Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Ku Klux Klan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

I don't mind if we include "far-right" in its infobox, but I believe that we should remove the term from the opening statement, it sounds very biased (in its current context) and gives people the wrong idea of what the term means. I suggest that we just leave it as saying that its a white nationalist group. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see also #Right Wing versus Left Wing, just above. I assume you mean that it reflects badly on the political right, not that it reflects badly on the KKK, but it seems to me that "far" separates it adequately. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand this, but it seems like not everyone will understand the separation, and could exploit either side by referencing this article as a source. I just don't want people to have the wrong idea about what the KKK is/was, and it seems that having Far right a bit further down in the opening might be more acceptable. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the term used in the literature. TFD (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What literature do you mean by? - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean peer-reviewed articles books written by social scientists and published in the academic press. See for example the Google book hits for "far right".[1] Or read this description of how the terms are used by scholars. TFD (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Our burden is verifiability as opposed to truth, and scholarly sources trump any concerns about making people feel bad, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The article presents the film Birth of a Nation as a major factor in starting the second Klan. The typical "moral of the story" from this version of events is that a filmmaker was allowed to say something shocking and suddenly it turned the whole country into a madhouse. But as the article states, in fact the film quoted extensively from Woodrow Wilson, who in turn endorsed it.

Now bear in mind that Wilson was the second Democrat in office since 1860 (the other, Grover Clevland, in 1892). His college friend Thomas Dixon, Jr. wrote the Clansman trilogy on which the film was based. So I'm not seeing the film as a sudden bolt from the blue that converted a country, but rather as a state propaganda production in support of a radical racist party. In other words, the film plays the role of Der Sieg des Glaubens, the second Klan plays the role of the Brownshirts, and Wilson stars in the role of Hitler. As perhaps America's greatest political villain, and certainly its champion liar, he seems fit for the part.

Now what I'm curious about is whether there is any explicit linkage between Wilson and William J. Simmons, who founded the second Klan. After all, it seems hard to picture going through all that effort only to leave the new national organization with such a massive membership in unknown hands. I see in that article that Simmons "claimed to have studied medicine at Johns Hopkins University", where Wilson studied from 1883-1886. Is there any documentation of some direct association between them? Wnt (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wilson probably never said the words attributed to him in the film,[2] and you would have to find a source supporting the theory. TFD (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

the Klan was a small group for many years after the movie came out, and Wilson never endorsed either the new kkk or the film.Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article disputing that Wilson wrote those words. Nonetheless, when I looked up [3] I didn't find anything close to those words in a search (though I can't be sure the Google text search is really comprehensive). But all the sources that come up in a quick online search seem to take the quote's citation for granted. And it seems hard to picture that they could have lied about prominently attributing a quote to the current president without someone calling them on it, and instead getting a rave review about "history written with lightning". But that quote too is apparently having confirmation problems.[4] I forgot just how much trouble a person has with lies and contradictions when trying to get to the root of any of this Klan stuff. I assume that at least Wilson's racism, to the extent of stymying efforts for equality in the League of Nations, is true. But if any of this stuff is definitely bogus, with a reliable source we can quote, we should put that in this article and/or the film's article! Wnt (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wilson was a highly controversial politician and people made up all sorts of things about him many of them false. The "history written with lightning" blurb was apparently written by a Hollywood press agent, who invented it, and attributed it to the president of the United States-- so reports Arthur Link and his multivolume biography.Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking into the numbers a little, I found a source that the KKK membership rose to 100,000 in eighteen months starting (?) with a partnership with the "Southern Publicity Association of Atlanta" in 1920 [5] Wilson's second term expired in 1920. This complicates my initial supposition, though it doesn't necessarily rule it out. Of course, I'm trying to organize my thoughts in these terms to sort out what is true and false and informative to include here; I don't expect to come up with some new theory to break on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Jason Lantzer in "Prohibition is Here to Stay" The KKK reemerged as an ally to the Anti Saloon League in the most temperant state of all: Indiana. They began helping to enforce prohibition, but then later merged to more serious crimes.

Xavier Peniche (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the article in search for the origin of the name, but I found nothing on the subject. Could maybe someone add some info in the matter?--Dia^ (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you found nothing on the subject, you didn't read the article. Ku_Klux_Klan#Creation - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How I love these so very helpful answers! Well, if the "Origin of the name" hat its prober heading, as happen in other article,I would have find it immediately instead to have too look for it in a 00,594 bytes Article. --Dia^ (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The article gives a very definite/certain origin of the name. I know there is a citation, but is it right that it is so certain? I seem to remember reading in the past that there were a number of theories. can't actually remember them though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.101.239 (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Horn was a well-regarded historian of the Klan, and I haven't read any reputable work that is different. Any other "theories" would have to be documented.Parkwells (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that use of the adjective 'fantastic' is to describe Klan costumes in the lead section, as a synonym for outlandish from the previous sentence. However, as the (arguably) primary connotation of the term fantastic is a positive one like great, excellent, superb et al, I think its usage here can be misleading, even in present context. Is anyone else bothered by this? Unfortunately, there aren't many other synonyms for outlandish which seem appropriate, either: unconventional, bizarre, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, outrageous. To be clear: I'm not saying outlandish is the base word from which we should look for alternatives because it too has certain problematic connotations, though not nearly as obvious as fantastic. Since I'm new to this article, I'm simply offering feedback as a reader. I've checked archives but see no discussion of this term. Respectfully, -PrBeacon (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It occurs to me that we can simply delete the word "fantastic". The sentence before says they're outlandish, and this sentence says they're the same, so we don't really need to belabor the point. I went ahead and deleted it, but please feel free to revert me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The klan's uniforms are similar to Nazarenos. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it fair or accurate to call their white hoods and robes "costumes"? Would we call the Black Panthers' berets and turtlenecks "costumes"? 207.6.167.227 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call them "uniforms" in this case. Is there a better word choice? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "costume" is appropriate -- and that is the term used by the reliable source: Elaine Frantz Parsons, "Midnight Rangers: Costume and Performance in the Reconstruction-Era Ku Klux Klan." Journal of American History (2005). it was a special, unique, garb more like today's Halloween costume -- it was not like an ordinary piece of clothing (berets and turtlenecks are ordinary garments) Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The term "costume" is accurate. They originally dressed that way in order to appear to be ghosts. TFD (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless it is demonstrated the KKK took any action against the Catholics they are just another masonic secret society with offices such as "Grand Wizard" who burned crosses. The article needs a section on Secret societies for credibility. It is know some of the high offcie holders in the KKK were Freemasons, like Albert Pike. Pike waas certainly no Protestant, but was an occultist, a Cabalist and a Gnostic. And Protestants who were not in the KKK were anti Catholic, which was the law of the land in early America, including many states up until the Civil War as state governments and Constitutions were then changed.[1][2] I do not believe it has ever been demonstrated there are ANY "knights" who function in support of a Protestant denomination, or that the KKK held any worship services. As for who founded the KKK and their function, the same can be asked about Freemasonry and is possibly outside the scope of the article. Perhapse take a page from the 1902 Britannica:

A widespread secret society, the "Ku Klux-Klan," beginning with the effort to overawe the Negro population by whipping and arson, was rapidly driven into political murders.

75.120.185.48 (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1902 Britannica is a bit out of date. The Klan was well known at one time for its opposition to Catholics. See this book, for example.[6]   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

They burned a cross on Father Coughlin's lawn! Notice that the mention in the article to Protestantism is about the Second KKK which was formed long after 1902. TFD (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced on the KKK's supposed anti-Catholic stance, its possible there were some individuals who felt that way, its more likely the sentiments were against the Hispanic southerners who were largely Catholic. Bear in mind though many of the Klan were descended from Irish and Scottish Jacobites, many of whom were Catholic, and there were Catholic Confederate soldiers. The KKK bombed a Protestant church, surely by the same standards you could say they were anti-Protestant or specifically anti-Baptist? Hachimanchu (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No one cares whether or not you are "entirely convinced". Articles are based on sources. TFD (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, there are sources which say there are attacks on catholics, just as there are sources describing attacks on Protestants, but none to my knowledge that specify anti-catholic attacks per se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.142.21 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Klantreerome.jpg comes to mind. You might also take a look at File:Goodcitizennovember1926.jpg, File:Poperob.jpg, etc. Once you prove the Klan is not/was not anti-Catholic, you'll want to clean up Guardians of Liberty, Anti-Catholicism in the United States, Alma Bridwell White, Pillar of Fire International, etc. Then, you'll need to start cleaning up the web, then the libraries... - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@willbeback, Are you saying the book lists actions the klan took that were anti Catholic? If so what were they and reference the page?75.120.185.48 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

@TFD, This Coughlin was an anti semite who supported the hitlerian discredited Jewish Bolshevism claims. He was a radio host that covered political talk radio. He and the KKK are very very similar. Maybe they worked together to foment revolution. It was a publicity stunt with no injuries or property damage of note. Also, just because the KKK may have expressed anti Catholic views certainly does not mean they are Protestant. The Templars and the Freemasons have a history of anti Catholicism. You all should remove the religion claim in the description box. That's something that will not be proven because there's simply no truth in it. Even though there were many misguided Protestants in the KKK following the Civil War the same were members of the armies that fought the war.75.120.185.48 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not based on your opinion, but historical sources, which do document that the KKK members were generally Protestant.Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are historical sources listing the Klan as a secret masonic society with offices such as Grand Wizard held by well known Freemasons from the Civil War like Albert Pike. This masonic society recruits dupes from the Protestants with claims of being anti Catholic, which Protestants were (as it was law in numerous state's Protestant "test oath"). The Klan however had political motives that did not include anti Catholicism and you've not demonstrated any actual anti Catholic actions taken. The Freemasons as well recruit from Protestants, Jews and Muslims, yet masonry is not any of those religions. (the republican part was full of Protestants, the democrat party was full of Protestants. religious organisation?) Without a section on the masonic founding of the KKK the article has no credibility. The political organisation was not of any religion. Once again, the Grand Wizard was not Protestant. The Freemasons are based on the Knights Templar and their Klan group worked for the political agenda of the Pope, and the Jesuits in Washington DC at Georgetown, to frighten the blacks away from the Protestants. However the later is outside the scope of this publication. The point is they were not a Protestant religious organisation, quite the opposite. The article should include 1) Freemason ran organisation and founding, and 2) clarification that the KKK claimed to be anti Catholic for recruiting of the Protestants (as do FM). Unless it is documented the Catholics were lynched and burned out as the blacks were.72.161.229.229 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the reliable sources presented show they were anti-Catholic. Saying that "there are historical sources" is not the same as presenting reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please observe Article II of the Ku Klux Klan manual, visible here: the purpose of the Klan is "to organize the patriotic sentiment of native-born white, Protestant Americans." Thus the Klan, at least in its second incarnation, was not merely anti-Catholic, but pro-Protestant. It hated not only Catholics, but also Jews and all other non-Protestant religions, although of course the Klan was also capable of terrible viciousness against Protestants who were black, foreign-born, unionists, or otherwise didn't fit the Klan's narrow definition of Americanism. Pirate Dan (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Klan's masonic definition of Americanism included harassing the free blacks away from anything Protestant with hopes the blacks would run to the Roman Church as the Templar Knights have always worked for the same. Just because they use Protestants for their political agenda does not mean they are pro Protestant. That's how revolutions are caused, by misinformation. There was alot of misinformation in the Civil War72.161.229.229 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources presented so far say they were anti-Catholic. The burden of proof now rests on those who wish to say otherwise. After pproving it here, they will need to address File:Klantreerome.jpg, File:Goodcitizennovember1926.jpg, File:Poperob.jpg, etc. Then they'll want to clean up Guardians of Liberty, Anti-Catholicism in the United States, Alma Bridwell White, Pillar of Fire International, etc. Then, they'll need to start cleaning up the web, then the libraries...Good luck! - SummerPhD (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, there are over one billion Catholics on the planet producing this propaganda. The truth however is not up for a vote. Until some anti Catholic action is proven it is a baseless claim no matter how often repeated or what the consensus says, similar to the often disregarded definitions of fascism and marxism, as they are an ongoing conspiracy within the encyclopedist. This article has no credibility without a section on secret societies and the Freemasons holding the offices and founding of the KKK. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice the edit history completely filled in just a few days by individuals correcting obvious errors to this Wikipedia page only to be revesed. The page even had to been locked for protection. And this has been going on for how many years? The high traffic of corrections will most likely continue until the errors are corrected, and the credibility will suffer until this is done!

With offices such as Grand Wizard, the Freemasons founding of the Klan is evident yet the Wikipedia page refuses to publish this fact. The baseless claims about KKK being Protestant or Christian terrorist or religious, and not just a political action group like today's La Raza, are the hight of absurd. (the same goes for any biased books making the claims.)

Credible Information about the Freemasons, Albert Pike and the KKK is very easy to find, in minutes.

"In 1905 that the Neale Publishing Company, New York and Washington, published Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, written and edited by Walter L. Fleming, incorporating earlier published material by J.C. Lester and D.L. Wilson. Historian Walter Fleming's introduction to this 1905 book explains that he has been given "information in regard to Ku Klux Klan, by many former members of the order, and by their friends and relatives." Dr. Fleming states that "General Albert Pike, who stood high in the Masonic order, was the chief judicial officer of the Klan." On a page of illustrations of important founders of the KKK, Dr. Fleming places General Pike's portrait in the center, makes it larger than the six others on the page, and repeats this information as a caption: "General Albert Pike, chief judicial officer". Dr. Fleming attaches as an appendix to his book, a KKK "prescript" or secret constitution which had then recently been discovered."(freemasonrywatch)

The above is confirmed in Fleming's book (yet not on Wikipedia) and no surprise given Pike's involvement as a Civil War general, and founding other similar secret societies (Orders of Knights) for the war effort.

NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Assistance was given to me while searching for information in regard to Ku Klux Klan, by many former members of the order, and by their friends and relatives. Of especial value were the details given to me by Major James R. Crowe, of Sheffield, Alabama; the late Ryland Randolph, Esq., and his son, Ryland Randolph, Jr., of Birmingham, Alabama; Judge Z.T. Ewing, of Pulaski, Tennessee; Miss Cora R. Jones, of Birmingham, Alabama, niece of one of the founders of the Klan; Mr. Lacy H. Wilson, of Bristol, Tennessee, the son of one of the authors of the History printed within, Major S.A. Cunningham and Mr. A.V. Goodpasture, of Nashville, and Dr. John A. Wyeth, of New York City. 1. D.L. Wilson, one of the authors of "Ku Klux Klan." 2. Major J.R. Crowe, one of the founders. 3. Captain John C. Lester, one of the founders. 4. General Albert Pike, chief judicial officer. 5. General W.J. Hardee. 6. Calvin Jones, one of the founders. 7. Ryland Randolph. pg.19,27 Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, written and edited by Walter L. Fleming,Ph,D.,(Professor of History at West Virginia University) incorporating earlier material by J.C. Lester and D.L. Wilson (New York and Washington: Neale Publishing Company, 1905)

Fleming points out all the Klan's founders were Freemasons. The Grand Wizard, Forest was Freemason. Albert Pike was high in Freemasonry and made no claims of being Protestant. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, then, you are here on a "mission" against the consensus and the "ongoing conspiracy within the encyclopedists" or whatever. The cabal has spoken and "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.". - 01:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The question of the role of Freemasonry in the KKK has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the KKK was Protestant. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The klan was founded and ran by Freemasons not Protestants. Pike for instance was not Protestant. No Protestant worship service was held. The klan was/is a Masonic political society similar to the Jacobins of France (cir.1790). No more Protestant than the Republican Party. The quotes and reference should be added to the article with the names of the founders, as documented by the historian. As it is the Catholics have hijacked the article and made it all about evil Protestants. They have to conceal the Freemason involvement to do this. 174.125.77.208 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the lines of the below. This is definitely not ready for inclusion in the article. If anyone can suggest modificaitons, changes or sources (I've only got two sources so far, and one is decidedly unscholarly), please pitch in. Two points I'm particularly unsure on are the relation of Northern Democrats with the first Klan, and what political relations, if any, existed between the third Klan and the Democrats or Dixiecrats during the 1940s and 1950s.

