Talk:Fred Hampton/Archive 1

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)

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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.196.110 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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 23:53, 14 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.214.23 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.106.19 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 March 2006 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herkimer67 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.254.190 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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'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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.106.231 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Hampton Day
Is every Dec. 4 considered "Fred Hampton Day", or just 12/4/04? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No day is considered Fred Hampton Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.218.181.192 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider every day to be Fred Hampton Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R0m23 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.106.231 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.46.165 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.28.212 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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.
 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.11.174 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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" 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 ./zro</b></tt> (⠠⠵) 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. <tt style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 5px;background:#fff;"><b style="color:#911;background:#fff;"><i style="color:#000;">./</i>zro</b></tt> (⠠⠵) 11:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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" . 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! <tt style="border:1px solid #eee;padding:0 5px;background:#fff;"><b style="color:#911;background:#fff;"><i style="color:#000;">./</i>zro</b></tt> (⠠⠵) 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)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:33, 29 April 2016 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougRWms (talk • contribs) 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.

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

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.

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:
 * substitution of "recruit" for "brought in"
 * (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.

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).
 * substitution of "...opportunities available..." for "...ambitions..."

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).
 * mention of "No Quarter for Wild Beasts" is an unsigned editorial

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.
 * "No Quarter for Wild Beasts" quoted directly

"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.)
 * 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

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

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)

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)


 * And others would state that the son of Fred Hampton is an incredibly biased source, too. Regardless, I wasn't offering a blog post as a source for the article, but rather to show that others hold a POV that is different. -Location (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Secondly, thanks for the offer but "killed in his sleep" isn't a point of view. It actually happened, this kind of stuff needs to be researched. If I say that Al Qaeda members crash their plane into the twin towers, would that be too suggestive and too much of a point of view? Please, I'm trying to be as cordial as possible. It sounds like people on Wikipedia are trying to push their on agendas. Thank you  Spalding321 (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I could easily dismiss those comments by asserting that it is you who are pushing your agenda, so let's just assume good faith with each other and work this out. As you know, there are many people who have written about the incident and feel as you do that Hampton was assassinated or murdered, but even their "facts" contradict yours. Some of these people refer to Deborah Johnson as his wife, some of them refer to her as his common law wife, some of them refer to her as his partner, and some of them refer to her as his girlfriend... but here you are insisting on "wife". And regardless of what their relationship was, Johnson was pregnant with Fred Hampton Jr when Hampton was killed... but here you are insisting that Hampton was laying with Johnson AND his son. Finally, there are some who say he was sleeping, some who say he was drugged, some who say he was unresponsive, and some who say he was unconscious... but here you are insisting that Hampton was sleeping when he was killed. Yes, this kind of stuff needs to be researched, but we don't stop with material that seems to best fit our own bias, point of view, or understanding of an event. -Location (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Rather than starting multiple threads asserting the same thing, please address the issues noted above. Also, please sign your posts with " ~ ". Thanks. -Location (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Location, To respond to your comments, Fred Hampton being killed in his sleep is not an opinion. It actually took place. It was released in a report on the findings of the grand jury that I posted in the youtube documentary. Secondly, the vocabulary all points to the same thing. That he was unresponsive, sleeping, drugged. It was mentioned several times, both in the article and other users, that he was secretly drugged the night before the raid. The whole point was for him to be too drugged up while he was asleep to even wake up for when the raid began. All of this can be watched in the documentary. Spalding321 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321


