Talk:Jena Six/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jena Six. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Forked Threads of Discussion

By Section

Talk:Jena_Six/SectionsAndFlow

Talk:Jena_Six/SeeAlso

By Topic

Talk:Jena_Six/Assault

Talk:Jena_Six/Legal

http://www.babcockfirm.com/statutes/aggravatedbattery.html "dangerous weapon" not deadly. Incoretly reported in new media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.41.183 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jena_Six/Media

Talk:Jena_Six/MychalBell

Talk:Jena_Six/Nooses

Talk:Jena_Six/POV

Talk:Jena_Six/Rally

Talk:Jena_Six/RobertBailey

Talk:Jena_Six/WhiteTree

About the forked talk

Should we archive?

I don't know about the rest of you, but this long bulky page is taking longer and longer to load every time I try to look at it. What's the consensus on archiving it? I'd do it myself but the protocol is to ask for input from other editors. Qworty 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is long but loads fairly quickly for me. Rather than archive, which is inappropriate for a current event, you could break up into seperate pages as I have done starting with Talk:Jena_Six/SeeAlso (for a by § breakout). Other categories that suggest themselves are "Legal", "Media", etc. Lycurgus 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I see what you're saying. Qworty 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reduced size about 25% by forking some threads. Stopped per complaint of William Graham (cf. my talk page). Lycurgus 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we just archive in the normal way? The forks are confusing... futurebird 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To whom? But I have stopped. Lycurgus 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Student Response

The Students attempt to address school board section doesn't seem to have any reliable sources (the one that was there i deleted due to unreliability, it was just a timeline somebody compiled primarily by using wikipedia) I cannot remember hearing about it anywhere else. Do you think the section should be deleted? Cryo921 02:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

dunno

I feel like this line is biased: "Much has been made of the fact that all members of the jury were white; however, an all-white jury was impaneled after none of the blacks in LaSalle Parish who were called for jury duty showed up to participate in the trial." It implies only blacks didn't show up for jury duty when, in fact, The Shreveport Times states that only 50 of the 150 called showed up for jury duty. It does not state whether the 100 missing citizens were black or white. There were likely many white people who also did not show up. Shreveport Times Link: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070917/NEWS01/709170320/1060/NEWS01

I agree, in my first reading I was left with the impression that the Black population might have been boycotting participation in the trial. The author's point was likely that Bell had an all white jury because of an all white jury pool and not because the lawyers deliberately rejected prospective jurors who were Black. I'll see what I can do to clarify this point. Rklawton 02:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As an attorney the statement appears quite clear to me without implication however that may be because of my profession, to clarify try something like this: "There are some people who have implied racism in the fact that the jury was an all white jury, however, of those solicited to be on the jury, most of the whites and all of the blacks contacted did not appear for jury duty and thus there was only an all white jury pool from which to chose the jury members".CyberQue 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I originally added that line simply as a counter to the the "all-white" comments peppered throughout the article. "All-white" brings to mind a time when African-Americans were prevented from participating in the judicial system. This is not true of the Jena case and I felt that should be pointed out. Since then, the article has been edited and reflects a more fair-minded perspective.Ogman 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact the article linked as the source does not state or imply that any of the citizens called for jury duty were black, so I am editing language to that effect in the Wikipedia article. Honestshrubber 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope that you are not referencing the Dallas Morning News article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/092007dnmetjenasetup.3645e08.html), as it did state that numerous African-Americans were solicited for the jury pool and did not show up. The statement and reference were intended, not to disparage anyone, but to offer fair and accurate perspective.Ogman 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was not referring to that article, because it wasn't the one cited as a source in that section. In any case, that article is poorly worded--it sounds like 350 black jurors were called, and none showed up, but in fact I believe that there are around 350 black people in the entire town, and of those that there called for jury duty, none showed up. So certainly it is unlikely that the 150-person jury pool included "numerous" black people. In any case, other articles, including one cited in the jury pool section now, support the claim that some black people were called, and that's all the Wikipedia article says now, so I'm glad someone edited that information back in.Honestshrubber 20:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, but rather than "The jury found Bell guilty and faced the possibility of up to 22 years in prison." Suggest "When the jury found Bell guilty, he faced the possibility..." or "The jury found Bell guilty and he faced the possibility... Nr2pencil 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"According to the Jena Times, during a town hall meeting, a LaSalle Parish resident said she had a copy of a jury pool list of over 150 residents called to serve and only four Black residents were on the list. Two of them, she stated, were relatives of Bell’s and the other two did not show up. Only 50 residents in all showed up for jury duty that day." While I was not able to check the accuracy of this statement, it would seem that the article at present implies too strongly that the blacks of the community were given a fair shot at being on the jury. It reads "...although blacks were included on the jury selection process. The 150-person jury call included black citizens, but none of the 50 potential jurors who showed up were black." Again, I can only assume that the prior statement is true, but it should be mentioned that only two of the black people called for the jury would have been eligible. http://www.dallasexaminer.com/cgi-bin/examiner/display_story.cgi?front_Page/story1.txt Neohippie7319 22:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article has one aspect backwards

The intial charge was attempted murder, then reduced to aggravated assault. The article has it backwards, but the sources at the bottom, have links that show it was reduced, rather than raised.

Retrieved on 2007-07-26. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jydrules (talk • contribs) 17:43, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original charges were aggravated assault, but later raised to attempted murder before being lowered again. Ophois 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As of Wednesday, August 29, 2007 the number of signatures on petitiononline.com is 114,581.Newlocalculture 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other references

Can someone add http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/jena6.asp to this article? Snopes is a decent reference and gives a pretty neutral POV, including some information that the email petition, Facebook group (mentioned in this wiki article), and so forth, do not include. Anonymous ??:??, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I think it would be appropriate to link, on on the phrase "attempted 2nd degree murder", attempted to the page on attempted murder and 2nd degree murder to the page on murder, specifically the portion on 2nd degree murder in the us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.170.75 (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jena Times (http://www.thejenatimes.net/home_page_graphics/home.html) has a very detailed chronological order of events that would be useful to reference. (Tragic Story 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Dates in the future?

After the section "District Attorney Reed Walters and the "pen statement"" there are dates that are in the future. They need to have the year appended to them--70.156.147.27 18:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What specifically do you want added to the article? Ophois 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Years, statements such as "The following Monday, December 4" and ..."called an impromptu assembly on September 6..." fail to mention what year these actions took place. It would be wise to add the year to the end (I'm assuming it was in 2006 but I don't know)--65.10.138.74 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

shotgun incident

removing "pistol-grip" from article in the Convenience store incident section, as it has no relevance to the danger of the weapon, only a cosmetic feature that the weapon possessed. 12.168.178.251 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Other additions such as a laser sight also do not point to the danger of the weapon, only to cosmetic features that it posses. Often cited by individuals trying to make a dangerous weapon more dangerous than it already is, simply on cosmetic appliances. adding un-needed words here can affect the neutrality of the article to appear to favor one side over the other. A shotgun with a pistol grip and laser sight is still a shotgun, that functions exactly the same way as any other shotgun, that is just as dangerous as any other shotgun of equivalent barrel length and gauge. Mim37204 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to know how long the DA has to file charges? It seems unlikely that "brandishing a firearm" will be charged here, but I thought that the DA had something like a year to make up (or change) his mind, which means that it's not permanently settled. Anyone know? WhatamIdoing 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

other controversy

many news reports - and indeed I believe this article - mention the nooses on the tree in an attempt to or to actually correlate the nooses and the beatings as a cause and effect relationship - with many bloggers saying that the punishment for both should be the same and equal. However this cnn story about US attourney, Doanald Washington's, opinion states that the 2 incidents were not related. It highlights the facts that the incidents were months apart and that no testimony has said anything about racial discrimination:

""We could not prove that, because the statements of the students themselves do not make any mention of nooses, of trees, of the 'N' word or any other word of racial hate.""

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/19/jena.six.link/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point. However, I think it's safe to assume that "the case" would not be as well known as it is if the noose hanging had not occurred. I believe that it should be mentioned and kept as it is now. Please note the ending part of the "White Tree Incident" - "In late July 2007, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington claimed a lack of connection between the noose incident and the beating at Jena High school. None of the statements taken regarding the fight, over 40 in all, mentioned the noose incident.[5]". If you do not believe this is sufficient, please post again.Jim 19:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason this is important to the case is because people have been told the "story" of the Jena 6, like it was an important part of the story. This is clearly not an important part of the story, which is what the attorney is saying. This is another reason this page needs a "controversy" section - news reports are reporting this like a fairy tale of racial tension in a small back water town - like good kids are being treated like hardened criminals - but it has been shown now that there were 2 nooses instead of 3 - (when 3 is the KKK calling card not 2) - that both black and white kids played with the nooses (as if it were a prank) - its been shown that bell has a criminal past and specifically a history of assault, black and white students sat under the tree and it was never the "white tree" like it is being told - this story has been reported incorrectly for weeks and there IS a controversy here about how the story has been reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But it has NOT been shown that there were 2 nooses, not 3 -- reports have conflicted (Reference 5 quotes a teacher at the school, saying it was 3; Reference 15 says it was 2). Also there is but one reference to blacks and whites playing with the nooses -- an NPR interview with Billy Fowler of the LaSalle parish School Board -- which contradicts other accounts that claim the nooses were promptly removed (Reference 15). Just because one outlet reports the story as they see it does NOT mean all the "facts" they present are true, nor should that dismiss everything else that is out there on the case already. The V Chip 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorting through misinformation

http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707310322 compiles a lot of information on the various aspects of the case. Google shows they had some quotes from various officials they later erased from their site, reasons unknown. Odd.

On Dec. 1, there was a private, invitation-only birthday party at the Fair Barn. Around 11 p.m., five black students tried to come into the party but were told by a woman that they weren't allowed inside without an invitation. The boys persisted, saying they had friends inside. A white man then jumped in front of the woman, and a fight started.

A group broke the two up, and the woman asked the white man, not a student, and the black students to leave the party. Once outside, another fight started between a group of white men, not students, and the black students. Police were called, and a white man was arrested. He pleaded guilty to simple battery.

Even though there were reports of one of the black students receiving injuries that required medical attention, there is no record of that.

There is a lot of stuff out there which contradicts itself, and people getting emotional, and jumping on the bandwagon without thinking things through. Are there any court records to be found at all? What about the shotgun incident?