1. What is the partisan affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan?

The first Klan was an exclusively partisan Democratic organization. “The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was in effect the armed wing of the Democratic party.” Riches, William Terence Martin (2004), The Civil Rights Movement: Struggle and Resistance, ISBN p. 5. The first Klan being a southern organization, Northern Democrats generally did not join it, but preferred to claim that it did not exist, while opposing the Klan Act and other Republican measures against the Klan. Jean H. Baker, Affairs of Party: the Political Culture of Northern Democrats in the mid-Nineteenth Century, ISBN 0823218651, p. 349.

The second Klan was bipartisan, largely endorsing Democrats in the South and Republicans in the northern Midwest , who agreed with its racist, anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant and Prohibitionist goals. Mark David Chalmers (1987), Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, p. 202.

The third Klan since the 1960s has repudiated, and is repudiated by, both major parties.

2. But if the Klan was aligned with the Democrats, how can it be right wing?

The current political alignment that places almost all Republicans to the “right” of almost all Democrats is a modern phenomenon that came about gradually from the 1940s through the 1980s. From the 1850s through the 1940s, both the Republican and the Democratic parties were broad ideological coalitions. Each party included leftists, centrists, and rightists. Frances E. Lee (2009), Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate, ISBN 0226470768, p. 69-71. Thus the first Klan appealed to the right wing of the Southern Democrats, the second Klan appealed to the right wing of the Southern Democrats and the right wing of Midwestern Republicans, and the third Klan appealed briefly to the right wing of the Southern Democrats.

3. What does it mean to call the Klan “extreme right?”

The Klan is called “extreme right” because its white supremacist, hyper-nationalist, anti-immigration, segregationist, and anti-Catholic ideology is ‘’reactionary,’’ meaning that it seeks a return to an actual or imagined previously existing political situation. Clive Webb (2010), Rabble Rousers: The American Far Right in the Civil Rights Era, ISBN 0820327646, p. 10. Chester Quarles (1999), The Ku Klux Klan and related American racialist and antisemitic organizations: a history and analysis, 078640647X, p. 31.

In politics, the “right” is a vague term meaning to be conservative or reactionary, as opposed to “left” which means to be progressive or radical. The terms “right” and “left” originate from Revolutionary France, where supporters of a return to the ancien regime or the continuation of the new constitutional monarchy sat on the right of the National Assembly, while supporters of gradual or radical change to a republic or other new schemes of government sat on the left. Norbert Bobbio (1996), Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction, ISBN 0226062465, p. x.

4. So is this article saying that most or all rightists agree with the Klan?

No. Conservatives and reactionaries together make up the “right, but virtually no modern American conservatives and only some reactionaries support the Klan’s particular brand of racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic nativism. In particular, Catholicism and support for Israel are both very strong on the modern American right, both of which are irreconcilable with the Klan’s anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic agenda. Thus, to say that the Klan is on the extreme right suggests that it occupies a fringe position on the right, not that it agrees with the mainstream of the right.

Pirate Dan (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (second edition)

Sounds fine. Here (p. 10) is a link to a source that explains how the terminology is normally applied. TFD (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nativism is no more antiSemitic than the Chinese, Japanese or Mexicans. AntiSemitism implies unjust or undue persecution, not just anti immigration sentiments. You may want to check your source for bias. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No one said it was. TFD (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the FAQ to put in some more sources I found. I also included the Clive Webb source that TFD kindly provided. This is as far as I'll be able to go for a while, as it's back to school tomorrow for me. Pirate Dan (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is very helpful—thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Looks fabulous; Hopefully this will save a lot of talk page space. The rchives are filled with these questions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok but drop "In Indiana, the Klan completely dominated the state’s Republican political machine in the first half of the 1920s." -- historians no longer agree with this [the KKK for example did not choose Congressmen or write legislation]. Rjensen (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC),

Please let me revive the following discussion. I did not have time to come back to this earlier, but I think it is worth it since it means correcting a factual error in the article. I am reproducing below the archive of the discussion and my response. Frhoo (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The date of December 24, 1865 is a post-fact reinvention, and is not historically accurate. Allen Trelease, in his book White Terror, has a good discussion on this (pp. 1-2). Most probable date of the first meeting is June 1866 (we have nothing more accurate than that, although the Pulaski KKK celebrated its first birthday on June 5, 1867). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frhoo (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It seems there is some contention about the date; the Time article lists the earlier date, for instance. Is there any source to support the fact that the December date is mistaken? Celestra (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the change would need concensus. I had reviewed this request shortly after it was posted, but it seems we have two sources making conflicting statements, so I refrained from editing until there is some agreement from other editors. If one source is clearly more reliable (ie, scholarly rather than specualtive), then that would certainly be the prefered reference. If they appear equally valid, then we might need to list both possible dates, mention the conflict, and cite both sources. I've seen this done in many other "historical" articles where the facts can't be known with certainty and there are different interpretations. Doc Tropics 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought, as well. If there is a good reference that claims the (somewhat dubious) Christmas Eve date is a revisionist construct, so be it. If there isn't, some mention of the conflict seems appropriate. Celestra (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me argue that the Time article and the Allen Trelease book are of different authority. The Time article is a newsweekly article that mentions the date in passing while giving no reference to check its information. Allen Trelease's book White Terror is a major scholarly book, written by a recognized historian, cited many times by other historians ( http://scholar.google.fr/scholar?start=10&hl=fr&as_sdt=0&sciodt=0&cites=1644879006359020515 ). The scholarly status of both sources are thus different. Yet the date of December 24, 1865 is probably worth mentioning, since it was part of the mythic reinvention of the first KKK during the emergence of the second KKK. Frhoo (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Trelease's book. He mentions the founding as probably May or June 1866 on p, 3. He sources this to an academic paper from 1928 (see footnote 1, p, 423). Since this book was published in 1971, we need to confirm that subsequent scholarship agrees with him. Can you also say that the secret symbol for the KKK was to have fingers in waist band and three middle fingers outside. TFD (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link: it saved me from a trip to the inconvenient library where I had read the book, and it makes it available for everyone. Actually, the correct footnote is footnote 1, p. 430 (first footnote for chapter one). It is a long footnote that references many accounts of the birth of the KKK and explains why, with all probability (although nobody is certain) the Klan was born late spring or summer 1866. I agree we need to confirm, but it seems to me, at least, that accounts by witnesses do not agree on the date, and that maybe we can agree, at this stage, that there is considerable doubt about the exact date of December 24, 1865. Frhoo (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In its account of the 1867 Nashville meeting the article says that one Brian A. Scates was elected Leader and President of the KKK. The name sounds suspiciously modern ("Brian" was not a very common name in the 19th century), and when I checked for other references on Google Books I was not surprised to come up empty. It turns out the edit adding Scates to the article was made September 23, 2008 by an editor with the IP 67.128.15.155. At about the same time he vandalized other articles using Scates' name.

Given the above, it's obvious the edit was vandalism and since Scates is probably a real person somewhere, mention of him should be removed forthwith. While looking into the subject on Google Books I did see some sources which reported Nathan Bedford Forrest was elected Grand Wizard of the Empire at the Nashville meeting, which may be worth including in its place if that info is accurate. 69.225.198.24 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} This may help the back and forth argument of those above too. The Democratic Party was very different in 1924 for many different reasons. My suggestion would be to add a reference to one part especially, and below is my proposal:

Under the title heading "Political influence" in the third paragraph down says:

"The Klan issue played a significant role at the bitterly divisive 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City. The leading candidates were Protestant William Gibbs McAdoo, with a base in areas where the Klan was strong, and Catholic New York Governor Al Smith, with a base in the large cities. After weeks of stalemate, both candidates withdrew in favor of a compromise. Anti-Klan delegates proposed a resolution indirectly attacking the Klan; it was narrowly defeated.[85][86]"

Please remove the word 'issue' from 'Klan issue' to just 'The Klan' itself, and explain in a few words how it was "significant" such as using the then-coined term, 'Klanbake', or please use the link reference I provide here, and use it after this sentence (revised) "The Klan played a significant role at the bitterly divisive 1924 Democratic National Convention in New York City. The Democratic Convention of 1924 (at digitalhistory.uh.edu).

Below are some points from the link I provided:

• "Northerners and Southerners, Westerners and Easterners, Catholics and Jews and Protestants, conservative landowners and agrarian radicals, progressives and big city machines, urban cosmopolitans and small-town traditionalists." and

• "The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West."

• "Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform."

Thanks for considering any of the above, but please insert the reference so others can read into what they will, whether it's far-left or far-right, or some other POV. -IP John in Cinci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.23.189 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 February 2011

Not done. It wasn't "the Klan", it was "the Klan issue" meaning something like "the argument involving the Klan and revolving around the ethos of that group". If it had just been "the Klan" then it would have meant some action that just the Klan had undertaken, such as burning something or whatever. But it was the Klan issue because everyone, both in and out of the Klan, were arguing about it. It is significant because of the next sentences: "The leading candidates were Protestant William Gibbs McAdoo, with a base in areas where the Klan was strong, and Catholic New York Governor Al Smith, with a base in the large cities. After weeks of stalemate... Anti-Klan delegates proposed a resolution indirectly attacking the Klan; it was narrowly defeated." People argue about issues. Right now we're discussing the "Klan article issue". What sort of issue would you say they were arguing about back then? What caused the stalemate for all those weeks, what was the resolution about and how was it meant to be received by the opposing party? ;) Let me know on my user talk page if you'd like any further help, put the edit requested template back up or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. Banaticus (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently saw an editor change the political position from the obvious "far-right" to a perplexing "far-left." A little shocked at how one would think this, I then remembered, "oh yeah, modern American Democrats dominate the term 'left' in most Americans' minds. If they hear the Democrats founded the Klan, they might forget that this was before the mass-exodus of conservatives out of the party during the Civil Rights Era." It vaguely occurred to me that some American with a serious lack of understanding of political science and of world history could get this confused in their heads. Do they understand the Klan's attitude towards the left? Can a simple FAQ be set up on this talk page since I've seen similar confusion on this talk page and see potential future ones, as well? Motorizer (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I removed Category:Far-right politics in the United States and Category:Anti-communist organizations In the United States from the bottom since Category:Ku Klux Klan is a subcategory under these. See here and here. LittleJerry (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Referring back to the beginning, the Ku Klux Klan was originally founded by the Pulaski County Democrat Committee and as such is a far-left organization. Can someone please correct this? It was created by the Democrat Party in direct opposition to the Republicans winning the Civil War and freeing the slaves. The Democrat Party is responsible for this terrorist organization and needs to be held accountable for all of history. ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ below. Pirate Dan (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Far-right" is an absolutely INCORRECT for the KKK. This is a political smear, using cherry-picked far-left liberal books as citations. The KKK Was founded and grew in its heyday from the U.S. Democratic party - for the sole purpose of harassing Republicans who supported freeing the slaves. Nothing about the KKK has ever been related to the U.S. right-wing whatsoever. The infiltrations of liberals within WP trying to re-write history is becoming so commonplace, it is scary that our kids are using this tripe for their school research. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

People need to learn some history. Both parties have changed considerably over the years. Southern Democrats before and after the Civil War were dominated by the rural, planter elite and had generally conservative views, what is now described as "right". The KKK represented conservatives who wanted to restore white supremacy and turn back the results of the Civil War - freedom for former slaves and equal rights under the law. It was not related to the Democratic Party of recent decades except in name. FAQ may be a good idea, as suggested above.Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a political re-alignment since the U. S. Civil War, with conservative southern Democrats moving en masse into the Republican Party. Notice too that African Americans in southern states no longer vote over 90% for the Republican Party. TFD (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are asserting here is that since the Dixicrats split from the former Democratic-Republicans (i.e. former name for the Democrats), that they magically became Republicans and turned the Republicans into racists. This is a patently untrue, and an immoral attempt to rewrite history. The Republican Party was FOUNDED on the core principle of protecting the rights of the freed slaves. Even the WP article on the Republican party explains this correctly. It is also a FACT that the MODERN Democratic party blocked all civil rights legislation brought by the Republican straight through the 1960's. The poster who claims blacks vote primarily for Democrats is making a completely unsupported and off-topic generalization that this has something to do with the affiliation of the KKK. To the person making the uncalled-for personal attack about my "needing to learn history". Well, One of my majors was *American History*, so you need to put away the insult cannon. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You claim to have majored in American history, yet you don't know that the Republican party was founded in the 1850s, before the slaves were freed. Nor do you know that the Democratic Republicans discarded that name and became the Democrats in the 1820s, over a hundred years before the Dixiecrats were founded. Given that incredible amount of ignorance, it's hardly surprising that you also don't know that Democrats, like Republicans, used to include both left and right wing supporters.

Hence the need for the FAQ, so we can stop having this ridiculous conversation every three weeks. Where should it go: on the talk page or the main article or both? Pirate Dan (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please go read WP's own article on the Republican party. They come somewhat close. You are trying to re-write history based on biased opinion. It started forming at the time you mention, but really did not coelesce to it's current form until the ~5 year following the civil war, when the Whig's started splitting off. Yes, I majored in american History, and yes, I have voted Democratic about 75% of the time. I am trying to correct a blatant smear campaign going on here, not playing politics. The KKK has *never* been associtated with the American right nor the GOP party. It is ridiculous to even assert such a claim, with the history of the American right being the ones who were pushing for the civil rights acts all the way up through the 1960's. Robert Byrd(D) who was in Congress right up to his death this year was a Grand Cyclops in the KKK. Are you going to call him a 'dixicrat and thus a Republican' too? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Whigs dissolved in the 1850s, so your claim that the Whigs started splitting off "~5 year following the civil war" is utterly ridiculous. Byrd abandoned the KKK along with its right-wing ideology over 50 years ago, and chose to remain with the Democratic party. Other Dixiecrats, like Strom Thurmond, who chose to remain on the right migrated to the Republican party; that's straightforward history.

Your statement that the KKK has never been associated with the Republican party is false. The second Klan endorsed numerous Republicans in the Midwest, largely because they agreed on Prohibition (see D.C. Stephenson. The first Klan was, of course, exclusively Democratic, and even the second Klan was mostly pro-Democratic in the South. I myself have edited the article to show that. What you still fail to comprehend is that not all right-wingers are Republican, and that many Democrats in the past were right-wing, and many Republicans were once left-wing (Teddy Roosevelt openly called himself a Progressive). Whether endorsing Democrats or Republicans, the Klan remained exclusively on the extreme right, by embracing hyper-nationalism, racism, segregationism, Protestant supremacy, the exclusion of immigrants, and other positions rejected by all of the left as well as by the moderate and mainstream portions of the right.

