Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

In the Oceania section the last line has a grammatical error. It reads "In the 1920, the Klan had been rumoured to exist in New Zealand." where it should read "In the 1920s, the Klan had been rumoured to exist in New Zealand.". A random meerkat (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done There were actually two other instances that I also fixed. Thanks! ––FormalDude talk 06:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The paragraph used to say that the Klan's primary targets are African Americans. Can't we just switch it back to that rather than mentioning all the other groups? The Klan is known first and foremost as an an anti-black group. The opening to the article is supposed to provide a brief summary to an article, not provide a long list of everybody who the Klan hates. I'm not sure there's overwhelming evidence that atheists and abortion providers have ever been on the Klan's hate list, anyway. And hasn't the Klan actually abandoned its former anti-Catholic prejudice now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the KKK really still exist?

Why do some people say that the KKK no longer exists? On the page it says that it still exists in the Third Klan since 1950. Coldeblayde (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to ask those people. We can't opine on the reasoning of others. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

While it no longer exists as an organization, there are many groups today that call themselves Klansmen. TFD (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Tiger’s Eye Society

In the 1920s there was a secret society specifically founded to combat the Klan, whose members wore black robes instead of white, with flat-topped hoods. Not sure if that should be mentioned here or in another article, though. See [1] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AB44 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think something like this very well might be worth an addition to the article, but the source you have provided, while interesting, would not for me meet the standard of a reliable Wikipedia source. Ideally, we would want to see treatment in an academic context, or at least news coverage. If you can find something along those lines, please share it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a picture that appeared in the Evening Journal (Vinland NJ Wed, 13 Sept 1922) The paper says no more than is in the source you provided. A book about the Klan in Buffalo says the picture was taken in that city. Otherwise, I can find nothing about them. Per weight therefore we cannot add it to the article. TFD (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Found this if anyone is interested in pursuing. The book doesn't offer much detail but has a decent bibliography that may lead to better sources. [2]https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=case1491564321579784&disposition=inline. I don't have the time unfortunately. 2601:18C:4301:2880:C199:5E6E:9306:9AEC (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

yes no maybe so 2603:6080:AE06:EBF0:610C:D81B:A7C6:A01E (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Any Reliable Sources for anti-atheist sentiment?

The group is described as anti-atheist several times including in the lead paragraph, but neither of the sources given seem to include atheists in the groups the KKK is against. I've had a brief search for RS for this claim but haven't come up with anything. Should this claim be removed unless a RS can be found? Resequent (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I reviewed the claims (didn't find any outside lead or infobox, though), found no RS and removed the claims. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan not founded by the Democratic Party according to AP fact check

[3] Is this backed up by other reliable sources? Is there a consensus among RS for this? If so, should it be included? I see Mark Pitcavage has his own article page. DN (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It's already in the article at FN48, and deservedly so, I think. This is of course just my OR, but while it's certainly proper to say the KKK and Democratic Party were ideologically aligned in many times and places, and there was a lot of commonality, "foundation" is not supported by the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you used AP as a source is laughable. I live about 30 miles north of a town that inhabits only KKK members, and they're all Democrats. Use an actual source, please. ThatScorpuoGuy (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers the Associated Press to be a reliable source. ––FormalDude talk 13:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, although it's doing nothing different than what we do ourselves - state what academic sources say. The source is pointing out a nuance that seems to be lost in a game of telephone with historical facts - it was not formed by the party, but the people who formed it were Democrats (as were many or most members of the 1st era). "Formed by Democrats" and "formed by the Democratic Party" are two entirely different things. But as for using it in the article (as has already been done), there are plenty of better available sources when citing historicity. Journalism is fine for the modern era, but academic sources would be preferred for this. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Catholic question..

Although I haven't had time to read the whole article, it is factually incorrect to describe the contemporary Klan as 'anti-Catholic'. The KKK has been accepting Catholics for half a century or more and has had several Catholic imperial grand wizards in that time. Before citing sources, how should one go about making these changes? I understand that many American Catholics are reluctant to acknowledge this development and the content itself may be controversial. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources always come first. Otherwise it can be perceived as WP:OR. If you have some reliable sources to support it, that would be more productive. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, here's a study on how hate groups like the KKK use 'Celtic' symbolism to appeal to a broader audience.[4].

"An additional reason for the tendency to think of Irishness and white supremacy as unlikely allies is that the Klan, like other nativist groups, is historically associated with fervent anti-Catholicism. However, this was changing as early as the mid 1980s when, in 1986, a Roman Catholic tool and die maker named James W. Farrands of Shelton, Connecticut, was selected Imperial Wizard of the 'Invisible Empire KKK'. Indeed, in the 1990s as the Klan and other similar groups became accepting of Catholicism they also capitalized on the popularity of Irishness to attract interest in their groups."(p.162)

And I know we're supposed to shy away from primary sources and of course avoid OR, but it's worth mentioning that contemporaneous news articles on the post-1960s Klan do back this author's assertion. Here's a NY Times article dating to 1974 reporting that the Klan voted to accept Catholics (and European immigrants)[5]. And less than a decade later this article cites Farrands and claims that Catholics can officially join the KKK[6].

"The Ku Klux Klan is a 'changed organization' that now welcomes 'any kind of Christian' including Catholics, says the Connecticut commander of the white supremacist organization."

In 1986 the Roman Catholic James W. Farrands was elected imperial wizard[7]. This was also the first time a Northerner was voted leader of the Klan. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as it sticks to specifics, uses attributions and doesn't use wikivoice to state that in a way that comes off like a general fact ie "The klan now accepts catholics" VS " according to (sources) in (date) it was reported that (such and such) occured". It might be worth adding somewhere in the article. Possibly in the subsection "1970s–present". DN (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worth adding for it signifies a dramatic change in the organization's philosophy, and also because the Klan as a national organization is only about 100 years old (setting aside the first Klan, which was short-lived and confined to Reconstruction states). In that time, the KKK adopted an anti-Catholic stance for about the first 50 years, but for the last half century it not only voted to accept Catholics but even elected a Catholic as imperial wizard. Farrands himself claims the KKK started accepting Catholics in the 60s after Kennedy's election, but this hasn't been verified and the guy isn't a reliable source.

However, there might be an issue with sourcing. So far I've gathered only one academic journal attesting to this phenomenon while the rest are all newspaper articles that were reporting it. I personally believe this information is factual, but I also understand that, as an encyclopedia, we are not to report 'facts' but what reliable sources write. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

on recent KKK (section 2.5 of the article) there is no mention of anti-Catholic positions....I have not seen any reports regarding the current 3rd kkk as anti-Catholic. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's correct, but part of the issue raised. The lead describes the KKK as 'anti-Catholic' in the present tense. Large sections of the article, particularly on the 2nd iteration of the Klan, discuss its anti-Catholic, pro-Protestant ideology, which is all true and rightly sourced. But then it just goes silent on the issue in the more recent sections. Given the general tenor of the article, I think readers would be interested, surprised even, to learn that it's been ~50 years since the Klan voted to accept Catholics, and about 36 years since they elected their first Catholic leader. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

"In 1974, the New York Times reported that one segment of the KKK voted to extend membership to Roman Catholics,[9] and in 1986 the Times announced the election of James W. Farrands, the first Roman Catholic and Northerner to lead the Klan nationally.[11]"

As to where this will fit and the exact wording, I'll leave it to you. This is not my article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Democrats

Wasn’t the KKK started by democrats? 2600:1700:CA80:76F0:6924:7814:C3F6:8D96 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It was, as the article discusses in great depth. Dumuzid (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As a previous editor pointed out in the talk page archive, "Formed by Democrats" and "formed by the Democratic Party" are two entirely different things. DN (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Right/left affiliation

The article states that the ku klux klan is a “right-wing terror organization”. However, it was members of the Democratic Party who founded the kkk. Please correct your mistake. 2600:100D:B04A:22B3:EDE6:4ECD:E206:E81C (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The idea that political parties occupy any sort of fixed ideological points over time can be disproven by even a cursory look at history. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and one area where the Klan 'evolved' is their position on Catholics.[8][9]. The Klan has been accepting Catholic members for nearly 50 years and yet there is no mention of this in the article. They are erroneously referred to as an 'anti-Catholic organization', which may be true in a historical sense but hasn't been the case for half a century. This is significant in light of the fact that the KKK (as a national organization) is only about 100 years old. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources, such as AP News, seem to disagree with your personal opinion on this. DN (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also See (McVeigh, Rory. "Structural Incentives for Conservative Mobilization: Power Devaluation and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan, 1915–1925". Social Forces, Vol. 77, No. 4 (June 1999), p. 1463.) DN (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

