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)

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)

The order is simply random. If your mistaken belief is that it represents an imbedded and hidden bias, then change the order. Place the CWP at the bottom of the list, thus confirming that bias (yours, in this case) DID play a part in the listing. I doubt that anyone would much notice, or raise a concern. btw: The CWP is on this list because it was determined, after a lengthy trial, that they were co-attackers. If you want to argue that all trial findings are invalid, before the current age of enlightenment (you choose the date), then a different platform, other than this article, is the proper place for that rant. Gulbenk (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Juries are triers of fact. A jury decision is a fact, unlike your opinion. If you believe that your opinion is a proper substitute for a fact, then "point of view" might rule the day at Wikipedia.Gulbenk (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

"Juries are triers of fact." Since when? They typically reflect the biases of the jurors, including racial ones. Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:HISTRS list the reliable sources that should be used to verify historical articles. Nowhere is a jury decision listed here.

A jury decision, at least in the US, is that there was a criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll need a source that the Communist Workers Party were assailants, please.Stix1776 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There are references to the jury verdict of innocence by virtue of self defense. In what circumstances would defendants need to defend themselves against a party (the CWP) that wasn't assailing them? Gulbenk (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am asking you for a source, and you're not providing it. We should not be making our own judgements of historical events. I'm sure that you know what WP:OR is.Stix1776 (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So, why should we care about a laughable jury verdict? Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking through the history. Gulbenk made the original edit here [6] calling the CWP "assailants". Multiple editors have tried to remove the CWP, and he keeps reverting them. Seriously, reverting to restore you own edit, against multiple editors, is really edit-wary.Stix1776 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2022 (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)

This is an encyclopedia article. I don't care if you personally agree with the 1980's editorial board of the New York Times or articles in Emory Journal, the Washington Post, the News & Record, or the News & Observer, but all those sources represent a widely held view on the trial. North Carolina Man (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I restored your changes based on this discussion. North Carolina Man (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

You recite a number of publications concerning "all-white juries" then revert an edit about domestic terrorism based on that discussion. There is no support for that revert, and if you continue to make these nonsensical edits I would be happy to escalation this issue to an administrator for determination. Do you agree to that? Gulbenk (talk) 19:22, 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)

Can you link to the source or the section on the page where the "prosecutor who carried this case on behalf of the State, and who sought conviction of the defendants, is on record saying"? I might have made an assumption that I am willing to concede, but at the same time I have been scanning the page repeatedly and don't see any details about what you are referring to exactly. Kire1975 (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Since Gulbenk has been silent on this request for sources for almost four days, can anyone else see what he's talking about and point us in the right direction? Kire1975 (talk) 20:17, 10 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)

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)

Nvm, fixed it now, I think. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Article has been "protected"

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)

Recent changes

@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)

Thanks for being detailed here, in regard to your edits. I noticed it looks like you didn't note any of this info in your edit summaries, which appear blank. This may or may not be a big part of why Stix1776 reverted you to begin with, I do not speak for them, but I might have done the same, especially with changes to a lead. Again, thank you for taking the time, and I highly recommend adding edit summaries to help avoid reverts in the future. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I noted down the info for the edits I felt would require explanation and may spark contention, while others I felt should be clear on their own (The NYT Opinion piece is clearly an opinion page and should not be described as a news outlet in the same brush as other actual news pieces, Cauche -> Cauce is just a name correction, etc.). For Edit 1, I mentioned that my edit described what the cited source itself actually stated, which can indeed be verified by checking the cited source. For Edit 3, I also mentioned that it was a BLPCRIME related edit, which was replied to with an inaccurate claim that it doesn't apply because this article "isn't a BLP." KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan: Literally thank you for not edit-warring. Really.

Edit 1: This removed "and the police department had colluded with the Klan by allowing anticipated violence to take place". Randomly changing lots of the lead without discussing in the talk page is a bit extreme. Anyhow, this statement is supported by [7] and the "Role of the police" heading below, which it attempts to summarize. I'm happy to discussing changing this text, but how do we also include that an FBI officer was in the lead van of the KKK, and that an ATF officer encouraged the Klan members to be armed?

Edit 2: Shortening of the lead is fine, but let's see what other editors think and bring consensus. Personally I find that text valuable for understanding the issue of the article, and I would like it to be included.

