Talk:Communist Workers' Party (United States)

Untitled
Was this party disolved or what? It doesn't say anything at the end.

I removed this sentence when I couldn't find a reference to the CWP disrupting the Klan rally in the Frontline transcript.

''Prior to this, the two groups had held a rally of their own which was disrupted by Communist Workers Party members who burned an American flag and shouted down the speakers. This, along with challenges in the press provided the pretext for a showdown on November 3.''

It might got back in if the action can be referenced. Might belong in the actual Greensboro Massacre article, though. DJ Silverfish 14:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw footage of it in a History Channel documentary. I don't know if it would be archived online though. --TJive 15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave a separate reference as I could not find a transcript of the HC documentary. Apparently it was a Confederate flag which was burned, and this article also provides direct quotes in the press as to the CWP's challenges. --TJive 16:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That a Confederate flag was burned is an important clarification. It is incidental to the CWP's broader campaign against the Klan, however.  I have found a reference for the  documentary "Lawbreakers.  The Greensboro Massacre" running on History channel on March 3, 2001.  There doesn't seem to be a page for the documentary, however. DJ Silverfish 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not incidental if it provides important context to the events leading up to November 3. It is also an action which was taken by CWP members and thus relevant to the organization.  I trust that the factual accuracy is not disputed as such. --TJive 18:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does trust enter into a conversation between pseudonyms? It is worth a mention on the Greensboro Massacre page, but doesn't adequately represent the anti-Klan work of the CWP, not enough to be the only reference to the campaign, anyway.  DJ Silverfish 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it doesn't, interpersonally, though this very obviously wasn't my meaning. As for the CWP's "work", I am interested only in contextualizing the given entry, not in striving to glorify the group.  I suppose that could be your job.  --TJive 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, I can't believe you think such blatant political mongering is going to slide. What is the name of the party in question?  Why do you think the KKK opposes this group?  Because of some vague notion of what "labor rights" might be enumerated as (much less as unqualified positive measures), or simply because it is an admitted communist group?  That's not NPOV and I'm keeping it changed. --TJive 21:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the "pretext" bit, if you would bother to step outside of your POV warring you might notice that this is saying that these are the excuses given by the KKK (a group already prone to violence for the smallest slights) for shooting up the rally, rather than it simply being a chance occurrence for history's martyrs. --TJive 21:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Ensuring convictions"?
"In response to the failure of the Carter administration to ensure the conviction of the accused killers" -- This seems an odd thing to say. In a democratic republic, which the USA ostensibly was at this time, it is not the role of the government to "ensure convictions". Can this be re-phrased or further explained? -- 201.51.166.124 10:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Video Evidence about Massacre"
I have seen some video evidence regarding the massacre, and I do not see any white robes or "concealed" weapons, the weapons seem to come out of the aggressors trunks, and they are not wearing disguises at all. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YWWrlDu6KWw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhd_3CLRQHs Humbabba 20:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)