Martial Law 07:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefight 

message: This entire article is very one-sided and at several points is clearly trying to argue a particular point of view. This isn't information being delivered for the purpose of informing, it's an attempt to sanitize the image of the Ku Klux Klan.
Basically it's a collection of cut and paste from writers who are trying to build an arguement with a specific point of view: The Klan was really not so bad. There are too many references to 'lawless' or 'rebellious' ex-slaves with no citation. They're just pastes from these other sources and the sources have a clear point of view. The article is designed to paint the Klan as just a bunch of decent southern boys who were trying to restore order and decency in their community.
*Do you have any specific suggestions to improve the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klan Appologist 

message: HAHA YEA THERES NIGGERS IN THE KLAN, THEIR IN THE TREES ABOVE THE RALLIIES.
I have seen pictures, and a few notes regarding actual "Black" members of the Ku Klux Klan, however, I lost the information now. Can anyone confirm this?
*Sounds like a load to me, why would you join a white power group...if your black?!--Zhukov 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * There was an African American sheriff's deputy who retired a few years ago who had joined some branch of the KKK by mail and kept track of klan activities through correspondence. He never participated in any meetings or wore a robe, though. I wouldn't recommend adding anything to the article that doesn't have a specific citation. And the Chapelle Show doesn't count. --Dystopos 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Members of the Ku Klux Klan 

message: This may be a stupid question, but why are there several references referring to former US President Truman, if he is not mentioned on the page? - JustinWick 08:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this question is not answered in 7 days, I'm going to remove the references, as they imply a connection between Truman and the KKK which the article does not substantiate. - JustinWick 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman References 

message: Note that the Wikipedia article on Woodrow Wilson questions the accuracy of the quotation about Birth of a Nation. Here is the quote from the Wilson article: "Wilson's words were repeatedly quoted in the film The Birth of a Nation, which has come under fire for racism. Thomas Dixon, author of the novel The Clansman upon which the film is based, was one of Wilson's graduate school classmates at Johns Hopkins in 1883-1884. Dixon arranged a special White House preview (this was the first time a film was shown in the White House) without telling Wilson what the film was about. Wilson most likely did not make the statement, "It is like writing history with lightning, my only regret is that it is all so terribly true." That was invented by a Hollywood press agent. In fact, Wilson felt he had been tricked by Dixon and publicly said he did not like the film; Wilson blocked its showing during the war.[31]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.224.190 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth of a Nation Quote 

message: In "The Ku Klux Klan Today" section, there's the following claim:
Also recent attacks include the lynching of blaenavon schoolboy Adam South by known KKK member 'Silent' Bob Davies.
Do we have any citation?
Qnonsense 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam South Lynching Citation? 

message: The last line of this section states:
"In 2006, several Klan members tried to beat the shit out of CapnCrack. He responded by killing their stupid asses and then fucking their white women."
Now, I'm no expert on the Klan and not a fan, but it marrs an otherwise good article by leaving this vandalism in. I would have done something about it myself, but it took me ten minutes to work out how to get this far to ask somebody else to do it. God know what would happen if I managed to get anywhere near the edit myself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.129.65 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting an article is simple. Click the History tab, select a clean edit before the vandalism, then Edit this Page, and save. Splintercellguy 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As pointed out elsewhere on this talk page, people do bring their own preconceptions to anything they read; this article is no exception.  Not all Klansmen were uneducated (as for education, please check your own spelling of "terrorists"), not all were cowards, not all were murderers.  The second KKK had, as one of its goals, to end domestic violence (a point that I don't remember being made in the article itself, despite several references to it in more than one of the texts cited).  My hat, personally, is off to all the editors who have made it as good and balanced an article as it is. 66.32.35.45 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ku Klux Klan Today 

