Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive 6

I'd like to edit this article and I don't see why I cannot. We have a right to know the truth, however painful or controversal.

Detail info and sources to article here
Is it still going to be disabled when featured on Main Page

i think it should be added that world war 1 influenced the growth of the second kkk at least by a little. it gave the klan a chance to do activities that would not normally be overlooked such as kidnapping union leaders who were planning strikes and hunting down draft dodgers. it gave the klan a chance to show it's patriotism, and gave it publicity and new recruits 72.10.122.97 14:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC) my source is the book Hoods by Robert P. Ingalls - comment left by a student at Ledyard High School

Okay people: This article is in danger of being removed as a Feature Article. Now Rjensen has some good sources and information; Rjensen also has what some editors consider very POV sources and bad information. In the interest of consensus, let's go through the issues point by point and provide references to any new info we add to the article. When consensus is agreed on to a certain piece of info or wording, we will add it into the article. Once we get this article to an agreed on place, we will all work to protect it from the large number of vandals who hit it. To stop vandalism while we edit the article, I will semi-protect it.

I'll start: (Item 1) This addition by Rjensen is correct: "In the 1920s the second KKK was a formal membership organization, with a national and state structure, that generously paid thousands of men to organize local chapters all over the country. Millions joined. Its rhetoric called on "true Americans" to rise up and overthrow crime and local criminals. It typically preached Racism, anti-Catholicism, nativism, and anti-Semitism." My only issue with this statement is that the word "generously" is POV and should be removed. Are people comfortable with adding in this statement and reference?

On the flip side, I dispute this statement: (Item 2) "Most of the threats and violence was directed at the Freedmen, who formed Union Leagues and fought back in bloody confrontations." This statement make it sound like the KKK and Urban Leagues were on an equal plane when they were not. From what I've read, the Urban Leagues fought back to protect themselves but were never anywhere near as effective as the KKK.--Alabamaboy 14:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments here. "generously paid" -- the local organizers kept half the money collected. Were Union Leagues as effective as KKK. No. so it should read "Most of the threats and violence was directed at the Freedmen, who formed Union Leagues and tried to fight back in bloody confrontations." Rjensen 21:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wouldn't call it generous if the local organizers who raised the money had to send half to the parent organization. Anyway, I'd still say to avoid this word. Your rewrite of the other sentence is much better but do you have an example and reference of a "bloody confrontation" between the KKK and Urban Leagues? Any other comments from people?--Alabamaboy 21:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections from other editors, I will add in Item 1 to the article.--Alabamaboy 14:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible edits 2
Item 3: "Today, the third KKK, with operations in separated small local units, is considered an extreme hate group; the accusation that someone supports Klan programs results in highly negative attacks from mainstream media and political and religious leaders. The name, and the many new terms starting with KL, represented whimsical inventions of new words that sounded something like Greek words."

To me, the first part of this statement is true. What I would change is the statement "..the accusation that someone supports Klan programs results in highly negative attacks from mainstream media and political and religious leaders." The problem is that this sentence can be read as a POV statement expressing the view that these attacks are not justified. Why don't we change it to "The third KKK has been disowned by all mainstream media and political and religious leaders."

I would also drop this sentence and bring it into the article later: "The name, and the many new terms starting with KL, represented whimsical inventions of new words that sounded something like Greek words." As it is now, placing this statement up front is confusing since collaborative info isn't given.

Another item that has been disputed is the "The Prescript states as the Klan's purposes:" followed by the original Klan's purposes "First: To protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless from the indignities, ..." I see nothing wrong with leaving this info in the article.

