Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ku Klux Klan

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

Article is still a featured article.

Note, this subpage wasn't listed on WP:FARC until March 23 so the two week period starts from then. - Taxman ^Talk 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article no longer meets two of the FA criteria: stability and neutrality. Since the time when it was recognized as an FA, large sections have been repeatedly deleted and reinserted, and persistent attempts have been made by user User:Rjensen to push a POV that apologizes for the second (post-1915) Klan, and paints it as an organization mainly concerned with such issues as temperance. The article no longer appears to have a critical mass of editors who are willing to watch it carefully enough to maintain NPOV. In the last 3 days, for example, roughly 50 edits have been made, many of them major ones, with no serious discussion on the talk page.--Bcrowell 04:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs help, specifically it should probably be protected from anonymous users. It just makes it too easy for it to be vandalized when they're allowed. 65.95.229.9 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see a problem with things like this, and this. So much of the text (including the content) is changing with these edits. Much of the material has been omitted, including passages with citations. I realize rewriting is very commmon on wikipedia and is encouraged (I am not being "over-protective" of the article). I simply bring this up because so much has been changed that the article may not be of the same quality as before. Also, I would not be surprised if many people question the validity that burning crosses were not used to terrorize anyone, as was added in the first edit linked to above. - Dozenist talk 13:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff for the last week. (As the person who wrote the stability requirement) The article is clearly stable Raul654 06:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff from the same time frame to the current version. It looks a little more volatile. About as much as during the time of the initial nomination to remove featured article status. - Dozenist talk 04:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article needs help. I recommend we revert the article to the version which attained FA status (with the 03:06, 9 October 2005 version at [1] appearing to be a very good choice). That wasn't too long ago and that version of the article was really good. As an admin who edits a lot of southern United States themed articles, I'd also be happy to keep an eye on this article from this point on and make sure vandalism, POV issues, and other problems don't creep in again. However, to do such a massive revert I would prefer to have some other editors back me. So what do you think? Is this worth doing?--Alabamaboy 20:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with your suggestion, since that version was very good. So much has changed since then, and it would be nice to have several people keeping an eye on the changes for POV issues and removal of relevant info. - Dozenist talk 20:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ashibaka tock 00:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of building consensus in case this stirs up trouble, I agree that the older version (now the current version) is the superior version of the article. - Jersyko·talk 01:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the old version was full of serious mistakes and bad sources. For example it says there were 1300 murders in 1868 (source was an anonymous website that had no sources). It had a serious misinterpretation of the 2nd KKK -- putting emphasis on 1915-20 period when it had few members and ignoring enoromous growth after 1921. It did not discuss leadership of 2nd Klan. The original was not based on recent scholarship that has revolutionized the field. So keep the current version. Rjensen 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for my POV: there is a large new literature on the 2nd KKK that represents the consensus of historians. The old version was simply unaware of the field. To call that an "apology" is not being very kind to the several hundred scholars working in the field. Rjensen 01:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the scholarly consensus include, just as an example, deleting all information describing the Leo Frank incident from the text of the article? Your edits go beyond consensus to POV. - Jersyko·talk 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's merely your opinion of the Frank incident, a majority of the sources I'm seeing are expressing a view of the lynching that is quite different from your own. If, as you say, you're merely attempting to reproduce a newfound historical consensus (revisionism, one might say) regarding the Klan, then why are the sources I'm seeing still citing the Frank incident as a precursor to the founding of the 2nd Klan? At worst, the incident should still be mentioned in the article as an incident that is *possibly* related to the founding of the 2nd Klan. - Jersyko·talk 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed the Frank episode can be mentioned. as possibly related. What sources are you looking at? Rjensen 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources. I cannot vouch for the credibility of the sources I looked at. They were essentially unanimous in pointing to Frank as a KKK related topic, however.
May I ask if you consider the following to be the consensus of the hundreds of scholars that work in the field? The second KKK was a social organization active in all states in the 1920s. It demanded enforcement of prohibition and attacked sin, sexuality and foreign influences. It crashed when its own scandals revealed the hollowness of its efforts to purify society. I'd like to understand why you added it to the History of the United States (1918–1945) article, replacing a longer section that expounded on the 2nd KKK at greater length. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a very short, accurate summary of KKK in 1920s. The longer statement was not very good--it never even mentioned Evans who was the main leader, or the famous epsiodes in Indians. Simmons did found the group originially but it was a small local Georgia group under him with maybe 3,000 members . New leaders (Clark and Evans) took over after 1920 and it really took off nationally growing a thousand times bigger. Simmons get mentioned but not Clark and Evans, who who far more important. I think lots of people get KKK#2 mixed up with KKK#1 and KKK#3 both of which were very violent--and assume that if there was violence in the 1920s then the KKK was involved. As for KKK#1 the article has long fawning quotes from an admirer (Stanley Horn); I think they should be drastically cut. (As for KKK#3 in recent years I don't pretend to know much and have ignored that part of the article except to add some serious bibliography.) Rjensen 05:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is absolutely false that I'm an "apologist" for the 2nd KKK. I consider the old version very poor quality history. It did not reflect scholarship of last 25 years at all. It did not even mention the basic history of the group--like the powerful leader Evans in the 1920s (it played up a much less important Simmons). As for the first KKK of the 1860s the old version copied verbatim old uncritical material (especially Horn) that was strongly pro-KKK. Likewise the article was full of KKK lore such as listings of its titles and codewords. I would say the old version was 40% pro KKK and 40% anti and about 90% out of date. (I am considering only KKK#1 and KKK#2 here). Rjensen 07:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For readability, an extensive comparison of resources and a small discussion about them have been moved to this FARC's talk page. Additional discussion about improving the article is taking place on the article's talk page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been greatly improved over the last two weeks by a discussion among all of the involved editors. In my opinion, it is now even better than it was when it first achieved FA status. Even though one final issue remains to be resolved (a minor one, in my opinion) I suggest we do not remove the FA status at this point. Any comments from the other editors? --Alabamaboy 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, per Alabamaboy. - Jersyko·talk 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHy not keep the old version and then link to a new page with improvements so as to have comparison?Ellyjelly 07:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]