I have never claimed that the KKK was predominantly Republican, only that it was predominantly extreme right. Decent Republicans always opposed the Klan, of course, just as decent Democrats always opposed the Communists. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. If we do include a FAQ on the talk page, as some other articles do, I hope you'll help out with writing it. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In Rabble Rousers: The American Far Right in the Civil Rights Era, clive Webb writes that far right is the term most broady used by scholars to describe militant white supremicists.[7] I see no way of stopping these period discussions however, since fringe views of history are heavily promoted in popular media, such as the Glenn Beck show. TFD (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So some guy makes a claim in a book, and that means that's just the way it is? There's some fine WP sourcing for you. There has never, EVER been any relation between the KKK and the political right in the USA. Contrary, there has been a deep history of their relation directly to the Democratic Party. Senator Robert Byrd (D) was a grand Cyclops in the KKK in the 1960's for heaven's sake. Are you going to try to claim he was a "Dixiecrat, and really not a Democrat"? This is ridiculous. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some guy makes a claim and then other guys who happen to be leading experts in social sciences agree with him. BTW the term "right-wing" itself is from France, and some people may claim it is inappropriate to describe U.S. politics. TFD (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, whoever this guy is that's trying to claim that there has never been any relation between the American Right and the KKK, he's completely wrong. There's a very good reason that just about every history book on the PLANET discounts your absurd "Glenn Beck" revisionist theories. And the Byrd reference is equally absurd, as Byrd was a self-described CONSERVATIVE while he was in the Klan, who later renounced those views and moved to the Left. I mean, Ronald Reagan was a Liberal Democrat when he started his political career...but that certainly is not "evidence" that Reagan's economic theories are "Liberal." Whatever institution allowed this guy to graduate with a history degree (assuming he isn't lying) should be investigated for accreditation. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan is historically a far-left organization created and promoted by the Pulaski County Democrat Committee, Pulaski, Tennesee, 1865 as the world’s first terrorist organization. This was in direct opposition to the Republican victory of the Democrat created Confederacy and to intimidate Freedmen everywhere. Indeed, this tactic continues even today in the circumstance of Al Greene, a veteran of the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard. Mr. Greene fairly won the South Carolina Democrat primary and almost immediately was maligned by the establishment Democrat “Good ‘Ol Boy” network as someone with mental problems and accusations of involvement with pornography, totally unfounded. Indeed, the Tea Party came to Mr. Greene’s assistance. This demonstrates that the same attitude still exists within the Democrat Party in 2010 as in 1865, in conjunction with the Ku Klux Klan, thus confirming that the Ku Klux Klan remains a far-left organization and a child of the Democrat Party.Zandovise (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Do you have reliable sources saying the "Ku Klux Klan remains a far-left organization and a child of the Democrat Party"? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia International, 1968, Vol.10, New Book Of Knowledge, 1968 both attribute the Ku Klux Klan with Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest, a Democrat. As the Confederacy was the creation of the Democrat Party, the only party to exist in the Confederacy, and the Pulaski County Democrat Committee oversaw the KKK it is attributable to the Democrat Party. The two versions of the KKK that followed would not have existed without the original. Sadly, the treatment of Mr. Greene by the Democrat establishment of South Carolina, also documented on here, is a sad reminder of that era.Zandovise (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The anon IP editor (possibly User:Zandovise?) is wrong in attempting to characterize the KKK as a "left-wing" organization but, given various comments, one begins to wonder if "right-wing" is appropriate either. As has been mentioned, American politics has changed several times in the last 150 years. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are hardly appropriate terms to describe ante-bellum and post-bellum U.S. politics. The earliest that these terms could be considered appropriate would be during the Progressive era of the early 20th century but even then the terms are mostly projecting contemporary politics back onto that era. (i.e. the Progressives of the early 20th century do not necessarily map onto the Progressives of the early 21st century). Where "left" and "right" begin to emerge is with the New Deal of FDR but, as has been mentioned earlier, racism cut across political lines especially in the South. It was perfectly possible to be a supporter of the New Deal and be a racist. It was also possible to be an opponent of the New Deal and be a racist. It wasn't until the civil rights movement of the 1950s that racism became more consistently considered incompatible with liberalism/Progressivism. Even so, when LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he lamented that he was "losing the South to the Democratic Party for a generation". He was only wrong in that he though the loss would only be for one generation. Reagan's genius was in adopting a "Southern strategy" which actively campaigned to get the South to vote for the Republican party. The KKK is an extremist organization and it does espouse some views which are associated with some conservatives (right-wing). However, as has been commented, its anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are incompatible with today's right-wing conservative pro-Israel stance and the fact that Catholics constitute a significant proportion of the conservative movement. Thus, I think it is better to say that something different about the association of the KKK with the "right-wing". To call it a "far-right" organization is to use terminology from the politics of the latter half of the 20th century which probably became increasingly obsolete starting from the 70s and 80s. Racism exists in the right-wing conservative movement but I think it is better to say that the "KKK is a racist organization which is associated with some of the more extremist elements of the American conservative movement". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If one continues to use the historical definitions of Left and Right as they emerged in the French National Assembly, Left and Right continue to have "eternal" definitions which continue to be relevant in modern political discussions. "Left" has always meant the support for social progress and egalitarianism, whereas Right has always meant adhering to Anti-Egalitarian concepts and keeping to "traditional values." The only way that one can make a case for the KKK having ANY relation to the Left is by its association with the Democratic Party...which is ludicrous and shows that "Zandovise?" has no business making edits on Wikipedia. The Democratic Party has never historically been synonymous with the Left or Liberals, nor has the Republican Party been synonymous with the Right. These current trends are only a few decades old, and have no bearing whatsoever on historical articles. The Ku Klux Klan has ALWAYS been a Far Right organization...and any attempt to paint a different picture is nothing more than Orwellian Newspeak, and should be regarded with the same contempt as Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that it is perverse to suggest that the KKK is a "left-wing" organization. I disagree that "left-right" have "eternal meanings". I agree that the KKK could be considered "far right" in the sense of being traditionalist and anti-egalitarian although the truth is that left-right politics itself has evolved in the last two centuries. (Right-wing politics originally would have been elitist, aristocratic, pro-monarchy, etc. and left-wing politics democratic, egalitarian, anti-clerical, etc.) The KKK is more populist in nature than that version of right-wing politics.

Consider these two sections in Left-right politics: Contemporary usage in the U.S. and Relevance of the terms today. It's kind of like the term "socialist": is that the Marxist/Leninist socialism, Trotskyite socialism, Maoism, or the socialism of Western Europe? If a term has multiple meanings, it is risky to use the term without specifying what exactly you mean. It's also unhelpful to use the term if other people will tend to understand the term differently from the meaning that you intended.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but I think Left and Right _need_ to have "eternal definitions" or Newspeak can easily "change history." The KKK is more populist than 18th century Rightism, but the modern American Right-Wing is _also_ extremely populist. (See: Tea Party) While the support for early Leftism came from the masses, particularly in France, that's never been the case in the USA. But the definition of Left=Egalitarian/Social Progress;Right=Tradition/Anti-Egalitarian still continues to properly define the Left/Right axis in the USA...at least on Social issues. (Economic issues are, of course...a whole different can of worms...but the KKK was always primarily a Social issue organization) Oh, and for the record, in my previous response, the strong language is primarily-intended for the person above you. I view these modern attempts by Conservatives to "re-brand" the KKK and Nazis as "Left" and the Civil Rights Movement and Abolition as "Right" as being the single most insidious attempt at pseudo-historical revisionism since David Irving, and think personally that anyone subscribing to that nonsense should be shunned and ridiculed as he was... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To Pseudo-Richard: I deleted Zandovise's comments because I evaluated them as trolling and vandalism, which are permitted to be deleted by WP:TALK. I did this particularly because Zandovise already posted the exact same thing further up this very same section (his comment is still there), and then instead of reading the FAQ when I asked, he posted the same thing again. But if my fellow editors disagree with my evaluation of what he's doing, I won't continue to delete his stuff.

I do have sources in the FAQ below saying that the Klan is right-wing and, as Bryon has pointed out, the right-left dichotomy goes back to well before the Klan's foundation. I agree with you that left and right do change in meaning over time. However, even given that truth, the Klan has remained on the extreme right at all times even as the meaning of left and right have changed; the KKK has always been backward-looking since its foundation, seeking a return to a pre-Civil War state of society rather than for sociopolitical innovation. The only exception was the Klan's former support for Prohibition, and even that was mostly another way for the Klan to persecute Catholic immigrants and thus help restore the supposed Protestant supremacy that reigned before the Civil War.

I also agree that plenty of left-wingers have been racist - racist eugenicism and progressivism worked hand in glove for a while, for example. It just happens that these particular racists, the Klansmen, were and are right-wing extremists, according to the sources. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Richard and Pirate Dan, thank you for your very objective and logical input. My point is that the origins of organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan need to be kept truthful and accurate. Indeed, the National Encyclopedia of 1932, Vol. 6 and 8 (Ku Klux Klan & Reconstruction, respectively) maintain the connection to the Democrat Party in 1865. This is not to say that all Democrats pertain to these views, however, the U.S.A. had not yet defined "Left" or "Right" as they are today. To infer that the "Right" in the U.S.A. is responsible for such a horrible organization is misleading. Perhaps instead of saying "far-left" or "far-right" in the beginning of the article someone could say "radical" or "terrorist" in regard to that time period without a political affiliation? As the KKK is the child nobody wants, perhaps it can also be stated that it has no connection to the modern definitions of "Left," "Right," "Liberal" or "Conservative"? I am just going with my experience as a Professor of American Government here. The goal being not to enhance the Left or Right but to maintain an historical accuracy.

However, the treatment of Mr. Greene by the South Carolina Democrat Committee forces one to re-examine what was intentionally done by the modern Democrat Party. If one looks at the Civil Rights legislation of the late 1800s and the mid-1900s one finds the resistance in the Democrat Party of the South. This appears to have resurged again in 2010, in spite of having an American of African Descent in the White House. Indirectly, this relates to the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan by the Southern Democrats and forces one to question how to view this organization in the modern context.

As stated earlier on here, in the American minds of today, the term Democrat is synonemous with the "Left" or "far-left" and the term Repulican with the "Right" or "far-right" so to insert this label at the very beginning of the article is a most clever way to make an inference that is not only untrue, but offensive to anyone espousing conservative views, and historically misleading to the origins of this organization.

Now, for the person posting directly before this, I would never presume to edit an actual article, although I have been on here for a few years, however, these comments are supposed to be based on facts while being civil and logical. It does not seem that this is the place for highly emotional, name calling, politcial rants and diatribes as can be seen on here over and over and over.Zandovise (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Zandovise, you stated above that "The Ku Klux Klan is historically a far-left organization." This, in and of itself, is such a ludicrous and absurd statement as to make me sincerely doubt that you are a "professor" anywhere except perhaps "Beck University." It's as ridiculous as a person claiming to be an astrophysicist saying that the sun revolves around the earth. Conservatives are Center-Right, and Liberals are Center-Left. Your argument, that it is "offensive" or "misleading" to say that the KKK is Far Right is as preposterous as if I decided to edit the pages for Communism and Stalinism to remove any references to them being "Far Left" in order to not make the article "offensive" or "misleading" to Liberals...most of whom are as far away from Lenin or Stalin as Conservatives are to the KKK or Nazis. You don't get to change historical fact just because you don't "like" it. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Then we are agreed. The KKK is a Democrat invention. Thank you. As for political rants, emotions and name calling, this point is proven. Again, thank you.Zandovise (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. It was invented by FAR RIGHT Democrats. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing is certain. Here, as well as in the KKK and other far-whatever groups, ignorance can be a powerful tool for mis-shaping the American political landscrape. isack 68.18.196.168 (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder that anyone with a liberal education would still use the terms "left" and "right" to describe political parties or positions, unless their intention is to express and promote an unreasoned bias. Thus President Obama is tarred as a "leftist," Rush Limbaugh is feathered as a "right-winger," and no real information is conveyed. The terms "liberal," "progressive," "conservative," and even "moderate" mean little more. Wikipedia should consider putting "so-called" before these words, and "by supporters" or "by opponents" after them. Of course, it's hard to be impartial when talking about groups like the KKK, Communists, and the various terrorist organizations, but ideological shorthand doesn't educate. The episode of South Park wherein the Cartman character becomes enamored of the Nazis while watching a film intended to persuade young people to loathe them illustrates my point. Sigh... I don't expect this entry to have any effect on Wikipedia or its users; the present environment is far to ideologically poisonous for rational thought. I only hope that someone in the distant future will see this posting and realize that not everyone in this day and age is an idiot. Garybeac (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Political scientists are far more specific, using categories such as communist, socialist, liberal, conservative. However some groups do not fit into these categories and are grouped under "far right". If you can find a better name for the ideological family that includes Klansmen, neo-fascists and related groups, then it might be helpful. TFD (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan: "Conservatives are Center-Right, and Liberals are Center-Left." No. Left and liberal are not synonymous are not even on the same political axis and are in fact irreconcilable. Left theorists frequently critique liberalism because it accomodates capitalism it accomodates hegemony. The general public often ignorant of the meanings of these ideologies use these terms in this manner for simplicity's sake. I am not contesting your assertion that the KKK is a far-Right organisation but your left and right/liberal and conservative dichotomy is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.216.65 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect...and confusing the term "Liberalism" with "Classical Liberalism." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan, the entry on liberalism states that liberals are supportive of capitalism and that on classical liberalism states that it is committed to free markets... now would you care to articulate intelligently and logically how either of these are therefore synonymous with leftism instead of simply responding with "you're wrong"? The liberalisation of enterprise of markets of media are all irreconcilable with left theory. You are making the common mistake of equating liberalism(s) which should seek to accord privileges to those with existing power as much as anyone else with leftism which should seek to accord rights to those without. Neither liberalism nor classical liberalism can be reconciled with left critiques of captalism of free markets and of hegemonic media because both defend the existing privileges of whites of men and of the bourgeoisie just as much as they may claim to defend the rights of people of colour of women or of the working poor. Just because liberals erroneously identify as left or are identified as left by Rush Limbaugh and other political fantatics does not make them so. For what it's worth the Liberalism article makes no mention of leftism and the Classical Liberalism article says the ideology exists on both sides of the left and right divide... providing links to those two articles neither of which supported your assertion is just plain lazy and would suggest you are misuing the term left without a sound understanding of what it actually means to be left. Garybeac makes sense when he says neither term carries much currency anymore and not least of all because of the confusion between liberalism and leftism of which you yourself are guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimwoods (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC) --Grimwoods (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Talk:KKKK / Archive 8 - section: Christianity (previous related discussion). -PrBeacon (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#WP:LABEL_and_categories, I attempted to relabel ("recategorize") the KKK with "Protestant organization" instead of "Christian terrorist". The reason is as follows: The organization is labeled "terrorist" by the government. The category explains that. It calls itself Christian, so using that is okay. But couldn't find a proper category. It does not call itself "Christian terrorist", which is no surprise, and labeling it that way is WP:OR because it joins the two categories into one by inference.

My changes were reverted.

