Talk:Greensboro massacre

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MTK999.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

"Police officials said Johnson asked to carry a sidearm, a request they denied. Several people who survived the shootings said police had promised to protect them." [1]

"As all this happened, a police intelligence officer, Jerry "Rooster" Cooper, watched, and a police photographer snapped pictures." Looks like police were around

"Court proceedings revealed later that a man named Edward Dawson, a police informant who had infiltrated the Klan, was in the lead car of the caravan."

Deacons for Defense and Justice

Deacons for Defense and Justice are a kind of predecessor to the anti-Klan activism of the CWP. There should be a paragraph on self-defense traditions. DJ Silverfish 22:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only thing the Deacons had in common with the CWP was that they opposed the Klan. The Deacons never advocated communist tyranny. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization:

The incident is frequently refered to in caps in print media. The lower case page can act as a redirect. DJ Silverfish 22:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ungrammatical assertions and sneaky POV

I've reverted two identical sneaky POV changes by 82.82.166.191 and 82.82.165.111

In both cases a sentence describing the attack was changed from:

The generally accepted version of events is that a combined contingent of Klansmen and members of the American Nazi Party attended the rally. Accounts vary as to whether they were set upon by the demonstrators or not, but they were armed, opened fire at the demonstrators, killing several immediately and wounding others, some fatally.
to:
The generally accepted version of events is that a combined contingent of Klansmen and members of the American Nazi Party attended the rally. Accounts vary as to whether they were set upon by the demonstrators or not, but they were armed, opened fire at the demonstrators in self-defense, killing several immediately and wounding others, some fatally.

The addition "in self-defense" doesn't make grammatical sense. It contradicts "accounts vary" clause and contradicts the generally accepted version of events. "Accounts vary" is the biggest POV concession possible to the Nazis given all the documentation. DJ Silverfish 18:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The "general consensus" is that the Nazis were trapped and inferior in number. They were attacked while still in their cars and thus had to defend themselves. Aor

You mean they had their hubcaps kicked and responded by opening fire indiscrimately on a crowd of people.

Yes, well that may be, but they were hit with placards and were threatened, also they probably wouldn't have felt threatened enough to fire if the protesters hadn't been illegally carrying weapons, contrary to the terms of their Protest Permit.

You see this is wrong because if the protesters had killed 5 KKK members and the law had found in favour of them there would be no debate, but somehow because of the negative connotations associated with the KKK the KKK can't win if they try. Accept the jury found in favour of the Klan and were right, end of. Let me also say communists and particularly Chairman Mao have killed probably over a thousand times more people than the Ku Klux Klan and in half the time, so who's supporting killers?

82.3.77.241 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to assert that the KKK & Nazis were victims in any conceivable way. Please read the GT&RC report.

66.57.14.174 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The left convened a show trial and wrote up the only document you are permitted to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA3:460:CD7C:90B5:9C0C:8FEB (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The references on the page that the protestors were armed with firearms demand a link to some sort of actual proof. This was the Nazis' assertion at trial, but I have never heard any evidence that this was the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.167.226.118 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2007‎

I believe this article is grossly slanted to the Left. The article starts out pretty much saying that the CWP wanted to meet to incite violence, but it goes on to attack those who were defending their right to exist in Greensboro without being attacked with violence the CWP clearly incited. They were not there to simply protest, but to provoke violence, and that is not protected free speech. A comment above that the KKK could not win no matter what is true. There have been recent "Ku Klux Klan related violence," but further investigation showed it was self-defense, and the media who jumped the gun and blamed the Klan have never retracted nor apologized for their misstatements. In one, for instance, a Klansman was doing peaceful protest and was stabbed for no reason, and he apparently got the knife from the attacker and successfully defending himself. Even the cops automatically took the initial attacker's side until witnesses came forward saying they were the instigator.68.67.253.22 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There are no credible sources that relay the information you are claiming as fact. If there were, then it could be added to the article. Wikipedia isn't about opinion, it's about reliable sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Caps

I've moved this back, I hope confrming to style. The article itself uses lower case internally. Rich Farmbrough 00:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Courts

There is an extensive legal legacy from this case. I'm parking some of the referenced cases here, until I can figure out how to integrate them into the main article.