Any comments from people on these edits? --Alabamaboy 13:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. - Jersyko &middot;talk 16:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Your efforts are looking good. - Dozenist talk  17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The so-called Prescript was simply a propaganda piece that extolls the 1st KKK. It is heavy POV and is historically false--that was NOT the purpose of the local KKKs. (the local KKK's were in no way bound by it, as Wade (1987) notes and most of them never heard of it.) It's an example of what's wrong with old version: it gives a seriously misleading version of history that glorifies the KKK Rjensen 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be a propaganda piece, but I do not see how the article would in effect glorify the KKK with the following sentences explaining it, such as... "...this is essentially a statement that the Klan's purpose was to resist Congressional Reconstruction. The word "oppressed," for example, clearly refers to oppression by the Union Army, and "peers" implies that white Southern property holders should be protected from carpetbaggers and uppity freedmen. During Reconstruction the South was undergoing drastic changes to its social and political life. Whites saw this as a threat to their supremacy as a race and sought to end this process..." - Dozenist  talk  21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The gloss is controversial and not referenced. It's not true that they were referring to the Union Army (but rather to the elected Brownlow government.) It is false to say that "Whites saw this as a threat" when 30%+ of Tennessee whites supported Reconstruction (plus many "scalawags" in other states). It is false to say KKK was based on white property holders (it was a cross section and most did not own property).  To say "During Reconstruction the South was undergoing drastic changes to its social and political life." is dumbing down Wiki with vagueness.  All in all the passage is not well thought out or researched at all; its main goal seems to be counter-POV. Rjensen 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet I cannot see why we would omit something that is supposed to be an explanation of the KKK's actions according to the group. That seems important in an article about the KKK. Am I the only one that thinks that? - Dozenist  talk  23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The old article misinterpreted the document. [See Wade p 36 for details]. The article includes the preamble praising the KKK. The actual document proposed a hierarchical structure, with local units controlled by a county board, then a diistrict board, then a state, then a national board. That never happened in fact--the KKK was always entirely autonomous local units that did not take direction of any kind from a central office. The article fails to discuss any of that and instead just includes the praise.Rjensen 23:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot address the content of your comment about inaccuracies in the article, perhaps you are correct. I would like to ask, however, if the Wade book is generally considered to be an authoritative source on the subject.  From what I've seen, the book you reference is (1) written by a self-described historian whose creditentials are/were actually as a psychology professor at an Indiana state technical school, (2) mostly unreferenced, and (3) appears to be non-peer reviewed.  Yes, I understand that some of the sources cited in this article are of similar ilk.  However, where sources are in conflict, I think we must be careful in apportioning weight to their claims. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the Wade book is funny. It's from a psychologist with a strong POV all right. But he tracks down lots of older sources and seems to get the details right. There is no comparable book covering 1st kkk--Trealease is excellent on the 1860s. Sources are not really in conflict. The older version uses hardly any sources at all except Horn. Horn has lots of solid detail too, but he strongly admired the 1st KKK and covered up its evils. Rjensen 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made the first batch of edits where there seems to be general agreement. As for the Prescript, I think both sides raise good points on it. Is there a way to keep the Prescript while also raising the concerns about it being a propaganda piece. Perhaps we could say, "The Prescript, seen today as a propaganda piece for the ..." or something like that. If needed, can we find a totally different source to check on these claims. I will state, though, that these sentences strike me as very POV: "Stripped of obfuscation and attempts to protect themselves from accusations of treason, this is essentially a statement that the Klan's purpose was to resist Congressional Reconstruction. The word "oppressed," for example, clearly refers to oppression by the Union Army, and "peers" implies that white Southern property holders should be protected from carpetbaggers and uppity freedmen. During Reconstruction the South was undergoing drastic changes to its social and political life. Whites saw this as a threat to their supremacy as a race and sought to end this process." To include these sentences, we would need some references because otherwise we are interjecting our opinion on the Prescript into the article. What if we removed this POV paragraph but left in the text of the Prescript (along with the two paragraphs beginning with "The Prescript also includes a list of questions to be asked of applicants for membership,..." Is there consensus to do this? --Alabamaboy 14:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Provided that the wording is changed per Rjensen's comments to mention that the Prescript was an aspirational document that did not necessarily bind Klan chapters, I see no reason to cut it entirely from the article, but would support Alabamaboy's recommended changes to reduce POV. - Jersyko &middot;talk 14:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those suggestions sound very good to me. - Dozenist talk  16:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The prescript was a proposal for a hierarchical organization No KKK adopted it and it was forgotten. The documents exists but never took effect and is not important.  The parts quoted are the unimportant parts.  Bottom line: delete it all. It has no value to readers. Rjensen 19:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The prescript may have not been adopted by any of the original KKK groups but from what I've read, the prescript was part of William Joseph Simmons' inspiration for the constitution of the second KKK. In fact, Simmons' preamble to the 1915 KKK constitution specifically mentions the original KKK prescript (source: The Ku Klux Klan and Related American Racialist and Antisemitic Organizations: A History and Analysis by Chester L Quarles, page 219, which reprints the constitution and preamble, see this link to read it ) There are also other references that support how the prescript inspired Simmons and the second KKK. As a result, I believe we must leave the prescript in. We can, though, take out the unreferenced POV sentences I mentioned earlier.--Alabamaboy 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could also mention that the prescript was not adopted by any of the original KKK groups, was an aspirational document, and that it helped inspire the second KKK?--Alabamaboy 19:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * let's just drop the prescript altogether. It was put in by mistake and is seriously misleading. (No one claims it helped inspire the 2nd kkk). Rjensen 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the reference to the prescript in the second clan constitution (referenced above)? There are also other references which state the prescript inspired Simmons (such as this one, stating that "(Simmons) developed a manual for his organization called the “Kloran”, which was a highly specific, legally copywrited manual which contained information and ideas based on the original Klan prescript from 1867.". There are also a ton of references to the prescript in academic and popular history (such as in The Klan by Patsy Sims (University of Kentucky Press, 1996). Because of all these references to the prescript, I don't believe we can leave it out.--Alabamaboy 20:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to quote form Prescript. It can be mentioned for what it was. (ie not much in 1860s)Rjensen 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please state why we should ignore the prescript when there are good references to it. Also, please do not delete this section from the article without there being consensus here to do that.--Alabamaboy 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The wrong parts of the Prescript were quoted. We need to I summarize its actual meaning and importance. The following should do the job and keep everyone satisfied:


 * DRAFT: "In an 1867 meeting in Nashville an effort was made to create a hierarchical organization with local chapters reporting to county leaders, counties reporting to districts, districts reporting to state, and states reporting to a national headquarters. The proposals, in a document called the "Prescript," were never accepted by any of the local units. They continued to operate autonomously, and there never were county, district or state headquarters. According to one oral report, Nathan Bedford Forrest was selected as Grand Wizard, the Klan's national leader. Forrest gave interviews but denied the leadership role and he never had any effective control over the Klan cells " Rjensen 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that being the intro to the prescript section. However, I feel that the quoted parts of the prescript should be left in after your intro. In your view, what parts of the prescript should we quote? According to this source, the prescript was quoted accurately and I think those three quoted sections of the document are the most historically illuminating (with most of the rest being merely more typical organizational bylaws) --Alabamaboy 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC) I've talked with Rjensen and he's open to having the prescript quotes in the section of the article dealing with the 2nd Klan. Since the prescripts influenced this 2nd KKK, this would seems a good compromise (and more relevant) place to put the quotes. We could then leave the revised intro paragraph from Rjensen in the 1st KKK section and delete the POV sentences. Is everyone ok with this? --Alabamaboy 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the prescript was, later, of little importance to the incarnations of the Klan and/or local Klan groups, it appears to be the first written statement of principles by any Klansmen. Alabamaboy's description of the quoted section as "historically illuminating" is well-put. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 21:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems somewhat strange to me that a document written by founders of the original Klan should be discussed solely in the section on the Second Klan, not to mention that the move would throw off the article's chronology. Because it is relevant to the second Klan, however, I would support the move provided that others agree that this is a good compromise. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just briefly summarize the prescript and move on. I still think we need the clarify the existence of a 2nd Klan. The more recent scholarship ties the Klan to the post WW1 period. How do you explain the picture of thousands of Klan members marching in Washington in the 1920's in American History surveys to students who think the group went out of style with the Civil War. The picture's there because recent scholarship identifies the Klan as a 'legitimate' response to the concerns of many Americans that the coutnry was being overrun with foreigners who weren't thoroughly 'Americanized' and who harbored political, social and cultural ideas dangerous to the status quo. The scholarship should be recognized, and given its place in this discussion.Jmorello (posted by 71.194.118.6)
 * I think this concern will be addressed in the section on the second Klan.--Alabamaboy 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(Semi-)protection
WP:SEMI is clear that it is not to be used in any kind of editorial dispute. This is because it discriminates among users where full protection does not. (Admins do not edit protected pages on pain of admindeath.) I have therefore turned the protection up to full. Note that it can't stay protected for more than a few days or so in any case. The purpose of a protection is to reach enough of an understanding to begin editing gently again rather than to have resolved every last issue. -Splash talk 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll leave it full protected for a few days as we resolve this editing stuff. I feel we are making progress and will have this wrapped up soon. You are also not correct about admins not being allowed to edit protected pages. As it says here, "Administrators must be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject." The edits I am making are in accordance with consensus on this talk page. Anyway, I have also raised a question about how you handle these issues on your talk page. Best,--Alabamaboy 23:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know admins can edit in line with a consensus. I was making the point that, although full-protection and semi- both "discriminate among users", full-protection does not in practise because admins do not have a free hand to edit such articles. -Splash talk 15:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Next editorial items
It looks like the prescript quotes issue might be settled (just waiting for the other editors involved to chime in on the proposed compromise). The next major difference in the article versions appears to be the "activities" section regarding the original Klan.