 * Youtube is not an RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that discuss this topic in a neutral manner (i.e. differentiate between what are facts and what are the claims of police, FBI, BPP, etc.). -Location (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first point: I have already placed the link to the May 15, 1970 grand jury report into the article, but I will place it here for your convenience. Please read through it because I have and I do not see anywhere in it that the grand jury stated that Hampton was killed in his sleep. The grand jury did report a couple allegations related to that. On page 77, the grand jury paraphrased the findings of The People's Inquest sponsored by the Black Panther Party:
 * Deborah Johnson was asleep in the back (south) bedroom when someone came in and started shaking Hampton saying "Chairman, wake up, pigs are here." She looked up and could see that shots were being fired from the back and from the front. She saw a lot of police come in and start shooting at the door. Hampton looked up and then laid his head back down. She did not know if he had been shot then or not; he didn't move. The shooting continued."
 * If we take Johnson's story as accurate, did he look up before he was shot or after he was shot? And how do you know? Her account makes it sound like he woke up in response to being shook. Either way, the grand jury stated that it gave little weight to the testimony of the Black Panthers in the Black Panther-sponsored inquest because it was incomplete, not subject cross-examination, and "under no binding testimonial oath".
 * Within the grand jury report, the other reference to Hampton sleeping is what they noted on page 15 regarding Bobby Rush's claim to Chicago Today the day of the shooting:
 * "'Hampton was murdered in bed while he slept. Since he was a light sleeper, some pig [policeman] must have come in the back door and murdered him with a silencer."
 * Of course this was speculation, and it contradicts various other allegations made by the Black Panthers and their attorneys.
 * Regarding your second point: sleeping is different than being drugged, particularly since Johnson has claimed that Hampton moved his head after the attempt to wake him. So which is it? -Location (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Fred Hampton Was ASSASSINATED!
The ignorance on this page never ceases to amaze me. It is obvious that those on here are attempting to push their own agendas and masquerade their own views as being "neutral" according to the guidelines. You can't debate documented events that happened. Google it and do research on Fred Hampton. For those claiming he was a terrorist and a dangerous threat, you either missed the part in history class when it was normal for police officers to water-hose, put the attack dogs, and harass African Americans in the streets, or the part where the notable Rosa Parks was arrested because she didn't want to sit in the back of the bus because a white man told her to give up her seat. Stop acting like all this can be dismissed, it was once a part of our culture and what happened in the United States. And I bet those who are disagreeing and keep on revising the original edits have their own subconscious biases too. Go look at Dr. MLK's, John F. Kennedy, or Malcolm X's wikipedia page right now, they all say clearly that it was an assassination for all of them. Those on here trying to change the legitimacy of the "assassination" label on Fred Hampton's page know nothing about what actually happened and want to purposely make him look like he was in the wrong which is not true. He was a leader, and believe it or not he was working with white folks too with "white mother country radicals" as he said, during his prominence in the Black Panther Party which can be seen in the documentary. This isn't false all of this is verified, google it or scroll down to watch the video and see that all of it is true. You need to look at the pictures and the official federal investigation and crime scene autopsy documenting Hampton's death (Can be found on YouTube, "Fred Hampton Documentary", it's not a point of view. It's what really occurred.

You need to WATCH the documentary posted and consider the other aspects which may challenge your views. Do not obtain information from biased sources. Below is an original film of the meetings where mainly blacks attended and some whites can be seen at the meetings too. Towards the end is the official autopsy of the assassination event. Although it is important to note that there are conflicting perspectives and some of the witnesses and police officers lied about the events of the raid. The EXACT explanation can be seen at the 1:18:30 mark. And finally at the 1:25:00 mark, the reporter reading from the federal grand jury's examination document clearly says, that the officers claimed that they had entered a gun battle with the Panthers. The police's claims were found to be falsified due to the physical evidence that is determined to be insufficient with the police narratives. and can be watched in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VDeeIomV1U

"Automatic gunfire then converged at the head of the south bedroom where Hampton slept, unable to awaken as a result of the barbiturates the FBI infiltrator had slipped into his drink. He was lying on a mattress in the bedroom with his fiancée, who was nine months pregnant with their child.[25] Two officers found him wounded in the shoulder, and fellow Black Panther Harold Bell reported that he heard the following exchange:

"That's Fred Hampton." "Is he dead?... Bring him out." "He's barely alive. "He'll make it." Two shots were heard, which were later discovered were fired point blank in Hampton's head. According to Johnson, one officer then said:

"He's good and dead now."[10][28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding321 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Spalding321 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321

"Location" User wants "neutrality", but is Manipulating the 1st Paragraph
The edits I have submitted are verifiable and do not need to be changed. Hampton was asleep when he was shot to death, and he was next to his pregnant spouse. "Location" removed the pregnant spouse part claiming that it was inaccurate; it doesn't matter who it was, "Deborah Johnson" some people say, what matters is that he was sleeping next to his pregnant spouse when he was shot in the head. Secondly, this doesn't need consensus, it's already been proven that he was asleep, not only in verifiable research that can be looked up, but in the larger body of the entire Wikipedia article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalding321 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is my edit. The edit summary states: "Please engage on the talk page. Johnson was not his spouse and there is no consensus that he was sleeping." I am not disputing that she was pregnant. In fact, I am the one who pointed out to you above that she was pregnant after you claimed Hampton and Johnson were lying with their son! I am disputing that we can say as fact that Johnson was Hampton's spouse because many sources say "girlfriend". Please address your "proof" that Hampton was sleeping in the previous thread. -Location (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Location I have all the proof you need. And yes I admit it is my mistake, but I made the correction now, but you're the one who keeps changing it to fit your own agenda. And you just don't like the fact that you are in the wrong here. Go down and read the next thread that I created, which clearly explains that Fred Hampton was asleep, and ASSASSINATED. Please, WATCH the link that I posted in the newest thread. You cannot debate the actual report that occurred from that historic time period which was released in the documentary. You need to click on it and go to the exact time stamps I provided for the video. It explains everything and shows that Fred Hampton was clearly assassinated.Spalding321 (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321


