Talk:Ku Klux Klan

1. Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category

This is NOT true that the KKK was formed by the far right

My sources from Washington DC and The Capitol articles, The History Channel, and other sources:

https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/kkk_politicians.htm

https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/6bQdKPLDjyo2s0I8c60gA2/aec7a4feb53cdd469d9c59bc3dd5cc64/swain-the_inconvenient_truth_about_the_democratic_party-transcript.pdf

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/butcher-forrest-detail-leaders-democratic-party-wood-engraving-thomas-nast-1868

"rom 1868 through the early 1870s the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) functioned as a loosely organized group of political and social terrorists. The Klan’s goals included the political defeat of the Republican Party and the maintenance of absolute white supremacy in response to newly gained civil and political rights by southern Blacks after the Civil War (1861-65)." https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ku-klux-klan-in-the-reconstruction-era/

"The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina." https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

"Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal—the reestablishment of white supremacy—fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, African Americans and organized labor." https://www.history.com/articles/ku-klux-klan DGloe (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the parties of today with their platforms a century ago. There was a major shift in Southern Whites from the Democrats to the Republicans (via the Dixiecrats) in response to the Democrats newfound opposition to segregation in the 1960s. See also Southern Strategy EvergreenFir (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone say it was founded by the far right? That term didn't really apply back then anyway, but it sure does now. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay sir, just because the term wasn't used in their vernacular at the time, doesn't mean the founder can't be listed under the term, thats like saying a killer from the 13tb century can't be a killer because the term wasn't used yet. 75.248.212.252 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Mistakes I made: 13th not 13tb and not "cant be a killer" but rather "cant be labeled a killer" 75.248.212.252 (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, what are you even talking about? I didn't say it wasn't "used in their vernacular", I said the term didn't apply. And who is "the founder" if it was founded by six guys? Do you mean Nathan Bedford Forrest? None of these people are listed anywhere as "far right", as far as I know. The word "killer" goes back to 1535 but that's completely irrelevant anyway. Beowulf uses "ymbsittendra" for "people in a social context"--so what? We can talk about the social context in Beowulf even if they didn't use those words. Now let's move along. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

In the original Wikipedia article it states, "The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/), commonly shortened to KKK or Klan, is an American Protestant-led Christian extremist, white supremacist, far-right hate group." DGloe (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

When you are arguing the definition of a topic, you must look outside of Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism in Modern American History describes the KKK as the most prominent example of white supremacism of the American far-right. The book Years of Rage describes white supremacy as far-right, and says the KKK is definitively far-right. Here's a very modern take, examining Trump's false depiction. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Description

It strikes me that the opening sentence overly emphasizes the Christian elements of the KKK. I'm a very inexperienced editor and am hesitant to try to edit something on such a heavy topic, but particularly considering the origins of the first Klan I think some rewording might be in order. Kymothoë (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Christian Identity

@Darknipples That a portion of the KKK has overlap with a different ideology does not make it the overall ideology of the organization, and that is not what Barkun says. There was plenty of overlap with Neo-Nazism, because all white racists overlap, but for the same reason it would be inaccurate to say it is the ideology of the group. Overlap is not the same thing as it being the group's ideology, or all white racist groups are synonymous. Even if it was it is also not at all mentioned in the body of the article and is inappropriate for the infobox which is supposed to summarize. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

We aren't even citing the book we're using for this, furthermore, though I have to assume it is "religion and the racist right" given that's Barkun's main book about this. He doesn't say that! He lists individual CI members who were affiliated with the Klan at one point, but by that logic we should list all racist ideologies ever because the Klan has had members in all of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The source says that Wesley A. Swift briefly attempted to re-establish a KKK chapter in 1946 and also that he became a leader in Christian identity at least by 1948. It says nothing about Swift trying to inject Christian Identity into the KKK. Also, the Second Klan was virtually dead by 1944.

The edit also fails DUE: sources about the Klan don't mention this. TFD (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Reverting back to your removal without giving me a chance to respond is poor form. What's the rush? This has been in the infobox for MONTHS. DN (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Darknipples The rush is that we are citing a source that does not say this. The fact that false information has been in the article for months is reason to remove it now! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Why are you yelling at me!...? DN (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

An exclamation point is not yelling, it's emphasis! :D

In any case my big gripe is that, as TFD says above, this is mentioned in no sources on the Klan, and the source we are citing for this does not say this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I Also think the mention of "Christian" in the lede is a bad idea. Note that the KKK only worked with some Protestant ministers--never with Catholics. They never called for a pan-Christian nation. When I was an undergraduate at Notre Dame in the 1960s, some old timers remembered the attacks made by Notre Dame students against a KKK march in South Bend in the 1920s. Rjensen (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, religion was very important to them, but in the modern day it doesn't properly indicate how exclusionary their brand of it was. Maybe specify protestant? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

CID seems like the KKK's preferred "brand" of Christianity according to RS. DN (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Not according to any major source on the KKK I have seen, or any cited here? Some of the people involved overlap because American racism is a complicated web... that does not make it its main ideology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no claim it is their "main" idealogy. In the infobox, it clearly lists several ideologies...