There are a bunch of "punching bags" like the KKK: Nazis, Hamas, that sort of thing, that the media gangs up on and "everything goes." It would actually be a good test of the encyclopedia to label things objectively no matter what the media does.

This is why "Christian" or "Protestant" should survive and "Christian terrorist" should not. Lets keep this encyclopedic. Too often, we have concentrated on text in the article and overlooked categorizing. This should stop. Categorizing should not be more pov than the article. Quality needs to be kept up. For those interested, join the discussion on this matter listed above. Student7 (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a "Protestant Organization" which engages in "Christian Terrorism." This just appears to be part of the recent Revisionist attempts to pretend that Christian Terrorism doesn't exist. Nobody calls THEMSELVES a "terrorist organization," so your attempt to base it on that logic fails. By your "logic," one could not label Al Qaeda an "Islamic Terrorist" organization. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the KKK are not normally referred to as Christian terrorism, but are seen as ethnic/nationalist terrorism. Al Qaeda is considered an Islamic terrorist organization because its objective is to set up an Islamic state. Note that earlier Middle Eastern terrorists who were Muslims, such as members of the Abu Nidal organization or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are never referred to as Islamic terrorists. Christian terrorism btw is extremely rare, as was Islamic terrorism until recent decades. TFD (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The KKK's aims and stated goals are openly Christian Supremacist, as I have pointed out on the Christian Terrorism page. Michael [8] and Rosen [9] describe their intent to, "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," [10] and extensively quote many senior Klan officials and publications showing their clear religious orientation: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why...Christian white men are...to give the Jews some of their own medicine..." and "We honor Christ as the Klansman's Only Criterion of Character." Furthermore, one only has to look at any modern KKK organization to see that Christian Supremacism is still as important to their goals as their racial motivations. [11] Either way, Student7's attempt to replace Christian Terrorism with Protestantism is like going to Al Qaeda'a page and replacing Islamic Terrorism with Sunni Islam. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That is all original research. The sources describe their actions as "Christian terrorism"? The KKK does not meet the criteria for religious terrorism, "the use of violence to further divenely commanded purposes".[12] TFD (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How is that "original research?" It's a bunch of quotes from Klan officials and publications, some as old as the early 20th century...including claims that Jesus was the "first Klansman," and that the KKK represented "militant Christianity." The whole organization is filled with Christian symbolism (Burning crosses, anyone?) and their own members are quite open about their motivation being based on their interpretation of Christianity. Furthermore, their opposition to Jews and Catholics is based solely on religious grounds, and particularly with their targeting of Jews as "Christ-killers," they are indeed meeting the criteria of "the use of violence to further divenely commanded purposes." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." You may believe that the actions of the KKK amount to Christian terrorism, but you need a source that makes that conclusion. BTW, do you not believe that the ideology of the Klan may have been motivated, at least in part, by racism? TFD (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the above references are from a well-respected academics. The mere fact that they don't use the term "Christian Terrorism," while they lay out the case for the KKK being an organization based on a racist interpretation of Christianity...amounts to nothing. Furthermore, your final comment is irrelevant. Many Islamic Terrorist organizations have multiple ambitions. Al Qaeda wants to get Western bases out of places like Saudi Arabia...but that doesn't mean that they are simply an "Anti-Western" organization. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The KKK is described as "terrorist" by many authors.[13] However "Christian terrorists" is not so common. In fact, it's specifically rejected by some.[14] Since they were anti-Catholic for much of their existence, the term seems inappropriate anyway. If we were looking for a descriptor, "racial terrorists" would seem closer to the mark. But we should use which terms is most common among reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I also commented at Talk:Christian terrorism, there seems to be relatively little sourcing to establish the KKK as "Christian terrorists", per se. However, there are plenty of sources that discuss the extent to which things like the burning cross have Christian terrorist overtones. Perhaps what would be most useful for this page would be to include more material about the role of Protestantism in the KKK, not with the effect of concluding that they are or were "Christian terrorists", but of putting into context the extent of Christian identity in their history, and in their perception by others. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion (now archived here) also included the relevance of burning crosses, which put me on the fence about using the label of 'Christian terrorism' for the KKK. There are (at least) two separate but related issues I see here: (1) WP:Category as de facto label or not -- which I'm still not sure of, even after discussing this at other articles; and (2) semantics of 'Christian terrorism' -- ie, whether that means they are terrorists in the name of Christiandom or terrorists who happen to be Christian. However, I agree with the OP of this thread that it is the latter connotation. -PrBeacon (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much like discovering that the KKK were all over six feet tall or under 5 feet, and labeling them as "Six foot terrorists" or "Five foot terrorists", the implication being that people of that height are "inclined" to be terrorists when the relationship is somewhat more non-causal than that.

Originally Nazis pushed an "Aryan" agenda (under the mistaken idea that they were Aryan, BTW). Should they be called "Aryan terrorists"?

Putting two modifiers together into one is generally WP:POV. We don't generally see pov much in article text. We see a lot of it in categories, because categorizing has been ignored by the bulk of serious editors for far too long. And dismissed as "filing nonsense." It is a bit more than that, IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And since much the Klux's activity in the 20s was against Catholics, you'd have to be even more specific. --Dystopos (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That last point is a good one, and shows one of the complicated issues in using such descriptors. There are groups that are widely characterized as Islamic terrorists, but who take sides in disputes between Sunni and Shia. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Protestant terrorism"? Somehow, that doesn't sound sufficiently threatening. Let's go with "Christian terrorism." To heck with accuracy in categorizing! Student7 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Under that "logic," all references to "Islamic Terrorism" must be removed...or at most replaced by new ones like, "Sunni Terrorism." The stated goals and aims of the 2nd KKK onwards are explicitly "Christian Supremacist" and oriented towards more than merely racism against African-Americans. They clearly are aimed at "Christian Nationalism." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that supports your views, otherwise it is just original research. TFD (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I already did...above...You just didn't like them.  ;) Regardless, the comparison to "Islamic Terrorists" under Student7's "logic" is apt. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is related discussion at Talk:Christian terrorism#KKK & cross burning concerning sourcing for Christian motivations behind some of what the Klan did. Perhaps this page, here, needs to be corrected to better reflect what these sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am recommending that the article 33/5 be merged into the KKK article. For one its a little one line stub and I doubt it will ever be longer than that and it would be better to incorporate into the article as part of the symbology. --Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Call it a "merge" if you want, but there's nothing sourced in the from article. Just make it a redirect here and call it a day. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge or redirect. --Fang Aili ^talk 04:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Merge"/redirect per SummerPhD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If the 33/5 article is merged into the KKK article and a user types 33/5 into a search box, what happens? Is the user taken to the subsection of the KKK article that describes 33/5? --Mikebrand (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The user would be taken either to the top of the KKK page, or to the particular section within it. It depends on how the merge and redirect are done. It's certainly possible to set up a redirect to go to a section of a page, instead of to the top of the page. (See Help:Redirect#Syntax.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support The 33/5 article is too short to stand alone. When a merge is created, that article will become a re-direct to this article and the parts of that article that are notable, neutral and properly sourced will be added to this one. If there is sufficient material for a section, then the re-direct would be to that section. TFD (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge or redirect, especially if 33/5 is incorporated into a symbology section as described by Kumioko and a 33/5 search lands on that section as described by Tryptofish. --Mikebrand (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The 33/5 article contains no information other than the meaning of "33/5" and I don't see the need for a separate article for that Pi (Talk to me! ) 16:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know the KKK is/has always been far right christian? Only opinions with no reliable facts are given as evidence.. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.33.151 (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not know anything, merely repeat what is provided in reliable sources which you can find by following the footnotes. TFD (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are a multitude of references littered throughout the article stating exactly that. Show me a single reliable source claiming otherwise. Ridiculous. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article links to "Christian Radicalism" under political orientation, yet this article is completely unrelated to the KKK. Indeed, many would argue that the KKK were anything but Christian - surely this article should highlight that in some form or other? 95.144.153.254 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The KKK, at the very least from the "Second KKK" period onwards (which is what most people are familiar with), has been an unabashedly Right-Wing Christian organization. This is easily-verified, and supported by a multitude of references. Their rituals are Christian...They only allow Christians to be members...and if you go to any of the modern Klans' websites, you'll see Right-Wing Christian rhetoric, like this: "Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." -- National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb [15].

Also, pretty much every RS regarding them describes them as overtly Christian, in ritual, symbolism, and membership. For example: "Though similar to the pagan fire festivals of central Europe during the middle ages, the Klan's cross burnings in the 1920s were invariably constrained by Christian ritual. The ceremony opened with a prayer by a 'Kludd,' or Klavern minister. The multitude then sang, 'Onward Christian Soldiers.'" Et cetera. (Wyn Craig Wade, "The fiery cross: the Ku Klux Klan in America," Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 185) [16] That's just the first of many easily-obtained sources I found with a quick Google search... The idea that the KKK was not "really" Christian because of what they proposed is called a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, and is completely unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We need a source that the Klan has been described that way. It does not appear that the term is used in a consistent way, and would probably better describe supporters of the Underground Railroad and the Civil Rights Movement. TFD (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no sources describing the KKK as a Christian organization? I just posted a couple, above... In addition, the goals of the KKK included, from an early time on, an intent to, "reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible," and included the belief that "Jesus was the first Klansman." ...as pointed out in our earlier discussion of this matter, with a veritable crapload of reputable sources. [17] Here's another one for you: "The primary role of women in the Klan is indisputably that of creating a Christian nation by breeding as many white Christian children as possible..." [18] How many sources would it take? Five? Fifty? Five hundred? I seriously don't understand how any intelligent person can look at the Klan...a group that talks more about Christianity, and uses more Christian symbolism...than probably any other hate group in the history of the planet...and try to deny this correlation. This kind of Conservative revisionism is not based on fact, but simply on fantasy. As a Liberal, I'd like to believe that the Soviet Union wasn't a Left-Wing dictatorship...but I don't try to edit pages on the Soviet Union claiming that they were _really_ Conservatives, just because I don't want to be associated with them. You might as well go to the Al Qaeda and Taliban pages and remove all references to Islam, as even they don't use as much Muslim symbolism and rhetoric as the Klan uses in regards to Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And while you will certainly fail to concede the point, as before...rather than Christian radicalism, it really should link to Christian terrorism... Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are getting off-topic. The term Christian radicalism has no agreed meaning, but appears to have been used to describe groups that opposed slavery and supported civil rights. BTW the Klan did not allow Catholics, foreigners or non-Whites to join, even if they were Christians. TFD (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So? Many Christian groups, organizations, and churches don't allow people, based on different criteria, to join...even if they are Christian. Aryan Nations, and other Christian Identity churches, have similar beliefs about race as the KKK...and are still Christian. Many other Christian organizations will not allow homosexuals, Catholics, or others to join them...even if they are Christian. Your argument is irrelevant. Also, although there were many Liberal Christians involved with the Civil Rights Movement, describing it as "Christian" does a great disservice to the many non-Christians, particularly the many Jews, who died in their support of that movement. And since the Christian radicalism page does not specifically mention the KKK, but the Christian terrorism one does (with RS), I'm sure you'll have no problem with me replacing them. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I could add that Al Qaeda is rather unwelcoming to Shia, although it seems there is sourcing that they are Islamic terrorists. Given that Christian radicals do tend to be left-wing (and let's not get into that left-right thing again here), I think there is a valid case for the change to Christian terrorism. But I also agree that the sourcing has to go with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another ref I'm adding: "Most right-wing terrorist organizations have a Christian ideology in their agenda. Therefore, more details will be presented in this special section on Christianity and terrorism. However, examples from this wing include the following organizations: The Aryan Nations, The Order, The Sword, The Arm of the Lord, and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)." (Aref M. Al-Khattar, "Religion and terrorism: an interfaith perspective," Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, p. 21) In fact, there is a lot of discussion regarding the KKK in this book, including discussions of the whole No true Scotsman fallacy. FTR: I found this book via a favorable review in the peer-reviewed journal, Terrorism and Political Violence (Volume 16, Issue 1 2004 , pages 182 - 195). Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that your source groups the KKK under right-wing terrorism[19] which is a separate category from Christian terrorism. Most sources have read group it under nationalist terrorism, which is mentioned on pp. 25-26.[20] TFD (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The source also devotes an entire chapter (ch.8) to Christian terrorism, mentioning the KKK multiple times in reference to it. Most of that chapter is not available for preview, or I'd link directly to it. All "Christian Terrorism" is de-facto "Right-Wing Terrorism." That's like saying that one cannot be both a "Maoist Terrorist" and a "Left-Wing Terrorist." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles must be based on what experts say not on your own personal reasoning. You might want to read literature about the classification of terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Just reading what the source says, in the passage that Bryon quotes and to which TFD linked, the authors are clearly saying that the KKK, amongst others, are part of a group that they (the authors) are calling "right-wing terrorists", and that it is characteristic of these groups to "have a Christian ideology in their agenda". That's what the source says. It seems to me to be twisting the facts to try to argue that, somehow, this makes these groups into a category that is not Christian terrorism. It's a mixture of agendas, including but not limited to Christianity, to be sure, but there is no requirement that Christian terrorists not also be other "kinds" of terrorists. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is they do not call it Christan terrorism, which is normally grouped as a type of religious terrorism. See for example Aubrey's "Typologies of Terrorism", pp. 43 ff. Christianity btw is not necessarily right-wing. TFD (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, we keep having this same discussion over and over, but I find it incorrect to read what they are saying as "right-wing terrorism, but not necessarily Christian terrorism", instead of as "right-wing terrorism that is also Christian terrorism". I fully agree with you that Christianity is not inherently right-wing, and that there could in principle be left-wing Christian terrorists. And I have no objection to also adding Aubrey as a refuting source. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot create our own typology of terrorism, which violates original research. The views expressed must have been presented somewhere else first. TFD (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of the source in question specifically referring to the KKK as such: "Christian terrorists also deny that any kinds of victims resulted from their violence. Victims "deserve to be attacked," for example, because they are non-whites as in the case of the KKK, which looks at minorities, Jews, and non-whites as less than human." (p.91) Also, on pages 55-56, a priest attempts to refute the idea of the Klan as a "Christian organization" by using the No true Scotsman fallacy...but even he notes that they, "swore that what they were doing now is saving and protecting Christianity from the evil..." (p.55) Now, even though the priest is saying it in the context of, "They aren't real Christians..." he's proving my point...that Christianity is used as the justification and ideological foundation of the KKK's motivation. It's not a "mainstream" interpretation of Christianity...but the important thing here is what Klanmembers believe they are doing...not whether mainstream Christians view them as legitimately "Christian." (Oh, and I do take back my overly broad statement about all "Christian Terrorism" being "Right-Wing Terrorism." I was thinking from an American perspective...as there are indeed Left-Wing-associated Christian Terrorist outfits that operate in Northeastern India... My point was that they are not exclusive terms. Al Qaeda is also both an example of "Right Wing Terrorism" that is also "Religious Terrorism.") Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD: Of course we cannot do OR. But it isn't OR to go by what the source says. This is what the source says. For you to say it cannot be Christian terrorism because the authors also call it right-wing terrorism, even though the authors actually say it is both, is to disregard the source and do OR of your own. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are data-mining for passing references that appear to support your POV. Where in the book does it defined Christian terrorism? Where are other books that explain this terminology? And no, searching for rs is not OR. TFD (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First, let's not mischaracterize what other editors are saying. I didn't say that searching for RS is OR. I said that disregarding what the source says is OR. And you should be careful about implying POV pushing, lest it boomerang. OK, now to the merits. Actually, the issue of data mining is a very significant one, and I'm receptive to being shown that the authors of this study say something elsewhere that contradicts what was quoted here, showing that the quote here was taken out of context. I would take that very seriously. But if I AGF that the quote above is accurate to what the source says, and you provided a link that actually shows it, then I don't think it's cherry picking to read, on face value, what the source says. It is defining a subtype of terrorism that is both right-wing and Christian. Are there other books that say something different? As I said above, I'm very receptive to citing them too. If they are the scholarly consensus, then present them as the majority view and this source as an outlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD stated, "Where in the book does it defined Christian terrorism?" Answer: Page 29. Then he stated, "Where are other books that explain this terminology?" Answer: As I have pointed out to you previously, on the Christian Terrorism talk page, even peer-reviewed journals have discussed and defined "Christian Terrorism," like in the academic journal, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism...specifically the paper, "In the Name of the Father? Christian Militantism in Tripura, Northern Uganda, and Ambon," (30:963–983, 2007; DOI: 10.1080/10576100701611288) by Adam, de Cordier, Titeca, and Vlassenroot. It describes Christian Terrorism as being a group whose actions are, "motivated by Christian beliefs and aimed at the creation of a new local society that is guided by religion..." (p. 963) Many RS sources show (all over this page, the article page, and the Christian Terrorism page) that the KKK fulfills this criteria. The only "original research" would be to dismiss all of these RS sources in the face of overwhelming evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is said that the Klan got its name form the Greek Kyklos, meaning a circle. This may be so, but I doubt that there were many persons familiar with Greek abroad in the circles in which the Klan developed. A more likely hypothetical origin is that it derives from ancient Welsh mythology - when the Anglo Saxons and Jutes started to colonise post-Roman Britain many of the Britons were pushed out and fled to Wales, to Ireland, and to Brittany. (Incidentally, persons with the surname 'Walsh' or 'Welsh' in English are called 'Branach' in modern Irish Gaelic, which is a corruption of 'Bretanach', or Briton.)