 * Why do you continue to insist that biased sources represent the true account of "what really happened"? The documentary you are citing is The Murder of Fred Hampton. Given that it was released in May 1971 well before it was known that William O'Neal was an FBI information, it is not even the Black Panthers' authoritative account. Furthermore, the man at the end (who might be BPP attorney Haas) is simply quoting cherry-picked material from the federal grand jury report. For example, he quotes a passage on page 213 on this version of the report(i.e. "The great variance between the physical evidence and the testimony of the officers raises the question as to whether the officers are falsifying their accounts.") but neglects to mention the next sentence (i.e. "However, as noted above, the physical facts do corroborate many details of their testimony.") or the grand jury's conclusion on page 220: "The question here is whether the facts establish probable cause to believe that the officers involved intentionally committed acts which deprived the occupants of federally protected rights, contrary to law. The Grand Jury is unable to reach that conclusion. The physical evidence and the discrepancies in the officers' accounts are insufficient to establish probably cause to charge the officers with a willful violation of the occupants' civil rights." I know you are new to Wikipedia, but it would benefit all of us to have you read WP:NPOV, especially WP:YESPOV, and WP:RS. -Location (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressing Various Points and NPOV
@Location: It has been brought up that it is necessary to adhere to NPOV and to give points to all perspectives. But I would like to challenge what neutral point o view is. Can there really be a neutral point of view in this case. I know that there is this controversy of whether or not Fred Hampton was assassinated. First, I don't think there really is a need for confusion, there is clear evidence that we know for a verifiable fact that 1) Fred Hampton was asleep, unconscious, drugged with barbiturates the night before etc. when he was shot to death 2) That despite the police officers claims of a wild gun battle, federal investigations would later reveal that none of that actually happened, and the police fired a total of 82-99 shots, while the Panthers, (Mark Clark) had only fired one shot on accident, right before he was shot in the heart when he grabbed his gun in defense. All of this can be researched, validated, looked up. As it has also been mentioned throughout the wiki article. 3) Research also shows that it wasn't a poorly conducted raid, that the FBI had conspired this long before, and have even drew detailed layouts of the apartment.

I stand my ground that Fred Hampton was assassinated. I'd like to finally assert that truth, evidence, and verifiable documentation should overrule the controversies of the NPOV. He was killed in his SLEEP, drugged up the night before with sedatives/barbiturates... etc. That mere fact in itself should be grounds for assassination. Other people were also speculating, why didn't they try and arrest him like other Black Panthers? Similarly, the opening paragraph suggests that the deaths were "justifiable homicides" (the initial court hearing ruled this) But in order to maintain NPOV, I'd like to put more emphasis on the later, that a civil lawsuit was later put into effect and the families received millions of dollars of compensation, which in my opinion, suggests that the deaths were not justifiable, that in fact, Fred Hampton was assassinated as a civil rights hero and activist. I would like to invite everyone to please look at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. page, Malcolm X. John F. Kennedy, all civil rights heroes and/or leaders in American history they all have assassination as the cause of death. Fred Hampton deserves that label in my opinion. If anyone else would like to express their viewpoints, please do so, so I can talk in a professional and constructive manner to assess these conflicts of interests. Here is an article which provides further reading for Fred Hampton's death. https://zinnedproject.org/materials/the-assassination-of-fred-hampton/