To add to what Dumuzid noted, you might want to take a look at the ideological positions of the organization, not just at its founding, but also over time. If you only look at things through the myopic lens of "Republicans and Democrats in the 21st century" as a binary absolute, you're not only going to miss a lot of important detail, but you'll also be wrong a lot. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

your right the fact Democrats can't accept that fact is telling already, just because some Republicans might have or not doesn't dismiss the fact it was founded by Democrats and they targeted blacks and Republicans for decades, Joe Biden held a klan leader Byrd on his death day and did his eulogy Lowlow88 (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lowlow88, The article repeatedly talks about how the Klan was democratic during the early history of the group (e.g: In the South, where the great majority of whites were Democrats, the Klansmen were Democrats; The KKK killed and wounded more than 200 Black Republicans, [...] The KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact. etc.) but that in no implies that the klan was "liberal" or "left-wing" like the modern democratic party, as the democratic party at that time had widely different views from todays party. See also Solid South, Southern strategy. And Robert Byrd is the perfect example of this. He was the leader of a local chapter in the 40s, when the klan still had a massive component of democrats. He would later describe this as "the greatest mistake I ever made." and went on to be Senate democratic Leader and President pro tempore. To quote his wiki-page Although he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act [...] Byrd's views changed considerably over the course of his life; by the early 2000s, he had completely renounced racism and segregation. Byrd was outspoken in his opposition to the Iraq War. A complicated figure but not proof that the KKK is still supported by current dems or that it was not or is a right wing org. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I know that but they still own that as their own history in their history people change things change but the origins in history remain people continue telling false history Lowlow88 (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not base articles on "what people say or believe", but rather on the consensus of reliable sources, so not to worry. Feel free to read the article and the citations. DN (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Well it was, and pretty much all members in the Wilson to Roosevelt era were Democrats. Also it has took some left-wing positions e.g. compulsory schooling, anti-globalisation. And Woodrow Wilson, who was most definitely a left-leaning Democrat, supported the KKK. Whilst the political position in social issues today may be far right, it’s important to remember the very reason the KKK was created was neo-Confederate purppses, and the Confederate States were presided by a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hammering Hammer (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

the 2nd KKK members in 1920s were Democrats in the South, but in the North it was mixed--probably more Republicans were members than Democrats in states like Indiana. Membership was secret and very few local, state or national politicians announced they were members. When Wilson left office in March 1921 the 2nd kkk was still a small group based in Georgia. He never mentioned it to anyone. One of his history books DID cover the 1st KKK of the 186s0s--he was hostile to it. (the "Birth of a Nation" movie falsely suggested he supported the old kkk). Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's important to understand that the left-right divide between the two parties was not as strong before the realignments in the late 20th century. Karl Marx and his supporters for example endorsed Lincoln, socialists served as elected Republicans and the Socialist Party endorsed the LaFollette presidential campaign, while Southern Democrats tried to undermine the New Deal, Gov. Connolly organized "Democrats for Nixon" and the head of the conservative John Birch Society was a Democratic congressman. Even now, the two parties are not substantially far apart on the left-right spectrum. TFD (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying the left-right political spectrum though, a lot of segregationist Democrats e.g. Lester Maddox remained Democrats till their deaths, as did Orval Faubus, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, and a bunch of others on the American segregationist page. The founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson, was himself a racist toward Indian Americans - and certainly a liberal, perhaps an anti-establishment one, but certainly liberal in his beliefs. I think you have to understand saying the parties "switched" is a relatively inexperienced comment, as Wilson, a longtime racist, was a supporter of the KKK despite leading the progressive movement. The Republican Party did have socialists and social democrats, e.g. Fiorello La Guardia, but most of the Republican presidents around La Guardia’s time - Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, were all conservatives. It’s not really accurate to say the parties switched.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hammering Hammer (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

They didn't switch, they realigned and in fact continue to do so. Trump for example, put a bust of Andrew Jackson in his‎ office, while Democrats mostly now disown him. The neoconservatives, who moved from the Democrats to the Republicans, were Wilsonians. And Harding and Coolidge more closely resembled Cleveland than presidents such as Lincoln and TR. As one Republican (Reagan) put it, "I didn't leave Democratic Party, the party left me."

Also, attitudes change over time. How many conservatives today for example think women shouldn't vote? TFD (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of liberals, let me read you a couple statements from the 1999 Platform of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan where the Klan declares their intense opposition to liberals:

• "An unholy coalition of anti-White, anti-Christian liberals, socialists, feminists, homosexuals, jews and militant blacks have managed to seize control of our government and mass media."
• "The Klan will take away all the special rights and privileges granted to homosexuals by the liberal dictatorship over the last few years."
• "The Klan will encourage all other White nations to throw off the yoke of zionist/liberal occupation."

The Klan is staunchly anti-liberal. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

add Slavs to the list of hated groups in many parts of north America Slavs are still being prosecuted by the KKK 2600:1700:D840:83D0:DD42:645F:34F4:2875 (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

In the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the introduction, change 'grew' to 'grow' as this is a typo. Fiveeyesonetoe (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by Dumuzid. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Blaze Wolf. I meant to mark this answered, but then my wife came home with a new bird. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone help,what does KKK stand for

what does KKK stand for 2A00:23C6:650F:A701:D46A:7F16:3929:66AB (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist

@LilySophie: You removed the designation as "terrorist" twice, although you saw after the first time that another editor disagrees. Moreover, MOS:TERRORIST speaks of individuals, while our article is about a group. Finally, the designation is well sourced and well merited. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST does not speak only of individuals ("such as calling an organization"). Also, MOS:TERRORIST specifically mentions that when a designation is well sourced, it requires in-line attribution still. - LilySophie (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The description of the KKK being a terrorist is extensively sourced. It is not in anyway controversial to call it a terrorist organisation, and I would argue that not to would be completely WP:UNDUE, which is a policy and not a guideline like MOS:TERRORIST. See also WP:YESPOV. (I also found this discussion from last year, where the KKK is specifically called out as an example where it's obvious that such labels should be used, as they have been widely used for decades of WP:RSs, and I broadly agree with that) Cakelot1 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As per MOS:TERRORIST, "value-laden labels" such as "terrorist" are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." The description is widely used and therefore to be inserted into the article using in-text attribution. - LilySophie (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with MOS:TERRORIST thanks, and would agree for most articles, but the KKK has been called a terrorist in 100s of WP:Reliable sources from across many decades. This is an WP:YESPOV issue and that, as a policy is more important than a manual of style page.

I would recommend you familiarise yourself with the wp:The three-revert rule, as it seems you've now reverted three times in the last hour. I would recommend you don't revert the article for a while and try to convince others of your position, first, as currently I see two people against. Let's leave the article in the long term stable sate until it's been properly discussed. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No reason has been given so far that is not in violation of MOS:TERRORIST. The edit in violation of Wikipedia's rules has been reverted. - LilySophie (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have told you that MOS:TERRORIST is a manual of style WP:Guideline and WP:NPOV is a core policy and thus more important.

But more importantly it doesn't matter if you are unconvinced by my argument, you have restored the same version 4 times in an hour and per WP:3RR this is Wikipedia:Edit warring unambiguously. That's disruptive. No matter how right you think you are (or how right you actually are) Edit warring will get you blocked if you continue. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That is your personal, fringe interpretation of Wikipedia's rules and is, unlike my edits, directly in violation of one of them. I will revert for now, seeing as this discussion has begun a short time ago (and you should be able to make your arguments,) and will bring the article back in line with MOS:TERRORIST tomorrow if, as has been the case so far, no argument is brought forth that is not in violation of MOS:TERRORIST. - LilySophie (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You did 3 reverts in an hour that is blatantly in violation of WP:3RR. Also you should try to actually convince others of your edit being the right way to go instead of trying top WP:GAME the system by waiting 24 hours to be elapsed. I really recommend you read what Sideswipe9th wrote on your talk page. I would like to see what other people think before we decide one way or the other though. Remember there's no deadline on wikipedia. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have. This is your time to justify your changes that violate MOS:TERRORIST. And yes, there is very much a deadline to changes that are not in line with Wikipedia's rules, should no argument be given to explain how such changes are actually in line with it. - LilySophie (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

In terms of it being a fringe view, that's why included the 2021 discussion (here in case you didn't see it before Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 10#Widely vs in text attribution) to show that this is something that is more complicated than just deleting every instance of the word "terrorist" on Wikipedia, practically in an article where one of the defining things that WP:RSs say about them is that they do terrorism. Cakelot1 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are not in line with MOS:TERRORIST, the fact that your edits are in violation of it (an accepted rule) is proof that your personal opinion is fringe, the discussion you linked does not back up your claim that it is not fringe and, instead, lends further credence to MOS:TERRORIST and my edits, such as user buidhe's comment that "I think terrorist is worse, or at least equally as bad, as racist/sexist/transphobic. There is no accepted academic definition of terrorism.[2][3] Many militant organizations like the PKK do not have agreement whether they're terrorist. It's much better not to use the label "terrorism" and instead state the organization's means and ends." - LilySophie (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

All I want is a discussion on this as it seems like a major change not supported by the sources. In my view your edits were not in line with WP:NPOV which was my main concern. If others think we should remove the description then so be it, but I think you should try being less combative (particulaly the edit waring you engaged) in future content disputes you find your self in. Assuming good faith is also an accepted rule, and a very important one to remember. It is very possible for different interpretations of Wikipedia's WP:PAGs and such disputes should be handled through discussion, not repeated reverts and assertions that your view is the only possible one. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with LilySophie. Cakelot1 is right of course that MOS:TERRORIST is a guideline and it says at the top of the page, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

The reason for the guideline is that the term is used as an epithet, even in news media. Insurgents against U.S. friendly regimes are routinely called terrorists, while U.S. backed insurgents are called freedom fighters. Where an exception should be made is when there is a consensus among experts for use of the term. Normally the description is reserved for groups whose sole purpose is terrorism. We would not for example describe the U.S. government as a terrorist organization because it has supported terrorism.