The KKK name most likely derives from the pre-Celtic mythical character Lleu Llaw Gyffes (Lion of the steady hand) who is a principal character in the Battle of the Trees, an 11th century poetical retelling of a story that was written earlier in the 8th century, which obviously derived from a not only pre-Roman era, but possibly even a pre-Bronze Age time. Lleu Llaw in pronounced in Welsh something like 'clue claw' - the double 'l' calls for a near guttural sibilance at its start, a sound which Anthony Burgess described as a 'swan's hiss'. Thus the sound would have initially been - in the mouths of southern USA Welsh speakers - something like 'klue kla's clan', using the hard Celtic 'c'. The word 'clan' is also Celtic, meaning a family or extended tribal group. It is surely more likely that the Celtic 'clan' was attached to other Celtic names rather than composing some Irish stew of Greek and Celtic words. And the idea of a 'steady hand' in times of catastrophic crisis such as the civil war would surely have been something to be desired.

Lleu Llaw Gyffes was the Welsh / Briton sun-god, very much the equivalent of the Greek Heracles and the Romanised Hercules and the others of that ilk. He symbolised the daily and annual re-birthing of life, he was an 'oak god' who supplanted the previous 'barley god'; he also represented the usurpation of the matriarchal cults of the goddesses Dana and Hera. You can read more about him and others in Robert Graves' wonderful book 'The White Goddess'.

Hugh O'Connor, Sydney, Australia 2011.Swimtwobirds (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

www.swimtwobirds.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimtwobirds (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting speculation, but it contradicts what the reliable sources say. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just goes to show how the 'reliable sources' don't always get it right! They're simply not reliable, if you ask me. That sort of 'sources' are only good for things like 'when it's right to burn witches, and how' and 'the precise numbers of angelic dancers permitted by local ordinances on the heads of pins and associated fire regulations'. Swimtwobirds (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of on Swimtwobirds' side. I read in a Trivia Board Game that the KKK got their name from the sound a gun makes when it's being loaded. That means that someone is completely wrong after doing a lot of research. Abelhawk (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Swimtwobirds' speculation and what you read in "a Trivia Board Game" contradict what the reliable sources have to say. The standard for Wikipedia is still verifiability. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

assuming kyklos is the correct origin of the name, someone should include 'why they named their group after a circle. otherwise, that fact is meaningless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.26.2 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 August 2011

If "circle of brothers" is impenetrably obscure, there is little chance we'll be able to explain any further without a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it wonderful how a person so eager to show the trappings of education (and I'm definitely NOT billing myself swimtwobirdsPHD)is also so eager to demonstrate the quality of a totally closed mind. The 'kyklos' theory is just that - it's only a theory, just as valid as Conan Doyle's rifle-cocking sound or my Llew Llaw one. In fact, I have included more substantiation for my theory than the colourful SummerPHD has for hers, other than to say it's 'what reliable sources' say. Reliable sources used to say the earth was flat, too. And that the sun orbited the earth. So, now that I have effectively demonstrated the total unreliability of her 'reliable sources', perhaps Summer will apply her prominently displayed educational pretention to substantiating her case instead of merely repeating her assertion; have you an intelligent argument of proof, Summer, or are you just a TV soap commercial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimtwobirds (talk • contribs) 01:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for information in articles. The "'kyklos' theory" is cited to such a source that states it as a fact. If you have reliable sources giving alternate origins or casting doubt on the "kyklos" origin, please present them. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

According to a book published in England circa 1891: "Ku Klux Klan. A name derived from the fanciful resemblance to the sound produced by cocking a rifle." 75.80.20.99 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll need a better idea what the source is. Does this "book published in England circa 1891" have a title? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted and didn't realize I had failed to include the wikilink by accident. The book (or more accurately the story within the book) which I referred to is "The Five Orange Pips" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. While I realize that a fictional tale can hardly be considered a WP:RS I think it might be worth exploring to see why Conan Doyle included this definition in his work. He wrote it was from an "American encyclopaedia" so one wonders what did the contemporary reference materials of that era say? 75.80.20.99 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can't stop you from researching that. I would, however, caution that it might be a waste of time. Conan Doyle often made up "facts" to fit the story, creating poisonous snakes and toxins as needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Could we try reality for a second? I've handled a vast array of firearms, from flintlocks forward and not one of them made a sound that even resembled "Ku:, "Klux" or "Klan". It also doesn't seem likely that a mechanical device like a firearm will make a "l" sound. I'd love for someone to post the question over that the Firearms Wikiproject to see if anyone there has heard a noise like it.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not any Wikipedia editors have heard a sound that they feel sounds like a [kl] or not is a moot point. If we have reliable sources for it, we can include it. If we don't, we can't. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Um, no shit? Really? Did you honestly think I was presenting that as an argument? Seriously, did you know that every single word on a talk page doesn't quote some policy or wikilink to something? If you honestly thought that was a serious attempt to justify excluding it, then I'm sorry, I gave you too much credit and you gave me too little. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No shit. Really. You'd "love for someone to post the question over that the Firearms Wikiproject to see if anyone there has heard a noise like it", though not in a way to suggest it has anything to do with what is or is not included in the article? You're discussing your theory with no intent that it have anything to do with improving the article? Fine. It appears I should have removed your comment as chat and posted a warning on your talk page. Really. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• "You'd "love for someone to post the question over that the Firearms Wikiproject to see if anyone there has heard a noise like it", though not in a way to suggest it has anything to do with what is or is not included in the article?" Apparently, I am giving you too much credit. That's called being facetious. (Go look it up, I'll wait.) If I really thought that was a valid rationale, I'd go post it there myself. I won't post it because I wouldn't want anyone to think that I actually bought into such a stupid claim. "You're discussing your theory with no intent that it have anything to do with improving the article?" There is no theory. "It appears I should have removed your comment as chat and posted a warning on your talk page." You've tried your little article ownership act here before. Post that warning and I'll direct you to WP:DTTR and tell you what you can do with the warning. I don't know if you need to lighten up, smarten up or just have the stick removed, but I hope whatever it is happens soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is now completely off topic. As we do not have a reliable source for the claim, there is nothing more to discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Resistance and Decline" -section's first paragraph's second sentence goes as follows: "It was made up of native-born, white Protestants of many income and social levels."

My candidate for the new sentence would be: "It was made up of American-born, white Protestants of many income and social levels."

I suggest using "American-born" instead of "native-born," as the latter tends to be loaded with xenophobic baggage; it was created by ultra-nationalists to otherize immigrants.

Thank you DegreeofGlory (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good call, thanks! Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Where the KKK effective in america, did they exceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.116.196 (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you mean succeed. The answer depends on what you think their goal or goals were. That's beyond the scope of this talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Most sources would say that they do not represent mainstream public opinion anywhere in the US today. You can ask for more information at Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• In fairness though, today isn't the only measure of success. There was a short time period when politicians openly ran at Klan candidates and won seats. One state even had a Klan governor. So, they were "successful" in that period. See this section of the article [21].Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The article seems biased, labeling the KKK "extremist" and using other opinionated language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.95.54.217 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the article only uses the word "extremist" one time, saying "which have advocated extremist reactionary currents". The article never calls them extremist. It does categorize their beliefs as extremist, but that is based on what reliable sources say. So, you're going to have to find some other word to complain about. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. I'd question the reliablity of any source that makes judgement calls about about a group's beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.127.156 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I won't even pretend to think that makes sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Extremist" ("A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.") is descriptive here, as is "reactionary" ("Opposing political or social liberalization or reform.") White supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically expressed through terrorism are clearly extreme positions/actions. To hold otherwise is divorced from reality, as is the notion that the KKK is in favor of social liberalization. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted another editor's shortening of the list of ideologies in the infobox at the top of the page, but I feel that I should invite discussion of it, per WP:BRD. I do have to admit that the list is pretty long. What do we think? Should some items be removed? If so, how do we decide which to remove and which to retain? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We should retain those that are the chief defining ideologies of the group, namely the top five or six ones. The other ideologies are either just "symptoms" or strains that are inherently derived from the chief ideologies (the antis- and -phobias; if wanted, we could add dozens more of these), or somewhat ideologically inaccurate (the neos-). —Filippusson (t.) 00:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are still no objections to this I will soon edit the article according to what I wrote above. —Filippusson (t.) 19:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd be inclined to keep: Segregationism, White supremacy, White nationalism, Nativism, Christian terrorism, and Antisemitism. I'd be somewhat inclined to also keep Neo-Confederate and maybe Neo-fascism, but I'm not as sure about those, and I'd be OK with deleting the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Although Neo-fascism certainly is a related ideology, I think it's a bit to distinct to be applied well to the KKK. I am not too familiar with the nature of "Neo-confederate" to know whether it should be kept or not. While I do not necessarily advocate removing Antisemitism, I'd like to just point out that it is rather inherent in White supremacism (thus, is it necessary?). I think we agree on everything otherwise. —Filippusson (t.) 20:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right about Neo-fascism, so I'll go ahead and remove it, along with the others you removed where we fully agree. I'd make a case for keeping Antisemitism, first because White supremacy is primarily based on skin color rather than religion, and second because antisemitism has been fairly prominent in KKK history. Neo-confederate probably has enough relevance that we might as well leave it for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This article contains some slander of Christianity by referring to "Christian terrorism," which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Yes, there is lots of anti-Christian writing; so one could cite books that use the term. Also, one could site sources that deny that this term is anything but slander. This is an NPOV violation. I insist that it be removed from the article. Ku Klux Klan is its own religion, not a variety of Christianity. Thus if you want to term its religion, Ku-Klux-Klanism is what it should be called. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