Spalding321 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321


 * The "clear evidence" you claim to possess comes from what you have read in the echo chamber of sources sympathetic to the Black Panthers. For example, you've linked to a book by Jeffrey Haas who was the attorney for the other Black Panthers and their families. In fact, the position of Hampton's body when he was shot and the full trajectory of the bullets that struck his head do not support the contention that he was asleep or unconscious. And I know that you and others believe that the settlement was an admission by the authorities that they assassinated Hampton, but that's just not the case. The article reflects the two points of view neutrally:
 * G. Flint Taylor, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said: "The settlement is an admission of the conspiracy that existed between the F.B.I. and Hanrahan's men to murder Fred Hampton." An Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Gruenberg, stated that the settlement was intended to avoid another costly trial and was not an admission of guilt or responsibility. 
 * -Location (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright please tell me where you are finding this other information. You claim, "In fact, the position of Hampton's body when he was shot and the full trajectory of the bullets that struck his head do not support the contention that he was asleep or unconscious." Well for one, we are going off the notion that Fred Hampton was shot twice in the head, and that testimonial accounts from Deborah Johnson, his partner next to him in bed I believe, said that he survived the first bullet shot, and then was dragged out in the hallway to be shot again in the head. This is in accordance to the photo of him when he was laying in a pool of blood. Secondly, the video that I linked of the documentary, it already said he was asleep after investigating, stop trying to argue against something that is already proven to be true. And what you said "the full trajectory of the bullets doesn't support if he was asleep or unconscious". What you said doesn't make any sense, when a person dies by being shot with a gun, they will die and be struck by the bullet whether they are sleeping or not. And you just proved to me that it is grounds for assassination. When you stated "The settlement is an admission of the conspiracy that existed between the F.B.I. and Hanrahan's men to murder Fred Hampton."[1] You then go on to say "An Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Gruenberg, stated that the settlement was intended to avoid another costly trial and was not an admission of guilt or responsibility.[1] That is exactly my point, of course they don't want to admit it was premeditated murder, they could care less about Fred Hampton, that's why they had assassinated him Spalding321 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321
 * According to the grand jury report, at least two officers saw Hampton's body on the bed before it was dragged (and they said he had a handgun and shotgun next to him). They indicated that he was laying face down facing the doorway (i.e. west). If you don't believe the officers, the photos of the south bedroom show the blood stain on the west side of the bed. According to the grand jury report, 42 bullets fired from the living room entered the north bedroom and 18 of those bullets entered the south bedroom. If you don't believe the grand jury report, the photos of the south bedroom show the bullet holes above the bed. According to the grand jury report, at least one of those bullets - a .30 caliber bullet from Davis' carbine - was found in Hampton's head; the other apparently passed through. That is consistent with the findings of the autopsy that indicated the bullets traveled through his head from right to left (i.e. north to south if he is laying face down facing the doorway). And...that autopsy was conducted in the presence of attorneys and physicians representing Hampton's family. The position of his body and the path of the bullets traveling through his head is not consistent with Deborah Johnson's account stating that he was laying on his back with his arms folded when he attempted to raise his head. Given that no bullet holes were found in the hallway floor where Hampton's body was dragged, the evidence does not support the claim that he was executed there. Given that a .30 caliber rifle bullet was found in his head, the evidence does not support the claim that he was executed point blank with a rifle (those bullets would have passed through his head into the floor) or that he was executed point blank with a .38 caliber handgun (a .30 caliber carbine bullet was found in his head). It is consistent with the idea that he was laying on his stomach in a defensive position facing the door (with weapons) when shots from the living room passed through two walls and killed him. Never mind the flip-flopping story of he was shot in bed vs. he was shot in the hallway, Johnson, Haas, et al. have a clear bias to present one side of the story. -Location (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I forgot... one side says the settlement is an admission of guilt, the other side says it isn't. The article reflects both POVs in accordance with NPOV. -Location (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

But @Location: That does not make any sense. I need to research this "grand jury report" and who even composed it. First off, Where are you getting this information?? I asked for the sources, but it's evident there's these conflicting viewpoints.. It's been stated numerous times, that there was a federal investigation that explained the occurrence, that there was in fact 82-99 shots fired by the police department, and only one shot fired from a panther in defense. And once again, the perspective also needs to be taken that the police officers were fabricating the account and falsifying the testimony of what actually happened (as explained in the documentary). More research is needed, and even I admit I'll have to find the sources. But secondly, you say "It is consistent with the idea that he was laying on his stomach in a defensive position facing the door (with weapons) when shots from the living room passed through two walls and killed him". Actually no I don't agree that it's consistent, it also needs to be taken into account that he was drugged with barbiturates so that he couldn't wake up. Also, evidence later revealed that the FBI had planned and mapped all of the apartment layout detailed. They had so much time to prepare, they even somehow obtained blueprints of the apartment, and probably got the blueprints by looking it up in a real estate database or something To my knowledge, there were more than 10 police officers that went in there. They would've killed everyone so fast and quickly. The officers most likely fabricated the story. That needs to be taken into account also. Spalding321 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321


