Talk:Ku Klux Klan/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No of members

it says at the beginning there are 8000 members at present and later it says there's only about 3000 (i think) as of 2005. Also the citation for the 8000 members claim is a broken link. It should be changed

There are a lot of KKK memebers today.KungFurules (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand wizard or what?

i have heard that the name of the leader of the KKK is not the grand wizard, but also ultimate wizard or somthing along those lines-(my friend knows the ex "grand wizard") i kno that this is not a liable source, but can som1 check it up? bcoz i couldnt find anything about the name being disputed Addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 10:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The leader of the KKK is called the Imperial Wizard.KungFurules (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This opening sentence indicates Vandalism. Can any expert look into it please ? "Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or the Kool Kids Klub are a bunch of inbred maggots who enjoy sucking their own cock. They can all have a suffering bloody death. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=132172611&oldid=131813395 --Ninad 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lbsrbsxty 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)i would like to helpLbsrbsxty 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with vandalizing this article about a stupid group. 162.84.139.92 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


What is wrong is that you are not keeping a neutral point of view.KungFurules (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan Was Eradicated under President Ulysses S. Grant?

The suggestion that the Klan was completely eradictated under President Grant in 1871 is misleading and counter-intuitive, as it was revived in 1915. The Ku Klux Klan seriously scaled back its operations and its involvement dropped after the end of radical reconstruction in 1877 and was revived at Stone Mountain, GA in the 1910's. It would be much better to say that the Klan was seriously affected or its power was greatly diminished by the act of '71, but to say it was eradicated is not truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.88.101 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

KKK failures

In the early 1920's the KKK more or less had most of the political control in Vineland, NJ. To make a long story short they planned on attacking a meeting of Italians in a local hall and driving them out of town. The Italians drove the KKK out of town instead. For the past 30 years Vineland's mayor has been an Italian and for an even longer amount of time the majority of its citizens have been of Italian decent. If someone can find the 2nd or 3rd edition of The Grapevine (It was January of February 2008) please finish the story for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.99.109 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Klan

I added to this header "Disfranchisement and the Second Klan", because the Southern states' constitutional disfranchisement of African Americans and many poor whites was important background/setting to the rise of the Second Klan. Because blacks were disfranchised, they generally could not serve on juries. --Parkwells (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence from header, source requests...

Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, racism, homophobia, anti-Communism and nativism. These organizations have often used terrorism, violence, and acts of intimidation, such as cross burning and lynching, to oppress African Americans and other religious, social or ethnic groups.

I removed the bold. This sentence will be fine but since its not supported in the body of the article, I removed it. The article needs to be explain how many people were lynched, terrorized etc. According to the Tuskeegee institute, 5,000 people were lynched in the US. Reading this article will make a reader think the KKK lynched much much more. This is shallow education. If I read this article and have to explain why the KKK is bad, I will say "because they use terrorism and violence" but I am not able to really support it with any facts. So someone please find source estimates.

GordonUS (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of broader explanation is not a reason to remove it. This facts are self-evident and can be found in every three-line resumé for the Klan. Numbers will be never available because it was the Invisible Empire and never kept records of its actions. There are only estimates. - Darwinek (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is what I requested, estimates. I do not dispute the Klan did violent things, I am requesting it be supported more with facts and details. Articles are not supposed to be self evident. Everything needs to be supported. If we dont have the cold hard facts, then we need to tell the reader and show them what we do know. We are supposed to write with the objective of teaching the reader who has no prior knowledge.

GordonUS (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Currently I do not have time to focus more deeply on the article but I have some academic articles about the Klan from JSTOR on my comp, so if you are willing to contribute to the article, I can send 'em to you by e-mail. - Darwinek (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I'd like that. The article can really use estimates of Klan murders and lynchings.

My email is GordonSawyer22@yahoo.com

GordonUS (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sent, hope you will find 'em useful. They can certainly be used to enrich this article. - Darwinek (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get your email. This article is very incoherent. I will like to fix it but I need some material to work with.