message: User Tony360X changed the third point in the bullet list from
:The second Ku Klux Klan was founded with a new anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic agenda. The bulk of the founders were from an organization calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan, and the new organization emulated the fictionalized version of the original Klan presented in The Birth of a Nation.
to
:The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson gave rise to the second coming of the KKK. Wilson supported racial discrimination and brought it to the Federal Goverment. Hundreds of goverment administrations were segragated under Wilson's admnistration.
I've reverted the change. The original version was logically connected to the other two points in the bullet list, and to the text above them. The new version violates that logic. Also, the new version is extremely POVish, and assumes a hypothetical link between the institutionalization of racism in the federal government by Wilson and the creation of the second Klan. I don't think any such connection exists, and if it does, Tony360X hasn't offered any evidence of it. There certainly are connections between Wilson and the second Klan, via his endorsement of Birth of a Nation, but the main event being discussed in this bullet list isthe existence of the film itself, not Wilson's endorsement. If Tony360X feels that institutionalized racism in the federal government helped to lead to the creation of the second Klan, I feel he should (a) present some evidence, and (b) introduce it into the article in a way that doesn't violate the logic of the presentation.--Fashionslide 19:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson and the second Klan 

message: I added to the lead that they are a Christian fundamentalist group, and sourced the statement. I hope this self-evident fact will not be controversial. --Striver - talk 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now the article presents the KKK first and foremost as a religious group. Is this accurate? The cited source says "some Christian fundamentalist beliefs" which suggests the first thing Wikipedia says about KKK should not be "religious group". Weregerbil 09:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not correct. In fact, the reference you provided states that they only have "Some Christian fundamentalist beliefs, Christian Identity, white supremacy." It is misleading and POV to state that they are a Christian fundamentalist group.--Alabamaboy 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian identity 

message: Why were these cites deleted?
* Drabble, John, The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Mississippi, 1964-1971, Journal of Mississippi History, 66:4, (Winter 2004).   
* Drabble, John, "To Preserve the Domestic Tranquility:” The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and Political Discourse, 1964-1971," Journal of American Studies, 38:3 (August 2004): 297-328. 
They represent recent research.  Also, shouldn't the David Cunningham book be cited?--Cberlet 04:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why deleted? 

message: I see a few places where citations are needed and was tempted to use  but wanted to see if maybe we should just mark the article rather than each occurence. GLKeeney 15:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Sorry if I didn't put this in the first place, this is my first edit.  I think it'd be appropriate to include KKK's current goals in the "Present" section (source www.geocities.com/__izzy__/Dengue/kkk/today.htm):
―Reassert America's White Christian heritage.
―Return prayer to school.
―Stop all non-white immigration.
―Drug testing for all welfare recipients. If they have money for drugs, they don't need your tax dollars.
―Make the purchase of American industry and property by foreigners illegal.
―Do away with free trade that harms the American worker and employ a policy of protectionism.
―Workfare, not not welfare. You work for your check, so should they!
―Troops on our southern border to stop the entry of illegal aliens.
―Stop reverse discrimination by doing away with Affirmative Action.
―Declare all laws attempting to enforce gun control as unconstitutional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonSasha (talk • contribs) 
Hey, I don't know how edit this article and I don't have enough time to learn at the moment. The table in this article showing membership of the Klan appears to have a wrong amount for the year 2007. I would appreciate if that would be fixed soon. Thank You.
Hi, I don't know how to edit the article but the first note says: "According to the 1920 census, the population of white males 98 years and older was about 31 million". I assume it means 18 years, this needs correcting.
Had to edit the following paragraph because it is nonsensical.
"The Klan sought to control all of the political and social status of the freed slaves. Specifically, it attempted to curb black education, economic advancement, voting rights, and the right to bear arms. However, the Klan's focus was not limited to African Americans; Southern Republicans also became the target of vicious intimidation tactics. The violence achieved its purpose. For example, in the April 1868 Georgia gubernatorial election, Columbia County cast 1,222 votes for Republican Rufus Bullock, but in the November presidential election, the county cast only one vote for Republican candidate Ulysses Grant.[8]
The second part of the paragraph was removed alltogether because it is an obvious non sequitur "Southern Republicans also became the target of vicious intimidation tactics. The violence achieved its purpose. For example, in the April 1868 Georgia gubernatorial election, Columbia County cast 1,222 votes for Republican Rufus Bullock, but in the November presidential election, the county cast only one vote for Republican candidate Ulysses Grant.[8]
Reasons:
1. Choosing not to elect a public official is hardly a "vicious intimidation tactic."
2. "The violence achieved its purpose," makes absolutely no sense because choosing not to elect a public official is most definitely not an act of "violence."
3. The sentence, "Southern Republicans also became the target..." implies that there were repercussions to "Southern Republicans." Since the Republican candidate, Ulysses S. Grant was not chosen to be president of the USA by some little county in Georgia, AND he was not
southern (Grant was born in Ohio, and would have never allowed anyone to call him a Southerner) there is no stated backlash for "Southern Republicans."
::I think you misunderstood the point of that sentence, which made perfect sense to me.  Within a period of approximately seven months, Republicans who lived in the South (Southern Republicans) were so intimidated by Klan tactics or members that whereas 1,222 of them voted Republican in April, only 1 of them voted Republican in November.  I did not re-add this sentence to the article; it was already back there again (someone else must have done the reversion), so I'm happy to see that more thoughtful heads have already prevailed. 66.32.35.45 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required Edits 