 * I have linked to the report of the federal grand jury previously, but it can be found HERE and HERE. Yes, the grand jury report indicates that there is a discrepancy between what the physical evidence showed and what the officers thought was happening, but the grand jury did not indicate that they believed the officers were falsifying their stories. The grand jury attempted to explain the discrepancy: "The most plausible explanation, but one rejected by the officers, is that in the darkness and excitement they mistakenly attributed to the occupants the fire of the officers. A careful analysis of the testimony shows the way mistakes could be made and is even more credible if one considers the natural fear, confusion and tension that each must have felt." (The grand jury rejected a suggestion that Black Panthers and others who visited the scene after the police left may have taken evidence.) Keep this in mind, too: All of the officers testified before the grand jury, so it is easy to take issue with any discrepancies between that testimony and the physical evidence. All of the Black Panthers refused to testify, so the grand jury did not have the same opportunity to evaluate how their stories lined up with the physical evidence. Even after the indictments were dismissed, the Black Panthers refused to testify to the grand jury.
 * HERE is a news article that predates the release of the grand jury report that briefly mentions a) the coroner's jury finding that Hampton was killed by bullets fired two rooms away and b) how bullets would have had to come from an entirely different direction if Hampton was sleeping on his back. (HERE is the layout of the apartment.) As discussed in the grand jury report, the discrepancy regarding the drug testing was eventually addressed by a third test. -Location (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

But there was still evidence of barbiturates in the blood stream that was conducted in two previous tests before. So why would there need to be a third test done if it was already done before. And it was with someone else, so it could've been fabricated and covered up once again. And also, you keep bringing up this different story. But a report was already released that a federal investigation that occurred shortly after says that the police fired 82-99 shots, and the panthers only 1 (I need to find the sources, but this has been mentioned so many times). But here's the thing. There's all this looking at the case over and over again back and forth. We know one thing for sure, Fred Hampton was killed, early in the morning, most likely in his sleep (as it was mentioned in the documentary). The police raided his apartment early in the morning, what were they going to do? I know for damn sure they wanted to kill him, that was the whole point, that's why they initially ruled his death as a justifiable homicide. They couldn't give a crap. You keep saying that Fred Hampton was killed in a gun fight, which we know evidence shows that it didn't happen, at least in my opinion. Regardless, the police went in there and fired shots in the early morning, and now he's dead, you can never bring back a life. They didn't have the permission or the credentials to do that in the first place. They could've tried to arrest them like the other panthers, but they instead fired a burst of bullets, with the goal and the clear intent to kill Spalding321 (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Spalding321


 * In one breath you assert that you know the facts of the case (i.e. "there was still evidence of barbiturates in the blood stream that was conducted in two previous tests before") and in the next you show that you don't (i.e. "why would there need to be a third test done if it was already done before"). The initial analysis by the coroner's office showed no seconal was present, but the "independent" analysis (i.e. the one commissioned by the Black Panthers' attorneys) said it was present. The grand jury ordered a third analysis which did not find seconal. Of course you are welcome to say that those findings or others were falsified, but then don't be surprised when someone asks for proof.
 * "The police raided his apartment early in the morning, what were they going to do? I know for damn sure they wanted to kill him, that was the whole point, that's why they initially ruled his death as a justifiable homicide." It was the coroner's jury that returned the finding of "justifiable homicide"... not the police.
 * "You keep saying that Fred Hampton was killed in a gun fight..." No, I said he was killed during the raid, and I previously provided information as to why the grand jury thought there was a discrepancy between the officers' testimony and the physical evidence.
 * You can assert that Hampton was "asleep" - The Murder of Fred Hampton documentary is not a neutral source - and you can assert that the police had "clear intent to kill" - you are welcome to your opinion - but now we're just going around in circles. Do you have a specific change to the article that you would like to see made? I am happy to post an Rfc to get the opinions of others. -

Location (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC) guys

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.134 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats how the FBI viewed such groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

--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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.100.171 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Using the word "nationalist" to describe Hampton or the Black Panthers implies that he or they may have viewed themselves as superior to others and to have sought independence, or even segregation, from the larger nation. "Nationalist", in this context, is prejudicial. It is also inaccurate, since what Hampton and the Black Panthers sought was not separation or to be able to exert their will over others. They sought simple justice. Being prejudicial, the term "ethnic nationalists", as used by the FBI then, can only be viewed as having the same purpose as their use of the term "black identity extremist" today: To propagandize and to foment fear. The use of that term should be avoided here. However, the quest for justice is, strangely, often viewed as revolutionary. America's Founders thought of themselves as revolutionaries in their efforts to reform their society, and Hampton thought of himself similarly. I suggest that those who want to put Hampton in a pigeonhole use the term "revolutionary" to describe him, since even he admits to being that, and it is justified. When viewed historically, justice is, after all, a revolutionary idea. EveningStarNM 15:04, 04 December 2017 (UTC)