GordonUS (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you checked out spam box? My e-mail is on the European domain and my mails sometimes end up in the spam box in American e-mail services. - Darwinek (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"The eternal sound of Blues", a play about KKK

Hi, verybody. My name's Farhad.I wrote a piece about KKK and I directed it , We (My friends and I) played the performance in our class,Oh ny the way I'm a university student,It was really good to show the cruelty of some American racists, I'm sure theat American people are great but it's about a small gruop named kkk.I would be very delighted to share your information with me and if u want to understand more about my play,visit my yahoo 360, go there search for Frahad movieman, and u'll find me there or call me : +98(0)662 350 9754. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.240.4 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone care to tell me why this paragraph was removed?

The Ku Klux Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white. Those assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions."[1]

Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert the deletion. It appears to be one editor's POV about the KKK. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is not removed. It is stated under Activities.

GordonUS (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've currently raised the protection on this article to full, since we seem to have a budding edit war. Probably for a few hours or so. Discuss? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You say edit war, and I say trying to revert massive POV-pushing edits from a KKK-apologist. Matter of perspective I guess. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And if by edit war, we are referring to someone trying to completely re-write history to paint this repulsive group as anything less than that and editors stepping in to protect an article (FA, even). But yeah, it's a lot easier to just lock up the article than actually, you know, explain to that KKK-apologist why his time here won't be long if he insists on his current behavior. Baegis (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Back down to semi. Apologies for the inconvenience. Agree that GordonUS was acting excessively (and that my protection wasn't a perfect response). – Luna Santin (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Orange, yes, I am removing the liberal POV which is to state how violent the Klan is every sentence. The information needs to speak for itself. I remove interpretive words like violent because facts show violence. People are just accustomed to being told what to think instead of being allowed to form their own opinions so they are not used to non-POV writing. My POV is to stop treating readers like children. Nobody wants to have a POV pushed on them. State the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion.

GordonUS (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only am I liberal, but I'm a Jew. I bet that just gets you all sad and weepy-eyed. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And what does that have to do with presenting a non-POV article? Review my edits. I didn't remove anything. The header states information that is stated twice and is not pertinent to all three Klans. I am pretty much done editing this and will like to stop if you can let it be.

Do you even read what I am doing? What edit is offensive to a liberal or Jew? Its a whole paragraph stated twice!

GordonUS (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resistance to KKK- POV issues

In some areas, there was more resistance to the KKK, with formal groups mounting public education campaigns, lobbying legislatures, etc. People seem to remove that information or downplay it here in favor of lengthy accounts of whatever sensational facts they can find. It creates POV issues and distorts the historical account. --Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this to an [[WP:FA]

I really don't have time, but no one reading an article on the KKK should read the drivel put into this article. And an FA should be held to even higher standards. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read? I didn't add any information.

GordonUS (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This could potentially be very, very notable new information.

In 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant spelled out for the House of Representatives the true aims of the Ku Klux Klan:

“By force and terror, to prevent all political action not in accord with the views of the members, to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms and of the right of a free ballot, to suppress the schools in which colored children were taught, and to reduce the colored people to a condition closely allied to that of slavery.”

Yeah, notable information or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its good. Add it.

GordonUS (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More of an opinion than fact. It should not be added. --God Save the South (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC
The quotation should not be added unless it can be sourced, and even then, it does not add any new information. There was enough documentation of the first Klan to establish what they were doing; we don't need to add Grant's statement.--Parkwells (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence from header...

This sentence was removed: The klan had "cross burning to oppress African Americans and other religious, social or ethnic groups."[2]

  1. 1) The Klan did not use cross burning to "oppress" other groups but to intimidate.
  2. 2) Religious, social and ethnic groups is too vague. For example, it will be better to say "to intimidate blacks, Catholics and Jews."
  3. 3) It is stated in the second Klan. Cross lighting was used as intimidation by the third klan.
  4. 4) Its not really necessary for a header. It is already stated in the third Klan section when the Klan lighted crosses at the homes of the Native Americans. The Klan didn't light crosses frequently for the purpose of intimidation. They are more known for firebombing and the lynchings in the 60s.
  5. 5) Cross burning is bias. As a Protestant Christian organization, people joined to light crosses. Nobody joined so they can "burn" crosses.