• U.S. v Virgil L. GRIFFIN, Edward Woodrow Dawson, David Wayne Matthews, Roland Wayne

Wood, Jerry Paul Smith, Jack Wilson Fowler, Jr., Roy C. Toney, Coleman B. Pridmore, and Raeford Milano Caudle. 585 F.Supp. 1439. D.C.N.C.,1983. Oct 06, 1983. Defendants were indicted under state program and activities provision of statute governing federally protected activities. Defendants moved to dismiss indictment. Motion denied.

• In re Greensboro News Co., 727 F.2d 1320, (4th Cir.1984). Jan 19, 1984 (Approx. 8 pages)

• In re Russell, 726 F.2d 1007, C.A.4,1984. Feb 08, 1984

• Waller v. Butkovich. 584 F.Supp. 909. D.C.N.C.,1984. Apr 17, 1984 (Approx. 48 pages) Participants in anti-Ku Klux Klan rally brought action charging city, state, and federal government officials and agencies with complicity in attack by members of Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party against the rally participants and in ensuing cover-up of alleged official involvement in the attack. The District Court, Merhige, J., held that: (1) motions to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity, lack of personal jurisdiction, and prosecutorial immunity would be granted in part and denied in part; (2) with few exceptions, second amended complaint stated with sufficient specificity facts on which allegations were based; (3) allegation that conspiracy was animated by plaintiffs' status as labor organizers did not fulfill "discriminatory animus" requirement of section 1985(3) cause of action; (4) allegation that conspiracy was animated against advocates of equal rights for black people satisfied the discriminatory animus requirement; (5) federal defendants were subject to suit under section 1985(3) and section 1986; (6) complaint stated cause of action for conspiracy and cover-up under section 1983 and section 1985(3); (7) complaint stated cause of action against city police, but not against federal law enforcement officials, for failure to protect; (8) complaint failed to allege section 1981 cause of action; (9) claims relating to deficient supervisory practices would not be dismissed; and (10) motions of pro se defendants for appointment of counsel would be denied. Order accordingly.

• U.S. v. Byrd, 163 F.3d 599 (Table), C.A.4 (N.C.),1998. Sep 01, 1998 (Approx. 1 page)

DJ Silverfish 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but to keep any legal history from turning into a sort of pity-party for the CWP in this case, a large emphasis must be placed on the fact that in the criminal trial of the Klan members, many CWP members either were extremely uncooperative with the prosecutors and the court, while some even entirely refused to testify; there is a large popular conception of justice gone awry, which is partly true, but it must be tinged somewhat by this major fact. See the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission's report for more (including the Concurring Opinion). Cdtew (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading Dispute

I've been trying to add a link to the documentary Greensboro's Child, but it's been erased three times. First as "looks like spam", then "it's spam", then "It's a pay site. It's spam". This is a documentary about 11/3/79. It was independently produced from 1996 to 2002 by a resident of Greensboro, NC. The only "pay" aspect of the site is a link to paypal if the visitor wants to obtain a copy of the documentary.

This is not spam.

Also, the same user that keeps deleting this addition, Wahkeenah, actually deleted a correction I made to a broken link in the Anniversary news reports section.

• If you have to pay to get it, IT'S SPAM. Wahkeenah 06:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• It's also obviously SELF-PROMOTION, as is obvious from your user ID. It's forbidden by wiki policy ON BOTH COUNTS, and it's gone. Wahkeenah 06:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I fixed the one legitimate correction you had made. Wahkeenah 06:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked an Admin about your external link, and this is what she said... Wahkeenah 01:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Tough call. On the one hand, the film does seem to have won a couple of festival awards, but they appear to me to be pretty minor. I am disturbed by the fact that 1) the link is to a blog, as I don't feel those are usually appropriate unless it's a very well-known one, and 2) it does have that Paypal link at the bottom, which makes it lean toward the commercial end of the spectrum. I personally believe you're justified in removing the link. Having said that, remember that an admin's word is not law. Have you considered asking for some possibly consensus-building discussion at WP:RfC, or at WP:SPAM? I'd rather see a little more discussion than have you and User:Spcoon get into an edit war. Joyous | Talk 01:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We can retain the documentary as a 'further reading' reference if there is a legitimate concern about the link being purely commercial. If the link provides information of a descriptive nature that adds value to the article, then I would say the link should stay. There are other examples of links to book reviews, or to commerical sites which are the subkect of articles. the fact that a site has a dual use should not be automatic grounds for dismissal and I would rather err on the side of inclusiveness. Wahkeenah concern with "SPAM" seems somewhat over stated. DJ Silverfish 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the perspective, DJ. So where do we go from here? I don't want to be accused of continuing to post the link in an effort to get over on anyone. Spcoon 04:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The entry needs more complete production information and possibly a link to a third party site, like http://imdb.com. Also, the entry could be butressed with any facts that could create a link or other citation. If we could attribute the production to a company, that would help. If a subject or interviewee in the documentary has a separate Wikipedia entry, it should be noted. DJ Silverfish 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The video links from the documentary are definitely worth including on this page. So I've added them with the citation of the documentary for context. The 7:55 minutes of raw footage is particularly great.