Edit 3: You're citing the Biography on Living Persons guideline. This isn't a biography, and are these people even alive after 44 years?

Edit 4:' I just don't see how removing "federal criminal civil rights trial in 1984" is helpful, as removes important info in the lead. Maybe see if other editors take your side in this.

Edit 5: Would you prefer that I replace the NY Times source with this one [8]?

Edit 6: This one I think is a bit more nuanced and I'm flexible. But the source you're citing says "by this time, six Nazis and Klansmen had retrieved their weapons...". It is possible that other people got guns after that time. It isn't specific that only 6 retrieved guns.

Edit 7: I doubled checked the source. It's a bit confusing, but you are correct. I restored this edit. I'm sorry for missing this.

Edit 8: You are also correct here. I'm sorry that I didn't check this.Stix1776 (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Stix1776

Edit 1: Can you quote the section of the source that backs up the allegation of collusion? In my original post, I linked what I presumed was the quote you used, which is one of only two sections that mention collusion or conspiracy on the part of the police.

"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."

As I mentioned, this is a minority opinion that criticizes the actual resolution itself for potentially opening up interpretations of police "somehow" colluding. The parties here are explicit in that they do not believe "collusion" to have occurred. It is not in the actual resolution, which does criticize the police, but on the issue of police not warning marchers.

The other section that mentions collusion, from the mayor who is speaking in support and on behalf of the city resolution, actually repudiates this interpretation of the resolution, but agrees that collusion did not occur:

"'I don't believe that there was any conspiracy or collusion between the Greensboro Police Department and other parties,' Vaughan said. But, she added, the police purposely took a 'low-profile approach' to the event."

An allegation of collusion or a summary that interprets police actions as collusion does not belong in the lead when every party to the resolution agrees that it did not occur. It would be a controversial position to say the least. I would leave the content you described in the body and retain the criticisms of police that actually is highlighted as notable by the sourced material and contained within the resolution: the failure to warn protestors of the potential for violence. This is what my edit did.

Edit 3: BLP applies on all of Wikipedia that deals with living people. As I mentioned earlier with quotes from the WP:BLP policy page:

"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." (emphasis mine)

"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." (second emphasis mine)

It does not need to be a biography to be covered. In fact, on WP:NPF, it specifically talks about utilizing BLP restraint for people who are not "notable enough for their own article," which is the case here. With regards to "are these people even alive," this is covered by WP:BDP: "Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death." It seems highly implausible that the numerous accused participants in an violent event in 1979 were all septuagenarians or even older born in the early 1900s or earlier.

Edit 4: It is already mentioned that a federal trial was held. "Two criminal trials of several of the Klan and ANP members were conducted by state and federal prosecutors." This was for the purpose of making things concise, but like I mentioned, it's not a big deal. More importantly though is the conflicting info. I assume there isn't conflict on at least changing "1979 and 1984 cases" to "criminal cases" just to ensure no conflict?

Edit 5: That works, it isn't an op-ed

Edit 6: Ironically, I put in "several" myself during earlier edits months ago. The GTRC report I cited back then states 6 names:

"Fowler, Wood, Pridmore, McBride, Smith, and Matthews return to the Ford Fairlane and retrieve firearms from the trunk" pg 183 KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan: I apologize for the late reply as work kept me busy. Thanks for waiting.

Edit 1: An academic source like this [9] calls it police collusion, as well as the other parts mentioned down in the article. The role of the lead is to quickly summarize the information. The opinions of the 2 council people are not reliable sources in themselves, although I'd support you putting their opinions down in the relevant section.

Edit 3: I've been around Wikipedia for a few years and I'm definitely no expert. I've never seen BLP used for an article that wasn't a biography. The section in the lead calls them "defendants" and it doesn't even mention who they were. Would you like to get the opinion of the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard? I would like to see what they say about this. Otherwise, a third opinion can be asked to settle this.

Edit 4: Personally I prefer letting the reader know that tho trials were held by different jurisdictions. Again, this is my opinion. I'm happy to budge if an unrelated editor would say otherwise. WP:3O is an option.