GordonUS (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is sufficient documentation that the second Klan also used cross burning - and that's the term people understand - sometimes they burned crosses on the lawns of victims' homes, or burned them at public celebrations. And it was not part of normal Protestant Christian ritual. With advances in explosives, many members of the Klan in places like Birmingham had access to explosives, and used bombing against people they wanted to intimidate. There were so many bombings in transitional neighborhoods that Birmingham was called "Bombingham" well before the activism of the civil rights era.--Parkwells (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro's first paragraph...

This is the first intro paragraph:

"the KKK is the name of several past and present organizations in the United States that advocated white supremacy, antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, racism, homophobia, anti-Communism and nativism. These organizations used terrorism, violence, lynching and cross burning to oppress African Americans and other religious, social or ethnic groups."

This needs to be changed because it speaks for all three Klans, when:

  1. 1) The first Klan did preach antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, homophobia, anti-Communism and did not have cross burning.
  2. 2) The third Klan did and does not preach Anti-Catholicism.
  3. 3) Most of this is only pertinent to the second Klan and is therefore listed twice in the third into paragraph:

"The second KKK is known for preaching racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, nativism, anti-Semitism and ceremonial cross burning. Some local groups took part in lynchings and other violent activities. Violence occurred mostly in the South, which had a tradition of lawlessness. [3]Its popularity fell during the Great Depression, and membership fell further during World War II because of scandals resulting from prominent members' crimes and its support of Nazi Germany."

  1. 4) It assumes the Klan is one group when the first sentence of the article states they are all separate.

In George Orwells book for writers, "Politics and the English Language," the second rule is "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." The article is 68 KB long. This is one paragraph we can eliminate. The more we can reduce, the more likely a reader will read further into the article. So, lets edit the intro accordingly.

GordonUS (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how the "always cut it out" rule can be unilaterally imposed on an article that is meant to be collaboratively edited by countless strangers. I appreciate the sentiment - I'm all for brevity - I'm just not sure that it's always going to be feasible on Wikipedia, especially on potentially controversial entries. Dawn bard (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides, I keep forgetting this article is FA, and by that standard significant edits require consensus not agenda pushing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Dawn, when words are unnecessary, it clamps up the article and makes sentences less clear. If we can explain something in two words rather than seven why not? I don't see what collaboration has anything to do with fixing errors and making the article clearer and brief. People are not going to sit and read a huge article with info stated repeatedly. People are busy enough as it is and we need to respect their time. People don't read history because of long articles like this where they are told what to think every other sentence. Plus, the more unnecessary writing we can remove the more room we have for other info.

We are talking about this article. The rule applies well. However, the Orwell rule is the last reason the intro needs to be rewritten. The way it is written now has factual errors.

And what are you saying? We can't follow basic writing rules?

Btw, I think its funny there are two duplicate paragraphs and nobody notices because the article is so clattered with poor writing. People are just skimming over.

GordonUS (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Gordon is on another short vacation, so this article can remain in a stable form for 48 hours, I hope. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed the first paragraph's inclusion of issues that relate more to the second and later Klans: anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, etc. I think it would be more appropriate if these were moved to a later section, or not dealt with until the second Klan. Otherwise you're having to explain them away. It just clutters up the beginning.--Parkwells (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. The various Klans are related, and scholars tend to study them as a series. Poor writing can be fixed. Bad history cannot--Cberlet (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they are related, but the 20th c. ones share more with each other than with the Klan of the 19th c., except for racism.--Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Creation - delete elements of Prescript, as it was not approved

I'd like to move the discussion along to a rewrite, and think the article should be shorter, with less text given to what the Klan members said about themselves and their enemies, and more to historians/scholars accounts of how they fit into the overall historical and political situation. I think there are too many details and quotes here from primary material that allow the Klan's ideas to be publicized. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be based on scholarly sources that assess and provide context, not just to repeat primary documentation. To that end, I recommend the elements of the Prescript that Gordon tried to get approved be deleted, as the paragraph says that he did not succeed in getting members to approve them. So why have them in there?--Parkwells (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

suggestion: image

I suggest we include the KKK's official logo in the article (Image:Uskkk.png) -- penubag  (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is superseded by better svg version: Image:KKK.svg. The four sides of the cross represent the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The blood drop in the middle represents purity of the white race and the blood Jesus shed for us. - Darwinek (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't that be made smaller? It's depressing.--Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Activities