Raw footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlSb_OmQuc8 Interviews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWWrlDu6KWw DJ Silverfish 20:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Spcoon 12:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

News footage on other sites

Editors have been de-linking external links to the footage of the Greensboro massacre using specious arguments. I believe that the links should remain:

There is nothing in the guidelines to prohibit the linkage to external video material where the lisencing of the material so linked is unclear. Such links are not covered by the WP:EL as to be avoided where the material linked to is reliable and valuable to the understanding of the subject. The "relable sources" objection raised by the editor seems very odd. Here the news footage is a valuable historic document, which is instrumental to understanding the events described in the article.

DJ Silverfish 06:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Massacre?

Does this really qualify for being called a 'massacre', by that standard we could put the Battle of Ventersdorp as a massacre. I think the 1979 Greensboro Armed Confrontation or something along those lines would be more appropriate. When most people think of a 'massacre' they think of the holocaust and thousands dying, not five people being killed in a shoot- out which, judging by video footage, lasted all of 3 minutes?

82.3.77.241 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Under wikipedia's standards a massacre is defined as 'mass killing', which this indisputably is not, and where the victims have no reasonable form of defense, they had guns and could have returned fire.

82.3.77.241 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Greensboro Massacre" is the generally accepted name for this event, please see the numerous external references on the page.

66.57.14.174 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if you talk about it in Greensboro. I have never heard the 'Greensboro Massacre'- It's known as the "1979 Klan-Nazi Shootings" if you lived here, you wold not hear massacre- you would hear shooting. big difference, and nobody calls here calls it a massacre.Cptjeff 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Greensboro during this time, and was less than a mile from the shootings when they occurred, there was no massacre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.77.228 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the Communists call it a massacre, I was there, it was called the Nazi-Klan Shootout until the Communists wanted their martyrs. This whole entry is a lie. I officially challenge its accuracy and objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.222.131 (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have always heard it referred to as the Nazi-Klan shootout. I'd never heard the term "Greensboro Massacre" before I saw it in Wikipedia. Teekno (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the entry of the title is a lie, why doesn't someone change it to the correct, "1979 Greensboro Nazi-Klan Shootout". Why are we being forced to accept this revisionist history? I was there, you don't call the Oklahoma City Bombings a Massacre even though this would be a true massacre, so why accept it here? Because the communists want their martyrs? This is a illegitimate title for this article, please change it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.141.205 (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The title of this entry clearly represents a propagandistic slant. The fact that the term "Greensboro Massacre" is widespread and easy to find does not make it any less biased. It is not a massacre to kill in self-defense, and according to the court's findings it was self-defense. True, the Klan's and NSPA's response was more effective than the attack, but that doesn't make the attackers innocent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.42.0.70 (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The City of Greensboro officially recognizes it as the Greensboro Massacre. If you live in Greensboro you can go find the historical marker downtown that says, engraved, 'Greensboro Massacre'. -- 24.167.173.95 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this was not a massacre. The linked C-SPAN video calls it 1979 Greensboro Shooting, which is a correct title. We should change the article title.

Police Role

Perhaps the police were, and quite rightfully, not in an exceptionally good mood with the protesters because they had illegally carried firearms and therefore didn't appear to rely on police support so perhaps the police decided it wasn't worth protecting people who felt that they could adequately protect themselves.

Maybe there should be further confirmation of whether or not the KKK hierachy actually organised the resistance and eventually the shootings or whether it was rouge Klansmen, if we can find some substantial evidence saying that the Grand Dragon or whoever had said go to Greensboro and shoot them then I'll agree it was the Klan but as far as I can see it was members of the American Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan who did this but were not acting under Klan orders.