Anglo-Saxonism

Right-wing populism

Social conservatism

Antisemitism

Anti-atheism

Anti-Catholicism

This still looks like we are applying a bit of a double standard. Now you have removed Neo-Nazism, ignoring RS and context referring to 'Massacre of Communist Workers' Party protesters, as if there is no correlation for that either. DN (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note my objection to removal as well BTW. DN (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You say "RS" but there is not a single source in this article cited that actually supports these labels.

It is of course a claim that it is a main ideology. If it isn't, it shouldn't be in the infobox. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no discussion of Identity in the article and Template:Tq. Thus, it lacks any context. Identity didn't exist during the first or second iterations of the Klan, and for the more modern iteration, while there are some Klan members and organizations that adhere to Identity, but it's not all encompassing (i.e. it is not a "core" ideology of the Klan, which inclusion in the infobox would imply). The purpose of ideology in the infobox is not a data dump of meta tags - it should be more tightly focused. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Context about CID may have been removed from the body over time, much like the current circumstances we find ourselves in at this moment. This article may have been picked apart for quite some time by all sorts of editors. Does anyone doubt that?

• "Nonetheless, given the Klan’s significance to white radical nationalist organization in America, it is possible to inscribe the Invisible Empire of the 1920s into a historical continuity of British-Israelism from nineteenth-century England to the contemporary Christian Identity movement." - cite 102 Goodrick-Clarke, op. cit., pp. 234–235;
• "Some twenty-first century variants of the Klan, like the White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, proclaim themselves adherents of Christian Identity" - cite 103 ‘Christian Identity’, White Camelia Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, n.d.
• "Apart from its biblically based view on the origin of human races, the racial exegesis of the Ku Klux Klan revolved around the perception of Americans as white, native-born patriots from a pan-Protestant point of view." - cite 113 Oklahoma, op. cit., pp. 47–51.

There's also the ADL "Identity's current influence ranges from Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups to the anti-government militia and sovereign citizen movements-yet most Americans are unaware that it even exists." DN (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You're calling it a data dump is not a logical policy based explanation. It's more like ad-hominem, no offense. DN (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Darknipples @Butlerblog Yes, the sources you cite merely proclaim an association, which is not the same thing! None of the sources say KKK = CI. Influences are not the same thing. That some KKK members are also CI adherents is well established but per ButlerBlog that is not what the infobox is doing here.

I would appreciate if you would self-revert on the neo-Nazi claim, because the article does not say this. There is no mention of them being neo-Nazis in the article. Having alliances with a group is not at all the same thing as adhering to it. This is WP:OR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

By this logic the info box would contain very little. I agree there should be more in the body about these adherences. DN (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the Status quo version, but I'm not here to edit war, rather to find consensus if possible. DN (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Why do you prefer it containing unverified material? And yes, most infoboxes should contain little except summaries. Because that is what they are for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Darknipples MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: Template:Tq ButlerBlog (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Let's do better than simply picking one sentence out of MOS to suit our arguments. We aren't making Cherries Jubilee here.

Template:Tq DN (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Your emphasis on "Template:Tq" would tend to support this removal, since it appears nowhere in the article, as does the remainder of what you've quoted. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to support any "removal". What are you even talking about? DN (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You placed emphasis on the fact that the infobox purpose is not to supplant key facts that appear in the article. supplant = "to take the place of". In other words, if it's not in the article, it should not be in the infobox, which is exactly @PARAKANYAA's point. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

"Through such organizations as the Aryan Nations and Ku Klux Klan groups, Christian Identity had by the 1970s become, if not white supremacist orthodoxy, at least its most important religious tendency." [1] (p. 3)

Yeah, I'm not convinced that this opinion of what is "verified" or not is Kosher, and so far my citations are being ignored. DN (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

You're arguing that Identity be included as an ideology of the second Klan iteration (because that's what was removed). Your Barkun quote does not support that. If you can't see why, then I would ask whether you've actually read the source text you're quoting and if you're paying attention to the detail of what you're arguing for here. Similarly, at least one of your Goodrick-Clarke quotes would suggest the same disconnect. ButlerBlog (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to AGF, but IMO this looks like an agenda to ignore RS and eliminate mention of CID from this article on the KKK.. I don't like being gas-lit, so rather than waste my time, I'm going to simply disagree and step back from what originally looked like a simple mistake to this absolute mess. Consider me off the railroad. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just adding links and a few more sources. You are free to continue to disregard.

