Talk:Ku Klux Klan

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Former featured articleKu Klux Klan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 26, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
October 31, 2006Featured article reviewKept
May 9, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 24, 2004, December 24, 2005, December 24, 2006, December 24, 2007, December 24, 2009, December 24, 2012, and December 24, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thebananabaker (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aym413.

— Assignment last updated by Aym413 (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klan and Progressive Era policies[edit]

Until sources are provided which substantiate the claim regarding the Klan and the Progressive Era reforms, it should remain removed.--User:Namiba 20:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well the quote just cited is about the women's KKK, a separate and much smaller group. The main KKK supported public schools in the sense that they worked to destroy Catholic schools. The KKK in Alabama and Oregon did support some Progressive measures (especially those that were anti-Catholic--see Hugo Black). In general the 2nd KKK was an inactive social club--they rarely were active for anything. (They existed as a get rich quickdeal for the organizers). The KKK did not publish anything but several independent weekly newspapers claimed to be the voice of the kkk in an effort to get subscriptions. Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The women's KKK was the women's branch of the Klan and, as such, reflects the Klan's politics. Prohibition was one of the key reforms sought by progressives and it was enforced by Klan violence.--User:Namiba 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your source says that "[t]he evidence we do have of the Women’s Klan reveals that the organization and the Klan itself had similar aims, but the women’s branch grew to encompass a wider variety of values and beliefs." Therefore I am not sure you can equate the two quite so closely. Dumuzid (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources, such as this scholarly article "Riding a swelling tide of antielite sentiment, the Indiana KKK, working largely within the Republican party, scored numerous political victories at both the local and state level in 1924. The overall stance of Klan candidates bore a remarkable resemblance to that of Progressive reformers earlier in the century: denouncing established politicians as being corrupt and insensitive to the needs of common citizens, Klansmen called for expanded school construction, better law enforcement, moral reform, and efficient government." Unless there are a bunch of sources which argue that the second Klan was explicitly known for anti-progressivism, the claim cannot be made in the article.--User:Namiba 21:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed edit[1] was the removal of an unsourced claim in a footnote that the Second Klan has been described as anti-progressivist. The footnote supports the claim in the info-box that social conservatism was one of the nine ideologis of the Second Klan. It links to Progressivism, an article that links together everything ever called progressive without any secondary sources to explain their connection.

It's not clear which definition of progressism is being used or what that has to do with being socially conservative, or even what social conservatism meant one hundred years ago.

I would agree with removal because of the lack of clarity. I don't think however that there is any continuity between the Progressive Era and the KKK in the early 1920s. TFD (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Klan Progressive, conservative or reactionary?? some of each but mostly not Progressive is how I read the article by Shawn Lay: He reviews two books: in Indiana: "The overall stance of Klan candidates bore a remarkable resemblance to that of Progressive reformers earlier in the century: denouncing established politicians as being corrupt and insensitive to the needs of common citizens, Klansmen called for expanded school construction, better law enforcement, moral reform, and efficient government. Once in power, however, the Klan failed to inaugurate a new era of resulting from the emerging consumer economy continued unchecked, and Klan-affiliated officials proved to be just as corrupt and inept as those they had replaced. [Lay / Hooded Populism pp 670-671] --That is, RHETORIC from the top of the KKK resembled earlier Progressive reformers, but in PRACTICE = just the reverse, or what appears to be conservatism. The second book under review is about city of Athens in Georgia, where the KKK was reactionary: "The political response to this situation was "reactionary populism" ....In the early 1920s, as the status of middle-class men was further threatened by economic recession, feminism, a new youth culture, and growing assertiveness among African Americans, the Klan became the latest and most dangerous manifestation of this reactionary impulse." [Lay / Hooded Populism p671] and book author "compares the KKK to European fascism" (Lay p. 673). Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024[edit]

In the statement of a leading klansman retiring after it's revealed he was a sex offender, there is an "a" missing from the text. Chodley (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024[edit]

Request that the label Right winged be removed and replaced by political bipartisan hate group 2603:8080:7C00:E5:C04E:D3F6:3BDE:9ADB (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about the history documented in the Wikipedia entry? The organization started as an arm of the democrat party. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:91C6:5C23:FF72:18CE (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WINARS. Plus, I am not sure you've heard of this concept, but: things change. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably time for an FAQ that we can at least point the history-impaired to. Not that it will make any difference to someone who imagines things today are just like they were in 1865, but ... Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, things change over time, such as the political influence of the klan. At one time it had significant political influence and today it has none or even negative. So pick a time when it has political influence to try to define the ideology, perhaps the early 1940s. I wouldn't consider the party of FDR far-right. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess you are conceding that far-right may be an appropriate label today? And the party of FDR was a complicated one. The right-left distinction is, at the best of times, reductive, but when dealing with a splintering like the Democratic party experienced with the Dixiecrats, it can often be misleading. The article as currently presented does not hide the Klan's origins and alignment with the Democratic party, but neither should it downplay its current or historic stances and how they are described in reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting that if you want to ascribe an underlying ideology, then maybe a weighted average of the predominant ideology weighted by political influence over time would be more meaningful. Or, even better, since there is no specific ideology over time, apolitical would be a better description. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This all strikes me as sort of antithetical to the way an encyclopedia organizes information, but to each their own. As mentioned, reliable sources would help, and when you have consensus for the changes you would like to see, by all means make them. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Antithetical, I suppose in that an encyclopedia must be continuously updated or becomes antiquated. Perhaps that results from defining something that ultimately does not exist, such as an underlying ideology for this organization. It seems to me that its ideology is fluid and ascribes to whatever is willing to support its principles of tribalism and hatred. For example, today I would say antisemitism is more aligned with a far-left ideology. I'll see what I can come up with. Have a great weekend. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, are there any negative traits you would ascribe to right or far-right ideology? Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anarchy and lack of empathy come to mind. 2601:C2:1A00:1083:C97:F09F:996D:1B2D (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]