A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 3, 2011, November 3, 2013, and November 3, 2015. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Greensboro massacre be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
"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]
"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 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 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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
I asked an Admin about your external link, and this is what she said... Wahkeenah 01:22, 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I have deleted the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To do -ID Dawson as informant and other major figures among KKK and ANP. Parkwells ( talk) 17:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
I'm seeing "Communist Workers Party" as the top name listed on "Assailants" in the info box, despite them being attacked and dying. Using the court cases to argue that they were assailants ignores the fact that justice was racist in 1979, and the police were arguably active in the shooting. "Jury trials" aren't sources, scholarly historical accounts are. Stix1776 ( talk) 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I reverted Gulbenk's 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)
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)
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)
@ Stix1776 Per your request to discuss on talk page.
Edit 1: This is simply how the cited source actually describes the city criticisms of the police. It should be noncontroversial. The actual criticism of police in the resolution:
"Greensboro's police department in 1979, along with other city personnel, failed to warn the marchers of their extensive foreknowledge of the racist, violent attack planned against the marchers by members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party with the assistance of a paid GPD informant," the city's resolution states."
The allegation of collusion is something that a few councilmembers in the minority say could be alluded to by some people in their interpretations of the resolution. It is not a finding of the city. It is the opinion of some people (who lost the vote) that some other people might think this:
"And while seven council members said they would support the measure, Councilwomen Nancy Hoffmann and Marikay Abuzuaiter said they could not support the resolution because, in their minds, it suggests that the police somehow colluded in bringing about the shootings."
The original statement of "the police department had colluded with the Klan by allowing anticipated violence to take place" is patently unsupported by the cited source.
Edit 2: Basically shortening the lead. If you think it's necessary to include this, it's not a big deal.
Edit 3: The original content qualifies the acquittals with allegations from an op-ed of "vivid newsreel to the contrary." This clearly goes against WP:BLP policies.
Per the applicability section: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."
Per BLP:CRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
It does not matter that this article itself is not a biography. It would naturally be absurd for an article about a potential crime to not have BLP:CRIME apply to it. The policy on applicability clearly states "all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia." The policy on BLP:CRIME clearly states "material-in any article." There has not been a conviction. There is only 1 reference of "vivid newsreel" being "contrary" to the acquittal, from an opinion piece. This is not remotely enough to cast doubt on the acquittal and therefore suggest that the individuals tried and acquitted actually committed a criminal act. This does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in light of well-established policy, let alone in the lead of the article.
Edit 4: Shortening the lead, but also to couch inconsistency between the lead and the body. Original content in lead states "tried the 1979 and 1984 cases." Body: "In November 1980 the jury acquitted all the defendants, finding that they had acted in self-defense." for the state case, and "On April 15, 1984, all nine defendants were acquitted." for the federal case. Also serves to describe the criminal cases together and then the civil case instead of criminal-civil-criminal.
Edit 5: This also shouldn't be controversial. The New York Times opinion section is not a news outlet. Their News section is separate from their opinion section. Either remove the op-ed or accurately describe as an outlet.
Edit 6: Shouldn't be controversial. Replaced vague "several" with "six" per cited source:
"six Nazis and Klansmen had retrieved their weapons from the trunk"
Edit 7: Shouldn't be controversial. Cited source:
"But Sandi peeks out to see what is happening and is shot by buckshot from Matthews’ gun, hitting her over her right eye as she pokes her head around the building’s corner."
This brings the content on Smith's killing in line with the rest of the Rally section, which states the shooter when sources state who they are.
Edit 8: Shouldn't be controversial. His name is listed as "Cauce" everywhere else in the article. KiharaNoukan ( talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 3, 2011, November 3, 2013, and November 3, 2015. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Greensboro massacre be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
"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]
"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 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 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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
I asked an Admin about your external link, and this is what she said... Wahkeenah 01:22, 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
I have deleted the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To do -ID Dawson as informant and other major figures among KKK and ANP. Parkwells ( talk) 17:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
I'm seeing "Communist Workers Party" as the top name listed on "Assailants" in the info box, despite them being attacked and dying. Using the court cases to argue that they were assailants ignores the fact that justice was racist in 1979, and the police were arguably active in the shooting. "Jury trials" aren't sources, scholarly historical accounts are. Stix1776 ( talk) 06:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I reverted Gulbenk's 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)
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)
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)
@ Stix1776 Per your request to discuss on talk page.
Edit 1: This is simply how the cited source actually describes the city criticisms of the police. It should be noncontroversial. The actual criticism of police in the resolution:
"Greensboro's police department in 1979, along with other city personnel, failed to warn the marchers of their extensive foreknowledge of the racist, violent attack planned against the marchers by members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party with the assistance of a paid GPD informant," the city's resolution states."
The allegation of collusion is something that a few councilmembers in the minority say could be alluded to by some people in their interpretations of the resolution. It is not a finding of the city. It is the opinion of some people (who lost the vote) that some other people might think this:
"And while seven council members said they would support the measure, Councilwomen Nancy Hoffmann and Marikay Abuzuaiter said they could not support the resolution because, in their minds, it suggests that the police somehow colluded in bringing about the shootings."
The original statement of "the police department had colluded with the Klan by allowing anticipated violence to take place" is patently unsupported by the cited source.
Edit 2: Basically shortening the lead. If you think it's necessary to include this, it's not a big deal.
Edit 3: The original content qualifies the acquittals with allegations from an op-ed of "vivid newsreel to the contrary." This clearly goes against WP:BLP policies.
Per the applicability section: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."
Per BLP:CRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
It does not matter that this article itself is not a biography. It would naturally be absurd for an article about a potential crime to not have BLP:CRIME apply to it. The policy on applicability clearly states "all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia." The policy on BLP:CRIME clearly states "material-in any article." There has not been a conviction. There is only 1 reference of "vivid newsreel" being "contrary" to the acquittal, from an opinion piece. This is not remotely enough to cast doubt on the acquittal and therefore suggest that the individuals tried and acquitted actually committed a criminal act. This does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in light of well-established policy, let alone in the lead of the article.
Edit 4: Shortening the lead, but also to couch inconsistency between the lead and the body. Original content in lead states "tried the 1979 and 1984 cases." Body: "In November 1980 the jury acquitted all the defendants, finding that they had acted in self-defense." for the state case, and "On April 15, 1984, all nine defendants were acquitted." for the federal case. Also serves to describe the criminal cases together and then the civil case instead of criminal-civil-criminal.
Edit 5: This also shouldn't be controversial. The New York Times opinion section is not a news outlet. Their News section is separate from their opinion section. Either remove the op-ed or accurately describe as an outlet.
Edit 6: Shouldn't be controversial. Replaced vague "several" with "six" per cited source:
"six Nazis and Klansmen had retrieved their weapons from the trunk"
Edit 7: Shouldn't be controversial. Cited source:
"But Sandi peeks out to see what is happening and is shot by buckshot from Matthews’ gun, hitting her over her right eye as she pokes her head around the building’s corner."
This brings the content on Smith's killing in line with the rest of the Rally section, which states the shooter when sources state who they are.
Edit 8: Shouldn't be controversial. His name is listed as "Cauce" everywhere else in the article. KiharaNoukan ( talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)