Note that the best known expert source on U.S. extremism, the SPLC, does not describe it as terrorist.[10]

The issue has come up several times in discussions, and there was never a consensus to call the KKK a terrorist organization. The current wording was added after the last discussion in June 2020.

TFD (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Terrorist" is supported by hundreds of sources such as University of North Carolina at Greensboro historian Allen W. Trelease who wrote White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction in 1971, and University of Florida civil rights professor David Chalmers who wrote Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement in 2005. Chalmers says on page 1 that the Ku Klux Klan is the oldest terrorist group in the USA. I won't bother to pull in more sources because there are so many. The issue is ridiculous: nobody questions whether the KKK was using terror tactics. Policy demands that we represent the sources accurately, telling the reader that the KKK is a terrorist group. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You would have to show that there is consensus in expert sources for the description, even to pass NPOV. Here's another description from Terrorism in America by Brent L. Smith (SUNY Press 1994), p. 54.[11]

"Although right-wing terrorists in the 1980s were affiliated primarily with the Identity Movement, many of the movements' recruits and some of its leaders did, in fact, come from the Ku Klux Klan....Although the Klan is notorious for its violent, terroristic efforts to restore white supremacy in the South, the overwhelming majority of its members have not committed criminal acts that would be labeled by federal authorities as terroristic. This does not mean that some KKK members have not been involved in American terrorism. Generally, however, these individuals became involved with smaller, more radical right-wing groups as an outgrowth of their Klan affiliation. The Klan was merely a first stop on the long road to extremism. The only officially designated act of suspected terrorism attributed to a Klan member not affiliated with one of the smaller, more violent groups involved Walter Wolfgang Droege." (Droege attempted to overthrow the government of Dominica in 1981.)

Different writers of course may have different definitions of terrorist, which is fine because it should be clear to the reader what is meant. But it isn't clear in the text.

TFD (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

TFD, that Brent L. Smith book is only about the 1980s. Smith doesn't talk about KKK terrorism before that, which was considerable. Also, I showed scholarly sources but you showed a popular author who holds a MFA degree unrelated to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That's another Brent L. Smith. The author of this book was a professor of sociology and criminology.[12] The book was published by the the SUNY press, which is an academic publisher. Smith's unique contribution to terrorism studies was setting up a terrorism database beginning with access to government data from the 1980s.[13]

I don't know if the first Klan meets the criteria for being a terrorist organization, but we usually don't use the term for groups before the term was invented, for example in describing Guy Fawkes or violent anarchists up to the 1920s. But even if it does, the description is supposed to apply to the current organization. In the same sense, its article does not describe the Democratic Party as racist, even though it once was.

TFD (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The Democratic Party isn't part of the issue of whether the KKK used terror tactics. And in any case, the early Dems and Repubs swapped platforms and ideologies beginning in the late 1920s, so pinning the KKK on today's Dems is wrong. The same type of people who were Dems starting the early KKK are now Republicans.

Also, Wikipedia summarizes the sources. If a large number of sources call the KKK a terrorist group then that's what Wikipedia will do. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly sources that describe it as a terrorist group. However, the guideline is that value-laden labels are best handled by in-text attribution. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's ridiculous that people are possibly suggesting we can't or shouldn't label the KKK as a terrorist group. There's a plethora of reliable academic sources that verify it. To name a few:
  • Writing Against the Invisible Empire: Black Newspapers' Responses to the Second Ku Klux Klan. The first Klan emerged into existence in 1865 as a Confederate veterans’ social club, but by 1870 had evolved into a terrorist organization that committed violence and intimidation against freed Blacks and the northern whites who attempted to help them.
  • Heritage and Hate: Constructing Identity in the Raleigh News and Observer's Progressive-Era Coverage of the Ku Klux Klan Historian John Nerone suggests that many southern editors were frustrated by Klansmen's overtly terrorist acts because they undermined the effectiveness of subtle and systemic pro-white sentiment cultivated through the press.
  • Intersections of hate: Exploring the transecting dimensions of race, religion, gender, and family in Ku Klux Klan Web sites. Established in 1865 by James R. Crow, the Ku Klux Klan represents "the oldest single-purpose terrorist organization in the world maintaining the same title and focus", a fact that underscores the group's longevity and its ideological strength.

––FormalDude (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned, some reliable sources indeed refer to the KKK as a terrorist organization, while others don't. Most of the examples refer to the first KKK, which disbanded in the 19th century. Most also are from literature about the KKK, rather than about terrorism. These differences are probably due to different definitions of the term. In any case, per neutrality, we cannot determine which is the correct definition but should report opinions as such with in-text attribution. TFD (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a peer-reviewed academic source that says the KKK is not a terrorist group? ––FormalDude (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect to. I probably cannot find a source that says the U.S. government does not have a "culture of terrorism," as Noam Chomsky has claimed. But I did present an academic book by an established expert about terrorism in the U.S. that says they have not engaged in terrorist activities with one exception in 1981. In cases like this, I would look for textbooks about terrorism and see if they list the KKK as a terrorist organization.