That is your OPINION, and it is not supported by RS. There are many citations disproving your OR. Furthermore, there are many scholars disputing your idea that there is no such thing as "Christian terrorism." Stop engaging in the No true Scotsman logical fallacy, adding original research, and un-RS sources to this page. It's no more "anti-Christian bias" to point out that the KKK is Christian, and engages in Christian Terrorism...than it is "anti-Muslim" to point out that Al Qaeda is Muslim and engages in Islamic Terrorism. Your last edits amount to clear vandalism. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, as noted on your talk page, if you attempt another blatantly POV/vandalism series of edits like I just reverted, where you added a bunch of un-sourced, POV, OR, nonsense, and for some reason deleted half the page...I will initiate an ANI regarding your actions...and you will lose...because your actions are clearly against policy. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Byron, let's dial back the "you will lose" talk a little, ok? In looking at it, I agree, EnochBethany is using personal opinion more than policy and RS and I haven't looked to see what you two are doing on your personal talk page. Admittedly, I can see what Enoch is talking about , that just because a group claimed to be acting on behalf of their religion (a hundred years ago), it's being allowed to damage the reputation of an entire group today. Further, I question the need to have seven idelogies in the info box, especially when some appear to overlap each other. And lastly, yeah, I understand that you (or someone) found 3 authors that called them "Christian terrorists". I removed one, because the source doesn't even use the word terrorism on the page claimed, let alone use it in the context claimed. Now, that leaves 3 sources that allegedly support the use of the term, none of which are online. Yes, I understand sources don't need to be online, so spare me that lecture. I am going to ask, however, if you personally, have seen these sources that you so vigorously defend? Are you willing to say that you have seen them and that they are being accurately represented here? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• As a follow up, the source I removed uses the word "terrorism" 7 times. None of the uses have the word "Christian" around it. So, not only did the page claimed not use it, the book never uses it at all. Again, I ask, have you seen the other offline sources? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Jolly Thanksgiving everyone. If I remember correctly, we went over the sourcing for this some time ago at Christian terrorism. Bryon is correct that it's both illogical and contrary to Wikipedia policy to claim that presentation of sourced material constitutes a slander or any other expression of opinion about a religion or group. And Niteshift is correct about a couple of things: first, that what matters is what the sources really do say, and second, that it's a very bad idea to make things personal. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see where I made it personal. I debunked one of the alleged sources and asked if the one defending it is defending it on faith or actual knowledge. Do you know who added it? Was it some anon IP 3 years ago and then it becomes another "it's always been there" situation?Niteshift36 (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that wasn't clear! I was trying to say that Bryon was the one making it personal, against EnochBethany, and that you were correct to call him on it. I was agreeing with you, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Gotcha.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Niteshift, as mentioned by Tryptofish, the sources have been extensively discussed in the past. Some (at least one, IIRC) used to be available on Google Books, but no longer is, or at least, the passages in question no longer are. Either way, "I don't have the ability to see your sources online" is not a valid claim for their removal. The ideologies box has been edited down quite a bit, recently...but it's pretty obvious that the only reason that anyone is objecting to "Christian Terrorism" is based on the No true Scotsman logical fallacy...which boils down to, "They can't be Christians...because no true Christian would engage in terrorism." That's not a scholarly or reputable opinion, and is based on OR and NPOV bias. The KKK claim to be Christian. They only allow Protestants in their ranks. They use Christianity in their rituals, and as a basis of their ideology. Nobody's saying that it's a "mainstream" Christian view that they have, any more than the Church of Jesus Christ–Christian (a/k/a "Aryan Nations") is representative of mainstream Christianity. But saying that they aren't really Christians is OR. Regardless, this [22] is certainly borderline "vandalism" at the least. Furthermore, the RS that you removed, while not specifically using the term "Christian Terrorism," clearly defines the group as being 100% Christian. I'll just move it to a more appropriate place. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• First, stop using your beef with Enoch on me. I didn't even make the "no true Christian" argument, so your telling me how it doesn't fit shows you are either confusing Enoch and I or just making assumptions. In either case, stop it. Deal with what I ACTUALLY say, not with what you think I secretly mean. Second, We are presuming that because someone wrote it in a book, it is "scholarly" or "reputable". History has shown us time and again that simply being published doesn't make something scholarly, reputable, true or accurate. Third, this whole "we talked about it before" thing it a dodge. Don't TELL me it was discussed before, PROVE it was. Show me where the individual sources were discussed and that someone said they actually saw them. That should be easy enough. Lastly, that source that I removed (you know, the one that was being used improperly) does not say the Klan is "100% Christian". If I missed where it does, then please point me to the appropriate page. What I did see is that a particular instance had Christian overtones/relationships. That you take that passage and claim it says that the whole Klan is "100% Christian" makes me suspect the interpretations of the sources I haven't seen even more. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not my job to do your research for you. That book, just like pretty much every book on the KKK ever...states the Christian nature of the Klan, using examples like the one on that page. They are a Protestants-Only organization, and have, since the 2nd Klan onwards, explicitly stated their organization as such. To deny it, is POV-based revisionism. If you really want me to put a bazillion refs showing the Christian nature of the KKK on this page, I'll do it later. It should be pretty easy, frankly. But EnochBethany is not interested in sources, as he/she has already determined that anything that disagrees with him/her is "anti-Christian." (Note: Reread his/her opening statement, where that is implied...I'm not making it up.) --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, back up sport. I'm not EnochBethany. You're other argument with them isn't my concern. Deal with ME based on what I have said. Second, I have not asked you to do my research. I HAVE asked you if you have actually seen the source. Apparently, you haven't or you would have said you have. Third, just because something was supposedly discussed some time ago doesn't mean that it is carved in stone. Consensus can change. For it to change, there is dicussion and discussion means that we examine the sources. I haven't read these sources. You haven't read them. You keep saying "it was discussed" and when I ask where, you cop an attitude and tell me "I'm not doing your research". Well, the onus to show it was actually discussed and the sources were verified IS on you. You are the one asserting that it happened. So WP:PROVEIT. Lastly, your "Christian nature" phraseology is questionable. The Klan admitting only Protestants and "Christian nature" aren't the same thing. Christianity isn't limited to Protestants and using that as a criteria or adopting some of the trappings of Protestantism doesn't make their "nature" Christian. Now, did I say that this article should be devoid of talking about the connection between the Klan and Protestants? No, I did not. So please don't act like I did. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the page refs for the Al-Khattar book is still visible on Google Books. The other 2 are no longer available online. You will note that it is in a chapter titled, "Modern Christian Terrorism," and states that the KKK's system of belief is based on "religious foundations." [23] The Michael and Rosen book's citations are not available. Sorry, I'm pretty sure I checked this out of a library the time I found it. When I searched the archives, I found that I quoted the following passages from it, as attributed to senior Klan officials: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why...Christian white men are...to give the Jews some of their own medicine..." and "We honor Christ as the Klansman's Only Criterion of Character." Frankly, I've examined so many references, particularly dealing with the Christian terrorism page, that I don't remember every single one, or whether I've actually held this one in my hands, or read that one on the Internet. As Tryptofish mentioned, we already discussed them, as well as a myriad of others, in the archives of either this page or the CT one. They are easily searched. I don't know how you get the idea that I have to prove that my citations, which have gone through a lot of vetting and discussion in the past, are now "suspect" simply because YOU don't have access to them. That is illogical...and would make it impossible to use any scholarly journal citations, because most people do not have access to JSTOR or other university resources. You misrepresent WP:PROVEIT. The evidence has already been presented. It does not need to be reproduced in whole or in part on the talk page, simply because you refuse to go visit a library, chief. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• No my friend, I'm not misrepresenting it. Let's look at your falsehood's and presumptions, shall we? You claim I refuse to go to the library and that I'm somehow trying to exclude offline sources. That is simply false. I clearly stated that offline sources are valid and acceptable. What I have asked, over and over, is WHO READ THE SOURCE? Who can say that they were the one who saw it? You ignored that question. When pressed, you say you are "pretty sure" that you might have read it. Nice way to leave yourself an out. So if I do go get the book and find out that, like the other source, it doesn't say what is being claimed, you can just say "oops, I guess I didn't read that one.". You keep referencing this discussion that took place about each source, but you refuse to tell me where it is, instead claiming I'm asking you to do my research. Now, I'm asking you to show what you are referring to. You're saying the evidence was presented. Fine. Where? Did I ask for it to be "reproduced" here? No. I DID ask if you have even seen it and you danced around that direct question. Personally, I don't care what references you examined on another article. What was examiner there, discussed there or posted there is about that article. It has no bearing on this one. So here is the deal "chief". You don't own this article any more than I do. I'm asking for evidence. You're not giving me any. The only thing you are giving me is attitude and "it was already discussed". Well, too bad. It's getting discussed again. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The "evidence" that needed to be presented was the citation. That's all that I am required to do. If you wish to refute it, you can go read the source yourself, and make your own case. WP:PROVEIT is not a license for you to claim that I have to hand-copy the specific lines from the book. (However, I _did_ find where I had copied some of the lines from the book in the CT discussion, and I cut-and-pasted them for you above.) I am a Ph.D. student. I read and consult a lot of books, some of them online, some in print. I certainly cannot remember the specifics of every single book that I read from discussions that happened a long time ago. Obviously, I had access to the books at that time, because I copied some stuff out of them. If your only argument is, "Well...I can't read it...so it's been 'debunked,'" then you have no argument. I will no longer discuss with you anything regarding references that you wish to impugn without actually verifying. I have better things to do. Good luck, high-speed. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't care if you are a PhD candidate or not. Your continual misrepresentation and fabrication doesn't speak well of your alleged education. I never said "Well...I can't read it...so it's been 'debunked". If you can provide the diff where I said those words, do it. Otherwise, we know you are have fabricated again (that's the nice way of saying you lied again). In fact, quite the opposite, I've said twice in this discussion that offline sources are perfectly fine. So now, not only have you lied, you told a lie that is contradicted twice. I do hope you use don't fabricate quotes in your academic writing. The whole issue here is simple: I've already shown that one of the citations (you know, the things you claim prove what is being stated) in fact didn't say what it was alleged to say. (You gave some weak excuse, but we can all see through that BS.) What you have failed to do sunshine is to actually man up and say "yes, I have seen those sources personally." You dance around and say you might have, but leave yourself an out, just in case I actually bother to look them up. (Again, people can see that for what it is). Lastly, you keep trying to repackage what I have said and claim I'm saying something different. That's just dishonest and, once again, people can see the agenda driven silliness you are engaging in. You don't WP:OWN this article sport, so stop acting like you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing your argument is not "lying." You haven't shown anything. The reference (that you don't like) specifically denotes the Christian nature of the KKK, and refers to its cross-burnings as being "constrained by a strict Christian ritual." I conceded that it was a better reference for the Christian aspect of their religious beliefs, rather than as a specific example of the usage of the phrase "Christian Terrorism," but apparently, that wasn't "good enough" for you. Obviously, I must have read the other references, because I wrote down information from them. How anyone could do that without having access to the source is beyond me. I didn't even remember being the person who added them until this discussion, frankly. After examining what I said about them on the CT discussion, I will state unequivocally that I've seen those sources personally, and I can also state that I do not ever add any citations that I have not seen personally, as that would imply some pretty unethical editing. The fact that you'd even bring it up is rather offensive. Also, I don't fabricate quotes, as I am not David Barton. Now, what exactly is your argument, Tex? --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I guess when you said "I will no longer discuss with you anything" because you had "better things to do", that wasn't entirely correct. If all you were doing was paraphrasing, I'd have no issue with it. You are altering the meaning. That is a problem. Further, I haven't said I like or don't like ANY source. I have simply asked if you actually saw them and you can't say you have with certainty. You ask how you could write down information without having access to it? Well, considering that you quoted me saying something that I never said, I'd say you already have a pretty good idea. You DID fabricate my quote mate. You can't provide a diff for it because I never said it. So man up, admit you fabricated it and then move along before the little bit of your integrity that still exists disappears completely. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me state this explicitly: I did not mean that you said those exact words. It's common on the Internet to paraphrase in quotation marks like that. I'm sorry if you thought I was intending to quote you directly. I thought it was patently obvious that I wasn't. When you said that about making up quotes, I thought you were saying that I made up the quotes used in the citation. Then you made a personal attack about my academic honesty. When you asked about whether I'd read the sources, I thought you meant the entire book. That I cannot say with certainty, particularly in regards to the Michael and Rosen one. (I think I just read the pertinent parts, but I truly can't remember. Pretty sure I read the entire Al-Khattar one though...) Yeah, when dealing with people who are quick to throw around claims of a "lack of integrity" and what-not, I tend not to want to make explicit claims when I truly can't remember them. You've accomplished nothing here, except talking about Bryon Morrigan, and certainly haven't proved anything about the KKK, or improved this article in the slightest. Now, do you have an argument, or anything at all relevant to this talk page, or would you prefer to just talk about me all day? --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• When I asked you to show me the diff of where I said that, that was pretty clear that I was considering it a direct quote. How much more clear could I have made that? The only simpler ways I can think up involve a piece of paper and some crayolas. Did I attack your academic honesty? Or did I say "I do hope you use don't fabricate quotes in your academic writing." There is no attack there. The opposite in fact. It's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't making things up like you did here. Actually, I HAVE improved the article. Even just identifying one source that was being used improperly is an improvement. That has been done. Stepping back and looking at it.......can you honestly say that it is so horribly out of line to ask who actually saw these sources or where the discussion of the particular sources is at? Especially when some of what you are relying on is apparently located on the talk page of another article. That's all I've been asking from the start. Am I to believe that this whole run around has been simler and faster than simply answering the original question and maybe posting a link to the discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources that say the KKK is Christian:

• "The Ku Klux Klan has always used a concept of militant Christianity. Recent references have also used the term 'conspiratorial Christianity.' ...Today the racial superiority movement drawing upon the Christian religion is call Christian Identity." Auther Chester L. Quarles is cited by 16 others.
• "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ"...
• "A Klansman's Kreed: I believe in God and in the tenets of the Christian religion, and that a godless nation cannot long prosper."
• "It was a Christian minister in America who revived the Ku Klux Klan in 1915, with its slogan: 'Protestant Christianity and White Supremacy!'"
• "Christian Identity ...connected with the Klan."

There are plenty more sources just like these, ones that say the KKK is a Christian group. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I went back through the history of the other page, and the principal talk page discussion was at Talk:Christian terrorism/Archive 7#Removal of sections. Bryon's edits adding KKK-related sources to that page were [24] and [25]. My take on it is that, aside from this being a perennial source of disagreement, there is secondary sourcing establishing that reliable commentators have characterized the KKK as "Christian terrorists". (And there are other sources that don't characterize them that way.) Please let me suggest that the two of you stop arguing about one another or about who feels more wronged, and comment specifically on what the sources do or do not say. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pish-posh, I say! It's no fun to argue nicely. (You should know this about me by now, right? LOL) Besides, I've been rather enjoying our tête-à-tête battle of mildly-condescending terms-of-affection (sport, chief, etc.). Though he gets -1 point for re-using "sport." It's the first time I've encountered someone who wanted to play that game with me on Wikipedia. LOL. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a very active sense of humor, but I'm not amused. Neither will you be if I take you to ANI. We're here to write an encyclopedia, so please look for another website if you want to find playmates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tryptofish, I'll go with AGF to a point, but it's not a suicide pact. BTW, ANI never really scares me (just for future reference).Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Niteshift, for the second time now, I was saying that to Bryon. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• The first time was a clarity issue, but this time was just my fault. You wrote "neither will you be..." and I read "neither of you will be....." Your wording sounds a little strange to me, but I inserted a word that changed the meaning. My bad.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The accusation of vandalism is false. My last editing consisted of merely adding the NPOV to the article, changing the religion to "Klanism," and adding a documented citation to the validity of "Klanism" as a term for the religion of the KKK. I don't know what you are talking about on deleting a huge area of the article. I never set out to do that. Now what gives anyone the right to remove the NPOV boiler plate before the dispute has been settled on the talk page??? (EnochBethany (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Look at the differences between your edits. They are collected here: [26]. You deleted everything from "The Klan declines and is superseded by other groups" to halfway through "Current Klan organizations." "Klanism" is a term that does not show up in RS, and is not a "religion." Even your source, "The Free Dictionary," (Not RS) does not describe it as a religion. If this were a realistic term, it would likely have its own WP page or something...but it does not. There is plenty of RS, however, describing their Christian beliefs. Sure, they're closer to Christian Identity than anything "mainstream," but it's still Christianity. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, Merriam- Webster Dictionary seems to think it's a word. [27] Not necessarily a religion, but it is a word. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Either way, it's not their religion, as EnochBethany tried to change the page to reflect. I just searched Google Books and found it showing up in occasional usage as a term to denote the "ism" of all of the Klan's ideology combined, but not in any way that appears to mean "religion." They are Christians. They call themselves Christians. They're @#$%ed up Christians. But Christians nonetheless... He would need RS stating specifically that it is a religion, and that it's beliefs are different from Christianity, and that it is practiced by the members of the KKK. He will not, however, find this RS...because it does not exist. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not disagreeing. I don't find a single RS that calls Klanism a religion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS!  :::Rings a Bell::: It's Miller Time! --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is NO concensus. There is attempted bullying & slander. "Robert Shelton, Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America, avoided publicity and retained the old concept of the Klan ... The Klan is my belief, my religion." "They're @#$%ed up Christians." They are no kind of Christians. Example "Happy Memorial Day! The KKK Nordic Fest Has Been CANCELLED!" Nordic fests are not Christian. "D. C. Stephenson was the Grand Dragon of Indiana and 22 northern states." Calling leaders Dragons is satanic, not Christian. "Forrest went on to become Grand Wizard, the Klan's national leader." Wizard is not a Christian title, but an anti-Christian title. As to a large section begin deleted, I don't know how that came about. I had no intention of a large deletion, only of making the 3 small changes I referred to above. Klanism is their religion; not Christianity. The NPOV must be put up. There is no consensus. Taking it down immediately is improper. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

• Bullying? That's a hoot? Clearly you don't read because I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to track down the origins of the sources you were contesting (something that still hasn't been done). I even bothered to look at one of them (something you obviously didn't do), find out the source wasn't being used accurately and removed it. And now, because I'm not in lockstep with your use of some primary sources and your overly literal interpretations of some information, I'm a bully? Whatever. BTW, slander is spoken word......writing it here would be libel. If you're gonna make allegations, it helps to get them right. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Klanism" is, so far as I can tell, a religion entirely of your creation. If there are reliable sources stating this is the religion of the KKK, please provide it. The KKK considers itself a Christian organization. Being a "Christian" is not like being a member of the Rotary Club, a sports team or a governmental body. If you consider yourself a Christian, you are a "Christian". No organization or accrediting body has to approve your membership. (If the Rotary Club doesn't consider you a member of the Rotary Club, by contrast, you are not a member of the Rotary Club.) Reliable sources say the KKK considers itself a Christian organization, thus they are. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

" in 2006, the Kentucky-based Imperial Klans of America (IKA) announced on its Web site, . . . within the IKA, the message of all groups will be heard…Each will be able to have their own separate identity within the Klan, be they Odinists, National Socialists, Nazi’s [sic], Skinheads, Defenders, Confederates, or any other group so dedicated to our Cause.” From the site of the Anti-defamation league: "Today, Shelton, 71, is a survivor of triple bypass surgery. Talking to a reporter in 1994 he provided the Klan's potential epitaph: "The Klan will never return. Not with the robes and the rallies and the cross lightings and parades, everything that made the Klan the Klan, the mysticism, what we called Klankraft. I'm still a Klansman, always will be. The Klan is my belief, my religion."