We need to be very clear in this article because people will read the words Ku Klux Klan and blame them when in fact the organisation may not be at fault but a few rogue members.

82.14.70.99 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read the report of The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission, you'll see that Klan leader Virgil Griffin was involved. Obviously it's difficult to confirm these things 100%, as terrorist organizations like the KKK don't publish minutes of their meeting.

66.57.14.174 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are multiple Ku Klux Klan organizations, so any Klan organization can be considered "the Ku Klux Klan". --Metropolitan90 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the following:

The Klansman and Nazis involved were not from Greensboro. They had come in response to a challenge from the march organizers. Reports in the Greensboro News and Record indicated the police were not at the scene because the march organizers gave them an incorrect address on their parade permit. However, it is now known that the Klan caravan was organized by a man later found to be a police informant, using the parade permit to guide the caravan to the correct location and in radio contact with the police while the caravan was forming and proceeding to the site. Furthermore, police had been on the scene, but had been dismissed "for lunch," shortly before the attack.

It seems to duplicate much of the material covered in the previous passage, with some variation, but without citation. If this information can be confirmed it should be woven in with the existing passage, not tacked on the end.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Self- defence

I'm not entirely sure about U.S. law relating to this but in Britain you aren't covered for self defense if you put yourself in a position where you hurt someone, there's a difference between leaving your home and driving to a rally and shooting someone and being at home, asleep and being robbed and then shooting someone, can someone help me out?

82.14.70.99 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if the Klan/Nazis fired first and weren't defending themselves, then why were they acquitted?

And secondly, looking at the video, it appears that the Communist protesters attacked the Klan/Nazis' cars using 2x4s and other assorted weapons. That is aggravated assault, and under castle doctrine justifies homicide in self-defense. Why are the Klan/Nazis portrayed as the guilty party?

Anon 03:05, 26 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.201.117 (talk)

I agree. I consider myself unbiased (have no love for racists) but the footage on LiveLeak clearly shows a gang attacking a car. It starts by kicking the car, then they surround the car, carrying wooden poles and they start beating the occupants. The "KKK/Nazi's" take a defensive position between cars, while dodging bullets from the dispersed protestors (who were shouting "death to the Klan"), shooting back. Clearly self defence against a lynchmob. The "Klan/Nazi's" were merelydriving past until they were attacked by a group of African Americans carrying clubs and 2x4's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.143.188 (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You clearly do have a love for racists. Rafe87 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Birth of a Nation" Film

For clarification, I think there is a bit of confusion about the "Birth of a Nation" film shown in China Grove. Is this the famous 1915 D.W. Griffith "Birth of a Nation" (which, while a politically incorrect sentimental piece, is not a film of Ku Klux Klan propaganda; on the contrary it is considered one of the most important films ever made because of its scale and technical accomplishment), OR is this a home-made propaganda film made by the North Carolina Ku Klux Klan sometime between their resurgence in the late-1950's and the time of this incident?

I've worked with this material somewhat extensively, but more with the legal side than anything else. Any help clarifying would be useful. Cdtew (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but BOAN is basically KKK: The Movie. Espngeek (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Crime?

Why is this in category "Ku Klux Klan crimes" it was a self-defense situation, nobody was convicted of any wrong-doing, and it was clearly citizens (albeit citizens with extreme views) defending themselves against other extremists who wanted to deny them their ability to free assembly and free speech. Nothing at Greensboro was criminal except the assault and attempted murder perpetrated by the armed communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Largely ignored and forgotten

Whether it was a massacre of unarmed citizens or not, this incident is not in the American consciousness. This is because of what happened the next day: the start of the Iran hostage crisis. I don't know if this (near) coincidence can or should be incorporated into the article, however. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I reckon it should be mentioned. Zezen (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is a source stating that opinion, (and it would only be that), it would be inappropriate. Gulbenk (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "ignored and forgotten" is appropriate, but there are reliable secondary sources indicating that coverage of the event was overshadowed by the hostage crisis (e.g. [2], [3], [4],[5]). I guess I would be in favor of adding a sentence somewhere in the article, but it's such a minor point that I'm OK with what others want to do. -Location (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinions offered by film critics and student publications are probably not the best foot forward, here. And to what end? If the act of being moved off the front page had some tangible result (loss of some sort of funding, an investigation dropped, legislation stalled, etc.) then it would certainly be worth mentioning. But one can't point to that. There was an investigation, and several trials, which were subsequently featured in the press. Certainly not ignored or forgotten. Just, evidently, less press coverage than some folks (years later) found appropriate. So without some sort of cause→effect I just don't see a reason to include this verbiage. Just one user's opinion. Gulbenk (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Name of the Commie's group

