Talk:Fred Hampton

Issues with Citations

The entire "FBI investigation" section is uncited. Two un-linked citations existed, but listed numbers that did not exist in the article bibliography at the time of this writing so I removed them (the citation labels were digits in the 30's, while at this time the bibliography ends at 29). I think this issue is the most pressing of those listed here in the talk page to date. IMO we should make sure that all statements are in fact reputably cited, and then review existing citations to debate the reputability/applicability of those prior sources. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur fully with Jaydubya93. I don't know what to do. This entry used to be one of Wikipedia's best. It clearly explained who Fred Hampton was and how and why the FBI murdered him. Now, it looks like Winston Smith has been hard at work. I was hard to even find the truth in this article. Is it worth getting the newspaper sources at the time? Is it worth my getting all the information that is in the public record? Or will it all be immediately removed by the police/FBI lovers? I'm very disappointed in what's here. I'm willing to do the work, but not if history is going to be revised by people not even born during the FBI excesses. Aasgaard (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

exercise ?

did not Fred Hampton organize morning exercise / calisthenics ? perhaps that was an important part of his program of (human) empowerment, exercise making for a strong body (and education a strong mind) 24.143.92.97 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Narrative Clarity?

The section that narrates William O'Neil's involvement in the case seems particularly unclear and awkward. Mostly that it jumps from SDS to the Rangers/ABPS/etc with impunity and doesn't introduce the parties in this drama particularly well. Narrating this more clearly will increase the overall quality of the article. Tychoish (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow coalition = ethnic nationalists?

In the FBI section, Hampton's multi-racial "rainbow" coalition is referred to as an "ethnic nationalist" coalition, which seems completely inappropriate.

Thats how the FBI viewed such groups.

--Is the FBI evil? Is the FBI wrong? How so? Ethnic nationalist seems to sum it up quite well. Afterall, he was a "Black" panther, not a "Rainbow" panther! If you look up black panther on wikipedia it describes it as an ethnic nationalist movement.

"Cultural Nationalist" is a better way to put it. Sometimes different cultures have different issues and concerns and nationalism is a means of securing cultural rights and self-determination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In that little rant you ignore the fact that Hamptons “rainbow coalition” was primarily a coalition of like-minded Black, Puerto Rican & White inner-city groups, with the addition of student groups and a non-aggression pact with urban gangs who operated in the same territory as the mentioned inner-city groups.

Hampton often made quite explicit, forceful statements to the effect that people of any race or background were welcome as allies. He was also unusually candid in his willingness to criticize black leaders who he thought were insufficiently radical. It seems to me that most people in the movement in Chicago at that time took those ideas seriously and worked together in good faith. Documenting that assertion would be pretty tricky, obviously, but take a look at "The Murder of Fred Hampton" for a vivid, albeit limited, picture of the social context. It's true that Hampton's attitude was relentlessly divisive, but his ideas about the dividing line/s were based on ideology rather than race or ethnicity. R0m23 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

studying carefully the audio from Hampton's many recorded interviews and meetings quickly reveals him to be a brilliant student of world history and global politics. I think a better way to describe Hampton's politics and the politics of the coalitions he associated himself with would be "proletarian internationalism." As R0m23 correctly alludes to, Hampton's allegiances were to the causes of the American proletariat, he was in strong solidarity with (and highly aware of) struggles for truly democratic socialism around the world, and his opposition was not to the "White Man" but simply to the "Man" -- the embodiment of tyranny, exploitation, violence, imperialism, and injustice be the perpetrator "white, black, brown, or yellow." 76.21.39.7 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Police Quotes

Who heard this discussion between police when Hampton was shot?

Also, I remain uncertain as to whether or not these quotes are A) Appropriate, condidering that they are not by Hampton. B) NPOV. Zenosparadox 01:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have recieved no feedback on my belief that the quotes are unnecessary. If one looks at similar pages, they are filled with quotes by their subject, not about him. Further, that they are certainly POV. I have nothing against Hampton, and recognize that this could be an important issue to some. Let me know if you disagree about the quotes. Zenosparadox 22:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you consider the collection of quotes as they now stand biased, the most constructive response would be to add a quote which brings balance. -- Viajero 10:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churchil is as controversial a source as you can get. Wait, no, Harold Bell, Churchill's source is even more biased. Great job on this article guys and gals way to be proffesional.

Serious Issues

I think there are some serious issues here. What is the source for the allegations about the laced Kool-Aid? The police quotes? Other than the book by Messrs. Churchill and Vander Wall (sic, but I'm suspecting it might be Van der Wall or Vanderwall), referenced at the very end, we are given no sources. Where did Churchill get his "facts?" He's a secondary or possibly tertiary source. What are the primary sources? Could we maybe have some page numbers so we can check Churchill's book? I'm not saying that things did or didn't happen the way they are presented here, but I'm skeptical, especially when Ward Churchill enters the equation. --Jpbrenna 07:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Churchill's co-author is Jim Vander Wall.
2. The relevant pages in Agents of Repression are 69-70.
3. Primary source are court transcripts of Iberia Hampton, et. al vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Edward V. Hanrahan , et al,. Defendants-Appellees (Nos.77-1968, 77-1210 and 77-1370). In particular, witnesses Harold Bell and Deborah Johnson testified to the police exchange.
4. You have a problem with Ward Churchill's scholarship?

-- Viajero 10:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Thank you. I assumed, incorrectly, that someone had misspelled a Dutch name. I once had a teacher with a Dutch last name that was often misspelled, usually due to computer limitations. She taught me how to spell it correctly, and the lesson stuck, perhaps too well. Sorry for jumping overboard on that.

2) & 3) Thank you.

4) I don't have a problem with his scholarship per se. I have a problem with his public persona, including his false claims about his military service. When he makes a fale statement about his participation in a major armed conflict, it makes me wonder about some of his scholarship.

I want to make it clear that I am *not* disputing anything as it's presented in this article. I don't know enough about the case to do so. I'm displaying skepticism that everything went down exactly the way it's presented here. --Jpbrenna 17:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two things. This article does reek of POV, and Ward Churhills scholarship is most certainly in question. TDC 23:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

How can his scholarship be in question in this case? He & Jim Vander Wall are citing court transcripts, if you think it is wrong then go dig up the transcripts and compare them to what is in the book rather than attempting weak ad hominins. LamontCranston 18:00, Jan 07, 2006 (UTC)

Problems

A) Fred Hampton left a son by the same name, who also became an activist and did nine years for an arson conviction, which he argues was trumped-up. Even though Hampton pere is probably the more famous, we should probably move this article to "Fred Hampton, Sr." or add a disambig tag.