I could probably find sources that the KKK is not a group, but that the term is used to describe a number of groups. Would that be helpful?

~~~~ TFD (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BESTSOURCE, peer-reviewed journals are more reliable than books. And our article Terrorism in the United States lists several instances of KKK terrorism, I can't imagine why we wouldn't be able to make the same claim here. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of the incidents mentioned were carried out by individuals who were members of the KKK, rather than acting on KKK instructions. There was a similar discussion about antifa. Since a member of antifa killed someone, should the article call it a terrorist organization?

The first peer reviewed article in the Wikipedia article, "Structural Incentives for Conservative Mobilization: Power Devaluation and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan, 1915–1925"," does not refer to the KKK as a terrorist group. I don't know if any of the others do, but don't see why I should spend hours of research to prove a negative. TFD (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism in the United States states (in the lede no less) that it included acts of violence which were committed by the Ku Klux Klan.

A source not referring to the KKK as a terrorist group doesn't mean anything other than that they didn't cover that. You'd need a source that clearly states the KKK is not a terrorist organization in order to verify your argument that some RS don't consider them to be one. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NEUTRAL says. In any case, can you explain why there should be an exception to WP:TERRORIST? If we cannot apply the label to Al-Qaeda, why is the KKK an exception? TFD (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what WP:NEUTRAL says, specifically in WP:BALANCE. This would not be an exception to WP:TERRORIST, as that guideline states "contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" which it is. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You missed the last part of WP:TERRORIST: "contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Notice the link to WP:INTEXT. In this case it would mean we have to write something like, "David Chalmers says that the Ku Klux Klan is the oldest terrorist group in the USA." But that precludes the current use of the term. I would just like to point out that when you provide links, I will read them, so be sure to accurately summarize them.

You are also ignoring Balancing aspects, which says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The fact that literature on terrorism rarely if ever calls the KKK a terrorist organization, or an organization for that matter, is sufficient reason to exclude it from the lead.

It is a reasonable reading of the only source about terrorism presented in this discussion is that the KKK is not a terrorist organization. If it doesn't specifically say it isn't, it's likely because no terrorism experts classify it as such and therefore there is no debate to discuss. I may not be able to find sources that the moon landing was not faked for example but that is the clear inference from articles about it.

TFD (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In-text attribution is only used for minor opinions held by few, allowing us to explicitly name those few. But in this case the names number into the hundreds at least. A great majority. In-text attribution is not the answer. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact that academic sources widely describe the KKK as terrorists means it is non-neutral for us to portray them as anything less, especially when there's no academic sources that say they're not.

And I can find a dozen sources that verify the moon landing was not faked in a matter of minutes. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Which RS state the SPLC is the "best known expert source on U.S. extremism"? I would also suggest taking a look at this...DN (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

From the article..."In 1870, a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization" and issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism".(Trelease, Allen W. (1995). White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction.) DN (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's unlikely, because the terminology was not used at the time. Can you tell me what page the claim appears on because I could not find it? TFD (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In 1995? Pretty sure the word terrorism was a word. Nah, if you want to spend your time trying to prove the KKK wasn't/isn't a terrorist group, that's all you. As for whether or not it's possible that it was a term that existed in the 1870's, that seems easily reconciled. DN (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Since your claim is that "In 1870, a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization"", the issue is whether that term was used in 1870. As ngram shows, there are no recorded uses of the term "terrorist organization" from that time.[14]

As your link shows, the rule of the Jacobins was referred to as "The Terror," but common modern use of the term terrorist only begins in the 1970s.

Anyway the issue is whether the source you provided about the the 1870 indictment is correct, not whether or not I can prove or disprove that the first Klan was a terrorist organization. The onus is on editors who want to add information to provide sources. TFD (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

At first I thought you might be using snark, but now it is clear you are actually serious. IMO this argument of yours seems akin to going to the Nazi Party talk page with claims that they were "just following orders". Not only that, you are using SYNTH and OR while ignoring all the other previous editor's responses and RS available to you. So, here is what I think happens now. I suggest we ping all the editors in this discussion and hold an RfC, or you drop the STICK. If you continue to ignore us and all the reliable sources available to you, I think it should be considered WP:BLUD and WP:DIS IMO. So take that for what it's worth, best of luck and excuse me while do something else that is actually productive. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please stay on topic. Every statement in this article must be properly sourced. Your statement that a federal grand jury described the KKK as a "terrorist organization" is false. If you want to add material, take the time to find sources. And kindly don't imply that other editors support the KKK or Nazi Germany. TFD (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I was pretty clear. This discussion is pointless, and honestly kind of toxic IMO. We've been around a long time, so let's not feign ignorance of denialism. You've cited no sources of your own that provide evidence or reports that the KKK is not a historically documented terrorist group. Perhaps, it's because you don't have any (that aren't written by white supremacists)? Since you won't listen to us, maybe you could listen to someone else...Maybe they can convince you to walk away from this horse carcass. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"There are three different KKKs at different times--they used the same name and similar costumes but were entuirely independent. KKK#1 1860s was a terrorist group. KKK#3 in recent decades is a terrorist group. But KKK#2 in 1920s was NOT a terrorist group according to the consensus of experts in recent decades. Rjensen (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Republicans vs Democrats

I find it so interesting one of the first things this Wikipedia pages classifies the KKK as is a “far-right” group. It continues to use this language over and over again throughout the page. However, if you read the page, you’ll see the KKK started as a Democratic group, & strongly opposed the Republican Party. It not only started this way but continued to be a far left entity and even the most modern day politicians with KKK affiliations were democrats. So, I beg the question - how does one rationalize calling the KKK a “far-right” group when the group has always been associated to the Democratic Party, which resides on the political left? What proof is there to support this “far-right” claim? Every bit of evidence and information on this page actually supports the exact opposite of that statement. 2601:602:C580:3A20:FD24:3447:B8B6:231A (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This relies on the assumption that political parties' ideological moorings are static, which they very much are not. Saying the Democratic Party "resides on the political left" is currently true, but has not been true at times in the past, and should it continue long enough, will not be true in the future. See, e.g., Dixiecrats for some sense of how a party can experience ideological drift and schisms as a result. As for the justification of the far-rght descriptor, I would refer you to the cited sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Southern strategy and Black conservatism in the United States#Historical basis are also useful for context. The Democratic party became less overtly racist, while the Republican party responded by intentionally trying to appeal to those racists to win more elections. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Both parties have realigned over the years. Originally, both parties had a range of supporters across the spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"has always been associated to the Democratic Party, which resides on the political left" Since when? Left-wing politics typically include political movements more critical of capitalism, such as "the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism". The Democratic Party instead favors liberalism, particularly social liberalism. The key ideology of the social market economy, with its faith resting on free-market capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

in the article it needs to be changed from right wing to left wing. right wing refers to republicans and the kkk weren't republicans. Rukiafan (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Same answer as 44953 times before: Republicans were among the progressives in the 19th century. Democrats were mostly conservative. Political stances are not static. Please read some history. There's a whole encyclopedia here for you to explore these concepts. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent overcites

I'm all for having a well sourced article, but the lead of this article is becoming unreadable due to citation overkill. The purpose of the lead is to summarize what's already in the article. As such, anything referenced in the lead, thus being in the article, should be cited in the article. If it has to be cited in the lead using a source not re-used elsewhere, then that would call into question as to whether it is appropriately covered in the article. None of the recently added citations in the lead are ever used elsewhere in the article, which would tend to indicate they are simply a case of ref-bombing. There is no need to ref bomb this article - it's already well supported. So let's see about removing some unnecessary citations, or at least bundle them so the article can be readable. (Note: the infobox is the same as the lead - it should 'summarize what's in the article, and thus, anything in there should already be cited within the article. Adding individual, and non-reused, citations in the infobox should be unnecessary) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Everything that's in the lede is supposed to be mentioned and sourced in the body. The entire lede needs to be shortened dramatically, and all those citations clutter things up, but it would be clutterly as heck even without the citations. Almost all of it belongs in the overview, not in the lede. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The two sentences in question are about its primary targets and its political positions, which together have over 40 cites. This type of problem arises when some editor wants to add to the list and continues to add new sources when their addition is questioned.

The solution is to use a source that lists all the important attributes. If for example Jews are a primary target, one would expect to find that in any overview of the Klan. A news item about an "alleged" Klan member for an anti-Semitic attack would not be the first place I would look to find a description of the Klan's primary targets. TFD (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Also it repeats itself, going through the three stages of the Klan twice. Solving that would also shorten the lead a bit which it could also use. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

KKK supports diversity

The Ku Klux Klan opens its door to Jews, homosexuals and black people in bizarre recruitment drive

Daily Mail, Huff Post UK, and everyone else said it

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Ku+Klux+Klan+opens+its+door+to+Jews%2C+homosexuals+and+black+people+in+bizarre+recruitment+drive&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS1063US1063&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 24.205.76.240 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No consensus for recent edits