There is a red lettered link to a Communist Worker's Organization, but in the same paragraph reference is made to the CWP (Communist Worker's Party) - which is the accepted name of the group and has an article. My question is, was there a CWO or did someone make an error? Lars Frierson (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course, leaving the red letter link might be apropos - this is a communist organization after all. Lars Frierson (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox = Attack type

There are a couple problems with this section as it stands.

First - mass shooting is not appropriate, The cultural connotations of that description are that of a lone shooter or group of shooters who goes unobtrusively to a venue to shoot without warning several unarmed and politically uninvolved persons. That did not happen here. The Klan showed up publicly to a political protest as counter-protesters. This is not comparable to Las Vegas, Orlando, or Columbine.

Second, calling this domestic terrorism is problematic. Without a reliable source reporting it as such, this should be struck down on the basis of no verifiability as a POV term. It also clashes with the "accounts vary" language in the article which appears to have consensus. Keeping "domestic terrorism" would raise the question whether there were very fine people on both sides. I don't think anyone wants to go there, so the DT descriptor ought to be removed in the interest of NPOV.

It is commonly referred to as a massacre and that is in the title. As for attack type - Shootout and Political Violence should suffice. Lars Frierson (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with that logic. Gulbenk (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is a participating nazi used as a source?

According to NSPA member Frazier Glenn Miller, the first shots were fired from a handgun by an anti-Klan demonstrator.[13]

Why in the world would the claims of one of the neo nazi demonstrators be taken seriously? I will remove this unless someone can give a satisfactory objection Clown Tiddies (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Point well taken. Plus it's an unreliable source. This removal was incorporated into a larger edit.Gulbenk (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional editing needed

To do -ID Dawson as informant and other major figures among KKK and ANP.Parkwells (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Victims as Perpetrators

The events of November 3 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina referred to as the "Greensboro Massacre" have been well documented and recorded on film. The conspiracy theory of an altercation between separate groups is contradicted by the fact that the source for a confrontation between clashing violent groups is this same Wikipedia article. To imply that the victims of an act of targeted violence are the perpetrators of that violence or in some manner responsible for experiencing that violence is known as Victim blaming. Identifying the Communist Workers' Party as "assailants" (defined as 'A person who attacks someone violently' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assailant) violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone. Zakkonieczka (talk) 5:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Zakkonieczka, your edits, which have previously removed references to agitation and inflammatory remarks by the CWP prior to the march, possession of firearms by the CWP during the exchange of gunfire, and the co-responsibility of the CWP for the events are the source of neutral point of view violations here. A jury trial determined that the events were a form of mutual combat, where the CWP acted as assailants to the degree that the defendants in that trial were found to have acted in self defense. Your attempt to bleach out references to these activities and responsibility by the CWP is simple POV pushing. If you persist, we can refer the matter for review by administrators. Gulbenk (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jpesch95, thank you for your interest in this article, and your willingness to contribute. Unfortunately, the narrative of aggressor/victim that you advance is a POV position not supported by findings of two lengthy trials and separate jury decisions, and was reverted. In those trials the confrontation was determined to be a form of mutual combat, where both sides were held equally responsible for both the hostile rhetoric preceding the events and the tragic outcome. The trials never established who shot first, and the video we have used to support the fact of a confrontation is not comprehensive enough to draw the conclusions you reached. In looking for best sourcing for an article, it is usually a judgement call as to which publication or which independent source might present the most credible viewpoint. We find that happening from time to time with this particular subject, when editors cite an alternative news source or a scribe who may have tried to chronicle local events for museums or even university archives. Those collections are most helpful in preserving documents and other forms of evidence, but the opinion expressed by some of those individuals are not always objective, and never carry the same weight as the extensive investigations by both state and federal prosecution teams, and the ultimate determinations rendered by separate juries after lengthy trials where the rules of evidence often challenge and exclude opinions and biased conclusions unsupported by the facts. I am sorry to undue your hard work, and I hope it will not discourage you from future contributions. Gulbenk (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