The original article has this info:

"An 1868 proclamation by Gordon demonstrates several of the issues surrounding the Klan's violent activities.
 * Many blacks were veterans of the Union Army, and were armed. From the beginning, one of the original Klan's strongest focuses was on confiscating firearms from Blacks. In the proclamation, Gordon warned that the Klan had been "fired into three times," and that if the blacks "make war upon us they must abide by the awful retribution that will follow."
 * Gordon also stated that the Klan was a peaceful organization. Such claims were common ways for the Klan to attempt to protect itself from prosecution.
 * Gordon warned that some people had been carrying out violent acts in the name of the Klan. It was true that many people who had not been formally inducted into the Klan found the Klan's uniform to be a convenient way to hide their identities when carrying out acts of violence. However, it was also convenient for the higher levels of the organization to disclaim responsibility for such acts, and the secretive, decentralized nature of the Klan made membership fuzzy rather than clear-cut.

By this time, only two years after the Klan's creation, its activity was already beginning to decrease[11] and, as Gordon's proclamation shows, to become less political and more simply a way of avoiding prosecution for violence. Many influential southern Democrats were beginning to see it as a liability, an excuse for the federal government to retain its power over the South.[12] Georgian B.H. Hill went so far as to claim "that some of these outrages were actually perpetrated by the political friends of the parties slain."[13]

In an 1868 newspaper interview,[14] Forrest boasted that the Klan was a nationwide organization of 550,000 men, and that although he himself was not a member, he was "in sympathy" and would "cooperate" with them, and could himself muster 40,000 Klansmen with five days' notice. He stated that the Klan did not see blacks as its enemy so much the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments like Tennessee governor Brownlow's, and other carpetbaggers and scalawags. There was an element of truth to this claim, since the Klan did go after white members of these groups, especially the schoolteachers brought south by the Freedmen's Bureau, many of whom had before the war been abolitionists or active in the underground railroad. Many white southerners believed, for example, that blacks were voting for the Republican party only because they had been hoodwinked by the Loyal Leagues. Black members of the Loyal Leagues were also the frequent targets of Klan raids. One Alabama newspaper editor declared that "The League is nothing more than a nigger Ku Klux Klan."[15]"

Newer versions of the article deleted that section and inserted this paragraph:

"Klan outrages were often targeted at schoolteachers and operatives of the federal Freedmen's Bureau. Black members of the Loyal Leagues were also the frequent targets of Klan raids. In a typical episode in Mississippi, according to the Congressional inquiry [in Rhodes 7:157-8]

One of these teachers (Miss Allen of Illinois), whose school was at Cotton Gin Port in Monroe County, was visited ... between one and two o'clock at night in March, 1871, by about fifty men mounted and disguised. Each man wore a long white robe and his face was covered by a loose mask with scarlet stripes. She was ordered to get up and dress which she did at once and then admitted to her room the captain and lieutenant who in addition to the usual disguise had long horns on their heads and a sort of device in front. The lieutenant had a pistol in his hand and he and the captain sat down while eight or ten men stood inside the door and the porch was full. They treated her "gentlemanly and quietly" but complained of the heavy school-tax, said she must stop teaching and go away and warned her that they never gave a second notice. She heeded the warning and left the county.

The first Klan was never well organized. As a secret or "invisible" group, it had no membership rosters, no dues, no newspapers, no spokesmen, no chapters, no local officers, no state or national officials. Its popularity came from its reputation, which was greatly enhanced by its outlandish costumes and its wild and threatening theatricality. As historian Elaine Frantz Parsons discovered [Parsons p 816]:

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."

My solution to these editing differences is to add all of this information. It would need some condensing but I found it all interesting, relevant, and historically correct. Any comments?