If you google around for reports on the shotgun incident you normally find only what the reports of the black teens, some with violent criminal records said, and not what the white guy who ran to get his weapon said happened. I find that rather bias. The prosecutor ignored both contridicting stories, since each side would blame the other, and relied on eye witness accounts, then made the arrest. So, the official investigators and the eye witnesses can't be trusted, but the guys with criminal records can be?Dream Focus 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We can only go on what we can actually document. If a reliable source can be found that tells the other side of the story in the gun incident then please do provide it. CJ 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[1]

In court documents, this statement from the gun owner who tells a very different story

"I drove up to the Gotta Go and started to walk in the store and saw three black males and one hollered 'we've got action'. I saw them running after me so I turned and sprinted to my truck and then got my gun out. RB, RS, and TS were wrestling for the gun. After wrestling the gun away, hitting me in the face, they ran behind the store. AC & the Gotta Go owners saw."Dream Focus 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the article to reflect this information. CJ 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The The Jena Times: Chronological order of events also mentions this, but doesn't give the exact statements Cryo921 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Statements attributed to Donald Washington in Intro Paragraph

The following line is in the introductory paragraph:

"Additionally, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has expressed the opinion that although discipline was mishandled by the school, he has found a lot of reasons to believe that there was unfair judicial action, and also believes that this is too common in the United States for a simple protest to change anything.[2]"

The source attributed to footnote 2 does not provide any evidence that Donald Washington holds these views or expressed these opinions.

Please delete this line immediately or footnote a source that provides the proper evidence of Washington saying such statements.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.106.128 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

75.24.106.128 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)9-20-07 by V.

I agree to the above. While U.S. Attorney did give his opinion on the case, the information is presented as definitive authority on the case. The information is important and should be mentioned. However, the presentation is affecting the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.131.37 (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for a reliable source that says he has said this... If I cannot find one, I will remove it.Jim 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to myself, it appears the source contradicts whoever typed that in. I don't know who did it. If anyone wants to look at the version history to see who misrepresented what he said (to get them off this page), please post your findings.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/092007dnmetjenasetup.3645e08.html

U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, who is black, criticized school officials for mishandling discipline at the school but told Jena residents during a public meeting last month that he found no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing.Jim 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It says I vandalized the page... I edited the Donald Washington part. Revision comparison says I deleted a bunch of sections. This is weird, can anyone help? Is it my browser or something?

FIXED to fit the the real opinion as presented by the cited source(Dallas News).Jim 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I thought it was fixed, but ClueBot reverted changes... interesting. I fixed it to reflect the information by the source. It says I deleted a bunch of stuff. I must have because the history says I did, but it wasn't on purpose. Jim 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now, for sure. Jim 06:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim, your work is what is being vandalized. I originally posted the info about Washington's comments from the Dallas Morning News article. That info was vandalized to read as you found it. You should be commended for changing the information back to the original that I posted. Some explanation of why this pertinent information has again been removed is needed.Ogman 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember what day you posted it? Because you can check the history to see who did it.Ophois 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ophois - My mistake, I see that the same information is included in the article, only in a slightly different form and location.Ogman 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The following needs to be re-written (reference 13):

From the article:

"According to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, the FBI agents who investigated the incident, as well as federal officials who examined it, found that it "had all the markings of a hate crime.""

The article implies that Washington, the FBI, and others (all three) "found that it had 'all the markings of a hate crime.'"

Here is the actual quote from CNN:

Washington said FBI agents who went to Jena in September to investigate the noose report, and other federal officials who examined what happened, concluded it "had all the markings of a hate crime."

The CNN article does not attribute to Washington whether or not, Washington, agreed that all the markings of a hate crime existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.109.211 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. The way it originally was meant the same as your rewrite, but the way it was phrased accidentally created a series. Ophois 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor error in article's wording

Civil rights activists Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Martin Luther King III attended,[39] as did rapper and actor Mos Def.[40] Darryl Hunt were scheduled to be key speakers.[41]

Should it be Darryl Hunt was scheduled to be a key speaker? Or were all these people mentioned, and Darryl Hunt scheduled to be key speakers?Dream Focus 07:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Another minor error in article's wording

On September 4, 2007, charges against Carwin Jones and Theo Shaw were reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy,[48] as were those of Robert Bailey, Jr., on September 10.[49]

Despite the overturning of Mychal Bell's conviction, the charges against the other four teenagers remained unaffected because they were over seventeen at the time of the incident, thus making them adults under Louisiana law.[4]

Aren't there only *two* teenagers left who didn't have their charges overturned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.21.94 (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Entry paragraph

I added text in the first paragraph: "The hanging of the nooses, which recalls a history of lynching in the Southern United States, has been called a prank by some, including the school superintendent." to replace "which some have called a prank and others say recalls the history of lynching." This was rv stating: "not everyone says it recalls lynching." The text added doesn't say everyone "says" it recalls lynching, it says that does which it think sounds less weasely. The article gives the impression that hanging a nose in the south (in light of strained race relations) may somehow not recall a history of lynching to some errs on the side of untruthful. If people showed up to this school in white hoods, certainly this would recall the Klu Klux Klan. I don't see why not just say so, imo Mitico 18:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do the revert but I believe whoever did, did so because many people have said that they didn't feel the nooses were an attempt to make an old south style threat. It's to provide neturality that some people felt so but others didn't. CJ 19:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I'll say if the nooses weren't an attempt at a recall lynching, were the students suspended from school for defacing school property with ropes. No. The noose is a direct reminder of lynching and violence. Difficult to escape that, esp in the south. Just because some/many people say they don't feel that way, doesn't mean thats right and should be given equal attention. I believe that as currently written, the text's nuetrality is slanted towards prank. Mitico 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"not everyone says it recalls lynching" - even if some/many do not believe that is was meant to intimidate and was a prank, I have yet to read a quote that says: "wow, I never even thought of lynching and the like after those white kids hung nooses underneath the "white tree" the day after the black kids organized and sat there. So recollection, recall, thinking about it certainnly should be emphasized, with comment about some thinking its a prank -- like the text I wrote above. Again, imo Mitico 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it seems slanted towards the prank but I can't think of another way to say it that won't lean it the other way. Bias is bad which ever way it swings. Your phrasing takes credibility away from people who feel it was a prank. CJ 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The LATimes source for the "prank" and "no racist intent" sentence fails to connect these two separate thoughts. Clearly a prank can have racist intent. No one in that article says that the prank was both childish and devoid of racist intent. I feel that this clause from the LATimes source is more interesting as it separates the students (who hung the noose and were punished for it) and the townspeople who don't want to be identified with these students: "others say the three white students involved were just bad kids, not representative of the overall community." I feel strongly that you would be hard pressed to find someone who would say this prank, although "childish", was NOT racist. It is obviously racist. You can't hang a noose from something called "The White Tree" in Louisiana without this being a racist act. I'm changing this entry paragraph balancing information to better reflect the community and remove the falsehood that some people think that hanging the noose was not racist. Guavas 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexandria Incident

I added a section to the end about a related incident that happened in Alexandria, my hometown. I would appreciate it if others would look it over, as most of my Wiki experience is making minor edits, such as grammar, spelling, punctuation. C.D. Random 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When I get the chance, or if others want to do so, the rally part of Public Outcry should probably be made into its own section, with the Alexandria incident as a subsection.Ophois 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the page. I would like to discuss why it belongs on this page. I don't think it does. I will tell you why: Justin Barker was not involved. None of the Jena 6 were involved. It has no bearing on the case of the 6, either. It doesn't belong on this page. Jim 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (addendum: Jena, LA is an hour away from Alexandria, LA. Just because CNN makes a connection doesn't mean you have to, especially considering what I've already said regarding it). Jim 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add it before I found out that this happened in Alexandria. CNN made it seem that it happened in or around Jena. Perhaps it can be added as a one liner. Something like "an individual was arrested in Alexandria after being found driving drunk in the vicnitiy of individuals returning from the march in Jena with nooses hanging from the back of his truck" and just leave it at that. It just seems that excluding it makes an effort to say that everyone against the Jena 6 is making sophisticated public statements. That there are individuals making responses that are far more low brow. CJ 22:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's added it should be on a different page, maybe something titled "Public response to the Jena 6 incident". There is no reason to believe what these two morons did is connected to the noose hanging, party incident, convenience store incident and battery. Including it on this page would somehow suggest they are connected, no matter the title of the headings. Jim 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking of adding it in the public response section. I don't know if that makes a difference in your opinion. CJ 23:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not having immense detail about it. I read about it this morning but was hesitant to add it because it wasn't really connected. As for adding it to the public response section, I don't think it's a good idea because it will sort of make the public response section biased towards the Pro-Jena Six side. We have the rally and defense fund for the pro-side, but then the only thing listed for the anti-side is this. However, if a March on Jena wikipage is created, it should be included there.Ophois 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

The entry and many reporters have repeated the incorrect detail that the school board overruled the principal's recommendation that the students who hung the nooses be expelled. In fact it was an expulsion committee of the admininstration, whose advice the superintendent accepted. An example of reporters picking up on one another's reports rather than checking facts for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokenhaole (talk • contribs) 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?Ophois 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed weasel words from lead paragraph

I've removed a phrase from a passage in the article's lead paragraph. The passage prior to my change read as followed (I'm italicizing the part I removed):

The incident is one of many racially charged events that have occurred in the town since the hanging of nooses on the "white tree" on the Jena High School campus. The nooses initially caused racial tempers to flare, as for many it recalled the history of lynching in the South, though some have come to believe that it was just a prank with no racist intent. Critics of how the case was handled, including civil rights activists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have said that the arrests and subsequent charges were racially motivated. Some residents of the town - both white and black - have expressed the view that the current problem is more the fault of outsiders using racial politics to influence the justice system.

The phrase I've removed, "some have come to believe that it was just a prank with no racist intent," uses the weasel words, "some have come to believe," to sneak in a POV assertion. If there are people who really believe this, they should be named. Moreover, the claim that the hanging of nooses on the "white tree" had "no racist intent" strains credulity, particularly since the nooses were hung a day after a black student had publicly asked whether blacks were allowed to sit under the tree. Clearly the nooses were intended as a racial commentary of some kind, even if we allow for the (itself far-fetched) possibility that the students who hung the nooses were not specifically referring to lynching. --Sheldon Rampton 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's unbelievable to you. Some people think that it was just a prank. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you can remove a cited fact. Ophois 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Racist "black panther" types turning wiki into joke

Now someone liests scottsboro boys as a "see also" and has a hardon for calling the "noose hanging" racist, when there is no proof any racism is intended by the hanging? This on top of the massive amounts of half truths and assorted POV-ness that saturate this article make this article one of the worst i've ever seen here.68.187.117.71 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is worth discussing. Almost all of the information is supported by at least one of the 40+ citations. I am pro-justice (not pro-6 or anti-6). Please let us know what you take exception to. If needed we will sort it out.Jim 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of critics opinion in header

What is the relevance of the opinions of Jackson and Sharpton in the header? The critics part of where Jackson and Sharpton should be removed. It's their POV. They are not experts.