Edit 6: Honestly I find the whole thing confusing. Let me read the report a bit more and get back to you on this.Stix1776 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Stix1776:

Edit 1: The book you link is written by Sally Bermanzohn, wife of Paul Bermanzohn, who was a CWP member shot during the march. As the title "Through Survivors' Eyes" alludes to, she too was present at the march with the CWP per the GTRC report. As the article mentions, the survivors filed lawsuits blaming the city and police and claiming damages. This cannot possibly be taken to be a neutral, merely academic secondary source.

The other content in the article describes criticisms of the police yes, as did the city council resolution. However, it would be a stretch to summarize them as "collusion" when that term, when mentioned in sources, is referenced in light of being deprecated by both supporters of and opponents to the resolution. It's not the case that the mayor or city councilmembers are reliable sources unto themselves, but that their statements have been highlighted as notable by reliable secondary sources. The POV of the city council members in the minority shouldn't be mentioned because it's not their own opinion, it's their speculative worry that some other people may (wrongfully from their POV) interpret the resolution as alleging collusion. However, the majority, including the mayor, also are stating that it is wrong to allege collusion from their findings. Furthermore, the findings in the aforementioned civil suit were also that "the klansmen, Nazis, Greensboro police and federal agents did not engage in a conspiracy against Dr. Michael Nathan or the four other Communist Workers Party members shot to death at the 'Death to the Klan' rally." The considerable weight of the sourced material goes against description of the events as "collusion" and should be what is reflected in the lead as WP:DUE. By contrast, it is well sourced and there seems to be considerably less controversy that the police failing was over failure to warn marchers. If we were to mention Bermanzohn's POV at all, it would logically be in the body, maybe under "role of the police" with attributed POV. WP:BALANCE would require that the allegation of collusion from Bermanzohn be balanced with all the material against it, and that would be overly long for the lead.

Edit 3: If it gets to that point it might be necessary, but if you want to take a peek at a recent noticeboard archive, you can see that this frequently involves articles that are not biographies, concerning the 2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting, the Iran–Contra affair, the Belgrade school shooting, the Killing of Jordan Neely, COVID-19 misinformation, etc. If this is not enough to convince, then yes we might need to ask the noticeboard if BLP applies to this article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan: Thank you so much for your patience waiting for me to reply. This isn't something so small that I could just write off a quick answer. I needed to read through sources and policies.

Edit 1: Fair enough about Sally Bermanzohn. I wasn't aware of the relationship. To me, the problem is with summarizing the role of the police section while being relatively short. To be fair, many secondary sources that I've found called it "accusations of collusion", although one author says there's "strong evidence of police collusion" [10]. Other academic authors have called it complicity [11] [12], while newspaper reports like to mention that Greensboro "issues an apology for police complicity" [13]. Would "complicity" be better for you?

Frankly, I don't see how the mayor's opinion is important unless we're going to quote him.

Edit 3: I really tried to find archives about Iran–Contra affair, the Belgrade school shooting, the Killing of Jordan Neely, and COVID-19 misinformation, but there were multiple posts about each topic, so I was unsure what you were referring to. With the Texas article, they just debating taking the suspects name out, but he's still there. Perhaps we might take the name of the defendants out of this article. Would you like to post this issue to the Noticeboard?

Edit 6: I'm only weakly concerned about the six vs several issue. If you want to restore it, you're welcome. Thanks again for your patience.Stix1776 (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit 1: "Complicity" would be better, though it should be mentioned for what, ie. the more well-established point that the "Greensboro Police Department knew about the planned attack by the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party but failed to warn the marchers from the Communist Workers Party (CWP)." from the CNN source that mentions complicity.

Edit 3: The examples are from Archive 349, a relatively recent archive. I'm not interested in removing names, I think the article is fine with them in there. The main issue remains that the qualification of the acquittals with one opinion piece's allegation of "vivid newsreel to the contrary" goes against BLPCRIME, which would remain regardless of removal of names or not. When you get a chance to review those and there is still a concern on applicability, you can post to BLP noticeboard. KiharaNoukan (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK if you want to take it to the noticeboard or 3O. To me, I'd rather remove the names than take out a well sourced position that there was newsreel on the event. Indeed, this article doesn't call anyone murders, it just repeats the secondary sources on what happened in the event. I'd be interested in seeing what the noticeboard says.Stix1776 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)