With regard to these recent changes by Rjensen, I think there should be some discussion on the removal of context that, IMO, still has WEIGHT and is still DUE, Edit 1. & Edit 2. The material seems reliably sourced and relative to their sections. I think a discussion, rather than just an edit summary, would help clarify the editor's reasoning and perhaps help us find a means to make the desired improvements without removal of RS. I will also be reverting until there is consensus to keep the change. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

edit 1 is pretty low grade information on Duke, after he left the KKK in 1980. Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

edit 2 is about an ironic editorial in one small town weekly newspapers--the editors was not a klansman and did not purport to speak for the kkk. I think the text adds zero about recent KKK activity. Instead both edits divert attention away from serious issues. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removals. The first removed material about David Duke's activities long after he had left the Klan. The second section removed was about an editorial by the owner of a minor newspaper calling for a return of the Klan.

The Klan is too big a topic for this information to have any weight. TFD (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Klan is too big a topic for this information to have any weight. That's not how WP:WEIGHT works, and I think you know that...DN (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

In regard to Edit 1, the article section Neo-Nazi alliances and Stormfront is sparse for reasons I am unaware of. Removing reliably sourced context instead of updating, correcting or adding to it, from the huge amount of RS widely available regarding the KKK's ties to Neo-Nazism, seems very counter intuitive. As far as the "low grade information" opinion, I'm not sure what that means since the source is reliable, on topic, in the right place and seemingly neutral. The Unite the Right rally seems like a perfect resource for finding reliably sourced context to add in that section. I will also add that Duke was not only in attendance at the rally, but was also a speaker and was later sued for injury. Duke is a unique connection with regard to this recent alliance/event involving both Neo-Nazis and the KKK. According to the David Duke article, "Duke continued to be involved with the (Stormfront) website's radio station in 2019. Duke may be one of the most well known politicians that was also a leader in the KKK and for the Neo-Nazi movement. That said, I will address why it is also likely DUE in the paragraph below...BTW If anyone has doubts, simply search davidduke.com/stormfront-radio-june-6-2018/.

With regard to TFD's comment, which references his exit in 1980, and going back to Edit 1, we have mountains of context and sources about the KKK and it's spokesmen before 1980, so how is that a reason for exclusion, especially someone as prolific in the modern KKK as Duke? An article by the SPLC refers to Duke as "...the most recognizable figure of the American radical right, a neo-Nazi, longtime Klan leader and now international spokesman for Holocaust denial who has nevertheless won election to Louisiana's House of Representatives and once was nearly elected governor" ...This seems to speak volumes to his relevance, not just as a leader of the KKK, but the KKK's connection to politics and government. I'm guessing there are plenty of other reliable sources that might say the same. The fact that there isn't more about him here seems a shameful oversight IMO, let alone the thought of removing even more details about him as Edit 1 appears to do. That's all I have for now, I'll get to Edit 2 later on. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

D.C. Stephenson was probably the most well-known leader of the KKK and far more powerful and influential in his time. But the article says nothing about his later life or even about his life before joining the KKK.

Significance is not determined by individual editors' opinions, but by the "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If readers want to know whatever happened to David Duke decades after he left the KKK, they can click on the link to his article. TFD (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether Stephenson is the most well known KKK leader is extremely debatable, and more to my point, Edit 1 turns David Duke into barely a mention at all. All that's left is essentially a notation that he is simply Chloê Hardin's ex-husband?

In 1995, Don Black and Chloê Hardin, the ex-wife of the KKK grand wizard David Duke, began a small bulletin board system (BBS) called Stormfront, which has become a prominent online forum for white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, hate speech, racism, and antisemitism in the early 21st century.

Compare that to Stephenson's mention...

In Indiana, traditional political historians focused on notorious leaders, especially D. C. Stephenson, the Grand Dragon of the Indiana Klan, whose conviction for the 1925 kidnap, rape, and murder of Madge Oberholtzer helped destroy the Ku Klux Klan movement nationwide.

David Duke (197) has about 10 times as many references, compared to D. C. Stephenson (20). DN (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No--this article is not about the radical right today--it is aboiut the KKK and Duke quit the KKK in 1980 (or was forced out), so his coverage is a diversion that falsely suggests he is still a player in kkk. Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"...his coverage is a diversion that falsely suggests he is still a player in kkk". That's not what it says, and let's not change the subject. Your original reason for exclusion in your edit summary was "low grade information"...not "Duke quit the KKK in 1980 (or was forced out)" So that makes the "diversion argument" the third new excuse you've given me here. I won't waste time discussing it with you if you are just going to keep throwing out new excuses every time I point out a flaw in the logic being used to exclude. That's called Moving the goalposts. The fact that he is no longer a leader in the KKK doesn't negate the fact that he was. Period. He is still one of the most prolific "former" KKK leaders in American history and was still broadcasting via the Daily Stormer up to 2018-19, so let's just make that clear in the article instead of just excluding DUE RS by claiming his coverage is a "diversion to suggest he's still a KKK leader". That's very clearly not at all what it says. The amount and quality of RS available about Duke's connection to the KKK and Neo-Nazism, from his interests in Nazism at an early age, then later on as both a founding KKKK chapter member (LA) and Grand Wizard, to a full blown antisemite and Neo-Nazi makes him prime subject matter for this section, even if he is no longer an "official" leader for the KKK. It's still RS and still WP:DUE, in a section that is already shamefully sparse to begin with. I think the Unite the Right Rally is also a good subject to start adding to this section in that regard. DN (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as Edit 2, I would agree that it needs to be shorter and more to the point. It is definitely less of an issue IMO compared to Edit 1. I will submit a draft later...

Here are my proposed changes, in regard to Edit 2. DN (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Going back to Edit one, in addition to adding appropriate context from Unite the Right, I think another addition is also in order for the Neo-Nazi alliances and Stormfront section. Namely the Greensboro massacre. I think we should determine if this may be the earliest notable event regarding KKK and NN alliances. I believe this section would benefit greatly from a proper timeline in this regard. DN (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both removals. The Duke material is off topic. And for the editorial, per reasons given by Rjensen. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Explain how "The Duke material is off topic." from the KKK, specifically Neo Nazi alliances including Stormfront. DN (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you. You say that DUE supports inclusion, but have not explained why. The onus is on you to explain why you are right and three other editors are wrong. TFD (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I see no relevance to covering the topic of the article. Rather than saying that next I have to prove the non-existence of something, that means that any real discussion has to start with you saying how you feel it is relevant to covering the topic. Without that I can only comment on how far removed from relevance the guessed putative connection is: Basically it is describing non-KKK activities by a person who left the KKK over 40 years ago. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If your argument for relevance is that in your 20:00, 22 June post, it implies / is dependent on that assertion that relevance to the radical right establishes that it is relevant to the KKK, an assertion which is clearly wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"I see no relevance to covering the topic of the article" Really? I am just a bit dumbfounded that none of the longtime editors here understand why David Duke is WP:DUE in an article about the KKK.

My argument / rationale is about relevance of the particular material linked at the start of this discussion to the topic of the article. WP:due is a weighting provision for material already presumed to be relevant. Second, the discussion is about the particular text in the opening of this discussion. Your claim about lack of understanding by editors just said David Duke in general, as if editors said that nothing about Duke is relevant which nobody said. And then you linked to material which is not even under discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your rationale, the end result of Edit 1 is perceivably at issue in terms of under-representation of DD in the article. As I mentioned earlier to TFD, if you look at the amount of context in this article about David Duke, and what Edit 1 does to it, it practically eliminates any mention of him aside from mentioning his former status and his relationship to his ex-wife. Even though he is no longer officially a Grand Wizard, his notability as a KKK leader (and Neo-Nazi according to the SPLC DN (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)), in hundreds of articles in reliable sources, from the 1970s to the 2016 election, seems to justify mention in a section called Neo-Nazi alliances and Stormfront considering his utilization of StormFront, regardless of his current status (which is now mentioned in the article because of me). The same goes for his work with Don Black on numerous projects including Operation Red Dog. No one, besides myself, has even made any suggestions on possible ways to supplement this almost total exclusion. I brought up Unite the Right rally to help address the issue, but it has yet to be acknowledged, so it seems fair to assume that Duke's relation may or may not be the reason why. I am trying to see things from other people's perspective and improve this article by building consensus instead of just removing RS. DN (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also tried to find additional sources on my own Wolfgang Droege White Supremacist who Tried to Overthrow Dominica's Government is Shot to Death-thedominican.net-2005, as opposed to just using ones from the OP-RED-DOG Wiki-article, which are likely to have usable cites for this article. Then there's the Greensboro massacre, which I also mentioned, but again, was never acknowledged. DN (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

As it stands, I am in the minority here and I acknowledge that. I don't like wasting my time or article talk page space anymore than any of you. While I don't agree with the explanations I've been given as to why excluding David Duke from the KKK article, along with Operation Red Dog isn't WP:UNDUE I am not here to make a POINT....I realize how all this might sound, and I apologize if I come off like an idiotic or egotistical pompous ass here, but it's discouraging that I am being compelled to even make these arguments by editors that are at least as familiar with the subject as I am and likely more-so, IMO. I'm not accusing anyone here of attempting to disassociate David Duke from the KKK. but I wonder if WP:DRN may be appropriate, let alone trying to add the Unite the Right rally 1 since David Duke participated, or Unite the Right 2, in which he was a scheduled speaker, because at this point it seems none of you would seem to allow it. I am not new, and I think most of you are at least somewhat familiar with me, but neither of those facts should make any difference. For now I will conclude with an excerpt from the Anti-Defamation League about David Duke, another RS that should be taken into consideration in your agenda to exclude.

"He was instrumental in the Klan resurgence of the 1970s and was one of the first neo-Nazi and Klan leaders to stop the use of Nazi and Klan regalia and ritual, as well as other traditional displays of race hatred, and to cultivate media attention. Duke continues to write articles and books, to convene conferences, and to speak publicly for the purposes of demonizing Jews and other minorities".

References