• GWU (p. 15-19)
• Thomas Robb (Ku Klux Klan)
• CRI
• The Gospel According to the Klan (p. 268)
• LA Times

Cheers. DN (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

These sources do not say what you are citing them for. No one has disputed that individual CI adherents have also been in the KKK, but not a single source you have cited (including Wikipedia articles) have said that it was the overarching ideology of the KKK; these are not anywhere close to being the same thing. And even if there was a single one that did, that is not due weight for the infobox, because no overarching sources mention this and this is a very large topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The first one doesn't even say this at all. The second is a Wikipedia article. The third doesn't say this. The fourth doesn't say this, neither does the fifth, or the sixth. Them being mentioned close together does not mean it is the KKK's ideology. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you get tired of using exclamation points, and why are you repeating yourself? It's not going to change what RS such as Michael Barkun say about the presence of CID as an ideology of the KKK, and I'm not here to waste time arguing about it. DN (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Barkun never says that, no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

......k DN (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping From my perspective, you seem to be drifting into scattershooting, so to directly address your concern about PARAKANYAA's removal of Christian Identity from the infobox, where it was listed as an ideology of the second Klan period (1915–1944), I don't think you can successfully argue that it should be listed there because (1) it is not mentioned anywhere in the article and more importantly, (2) calling it a core ideology of the 2nd Klan does not fit the time period in question.

Have you read any of these sources you're dropping or are you simply googling to find instances where the Klan and Identity are mentioned together and then just skimming the material? No one is arguing that there is not a relationship; but if included in the article, it does need to frame the correct context. Most of what you've dropped here as sources discuss individuals and organizations that date after the second Klan.

If you read some of the sources you've listed (or other works by authors of those sources), you would note that Identity's relationship to the second Klan period is that West Coast organizers who had Klan connections and later became involved with a more racial version of British Israelism used their Klan connections to expand their audience for their Identity preaching. This happened as the second Klan was declining and Identity was emerging from Anglo(British)-Israelism. It cannot be claimed that Identity was a core ideological belief of this iteration of the Klan, which ran from 1915-1944, because Identity did not emerge as a movement until the end of that period (the 1940s). Identity's overlap with West Coast Klan relationships assisted it in spreading further, but this mostly came later. And even so, that does not qualify it as a core ideology of the Klan of the period. Identity did not exist as a mature ideology for 90% of that period, and it did not emerge from the Klan, but rather with help from.

Hence this is why you get a "no" from me on inclusion under 2nd period Klan in the infobox - even if it were mentioned in the article (which I don't oppose). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Good luck on improving the article, I can't wait to see how informative it is with a couple weeks of this. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

1st kkk --reject coding it as Christian terrorism[3][4]Neo-Confederatism

Unsourced claim about Neo-Confederatism--The 1st KKK was dead by early 1870s --long before Neo-Confederatism sprang up. Christian terrorism is a 20th century phenomenon and the two footnotes 3 -4 do NOT connect it to first kkk So I deleted. ~~~~ Rjensen (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like you are now claiming there is no RS for Christian Terrorism or Neo-Confederatism in regards to the 1st iteration of the Klan. That's another quite astounding leap on the list of "changes" for today. Please note my objection. DN (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Neo-Confederatism is an oxymoron when it was in the time of the Confederates. Lacking the "neo". Neo-Confederatism as a movement postdates it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a made up rule to me. DN (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this, you said, and then responded four times. And WP:SYNTH is not a made up rule. Are the confederates neo-Confederates? Obviously not. I don't really care if we call it christian terrorism, as long as it is reliably sourced to sources that say that (it wasn't) but other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I could not access the first source, but the Dictionary of Anti-Semitism entry does not call them Christian terrorists. In any case, a one page entry about the KKK in a tertiary source on anti-Semitism is a poor choice for a source.

Few experts consider the KKK to be Christian terrorists because they lacked religious motivation. They were not trying to set up a Christian caliphate or prepare the conditions for Christ's return. TFD (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That's strange [2]Christian terrorism#Ku Klux Klan DN (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

That source does not use the phrase "Christian terrorism" or "Christian terrorist" at any point. No one has disputed that the KKK is Christian but that is a specific concept and the sources we were citing for it do not say that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

When I click the link it says, "Book available to patrons with print disabilities." It will not allow me to borrow it. Also, the book is called Religion and Terrorism. For the information to be DUE, you need to show it is routinely reported in literature about the KKK, which is the subject of this article. In comparison, many people were knighted by the late Queen and it's mentioned in their biographies. But most of these knighthoods are not DUE in an article about the Queen herself. TFD (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces Unrelated to this, but fwiw you can search to see if a phrase shows up on Internet Archive even in a book you can't borrow. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)