(EnochBethany (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Assuming that's from a reliable source (which you haven't identified), you could clearly argue that the IKA once made a statement that appears to make room for "Odinists". This does not void the statements by the KKK that they are a Christian organization any more than various Gnostics being accepted in the Catholic Church means that Catholicism is not Christian. Additionally, we still have nothing identifying their religion as "Klanism". - SummerPhD (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And one member calling "the Klan" his "religion" does not mean it is not Christian. Many Catholics (to continue the analogy) would identify "Catholicism" as their religion. Also, still not source for "Klanism". - SummerPhD (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. If I called the worship of Lego "my religion", is it now a religion? Millions more people own Lego than are in the Klan, so we're off to a good start already. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard people say that "fitness" was their "religion." Anyone hearing that, however, would understand that it's simply a figure of speech. There is no such "religion" as "fitness." (I'm sure many people here could come up with similar examples, comparable to the statements cut-and-pasted by EnochBethany.) EnochBethany has no RS showing that a "religion" such as "Klanism" exists. And no, EnochBethany...nothing you've posted so far counts as RS. It's a great example of OR, though... --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, what exactly is the edit to the page that we are deciding whether to make? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, from my end......I'd still like to have someone say they've actually seen the sources, whether they say it now or can be located saying it then. Absent that, and given the fact that we found one source was already being misrepresented, I'd submit that we need to re-examiner the inclusion based on those sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one kinda "tricky" way to verify at least the statements that I copied down out of the Michael and Rosen book. Do a Google search for the quotes, in quotation marks. They will show up on as being part of the book on Google Books...but you will not be able to look at the page on Google Books. For example [28] When you click on the link, the page is blank, except for highlighting where it should be. That's the best I can do for a way for someone to verify them online. I moved to a different state a few months ago, and the local library does not have the book in question. Like I said before, the quoted passages were deemed sufficient for the discussion on the CT page, and that talk page is far more "controversial" than this one. As for the Al-Khattar reference, as I've noted previously, one of the page references is visible on Google Books, which includes the addition of the KKK in a chapter entitled "Modern Christian Terrorism." The other 2 page refs are not available on Google Books. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. Bryon, I can see clearly from the link you provided that the Dictionary of Antisemitism characterizes the KKK as having a significant foundation in their (the KKK's) interpretation of Christianity. If you could provide more such links for the other sources or other quotes, that would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not their ties to a Christian belief that are even being questioned. Nobody disputes that they use some Christian trappings and even try to use religion as an excuse/justification once in a while. It's the term "Christian terrorism" and how it's being used as one of their ideologies in the info box that was being disputed and questioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a helpful distinction to consider. It seems to me that we probably have sourcing for "Christian" being an ideology of theirs (so long as we don't make the logical error of requiring it to be a "correct" interpretation of Christian beliefs – only that the KKK themselves believed it to be Christian). So that brings us to "Christian terrorism" as opposed to "Christian something else". I've suggested to Bryon, above, per WP:BURDEN, that he give us some more convenient links. Perhaps the Al-Khattar chapter about "Modern Christian Terrorism" will address that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• At the same time, I think we should be considering if it is an ideology and if it belongs in the info box. Remember, the infobox is a snapshot of the topic, not an exhautive list of everything to do with them. What might be perfectly acceptable in the body of the article (where it can be framed in the proper context) might not be ideal for the info box. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For that, I think the standard should be about the same as for anything else listed in the infobox. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how Christian terrorism is an "ideology". Christianity (or Protestantism or whatever), sure, that is a set of ideas. Terrorism (whether modified by "Christian" or not) strikes me as a tactic. I suppose the counter-argument is that instilling fear in order to control populations is an "idea". But that strikes me as weak. Christian terrorism calls it "...comprises terrorist acts..." (clearly not an ideology). The category traces up to Category:Terrorism by form, with numerous entries that don't fit the "ideology" mold. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's also an interesting point. Thinking out loud, would something like "militant Christianity" be more appropriate? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• That is what I was saying above. It doesn't strike me as an ideology. It is a means to achieve their ideology (a tactic), but not an ideaology itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So, to summarize what we have so far:

• "Christian terrorism" is solidly sourced and belongs in the article, but is not an ideology and therefore doesn't belong in the infobox.
• Their ideology clearly includes Christianity, in some form, so probably belongs in the infobox, likely with a modifier: "_________ Christianity".

That said, I don't know what the modifier is. I have a few that I would use, but I am not a reliable source. What do we have sources for? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced it is "solidly sourced". Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How about:

• "Most right-wing terrorist organizations have a Christian ideology in their agenda….examples from this wing include the following organizations:The Aryan Nations, The Order, The Sword, The Arm of the Lord, and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)….Right-wing terrorism is based upon ideologies of racial or religious supremacy." p.21^[1]

• "Also, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Defensive Action, anti-abortion groups, the Freemen Community in Montana, the Christian militia that supported Timothy McVeigh…and isolated groups such as the Branch Davidian in Waco can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism. They share…the same system of belief, based on religious foundations, in white control and power, and the perception of the immorality of government."^[2]

• "…claim to justify terrorism in the name of Christianity…Similarly, a Catholic priest remarks, "Terrorism is bound up very much in hate…The KKK base their activities on hate, and any kind of Christian sugar coating on their activities is just an excuse…""^[3]

• "Christian terrorists also deny that any kinds of victims resulted from their violence. Victims "deserve to be attacked," for example, because they are non-whites in the case of the KKK, which looks at minorities, Jews , and non-whites as less than human."^[4]

• "Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Secret and violent U.S. Protestant white-supremacist organization…. It's intent was to reestablish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible…. Mixing nationalism, nativism, and religion, the KKK was the first organized American anti-Jewish movement. As the Imperial Giant (senior leader) of the Klan affirmed: "The Ku Klux Klan stands primarily for the principles of Jesus Christ and that explains why . . . Christian white men are . . . to give the Jews some of their own medicine." Klansmen believe "in the tenets of the Christian religion" – that "the Bible (stood) as the basis of our Constitution . . . We honor Christ as the Klansman’s Only Criterion of Character."… In a Klan magazine called the Kourier, a minister wrote in 1925: "As a Protestant minister of the Gospel, I joined (the KKK) because: I believed in Jesus Christ and His church; I believed in militant Christianity; I believed in the Cross." A Klan pamphlet of 1924, "Christ and Other Klansmen," indicated that Jesus was the first and ideal Klansman and blamed Jews for his murder…. the Ku Klux Klan made great gains after the war by championing Christian supremacy and anti-Semitism…"^[5]

• See also The fiery cross: the Ku Klux Klan in America. Wade, Wyn Craig. 1998, Oxford University Press, p.185[29] - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nice bunch of quotes. I wish I knew where they were from. You have a bunch of footnotes that don't go anywhere. I'm not objecting to the term "Christian terrorism". Is that clear? I'm also not objecting to characterizing the Klan as claiming to be Protestant based. Is that clear? I'm not claiming the info doesn't belong in the article. Is that clear? What I HAVE questioned is calling Christian terrorism an "ideology" and if it belongs in the info box. Does that clear it up for you? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD apparently didn't realize that the same kind of "ref" tags used in an article don't work on a talk page. If you click "edit," you'll see the references there. Just a formatting issue. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• They could be made to work. Regardless, I'm not seeing these sources really calling it an ideology, which is kinda the problem here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are in response to doubts that the terminology "Christian terrorism" was solidly sourced. To repeat, I think we've arrived at the following:

• "Christian terrorism" is solidly sourced and belongs in the article, but is not an ideology and therefore doesn't belong in the infobox.
• Their ideology clearly includes Christianity, in some form, so probably belongs in the infobox, likely with a modifier: "_________ Christianity" or "__________ Protestantism".

That said, I don't know what the modifier is. I have a few that I would use, but I am not a reliable source. What do we have sources for?

Sorry about the cites. I forgot I wasn't sourcing an article. Here's the list:

- SummerPhD (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Again, not so much disputing the inclusion of Christian terrorism in the article, but to clarify..... when you said "solidly sourced", we were not using the same list you have now. It's also worth noting that the fact that the same source repeats themselves isn't that convincing. That "list" is still 2 sources, nothing more than that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Those three sources (including the multiple cites from the one book) are the sources that were in the article when I said it (that's where I got them). I provided the full quotes as there had been previous discussion that they weren't freely available online.

IMO, "Christian terrorism" is well sourced, but is not an ideology. As such, it belongs in the article, but not in the ideology section of the infobox. Additionally, I feel there is significant material demonstrating that they base their ideology in Christianity/Protestantism. Given their significant anti-Catholic slant, anything I wrote for anything other than Wikipedia would make clear distinction between the very broad term "Christian" and what I see as their radical interpretation of Protestantism. That said, writing for Wikipedia, we need a reliable source to use the phrasing that conveys what all of those sources appear to converge on. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• You list 5 footnotes. 1-4 are from one source, the fifth from another. That is 2 sources as near as I can see. I wasn't talking about what is in the body of the article, I'm talking about the friggin infobox! How much more specific do I need to be? Infobox and ideology. Ideology and infobox. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The original list of sourced I gave includes a fifth, but it uses an in-line link. It was in the article at the time as well. Don't bother pointing out it was an improperly used primary source. Yes, I know you are talking about ideologies in the infobox. I believe that you and I agree that "Christian terrorism" is not an ideology. Fine. What about other editors? Additionally, I am proposing that "______________ Protestantism" does belong in the ideology section of the infobox and that "Christian terrorism" belongs in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The actual term which the KKK uses for its religion is Klankraft. See http://www.fraternalwhiteknights.com/ The KKK is not Christian at all, but the Klan is its own religion. Thus you can call it Klanism or Klankraft. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

And what is "Klankraft"? Well, they explain, "...in order of their importance: The Bible, the Cross,...", "In a klavern you will always find this wonderful book open at the twelfth chapter of Romans. This is the most practical and complete chapter in the whole Bible on Christian living. It is a constant reminder of the tenets of the Christian religion, and is a Klansman’s Law of Life. Every Klansman should read it the first thing every morning and endeavor to live by it during the day. “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God” that you follow its teachings." , "Out of the wonderful story of the sacred pages of this old Book divine comes the sad, sweet story of Calvary’s rugged but holy cross. This old cross is a symbol of sacrifice and service, and a sign of Christian religion. Sanctified and made holy nearly 19 centuries ago by the suffering and blood of the crucified Christ, bathed in the blood of 50,000,000 martyrs who did in the most holy faith, it stands in every klavern of the KU KLUX KLAN, Inc, as a constant reminder that Christ is our criterion of character and His teachings of our rule of life --- blood-bought, holy, sanctified, and sublime.", "We have added the fire to signify that “Christ is the light of the world.” " Yeah, um, you were saying? - SummerPhD (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Klankraft is obviously non-Chiristian, even if they attempt to incorporate Christian elements which serve as camouflage. One site includes in tis apologetic presentation, "We, unlike most other Klans out there today do not get our knowledge of Klankraft from a book we were able to buy online or from an antique store. Ours was passed on from generation to generation on up to those that lead us today!" It doesn't come from a book, as they say. It comes not from the Bible at all or from Christian theology. "The Bible, the Cross, the Flag, the Sword, the Water, the Robe and the Mask." This is not Christianity, no more than wizards and knights are Christian. Here is another exemplar of the use of Klankraft, which appears to me more accurate: "I would like to make an honorable mention here and acknowledge, Charles Holland, an old time Klansman, he was in his eighties when he died in the early 1990's. He taught me much of the Klan's secret Klankraft that was never to be written down, but passed on by word of mouth only. If it were not for him many of the Klan's secret hand shakes, signs, and signals would have been lost to history." http://www.kkklan.com/wall.htm ---- The attempt to categorize the Klan as Christian is slander of Christianity, in which so-called human-blood race is irrelevant. Gal 3: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." (EnochBethany (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Your POV is not finding any traction here. From the reliable sources, the KKK considers itself Christian. Q.E.D. The consensus here is that this is sufficient. At this point, you have three choices: 1) continue to repeat your claim here (likely accomplishing nothing positive) 2) start a request for comments or 3) move on to other groups you likely dislike who consider themselves Christian. (I'd recommend Christian Identity.) - SummerPhD (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We determine whether groups are Christian based on what reliable sources say, not through our own analysis. TFD (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

TFD is right--please cite some RS. all the RS I have seen emphasize the 2nd KKK was explicitly Protestant and anti-Catholic. Rjensen (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is of course baloney since "We" determine what is a reliable source by our own analysis. In fact sources can be chosen merely because they say something we like to hear. For a source to be objectively reliable, it must be based on a multiplicity of primary sources. Secondary sources that depend on secondary sources are unreliable. Pettifoggying wiki-legalism proves nothing. It has been documented that the KKK accepts non-Christian persons and has adopted pagan, anti-Christian religious monkey business and anti-Christian racist theory. Terrorism is contrary to basic Christian principles for which the standard must be scripture, like Do unto others as you would have others do unto you; Love your neighbor as yourself; in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Do good to your enemies; bless those who curse you. Love suffers long and in kind. Love does not vaunt itself. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord. God is no respecter of persons, & on & on. Those who want to smear Christianity by connecting it to the KKK may have the Wiki-power to do so, but truth will inevitably prevail, and they will ultimately have to eat their words. This article is not any NPOV. Instead of being content with an objective portrayal of the KKK, an opportunity is seen to defame Christianity falsely. (EnochBethany (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

EnochBethany has his own version of Christianity. As does the KKK. Editors here are required to go with the RS, not personal religious views. A quick scan of books.google.com shows 13,000 books that link Protestants and the KKK--take a look at the books The linkage was not a mere coincidence, for Farmer American conservatism (2005) p 208 says "The fact that the KKK and Protestant fundamentalism were intertwined in the 1920s is testified to by the fact that two-thirds of the national Klan lecturers were Protestant ministers." Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - it's time to end this discussion about what Christianity means to one or a few editors, as there is scholarly consensus, well-documented in RS, that the Klan was made up of Protestant Christians - not as we might think/hope that means today, but as people were feeling and acting in the 1920s. They were feeling threatened and argued to exclude or control other groups; they were anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, anti-new immigrants, anti-black. Parkwells (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree about that. To require this page to omit sourced information because it offends one editor's idiosyncratic interpretation of the subject violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I also observe that EnochBethany has put an NPOV template on the page, with an edit summary claiming that the page is "an attempted smear of Christianity". It is nothing of the sort, and I would like to suggest that we may have consensus to remove the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that EnochBethany has failed to make a case that the article violates NPOV policy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