I added more detail to this section on the first Klan, especially because the long quote about the gentleman callers on the schoolteacher in MS did not capture the true picture of what the Klan was doing in the South, nor that its primary victims were freedmen.--Parkwells (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resistance

One way i think the article can be improved is to show resistance, not just armed resistance, but actions by individuals and governments. Some of that is in here, but it does not get much space in comparison to material about the Klan. The 19th c. and early 20th c. and late 20th c. were all periods of great social volatility - the Klan had appeal in a particular context. They did not have all the power, however. In addition, it's important to show background - for instance that before the Klan rose again, African Americans in the South had been disfranchised by white Democrats in state legislatures and had no formal political power. The NAACP and other groups, however, worked on litigation for decades to regain the franchise and other civil rights. The white Solid South in Congress that resulted from the disfranchisement blocked Federal legislation against lynching. These elements are also part of why the Klan arose and was powerful for a while in the 20th c. --Parkwells (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I made this a sub-heading under "Decline and Suppression". Also, I added an important Supreme Court decision, US v. Cruikshank (1875), that strongly affected the situation of African Americans in the South because it restricted enforcement of Federal gov't. against private groups like the KKK. This was a prelude to extensive violence around the 1876 elections.--Parkwells (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Klan - Activities

I have about a two-sentence paragraph, with a citation at the end of the paragraph, as the source covers the facts of the paragraph. Every separate sentence does not need to be separately cited. This is about the attacks in Ocoee, FL.--Parkwells (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second Klan

There is so much text given to Birth of a Nation, Wilson and the Leo Frank Trial, that the article is almost too long already to deal with what happened as the Klan got going in different cities. I will try to add more details for examples of what it did. --Parkwells (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Klan was most powerful in rural areas and small towns, it was their base and remained so after World War II. Note also that not every act of violence aimed at e.g. blacks was committed by the Klan. Common thing were groups of thugs attacking black citizens in the South. They didn't have to be in robes, subsequently it was hard to determine if it was committed by the Klan. - Darwinek (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The second Klan had much more presence and many members in many cities. Its force may have been more pervasive in small towns in the South, but it was definitely also an urban phenomenon in the postwar iteration. This was the place many people had moved to, and cities were the places of the most tension. Yes, in MS and some states with large rural areas, after WWII, the Klan was active there, but they were also very active in Birmingham, AL, for instance, and in Little Rock, AR.--Parkwells (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Present

Given the small numbers of current KKK, I think at least one of the color photos at the end should be removed. Having two of members in colorful costumes only makes them look more important than they are.--Parkwells (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is full of old, black and white photos. Having some color photos of the current Klan is beneficial to the article. --God Save the South (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's not as if the costumes make them look important. StAnselm (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the one picture with the, uh, portly guys could probably be removed. While it may show a greater variety in costume color (shiny!), the picture is dark and not nearly as good as the other one from Mississippi. If a picture were to be removed, which it should because the 3 pictures for such a tiny section seems a bit much, it should be the shiny, portly picture. Baegis (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross Lighting vs. Cross Burning

"In Popular Culture" section

This needs to either be expanded by a huge amount or removed entirely... Two pop culture mentions is pathetic given the huge amount of KKK references that are out there (it's a great target for parody.) There's also already a long section at Ku Klux Klan regalia and insignia. What do you guys think? I almost think Ku Klux Klan in popular culture could be its own article... Hmmmmmmm... Grandmasterka 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section was only added recently. I agree it needs expanded. There should definately be a mention of Ari Shaffir, a brilliant (in my opinion) Jew Jewish comedian. He did a piece in his series 'The Amazing Racist' in a Ku Klux Klan robe, it was hilarious and has had many hits on youtube. --God Save the South (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that "in popular culture" sections and articles are just ridiculous. (See discussion at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles) --Dystopos (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. This article is already long, so Popular Culture should not be added here. Leave it with KKK regalia and insignia. --Parkwells (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it belongs here, its place is in the KKK article, not one on its regalia. --God Save the South (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Jew comedian? I'm not even going to bother asking for an apology. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, another editor changed it to "Jewish", but I reverted the edit, because I suspected "Jew comedian" is precisely what GSTS intended to say. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's gotta go (the section). It adds absolutely nothing to the article as whole. Baegis (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 'Jew comedian' to 'Jewish comedian'. Hopefully we can put that issue behind us now and obtain a consensus on the issue at hand, whether or not to include a Popular Culture section. --God Save the South (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say no to a popular culture section. The article is already long enough and I don't think such a section would add much.--Parkwells (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