message: Should there be some mention in the article that even though the old KKK was mostly Democratic, the Democratic party of the time is in no way related to the party with the same name today? The way the article is right now it raises the impression that the current party was once associated with the KKK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.190.172 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, 69.152.64.166, the Democratic Party of both the original and the second KKK was, indeed, the Democratic Party of today.  It is the same Party, though its positions on racial issues have changed. NCdave 11:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you saying that the average person who said they were a democrat was most likely in the KKK or the southern democratic canidates and officials were KKK? --Art8641 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Political Parties 

message: I am unable to add this, so somebody might want to.
On November 19, 2005, renowned white supremacist, Hal Turner, rallied the Ku Klux Klan near Kingston High School, Kingston, NY in response to a brutal assault on a 14-year old white teen named Robert Hedrick by a 16-year old black teen named, Joseph L. Williams Jr,. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkicon (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Kingston, NY KKK Rally 

message: Anyone know the etymology of the name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PyroGamer (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The words: "Ku Klux Klan" refer to the sound the air rifle makes when it get loaded. I am pretty sure that is the answer, though I have to do some research on it. It is a very interesting topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.18.120 (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, "Ku Klux" comes from the Latin word "kuklos", meaning "circle" or "group". At first, in its infancy, the Klan was called the "Knights of the White Circle", and later changed it to the more odd and mysterious "Kuklos Clan", and later "Ku Klux Klan". They thought the alliteration sounded cool. -- 70.46.35.198 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Sherlock Holmes story in which a Klansman features. In it, Sherlock explains to Watson that the Klan arose from disaffected Confederate officers and that they took their name from the sound of Winchester rifle being racked and loaded. That, presumably, was what Arthur Conan Doyle writing in the 1890s believed to be the origin of the name. --Oscar Bravo 09:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I quote at length from the final paragraph of the First Klan: Activities section:
"In an 1868 newspaper interview,[17] Forrest boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men, and that although he was not a member, he was "in sympathy" and would "cooperate" with them, and he could muster 40,000 Klansmen with five days' notice. He stated that the Klan did not see blacks as its enemy so much the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments like Tennessee governor Brownlow's, and other carpetbaggers and scalawags. This was a half truth since one of the main reasons for targeting these white groups was that they were impediments to efforts against the former slaves. The Klan went after white members of these groups, especially the schoolteachers brought south by the Freedmen's Bureau, many of whom had before the war been abolitionists or active in the underground railroad. Many white southerners believed, for example, that blacks were voting for the Republican Party only because they had been hoodwinked by the Loyal Leagues."
Halfway through that paragraph, the term "half-truth" is used to discredit Forrest's words; however, then much of the rest of the paragraph is used to illustrate the truth underlying his statement.  Rather than using the damning "half-truth" (a very negative thought) here, shouldn't the context warrant something more to the point that "There was at least some factual basis behind Forrest's remarks," and then list the ways in which white Reconstructionist groups were targets of the Klan's activities?  I haven't been part of the editing behind this page, but I couldn't see any reference to this specific topic here on the talk page, so I thought I would bring up this proposal. StavinChain 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-truth 