B) This is still really POV. I think we need other sources besides the Churchil/Vander Wall book. What about primary sources? We could start with the 194 pp. of FBI files available on the FBI FOIA Compliance website http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/fredhampton.htm Maybe that could shed some light on what the FBI did/didn't do, know, communicate to the Chicago Police etc. Some of the names of informants and agents seem to be censored, so they still leave some unanswered questions, but it's a start.

Obviously, this is a lot to go through, especially when it's on a glare-filled computer screen and not hard copy. Still, I'd be willing to collaborate on it the next several months if some other people are willing to pitch in.--69.245.192.52 01:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was me, forgot to login. --Jpbrenna 01:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. If Fred Jr. is as well known as his father, then we should consider a disamig page, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes. However, if he is not as well known as his father, custom would dictate that we should leave this page where it is and add For Fred Hampton, Jr, see:... at the top of the text. For an example of this, see: Sam Smith.
2. I am a troubled by a blanket statement like "This is still really POV"; it would be most constructive if you could be specific about exactly what bothers you. As I am sure you are aware, we use "POV" first and foremost as a shorthand to indicate that we think a controversial assertion is expressed in the narrative voice or that biased language is used. In such cases, the text can be rewritten or deleted. In this case, you don't appear to have any disagreements with the language, only the sources. Is this correct? If you feel that we shouldn't depend solely on the Churchill/Vander Wall book for the details of the police raid, such as the quotes of police officers, that's fine; I would be more than happy to go to the FOIA site and do some spelunking (as soon as I find typing this I will take a look at it). However, without wishing to turn this page into a forum to discuss Churchill, I would like to point out one thing: his book is copiciously referenced. The particular section on the police raid has something like fifty citations per page; in places, nearly every phrase has one. Now, if one had access to the primary sources he used (ie, court transcripts), it would be pretty easy to debunk the book. So far, no one has done so. Yes, I am aware there are allegations of shoddy scholarship, but given the context of the controversy, it is not (yet) fair to say that Churchill has been definitively discredited as a scholar. -- Viajero 09:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that the FBI can be considered an unbiased source, thought I do think it is an important part of the puzzle. For anyone intent on finding out about the assassination, there's a great documentary about it called "The Murder of Fred Hampton'. Here's an excerpt of the synopsis from IMBD:

"The remainder of the film focuses on Fred's murder including footage of the crime scene. The attacking police unit was so secret that the local precinct was not notified to clean things up after the bodies were removed. As a result the Panthers and their attorneys filmed and collected a vast amount of evidence which proved the police and states' attorneys were lying. The police and government arguments are given, interspersed with contradictory proof by the Panthers and their attorneys proving that this was not a raid gone sour, but rather a carefully planned assassination. The photo of the police smiling joyously as they carry Hampton's body out of the apartment is ominous."

24.194.239.148 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)DB There's nothing here about how they're trying to name a Chicago street after him.

Someone forgot to include a factual account of the murderous pigs and their later lives.I think we should know how old each one got. How much older than Fred, that is. And of course, how many other blacks did those pigs kill in the intervening years. One? More than one? It seem pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.46.196 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No Problems

I found this article to be quite balanced. It really does seem that the only problem that some people have has to do with the fact that Churchill wrote the book. While the article IS NOT POV, this complaining about Churchill certainly is POV. Check out Mumia Abu-Jamal's "We Want Freedom" for another source. But, I fear, those who would condemn Churchill will no doubt be hating on Mumia as well. --Something 04:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In "aftermath", not sure about "undisclosed sum." I believe I remember seeing $18,000,000 somewhere reputable.--John Z 20:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The lawsuit was settled for $1.8 million, as a "nuisance settlement", according to the newspaper accounts. Read my book--soon to be a movie--"The Black Messiah Murders". Shelly Waxman, J.D. See, Amazon.com. The main reference to the seconal was in The Ramsey Commission Report, entitled "Search and Destroy."

just curious, could this article be any more laudatory?

seriously. if i posted BS like that at the end of the, say, Reagan page (he was a visionary, he fought for the freedom of Eastern Europe, etc. etc.) it'd get reverted on the spot. Dr. Trey 07:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just reread the article, and i'm not sure what parts you think are 'laudatory' and I think you should specify instead of making blanket statements. The article closes with an excerpt from the Chicago City Council. It is part of the historical record as far as I'm concerned, meant to show how he is viewed by Chicagoans today.

24.194.239.148 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)DB

i'm a chicagoan. the quote doesn't reflect my view of hampton. few people feel represented by the city council, actually. many chicagoans are fatalist about the machine politics here.

The Murder of Fred Hampton Documentary Link

I just wanted to let people who have been seeking the film and have yet to see it know that I have added a link to the documentary on the Fred Hampton page so you can view it online. Enjoy! --Nikipooh116 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Weather Underground

There's another documentary that deals with the raid on Fred Hampton's apartment, called "The Weather Underground." Mostly the documentary deals with the Weather Underground movement, but they discuss Mr. Hampton for 5 minutes or so. I mention this because, according to the documentary, the Black Panthers organized a tour of Fred Hampton's apartment right after the raid. They showed hundreds of people the ballistics evidence indicating that the police fired every shot. I was hoping someone knows more about this, because what I saw on that documentary seemed to contradict what it says on Hampton's main page, that it took a long time to get evidence of police misconduct to the public. At the very least, this tour of his apartment is an interesting piece of the story that should be included on the main page.

• • • Yes, it is true that the Black Panther Party immediately began "tours" of Hampton's apartment, much to the detriment of a thorough investigation. A certain amount of understanding can be applied here, but in allowing thousands of people to walk through a crime scene--sometimes as private investigators were trying to work--they inadvertently allowed people seeking macabre mementos to pick up valuable pieces of evidence. In fact, the coroner's office itself didn't officially seal the apartment until December 18, by which time hundreds of thousands of people had walked through it.