While we know the Klan and Nazis were the ones behind the massacre, are the defenders not without flaws of their own? Espngeek (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That wouldn't justify the massacre, that is just victim-blaming.138.88.18.245 (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You only have to read the paragraph directly above this one in order to find an answer to your statement. Try that. Gulbenk (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

First sentence of Greensboro massacre

Hello, @Fredlesaltique: Thanks for your interest in this article, and your willingness to improve it. The reason for my edit was to differentiate between what something actually is versus what it is commonly called. Rather like "The Boston Tea Party, an American political and mercantile protest" ... etc. The common/popular name is presented, followed by a short description of the actual event. So, following that model, perhaps a better edit might be "The Greensboro massacre, an armed confrontation between opposing political factions, which occurred" ... etc. The Boston Tea Party wasn't actually a "party", just as the Greensboro massacre wasn't technically a "massacre" (that definition remains rather nebulous, but it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to label it as such, if it might be more technically accurate to described it as a shootout with mass casualties). So while it is a bit more wordy, I believe that the common name followed by short description is called for here. Your thoughts would be most appreciated. Gulbenk (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gulbenk: Ah I think I know what you're getting at.

"The Battle of Gettysburg was fought [occurred] July 1-3 1863..."

works because it's clearly a battle, but

"The Boston Tea Party occurred [don't remember date]"

doesn't work because "tea party" is unclear.

So your point is that "massacre" is too ambiguous/imprecise to just be left unexplained in the first sentence? If that's the case, then yeah something like

"The Greensboro Massacre was a [deadly confrontation?] that occurred..."

Or however reliable sources treat it (I don't know if deadly confrontation is frequently used). To be honest, I think the first sentence is too long and could be reworded (you have to read a few lines to know what the heck this is).

I would avoid "is a name for." Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, I agree on all that, including your last sentence. Since we seem to be in general agreement, let's see if we can arrive at a mutually satisfactory description. Gulbenk (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fredlesaltique: Reference #4 from the article describes the event as an "armed confrontation". So, what do you think about adding the wording ...."an armed confrontation between opposing political factions" to the intro? Gulbenk (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I should explain that the entire phrase is a synthesis of two things...(1) The actual phrase derived from the reference and (2) The summation of the jury finding in the Federal Civil Rights trial, where it was found that the confrontation came about because of opposing political (rather than racial) views. So, I would say that the brief summation, as offered here, is fully supported. Gulbenk (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy with other stuff. How's this?

The Greensboro massacre was a [deadly confrontation?] that occurred November 3, 1979, in Greensboro, North Carolina, United States. Five protesters in a Death to the Klan march were killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party (ANP). Four of the dead were members of the Communist Workers Party (CWP), which organized the march. The incident was preceded by inflammatory rhetoric from both sides. The CWP had originally come to Greensboro to support workers' rights activism among mostly black textile industry workers in the area, and the march was a part of that larger effort. The Greensboro city police department had an informant within the KKK and ANP group who notified them that the Klan was prepared for armed violence.

I don't care much about exact wording, just wanted to quickly know what it is (might be a bit stilted). Keeping the bracketed part to one or two words probably would help; I'll leave that up to you. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Who fired first

I reverted a recent edit, but not because it wasn't property written. It just wasn't accurate. In the two trials that were conducted, it was never determined who fired first. The reverted edit simply asserts facts not in evidence. Gulbenk (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