message: Can anyone substantiate with a reliable source, that the carving on Stone Mountain, Ga was paid for largely with Klan funds? JodyB talk 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only semi-protected so you should be able to edit the article now that you are logged in. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, that was dumb. Guess I ate too much for lunch. Thanks JodyB talk 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the problem is that there is no verification of that or sourcing of the claim in the Stone Mountain article. I would guess the information should be out there is true but there is also a real problem with it being an urban legend. I'd just like to see some documentation both there and here. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 18:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone Mountain carving 

message: Yea, you know, the popular song from 1918...does anyone know whether or not this song includes not-so-overt references to the Ku Klax Klan? I think this would be an interesting culture byte if someone can get a lead on this, given that it was a pretty popular tune. In my research I have discovered that the descendant of the woman it was written about knew nothing (no pun intended) about such a connection, but I'm not sure this little tidbit was something that would be passed down, even if it were true. Any thoughts?--172.166.106.90 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the lyrics you'll see there's no connection at all. K-K-K-Katy is a stuttering song.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  K-K-K Katy 

message: The Ku Klux Klan were criminalised and deemed a terrorist organisation by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Coincidentally, the National Rifle Association was founded in the same year. I think this should be mentioned - 82.16.7.63 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: City and state efforts, and individual leaders in communities who spoke out against it, contributed to the demise of the Klan.  Its membership went down rapidly in the late 1920s, in some cases after members' names were published in local newspapers.  Social adaptations diminished the Klan's appeal in most locations.--Parkwells 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRA started out has a sporting group and not a lobbying group. Furthermore, the first gun legislation aimed to prevent free blacks from owning firearms, thus able to defend themselves, which the NRA rigourously sought to overturn.  That is a very weak link. 72.192.31.8 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The NRA and the KKK 

message: Please remove the pic of the KKK denying the holocaust, its a bit offensive to some who see it.
regards anon124.168.115.172 03:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Profanity - it is relevant to the article. Also, by the Content Disclaimer, some stuff on wiki may be shocking. mattbuck (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK holocaust pic 

message: According to a few sources, there have been reports that the Ku Klux Klan is making it's way back to Saskatchewan.  During the 1920s or so, the Ku Klux Klan had the most prominant following in Saskatchewan with thousands of members, than died off.  I can't remember the reason they died off some.  But there still are 250 members in Saskatchewan according to the report.  (SaskatoonHomepage.ca) (Saskatoon Star Phoenix) (Regina Leader-Post) (CBC Saskatchewan)
Mr. C.C. 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Return To Saskatchewan 

message: On August 26th, User:Skywriter altered the order of this page's subsections by moving the '20th century resistance to Klan violence' section to the top. I have restored the original order. I feel it makes more sense to keep history sections in rough chronological order, and so this section belongs further down the article, between the sections about the Klan in the 1920s and the Klan today. In addition, it is extremely odd that this article should address 'Resistance to Klan violence' before describing that violence itself. 
Skywriter justified his changes in the edit summary by arguing that the murders attributed to the Klan should appear near the top of the article. I sympathise with his aims, but this isn't the best way to do it - instead, we should expand the intro, which already mentions two people murdered by a Klansman, to mention other Klan victims as well. 
Also - in future, major changes to this article should be discussed here first, rather than just in edit summaries. Please make any comments on my changes and suggestions below. Terraxos 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't apologize for and glorify the KKK; it presents the complete history of their organization. As for Stanley Horn, please point out the specific issues with any specific info or reference and we can address that. However, we need specifics, not generalizations that Horn is bad and must be removed.--Alabamaboy 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of subsections 