What is the relevance of US Attorney Donald Washington's findings? He is a professional. He is an appointee of the President of the United States. He led an investigation in Jena. His findings are worth something. Jim 17:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question. However, the answer is simple. Withough Jackson & Sharpton (or at least the views they represent), there would be no article. In short, kids go to jail or juvi for beating the crap out of other kids pretty much every day of the week. Rklawton 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Their views aren't supposed to be introduced (See POV rules), unless they can be supported by fact. US Attorney Donald Washington's findings contradict much of what they complain/claim about. It interferes with the integrity of the article when it's in the header. If anything, their views(that are shared with tons of people) should be expressed in the public outcry section, if they aren't already. I'm trying to be fair here. I've suggested that Public response get it's own page before because it obviously introduces a lopsided POV that is pro-6. You won't see thousands marching on Jena for the victim, Justin Barker.Jim 18:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What we don't want is an introduction section saying only that the "Jena Six is a short-hand reference to six black youths accused of attacking one white youth." However the "Jena Six" subject covers a lot more ground than one beating. If it didn't, it would fail Wikipedia's notability test. As noted above, students charged with attacking students is hardly notable. Keep in mind that an article's opening section needs to not only define the subject but indicate its notability, too. Reworking this section along those lines will probably satisfy your concerns. I think you should give it a shot. Rklawton 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some citing of important people's opinions are appropriate in the intro, but not Washington's. I don't think we can summarize his views briefly enough, or even figure out which aspects of his views stand out enough that they belong in the intro to the exclusion of other aspects. For example, he didn't say "no evidence of unfair judicial action" as the intro states, he said (according to the source) "no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing." I don't think that's exactly the same thing. And the same sentence in the source says that Washington "criticized school officials for mishandling discipline at the school". --Allen 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of you guys are unbelievable. You want to include the POV of people who are pro-6, yet you want to devalue the opinion of a US attorney who led an investigation in Jena. U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, who is black, criticized school officials for mishandling discipline at the school but told Jena residents during a public meeting last month that he found no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing.. Prosecution or sentencing should be able to be interpreted as judicial action. What prosecution/sentencing do you think they are talking about. Please. Jim 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not devaluing his opinion. If there were a way to concisely state all his relevant opinions in the intro I would support it. And there are more aspects to justice than prosecution and sentencing. Though I think the sentence should be removed pending consensus, in the meantime why not change "judicial action" to "prosecution or sentencing"? If they mean the same thing, as you suggest, then the reader will figure that out. --Allen 20:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether you're relying on Washington's statements or your own personal motives, the fact remains that a higher court overturned the conviction of a lower court. Why would the higher court do that? Obviously, because there was "unfair judicial action." Your insistence on including the Washington quote does not cancel out this extremely obvious fact. That's right, folks--it is a FACT that a higher court has ALREADY determined that there was "unfair judicial action." Since Washington is demonstrably in the wrong on this point, the only thing left to ask those of you who are defending his statements is why it is so very, very, very important to you personally that his incorrect view be included. Qworty 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So I guess Mychal Bell is still in jail for no reason whatsoever... this after an appeals court overturned his conviction. Perhaps that is what makes Donald Washington's quote relevant? Jim 04:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The appeals court ruling was not a decision on the merits of the case. He is still charged, and the prosecutor is still free to either retry him as a juvenile or seek review by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. In the meantime, he can be freed on $90,000 bail, and I'm rather confused as to why, with all the people protesting and all that, there have been no attempts to raise this money.--Wehwalt 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The money has been raised and he would have been out on Friday but the Judge is refusing to release him until the juvenile charges court charges are filed.````

Revision of header

Says now: Jena Six refers to a group of six black teenagers who have been arrested and charged with crimes related to their alleged involvement in the assault of a white teenager in Jena, Louisiana, on December 4, 2006. The incident is one of many racially charged events that have occurred in the town since the hanging of nooses on the "white tree" on the Jena High School campus. The nooses initially caused racial tempers to flare, as for many it recalled the history of lynching in the South, though a few people in Jena, who were not related to the incident, have claimed that it was just a "prank" perpetrated by students who do not reflect the Jena community.[1] Critics of how the case was handled, including civil rights activists Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have said that the arrests and subsequent charges, along with the lack of arrests and serious charges against violent whites in Jena, were racially motivated.[2]. U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has found no evidence of unfair judicial action.[3][4]

Bolded section - Is this suggesting their charges were racially motivated, or the beating on Justin Barker was racially motivated?

Jim 18:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided, I'm pretty sure the intent is to indicate that the charges were racially motivated. Rewording would certainly help. Rklawton 18:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

How about adding something like: "Black community leaders believed the charges brought against the youths were both disproportionate and racially motivated." Rklawton 18:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would give them names and titles, if they have titles. Was it unanimous?--Wehwalt 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Best sources

Looking at the cited sources, a couple of them just shouldn't be there. We can do better. MTV, for example. MTV is great to cite if you are talking about a rock band. But they aren't the best news sources. Same for that hip hop station. Suggest we find and replace better sources, and if we can't find better, delete.

I should add, look, this is a difficult topic. Apparently, a lot of urban legends are out there over this, and we aren't sure of all the facts. In addition, the line between news and opinion is blurring on this one. Let's take great care over what we put in this article.--Wehwalt 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Several reporters and papers/websites are writing stories now that are saying that there needs to be some accountability for the kids that participated in the assault. Also these articles are documenting the fact that many people in the media feel that the issue is being treated differently than if white boys had beaten a black boy.

Such as this excerpt from the following link:

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7170510

"Rather than report the truth, flames have been fanned by lazy or cowardly or agenda-driven members of the media. Because the white kid regained consciousness and survived the attack with only a swollen eye, defenders of the "Jena Six" have called it a typical "schoolyard fight." Would anyone call it that if six white football and basketball players jumped one black kid?"

I have read articles like this in many publications now, I will try to find them and add them here - I feel that these articles give good evidence to a growing controversy over the Jena 6. - the controversy that the original illegal acts of the jena 6 are being down played, along with justin barkers injuries, by almost all the media covering the story.

An attempt has been made to present a balanced perspective in this article including making it clear what the facts are as well as what available evidence there is as to who did what. Regardless of what is presented in the media, this is the intention here. Any information from a reliable source that presents differing viewpoints please provide it. Thanks. CJ 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

other controversy

many news reports - and indeed I believe this article - mention the nooses on the tree in an attempt to or to actually correlate the nooses and the beatings as a cause and effect relationship - with many bloggers saying that the punishment for both should be the same and equal. However this cnn story about US attourney, Doanald Washington's, opinion states that the 2 incidents were not related. It highlights the facts that the incidents were months apart and that no testimony has said anything about racial discrimination:

"We could not prove that, because the statements of the students themselves do not make any mention of nooses, of trees, of the 'N' word or any other word of racial hate."

Yet another article reporting incorrect facts in the media about the case which lead to a woven story of racial discrimination is being reported today at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena_3;_ylt=ApvcexcbjCKgxnvxcvoZglwkeedF

from the article:

"(It was widely reported that Bell, now 17, was an honor student with no prior criminal record. Although he had a high grade-point average, he was, in fact, on probation for at least two counts of battery and a count of criminal damage to property. In any event, his conviction was overturned because an appeals court ruled he should not have been tried as an adult.)"

as well as:

"Consider:

_The so-called "white tree" at Jena High, often reported to be the domain of only white students, was nothing of the sort, according to teachers and school administrators; students of all races, they say, congregated under it at one time or another.

_Two nooses — not three — were found dangling from the tree. Beyond being offensive to blacks, the nooses were cut down because black and white students "were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them," according to a black teacher who witnessed the scene.

_There was no connection between the September noose incident and December attack, according to Donald Washington, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department in western Louisiana, who investigated claims that these events might be race-related hate crimes.

_The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days — they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.

_The six-member jury that convicted Bell was, indeed, all white. However, only one in 10 people in LaSalle Parish is African American, and though black residents were selected randomly by computer and summoned for jury selection, none showed up."

The skewing of these facts all spin the story to make it look worse from a race tensions stand point.

The existence of these articles (reporting the skewed facts) makes it clear that this wikipedia page needs a section entitled "controversy" in which the skewed reporting of this story needs to be mentioned. If reliable news agencies are reporting on how the "story" has been skewed and reported incorrectly - then it is NECESSARY that wikipedia list the existence of these articles and correct the facts and list the facts that were incorrectly reported. (Even if the section is worded weakly stating something like - "some people believe or some sources have reported a skewing of facts and misrepresentation of the "story"") People who travelled down to Jena to help "Bell the honor student" should be fuming mad at the news agencies that reported the story in such a manner. They have been lied to and told a fairy tale version of the events - with inclusions ("white tree") and exclusions (victims true injuries, bell's previous assault records), both for and against, creating what seems to be a year long racially motivated event - when it is being reported by many sources now (see all previous listings in the controversy section and court testimonies) that this was not a year long event and was a single act of assault.

See my comment below under "Current Article Status".--Wehwalt 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My concern with the AP article linked is it uses a lot of weasely words and refuses to name sources. For example, it goes so far as to use quotation marks around the whole statement "were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them" yet does not name the source -- only saying "a black teacher who witnessed the scene." The NPR reference states there were 2 black teachers at Jena High School yet this reporter cannot pick which one the quote came from? It makes that AP article a bit dubious -- not saying any of the points brought up are not true, but it does cloud the issue when it seems its intent is to clarify. The V Chip 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he or she didn't want to be named? IIRC, we used to have a quote from one of the black teachers who joked about the nooses with another black teacher after seeing them.Ophois 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Other incidents involving white youth

The following should be deleted or references provided:

"....noting the lack of arrests and serious charges against white youths in Jena in earlier incidents in the town."

What are the "earlier incidents" which people felt there should have been arrests and charges for. There should be a reference to these "earlier incidents". A direct reference should be provided even if the incidents are only the incidents mentioned in the article.

That is the argument of the "pro-6" side. I know this question has been asked at least twice. It wouldnt surprise me if it's been asked more, though. Their failure to cite specific instances should be in the article. I would like to hear from Ophois, CJ, Wehwalt etc. before making an edit.Jim 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific instances are fully cited and sourced in the body of the article. Also, there is not a "pro-6" side. This is a reductive and false dichotomy. Qworty 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no "pro-6" side? You are a funny man (or woman, whatever). By the way, are you referring to the incident where Justin Sloan battered Robert Bailey? What other instances???Jim 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the inclusion in the article of the phrasing, but I felt that deleting it would open up a can of worms.--Wehwalt 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why...?Jim 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still their opinion that there were a lack of arrests of whites, so it should be in there. However, I altered the wording a little so it doesn't imply that there were necessarily unfair incidents. Ophois 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, if the incidents are fully cited in the article then at the end of the sentence in question there should be a clickable link to those incidents. It should not be left up to the reader to deduce that the incidents are only those in the article.