Another editing issues is the membership section someone created in the second Klan section (see this link I think this section should be in the final article. I understand that parts of the section might seem controversial (such as the Klan in Alabama having some progressive political policies) but as someone who has studied Alabama history I believe this is the case. As the section states, Hugo Black was a prominent progressive and also a member of the KKK. If needed, I can provide references to this controversial section from an Alabama history book (by Wayne Flint) that I have on my bookcase.

So, any comments on these issues?--Alabamaboy 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the lack of comments mean people are okay with these proposed changes?--Alabamaboy 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not commenting until now, I've been absorbed into an edit conflict elsewhere. I'm willing to go along with it, provided that you provide the reference you mention at the end of your comment. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 14:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I greatly apologize as well for not commenting sooner; life has been really busy of late. I too like your suggestions. - Dozenist  talk  00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok with me. Rjensen 02:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Glad there is consensus on all of this. I'll make these changes in a few minutes. Going through the past versions, it appears that there will only be only final issue to resolve and then we'll be finished here. I'll enter info on this final issue in a bit.--Alabamaboy 14:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes. I hope everyone will look through them and let me know if I missed anything we agreed on. With regards to the membership section of the second Klan, I split this section up between the membership section and the political influence section (b/c the info on the KKK's political work in Alabama seemed to fit in this section better). I also added a bit of new information from that Alabama history book to flesh all of this out a bit. --Alabamaboy 15:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Final editorial differences
I believe we're almost at the end of this discussion. Aside from minor gramatical and word choice differences, the last major editing conflict between the alternate versions of the article are in the section on the decline of the second Klan.

To be honest, in my opinion the only differences between the versions are the level of detail given. For example, there is this quote and an additional paragraph of info that is currently missing from the article:

Stephenson and the other salesmen and office seekers who maneuvered for control of Indiana's Invisible Empire lacked both the ability and the desire to use the political system to carry out the Klan's stated goals. They were disinterested in, or perhaps even unaware of, grass roots concerns within the movement. For them, the Klan had been nothing more than a means for gaining wealth and power. These marginal men had risen to the top of the hooded order because, until it became a political force, the Klan had never required strong, dedicated leadership. More established and experienced politicians who endorsed the Klan --even those who did not but felt pressure to pursue some of the interests of their Klan constituents -- also accomplished little. Factionalism created one barrier, but many politicians had supported the Klan simply out of expedience. When charges of crime and corruption began to taint the movement, those concerned about their political futures had even less reason to work on the Klan's behalf.


 * The Klan had far more enemies than friends. No national politician claimed membership or spoke on its behalf, while many denounced it.  The politicians it claimed to have elected turned against it and the disconnect between the leadership and the membership prevented it from fighting back.  The opposition of every important newspaper and magazine was an impossible burden.  The Klan had a few magazines of its own, but they were poorly funded with low production values; the editors were not allowed to become independent voices within the organization.  Furthermore the reaction to it created constant, dedicated opposition by Catholic, Jewish, and African-American religious leaders that stretched from national spokesmen to local sermons.  No prominent Protestant leader spoke in its behalf; most denounced the Klan. Many local Protestant ministers were doubtless sympathetic, but they were never given a role inside the Klan where they might have strengthened the organization.  The Klan made no effort to form alliances with groups like the Anti-Saloon League that were supporting prohibition, nor did they attempt to set up a system of cooperation with state or local law enforcement agencies. [Moore 186-88]

My issue with these sections is that they are overly long and a bit tedious. Can we simply work in parts of this info and let the rest go?

The final difference in this section is that this info is missing:


 * Grand Wizard Hiram Evans sold the organization in 1939 to James Colescott, an Indiana veterinarian, and Samuel Green, an Atlanta obstetrician, but they were unable to staunch the exodus of members. The Klan's image was further damaged by Colescott's association with Nazi-sympathizer organizations, the Klan's involvement with the 1943 Detroit Race Riot, and efforts to disrupt the American war effort during World War II. In 1944 the IRS filed a lien for $685,000 in back taxes against the Klan, and Colescott was forced to dissolve the organization in 1944. The name Ku Klux Klan then began to be used by a number of independent groups.

I think this is interesting and think we can work it into the current article.