message: Seeing no reply to the above, I repeat my strong objection to the political viewpoint represented in this article that places multiple 20th century murders by Klansmen, some of them still unsolved, near the end of this long article, after quite a lot of trivia. Skywriter 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan to Put Disputed Flag at top of this article 

message: This article is 68 kb. Based on Article size, this "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" 
Given that 35 years of the 19th century makes up half the article, and another long section is devoted to a film, I propose that this article be split into two articles: one to cover 19th century, and the second article, the 20th century. This is an attempt to resolve the dispute described above.
A split will resolve the issue of burying of 20th century history in this long article.
What are the objections to a split based on century? Skywriter 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to split the article. The table of contents is there so people can find the info they want. Feel free to bring this up for a RFC. However, do note that a large number of editors have worked on this article and arrived at consensus on it and that it covers the entire KKK, not merely the 20th century spinoffs during the Civil Rights era and later. The changes you keep proposing are not based on history, which is what this article is trying to cover.--Alabamaboy 01:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Resolve Dispute 

message: Under "Political Influence" the article says: "At its peak, Klan membership exceeded 4 million".  But the table below it says that in 1924 there were 6 million.  Obviously, 6 million exceeds 4 million, but it would be nice if these numbers were either a-heck-of-a-lot closer to each other or (preferably) the same (substituting "reached" for "exceeded"). Originalname37 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the table to 5 million. Kenneth T. Jackson's The Klan in the Cities stated the peak of 1920s membership was estimated to be 2-5 million. I'll put that in the other reference.--Parkwells 03:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: To Parkwells: thanks.  To 90.203.7.152: what? Originalname37 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: I'm reading a book right now that shed some interesting light on the KKK, particularly here in Ohio. I add this text to the talk page so that someone who is more comfortable editing this article could use and cite it at their pleasure.
"The Klan's heritage of violence against blacks made it self-proclaimed law-abiding image seem implausible. The public knew well the Klan's identification with arson, beatings and lynching going back to the Reconstruction Era in the South. Evidently to alter perceptions of the Klan as a lawless organization, Klansmen often denied hostility toward African Americans. Although avowedly white supremacist and segregationist, the Ohio Klan protested that it was not unsympathetic to blacks. In order to demonstrate their "love of the Negro," Klansmen occasionally made dramatic financial contributions to black churches. For example, in December 1923, about forty Klansmen marched into a black Baptist Church at Wadsworth in northern Ohio and gave its pastor a one hundred dollar contribution. Klansmen made a similar demonstration at a black Baptist Church in Cincinnati in April 1926. Such events surely were intended to attract press attention, and they were often reported widely. The New York Times carried the story of the Klan contribution to the black church in Cincinnati.
Ohio Klansmen even presumed to create a separate black branch of the Klan in 1924. Youngstown Klan officials, through a black agent, Paul Russell, organized the Loyal Legion of Lincoln, which was intended to be a national organization headquartered in Youngstown. The Loyal Legion shortly became defunct when Grand Scorpion Russell apparently absconded with funds collected from white Klansmen to finance the organization. 
The Ku Klux Klan entered the political arena to gain power and promote its ethnic and racial agenda in Ohio. The Ohio Klan initiated its first intensive political program in 1923. Five Mahoning Valley cities elected Klan mayors that year, and Klan candidates were elected in various other parts of the state. Shortly after the general election in November 1924, Ohio Grand Dragon Clyde W. Osborne claimed that enough Klan candidates won seats in the state House of Representatives and Senate to give the Klan control of the Ohio General Assembly in 1925. Later Osborne more modestly claimed that forty-five members of the House were Klansmen. It appears, however, that there were never more than twenty Klansmen in the General Assembly. Nevertheless, in 1925, Klan state representatives introduced legislation reflecting their organization's anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy attitudes. One of the bills prohibited marriage between whites and (begin page 117) nonwhites. Other such proposed legislation included bills that requires all students to attend public schools, thereby disallowing enrollment in Catholic parochial schools, excluded Catholics from teaching in public schools and required Bible reading in the public schools. These Klan backed bills did not pass the Ohio legislature, excepting the latter, which was vetoed by Governor Vic Donahey." 
(Source: African Americans and the Color Line in Ohio, 1915-1930, author: William W. Giffin, pages 116 and 117, , The Ohio State University Press, 2005)
Jimbobjoe 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting cited text--may be added to this article 