EnochBethany does not want anyone to see the KKK as "Christian" and argues that point based on hir interpretation of hir versions of texts they consider sacred. Others do no want anyone to see the Catholic Church, the LDS, Tony Alimo, etc. as "Christian" and argue those points based on their interpretations of their versions of texts they consider sacred. In the end, we either have absolutely nothing labeled "Christian" (and/or "Protestant" and/or "Islamic" and/or "Jewish" and/or...) or we accept self-identification of groups and individuals as reported in reliable sources. We have such sources here, identifying the KKK as Christian. There is no original research involved. It is not a matter of POV. Further, EnochBethany's drive to remove the well documented statements based on hir interpretation of primary sources is, in fact, the very essence of synthesis and original research, quite contrary to Wikipedia's stated preference for secondary sources over primary sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV is being removed immediately without waiting for discussion or consensus. The KKK is obviously at odds with Christianity. It is not that it is at odds with some special interpretations of scripture, but with the entire scripture as it defines Christianity. As I posted: contrary to basic Christian principles for which the standard must be scripture, like Do unto others as you would have others do unto you; Love your neighbor as yourself; in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. Do good to your enemies; bless those who curse you. Love suffers long and in kind. Love does not vaunt itself. Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord. God is no respecter of persons, & on & on. The evidence is overwhelming; evidence with which none of those who want to summarily remove the NPOV have interacted. A wave of the hand does not cut it. Reality is not as an individual wishes it to be nor as the host of Christian-bashers wishes it to be. If you succeed in maintaining an anti-Christian article, it will be because you have the Wiki-power, not truth. (EnochBethany (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

There have been many people throughout history who did bad things in the name of Christianity (See: Northern crusades, Massacre of Verden, Salem witch trials, Goa Inquisition, Persecution of Pagans by the Christian Roman Empire, et cetera). This does not suddenly negate the fact that the offenders were Christians, or that they believed they were acting under the "flag" of Christianity. "Scripture" does not determine the historicity of individuals, actions, or groups. Your reasoning relies upon logical fallacies and irrational conclusions. Factual history is not "Christian-bashing." That's just plain immature. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The clear consensus is that the KKK self-identifies as Christian, as stated in reliable sources. Your attempts to establish otherwise have not found any support. In fact, a primary source you selected in an attempt to create a new religion for then clearly demonstrated that they consider themselves to be Christians. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of an obtuse citation: Note 4: "^ Robb, Thomas. [1] "The Knights Party, USA." Accessed March 22, 2011," What is this? The [1] link goes an internet page that does not support the oxymoronic designation of "Christian terrorism." No doubt you can find all kinds of anit-Christian bad-mouthing and lying in many books. Likewise you can find all the refutation desired. What is the point? There will be no consensus between Christians and anti-Christians on the use of such slur-words. This sort of slur attack does not belong in an objective encyclopedia. It would only be appropriate if the Encyclopedia were named as anti-Christian. I don't think this encyclopedia was intended to be named for Wiccans-- or am I wrong? (EnochBethany (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

The above reference should be removed, but only because it is a primary source, not RS. On the other hand, your central argument is completely, 100%, ludicrous...which is why you are seeing absolutely nobody, from Conservatives, Liberals, or even snarky little Hindus like me, taking it seriously. You should really give up. "Christian Terrorism" exists. The KKK is a Christian organization. These are facts, backed up with RS. You are obviously not skilled enough in the concepts of academic scholarship in order to discuss this rationally. The. End. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that the section about Leo Frank was deleted. If I understand correctly, the people who lynched him called themselves "The Knights of Mary Phagan". To what extent were or weren't these persons the KKK under another label? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the diff. Since posting my question, I've started looking for sources about this. I do not see anything that says that "The Knights of Mary Phagan" actually were the KKK in any formal sense, but I'm finding several academic sources that describe them as having led directly to the resurgence of the KKK, which I think might be appropriate to add back to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A short version of the Leo Frank story IS included here in the origins section, and that's plenty. the KKK did not exist when Frank was lynched. It was founded later, so all the details of the Frank lynching belong in the Leo Frank article. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are referring to, in the section about "Refounding in 1915". I would tend to agree with you that we don't need a lengthy description here of the entire Frank affair, but I would argue that it's germane to bring back a little more about the ways in which it contributed to the refounding, such as the role of Thomas E. Watson. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Watson was a hater all right, but he had no direct connection with the KKK (Vann Woodward, Tom Watson, Agrarian Rebel p 450, says "If Watson had any hand in launching the new organization, no record has been found that reveals it." Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was influenced by what this page previously said. Would it be accurate to characterize him as having inflamed the social environment in a way that contributed to the KKK's re-emergence, even if he was never affiliated with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish - In view of the Vann Woodward quote provided by Rjensen, I think the standard would be high for mentioning Tom Watson in conjunction with the KKK. I think what you wrote is probably true to some degree but, without a quote from a reliable source to back it up, it's just original research. For my part, I'd be interested to know what else Woodward says about Tom Watson and the KKK on the rest of page 450 or elsewhere in the book. Does he support Tryptofish's argument that Watson contributed to the "social environment"? IMHO, I suspect that Watson did but not in a way as to make him uniquely notable in this regard. I suspect there was a general public sentiment moving in the direction of the KKK and Watson was just one exemplar of a wider social trend. But that's just my personal opinion. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Woodward emphasizes that Watson was a leader in stirring up race/religion hatred in Georgia. But keep in mind that the Georgia KKK was a small non-violent group that had little impact until entirely new leadership appeared in 1921 and made it national. Outside Georgia the new national organization had no direct connection to Watson or the Frank lynching. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the thoughtful answers. I really was just asking, as someone who is far from expert and simply trying to make sure we were getting the page right. I'm satisfied with these answers. I think the section could be edited a bit for flow, rather than for content or emphasis, and I'll give that a try when I get around to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is locked, I leave it to those who are authorized to determine if it is worth adding a link to one of the few digitized Klan members lists. This one is from Buffalo, NY, ca. 1924 and is accompanied by an essay on how Buffalo fought back against the Klan and won.

http://www.newyorkheritage.org/buffalo-kkk-full.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.34.166 (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find any RS that has anyone other than Nathan Bedford Forest as the founder. I can find over a dozen with Bedford. What is the source of the first president claim? I have made no edits to the article, as this is not my field but a dozen sources with Bedford and none with "Brian Scates the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan" is pretty striking. Elemming (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article has a huge political bias and is missing very relevant information. In addition, it is factually incorrect. David Duke did not get requests from the Tea Party to run for president. He endorsed the Tea Party, but the Tea Party did not support, nor would they support David Duke. The KKK is not far right-wing. The far right-wing is Evangelical Christian. As Christians, they do not support inequality based on race. To infer that they are "far right" would to imply 'Republican'. As noted in their own agenda:

"These “laws” given to us by the Democrats and Republicans is damaging to the American worker and will eventually put millions upon millions into desperate poverty."

"Cut off trade with countries that refuse to establish strict environmental laws."

"We should promote a fair system that allows for a clean environment in our own country and does not interfere with the free enterprise system. We also promote an aggressive search for and use of non-polluting and clean energy sources such as solar energy."

Dicon369 (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, you haven't made any actual request for a specific edit, which is the purpose of the template--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM ISTB351 (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I remember hearing on TV some years ago that Scots in the US were responsible for creating the KKK. After reading this article I have to say I can see very little evidence to support this claim -- only some reference to a romanticised view of Scottish and English history by Sir Walter Scott, and that book and film The Clansman which clearly takes its inspiration in part from Highland culture. But where's the proof that the men largely responsible for establishing this organisation had any connection with Scotland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.170.241 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you could supply some. TFD (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Poster35.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose that Kloran be merged into Ku Klux Klan. I think that the content in the Kloran article can easily be explained in the context of Ku Klux Klan, and the Kloran article is too short in length to have its own page dedicated to it Jslynch (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that estimate of 5000 people currently in the KKK, but the real number is vastly higher than that. There were 20,000 people at the national meeting in Hampton, Virginia, in 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.195.222 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated information can be added if you have a Reliable Source, such as a newspaper account of the conference. Also, not all attendees were necessarily members.Parkwells (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An image used in this article, File:Poster35.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Poster35.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The KKK were NOT Far Right, or even Right! The KKK members were Democrats! Please Correct! Truth & FACTS Matter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.135.195 (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they were Democrats....FAR RIGHT Democrats. Read a book some time. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Far right Democrats who wanted to kill Republicans? It's funny how the 4 references given for that opening statement in this article are all sources written AFTER 2000. So they are all recent literature. You mention to read a book, but you do know that books can be biased just as anything else? Do you think that the people actually in the KKK back then would have considered themselves FAR RIGHT? Do you think any political experts back then would have? This is what liberals do- re-write history. So yes, maybe according to the modern definitions of what FAR RIGHT means, the original KKK would be such. That is, according to the current definition which has been created by liberals in this modern era, who write book after book trying to apply things that were DONE BY DEMOCRATS to a right wing ideology. It really is pathetic and sad that here at wikipedia you would find that sentence as the FIRST sentence in an article about the KKK. It shows the same kind of liberal meddling with history that you see on the talk page of the 'Critical Race Theory' article where liberals like you, Bryon, went and tried to remove the term 'white supremacy' from the article because Soledad O'Brien incorrectly stated on her show that CRT did not include it as a central element. In fact she read the wikipedia entry on her show and stopped just before the line mentioning white supremacy. Then her minions went swift to work to protect her, by trying to remove 'white supremacy' from the article. Basically, liberal 'intellectuals' want to create this flat political spectrum with a 'left' and a 'right' including extreme ends of both, and a middle. The reality is not that simple. You can't just go placing things somewhere on that scale, but people do. The main reason anyone ever does it, is to try to condemn that side. The only time you ever see something called 'FAR RIGHT', it is because a smart*ss liberal wants to make conservatives look bad. The opposite is true whenever you see 'FAR LEFT'. It's childish and vastly oversimplified. Not everything falls onto a 1 dimensional line. It's obvious that the purpose of that sentence is to obscure the fact that the original KKK was a group of DEMOCRATS. Many people know that they were Democrats, but not all. Anyone who does know that, would be a little surprised to come to an article about a group of Democrats who went around killing blacks and Republicans, to find the opening sentence calling them 'FAR RIGHT'. It's a joke. BUT- anyone who DOESN'T know that they were Democrats, may look at the first paragraph or so and leave thinking that the KKK is and always has been a group of Conservatives/Republicans. Mission accomplished on your part, I guess! Oh but we have you here telling us to 'read a book', and the sentence has NO LESS than 4 (!) references to... BOOKS! WOW! So it must be true/accurate/relevant/not-at-all-a-thinly-veiled-political-ploy.

What next, are you going to have the opening line of the Abraham Lincoln article mention how FAR LEFT he was? Can you not see how that would be childish of you, or why this is also, being basically the same thing? I could even entertain the modern, liberal-conceived construct of "FAR LEFT vs FAR RIGHT" and play your ball game and consider/debate whether the KKK would be "FAR RIGHT" within that construct (which people like you created, for your own purposes of re-writing history, as you are doing here). I could even possibly be made to agree that, yes, according to your modern liberal definition of FAR RIGHT, the KKK is FAR RIGHT. Fine. YOU WIN. BUT- does it really have to be the **FIRST SENTENCE** IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT A BUNCH *OF DEMOCRATS WHO KILLED BLACK PEOPLE*?! Why isn't the first sentence like this: Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present groups, with the original being founded by Democrats.

I'll tell you why- it's because people like you are here to 'edit', and make sure that doesn't happen. It's just a little bit TOO FAR when you go the complete opposite direction with it, but hey, nothing from the FAR LEFT surprises me anymore. Can you not see where it's just a little childish? It's obvious that whoever wrote that first sentence knew exactly what they were doing, and why they were doing it.Shatteredsands (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. Seriously, dude. Grow up and read a book or two. Every single reputable source on the planet...even the KKK itself...describes the KKK as Far Right. Nobody is buying your uneducated, unsourced, patently absurd, and utterly childish nonsense. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 11:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

seriously, "dude", find me a "book or two" written before, say, 1950 that calls the first kkk 'far right'. then for bonus points find a quote of someone in the FIRST kkk calling themselves 'far right'. the first line of this article lumps all 3 KKK groups as being far right. now you just dishonestly say people in the kkk call themselves that. yes. people in the MODERN KKK. the first KKK is an entirely different beast from the modern day iteration. they are different groups with different motivations and different goals. you just oversimplify things by referring to them as if they are one group, and the article does as well, in that first sentence. this is besides the fact that it is obvious bias that it has to be the FIRST sentence in the article, using modern post-2000 written sources to declare that all 3 versions of the kkk are and were far right. why does that need to be the first sentence? why not say it was started by democrats as the first sentence, "dude"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.126.68 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pressed to find any books that old using the terms "Far Right" or "Far Left" to denote ANYBODY, sport. Political analysis has not always focused on labels in the same way that it does today. I just found plenty of examples of sources referring to the KKK as "Right-Wing" prior to 1950, if you'd really like to see them...though I didn't bother spending 20 minutes putting the references here, because I'm 99.99999% certain that you will either (1) claim that these sources are part of a "conspiracy" by the Liberals/Communists/Jews/Bilderbergers/Etc., or (2) just ignore them and change the subject. And the reason that the Democrat affiliation is not as important...is because being a Democrat at that time was not the same kind of political signifier of belief that it is today. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 04:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In terms of 19th-century politics, white southern Democrats were conservative; they wanted to restore white supremacy and antebellum society, and many tried to do it through the violence of the KKK. They tried to maintain their society that depended on an agricultural economy. 174.101.126.68 should read more history of the period. Parkwells (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Parkwells is right. In much of the South right after the War the name of the party was the "Conservative Party" -- so chosen to attract ex-Whigs who always disliked the name "Democrats." By the 1870s they took up the Democratic Party title. Escott says of NC, "the coalition of former Whigs and Democrats known in the state then as the Conservative Party." Governor Holden of NC was a key leader. Richard Zuczek (Ency Reconst. 2006 p 698) says in Virginia, "Former Whigs and their former enemies, members of the Democratic Party, joined hands to create a new organization, the Conservative Party, in December 1867." Perman calls it the "the Democratic-Conservative party". Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not just back then. The Dixiecrats in the late 1940's were hardly leftists. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The user just got confused (thinking Republican meant Right; and Democrat meant Left) and that confirmed his own biases towards our own biases skew Wikipedia towards the liberal direction. Notice that no-one, not one person, has tried to explain that there are Leftist Republicans and Conservative Democrats and the difference between Party and Ideology. So let's stop heaping on this guy; he was impassioned and a little insult-y, but remember that he felt insulted. Let's just leave this discussion alone for a bit, alright? Achowat (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources provided support the claim that the KKK was/is far right. While the modern Klan is described by scholars as far right, and that during the 1930s the Klan had far right elements, I do not find that the term is applied to the Klan in earlier periods. Berlet for example (footnote 7) says he believes the first Klan was right-wing populist. TFD (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "right-wing" is OK and that the problem is the use of the word "far"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

When describing all the Klans, yes. But I think far right should be in the info-box because it describes the modern Klan's ideology. TFD (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Black members?

There may have been black members in the early Klan. This claim may seem to be absurd, nevertheless it needs to be taken seriously. During the second era the Klan had a black division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.6.55 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)