You're also correct in asserting a contradiction in the main page: It did not take a long time to get evidence of police misconduct to the public. In fact, the Black Panther Party was so diligent and effective in disseminating information to the public about the case, creating such a public outcry, that the State's Attorney had to arrange for his officers to stage a "re-inactment" of the raid, which was aired on CBS television. It was also public knowledge that Hampton's family did not trust the results of the first ("official") autopsy and arranged for an independent pathologist, Dr. Victor Levine, to perform a second postmortem, which was performed on December 5. The results of Dr. Levine's examination were immediately made public and were at such odds with the first autopsy that a federal grand jury was compelled to order the exhumation of Hampton's body (buried in Bethel, Louisiana, on December 11) in February 1970.

--Herkimer67 04:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Herkimer, thank you for making me laugh. "...to the detriment of a thorough investigation ..." The pigs had just blown him away. They didn't need an investigation because they were the ones who did it. They already knew what they did, no investigation necessary.

Sometimes people are funny ... in a very sad sort of way.

Fred Hampton Day

Is every Dec. 4 considered "Fred Hampton Day", or just 12/4/04?

No day is considered Fred Hampton Day.

I consider every day to be Fred Hampton Day.

Street sign controversy

I added this line, as I think it's VERY important to the WIkipedia article. It's a big deal, and deserves mention. -Mitch

Picture

Is a picture of Hampton immediatedly after being killed really the only/best image available to this page? Firstly, while I know a lot of people will dismiss it as "over-sensitivity," some people really do prefer not coming upon depictions of violence without some warning and/or option about it. It may be better to include that as a link, then, and not in the main body of the page. Secondly, it does nothing to show anyone what Hampton actually looked like -- the usual point of including a photo in a bio in the first place. --66.109.253.61 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Fred Hampton lying in the doorway after being murdered is pretty well-known and should probably be included (especially since the circumstances of his death are one of the reasons he's famous), although I agree there should be a more typical "portrait" picture at the top of the article. I think they should restore the first picture though. 24.215.184.44 (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fred Hampton's FBI file

If we are going to bother with a page on Fred Hampton, which, of course, he rightly deserves, then wouldn't it do his legacy and his sacrifice justice by being as accurate as possible? Towit:

1) Hampton had several FBI files opened concerning his daily activities, as well as those of the BPP. Three classifications were also used, making his "file" three times more in depth than previously believed. The most pertinent classifications were 44 and 157 (Civil Rights and Civil Unrest, respectively), and the most significant locations gathering information on Hampton's life were Chicago and FBI HQ. The FBI field office in Chicago opened its 157 file on Hampton on September 24, 1967. In total, the surveillance on Hampton--both before and AFTER his death--yielded in excess of 22,000 pages, which includes much of the civil lawsuit brought against Chicago authorities by the survivors of the December 4, 1969, raid. What people quote most often--regurgitate would be more accurate--are the figures of 12 volumes and 4,000 pages, which most closely resembles the size of only his Chicago field office file--which is, in fact, 12 volumes and 3,400 pages.

2) Hampton's name wasn't added to the FBI's "Agitator's Index" in May of 1968. Hampton's name was, in fact, already part of the precursor to the "Agitator's Index," the "Rabble-Rouser Index," his name officially added on December 26, 1967. The "Rabble-Rouser Index," then subsequently the "Agitator's Index," was created in August 1967, "to intensify investigation of individuals supposedly having a propensity to foment violence or racial discord" (Ann Mari Buitrago and Leon Andrew Immerman, Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been In The FBI Files? [New York: Grove Press, 1981], 201). You just might want to tell your readers that.

3)Hampton did not "work closely with the BPP's local People's Clinic" (how are readers supposed to know what a "People's Clinic" is?) because the first one didn't open until AFTER Hampton's assassination. The Larry Roberson Memorial People's Health Clinic was officially opened in January 1970, so named after the former BPP member who died on September 4, 1969, from wounds he received during a shootout with Chicago police on August 15.

4) Hampton was not successfully prosecuted on May 26, 1969, and he hadn't been arrested in 1967 for the alleged ice-cream robbery. He had ALREADY been prosecuted AND convicted on charges (robbery, battery, criminal damage to property) stemming from his July 10, 1968, arrest. Hampton was convicted by Ciruit Court Judge Sidney Jones on April 7, 1969, and was SENTENCED on May 26, 1969.

Believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I also understand that there is limited information available about Hampton's life and death, and what IS available is highly unreliable. Ward Churchill and Jim VanderWall are touted as the authorities, having read the appellant's brief and possibly some of the court transcripts. But even the lawyers handling the civil trial for Iberia Hampton, et. al, were proven to be less than accurate. But since I have been the ONLY researcher to request and receive Hampton's ENTIRE FBI file, I felt compelled to voice some concerns on this page.

Fred Hampton's FBI file--P.S.

Sorry...I am new to this and I forgot to sign my post.

--Herkimer67 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred Hampton's FBI file--P.S.S.

I mistakenly stated that the first People's health clinic was named after former Chicago BPP member Larry Roberson...it was, in fact, named after another former Chicago BPP member, Spurgeon "Jake" Winters, similarly shot to death by Chicago police on November 13, 1969. So, it was the Spurgeon Jake Winters People's Medical Center that opened in January 1970.--Herkimer67 03:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to start a new topic to correct yourself, just add it in to your original thing. LamontCranston 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I don't see any citations until the Aftermath section. An article this dense with facts and this controversial should have more, if anyone has any source material that they can create references with. I'll do my best but my knowledge of this subject is limited. Brad T. Cordeiro 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we have to add his most known citation in the start text of the article. Fred HAMPTON's advocating on racial unity was determining to keep the organisation of the Black Panter Party open and was opening the path for many other movements as per Mike KLONSKY - Students for a Democratic Society in a TV documentary on the Black Panters shown on Canvas TV - Belgium 20160522, in which Fred HAMPTON is shown in a video saying: "The panters said: we don't fight fire with fire, we're going to fight fire with water. We're not going to fight racism with racism, but with solidarity." This is also the theme in the huffingtonpost.com article on "the Black-Panther you might have never heard of: Fred Hampton".

Proposal to add to the starting text: One of his most inspiring speech quotes was about advocating on racial unity "And these people in this class divided themselves and said, I'm black and I hate white people, and I'm white and hate black people and I'm Latin-American and I hate hillbillies, I'm hillbilly and I hate Indians. So we divide amongst each other. The panters said: we don't fight fire with fire, we're going to fight fire with water. We're not going to fight racism with racism, but with solidarity.".