Censoring mention of Hampton's assassination
I notice that a particular user has been repeatedly removing mention of Hampton's murder/assassination and other materials reflecting negatively on the FBI.  Remember that Wikipedia is not censored, whatever the US government might prefer. 2601:644:1:B7CB:F869:7A82:13FA:B7E5 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are serious issues with the reliability of the sources being cited for those changes, as has been discussed previously. Swearingen in particular is not considered a reliable source of information for statements of fact. Work out consensus here before re-adding, and refrain from personal attacks and casting aspersions on other editors per WP:AGF. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources Being Used for Raid
The description of the incident is taken from very questionable sources. Several of these sources make claims that are not validated by the material they claim to be quoting. According to the official inquest ( https://www.nytimes.com/1970/02/06/archives/new-autopsy-on-slain-panther-sought-by-justice-department.html ), "Dr. James T. Hicks, the fore man of the coroner's jury, said the inquest had unanimously found that Mr. Hampton died of police bullets that were fired from another room through the thin plaster wall of his bed room." Thus, it is inappropriate to suggest that it was "later found" that the shots had been fired at point blank range; indeed, this was not found at all in the official autopsy or inquest.

Worse, Dr. Levine's autopsy did not show that the shots had been fired at point blank range, merely from the same direction and angle.

It's extremely questionable to present their version as fact, when the official inquest and autopsy directly contradicted their claims.

Moreover, the particular narrative given here came from the Black Panthers exclusively, but they resisted testifying in court under oath.

This whole section need to be fixed, as it is presently giving undue weight to a particular narrative. This is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Murder terminology
Should the lead of the article report in Wikivoice that Fred Hampton was murdered? GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Support new text
Also note that even this mainstream news show uses the language of "murder", and so does this ardently pro-government history.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes We have gone round and round on this for years, largely because some persistent apologists for the government have attempted to muddy the waters with 20 year old articles and conflict of interest sources. The simple fact is that multiple recent academic sources refer to Hampton being murdered and/or assassinated.  GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:AGF and WP:NPA and refrain from casting aspersions on the motivations of other editors. Personal attacks like accusing others of being "persistent apologists for the government" is unacceptable. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes Add Matthew Cressler's "Authentically Black And Truly Catholic" (2017, page 196) to the laundry list of modern sources positing that he was assassinated. natemup (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes There is a growing list of academic works concluding his death was an assassination.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but Wikipedia should report that there is controversy surrounding his death with official reports of homicide and many more modern sources claiming murder.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * No Murder is a legal term, and an official inquest ruled his death justifiable homicide. This means that to state in Wikipedia's voice that he was murdered is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and would require multiple, high quality RS. Only one of those three sources, the Jakobi Williams one, uses the term murder, making it suitable for an attributed statement by him, but not suitable for Wikipedia's voice. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No I think the lede as of 10/4/19 (Special:Diff/919614396) is properly written, as regards his death. The text: "killed during a raid" is indisputably accurate. The text: "Scholars now consider his death to be an assassination" appears to me to be a reasonable summation of opinions in reliable sources. Given the controversy, and without a juridical finding of "murder", Wikipedia should not, in its own voice, use that word. Rather, the article should continue to provide in-text attribution for the description of his death. DonFB (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No I agree with both AmbivalentUnequivocality and DonFB. "Murder" is indeed a legal term ,and both it and "assassinated" are heavily weighted terms that we should not use in Wikipedia's voice. The article discusses the controversy over the use of the terms adequately. Labeling everyone who opposes this FRC as "apologists for the government" is not appropriate. I suggest that the opener of the RFC strike that..Meters (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No per WP:WikiVoice, Wikipedia should describe the conflict, not take sides. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No Agreeing with DonFB and AmbivalentUnequivocality's arguments. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as presented. WP is not a court of law, so cannot in any way declare someone murdered -- a legal term -- unless the courts of law do so, period.  Sources that declare it a murder are also not courts of law, so cannot in any way legally declare it as such, only suggest that maybe it should have been ruled as murder.  That several sources do this could perhaps be worked into the lede (with care to emphasize the non-legal status of the sources), but that's not what's presented in this RFC.  If a new RFC that proposed balanced statements per WP:DUE, I could change my !vote.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  23:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No Agree with those above. A segment on the controversy would be appropriate.  Cynistrategus (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

!Votes not falling cleanly under the definition of "support" or "oppose"

 * Do mention the existence of that perspective, but do not state it directly in an un-qualified fashion in Wikipedia's voice. My perspective mostly aligns with Tony's immediately above: we shouldn't be using the word "murder" within the very first lead sentence, but insofar as there are numerous high-quality sources (ranging from respected scholars, to journalists, to mainstream authors) which speculate that the death was a targeted assassination, and this view has been a part of the discussion since the date of the raid, it must be a prominent part of the narrative in the lead--there's no question that WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT demand it here. That said, to use word "murder" should not be used in the project's voice, or at least certainly not right out of the gate, as this swings too heavily in the opposite direction and by implying a conclusion which is just not supported by weight of the sources collectively: there as at least some question as to the motivations of the authorities and how targeted the slaying was, and thus NPOV equally requires we not state that it is, as a matter of objective fact, an intentional killing.