...Sorry if I'm coming off a little grumpy here everyone, I'm just surprised at the push-back, please enjoy the rest of your weekend. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This section/discussion was started by you and, per your OP, is about the specific text in your OP. In this section, you open with saying that somebody made the absurd argument to generally exclude David Duke from the article (which I don't see anyone having said anything like that). Myself, I would feel the opposite and would argue for inclusion of KKK related David Duke material as he was a significant and impactful figure in the KKK. And in your recent posts you discuss other items like operation Red dog. Why not try to resolve the specific questions as defined by you in your OP? IMHO the main question / objections on #1 in your OP is relevance, and the main question on #2 in your OP is a combination of relevance and wp:due. Or if those narrower questions are no longer your focus, recognize that this discussion was only about them and not reflecting on the other questions that you raised. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

[15] With regard to these recent changes by Rjensen, I think there should be some discussion on the removal of context that, IMO, still has WEIGHT and is still DUE, Edit 1. & Edit 2. The material seems reliably sourced and relative to their sections. I think a discussion, rather than just an edit summary, would help clarify the editor's reasoning and perhaps help us find a means to make the desired improvements without removal of RS. I will also be reverting until there is consensus to keep the change. Cheers.

"you open with saying that somebody made the absurd argument to generally exclude David Duke from the article" I'm requesting that you strike this, until then, I don't see any reason to respond to it.DN (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I'm not accusing anyone here of attempting to disassociate David Duke from the KKK."...DN (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to your "While I don't agree with the explanations I've been given as to why excluding David Duke from the KKK article...." which flatly says that people were arguing for that. The statement you referred to from elsewhere is, first, elsewhere and second would be a different accusation (dissociate from the KKK vs. exclusion from the article). Happy to just move on from this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Nazi Alliances

After giving it some thought, StormFront seems redundant in the title next to Nazi Alliances. "Nazi Alliances" seems like the best candidate as a replacement for the primary subject "title' in that regard, for this section. As it currently stands, because of Edit 1, this section is under-represented, and leaves only a bare-bones mention of the conception of DailyStormer. I have put together a draft and took some time with this, so please stick to keeping criticism constructive and impersonal. I will also reiterate that even though Duke is "former" KKK, the RS used still refers to the KKK and Duke's relation in these sources, as should we. I have made it clear at the very beginning that Duke is now a former KKK leader, so it is already crystal clear...The following is a proposal draft...

Former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke, who was considered by the SPLC as instrumental in the Klan resurgence of the 1970s, was one of the first neo-Nazi and Klan leaders to stop the use of Nazi and Klan regalia and ritual, as well as other traditional displays of race hatred. Duke enrolled at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge in 1968, and by 1970 formed a white student group called the White Youth Alliance that was affiliated with George Lincoln Rockwell's National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), also known as the American Nazi Party.(p.3) After Duke graduated LSU in 1974, he founded the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan (KKKK) in Louisiana. While leader of the new organization he recruited NSWPP members such as Don Black. During this time Duke created a shift in targeting, from blacks to Jews. The Nazification of the KKKK became apparent in the obsession with Jews found in the KKKK organ Crusader, which began to share bylines with the NSWPP's White Power. His Knights of the KKK became the most prominent Klan group of the 1970s, in large part due to Duke’s decision to wed the organization more closely with outright Nazism and help organize Klan border patrols to stop migrants. Racial paranoia and fear of communism led to a vast surge in Klan ranks throughout the state throughout the 1970s. In 1975 there were an estimated 6,500 Klansmen nationwide. By 1979 that number had increased to 10,000 plus another 75,000 Klan sympathizers. In the summer of 1979, Duke decided he was going to eventually hand control of the Knights of the KKK over to Don Black, due to fall-outs with other Klan members and because he needed a less radical approach to move forward with other aspirations. He left the Klan in 1980, however by then Duke had already become instrumental in connecting KKK and Neo Nazi members in a 1981 plot to overthrow the government of Dominica, in what later became known as Operation Red Dog(p. 97-99) He also founded a new organization in 1981, called the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), "A Klan without the sheets," in the words of Duke biographer Tyler Bridges. In building up the NAAWP, he would woo old Klansmen into his new organization. Author Lawrence Powell reiterated that while Duke’s ideology and political associations regularly shifted, he is most readily identifiable as a neo-Nazi who saw the Klan as tool ‘to mainstream Nazism.(p.11 cite 69) By the late 1970s and early 1980s, Klansmen and Nazis were beginning to see the value of cooperating with each other. Although they had roots in different traditions — the Klan in the post-civil War South and the neo-Nazis in Hitler’s Germany — they shared the same enemies and the same fanatic obsession with white supremacy.(p.40)

Prior to the Greensboro Massacre, on July 8, 1979, some 100 WVO members and local residents formed a parade from the community center in the black neighborhood of Westside to protest a screening of Birth of a Nation at the China Grove Community Center by the KKK. The protestors marched up to the porch of the China Grove Community Center, where the Klan and Nazis were already armed and assembled.(p.129) On Sept. 22, members of Harold Covington’s American Nazi Party, Leroy Gibson’s Rights of White People and Virgil Griffin’s Invisible Empire held a rally in Louisburg, N.C. and agreed to “pool their resources” for common goals in response to China Grove. Covington reportedly described this coalition as the United Racist Front.(p.148) On November 3, 1979 in North Carolina, members of the Ku Klux Klan working together with Neo-Nazis, killed five participants of the Communist Workers Party (CWP) and wounded several others in what became known as the Greensboro Massacre. The joint Klan/Nazi contingent arrived at the protest site, brought out their weapons and opened fire on the protesters, killing five. They were acquitted of criminal charges but later found civilly liable for the killings. While they were on trial, another group of Klan and Nazi members were arrested for plotting to bomb parts of Greensboro if their friends were found guilty.(p.36) This event also involved Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., one of Harold Covington's acolytes and a former Green Beret, who rode in the Greensboro caravan. Miller founded the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 1980. By merging Klan and Nazi symbolism while instilling paramilitary discipline in his followers, Miller built one of the strongest white-power groups in the state at the time. Before Greensboro, America’s far-right extremists largely operated in separate, mutually distrustful spheres. After Greensboro, KKK and Neo Nazi alliances became more frequent. By 1980, membership in Klan-Nazi fusion groups began to outnumber that of old-school Klans. The increasing unity of far-right factions was more than tactical. By transfusing “blood and soil” into American racism, it led to what historian John Drabble called in a 2007 study “the Nazification of the Ku Klux Klan.” After Greensboro it was no longer unimaginable to see Confederate flags flying alongside swastikas as they did at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 in which the KKK, Neo-Nazis and David Duke attended, or, for mass murderers like Dylann Roof to hoard Nazi drawings as well as a Klan hood. Gorrell Pierce, then-leader of the Federated Knights of the KKK, summed up his hesitancy and willingness to ultimately capitulate with a callback to his personal history. In speaking about the KKK and Neo-Nazi alliance at Greensboro, the Associated Press quotes him as saying, “you take a man who fought in the Second World War, it's hard for him to sit down in a room with swastikas. But people realize time is running out. We're going to have to get together. We're more effective when we're organized.”

Aryan Nations was founded by Richard Girnt Butler in the 1970s. Butler organized yearly gatherings of white supremacists at his compound in Idaho which he termed the "Aryan Nations World Congress." A July 1982 weekend gathering, for example, brought together members of at least 13 Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and other racist groups. At their height in 1984–86, several hundred people would attend including most of the well known leaders of the American far right, such as Klansman Louis Beam, White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger, Gordon "Jack" Mohr, Robert E. Miles, Posse Comitatus leader James Wickstrom, Thomas Robb, Grand Wizard Don Black, and a leader of the Militia of Montana.The Order (white supremacist group) was founded in September of 1983 by Robert Jay Mathews during a convention he attended for Pierce’s National Alliance in Arlington. While Beam and Pierce tended to approach the issue of sparking a fascist revolution rather differently, Matthews had deep ties to both men. He essentially acted as a bridge between the two sides of the vanguardist movement, tying Beam’s Klansmen and Christian Identity nuts together with Pierce’s Neo Nazis. William Pierce called the Order “The Aryan Resistance Movement”. Robert Miles called it Brüder Schweigen, or “The Silent Brotherhood”. But to Bob Matthews, and to most of its members, it was simply known as the Order, in direct imitation of the group responsible for organizing the fictional white nationalist insurgency in the The Turner Diaries. It originally had just 9 men. Three members of the National Alliance, four men from the Aryan Nations, and one former Klansman. He would start by recruiting a base of soldiers around the nation, and train them at sundry fascist compounds. In nine months, Bob Matthews had turned the dreams and theories of men like Beam and Pierce into a real revolutionary movement. He’d made the Turner Diaries real.(Chapter 5) The common goal, as these alliances see it, is protecting the white race at a time when the Census Bureau projects whites will eventually be a minority. A spokesman for the Nationalist Front (United States), Matthew Heimbach, said U.S. white nationalists are trying to follow the example of far-right European groups that have learned to work together rather than bicker over ideology, theology and organizational structure. A spokesperson for the SPLC said she is less worried about new supremacist alliances than free-standing extremist entities like The Daily Stormer, and that such single hate-based websites can reach millions. In 1995, Don Black and Chloê Hardin, the ex-wife David Duke, began a small bulletin board system (BBS) called Stormfront, which has become a prominent online forum for white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, hate speech, racism, and antisemitism in the early 21st century. After the first Unite the Right rally, Duke also became a selected speaker for Unite the Right 2 in D.C. for 2018 by Jason Kessler.

....End

Remember, it's rough draft, and I am aware there may be errors and will need some tweaking as not to plagiarize, so please don't harp too much on those issues...DN (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be two separate issues: changes that were made to Klan in the 1970s and Klan collaboration with other far right groups afterwards.  They should be mentioned in the article, but concisely.

I tend to agree. Wouldn't that necessitate a some restructuring of the article? "The 1970s-Present" section is preceded by "1950s-Present" section, which seems a bit confusing. Does MOS indicate it would be best to break it down by decade, with subcategories under each? I'm open to your suggestions. DN (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I notice that only one of your sources (Drabble) is about the KKK. I suggest you use primarily sources about the Klan, in order to ensure that the information in the article has the proper weight.

I'm a bit confused by this. Do you mean in terms of meeting all SIRS guidelines? Which sources did I use that make no mention of the KKK? DN (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe pretty much all the sources mention the KKK, so I would appreciate some clarification as to what you mean by "only one of your sources (Drabble) is about the KKK"...DN (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your text says that Duke was one of the first lan leaders to stop the use of Nazi regalia. But there's nothing in the article about how, why and when they adopted them in the first place. The original Klan after all predates Nazism. That should be in the article first. TFD (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the previous (history) sections talk about how, why and when they adopted them in the first place. I was trying to focus and save space so I didn't want include material that was already mentioned about that and go off topic from KKK NAZI related context/sources. DN (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If it makes more sense to leave that part out, I'm fine with that. DN (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The history section does not mention the KKK's adoption of Nazi symbolism, which occurred in the 1970s. TFD (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