I reverted a recent edit by Gulbenk whose edit summary reads "There was never a legal finding of "terrorism". Although all parties involved were radical in nature, their confrontation was referenced as an exchange of gunfire." My edit summary reads: "per domestic terrorism: the U.S. government cannot charge someone with domestic terrorism because no such criminal law exists." If a legal finding is required for a thing to exist, there are 51 other examples on this list that need to be declared and not domestic terrorism on this list including the Lincoln assassination, the Tulsa race massacre, the Buffalo shooting last week and the January 6 capital attack. With respect, if the information in the source provided in the last sentence of the lead of domestic terorrism has been updated since 2017, let's let the consensus figure it out. Regards. Kire1975 (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Kire1975 Thank you for your interest in this article, and your willingness to improve it. Your logic, however does not hold up. Two lengthy trials, initiated by both the federal and state governments resolved that the event was a confrontation between groups with opposing political ideologies, resulting in a form of mutual combat. Not terrorism. The federal government advanced the theory that one group intended to deprive the other of their civil rights, through armed confrontation, but the jury determined that this was not true. Not terrorism. Of course, the KKK has used domestic terrorism in years past when they employed acts of violence to achieve specific goals like voter suppression and enforced segregation in the black community. That is how terrorism works, it is a tool employed to achieve a particular goal. The Greensboro event was not that. It was a clash of ideologies between belligerents which resulted in violence. Not terrorism. Gulbenk (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Kire1975, just a bit more color on this point. If one were to assign the term "domestic terrorist" to any of these parties, it would have to be against the CWP. Their leadership/spokesmen made specific public threats against the Klan, including advocating physical violence against the KKK ("it is the only thing they understand") and the naming of their event "Death to the Klan". These public statements of violence were advocated to achieve their goals, and was in contrast to the public pronouncements of the Klan and Nazis. Those two groups may have had private discussions about confronting the CWP but never made public statements like those of the CWP. Their most overt public act was only to show a movie (Birth of a Nation). There is a crime in Georgia law by the title "Terroristic Threats and Acts" which might have been applied against the CWP by the Klan for their public statements and subsequent actions, if the events took place in Georgia. But there may not be an equivalent in the North Carolina Code. In any case, those charges were never brought nor, to the best of my knowledge, ever discussed. Gulbenk (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM and stop pinging me. Kire1975 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in the link you shared that indicates an improper use of the Talk page. Rather, just the opposite, since the statements published tyhere were intended to advance the article and provide clarity to a previous edit. Gulbenk (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Kire1975. It's ridiculous to say a Klu Klux Klan attack was not terrorism because an all-white jury in the US South didn't call it that. It's enforcing a particular POV to claim those juries as arbiters of truth. North Carolina Man (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

So, North Carolina Man, if one is to take that statement at face value, you (1) Claim the KKK was the "attacker", even though the jury found otherwise, with a decision that all parties were engaged in mutual combat with the KKK acting in self defense. (2) That this "all-white jury" acted out of racial animus, even though the prosecutor is on recorded stating that is untrue, and that the outcome was based on political considerations. (3) And that juries are not finders of fact, and their decisions are to be ignored - since (as you imply elsewhere) "truth" can only be found in the New York Times and Washington Post. Gulbenk (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There you go using that "you" word again.

NY Times, WaPo, Tampa Bay Times, Greensboro News & Record, Emory Law Journal, etc., etc. It's not original research. And bluelinking to All White Jury points to an article about racial discrimination in jury selection that states: 'the phrases "all-white jury" or "all-black jury" can raise a host of expectations – among them, as MIT social neuroscientist Rebecca Saxe notes, the expectation that deliberations may be less than fair.' There are over 500 pages with the phrase in it on Wikipedia. The vast majority of these pages are about cases like this one. Per WP:NPA, it is WP:policy to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This is not a guideline, yet here you are holding the page hostage with WP:BRR and making it all about the contributors on the talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summary for that entry, you will see that I wrote it. Thank you for including it here. The sentence you quote states that the phrase is prejudicial, raising expectations that the decision was less than fair. Precisely why I objected to it in this article, because the phrase implies an unfair or prejudicial outcome. The sources you quote don't go on to verify that implication, with something like a quote from a juror. They simply make the unsupported implication of unfairness. "All-white jury" is not a neutral phrase.. On the other hand, we do have someone intimate with the case (the prosecutor) saying that jury did not base its finding on racial considerations, but on political considerations. Gulbenk (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a large number of reliable sources including some that I and @Kire1975 have linked that have called attention to potential issues with the jury selections. "All-white jury" is an apt and well-understood phrase that is specifically used in all those sources. It probably does make sense to expand on the issues with jury selection in these cases further down in the article. North Carolina Man (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

All-white and all-black juries are not prohibited. They are allowed, so long as the selection of the jury is not based on racial considerations, but simply the outcome of the normal jury selection process. Since you say they exist, please include a link to any reliable source which "call(s) attention to potential issues with the jury selection", where the selection is intended to be racially biased. The only thing I have ever seen is a statement that two black potential jurors were in the jury pool, but were rejected for acceptable reasons during voir dire. It is a process accepted by every state in the Union. This comes back to that sentence about the phrase all-white jury; that it is prejudicial in nature. That unfounded and unsupported assumption is embedded in every article which takes exception to the trial outcome. Again, unfounded because no publication has ever backed it up with a supporting statement from a juror saying something to the effect "sure, we decided that way because of race". Nothing of that sort has ever been found or produced. It does not exist, and even the prosecutor says that it does not exist. Gulbenk (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Added back contemporary commentary and reference to jury makeup

I reverted Gulbenk's edit which says "Undid revision 1091208942 by North Carolina Man (talk) There is a long discussion on the all-white jury point. Opinion page. Please read it at Talk. The rest is arrgumentative POV".