--SvenAERTS (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC) PS Happy 1. 2015–2024 International Decade for People of African Descent #africandescent http://www.un.org/en/events/africandescentdecade/ 2. 2011–2020 Third (!) International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/thirdinternatldecade.shtml

References

HORRIBLE SOURCES/ SUPER BIASED ARTICLE: SHAME OF WIKIPEDIA

This is perhaps the most baised, worst sourced article I have ever read. The whole police raid section, and "quotes" are so dubious it is irresponsible to leave them here. black Panther Mark Clark fires a round "while asleep"?????? Give me a break! the police are called "the raiders", the source for the police quote is a fellow black panther friend of Hampton's Harold Bell?????? Ward Churchill is the source of this "objective" black panther quote????? This sort of propaganda masquerading as an objective article is a mockery! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.106.231 (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the characterizing of clark as being asleep. But aside from that . . . the article already quite clearly identifies that the source of the quote is Harold Bell and it also identifies Bell as being a Black Panther associate of Hampton. The reader is given that info. It is up to the *reader* to then decide if they think the quote is therefore "dubious" or "suspicious" or otherwise lacks credibility. It is not your place to tell them it is. The reader has been properly told that the accuser is Hampton's friend, so the reader can draw their own conclusions from that. Mwelch 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck! I just wanted to make it more clear to some uninformed reader who might take this as God's holy truth when in reality it's as dubious and suspicious at it could get. For example, why if what Harold Bell said was true, would they allow him to live as a witness and a black panther? woudn't that be kind of stupid for these trigger-happy "raiders" to do? Not to mention who the source is. It just went on and on. the whole asleep thing, etc, etc. It's just propaganda. I think it's important to remind people that Bell was a panther and to either edit or point out the sketchiness of this whole section.

To the Ignorant Individual who just got done speaking: Do research on your own before making ridiculous statements. As to your simpleton logic concerning why other BPP members were left alive. Harold Bell and others testified before a grand jury that it was an execution-style killing, the autopsies by the Cook County Coroner's office claiming Hampton's wounds entered through the front of his head were shown to be plagued with technical errors, and the vast majority of police fire was targeted at Hampton's bedroom where absolutely no fire originated from. Yet, all charges against police officers involved were dropped on the basis of a "lack of evidence." So to answer your question, there was no threat posed by the survival of some BPP members to those "trigger-happy RAIDERS" who found sanctuary within our legal system. The threat that warranted both FBI and Chicago police attention was that of Hampton's rising position within the BPP organization. That threat was now nonexistent, as would be the future of the BPP in the Chicago area.

While it's *far* from the worst Wiki article I've ever seen, this article is pretty terrible. It's biased, and it's not written in encyclopedic style. It's also full of strange quirks such as the bolding of fonts on certain people's names, randomly. Needs a complete rewrite IMO.

I tend to agree. I will admit to not being even remotely knowledgeable about the events in question (I only know Fred Hampton from song lyrics), but the article reads as advocating a conclusion, and I have to believe it's one that would be contested by some significant number of people. Just as an experiment, given all this, perhaps it would be best to try rewriting the article from scratch wholly without citing Churchill and then only reintegrate citations from his work as necessary once the basic article is written? Just a thought - when making controversial claims, it is best if your sources are not themselves controversial.Cool moe dee 345 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is very little neutrality in this article - the writer seems to have their own agenda to push - this can be seen in the kind of emotive language he/she uses and assumptions he/she seems to make about the conduct of parties concerned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.185.235 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

These are FACTS people, found in a court of law to be true. The FBI orchestrated the assassination of Fred Hampton, in cooperation with the Chicago Police Department. Please be a little more informed before stating a lack of neutrality. You can start with the documentary: The Murder of Fred Hampton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.31.65 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You say "[t]hese are FACTS . . . found in a court of law to be true"? What court? What do you mean by "found." The criminal grand jury no billed all direct charges and no one was convicted of any crime in the incident, and the civil case was *dismissed* after trial due to a lack of evidence and was never retried as it was settled for pennies on the dollar. No court of law ever found any wrongdoing on the part of the state actors--(including the Seventh Circuit who is not endorsing evidence adduced by the plaintiff as true, but simply looking at it in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff for purposes of analyzing the propriety of a directed verdict.) In any case, just read the article--much of it smacks of pulp fiction. The sources are a joke. Some of the quotes are simply comical in context, e.g., "He's barely alive; he'll make it." Seriously, who's going to say that about a person they just tried to assassinate with automatic gunfire after having had a secret agent surreptitiously feed him barbiturates to make him easy to kill? Where are the space aliens in this story? This article is a joke and a fine example of Wikipedia at its very worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.131.224 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The biggest fault I see in this article is it taking courtroom testimony and couching it as objective fact. Most of the account regarding Hampton's death appears to be based on the speculation regarding what happened on part the witnesses or attorney. The "quotes" in particular seem to be second had accounts without any evidence to verify what was said or done at the scene. The wording should be altered to take this into account as the source given for this narrative of the events was based of testimony not video or audio recordings that would allow objective proof of what occurred. If the account was rewritten to explain that this was speculation regarding the events in question, and merely one possible scenario presented to the court then it would be fine. As it stands the description of the sequence of events is based solely off witness testimony, which was taken by the author Ward Churchill to be accurate despite there being no physical evidence of what was said or done outside of the forensic evidence collected from the scene. Basically witness testimony has no place in any article unless it is specifically identified as such in the text of the article. In the case of conflicting evidence and testimony all accounts should be specified as speculative and the supporting party for each account identified. 29 Aug 2011 12345combination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.132.31 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrupt Tactical Unit?

The opening states that Hampton was killed "by a corrupt tactical unit of the Cook County, Illinois State's Attorney's Office." Even if Ward Churchill's scholarship were reliable, the pejorative "corrupt" is POV and inappropriate. The article states that a Federal Grand Jury cleared the officers of wrongdoing.