Ophois, not trying to pick a fight, I think you have done a great job at keeping this in the neutral zone, however, in the "Court transcript" section you made a statement about not using a court transcript that was not verifiable online, which I think is a good idea for wikipedia. My point then is this, yes, that is the opinion of the people who expressed it, but if there are no examples to cite then the statement should not be included in the article. Without proof or some sort of reference to support the statement, the opinion itself leaves the zone of neutrality and becomes the express bias of the speaker. Now, it might be fair to say, that the incident with the white youth are the nooses being placed on the tree and the gun incident at the store, so I think if would be fair to have a clickable link to jump the page down to the descriptions of each incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.109.211 (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a link to the incidents, but an admin reverted it. Besides, the incidents immediately follow the intro.Ophois 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the incidents are the ones mentioned in the article then the statement in the opening paragraph should reflect such:

"....noting the lack of arrests and serious charges against white youths for hanging nooses and for failure to prosecute a white youth who pulled out a shot-gun on several black youths."

The sentence should reflect what the complaint is, that standard introductory writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.109.211 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's bland. Witnesses from the convenience store and the clerk have supported the story of the man with the gun... Something along the lines of 3 black kids ready to jump 1 white kid. Must be something in the water...Jim 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar wording existed in the intro yesterday, and I strongly supported it. Other editors, however, did not agree. For whatever reason, they don't want the specific white-on-black violence and threats stated in the introduction. Qworty 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual disputes exist as to most of the incidents in question. An introduction should be quick, and should not get bogged down in minutiae. I'd have no objection to a (see below) being put in the intro, though. The interested reader would be sure to know to read on.--Wehwalt 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then by your own definition Washington's views constitute "minutiae." Since his views are specifically discussed later in the article, then they should be replaced with something more general in the introduction. E.g., "While not everyone agrees that unfair prosecution and sentencing occurred..." So? What do you think? Qworty 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because you know as well as I do (I find you are very alive to implications of words) that this would be an implication that there is a majority view that there was unfair prosecution, etc. And as for the rest of it, we've had that discussion already.--Wehwalt 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't think you'd go for that one. But I do think this matter is going to continue to evolve, and that as things play out, we'll find that Mr. Washington's views will have become little more than a footnote in terms of this article, and their place in the introduction will no longer be tenable. Even now, keeping him in the intro makes him look more important than he is. But let's keep him in there for now. You know, the way we're keeping his boss, Mr. Bush, around just for a little bit longer... Qworty 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Article Status

The article appears to have achieved something close to a final form given all the information we presently have. If we are all somewhat dissatisfied with it, then we have probably approximated something close to actual NPOV. There isn't much left to do except nitpick and wait for further developments in the case. And yes, there will be further developments. Qworty 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the trick the talking heads use, they pull out a letter from a member of the public accusing them of pandering to the right and another accusing them of pandering to the left and sit back and look smug. It is fallacious that they are right down the middle, since they are choosing the letters.

We should continue to review this article and improve it. I think the next big thing here (absent a court decision) will be discussion of the media coverage. So many of the sources use the false info (three nooses, three days in school suspension) and come in with a storyline and make the facts fit (nooses caused fight). We're starting to see a bit of that already (see above), I think there will be more introspection.--Wehwalt 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to blame the media here. Blaming the media and "outsiders" is the old Southern Jim Crow trick. The current technological media didn't even exist when the racial problems started in this country. If you want to move in a new direction with the article, it would be better to expand the background section, giving information about the huge Klan influence in Jena and throughout the parish, including the fact that KKK Grand Dragon and former neo-Nazi David Duke carried the parish in historically recent elections. Qworty 17:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You improve the article as you see fit, ditto I will. It is true that David Duke carried LaSalle Parish in 1991. Most of the kids involved were in diapers or not yet born about then. Let us see what is written by reliable sources and where we go from there.--Wehwalt 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the kids were "in diapers" in 1991. Racism is a learned behavior and attitude that's passed down from generation to generation. Qworty 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

True, to a certain extent, "you've got to be carefully taught". However, let's cover the incident, not the history of the area back to the Louisiana Purchase!--Wehwalt 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this was an "incident." It occurred in a historical and social context. If it were just an "incident," nobody would care about it. So far as I've seen, the only people who are strongly pushing the "incident" theory are the white racists who run the parish and the local paper. Qworty 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't put media coverage into the article (they originally went by the available facts, as did we). However, I somewhat agree to the controversy section, as suggested earlier.Ophois 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We're arguing enough about what has been written. Time enough to argue about what has not, when someone writes it.

--Wehwalt 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was my point in my initial post in this section. Qworty 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough articles have been written by enough reliable sources so that you can modify this article to include a section called "controversy" or "media bias" in which you can chronicle the immense amount of spin that has been put on the media coverage. Very few media sources are reporting the truth - and when they are reporting the truth it is in the form of making corrections of the vague order of "the [official fairy tale] story goes like this - but please consider these other facts which don't add up" They don't come out and say "yeah... we spun this story and sold it to the American people to cause rallies and protests and garner news attention" but the wording is almost stronger and more telling than if they were to just come out and say that. See the section "Controversy" for links to the articles i am referring to. This story has been spun by news outlets to be a story of deep seated racial tensions and nooses in a small southern town with an all white jury. But many reliable news sources that have been listed on this page multiple times - point out that this isn't the case. The majority of people of Jena don't feel racially divided. The majority of the student population (black and white) took the noose incident with a grain of salt and joked and played with the nooses. the "white tree" wasn't a white only tree and never was. no black jurors showed up during jury duty selection. Then there is the omission of Justin Barker's injuries from almost every "credible" news agency's reports - and the fact that if his injuries are listed then they are ALWAYS listed and then followed by "but he was feeling well enough to go to his ring ceremony later that evening." You would think at least one news source would just list his injuries... Of all the news agencies reporting this story only 1 has ever listed that he lost vision for three weeks. Only one sports writer has come out to ask the question "where were the parents, both black and white?" I haven't actually seen anything besides an AP wire that said the students played with the noose. And no major media source wants to point out that the noose incident and beatings were 3 months apart - the best they will do is say that "an attorney believes, in his opinion - that the 2 incidents are not connected" WEAK. This has been the least well, fair reported news event of the year. It is yet another glaring omision that there is no "media bias" or "controversial news coverage" section of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . it isn't that easy. I won't insert my own views so blatantly in constructing a sentence, though God knows anyone who spends a fair amount of time on an article has some view on the subject matter. There is one article, cited above, which criticizes the tone of the media coverage, and also the D.A. (I think it was) commented that the media coverage was trying to fit things into a preconceived story. If more RS develop with similar tone, I'll add a section and see what the consensus is. I thought of trying to spin the responses off to its own article, as was done with the Duke case article, but I don't think it is as good an idea here, where the response is itself the story.--Wehwalt 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not your own views.. and they aren't my own views - at this point its a fact that the media has misreported this story. The misrepresentations of the story should be listed and the articles that reported the misrepresentations (see the AP link and other links) can be cited. are they not credible? can they not be cited? Here is another article - this one entitled "‘Nightly News’ Leads With ‘Jena 6,’ Ignores Beaten White Kid"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/21/nightly-news-leads-jena-6-ignores-white-kid-beaten

It covers the nightly coverage of many media outlets and keeps track of how the assualt is reported - if mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

paraphrasing from that article and grabbing news anchor's quotes - the reporting of a couple notable news people - ABC's Terry morgan "Six, black teenagers, some minors, charged as adults, after a schoolyard fight that resulted in no serious injuries." Martin Savage reported "The journey to Jena began 13 months ago when white students at the local high school hung nooses from a shade tree after an African-American student asked to sit beneath it. Over the next few months, there were verbal and finally physical confrontations. In the end, six black students were charged with crimes, initially including attempted murder. But no whites, not even those who admitted hanging the nooses." Charles Gibson reported "Tensions escalated, until the day six black students attacked a white student. The students were arrested, charged with serious crimes."

Yes, we know that news agencies are getting facts wrong. However, those can't be used in the article. If a controversy section is to be created, we need sources that talk about how incorrect facts are being reported and events being played down.Ophois 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article I just posted here talks about how the story is spun and the victim is not talked about... but sure.. here is ANOTHER article talking about the spin on the story... I believe this makes 5 articles total that I have posted here talking about the spin on the case. the previous one actually chronicled and quoted newscasters spinning the story - this next one talks about how news worthy data is being omitted - at this point i am wondering how much longer you "editors" will continue to tell people "well.. if another couple RS come up talking about this then maybe we will do something... blah blah blah" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Article entitled " L.A. Times Distorts Facts of “Jena 6″ Case" http://patterico.com/2007/09/22/la-times-distorts-facts-of-jena-6-case/

"This is a story about whether a criminal prosecution of young black males for a violent crime was too harsh. Any responsible story addressing that topic would fully describe the perpetrators’ criminal histories — especially histories of similar behavior. This information is absolutely vital to assessing whether his treatment at the hands of law enforcement was unnecessarily harsh — and by not mentioning his priors, the paper implies to most rational readers that he has no criminal history at all."

Also I would like to point out that this isn't a case of news agencies being fresh into a story and reporting late breaking news that is incorrect because it is late breaking. The articles I have posted are talking about facts that are incorrect or ommitted or downplayed to spin the story. This case is about a year old... The facts are well established. We don't need a section titled "controversy" necessarily - a section titled "media bias" or "popular spin" would work just as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article last linked (from patterico.com) is a blog entry, not a news source, and thus IMO should not be counted as a RS. The V Chip 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for posting that. I'll try and make the section today when I get the chance. If you get the chance, could you find a couple more, as the more sources the better. Ophois 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another. (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/story/284511.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophois (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Public response

I found a news article about a white supremacist who posted the addresses of the six and is being investigated by the FBI (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/237744.aspx). What's the consensus about putting this in the Public response? Ophois 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should also being included about what was said earlier, with people downplaying events (such as calling it a schoolyard fight). Ophois 04:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. Give it a shot and we'll see how it looks. I think the more time that goes by, I think we'll see more RS with perspective on this story, rather than the cause and effect that keeps getting put into some of them.