message: I'm not familiar with US politics so I didn't want to edit without checking, but under Activities, the sentence starts with, "By the November November presidential elections[...]" Is this a redundancy or do November elections sometimes occur in other months if they can't be done in November?
StoicalSoul 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was redundant - thanks for noticing. Thought I'd thanked you yesterday, but must have forgotten to save it.--Parkwells 17:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November November presidential elections? 

message: I've reordered and added material to show the origins of the second Klan of the 1910s and 1920s - the social changes that made so many people fearful. The film and sensational trial and lynching of Leo Frank would not alone have captured people's attention if they weren't already fearing the rapid changes around them.  After the Klan was formed,its organizing technigues of recruiting in cities other than Atlanta connected with people's fears.--Parkwells 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation 

message: I appreciate the work that Parkwells has put into this article lately, but many of the changes he/she has made have not improved the article. For example, parts of the article are now too wordy, such as the article's lead (which is also now way too long under WP guidelines). There are also multiple instances where unsourced POV info has been placed in the article. For example, the article states that the first Klan was founded by "a variety of disaffected men." That the Klan "grew because of white people's fears about the future and resistance to changes brought about by their defeat in the Civil War." I'm not saying these statements are wrong (they personally ring true to me) but they use unencyclopedic language which appears to be POV pushing and borderline original research.
This article is the result of large amounts of work by numerous editors; it is also a featured article. As such, Parkwells should first seek consensus on this talk page for these large number of changes. I have reverted to an older version of this article until this discussion can be held and consensus found.--Alabamaboy (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't looked at this article in a while and will try to satisfy your concerns above. Those viewpoints were not mine but historians I had read. YOu could have asked for citations rather than removing my changes.  Also, you removed other people's work. In terms of encyclopedic content, I think the lead should reflect the real reasons for the growth of the second Klan, not the film and trial of Leo Frank, which, though dramatic, were not the reasons the Klan grew across the country. I provided sourced information on why the second Klan grew. The film and trial were not the underlying reasons why people were attracted to the Klan. Without social tension and fears as a result of rapidly changing society, neither the trial nor the film would have had much effect, despite their sensational aspects.--Parkwells 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally fine and agree with these changes.--Alabamaboy (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by [[User:Parkwells|Parkwells]] 

message: The Ku Klux Klan did not appear in episodes of the Superman radio series. In February and March of 1947 Superman delt with a racist organization called The Knights of the White Carnation. This group was no doubt inspired by the KKK, but not the KKK. The name Knights of the White Carnation was taken from an organization similar to the original KKK the existed in Alabama following the Civil War.Heathcliff (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is wrong 

message: "Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that have advocated anti-Catholicism..."
"Ku Klux Klan FAQ"
"The true Klan is not anti-Catholic in any fashion - both Catholics and Protestants rode with Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Klan founder."
So we will include it or not ? The text is from their official site.
--Greetings Krzyzowiec (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't include it. That's what they say today, but they were definitely anti-Catholic earlier in the 20th century, as historians have well documented.--Parkwells (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with Parkwells. That is merely propaganda and an attempt to rewrite the KKK's history.--Alabamaboy (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KKK and the anti-Catholicism. 