From what I remember, protection was orginally put in place due to edit warring over whether to call Cross lighting Cross burning. Now that that debate has finished, and consensus found for now, can the article be unlocked so that we might all get back to improving it? --God Save the South (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be best for you if you brought every change you plan on making to this talk page before editing. Short of gross misspellings or grammatical errors, of course. If you can agree to that, then the article should be unprotected. Baegis (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It was more or less over edits such as this that were made by other editors. I'm willing to unprotect on the basis that the editors have moved elsewhere, and that they have noticed that pointless edit warring only leads to full protection. seicer | talk | contribs 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So, you are implying that I (and the other editors who reverted the same nonsense) was the reason for this protection? I surely hope that is not what you are implying by that diff. Surely I am mistaken. Baegis (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops! I posted the wrong diff. Thanks for pointing out that! seicer | talk | contribs 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscategorization

This article should not be in Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations, as the Klan has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. In fact, to Americans, the Klan isn't even "foreign." --71.191.135.128 (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed.--Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Five Klan Eras?

Several scholars and some of the Klans themselves refer to five eras of KKK activity. Why reduce that to three?--Cberlet (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to rely on third-party, peer-reviewed scholarly sources, not groups' self appraisals. Given the intense attention and sometimes warfare on this site (it was blocked against all editing for some time), I recommend that you post your proposals for change, with sources, before doing such drastic editing to the main article. It's not clear what purpose would be served, since it seems there have been two major periods - post Civil War and 1915-1930s, with various small groups after that. Yes, they continued to murder in the South and destroy property, but there is no point in giving them publicity.--Parkwells (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC
Well, since the current page reflects social science on organized white supremacist groups that is about 20 years out of date, I thought I was suggesting scholarly cites, but in case you have not read any recent literature, you might glance at David Chalmers. Backfire: How the Ku Klux Klan Helped the Civil Rights Movement. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Also note that another page on Wikipedia already references the Fifth Era KLan [here].--Cberlet (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not start this article, so don't know why the original editors used three major periods. The Klan is not a chief interest of mine, but my interest has been to try to show how Klan activity came out of other social tensions and context, rather than focus on every act of violence or only their story about themselves, or the most favorable quotes. I just wanted to let you know that there has been a lot of controversy over the article, with editing wars. Thanks for the reference suggestion above. The barely stub article you linked to has no sources, so no reference for the "Fifth Era" KKK.--Parkwells (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will round up a bunch of scholarly cites and provide them. Most sociologists who write about the KKK and other organized White Supremacist groups refer to five eras. This is not to promote the KKK, but to describe them as a socio-political movement with different phases of growth, ideological shifts, and reframings.--Cberlet (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone will be willing to undertake a major rewrite of the article. You can see from the sources that most were historians (which is my background) as opposed to sociologists (they may likely have drawn from sociologists, too, but their own books were considered histories.) That's not to say that there is not material to learn from sociologists, but the article is very long already. It's not up to me to decide, but you had better try to get a consensus here before making major edits.--Parkwells (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KKK v. white paramilitary organizations

After the first KKK was subdued during Reconstruction, white southern efforts to overturn Republican rule did not cease. Some historians have said that for all of the KKK's notoriety, white paramilitary groups that arose during the 1870s, such as the White League in LA, Red Shirts in MS, NC and SC; and rifle clubs throughout the South were more organized, effective and important in achieving political aims of overthrow of the Republican Party in the South. I think there should be mention of them in that respect in this article, but wanted to propose it here first. One historian described them as "the military arm of the Democratic Party" and instrumental in achieving the final overthrow of Republican rule and suppressing the black vote enough for white Democrats to regain office.--Parkwells (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony in your statement is beyond belief. Now the Democratic Party's nominee may well be black. But I digress. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not the irony of my statement, but the ironies of history - one of the first was the realignment of conservative white Democrats with the Republicans. Studying history should temper anyone's sense of immutabilities.--Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)