As for the web site, I guess we could say something, but we should be careful, as according to the article, they couldn't get confirmation from the guy that he was responsible.--Wehwalt 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely put this in. This was a huge deal on the news in D.C. The FBI found that he was a member of the American National Socialist Workers Party, which is the American Nazi party, based out of Roanoke, VA. If this is the same one you're talking about, it absolutely should be placed in there: Gov. Blanco and the FBI both made statements about this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stick to what can be verified.--Wehwalt 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another reason public response should have it's own page.Jim 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added the basic info. There's more useable stuff in the article, but I don't have time to add it now. Anyone else mind doing it?Ophois 05:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some. Someone might want to add in the Blanco statement. As disgustingly ironic as it is (i.e. it reads like it should be written about the Jena 6 rather than the white guy), it's been carried all over. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article with more white supremacist stuff (http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/572652,CST-EDT-jesse25.article). It should also be added to the article about the families getting protection. Ophois 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Attendees

How can the current article by Bello used as a reference to indicate Sharpton, Jackson and King III attended the rally when the article was written and retrieved before the day of the rally which was Sept. 20?--Ccson 06:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, look for another reference. If you can't confirm through another reference, say "Among those planning to attend were . . . "--Wehwalt 12:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I found and added a new reference but Ophois reverted it. I will attempt to readd and hope he see the current reference is no longer valid.--Ccson 13:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New source, more information:

Please visit [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/a_place_called_jena;_ylt=AmsNKEV1OSQyCsTGDzjfWGwkeedF this yahoo report from Monday the 24th, it has some good information that should be worked into the article, such as a source to say that there were only 2 nooses, and that the noose instigators were sent to alternative school. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's already in the article.Ophois 05:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I realized too late. I hadn't seen the yahoo piece yet, and it wasn't in the article the last time I had looked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New source on attack

http://www.dallasexaminer.com/cgi-bin/examiner/display_story.cgi?front_Page/story1.txt has info that all other reliable sources don't have, including quotes from witnesses (including the only adult who witnessed the attack saying that another kid knocked Barker down, not Bell). I'm busy all day, so could someone please integrate this new info into the article? Ophois 12:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a source. I love this: "At a school assembly, immediately following a staged protest under “the White tree,” District Attorney Reed Walters warned the Black students to stop the “acting out,” telling the youth, “I can make your lives disappear with a stroke of my pen.”" Most of that has been debunked, or at least is disputed, but it is stated as fact. It's pretty clear where this guy is coming from. And later on, he gives a witness statement, then says that the witness was a friend. A bit of an agenda driven article. Still, we should integrate it, but carefully.--Wehwalt 12:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But most of the stuff that we would use are quotes. Ophois 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it hasn't been done by the end of the day, I'll work it in. No time now.--Wehwalt 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added in the part about the only adult witness, but since he wasn't called to testify, I put it in the Attack's intro as a counter to the DA's statement. I think it would be good to put in the witnesses' affiliation with Barker and their conflicting accounts of how the attack took place.Ophois 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Hearings

I've started the section on the upcoming congressional hearings regarding the unequal application of justice in the various events that have occurred in Jena. The section is just a stub at this point, but over time it will no doubt grow into a major part of this article. Qworty 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Citation

When the MTV article was removed, another citation using it (24) was also removed. Can someone please find another article for that part?Ophois 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What point are we trying to document?--Wehwalt 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you fixed it.Ophois 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This Really Needs to Be in the Article

"According to the Urban League, the average African American male convicted of aggravated assault (the charge against the Jena Six) serves 48 months in prison, one third longer than a comparable white man. [5] According to the U.S. Department of Justice, an African American male who's arrested is three times more likely to go to prison than a white male convicted of an identical crime. [5]"

It's been deleted a couple of times and I've put it back in. This is what the entire article is about. If it weren't for these FACTS, there would be no Jena Six article here. Maybe you don't think "Background" is where these facts belong. But they definitely belong in the article. Qworty 04:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The first statistic is related to sentencing. Since Bell was never sentenced, it is unrelated to the case. I'll let you keep the second part in, though someone else will probably remove it. Ophois 05:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to delete all of these facts, then we may as well delete the entire article. If you don't believe these facts belong under "Background," then perhaps you can suggest another part of the article for them to be placed. Frankly, I can't think of a better place for them than "Background." After all, if this was an article just about six kids who had a fight with a seventh kid, it wouldn't even be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The reason it's notable is because of what it says about race in the U.S. criminal justice system. Qworty 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's way, WAY too much 'background' in this article as it is, and most of it's of questionable relevance. 70.61.22.110 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)ubiquitousnewt

I find it very ironic that you used the word "fight". Anyways, the rally section mentions that the rally is for all blacks that have been unfairly treated by the judicial system. I'd suggest moving it there for now.Ophois 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was only a fight. I said IF. The IF is right there in the sentence--it is, in fact, the third word in the sentence. Please don't put words in my mouth. At the very least, please read the entire sentence before jumping to an erroneous conclusion. I find it very ironic, btw, that you projected your own views and misread the sentence. What do you think the article is about? Six black kids who beat up a white kid? If the article was about that, it wouldn't even rise to WP notability standards and would be speedied out of existence. Qworty 05:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The formatting keeps messing up because you need to close the independent ref name tag. < - ref name - /> Ophois 05:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, you really need to drop your attitude. You used to be very helpful, but now seem to have your own agenda in editing this and can't stand when anyone disagrees with you. As for my "citation needed" part, you keep saying "many" and "some" cite those statistics. You gave one source that did so. I find it ironic how you've continuously berated others for using minor facts from a source that purposefully leaves out facts, yet you yourself are twisting facts. Ophois 06:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not twisting the facts--you are. Do you deny that dozens of commentators and thousands of protesters have made these points that are backed up by the Urban League and the Department of Justice? Of course you can't deny that these people have cited these sourced facts, because they have indeed done so. If you'd like to be helpful instead of adversarial and work on this thing together--collaboratively, as we're supposed to be doing--then why don't you go out and find even more RS that back up the information I'm putting in the article? In other words, why don't you drop your attitude and become helpful? At the very least, you could stop attacking and reverting every sourced addition I make to the article. Live and let live, you know. When you keep attacking these factual findings from the Urban League and the United States Department of Justice, which are fully citable all over the Internet and beyond, you end up looking like you just don't want these facts in the article for some reason. Qworty 06:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How am I twisting the facts if what you put into the article doesn't match with what the source says? I've never seen anyone else citing those specific statistics. You added it to the article, so you need to find sources that verify that. If "they have indeed done so", as you say, then you should find tons of references that back it up. So far you only gave a source that gives one person who has done so. As I've already explained (and as you already know), I kept removing the stuff earlier because it didn't belong in the Background section. You moved it to an appropriate place, and I'm fine with it being where it is now. I never said that the statistics were false. Ophois 06:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't seen these sources and facts before, then, with all due respect, you're not very well informed on the subject of the Jena Six or the many things that have been written about it. It seems every article I read contains these statistics that are so obscure to you. Do you read only right-wing periodicals and websites? How many sources would you like me to back the material up with? Are you going to challenge each and every one of them? PBS good enough for you? That's the one I just put in. I can't believe you actually changed the article to state that only "one writer" was citing the data. There are dozens citing the data. Again, how many do you want? Better yet, why don't you start googling around and help me assemble the sources, hmmm? You know, they way you're supposed to do when people are collaborating. Could the reason you're not doing that be because you don't want the material in the article at all? Qworty 06:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've so far added Ted Rall, the NewsHour from PBS, The Guardian, and ABC News, all citing the sources I'm talking about, all commenting and/or reporting on them. Is four enough for you? Or shall I keep going? Seriously, I can probably find over 100 of them. So much for your false assertion that there was only one source. Seriously, how many sources would you like to see? I don't mind staying up all night to add another 96, or whatever your threshold is. Qworty 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now there are a total of seven sources up there. They are all unique--none of them is a syndicated copy of any other. Shall I stop adding sources now? Are you satisfied? Why is it that you fought so hard against something that's so widely sourced, but you insist on including one-off "information" from that racist tract The Jena Times? They are the only outlet on the entire planet that's reported that the nooses came down "immediately" at 7:15 a.m. When I had only one source up, you went way, way, way out of your way to say it was only one. Now I'm going to go change your Jena Times information so that all the world will know it is only one source. In that case, it's true. Qworty 07:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since those are disputed statistics which do not stem from the incident, they do not need to be in the article, and I've deleted them. I have moved the media coverage to its own subsection, putting in a placeholder for "News Reporting" which I'll get around to in due course. I have noted, following Quorty's lead (see previous post by Quorty) "one-off 'information'" in columns which do not appear elsewhere. Thanks for the suggestion, Quorty!--Wehwalt 10:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Without those statistics it's rather hard to understand exactly what people are so upset about in this case. I think they should be presented, however the source should be noted inline in the text: ie. "The Organization Whatever found that 80 percent..." etc. futurebird 12:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, you do realize that those statistics were added last night? People have been getting along fine without them. But anyways, as I've said before, I'm fine with having that in the public response section.

And Qworty, do you even read the discussions? As I've said multiple times, your source only cited one person. If you want to say that many have, then you have to have a source that says that or give multiple sources. Though if everyone is using the statistics, why are all of them from the past week and not before? I never said that the facts were wrong. Though looking at your sources, some of them have contradicting statistics to what you put into the article. Ophois 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that with a little research, both contradictory statistics and explanations for why the Urban League got the results it did would be found. But, in the final analysis, we have no info that anyone other than a few columnists and so forth are using it as their rationale for supporting the Jena 6. Even Rall quotes it, and he does not seem sympathetic. I just don't think they've been shown to be relevant.--Wehwalt 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to filter out only all edits made by one person in viewing a page? I'm kind of curious what the page would look like if I could filter out just Qworty's rather, um, "empassioned" editing style. I will admit I think he's cleaned up some neccisary issues, but I'm starting to question what babies might have gone out with the bathwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.221 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes why is the "negro" getting so um.. "empassioned" about you blocking most of his edits and not including what for most African Americans and others concerned about racism is the whole point of the Jena 6 story: That they are tired of a racist criminal justice system dominated by whites who think it is no big deal if young black men's lives are constantly thrown away like garbage. If you would like to see more sources to back up what Quorty is saying try http://www.nicic.org/Library/020314 for a review of the literature. This page seems to have a pretty ugly `good old boys' network going. It is SAD.