Thanks to whoever has started to undertake editing of this POV article. I just realized that I could, myself, edit the opening of the article to replace the word "murder" with "death," and saw that someone had done it already.DougRWms 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How about cock-eating, murderous pigs? Is that more neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.46.196 (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, but possibly more accurate :)

What's this deal with "balanced", anyway ? That's wrong. Wikipedia should be looking for impartial, not "balanced." Balanced is bs, where two sets of liars can happily "balance" each other out. This does nto lead to truth. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

References

I cut these from the reference section. If someone could go back and change them to inline citations, that would be great. Ursasapien (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall (1988). Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, pp. 69-70. ISBN 0-89608-293-8. The primary source cited by Churchill and Vander Wall for the police raid were court transcripts of Iberia Hampton, et. al vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Edward V. Hanrahan, et al., Defendants-Appellees (Nos.77-1968, 77-1210 and 77-1370). In particular, witnesses Harold Bell and Deborah Johnson testified to the police exchange.
• 2. Wilkins, Roy and Ramsey Clark, chairmen. Search and Destroy: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Black Panthers and the Police. New York: Metropolitan Applied Research Center, 1973, 249.
• 3. Ibid., 250.
• 4. The Rage Against the Machine song "Down Rodeo" mentions Fred Hampton in a light which besmears the actions taken by the CPD during the raid on Hampton's place of residence.
• 5. A Dead Prez song "Behind Enemy Lines" talks about Fred Hampton and his son.

"Her fathers a political prisoner, Free Fred

Son of a panther that the government shot dead
Back in 12-4-1969
4 o clock in the mornin, its terrible but its fine
Cuz fred hampton jr., looks just like him
Walks just like him, talks just like him
And it might be frightenin, the feds and the snitches
See him organize the gang, brothers and sisters
So he had to be framed yo, you know how the game go
18 years because the 5-0 said so
They said he set a fire to a arab store

But he ignited the minds of the young black and poor"

• 6. Track 13 "You're Crashing, But You're No Wave" off of Fall Out Boy's Infinity on High is about Fred Hampton Jr. and his lack of a formal trial.

You did what? You deleted references from the article? Why not just spend 15 minutes and fix them? Badagnani 08:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I removed this badly formatted list of information that is not connected with the article in any meaningful way. If you think you can connect items in this list to specific statements in the article in "15 minutes," have at it. I could not make heads or tails of the information. It was under the references section, but it seems to be, in part, a list of trivia or popular culture references. Ursasapien (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This is a very tricky thing in this article. One of the things we must avoid is using weasel words that needlessly inflame the situation. For example, the word assassinated has a very specific meaning and some dark, mysterious undertones. The fact that the article's subject was "killed" or "shot dead" can not be disputed, but I think we need to be extremely careful when we use "assassinated" or "murdered". Ursasapien (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that assassination does in fact have a very specific meaning. I purpose a reasonably accurate definition would be: "the murder of a public figure by surprise attack" [1]. This definition unquestionably describes the situation. I suppose that I'm not clear on the "dark mysterious undertones" point. Both words, murder and assassination, are regularly used to describe this situation in various accounts and sources. I would request clairification on the supposed controversy surrounding the word. Thanks!./zro (⠠⠵) 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised by the choice of word as well, but it seems to be the legitimate word in the field: to give specific examples, in reviewed history text-books, ’‘assassinated in a police raid’’ is the predicate of the topic sentence of Hampton, Fred in the five volume Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present, Oxford University Press, 2009; the three volume Encyclopedia of African American History, ABC-Clio, 2010 goes as far as to use ‘‘After murdering Hampton, the raiding officers...’’. 94.193.47.222 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Biased or Not

'Fred Hampton was killed in a police raid. Can anybody say much more and be sure of it? His stockpiling of weapons, in the context of BPP`s militant maoist ideology and in the explosive historic context could only be seen by the police for what it was. But if the Panthers were surprised by the raid and did not open fire, it still was murder?

Under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Black Panthers had the right to stockpile weapons.

Then again, Off the pig! may not be the thing to chant and even try out all over the place, if you don`t want to give this beast strong incentives to act before being acted upon.

The Chicago police beat and kiled people of color long before 'off the pig' became a catchphrase. Blacks weren't saying 'off the pig' in the 1920s when they were beaten for shopping in the Loop. Emmett Till didn't say 'off the pig' when he was beaten to a bloody fucking mess in Mississippi in the Fifties. In fact, I rather doubt that 'any victim of lynching ever said 'off the pig'. When the blacks started stockpiling weapons as was their right under the Second Amendment and started saying 'off the pig', sometimes but not only in a jokey sorta way like they was fuckin' with you head, they stopped getting their ass kicked quite so much and started gettin' into good schools and gettin' nominated for the Supreme Court and dang, boy, elected President! I can only conclude that it was a smooth move to start sayin' 'off the pig'.'

These racist caricatures that are said in the article to have been fabricated by the police, where are they? (Some of Emory Douglas·s pig caricatures are honest, stalinist and powerful enough to turn any number of whites off?).

The article links Hampton`s rise in the Party to the "decimation" of the party by the FBI.

I now see, that "decimates" in BPP speek means "put in jail and out of the action". If this is "decimated", why wasn·t Hampton simply jailed? If there had been a Washington policy to finish off Panther leaders, why were neither Cleaver, nor Newton or Searle or many other leading Panthers assasinated? Hoover would certainly have loved to see them all gone? If there was some conspiracy, it will have been a local decision to kill Hampton (?).

A good starting point on Fred Hampton on line is to be "Fed by Fear", well written by high school student Sam Bouman, St. Ignatius. Bouman is of course pro BPP. I have put it on the link list, (the link works only the via site map).

The wikipedia article as it stands now, has been lifted in large part from a BPP propaganda sheet (it is on the web on one of the BPP fan sites.--Radh (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

image?

There must be an image somewhere that we can use here of Fred? Kingturtle (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Done and done --- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV and Aftermath Section

Let me start by saying that I am far from being an expert on the life of Fred Hampton, so as to whether this article has a NPOV when it comes to presenting Fred Hampton as a person I can't say. If there are criticisms of his work, or his political outlook, or whatever, then as with any controversial figure it would of course be appropriate to include them here, so readers can judge for themselves based on all the information out there. When it comes to the death of Fred Hampton however, it was my understanding that this was no longer much of a subject of controversy. Indeed people attacking the article here on the talk page seem to be doing so primarily because they think the article does not depict the death of Fred Hampton in a balanced way, and that primarily because the article's account of his death supposedly relies primarily on scholarship from Ward Churchill, who to these people is a highly dubious source. And maybe they are right about Churchill, I don't really know for sure, so let's put that to the side. But there are other, quite credible accounts of the death of Fred Hampton, and they all say basically what this article does. Beyond the documentary The Murder of Fred Hampton, which I have not seen and hence cannot speak of its quality, there is an episode of the highly praised and heavily researched documentary The Eyes on the Prize (Episode 12: A Nation of Law (1968-1971)) that corroborates the key facts as to the death of Fred Hampton that are asserted in this article. With all due respect to the detractors of this article, I can understand that it might not make some people feel good to acknowledge that the police did what they did in this case. And they may feel that the BPP was wrong and misguided for whatever reasons, and those reasons could be well-founded. But wanting to deny something, or being bothered by an acknowledgment that it's true, does not a genuine historical controversy make. In an encyclopedia I would hope we could strive for better than the "he said, she said" that characterizes some of the worst journalism that's out there today. I would hope that when well-documented facts are available, that we could communicate those, without concerning ourselves with who is offended or who's political agenda that does or doesn't serve. So unless someone can provide some researched reasons to doubt the multiply confirmed account of Fred Hampton's death that is recorded in this article, I say that we put these worries about NPOV in this article to rest.