Any comments on all of this? If we reach consensus on these final issues, then we are done and the article can be unprotected. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Important book on KKK: see detailed review Robert J. Kolesar . "Review of Shawn Lay, Hooded Knights on the Niagara: The Ku Klux Klan in Buffalo, New York," H-Ethnic, H-Net Reviews, April, 1996. URL: Rjensen 10:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I safe in assuming that people are okay with the above changes since there is no comment?--Alabamaboy 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made these changes and the article is now unprotected. Thanks to everyone for taking part in this discussion. I also hope everyone here will keep an eye on the article and help maintain its FA status!--Alabamaboy 15:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work. I think the article is much better now than it was previously. -  Jersyko &middot;talk 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link
Could someone add Ku Klux Klan to the interwiki list? -- EIRIK \<sup style="color:orange;">talk 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.--Alabamaboy 16:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Klu Klux Klan
Is there any reason why some people say Klu Klux Klan? Or is it just the human urge to alliterate which makes us put an extra L in there? Gohst 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably the latter. Grand  master  ka  10:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ku klux klan hood
Ku klux klan hood needs to be merged into this article, although I'm not sure where. Can an admin either merge the content or add a tag? Thanks. Grand master  ka  05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't merge that article into this one UNLESS references were found for the information. The info seems dubious and more rumor than proven historical fact. If it can't be proven then I suggest deletion.--Alabamaboy 15:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, it does seem dubious... Sounds like a certain episode of South Park. I've prodded the article. Grand  master  ka  15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling
The word "targeted" is misspelled as "targetted" in the Political influence section. It either needs to be corrected by an administrator, or fixed as soon as the article is unprotected – Gurch 11:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks to whoever unprotected it. I've fixed the error myself – Gurch 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JayG...
Great job on how you prevented me from editing this page because I disagree with you. I dont care. If you want wikipedia to be a joke and earn a reputation of being baised its not my problem. I just tried to give the article credibility by trying to let the reader make up their own mind by looking at the presented information. If you want the article to sound amatuer like it was written by a liberal anti racist teenager who cant go one sentence without saying the word racist by all means feel free to do so. This is no different from CNN and what people come here to fight against. Wikipedia is already getting a reputation of being a joke and I was just trying to save wikipedia and the noble idea behind it. Dont be surprised when people start telling others how wikipedia is baised just like all the mainstream media and earns the same reputation as it already is. I just find it sad that people like you destroyed what people with good intentions worked to create by emulating what they were trying to fight against. I would be more then happy to work to a compromise as I felt that I did. I didnt remove the word racism up at the top because it was factually accurate. I just believe that we should conform to wiki NPOV policy and show the reader why the group is racist and do not tell them. It just takes away from the quality of the article. I'm done with this site it's quite obvious what everyone told me was true.

Jerry Jones 18:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your obsession with identifying Jews and whitewashing racists, combined with repeated lying about it, leaves you with no credibility. Please confine further discussion to Talk:Racism, where it is already taking place. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are to accuse me of being someone else? I dont lower myself to this level normally but screw you. You have to put up some other guys username and accuse me of making his edits to prove your point. You have no right to do that and then you say I have no credibility. I repeat show me how many edits I have made referencing if someone was Jewish on my account; not someone elses.

Jerry Jones 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are your first two edits under this username:. And your next few: and . You need only review your own contributions list. -Will Beback 19:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Woah two edits of me adding if someone was Jewish from two months ago. The third one I was just protesting of having a Jewish American criminals list because at that time wikipedia had a German American criminals list and and I just said if we have a German American criminals list a different standard shouldn't be applied to other groups. They deleted all ethnic American criminals lists which was the solution that I am fine with. That is a far cry of me going to every single Jewish persons page and adding if they are Jewish like jay says I do. I have a thousand something edits and I added if someone was Jewish twice and it loses all of my credibility. I even categorized them in already established lists. I dont see the problem and I am sure that I did it for non Jews as well. I have no clue how jay was able to become a moderator. He just deletes valuable information without a discussion whatsoever and blocks my edits because he disagrees with me. I am willing to work with you all but I am denied. I want a vote for the Joseph Goebells line because I feel that it really adds a lot to the article and JayG just deleted it wihtout discussion because he didn't like it even though it has great informative value. I also want a consensus on my edits for this article.