Walter's reason

In the new source added for Bell's release, there's a line about why Walters charged Bell as an adult. "Walters has said he sought to have Bell tried as an adult because he already had a criminal record, and because he believed Bell instigated the attack." Could someone please work this into the article? If not, I'll do it when I can. Ophois 04:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

News Reporting source

Here's an article I found, which seems to point out the guy who started the misinformation that was used in the media. (http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/296701.html) Ophois 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the piece is more of an op-ed. So if opinions from this article are used, we ought to mention that they were written by the author of this article inline in the text. futurebird 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if facts are cited, I would put them inline. Same technique we use for doubtful news sources. Definitely we should cite to this story though, I just want to absorb it. Two or three sentences, I'd say. And, by the way, I think this is enough to go back and reinsert the myspace information on Bailey. This is a RS, even if it is opinion, he's reporting a fact here.--Wehwalt 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a TV channel news source reporting the myspace pictures - should satisfy source reliability reqs - Jena Six Alleged Myspace Photos. --Eqdoktor 13:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could add the widely-reported pic of Bailey in a baseball cap with large quantities of cash? The newspapers sites seem to be posting it. Would we be able to under fair use?--Wehwalt 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources seem to be able to tie the photo to the Jena 6 incidents at all. The only non-op-ed source calls it and "alleged photo" so we don't even have confirmation it is him, that source goes on to say that it was mostly posted at white supremacists sites. We don't know why this teenager is acting a fool with cash in his mouth so I see no reason to use it in this article. We wouldn't seek out and post images of other people in the case acting silly, so why should we do it in this case? futurebird 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UT

I added a third source, this one says it was him. If we are going to note that Barker was arrested for having a rifle in his truck, we need to add sourced info about the defendants. Fair is fair.--Wehwalt 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Taking a photo with cash in your mouth is not like being arrested for a rifle. Um. It's silly but not a crime. I mean if we post this photo we could also find out if he had any spelling errors on his my space page and post those too... and what about his musical taste? Let's add that... you see what I mean? this makes no sense. futurebird 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Teenage boys generally don't have that kind of cash "on" them. Given that this has already attracted media attention, and that his family members and advisors have already seen fit to issue denials that the money came from donations, I think it needs to be in there(where did it come from then? Blow up the photo! Those are real hundreds!). It is sourced. As for Barker's arrest, I don't think it is terribly relevant to the Jena 6 (he hasn't been convicted that we know of) but it is newsworthy enough to leave in.--Wehwalt 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is while the Jena 6 shared more then a limited criminal history amoungst them, this unstated implication that the money came from illicit or unintended means isn't relevant to an encyclopedia article unless it can be sourced as tied into them through either illegal activity or money sent to help their defense fund. Should a source come about showing that the member of the Jena 6 in question had a criminal history of selling drugs or robbery, it becomes relevant. Should a source come out that shows the money came from sources related to the defense fund, also relevant to the case and the Jena 6. However right now? It isn't even proven the money wasn't his to begin with, the photo has nothing inherantly wrong in it (unusual isn't wrong). Basically nothing exists at the moment to warrant it being on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Blow up the photo"???? I think that's "original research." --If that is the money from donations I'm certain we'll find out via the proper channels. There isn't even an investigation about money at this point, just "accusations" that we've heard about 2nd hand. Leave the detective work to the detectives. OK? futurebird 16:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "click here for larger photo" on a news site is OR, lol. It is sourced information with at least some relevance to the situation. We're covering the event, this is part of it. It's already added to the backlash on the supremecist sites, we may need to reference that. In the meantime, we cover it neutrally and factually.--Wehwalt 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Stringing together your observations of an image and something hinted at in an op-ed piece is original research. And won't posting the photo here without any facts linking it case have the same effect as it has had on the white supremacists sites? I think that it will. Images are some of the most powerful elements in any story. They often overwhelm the text. The choice of an image is subject to POV concerns. Any use of this image will push the POV that "money is being stolen" But, since there is no investigation and no evidence there is no reason to use an image that hints at that POV. If we want to include an image of some of the actors in the case we should find neutral images. Consider, for example, the impact of a photo of the DA with a snarl on his face. I bet we could find such a photo, but it would not be OK since it would make him seem like a "mean white man" or something ... that's the reason I object to this image. futurebird 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't engaged in OR. I've included three additional pure news reports, one of which is the "alleged" one and two take it as fact. Since the family members admitted that the image was real and the money was real (just saying the kid earned the money and it was sent to him by relatives) I think we've established authenticity. In addition to futurebird, whose comments are very contructive and good faith, anyone else want to weigh in on this?--Wehwalt 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt, FTR, I'm not objecting to text about the photo, as long as it's sourced and op-ed type peices are noted. (I mean like everthing else) I'm objecting to putting the photo itself in the article as an image. Didn't you say that you thought we should do that? I'm saying... um.. no. Let's NOT do that.futurebird 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, misunderstood. Yes, I am at least asking whether we could do it consistent with our copyright policies and for thoughts on whether we should. BTW, I think we should axe the photo alleged to be of a white supremecist at the rally. Of the two photos we have on this article, one should be of a supposed white supremecist at the rally? Why?--Wehwalt 17:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)?

He is mentioned. futurebird 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Granted, so you make the pictures larger? Assuming that is him, he's not a widely known public figure, thank God.--Wehwalt 17:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They were really tiny on my screen. Now they are all the same size. It just looks better. futurebird 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Getting back to the myspace picture, I'd say if you put a photo on your myspace, you are saying to the world, this is how I choose to depict myself. How can anyone complain if we take him at his word? And the myspace photos have received some coverage, it is probably fair use if we show one of them. I have no problem with adding a photo of Bailey at the rally as well, I saw one where he was standing next to Sharpton wearing a Jena shirt.--Wehwalt 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

About "Publicity of story": Like you said, the source is an op-ed piece, so we should probably avoid direct NPOV quotations.Ophois 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, though there is actual reporting in it . . . but what do you suggest, in particular?--Wehwalt 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind.Ophois 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Noose hangers "inspired by movie"?

I find this bit interesting as it has not been brought up in the Wikipedia article.

A Chicago Sun-Times editorial reports that students that hung the nooses on the tree claimed to have been 'inspired' by a hanging scene from the TV series Lonesome Dove. An interesting coincidence (or so it is reported) is that on that particular week, JHS footbal team was playing against a team whose mascot was a cowboy. The nooses were in school colors, and taken in that light, I can see the school board accepting the claim that the nooses were an innocent 'school spirit' prank (to support the school football team) that went awry.

That recommendation (expulsion from the school) was ignored by the school superintendent and board members. Instead, these school officials portrayed the "noose" as a "silly prank" inspired by a hanging scene in the television mini-series "Lonesome Dove."

Did Civil Rights movement pass Louisiana by?
The Jena 6: Since When Do Teenage Boys Watch Lonesome Dove?
Snopes forum discussion - VERY interesting with a lot more detail on the various incidents provided by a resident from Jena.

It puts an interesting spin on the noose hanging. There appears to be (depending on who you ask) a certain "plausible deniability" to the racism accusations in the initial Jena 6 chain of events. A simple fact checking would reveal if JHS was playing against a team whose mascot was a cowboy that particular week. And it also gives a plausible (non-racist) reason why the school board did not expel the students. If nothing else, it illustrates an interesting aspect of the Butterfly effect.--Eqdoktor 07:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This might help - actual archived police statements of the various events leading up to the beating :

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003979.html

--Eqdoktor 07:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the nooses being in the school colors was a another myth that was debunked (?) futurebird 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware it was debunked. Can you provide a link? --Eqdoktor 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Never-mind I was thinking about the fact that nobody seems to know if it was two or 3 nooses. futurebird 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sun-Times article is the only one that would count as a reliable source. I'll try and work that in soon, if someone else doesn't. I found some sources that say they were in school colors (http://www.addisonindependent.com/?q=node/722) (http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/11773/1/392), but can anyone find a reliable source that says it was against the rival football team the Cowboys? Ophois 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently both the school colors thing and the Lonesome Dove thing are in the Bean statement that he circulated in an effort to get the story covered.--Wehwalt 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

left/right images

I got a comment on my user talk page about not having all of the images on one side. I've moved two to the left, but what do you guys think? Is it better or worse? I think I liked them better all on one side... futurebird 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Though it would be better in concept to have them on different sides, it messes up the look of the page if we do that. Ophois 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. futurebird 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

lack of minority media ownership

Here is the text that was removed:

Michael J. Copps, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission wrote in a letter to the Washington Post that the initially poor coverage of the Jena 6 case was probably related to the low rate of minority ownership of commercial broadcast television and radio stations.^[1]

And here is what he said:

The Jena 6 and the Media Wednesday, September 26, 2007; A18
Eugene Robinson's Sept. 21 op-ed, "Drive Time for the Jena 6," rightly concluded that black radio played a critical role in bringing to light what happened in Jena, La. These radio hosts are to be commended. But I worry that as the media grow ever more consolidated, they are doing less and less to serve people of color.
Last week in Chicago, I heard passionate testimony during an eight-hour Federal Communications Commission hearing on minority media ownership. Many people of color are tired of big media ignoring their concerns, distorting their contributions to society and caricaturing them as individuals. One reason is the lack of minority media ownership. A Free Press study says that while racial and ethnic minorities are more than 30 percent of the U.S. population, they own just 3.26 percent of all commercial broadcast television stations and 7.7 percent of full-power radio stations. This is a national disgrace.
Before the FCC again heads down the dangerous road of permitting huge media conglomerates to grow even bigger -- something it's looking at right now -- it should act on proposals to increase minority ownership.
MICHAEL J. COPPS, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, Washington

He's saying that although black talk radio got the word out, there still needs to be improvement in the area of black media ownership. A central issue related to the Jena 6 has been media coverage. "Many people of color are tired of big media ignoring their concerns" he says the remedy is black media ownership. Is there some way we can compromise so we can put this back in? I don't understand why it was removed. futurebird 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Read it carefully, futurebird. He uses Jena as a lead in, then goes on to talk about something quite different. You are the one who is conflating the two, I'm afraid. You're putting in cause and effect that don't exist in the letter.--Wehwalt 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think his point is that minority presence in media was crucial to getting the word out? Isn't that why he used it as an example? If not, why did he bring up the Jena 6? futurebird 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not his point. He brought up the Jena 6 as bait to get his letter printed and beat the drums for his agenda. People do it all the time.--Wehwalt 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the comments of the FCC Commissioner are relevant and contextualized, so let's compromise on this one. I suggest we word it like this: "Michael J. Copps, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, writing in a letter to the Washington Post, discussed the initially poor coverage of the Jena 6 case within the the context of the low percentage of minority-owned television and radio stations." I think this is an accurate account of what Copps was doing in his letter. Why don't you pop this version into the article, futurebird, and let's see how it goes. Qworty 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I misread the source. You're right, it is what he said. My apologies. Ophois 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you agree with the wording I proposed, could you please insert it where it belongs in the article, with the appropriate citation? I came to this discussion late and I'm having trouble finding those two elements. Thank you. Qworty 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added it back in. Ophois 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you rewrote the part nicely, but you left out what the guy said the effect of the lack of minority media ownership was. Ophois 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Better? I'm trying not to draw connections which aren't actually in the article.--Wehwalt 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least it's back in. That's a start. futurebird 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Intro

"Barker, according to witnesses, was struck on the back of the head knocking him down, a group of black students then repeatedly kicked him while he was on the ground." That 'according to witnesses' bit, I'm curious what it offers there except bias. I thought there was no question that he was struck from behind and knocked down, and there was no question he was attacked while on the ground. The only questions deal with severity, and who exactly did the attack. Having that 'according to witnesses' in there just seems to me like it's trying to leave open the possability that somehow those events aren't what really happened when I thought they were not in question. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems sort of like Weasel Wording I think is the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we weren't there. The details of the attack are based off of witness statements. Ophois 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay but by that logic every single thing on every single article on wikipedia should have that attached to it, since original research is never allowed, no one is ever present for anything here. However when no witnesses dispute the key facts of 1.) he was struck on the head, 2.) knocked down, and 3.) kicked by a group of black students, then adding 'according to witnesses' becomes redundant at best and a possible attempt to skew the sentance to one side of what should be a neutral introduction at worst. If that sentance tried to put more detail I would agree that according to witnesses might be neccisary, however when it states the fact as given that no one is disputing, then I see something of a problem and the addition of it has the sole purpose of skewing the writing to make it appear that maybe those events didn't happen (when neither side as far as I know, is questioning those key facts... only the motivations, exact individuals amount the 6 in question, severity, and after effects of them). It's either adds nothing to the sentance, and so should go on that grounds, or is Weasel Wording, and should go on that grounds.