These passages in my draft mention it "This event also involved Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., one of Harold Covington's acolytes and a former Green Beret, who rode in the Greensboro caravan. Miller founded the Carolina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 1980. By merging Klan and Nazi symbolism while instilling paramilitary discipline in his followers, Miller built one of the strongest white-power groups in the state at the time...After Greensboro it was no longer unimaginable to see Confederate flags flying alongside swastikas as they did at the Unite the Right rally" It appears to be around the time of the Greensboro Massacre. I believe Drabble goes into further detail. DN (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a bit more about how the use of regalia and ritual may have been discarded. It seems Pierce may have a lot to do with it."Pierce went on to complain that none of the existing radical right-wing organizations existing in the United States had the ability to turn into a “large scale revolutionary movement”. “Their long established and unbroken record of failure is the best evidence of this fact.” He wrote. He attacked the movement for being filled with “overgrown children” and said “In essence, we need to stop waiting around for a new Hitler to rise up and unify all of our fringe little groups”. Instead, Pierce suggested America’s fascists take a leaf out of Communism’s book and create a national front; a large umbrella organization that would combine and coordinate all the different right-wing groups, and allow them to recruit people more easily, without the baggage of swastikas and Klan robes. Towards this end, William Pierce established the National Alliance in 1974."

I also found one of the sources used, has it's own wiki article Bring the War Home...Going back as far as WW2 when Arthur Hornbui Bell was Grand Dragon in NJ (see History of the Ku Klux Klan in New Jersey, Bell was also vice president of the German American Bund and was subsequently oustered, but that may be the earliest connection I have found so far, and seems relative to the history of eventual alliances (p.25-27) ...."From Hiram Evans’s retirement in 1939, the final few years of the second KKK would see leadership by an Indiana native named James A. Colescott. A veterinarian by trade, he succeeded Evans as Imperial Wizard in 1939 at age 42. It was here that the Klan would face its crisis of identity relating to Nazism. In New York and New Jersey, KKK chapters had begun to affiliate with the German American Bund, a prominent American pro-Nazi group. The Grand Dragon of the KKK in New Jersey was Arthur Hornbui Bell, the GAB vice-president. In the face of the growing threat of Nazism, many Klansmen quit in disgust at what they saw as a betrayal of the patriotic values that the KKK stood for. Colescott subsequently removed him as Grand Dragon in 1940, following an investigation by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities into his plans to merge the KKK and the ANM, and the Bell affair marks the first real rift and conflict of ideology between these groups. This rift would stand until the end of the 1970s with the unification of the North Carolina KKK and ANP into the United Racist Front, which perpetrated the Greensboro Massacre....The hesitancy of Ku Klux Klansmen primarily came from the age of the older members of the organization: many of them vociferously supported the war against Adolf Hitler and fought in World War II. However, by the 1970s, the younger members of this “third wave” of the KKK did not share the same experiences, being much more familiar with the existential threat of communism through the Korean and Vietnam Wars than the first-hand knowledge of Nazi atrocities. This difference in generational experience, coupled with the Cold War's escalation, enabled the shift in Klan attitudes from anti-Nazi “patriotic Americanist” racism to a willingness to work with fascist groups. Gorrell Pierce, then-leader of the Federated Knights of the KKK, summed up his hesitancy and willingness to ultimately capitulate with a callback to his personal history. The Associated Press quotes him as saying, “you take a man who fought in the Second World War, it's hard for him to sit down in a room with swastikas. But people realize time is running out. We're going to have to get together. We're more effective when we're organized.” Nonetheless, in testimony before Greensboro’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2005, Pierce claimed, “I told everybody that, `Next time somebody might get killed, that this is serious business. This is not Boy Scouts.’” Pierce perfectly embodied the two extremes of Klan responses to the unification of the KKK and the American Nazi Party (ANP). The Klan-Nazi union's reactionary revisionism would soon be very visible, with Klan rallies becoming an erratic display of Klan white hoods, confederate flags, and crosses alongside neo-Nazi jackboots, swastikas, and runes. Membership in one of these groups did not necessitate membership in another, though over time, the characteristics of Klandom and Nazism blended; however, even with the blending of the two most visible white nationalist groups in America, it would take the adoption of characteristics from a third group before the reactionary extreme-right would solidify as a marketable identity. This third group shares much of the ideological background as the KKK and ANP, though its founders and leaders cloaked its semantics and semiotics in the shroud of constitutionalism, federal skepticism, and religious conspiracy: the CIM (CIM)."

(p.78)

The decline of the KKK during World War II would give way to the growth of a third wave of KKK activity in the 1950s through the 1970s. After the emergence of an organized civil rights movement, the third KKK developed to counter the peaceful civil rights movement and intimidate people away from supporting the movements. In opposing affirmative action and focusing on anticommunism, the third wave of the KKK later opened itself to alliances with neo-Nazi groups—something aided by near-universal adoption of Christian Identity religious and political beliefs throughout the broader White Power movement that developed in the 1980s.

While researching William Luther Pierce, Louis Beam and James Mason (neo-Nazi) and their involvement in events leading up to Operation Red Dog, I also came across this. "By 1976, Beam left Shelton’s organization and shifted his allegiance to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which had begun to embrace elements of overt neo-Nazism under David Duke".

According Drabble (p. 60-63), Robert E. Miles was an architect of the beginning of KKK Neo-Nazi alliances. Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. is still mentioned as an early figure in the Nazification of the KKK.

Indeed, Robert E. Miles soon emerged as one of the most important architects of the so-called “Nazification” of the Klan during the 1970s. Between 1971 and 1979, Miles formulated the relationship between traditional Klan craft, esoteric theologies, and European racialist discourses, mixing elements from Catharist Dualism and Christian Identity with Gnostic Neo-paganism and National Socialism. After his release in 1979, Miles sponsored a series of gatherings where Klansmen, Nazis, Christian Identity preachers, and paramilitary enthusiasts exchanged theoretical perspectives and debated tactics. Christian Identity preacher Robert Butler (Richard Butler (white supremacist) provided a similar forum at the Aryan Nations compound in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. By this time, membership in Nazi groups had risen to its highest level since the second World War, and a new Klan, led by former Nazi David Duke, had arisen. Along with four other former American Nazi Party members, Duke fused Klan iconography with Nazi racialism, NSRP anti-FBI rhetoric, Minutemen para-militarism, millennial Christian Identity, recruiting thousands to the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. By 1978–1979, they would recruit thousands of young whites into their Nazi–Klan hybrid organization. By 1980, hybrid Nazi–Klan associations began to exceed membership in traditional Klan groups. Paramilitary Klan units had been small and secret during the 1960s, but the 1970s Klans publicized their existence. In 1980, former David Duke associate Bill Wilkinson resurrected traditional Klan ideology, creating a militant Klan that publicized paramilitary training, and engaged in violent provocations against civil rights activists. Exposed as an FBI informant in 1979 however, Wilkinson also bought discredit to the idea that Klan vigilantism in support of law enforcement retained any viability. Younger Klansmen, many of them Vietnam veterans bitter over an alleged betrayal by the federal government, founded the most active Klan paramilitaries. In response to the Wilmington, North Carolina, riots of 1971 for example, former U.S. Army Special Forces member and Klan splinter-group leader Leroy Gibson offered paramilitary training courses. By 1971, his group had eclipsed the North Carolina UKA, even as other breakaway UKA members began fraternizing with Nazis....

Ten years later, another North Carolina green beret named Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. would create the largest Nazi–Klan paramilitary of the period....

It was former Rockwell aide William Luther Pierce however, who most effectively re-formulated racist discourse after 1970. Pierce had edited National Socialist World during the critical 1966–1967 transition period when the American Nazi Party embraced a white power line. After appearing in the Fiery Cross in 1972, Pierce editorialized for David Duke’s newspaper in 1976....One group of Nazis and Klansmen even attempted to supplement President Ronald Reagan’s aggressive anticommunist foreign policy with a private filibustering expedition against the island of Dominica. (Operation Red Dog)

From the Robert Miles wiki article...

Following the Greensboro Massacre where anti-Klan communist activists were killed, "a number of previously antagonistic White Supremacist groups, including the Posse Comitatus and various Neo-Nazi and Klan factions, began having discussions about how they could formulate a common ideology. These different groups also conducted joint activities and even began establishing informal means of communication including computer bulletin boards and cable TV programs. Many of these groups embraced Christian Identity. Gradually, a White racist alliance emerged. Centers of this movement included Miles' Michigan farm, as well as the Aryan Nations compound in Hayden Lake, Idaho, the site of Identity Pastor Richard Butler's Church of Jesus Christ Christian.

Then, we have Roy Frankhouser, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan and a member of the American Nazi Party, a government informant, and a security consultant to Lyndon LaRouche. In October 1965, he was identified by the House Un-American Activities Committee as having helped organize the Pennsylvania Realm of the United Klans of America earlier that year.

...It's a lot to digest, but I am interested in your thoughts. DN (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to condense the material? This article is supposed to give an overview from the founding to the present. It might be best to have spin out articles about the three Klans. In fact the third Klan could probably be divided into two parts: 1945-1970 and 1970 to present since they were very different as Drabble points out. TFD (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but I'm starting to wonder if there is enough here to possibly warrant a different article (KKK Neo-Nazi Alliances), unless there is already one that covers this and uses the same sources. It will be a lot of work and my time is limited, but with guidance from you and other editors I'm happy to offer what time I have. DN (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead up to 1970 Alliances

Before the Alliances in the 1970's, sources show instances of overlap and cross-over between the kkk and pro-Nazi organizations.

Covering the years 1922 to 1959, the George Rennar papers in the Oregon Historical Society Research Library collection includes meeting minutes, correspondence, leaflets, and other primary-source materials that provide glimpses into a variety of interlinked, racist, and nationalist organizations from those years. The documents reveal connections among leaders, some organizing strategies, and both consistencies and changes in espoused ideologies. Some groups documented in the collection, and discussed here, include Friends of New Germany (later the German American Bund, or simply, the Bund), the Silver Shirts, the American Defenders, and Americans Incorporated. At times, the Portland Police’s “Red Squad” coordinated with some of these organizations, and membership overlapped. Membership also over-lapped with the Ku Klux Klan, which was prominent in Oregon during the 1920s and has been extensively studied by other historians. “Major” Luther Ivan Powell founded the Washington State Ku Klux Klan in 1922. He also organized Klan chapters in California, Oregon, and later Idaho, Alaska, and Montana. He was eventually expelled from the Klan and joined the Silver Legion of America, an underground American pro-fascist and pro-Nazi organization which was founded by William Dudley Pelley and headquartered in Asheville, North Carolina. Though a number of Silver Legion members were active and former Klansmen, it’s unclear what role Powell had in that transformation in the Northwest. His career showed how the Klan’s politics of Christian patriotism and white supremacy, while claiming to be democratic, could lead to American fascism.

