Talk:Ku Klux Klan

The Klan as "anti-trade union"

In the infobox for the Third Klan's ideology, anti-trade unionism is included. Not one of the any 3 articles cited for the ideologies mentions supposed opposition to trade unions.

There is also a section detailing it further, but the entirety of it cites only one book without even an ISBN. The book uses the example of only one Klan organization in one city. The one specific example used does not make the distinction of whether the Klan opposed the CIO due to an anti-union ideology, or merely because they accepted black members.

Meanwhile, more documented aspects of Klan ideology like their Prohibitionism and opposition to private schools aren't included in the infobox.

I will recant if a decent source is provided that demonstrates the Klan as cohesively anti-union. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Patriot. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The Klan was anti-radical and anti-integration but not ant-trade union in practice. Thomas Pegram's 2018, "THE KU KLUX KLAN, LABOR, AND THE WHITE WORKING CLASS DURING THE 1920S" published in The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, states "Historians usually consider the revived Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s to have been consistently opposed to labor unions and the aspirations of working-class people. The official outlook of the national Klan organization fits this characterization, but the interaction between grassroots Klan groups and pockets of white Protestant working-class Americans was more complex. Some left-wing critics of capitalism singled out the Klan as a legitimate if flawed platform on which to build white working-class unity at a time when unions were weak and other institutions demonstrated indifference to working-class interests. In industrial communities scattered across the Midwest, South, and West, white Protestant workers joined the Klan. In Akron, Ohio, the Klan helped to sustain white working-class community cohesion among alienated rubber workers. In Birmingham, Alabama, the Klan violently repressed mixed-race unions but joined with white Protestant workers in a political movement that enacted reforms beneficial to the white working class. But Klan attention to working-class interests was circumstantial and rigidly restricted by race, religion, and ethnicity. Ku Klux definitions of whiteness excluded from fellowship many immigrant and Catholic workers. Local Klans supported striking white Protestant workers when Catholic, immigrant, or black rivals were present, but acted, sometimes violently, against strikes that destabilized white Protestant communities. Ku Klux sympathies complicated urban socialist politics in the Midwest and disrupted the effectiveness and unity of the United Mine Workers. Lingering Klan sympathies among union workers document the power of reactionary popular movements to undermine working-class identity in favor of restrictive loyalties based on race, religion, and ethnicity." As such, I don't think we can definitively state that anti-union ideology was core to Klan beliefs or behavior.--User:Namiba 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"far-right"

Adding 'far-right' as the lead description of the group makes it sound as if the KKK was an inherently a political organization, which is not necessarily true. Also it's kind off anachronic when the KKK existed prior to the conception of a "far-right". 2800:200:ED80:1A0:D140:CE08:3540:AC25 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The term originated in the French Revolution around 1789, and was well-established by the end of the 19th century. The definitions were further refined in the 20th century. Bearing in mind that the Klan was openly active into the 1960s, after more modern definitions were applied, there is no particular contradiction. See political spectrum and Left–right political spectrum. In any case. we go by what reliable sources in academic political science tells us, not our own analysis. Acroterion (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

@Darknipples this Wikipedia article says "the KKK or the Klan, is the name of several historical and current American white supremacist, far-right terrorist organizations and hate groups." right after, this article says "the klan is America's first terrorist group". The article says this before explaining the kkk started as one group, so the reader might get confused if the first paragraph says the kkk is multiple groups, then describes it as just one without explaining that the historian was talking about the first klan only. @Knitsey reverted my edit where i said the historian was just talking about the first klan, because she said various sources describe the klan as one group, and she admitted she didn't read other citations, citations that describe the klan as different groups which are cited later in this article. I just made my edit, so the reader won't get confused with inconsistency from the first paragraph. this shouldn't even need to be brought to talk page, if a paragraph in an article is not consistent or confusing, it should be changed, and this shouldn't be a long-drawn-out discussion like most talk page incidents I've been a part of. I'm extremely busy tomorrow so if this conversation lasts longer than 6-7 hours, I'm out. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@HumansRightsIsCool I understand your concern and I assume good faith that you believe your changes are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but this normally requires a consensus by editors that agree on how best to apply them. There is not a 6-7 hour time limit and consensus can change. I will take a closer look. DN (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

take a closer look by looking at citations? please explain how you're going to come to come to a conclusion so I know if the process can be sped up in any way. 2603:8080:600:87B:4927:3C3D:B0B2:30DC (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no time limit. Please don’t demand a timetable from other volunteer editors, we’re busy too, and please log in to comment. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

if you're busy too, why do you wanna waste hours of your time discussing something in an article, going against a tiny change that makes a lot of sense. doesn't seem like your busy. my son turns 17 years old tomorrow, i also got to go to work, i gotta do a whole bunch of things, but you're against time limits on discussions. seems like you got all the time in the universe.  HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Best wishes to your son. We all have things going on in our lives, and like you, we’re all volunteers. You aren’t entitled to demand that other editors accommodate you. The encyclopedia will still be here when you have some free time. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion is right. This article isn't going anywhere. Just like my college professor told me...over....and over... DN (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

HumansRightsIsCool, I was referring to the 4 citations after the sentence you changed. Of those 4 citations, 3 I was able to find on jstor, the fourth I couldn't find to enable me to read it. The citations pertinent to the sentence you wanted to change, describe it adequately.

I don't think your additions add anything and I don't find the lede confusing.

If you don't have time to discuss changes, then in future, after the first revert (to the lede) please consider not making further changes, as it wastes the time of other editors if you're not willing to discuss the edits. Knitsey (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)