 * On a side note for whoever formatted this discussion, in the future, its best not to sequester !votes into "Support" or "Oppose" sections. We are not counting votes here, so knowing how many of each variety there is has very little benefit to a consensus discussion (and to the extent it does have some influence, its little enough trouble for the closer to count them up), while the division creates a kind of false choice that pushes out reasonable middle-ground alternatives, positions that straddle the divide between support and opposition, and other more nuanced views. All of which can lead to more entrenched discussion, a loss of nuance in discussion, and less likelyhood of the two "sides" coming together. I almost !voted "No" on this one, because if I was pressed to pick which of the two options closer fits my perspective as a strict semantic matter, I'd have to lean in that direction. But I decided that such an !vote would risk burying the very salient point that the discussion of the possibility of an assassination needs to be mainained prominently in the lead, regardless of the specific copular verb we use to describe his death in the first instance; and the former is at least as important as the latter. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 22:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Follow RSes While my personal opinion is that Hampton was murdered in cold blood, what matters is that we report what RSes say. I suspect RSes are divided on whether Hampton being shot in his bed by law enforcement agents constitutes murder; after all, some RSes are godawful. However per WP:RGW we demure to choose sides in circumstances like this. Describe how his death is depicted in reliable sources, giving due weight to more recent academic accounts over either non-academic sources or older sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

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)


 * Churchill's co-author is Jim Vander Wall.
 * The relevant pages in Agents of Repression are 69-70.
 * 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.
 * 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)

Photo
I restored the black & white photo as the lead image. It is much better quality than the color photo that recently replaced it, and better illustrates Hampton as an activist. Also, the color photo should not have been uploaded as a replacement for the b&w. Rather, it should be uploaded as a separate image, with a different file name. DonFB (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

assassinated
Isn't "murdered" a better word choice than "killed"? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 13:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Murder" is not another generic word for "kill". Murder has a specific meaning in the law. In the case of Hampton, no one was ever put on trial or convicted of murder in his killing. This article can use the word -murder- only when attributing the word to a specific reliable source which makes an argument or claim that Hampton was murdered. Wikipedia's voice cannot be used to say he was murdered, because no court ever rendered such verdict. DonFB (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * DonFB is generally correct, but overstates the rule. Wikipedia will use "murder" when it's demonstrated by reliable sources, regardless of any court case (and sometimes, in spite of a court case finding not guilty). This is a forum representing scholarship, not legal decisions (which are necessarily limited forums of problem solving, not truth finding). There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that call things murder where (1) no one has been found guilty, (2) the perpetrators identified in the article were actually found not guilty, and (3) come before or in situations were no "court" is going to try the case (e.g. antiquity). The perfect example of this is Emmett Till.


 * Thus, the word "murdered" is appropriate as long as the sources say so. Though, even from reading this article, "assassinated" is listed at the end of the intro section to represent the viewpoint of many scholars. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Very good point about Emmett Till and similar events by extension. Sources universally describe his killing as murder; thus, so can Wikipedia, without needing attribution for any single mention. It's the equivalent of "Paris is the capital of France." The same situation does not obtain, however, in the Hampton case. Whether the Balance of sources use the word is a question. In the absence of overwhelming consensus (or any consensus at all) among Hampton sources for - murder -, Wikipedia should use caution and clearly attribute the word to sources that do use it and refrain from using the word in its own voice. I note that use of "assassinate" in Wikivoice in this article has been subject to multiple deletions and restorations. I've been keeping my distance from that tug of war, but, to state my preference, the article should use that word as it should for - murder - --only with attribution. DonFB (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"Serious issues" redux
This article has a host of major problems—most of which are violations of WP:NPOV. Much of that is the result of reliance on one-sided sources, as well as selective citation from sources. The most glaring issues are surrounding Hampton's death: Right now, this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and not even close to being a neutral, encyclopedic article on the subject. These concerns were brought up 15 years ago—perhaps the recent attention from the television movie can bring some long-needed WP:NPOV? Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The account of the raid and Hampton's death is entirely one-sided and uncorroborated by any eyewitness, official report, or court. The section needs to completely reworked to even approach WP:NPOV.
 * 2) There is no evidence that Fred Hampton was "assassinated". None of the policemen present were convicted of any crime, let alone murder—indeed, the official judgment was that his death was justifiable homicide—making claims police "assassinated" him a very serious violation of WP:BLP which demands immediate removal. While "many scholars" may be of the opinion he was "assassinated", that does not make it a fact to be stated in Wikivoice.
 * 3) Only Hampton's fiancee has ever claimed to have overheard police plotting then shooting him in the head—yet this sole claim is cited as if it comes from multiple sources.
 * 4) There is no conclusive evidence Hampton was "drugged"—indeed, two independent, official toxicologies failed to find anything, and the only one paid for by Hampton's family claimed to have found markers that could have been the result of barbiturates. Yet his being "drugged" is reported as fact in Wikivoice.
 * 5) The FBI was not involved in the raid or Hampton's death, other than by providing information—something that is all-but-completely obscured.
 * 6) Many of the sources are remarkably poor and obviously unsuitable. I have no idea from whence this shambolic summary comes, but it's not at all usable as a source for factual information, and citing it as the "National Archives" is grossly misleading, as there's zero indication that it's the product of any archive.

