Talk:Chicago Seven

Untitled

José, nice work! -- Viajero 11:57, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
Added press conference photo to the top of the page.--Leighm95060 02:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Reversals on appeal

I know that the conviction of the bulk of the charges against the Chicago 7 were reversed on appeal, but am having difficulty locating info about what happened to Bobby Seale's case after it was severed from the others.. ONe source has a mistrial declared, but a 4 yr sentence for contempt. Is this true? Was it upheld or reversed on appeal or did he serve time for contempt? Tvoz 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Title of Article

This article should be titled "Chicago Eight" for this reason: Bobby Seale was arrested along with the other seven defendents and sentenced to contempt of court by the same trial judge as the rest of the defendents. His arrest and his sentencing clearly make it the trail of the "Chicago Eight." Not to include Bobby Seale as part of the original group is absurd- and has been called racist by some. Please re-title this article. Librarysleeping (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)librarysleepingLibrarysleeping (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think in keeping with wikipedia article name policy, "Chicago Seven" is a more appropriate name. Though there are 7 or 8 defendants depending on how you count them, they are most widely known as the Chicago seven. In many ways the Chicago seven name comes from a deference to the wishes of Bobby Seale (and not racism against him) who did not want to be tried with these other seven defendants, but wanted to exercise his right to his own trial and his own counsel (which he was denied in the first bench trial). Incidentally, this also has a similarity to the Haymarket seven (an earlier Chicago seven) where there were actually seven or eight defendants depending on how you counted them. 77.195.84.4 (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There was also a play on this

circa 1976. Met Allen Ginsberg at a performance. - Sparky 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are also some movies based on that play. Conspiracy: The Trial of the Chicago 8, Chicago 70 and the newly released Chicago 10. 77.195.84.4 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article

Why would it be named Chicago Seven when there was clearly Eight that got tried in court. CJHugh

There were 8 indicted; 8 at the beginning of the trial; a mistrial was declared for one defendant, so that left 7; all 8 defendants plus their 2 lawyers were given contempt sentences, so that makes 10. Pick your number.Dblobaum (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

'Incident at the Hilton' section

The section titled 'Incident at the Hilton' is pretty much fabricated out of whole cloth. It needs to be completely rewritten. The sourcing is bogus.Dblobaum (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

Why is there no mention of the calls of "Kill the pigs" and use of molotave cocktails by the protestors? This seems awfully one-sided. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources? Can you spell Molotov?Jimintheatl (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have sources, though at the moment they are not handy. As for the not trolling, you're coming dangerously close yourself. Please don't follow me around. Soxwon (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There were no Molotov cocktails thrown during the 1968 DNC or during the trial. No evidence was introduced in the trial about Molotov cocktails actually being used. There was evidence introduced about the use of a stink bomb (Butyric acid) in the lobby of the Hilton Hotel during the DNC. That happened. One of the Chicago 7, John Froines was indicted for "teaching the use of an incendiary device" but he was acquitted on that charge and all other charges. However, you have a point, there were 8 policemen indicted by the same grand jury that indicted the Chicago 8 and there is no discussion here about the trial of those policemen.Dblobaum (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

From a slightly different angle, I would certainly agree that the "Grant Park" and "Incident at the Hilton" sections are severely POV. Lines such as "Just as a young boy successfully lowered the flag, the mounted police broke through the crowd and began to beat the boy in an effort they claimed was merely to subdue him, even though the boy was eventually beaten unconscious by the battalion of horse mounted officers" and "the police proceeded to ruthlessly beat and arrest both demonstrators and by-standers" certainly don't even make an attempt at appearing unbiased. Leuchars (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Grant Park" and "Incident at the Hilton" sections as they stand at the moment are fictional. Literally. They are filled with errors.Dblobaum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Assume like me, Soxwon was there. There were provocations by the protesters which resulted in what was commonly considered to be a police riot. Not sure about molotov cocktails, but seem to recall bags of human feces. I was 14 so may not have best memory of it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, during the August 1968 protests, individuals goaded the police with profanity and insults. Definitely, some objects were thrown at the police. But this article is about the trial. The trial alleged that certain individuals incited a crowd to riot; it did not allege that they provoked the police to riot. That would have made for a fascinating trial, but it didn't happen that way. If you have a citation for trial testimony about bags of feces, please mention it. Or any physical evidence introduced at the trial about same. Definitely, there were press reports of that, but I can't recall it in the trial.Dblobaum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Title of Article

Officially labelling this as 'Chicago 7' is incorrect. It may have been seven who were charged, but the term is defined as the number in the original group of defendants, not by the number that were convicted by a questionable judiciary. Thedaveformula (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Superdelegates

Should a connection be drawn to this incident and the Democratic party's decision to have Superdelegates? Wcichello (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No, unless you have a reputable source that does an analysis of the relationship. Superdelegates came about later (see the origins section of the Superdelegates page), and had nothing to do with the demonstrations organized by the Chicago Eight. What you may be thinking of is Hubert Humphrey's selection by party leaders as the nominee of the 1968 Democratic Convention after not running in any primary, which were won by mainly anti-war candidates. This discrepancy eventually caused the party to accept the primary system as the main route to the presidential nomination. But the party wanted to keep control in some form, and so the superdelegate system came about within the compromises, and was implemented in 1984. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark's testimony

I just watched the Aaron Sorkin movie The Trial of the Chicago 7 and wondered whether Ramsey Clark's participation in the trial was fact or fiction. Having found a source that says it occurred, I'm surprised that there is no mention of Ramsey Clark's testimony which was delivered with the jury not present and Judge Hoffman's refusal to allow Clark to testify before the jury. Here's the source: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/29/archives/chicago-7-judge-bars-ramsey-clark-as-defense-witness-chicago-7.html John Link (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There's another good source to cite here, which contains the verbatim transcript of that exchange and of large parts of the trial. I'll Add it in for additional context. Rdelfin (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References