As I said I don't have the expertise on Fred Hampton to speak to much in the way of the specific details of this or that about his life, but I do know that several times here on the talk page as well as in the Eyes on the Prize episode mentioned above that it is explicitly stated that the apartment where Hampton was shot was not boarded up by police until around 2 weeks after the raid, and that during those weeks members of the BPP and legal organizations were able to gather evidence about that raid that contradicted the official police account of it. Given that fact, I propose that this unsourced sentence from the Aftermath section of the article be deleted: "A day or two after the raid, the Chicago Police returned to the scene, and in a widely televised event, tore down the inside walls of the Black Panther home." Or perhaps there is some way that this sentence and the information from The Eyes on the Prize documentary can be reconciled, and that I am missing, in which case I am happy to let the sentence be and retract my complaint. But if in say a week's time no reconciliation of these conflicting claims is found, I am going to delete the unsourced sentence that appears now, in deference to The Eyes on the Prize episode that suggests otherwise. Also at that same time I'll be adding an external link to The Eyes on the Prize episode, since it seems quite relevant to people wanting to learn about Fred Hampton. DNGF (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fred Hampton was, it seems from the outside either "murdered" (it is called something else when the police does it) or (less realistic) he and his friends were assaulted and then shot in a firefight. But that does not mean any and every panthers propaganda has to be bought wholesale.--Radh (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people these days are very clear about calling it an assassination or murder, in light of abundant historical evidence that it was a premeditated killing (and little things like ... the fact that he was drugged by the FBI, shot while sleeping in bed, and then dragged out into the hallway and shot twice in the head at point blank range). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as you're conceding that the quotes from other Panthers concerning the raid have been substantiated by other sources and means, and that the account of Hampton's death can stand whether those quotations are included or not. Maybe it would be best to remove the quotations, I'm not expressing an opinion on that, just again that the more general account of Hampton's death is perfectly well-documented and NPOV. DNGF (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't make any more sense to remove the quotes of the panthers, than it would to remove the statements of the police. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this article for real? Two independent autopsied confirmed that Hampton was not "drugged" and while not favorable to the CPD, the grand jury investigation should be the final word on the events, not bullshit from a serial fabulist like Churchill. Rjbertzel (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Most biased article on Wikipedia

I guess this is the revisionist world we live in now. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.176.38 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Another Source As Many Have Accused This Article Of Not Being Well Researched

The following is a Democracy Now discussion with attorney Jeffrey Haas, author of The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther. Maybe this will be useful in clearing up the article. I would edit myself but I'm not particularly knowledgeable of the situation. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/the_assassination_of_fred_hampton_how --81.149.122.242 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Murder and Assassination Again

I'm still failing to understand the controversy here. Could someone pose it a cogently? My understanding is that "assassination" is "murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." Fred Hampton was a political figure who was "murdered as he slept in his home" [2] by opponents of his politics, because of his politics.

I've reread the previous discussion, and the opponents of using the term "murder" and (what I believe to be more accurate) "assassination" do not seem to be offering anything more than a convoluted "it's not assassination, because he deserved it". Can someone please explain why this is not assassination? Pacifism is not a prerequisite for assassination. Assassination does not imply extra-legal, not-state agents to my knowledge either. There appears to be no controversy on the MLK page about assassination. Is it pacifism vs armed self defense? Is it state-agents? What is the argument? Thanks. ./zro (⠠⠵) 06:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, if people want to content the use of the word assassination in this article, make a coherent argument here before editing. Thanks. ./zro (⠠⠵) 05:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There has been further discussion of this here: User_talk:The_Maigne_Event#Regards_Fred_Hampton ./zro (⠠⠵) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears there continues to be ongoing debate about the use of the word assassination. Please explain yourself here before removing it. I will restate: assassination is "the murder (of a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons.". This is clearly the most accurate and neutral word to describe this event. ./zro (⠠⠵) 11:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Neutrality

There are things Wikipedia does amazingly well, and there are things that it does not do well.

This kind of baldly controversial article is just not a good fit for Wikipedia. There can really be no appropriate neutrality regarding some subjects. This is one of them.

This is not a bad article, as it stands. But it makes me uncomfortable.

117.14.100.108 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Assassination" Section quote

I'm removing the quote "You can kill the revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution" from the "Assassination" section of the article. My reasoning is as follows:

1. The section is about the events of the raid itself, not the continuation of Fred Hampton's political movement, which is what the quote references. The other leading quote contains information directly concerning the raid, this quote does not.

2. The inclusion of the quote in this section seems to indicate bias. The quote is clearly politically biased, and seems almost an insult at the Chicago PD and the effectiveness of their killing in stopping the movement.