The content that they reverted mentions the jury members were all white which is noted on almost any recounting of the events and which is a notable piece of historical context, especially in a trial involving the Klu Klux Klan in the American south. They also removed commentary by the New York Times reacting to the verdict.

Also, if you look at the page history, this is one in a long list of hostile reversions of good faith edits by the same person.

North Carolina Man (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

North Carolina Man, there is one NYT opinion piece (not a news article) which refers to an all-white jury. Evidently an attempt to frame the issue, or a jury decision unfathomable to the writer, in racial terms. It does not take into account that all of the parties, on both sides of the case (save one) were white. Perhaps the strongest evidence to refute that racial assumption comes from the prosecutor in that trial. He stated that political (anti-communist) sentiment, and not racial animus, was the factor contributing to the acquittal. The all-white statement, and particularly the following sentence in your edit, attempts to inject a point of view (POV) into the article, and violates the neutral narrative we seek. Gulbenk (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the NYT editorial page is the source for that, and that's how it's cited. I added two more sources. I don't think we need any more. It is historical revisionism to remove any reference to the jury's racial bias when it's been noted both recently and by major contemporary media outlets. We're talking about the explicitly racist Klu Klux Klan and the explicitly racist Nazis firing on a multiracial group of organizers while calling them racial slurs. There are more in-depth accounts of the jury selection that go into this, but that doesn't belong in that paragraph. We can add that later.

Please stop guarding this page and blanket reverting any changes you personally don't like. We need community input here. This is not your personal page. I added the references to the Times and the all-white jury back in but clarified the wording. North Carolina Man (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edits are argumentative (and a bit useless, when you add that the "defendants" were acquitted - who else would be?). They don't advance the article. I doubt that I can convince you of that, since you seem pretty set in your thinking, and I don't want to engage in an edit war. So, I'm going to ask that an Administrator review this matter and take whatever actions deemed appropriate. Gulbenk (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many accounts from many different mainstream sources (national, state, and local) that mention the racial makeup of both juries. It is a weird to omit all references to that from the article and instead present the opinion of a 1980s USA jury in a controversial ruling as fact.

And how are you staying out of an edit war when a substantial portion of the history of this article is you wholesale removing the good-faith input of many contributors? Blocking collaboration is weakening the quality of this article. North Carolina Man (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Reply:The New York Times is a WP:RSS. Absent any alternative reliable sources claiming the jury had non-white member(s), inclusion of that fact on this page is WP:DUE. Kire1975 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You both pretend to ignore the fact that "all-white jury" is a racially charged term intended to convey the idea of racial bias on the part of the jury in their deliberations and final decision. The prosecutor who carried this case on behalf of the State, and who sought conviction of the defendants, is on record saying that racial bias was not responsible for the jury decision. He says flatly that it was a decision based on political views. There can be no more reliable source than that. The prosecutor, with an intimate knowledge of the facts far surpasses that of a reporter in New York who did not attend the trial. Your previous comments, which also attempt to advance the unsupported notion of "domestic terrorism", highlight an attempt to inject your particular bias into this article to the detriment of a previously neutral viewpoint. Gulbenk (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have found a non-editorial NYTimes article about the all-white jury here.Please refrain from further personal attacks while discussing it. Kire1975 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You are aware, I hope, that the article you reference is about a different group of people and a different trial? Gulbenk (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There are four references to the all white jury in this case in Emory Law Journal, one in the Tampa Bay Times and one in the Greensboro News & Record. Kire1975 (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead is too long

This section is for discussing the "Lead too long" template I posted here. At present there are seven paragraphs in the lead. It doesn't provide an accessible summary of the body of the article and it does not have a WP:NPOV. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, the maximum recommended number of paragraphs is "three or four paragraphs." Kire1975 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)