Talk:Greensboro massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Deacons for Defense and Justice]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capitalization: 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ungrammatical assertions and sneaky POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Courts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Further Reading Dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  News footage on other sites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Massacre? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Police Role 

message: 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)
replies: text: You clearly do have a love for racists. Rafe87 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self- defence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Birth of a Nation" Film 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crime? 

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

text: 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)

text: 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. , , ,). 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Largely ignored and forgotten 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of the Commie's group 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I have no problem with that logic. Gulbenk  (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox = Attack type 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is a participating nazi used as a source? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Who fired first

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Someone removed the tag but it's still too long. Four paragraphs should be an absolute maximum for an article as (relatively) short as this. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvm, fixed it now, I think. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead is too long 

message: Here is a record of the archive of the as-yet still open discussion on the ANEW noticeboard about why this page has been protected. Kire1975 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been "protected"