I have no objection to the inclusion of the quote in this article, I just don't think it fits in the section where it is currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.157.180 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolute garbage NPOV

By far the most ridiculous article i've read on wikipedia. People peddling agenda are hard at work I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C800:8EFD:8560:720C:B334:5B0A (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing some changes. Beach drifter (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Assassination Quote revisited

I removed the quote that begins the assassination section as it seems undue and pov to begin the section with it, considering that no other assassination sections begin with quotes (Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, jr, etc.). While the quote may be properly sourced, its inclusion as the header of the section clearly violates WP:IMPARTIAL, and is still incorrectly attributed (Manual of style would dictate the quote begins in the voice of the author of the book, is attributed to the book, and the subject referenced inside the quote and not outside of it e.g. "[Gregg] York said, 'We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police raided the place. Only two of those black nigger fuckers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark." -M. Wesley Swearingen "FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose" so that the source of the quote, the book, is immediately clear). However, even fixing that does not answer the question as to its location as the header of the section being undue as per WP:IMPARTIAL. I would remind the editor who keeps re-adding it that WP:ONUS clearly states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". Whether or not it is sourced, the material should be omitted until such consensus is reached (and reading back on this talk page it seems that the only people commenting have been commenting against its inclusion). The fact that it is a "longstanding" quote does not give it any special exemption from policy, it just means that it is a longstanding oversight that is now being corrected. If it is to stay it really needs to be incorporated into the body of the article at an appropriate point, probably under the Aftermath section given when the book was published. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If placing the quote in the Aftermath section would settle the issue, then I can live with that. Actually, that would have been more constructive of you rather than deleting long standing and reliably sourced material, which tends to provoke edit conflicts.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I would have except I don't see an easy way to integrate a rather inflammatory he-said she-said quote, by an author who lacks any real notability outside of conspiracy theory circles (He is best known for his JFK assassination conspiracy theories), into the body of the text, and I don't see any point to including the quote except for inflammatory reasons. Swearingen is not a historian, his book is not a RS (at best it is a partisan secondary source), and I have yet to see a cogent argument, or any argument for that matter, that attempts to explain why the quote is WP:DUE for this article. Again, the mere fact that it is "longstanding" does not mean that it actually belongs, and that should not be the basis of the argument in favor of keeping it. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I agree with UnequivocalAmbivalence. M. Wesley Swearingen is a very problematic source in that 1) he is a conspiracy author and 2) the quote attributed to "Gregg York" - which incredibly multitudes of websites and books have now repeated as fact; check out this guys shirt! - is actually something Swearingen said someone named "Gregg York" said (i.e. hearsay).[3] It would be one thing if there were a shred of evidence that an FBI agent named "Gregg York" actually existed, but he only appears to exist in the hearsay of Swearingen. WP:REDFLAG applies. -Location (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fred Hampton/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

this page is ridiculously biased... that's all i have to say The first footnoted citation to an "authority" is to Ward Churchill, widely known for plagiarism, fabrication of supposed historical "facts," and even lying about his own ethnicity. The article is riddled with anti-authority biases, and ignores the fact that the BPP was heavily armed and participated in numerous crimes, including the murder of at least fifteen policemen. The authority of the so-called "Commission of Inquiry" is never provided. The picture of Hampton lying in a pool of blood proves nothing about the manner of his death. The article is an ungrammatical polemic. == NPOV dispute resolved == Any dispute as to whether this article is NPOV should now be resolved, as of the edits that I added recently, and the discussion that preceded those edits on the talk page. The article could still use some cleaning up, particularly with adding of citations and a usable photograph of Hampton, but I don't have the expertise to complete those edits, and so I will leave those to someone else. Still, I believe the recent edits were progress toward making this a better and more well-documented article. DNGF (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fred Hampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114020010/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/21/1441247 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/21/1441247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

discussion of a few edits

a few edits that i have made to this article have been reverted, wholesale, with only a two-word explanation as to why: "weasel words."

before simply reinserting these edits, i would like to briefly discuss why i think that they are appropriate and add value (even in some small way) to the article, rather than detract value. if any of these edits are believed to detract value, where possible kindly insert some intelligible note or explanation as to why.

in WPspeak, "weasel words" as i understand it refers to a lack of authority/source for a given statement, and perhaps undue specificity. let me assure any reader of this note that each instance is sourced or can readily be. if there is disagreement in any particular case, as always, please speak up.

• substitution of "recruit" for "brought in"

the substitution of "recruit" for "brought in" was assumed to be a straightforward copyedit with only english economy and smoothness/readability in mind. if anything, "brought in," passive, is perhaps more ominous than the straightforward and descriptive "recruit." i moreover think that "recruit" is what the WP contributor detailing the account had in mind. "recruit" simply describes the initiation of a contractual relationship in this case. the account of the relevant party in this case, william o'neal, support this use. the word is in fact his, not mine. video testimony of o'neal is here:

(i seem unable to insert a youtube link to a documentary interview of william o'neal, but you're invited to consult this primary source yourself, simply type in "Eyes On The Prize - (Part 12) A Nation of Law 1968–1971" onto the youtube homepage, there should be a search result 57:36 in length, simply go to 7:30 for the relevant part of an interview with o'neal.)

which, even in the above video account, is supported by documentary evidence shown to substantiate the existence the paid relationship initiated by another party (the fbi) that the term "recruitment" denotes.

• substitution of "...opportunities available..." for "...ambitions..."

an even more straightforward copyedit. "ambitions" is just not the right word. the point being conveyed is that there was a quid pro quo and that the "career opportunities" or "career possibilities" (another word i considered) were being alluded to, dangled if you like, by an informant's superior. the informant's "ambitions" were being played upon, but to say they are related to the informant's supplying of the information sought is a clumsy use of the word ambition. "opportunities" is better, "prospects" is still better. this is all simply a matter of english wc (word choice).

• mention of "No Quarter for Wild Beasts" is an unsigned editorial

i simply added another fact here, that "no quarter for wild beasts" was an unsigned editorial in the tribune. this is sourced in the article, and you can check yourself here if you'd like: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1969/11/15/page/10/article/no-quarter-for-wild-beasts unsigned editorials carry the weight of the staff at large. the chicago tribune is a major newspaper, so it's clearly relevant to a historian or anyone else wishing to understand the atmosphere of the time that the chicago police department was being urged to take a particular position (here, an offensive one, readiness to shoot) that led to a particular outcome with which the article is concerned (the death of the WP article's subject, in this case) was publicly urged by the staff at large of the city's highest circulating daily (rather than by say, robert enstad, or another single reporter or writer on staff).

• "No Quarter for Wild Beasts" quoted directly

the november 15, 1969 unsigned editorial was quoted directly by me in substitution for a paraphrase from the same source. please check the relevant source with some explanation if you object.

• Addition of a documentary film title under the "In Film" sub-subsection of the "Media and Popular Culture" subsection of the "Legacy" section near the article's end

"a nation of law?" is added as another title under media in the "legacy" section ("Much of the first half of "A Nation of Law?", Eyes on the Prize episode 12, chronicles the leadership and extrajudicial killing of Fred Hampton"). what could be the objection here? the use of the term "extrajudicial killing"? (if so, this hardly seems serious. much of the entry establishes that hampton was killed in a premeditated police raid during which time he was asleep, having been drugged by the very organization that deputized the chicago police to conduct the raid after investigating him for years. this is the core of what the term extrajudicial killing was formulated to describe, the killing of supposed political enemies without trial. perhaps you are not american and do not know--and none of this is really even necessary to establish the point--but the fbi during this period called the bpp "public enemy no. 1." no one today disputes any of this.)