Agreed, this article needs a serious work-over. Just came in to complain that people finding drugs in his system doesn't mean he was drugged. Of the two articles used as sources for that claim, one reiterates how they don't know if what they are saying is actually correct and one names O'Neal as the direct perpetrator, which this article seems to be assuming is a questionable statement (so why trust that article as a source?).

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021
Change “Deputy Chairman of Illinois Chapter of the Black Panthers” to Chairman of the Illinois Chapter of the Black Panthers” in the summary box. 24.196.40.12 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I'm not sure whether being deputy chairman of the national BPP is what he was better known for as opposed to the Illinois chapter, but at least it's correct now. Volteer1 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Problematic management of this site
Hi,

In May I discussed at some length the case for removing a paragraph, and when no comments were received, I removed it. It did not belong and is highly questionable, In June an anonymous contributor removed my discussion from this talk page (found in the history) and restored the paragraph I removed, without discussion. This seems problematic to me.

Jgrudin (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Drugs on the night of the raid
Setting aside the question of whether Hampton *was* drugged&mdash;I think it's at least exceedingly likely, if not a certainty&mdash;O'Neal, in an interview thirty years after the raid and less than a year before he died, specifically says he did *not* drug Hampton (Eyes on the Prize interview transcript, Question 23). This is reflected in the William O'Neal article, but the current article states it as plain fact:

As I am totally unacquainted with the scholarship surrounding these events, let alone O'Neal's motivations, I don't pretend to be able to discern the truth. I am not flagging this because I think it's wrong. I'm flagging it because, at minimum, the certitude of the current phrasing is inappropriate without having some direct citation that can override O'Neal's later disavowal of the act. Jouster (Talk) 02:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the article
A large part of the involved sources seem to be of a particular type. But what's most striking about the article's sections relating to the person's death is the absolute boldness with which the claims are put forth; The very brief "Controversy" subsection seems to essentially render the more general section self-contradictory, given how plainly the listed controversies are stated elsewhere. There's essentially no attempt to relate the history of these claims given so plainly, it seems, which gives the article the appearance, at least, of the very particular media it cites as its main sources in regards to this. Zusty001 (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Was Fred Hampton's felony conviction dropped, expunged, or pardoned?
Hi all. I added "convicted felon" to the lead of this article the other day, which was not taken kindly. I did so because, well, Hampton was a convicted felon. And there are numerous other biographical articles that include this fact in the lead. The stated reason for my edit being reverted is that Fred Hampton's felony conviction was dropped. I did some searching on Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and DuckDuckGo, and couldn't find a single citation for this. I broadened the search to see if, rather than being "dropped", his conviction was expunged. I also looked into whether or not he was posthumously pardoned. There are no citations I can find for any of these claims. However, if this claim is true, it's relevant information, and it's a shame that it's not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

It's looking an awful lot like this is an example of misinformation. But I'm still looking for a source for the claim, which was presented so boldly and confidently that it must have some basis. Can anyone provide a citation for Hampton's felony conviction being dropped or expunged, or for him receiving a posthumous pardon? Philomathes2357 (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is something odd about the chronology of the conviction. We say:
 * He was convicted in May 1969 and sentenced to two to five years in prison.
 * But we also say
 * In 1969, Hampton, now deputy chairman of the BPP Illinois chapter, conducted a meeting condemning sexism.
 * Over the next year, Hampton and his friends and associates achieved many successes in Chicago.
 * On the evening of December 3, [1969] Hampton taught a political education course at a local church, which was attended by most Panther members.
 * And Hampton was assassinated on 4 December 1969. Did he not serve any time for the conviction?
 * Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)