Jerry Jones 20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are edits from today which either discredit Jews or whitewash anti-semites:, . -Will Beback 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Its nice how you exclude my other work on the articles. I have been working on those two articles for a while. It has nothing to do with discrediting Jews but showing all sides of the issue which is being censored because its seen as inflammatory. Samuel Dickstein was a soviet spy and I only reverted you changing it. In the Charles Coughlin article the whole article just says he was anti Semetic but it doesnt say even once why he was anti Semetic. I added Charles Coughlin's viewpoint (not mine) to make the article balanced and show the other side and you accuse me of white washing.

Jerry Jones 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You identified people as Jews dozens of times, as I have already shown. Both your edits and CheckUser confirm you are JJstroker. Stop lying, it's enough already. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: KKK

 * I want to talk more about the KKK article because I strongly feel that you editors are overeacting to my edits. To say, for instance, that Nazis are far right is inaccurate for a variety of reasons and I will go over them with you.

1-They support National Socialism. Hardly a conservative ideology.

2-It was not only Nazis who agreed with Eugenics; Communists did too. When you look at it over this way one can conclude that they actually have more related to far leftism then far rightism. This stuff can be debated so for it to be stated as a fact determined by some group like the SPLC (Who are known to have a major agenda themselves) is very dangerous and unencylopedic. Politics constantly changes and what may be considered mainstream 50 years ago may be considered by people today as extreme so I dont agree with have people tell others what to think. People should make up their own minds.

3-It takes away from the quality of the article. You shouldn't tell the reader they are racists you should show the reader. Let the information speak for itself and comply with wikipedia NPOV policy. This way everything benefits.

These were my edits for the KKK article which I certainly do not think are a huge deal:

 In 1980, he formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People, a far-right white nationalist political organization.

I just removed far right. How is that harmful to wikipedia? David Duke already is known to be a KKK neo nazi member so people will continue to think that especially when the facts are stated in the article. I dont see why its a big deal.

 Klan activity has also been diverted into other racist groups and movements, such as Christian Identity, neo-Nazi groups, and racist subgroups of the skinheads.

People already think they are racists. There is no need to repeat it every two sentences. These groups also deny being racist. Keep in mind I didnt remove this up at the top:

The second KKK typically preached Racism, anti-Catholicism, nativism, and anti-Semitism and some local groups took part in lynchings and other violent activities.

I dont like overusing the word racist for the klan because it was a mainstream political movement in American history. The clan had 5 million members in America at its peak. Many of these people were your average Americans and I know that not all of them were racists. Sure you had racists in the movement but not everyone was nor was that an official ideology and therefore it shouldn't be overused. It also sounds better when you remove the word racist because it truly sounds like a liberal trying to spew anti racist speech. We have to present the article from a neutral viewpoint regardless of what public opinion is about the group.

Jerry Jones 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you know that not all 5 million KKK members were racists. The basic purpose of the Klan was racist and grounded in maintaining white political, economic, and cultutal supremacy. -Will Beback 01:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I dont know how you know that all 5 million members were racists and hated other people strictly due to their skin color. The second part is your personal viewpoint. When you see pro mexican immigration advocates nobody denies that they are persuing their own ethnic interests. But when whites do it it's somehow racist. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve cultural and economic dominance. You are pushing your own opinion as fact and no the SPLC and the ADL do not count as reliable sources to determine what groups are racist.

Jerry Jones 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show us a reliable source which says the KKK isn't "racist". If there is such a viewpoint we can include it. But the conventional view, supported by numerous sources and by the plain meaning of the word, is that the KKK was a racist organization. -Will Beback 06:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm probably biased because I'm Jewish, but the KKK is the second most racist group ever in my opinion, trailing only the Nazi party. Overusing any word is a bad idea if you want a well-written article, but as long as every other word isn't "racist" in this article I don't think it can be overused. But I'm biased, so I try to stay away from editing articles like this, unless I have hard facts. Cao Wei 04:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

uh what the ****?!
Ok why is there a KKK website on the internet i know we have freedom of speech but really what the hell they target diffrent races and slaughter them and we allow them to have a site up on the internet?! Kids are on the internet so why would anyone allow such a vile and stupid act to lay in place for the love of god this is the greatest insult to african americans ever!! My ancestors died just so i can be here today and do what i do in my life and you allow anyone to have a racist site and allow people to admit they are part of the Ku klux klan and not Try to arrest them? what the hell is up with that i don't think This is fair or just I don't see a site erected in Malcom X's honor so how dare you allow a racist group killing people all the time behind the backs of cops?! god what is this world coming to? --205.222.248.72 (Matthew aka Shadow) 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)