There are conflicting details on certain parts, so I'll add those in when I can. I agree with what you say. Ophois 21:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Really all I'm asking is in that first intro, where as far as I know their is NO conflicting sides to the three facts listed in that sentance, it be removed. I agree that later on in this article, when more detail is added and some 'facts' do begin to have conflicting reports, then it is appropriate. However I don't see any source that argues he wasn't hit in the head, he wasn't standing after the hit, or it wasn't a black student that did it with at the least a group of black students around. As such in this one context, I think it should simply be removed. The other solution of course would be to add the conflicting parts to the intro and thus validate the need for it, but that seems to be the innappropriate action for an encyclopedia, the intro should be kept simple and short when possible, and details added in the appropriate subsection, not the other way around. Thanks for taking the time to listen to me, I'll defer to whatever you and others decide on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just gonna make a suggestion before I go... what about "Barker, according to witnesses, was struck on the back of the head knocking him down, a group of black students then repeatedly kicked him while he was on the ground." being changed to "Barker, was struck on the back of the head by a black assailant, knocking him down. Witnesses then say a group of black students repeatedly kicked him while he was on the ground." That way the unquestioned facts, the hit on the head, the black assaliant to that, and the knocked down don't have the misleading words in front of them, but the questioned facts... who was involved in kicking him when he was down keep, and the severity of that are left with the wording.

Oh, I thought you were talking about something else. I didn't realize that someone had added that stuff into the intro. I removed it, since it isnt needed in the intro.Ophois 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Witness Statements

There's some interesting stuff in the witness statements, such as an alleged hitlist. We should look through all the transcripts. Ophois 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Braxton Hatcher

There seems to be some doubt over whether or not to use the quotation from Braxton Hatcher. I believe quotations should be used like illustrations (images). They're great when used to illustrate a point - so long as that point is significantly supported elsewhere in the article.

For example, if the article cites surveys or significant leaders indicating a distrust of the legal system, then Hatcher's quote helps illustrate this point very well. However, his quote should not be used to "prove" that such a situation exists, since it is only one person's opinion (and not a particularly notable one at that). Rklawton 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the quotation should remain. The argument I've seen for being against it is that it unfairly represents the town's opinion as it is 'only' one man's opinion. However, the article does come from a Jena resident, and is properly sourced.Jstanierm 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Rklawton's point was, that the case for keeping it has not been made. I agree. It is a "man on the street" reaction, representing one man's opinion. I moved it (Jstanierm reversed for unknown reasons, but I rv'd that) to its own subsection. If we leave it in, it will not be the only Jena resident's reaction to be quoted. Sure you want to open this door?--Wehwalt 00:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a quote that represents a wider public response, and therefore belongs under "Public Response." The man not only lives in Jena, but works at the high school. You've inserted a lot of quotes that are nothing but the opinions of individuals and yet we're letting those quotes stand because they represent a wider public response. If you want Hatcher out, then all of the "one man's" opinions that you've inserted should be struck out as well. Qworty 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the rest of what Hatcher said, that he thinks it was just a fight between boys and so forth. If we are to use this quote at all, that HAS to be in there because it is the only place he talks about the case, not just his views on criminal justice generally in Jena. Does this mean that if I find quotes from other Jena residents which presumably represent a wider public response, that you have no objection to them coming in?--Wehwalt 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added quotes from a white resident, who thinks things are fair, and from a black public official, with a neutral view of "Can't we all just get along?" I think it makes for a nice summary of disparate views.--Wehwalt 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Though I would term them "illustrations" rather than "summaries". Rklawton 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all bloggers... etc.

Not all bloggers who wrote about the incident were in favor of dismissing the charges against the six. "I am very sympathetic to the point that there has been a systematic tendency to treat the black kids involved as thugs, while treating the white kids as just adolescent pranksters horsing around." Wrote Megan McArdle of Assymetric Information, "But they shouldn't be freed. Six guys assaulted one, and after he was lying on the ground unconscious, kicked him repeatedly in the head. They should go to jail for this."^[2]. Sandra Rose wrote: "I still think the rally in support of the Jena 6 boys was noble, but a little misguided. Only one of the Jena 6 remains in jail and based on his history of violent behavior - he needs to stay right where he is. The reality is if the 6 boys didn't beat one boy unconscious and kick him while he was on the ground, none of this would be happening. . . All this over a tree? MLK is rolling."^[3]

This paragraph seems to imply that all the other bloggers felt otherwise, and that isn't really true. There are plenty of people who protested because they felt that the charges were too harsh, but who didn't want *all* charges dismissed.

I don't get that from it, at least not to that degree that it implies ALL other bloggers. I think an implication can be taken from it perhaps the the majority of bloggers feel the opposite and the minority feel as those two listed do, however it can't be taken from that if it's a 51/49 or 99/1 ratio. It could possibly be reworded a little better, but I don't think it's quite that bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But the real problem is that only sources in this paragraph are the bloggs themselves. There is no newspaper source or anything. Is there a good source that talks about how "Not all bloggers" felt? I don't think we can let this stand just on the basis of these two blogs. We need a major media source to tie it too. Although, I'm okay with the blogs that were cited, that's just my opinion. Someone could come in here and post some radical random racist blog or something ... I'm saying we don't have the sources to support this section. It's just random quotes from blogs. They aren't there to support a more valid source like the things mentioned in the rest of the section on internet and bolgs.

Does it need to go?futurebird 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's sourced, and kept within reason to it's actual importane in the grand scheme of the article (like maybe one or two of the better blogs at most from any viewpoint), I think it could be appropriate. I also think it has the potential to rapidly devolve into something that would need to be removed because it could become inappropriate. However I don't think it's at that point yet, and 50% of this page falls under the potential to rapidly devolve given the conflicting views of many of the editors and sources being used. I vote keep it for now, but keep an eye on, and hope everyone can play nice about it in context of the article. If not, or if people use it as a battlefield for an edit war, then remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Public Response issue

If you go to referance 57, for "An elderly white resident of Jena addressed a town hall meeting by asserting, "We love our niggras down here. They go to church with us, we let them eat in our restaurants and we all shop at the same grocery store. We love our niggras and our niggras love us. We don't have a race problem down here." [57], and actually go to the source you'll find two things that I think are relevant. One, it is a lesser publication not associated with a major credible news source. I'm not convinced it's more credible then the Jena Times that was decided earlier to disallow as a source. Two, at the very bottom it has been pointed out by a poster there that major news sources have countered the facts as given in that source. So if the source is of questionable validity, I think this should be pulled. We shouldn't err on the side of a source being accurate, we should err against sources being allowed in if accuracy is in question. I think that old mans quote should only be allowed in here if we can find a source for it from a more credible news organization, and I can't imagine if it's real it wasn't noted somewhere by one of the major news sources covering this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted that because I doubt that even if it had been said, it is from an unnamed person and I doubt it carries any weight in the community> The source is http://www.kccall.com/article.cfm?articleid=1685 . I suggest we not use it at all. It is marked news, but it is not a major publication and contains a number of howlers. For example, Barker's name is spelled "Baker" a number of times. It repeats the three day suspension myth. It says the incident was a "school fight in September 2006." It says that Bell was freed on a $90,000 bond, rather than $45,000. There are others, but I'm in a hurry. As an interim measure, I have made it clear the source in a few cases, but I think we should delete the matter entirely. It is just not reliable enough. --Wehwalt 11:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to delete sourced examples of racism out of an article about racism. The source is demonstrably more reliable--containing fewer contested points--than the racist Jena Times, which we are still using as a source. And it's a much bigger paper than the Jena Times. Yes, it's one source, but Wehwalt has inserted countless statements into the article that are single-sourced, and keeps arguing that "sourced material should not be deleted" whenever those edits are reverted. So there is very solid ground for retaining this "niggra" quote. The only question left is the real reason you don't want it in the article. Qworty 16:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Kansas City CALL was founded in the spring of 1919. It's a local Black paper. Black papers have always offered extensive coverage of civil rights issues, often catching things ignored by other media. I think it is an OK source, but perhaps we should mention the source inline. Here is a link with information on the paper: [2] futurebird 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Given the errors in the article, and the sheer incindiary nature of the quote attributed to an unnamed person on an unnamed day, and presented to represent an element of Jena public opinion, it should not be used as the only source for anything. And this is not an article about racism, Quorty. It's an article about the "Jena Six". Given the number of things the author got wrong, how can we say with any confidence to the reader that anything we put in from that article is right? It's got to stay out.--Wehwalt 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No source is perfect, we should use it with an inline mention of the paper. Fair?futurebird

Nonsense. First, Quorty has the burden of proof here as the editor who adds or restores material. Second, according to WP:V, articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Given what has been stated above, there isn't much fact checking or accuracy going on at the Call. This is a "questionable source" and should not be used.--Wehwalt 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I should add that Quorty justified the Hatcher quote add on the grounds that it represented a segment of public opinion. We do not even have the name of one person whose opinion the "niggra" comment represents. Not one person can be named who adheres to that opinion. By Quorty's own standard, it should not come in.--Wehwalt 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

We're having a hard time agreeing if text in the section here is well sourced enough to be included in the article. See the debate above.