According to professor Philip Jenkins, Legionnaire and Klansman Paul Winter was also a pivotal figure in pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic organization(p.40). The new centrality of anti-Semitism in Pennsylvania’s politics is symbolized by Winter according to Jenkins. He began his career as a highly successful recruiter for the Philadelphia area Klan, and in 1928 he published a celebrated anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant tract called What Price Tolerance? Winter eventually defined his racial ideology as “Nordic,” but the New Deal years made him overtly and fanatically anti-Semitic, and pro-Nazi. He was described in 1940 as “a distributor of Nazi pamphlets direct from Berlin,” and in contact with German intelligence. There was an enormous overlap of membership on the political fringe, often crossing what might appear insuperable boundaries (p.46). As the Klan shrank, its members transformed their ideology in subtle ways, shifting from Protestant nativism to a more general acceptance of European fascist ideas and practices. In Jenkins view, the Nazi faction was also dominant in the Philadelphia klaverns headed by Samuel Stouch, whose personal sympathies are indicated by the abundance of Nazi periodicals and pamphlets found in his possession, as well as the domestic fascist works of authors like James B. True and Robert Edmondson.(98) Jenkins believes Native Rightists shared the general drift to fascist ideas in the late thirties, and some remnants of the Ku Klux Klan were influenced by Nazi ideology.98(p.48) Controversy within the Klan developed during the later thirties, and reached explosive proportions by 1940, with Winter an earnest advocate of Hitlerite policies and methods. Winter's activities horrified the "Americanist" faction of the Klan, but he was not untypical in Jenkin's opinion. Edward James Smythe, ally of Father Coughlin's Christian Front (United States), had previously promoted a union, or at least a close alliance between the German-American Bund and the Klan, as the two groups held joint paramilitary exercises with the Bund at Camp Nordland. In August of 1940, Stouch's predecessor, Arthur Bell, was portrayed shaking hands with uniformed OD leaders at the Bund." The timing of this event was disastrous for the Klan, as the newspapers were full of reports of Nazi conquest over Europe. Many were predicting the imminent demise of Great Britain. This incident made the schism within the Klan irreparable, and Stouch was directly implicated as it fell within his realm of Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey.(p.49) Subsequently, Alton Milford Young and Arthur Hornbui Bell were ousted from the Klan following the joint meeting at Camp Nordland on 18 August 1940.

...Sorry to keep adding, but, it may later be relevant to the discussion here. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

None of this led up to the 1970 alliances. Chip Berlet explains the connection in Eyes Right, p. 132. The Klan had seriously declined in the 1930s. Some Klansmen saw Nazism as a kindred group and organized a joint rally with the Bund. Others saw Nazism as Unamerican. But any chance of collaboration ended once the U.S. and Germany were at war.

The U.S. Nazi Party had was set up by a non-German in 1959 and had no links to the Bund. There's little connection between the Klan of the 1930s and 1970s.

Incidentally, you are misreading the refer to Coughlin. It does not say he supported a union between the Klan and the Bund, just that Smythe did. You seem to paper over the intense divide between Catholic Fascists and virulently anti-Catholic Klansmen. TFD (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree believe that these sources would support that "Some Klansmen saw Nazism as a kindred group and organized a joint rally with the Bund. Others saw Nazism as Unamerican. But any chance of collaboration ended once the U.S. and Germany were at war.". I'm not saying any of these instances are directly related to alliances in the 70's, I'm only pointing out the history prior that does show evidence of prior overlap and crossover. I can make the correction about Coughlin and I am aware that many in the klan were anti-catholic. I didn't intend to "paper over" anything, only to stay focused on relative aspects. To clarify, I do not refer the american nazi party in this section, what I am referring to are pro-nazi organizations. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As ever, it comes down to how much text this brief aborted flirtation gets. Berlet gave it a few sentences in his book about the U.S. Right. Chalmers, in his book about the Klan, gives it a page. That doesn't justify more than one or two sentences in this article, if that, and no connection can be made between it and the present. The other sources you presented study minor aspects of the Klan in great detail. Most of what they write about lacks significance for inclusion in the article. I don't know why you would go to these sources. If we summarized all of these types of sources, the article would run into thousands of pages. It must be focused on the main aspects of the topic as identified by reliable sources. I wish you would re-read WP:BALASP and WP:TERTIARY which explain how to decide how much information should be in any article. TFD (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm putting time in to try to add something that meets everyone's standards, which can feel daunting, so let's keep that in mind. That said, please let me know what parts you feel would be improvement to the "Nazi Alliance" section by just copy-pasting from the draft in your reply. You can tweak them if you like. Or, if it's quicker to just point out parts that don't make sense, that's fine too. We can leave out the stuff from the "Lead up" section if that's more appropriate. I will review WP:BALASP. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TFD this is marginal. I recommend a NEW ARTICLE devoted to it, with a one sentence link here. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rjensen I can agree with that for the most part. As I mentioned to TFD, please let me know which parts in the "Nazi Alliance" draft you find most and or least agreeable. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

section 2.5.3.5 has a major problem: the details (according to footnote 288) all end in 2006-2007--and this is fatal: they have not received attention from secondary sources. So just move the short section to Stormfront (website). Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking some time to look, I'll probably go over it tomorrow, I do appreciate it. DN (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you are referring to your recent edit about many Klan groups forming alliances with neo-Nazis? The text is too vague. You need to include the who, where, when, why, how.

Anyway, instead of deciding what should be in the article and searching for sources, you should instead take the view that the article should summarize the most broadly covered aspects of the KKK in reliable sources, which are mostly academic books and articles about the Klan or U.S. extreme right in general. That is a requirement of policy. Please read the links I provided. TFD (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on splitting out content

This is a big article, with the bulk of its content in one enormous level-2 section. Seems to me to be a good candidate for WP:SPLITting content out to child articles, especially as there is an obvious scheme: chop the History section into separate First, Second, Third Klan articles. Maybe one more on the "present-day Klan", but it depends on RS usage. {{Expand}} {{Excerpt}} and related make maintenance simple since you can just mirror summaries from those articles instead of trying to keep separate articles in sync. Not organizing some kind of formal process yet, just wanted to float the idea. Thoughts? 47.155.41.201 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. First and Second Klans, at least, should be split. Summaries no more than four paragraphs in length should be left behind. I'm not personally a huge fan of excerpt template in these cases but whatever works for any editor who volunteers to do the splits is fine. jengod (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Typo - Terry Venable.

Can someone correct the typo regarding the South African Chapter of the Klan, it refers to the activist who tried to set up the KKK at Rhodes University as "Terry Venables", but that is the name of the English football player and manager - the correct spelling should be "Terry Venable" (no S) and someone with editing privileges should make this change as soon as possible. this correct spelling can be confirmed by reference to the cited source: [16]https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Revolutionaries_for_the_Right/_JhVDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Terry+Venable%22+KKK&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover Duckwalk71 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph- "Their primary targets are African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Italian Americans, Irish Americans, and Catholics, as well as immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, and abortion providers."

Can we just change the sentence to say their "primary targets" are African Americans, who pretty much everybody considers to be the "primary enemy" of the Klan? I believe the sentence just listed African Americans as the "primary enemy" until about four years ago, when somebody added those zillion other groups to the list. The current sentence has an extremely long list of people and it's kind of hard to comprehend the sentence or keep track of all those enemies. Saying that African Americans are the "primary enemy" of the Klan isn't the same thing as saying they're the Klan's only enemy.

And I'm not sure that the Klan actually hates all of those groups. The "third" Klan from the 1950s to the present has abandoned anti-Catholicism (and actually the "first" Klan of the 1860s wasn't anti-Catholic either- only the "second" Klan of the 1920s was). I really haven't seen a lot of evidence to suggest that the Klan has ever viewed atheists or abortion providers as an enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References starting at 39

Is there a reason why the in-text reference numbers don't start at one? They start at 39/40.

- Ambndms (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Redundant sentence?

The Klan is described as "the first organized terror movement in American history" twice in the article, both sentences being very close to each other. The first use of this descriptor is in the lede, and the second is in the third paragraph. Is there a way we can make this less redundant? JohnR1Roberts (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

See edit

 Done DN (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

in "origin of the name", change "probably" to "likely" 108.189.72.130 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2024

The Wiki article states that the Klu Klux Klan was a far right extremist group. That is historically and categorically false as it was founded BY Confederate Nathan Bedford Forrest AS a white supremacist Democrat organisation. And remained as such into the early to mid 1900s. To say otherwise would be to intentionally spread misinformation. Facts are objective. To assume they are subjective in order to manipulate them is disingenuous at best. [17] 2604:61C0:2800:CA20:D901:9FE4:7E83:5A55 (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Much of this is wrong. I'm also not sure what you're proposing. Edit requests are for either uncontroversial fixes or changes that have consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably time for an FAQ to explain to those who bother to look at it that political parties have exchanged positions and members over the past 150 years, and that what might have been plausible in the late 19th century and the early 20th century is now a fallacy, given the intentional strategies of the parties to on one hand reject this kind of organization and the other to move in their direction. Acroterion (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Klan and Progressive Era policies

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)

• Scholarship is pretty clear that the 1920s Klan reflected the values of white Protestant progressives. See, for example: "Both the efforts to create the WKKK and the beliefs espoused by its members reflect the Progressive movement’s pattern of intervention into society to ameliorate its problems and uphold Victorian moral values."--User:Namiba 20:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The disputed edit[18] 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)

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2

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)