message: I'm not sure why I repeatedly find this lapse in discussions about either Robert Byrd D-West Virgina, or the KKK, but it seems that no discussion of the KKK's contemporary impact is complete without mentioning Robert Byrd's association with the Klan. I find that David Duke's affiliation is dutifully noted, even though he is at best a minor political player and even though he also, like Byrd, quit his membership with them.
Robert Byrd is one of the highest ranking senators and easily the most prominent former member of the Ku Klux Klan. It is no doubt but that his racial ideology--the same that led him to sympathize with and participate in the Klan--also led him to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. 
Omitting this entire history to me borders on bias or an outright coverup on his behalf for reasons that escape me.
The Wikipedia page on Robert Byrd does an excellent job capturing this history and could easily be referenced here.
71.231.75.150 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert Byrd made himself look bad by ever being a member of the KKK. It's not your responsiblity to try to censor the article for the sake of his reputation.Heathcliff (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that was Pharmboy's intent in his reply. If you can properly and neutrally source the information then by all means add it. If, and I do not know the anserw to this, he has repudiated that position, that ought be included too. - JodyB talk 12:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Robert Byrd's affiliation with the Klan not noted under the various sections that describe notable persons associated with the KKK? 

message: McWhorter's book includes well-documented accounts of alliance between Bull Connor and the Klan in Birmingham, so I've included reference to that (and to Wallace's use of them in AL) as examples of how deeply the Klan was tied/used by some governments to resist desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement.--Parkwells (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition. In fact, all of your additions and edits today are excellent. Best,--Alabamaboy (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing out that error.  Correction is made.--Parkwells (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Klan 

message: was banned years ago for aggressive POV pushing on articles like this. His recent sock account has been . That account made major edits to this article last month. I've tried to revert most of those edits, but unfortunately I may have undone some good edits at the same time. Please feel free to make any changes necessary. I'll keep reviewing the past edits to see if any changes should be made. Thanks for your patience.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert from banned user 

message: Ah, is it just me, or does this article seem to be veering ever-so-slightly in favour of the Ku Klux Klan? It seems to go on about them as if their bigotry and racial hatred was just every day behaviour, which is utterly ridiculous. Maybe it's just me. I don't know. 81.145.242.136 17:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The declaration that a group is a hate group is tricky as it is really a POV statement unless properly sourced. Likewise the claim that the group is not is also POV. We should say they claim to no longer be a hate group and I have so changed it. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: /golfclap 86.144.147.49 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um...POV??? 

message: Why is this page protected, I can't find any info on it and there is a stray quotation mark that is driving me crazy... 12.110.35.99 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It just seems unneeded and insensitive to me...what do you guys thing? Mwv2 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are awful but they do belong as they are part of the undeniable record of the Kluxers. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to understand the evil the KKK has done, one must present the complete historic record.  For example, the Holocaust article has pictures of a child dying in the streets and mass collections of dead bodies. I find those photos just as disturbing as I find the lynching photos here. But this info needs to be part of the historic record so people can learn about the horrors associated with such horrible acts. While I appreciate your offended sensabilties, that is no reason to censure important historic images.--Alabamaboy 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that the photo of Michael Donald needs to be included. I think it is offensive, too. We don't have photos of all the lynchings; we don't need to see photos of every murder committed to understand how terrible the acts were.--Parkwells 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Profanity - it is relevant to the article. Also, by the Content Disclaimer, some stuff on wiki may be shocking. mattbuck (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's assuming those images are relevant to the article, and that article itself is notable. Therefore, it would be not possible to show every rape, shooting, stabbing, lynching, or beating to death as most of them are non-notable. --BirdKr (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are lynching pictures appropriate?