• mention of chicago tribune in the lede (via passing quotation, difficult to dismiss as inconsequential to the article's subject or next of kin)

i think that the very short, passing mention of a quote from the chicago tribune in the lede is a (very small) substantive addition in terms of value to the article.

first, the addition is very small and passing--it does not overload or blow up the lede in terms of word count, or distract in terms of readability.

second, for an article so concerned with the killing of its subject, it adds (passing) mention of a very relevant actor to the article right at the outset. the chicago tribune was at the time a hugely influential chicago daily. the chicago tribune played an accordingly huge role in two distinct respects related to the events discussed by the article. the first is its november 15, 1969 unsigned (staff) editorial recommendations urging an offensive police stance in dealings with panthers. this policy culminated in the death of the article's subject. the second is that as an opinion leader in the chicago area it is difficult to overstate the effect that it's counterfactual reporting of the events surrounding hampton's death had in both (i) an immediate sense, on the jury's view of the relevant events at the january 6 inquest (let me say in passing the importance of noting that this inquest was a _jury_ inquest in this connection) and (ii) a long-term sense, of lasting character of the judgment reached on his next of kin, whose recourse ended up being an ultimately _thirteen year_ legal battle. to anyone with any familiarity with courts, public opinion in well-publicized cases can have an _enormous_ impact in court proceedings. the chicago tribune has real blood on it's hands here, and irrespective of one's own view of the concerned events there is no reason to minimize or edit out its role in all of this.

third, remember that in the case of hampton and his murder we're really talking about a historical event. efforts at minimizing or eliminating carefully cited primary sources that help to really convey the atmosphere at the time of his killing not only unduly editorialize, they really detract from the richness and historical character that articles like this one really need for the sake of not only readability and relevance, but accuracy.

fourth, the language used is very carefully selected: not either to overstate the tribune's role or to attribute blame. the tribune's characterization of the event is quoted directly (passingly) and sourced. there are no weasel words. consecution is not confused with causation. in other words, space is left for a thoughtful reader (or, hopefully, WP contributor!--who might further develop this or related articles) to form her own judgment about or variously consider the facts presented. facts are presented simply as facts. add other facts if you would like, but our articles are in need of facts. don't simply edit them out, particularly when they speak to a broad, historical understanding with which an article is concerned, such as here. Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"Killed" vs. "Assassinated"

@Jayymach15: Your attempts to change "killed" to "assassinated" has been reverted by multiple editors. Please discuss here before changing this from a stable version. -Location (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to discuss your edits here. First of all, lawsuits are settled for various reasons. The ruling of justifiable homicide was not "overturned" by the settlement. Secondly, the settlement wasn't "on behalf of Fred Hampton". As the article states, there were nine plantiffs including the mothers of Hampton and Clark. All this is backed-up by reliable sources and what you are adding is not. -Location (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

Whether Hampton and Clark were "assassinated" or "killed" is a POV issue, which means proper sourcing and attribution for various statements needs to be used. There is much to be addressed in this article, so I may open an Rfc to solicit feedback. I am posting a similar tag in Mark Clark (activist). -Location (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

See Fred Hampton and Mark Clark: "killed" or "assassinated" on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -Location (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor Details

I would like to discuss the following changes. Should we mention Mark Clark in the opening paragraph at all? It doesn't seem relevant regarding the opening statement on Fred Hampton. In addition, I liked the part where it mentions that Fred Hampton was SPECIFICALLY killed during his sleep. How is this not the definition of an assassination, he was eliminated while he was sleeping for political reasons. Secondly, I would like to propose that the paragraph does not suggest that the initial court ruling was a justified homicide. BECAUSE, even though it was at first ruled that way in court, it was later ruled out and challenged in a later civil lawsuit that was filed, in which the family received a settlement, as it was already stated in the original paragraph people were working on. I think the main focus should be on the later, and not the former, because in no way do I personally think that it was justified to kill someone in their sleep. No way is that even legally or morally acceptable. I would invite everyone to read the following article that another user brought to my attention.

http://hiphopdx.com/news/id.17855/title.fred-hampton-jr-responds-to-jay-zs-verse-on-murder-to-excellence# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding321 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The rulings of the inquest and settlement pertain to Clark as much as they do to Hampton, so he should be mentioned prior to discussing them. The idea that Hampton "was eliminated while he was sleeping for political reasons" is an opinion that should be mentioned, but it is an opinion nonetheless and therefore requires proper attribution. (This article reflects another point of view.) Mentioning the ruling of the inquest without mentioning the settlement would skew the article toward one POV. Similarly, mentioning the settlement without mentioning the ruling of the inquest would skew the article towards a different POV. Both are important and need to be mentioned.

As far as mentioning whether Hampton was killed in his sleep, that appears to be an issue of WP:WEIGHT that might also skew the article towards one POV. Would you like me to open an WP:RFC on it? -Location (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the article that you posted in the link, it seems incredibally biased. There are no sources, or references, no author information that can be factually verified. And it's taken from a blog that doesn't even have author information on it. Spalding321 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Assassination Proposal

I would like to offer my best opinion, in regards to the debates that people were having in earlier discussions. That Fred Hampton was assassinated according to the definition and meaning. I looked up the following definitions that would be helpful to reference. The instance in which Hampton died, fulfills a majority of the criteria for the definition of assassination which can be provided below. Please put your own input, but I feel that this is the most historical, and accurate description of this event.

"Assassination is the murder of a prominent person when executed by a third party or assassin, often a political leader or ruler, usually for political reasons or payment.[1]

An assassination may be prompted by religious, political, or military motives; it is an act that may be done for financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from a desire to acquire fame or notoriety, or because of a military, security or insurgent group's command to carry out the homicide." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination

assassinated; assassinating transitive verb 1

"to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons a plot to assassinate the governor

2

to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously assassinate a man's character"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assassinate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding321 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

One view of the shooting is that Hampton was intentionally killed for political reasons. Another view is that he was killed during a poorly conducted raid for weapons. The article needs to mention both. -Location (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)