An elderly white resident of Jena addressed a town hall meeting by asserting, "We love our niggras down here. They go to church with us, we let them eat in our restaurants and we all shop at the same grocery store. We love our niggras and our niggras love us. We don't have a race problem down here." Source Used: [3]

Remove it completely - it gives undue weight to the views of "elderly white resident" and unbalances the article. Refer to this policy guideline - WP:Undue weight. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. It may be sourced yes, but its one random person's view quoted in the newspaper because it makes good type (sensationalistic reading). Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. --Eqdoktor 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Question: the article lists Eric L. Wesson as the author of the article. Is Wesson the former president of an NAACP branch as this excerpt [4] would suggest? Remember 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked around but I can't tell. I think so, but I don't have a link between the two. The paper has strong ties to the local NAACP as they explain in their about section on the website. Giving him a billing "as forner NAACP president and journalist" might help put the excerpt in context. futurebird 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't explain the many mistakes in the article. --Wehwalt 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if there are factual errors in that article, as quote is still a quote. Ophois 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it? From whom? And this quote wouldn't meet any of the standards discussed yesterday when we were debating whether to put the Hatcher quote in.--Wehwalt 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that they didn't give who said it. Ophois 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So we make this clear, we are still working on deciding whether the addition of the supposed quote is a good addition to the article, on which the adder or restorer of information has the burden of proof.--Wehwalt 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the person above that we should be polite and dignified about this subject. In general the article Lacks direct quoting, but in this section someone's blog (who is of seemingly little importance) is directly quoted as saying something with a definite bias, and of little value to this section. This section would be be less biased without the quote, and in addition the quote is superfluous, inflammatory, and has no precedent established in the rest of the article. Megan McArdle is not significant. Quote someone who matters, quote both sides of the issue, or don't quote at all. I say take it down, and will check back on in this shortly. But if wikipedia doesn't stay balanced while this article is going to be recieving the most attention, then wikipedia will loose much of its value. (Sam gunn 21:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

I could live with losing that. As I recall, I put those in to balance something else that Quorty was insisting on having. They were all quoted in Slate, that is how I got them.--Wehwalt 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Bush Appointee

Someone else has a problem with the Bush appointee point. I reverted his removal for now, due to the debate over it (though I think it was deleted from this talk page). If anyone wants to keep it, please give your argument.Ophois 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to mention that he's black you need to mention that he was appointed by Bush since both are meaningful in this case. I would like to see both his race and the information about bush removed. However, if we must have one we should have them both. (We've been through this three times now!) futurebird 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Both need to be removed. Mentioning his race and political affiliation does not naturally flow within the introduction and therefore suggests a bias to the reader that the writers of the article are going out of their way to attack (or promote) his credibility. — Ocatecir ^T 08:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we reproduce the photo from the DOJ web site here instead? We need more illustrations, especially since I think the photo of the white supremecist is gonna go. And government photos are public domain.--Wehwalt 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested clean-ups

The article needs some clean-up. In the present state, its a bit confusing and lacks focus. One of the reason is that people tend to throw in anything that shows up in the news without taking into the account the overall importance of the added item in Jena 6 encyclopedia article. A useful guideline essay to refer to is WP:NOTNEWS. I'm going to either delete or integrate the following sections from the Jena 6 article and I think its best to highlight my reasons to do so here:

Religious speech controversy - section needs to be deleted or compressed severely. Walters made a statement that some people took to be religiously condescending. How one interprets the statement is tellingly POV ("Jesus averted a disaster"). Storm in a tea-cup and a distraction in the article (a simple mention or complete deletion) - don't waste article space on it.

Self-described white supremacists - why does an encyclopedia article on the Jena 6 need to devote and entire section and image to them? They showed up to get publicity for their cause and we obliged. They had ZERO effect on the rally and at best, a simple MINOR mention. Merge into a single line or two ("White supremacists also showed up."). Anything more gives WAY TOO MUCH WP:Undue weight to their presence - why are we devoting nearly the same amount of space describing maybe a dozen white supremacists compared to the space devoted to describing the 30,0000 strong rally? (PS: the main rally section needs expansion, not very detailed for an important event).
- That image of the white supremacists has to removed really - per above. Gives them too much credit as an opposing viewpoint. Yes, there is a backlash, but white supremacists are the extremist minority.

Other developments
- Remove the mention of Bailey's ill advised MySpace photos. Unless there is significant major coverage of these photos in mainstream media, I believe that the mention of the images is not necessary in the encylopedia article. This may change if there are reports that the donated money has been mishandled or mismanaged.
- Barker's arrest and expulsion for gun charges. Ditto as above. Its not relevant what happened to the victim afterwards. Barker's gun charges is not related to the Jena 6 incident and should be irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. There is no real media coverage on the issue because Barker is still a juvenile and he avoided the expulsion by dropping out.

There is also a need to go through the entire article with an eye out for WP:Undue weight POV issues, that is:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

The changes will be implemented after a short discussion here for consensus. --Eqdoktor 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I can live with all those changes. Frankly, a lot of it is due to compromises with a couple of editors who have very strong views that this should be an "article on racism" and who are very insistent on getting their way, to the point of violating 3RR. Why don't you go through it, do what needs doing, and we'll see what happens next?--Wehwalt 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Eqdoktor 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this attempted a week or two ago, and Qworty just reverted anything back he had an opinion on? He's still got the power to do that right? Just don't see what good this is going to do. Maybe in 6 months when they've moved on to their next OpEd crusade, but right now since none of them have agreed to put up with it here, what's to make us think any edits you put the time in to do won't just get thrown back like last time? I'm for you doing this, I just think it'll be a waste of time. Even if you pull some of the crappy sources, what's to stop him from coming in and saying it's only your opinion the source he liked was crappy and putting it back (or what's to stop anyone on the opposite side from doing the same, like with some of the hearsay on the juvy records). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Get enough people on board to support this version, then force Quorty to keep reverting until an admin nails him for 3RR. That would slow him down.--Wehwalt 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "get enough people" is the problem. That's just a popularity contest to who shows up. On a given day that could be a roll of the dice. I think the issue here is that at times, the voice of the masses here is already speaking... and it's speaking out saying 'screw policies or accurate encyclopedia writing, we want our voices heard'. Unfortantly 10 uninformed, uneducated people with strong opinions all speaking together don't make something any more academically credible (especially with the weatlh of incredibly biased and discredible sources willing to support either extreme here). That's a problem with Wikipedia as a whole though. It's just why trying to fix this page now is going to be like pissing on a raging forest fire. Right area, but what's the point when the fuel that's keeping it going in the first place is still so strong. Might as well wait till it's smaller and you have a chance of doing the right thing when it'll actually work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but right now is when people are seeking us out for information. Keep pissing.--Wehwalt 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL well best of luck to you, if you guys think you can clean this article up to be something resembling actual academic viability and less political hype (mostly leftist but the right shoots in now and again) I wish you luck. Hope you guys drank more coffee then the last folks who tried this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be an academic and a journalist, and from what I can see about the editing of this page, it is the conservative reactionary forces that dominate, that continually reverse or marginalize reasonable, factual contributions that explain the racialized context of the Jena Six case, that continually add POV regarding their view that `racism has nothing to do with anything,' and constantly decry the `biased and misleading media' for the fact that THEIR POV is a minority view. The opening paragraph is case in point. Most of the media articles from credible sources cited ON THIS PAGE point out the hanging of the nooses as the event that catalyzed the rest of this conflict in the town. Yet Wehwalt and others spend most of their time ossilating between reversing/deleting or marginalizing the fact that this even happened, and going through the article to do the same with any other information in the article that implies that racism is part of the issue. Talk about crusading! People editing this page need to stop crusading and start thinking about what a reader needs to know to understand the issues brought up by this case. I would like to use wikipedia in my classroom to inform my University students about what happened in Jena and what it represents. Unfortunately this page tends to be more useful as study in white denial and domination than a neutral presentation that will lead to understanding between people. Ironically the editing of this page is a microcosm of the same racist dynamic that took place in Jena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmad (talk • contribs) 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that you want to teach your students the incorrect info that's being reported by the media? It sounds to me from what you just said that you're upset because we're including stuff that contradicts possibly racist events. If reporting of events conflict, both sides have to be in the article.

Ophois 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that is all you managed to get out of what I said Ophois... but thanks for proving my point with your complete and utter obfuscation. Try going back and looking at the pattern of how this page has developed, what has been left in and what has been reversed or deleted, what has been emphasized and what has been marginalized, and then maybe you will understand my actual point...Kelmad 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of generalizing, why not list specific points in your argument? You say that the media has claimed that the noose incident started the whole thing, yet you're criticizing because we're introducing new reliable sources that say otherwise? As I said before, it sounds like you just want this article to be all about racism, even though new information about the events are proving somewhat otherwise. Ophois 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We are here to report neutrally and dispassionately. We care about what went on in Jena, or we would not be interested in this article, but we are upholding WP standards to the best of our abilities. We don't always agree, but we are doing our best. We're not here to say "what it represents"; that's opinion. We are here to report the facts. You would be justifiably upset were an article you are interested was slanted away from your views. We are doing our best to make sure this article has no slant, no bias. Yes, there are those who think having no bias, is itself biased. I can't help that.--Wehwalt 01:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One would only have to look at the history of your edits and comments, Wehwalt, to see how absurdly disingenuous your statement is. If you mean what you say, try being a bit more neutral in your practice.Kelmad 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Empassioned speech aside, would you please take the time to actually cite some of what you're accusing them of? All I see is they pulled some questionable sources and from what they're saying here they're being very careful to follow wikipedia policies in doing so (and they're being pretty open about it here). I think some of us are willing to listen to you, we want neutrality here, but that was kind of rhetoric and just saying you teach a University class here is the Wiki equivlant of going to a matchmaking site and claiming you're a weightlifting astronaut that looks like a tall young Tom Cruise. I think we all get you have some frustration but please back it up with exactly what they've done... and what they've violated... if you think they're doing something wrong. You seem to have things in mind so please point them out in detail and people will listen. All I've seen discussed here from these people you're attacking is removing things that wikipedia says should go... not these guys personally say, but Wikipedia says. If that hurts how you view things should be and how you view this event, well, tough. Your a personal view isn't relevant at all. However if you want to come here with a valid thing they did wrong, with a valid reason why, especially with good sources or counter sources, then not only are we more apt to listen but we're more apt to back you as you change it back. Otherwise I'd think a University professor of all people would know to counter their arguement, sources, and wikipedia uses not their motivation which is irrevelvant, since even if they have some as long as they source properly and follow wikipedia guidelines they can still do what they do. Just as you can still do what you do despite your bias on the other side, as long as you follow Wikipedia and use outside valid, credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the context of the Judge being an African American and Bush appointee serves only to justify perceptions of those that feel the administration is racist and people of color that serve in the administration are "sell-outs" to their race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovement (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Official documents

Several days ago, we inserted an external link with a number of witness statements. An editor is insisting on making the fact the page with the documents went up part of the narrative of the article, together with a short legal argument about a prior case which apparently was the basis for the tennis shoe as deadly weapon ruling. I suggest we restore it as an external link. None of this needs to be in the text of the article. It is not news.--Wehwalt 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about the other case, since it has nothing to do with the Jena Six documents being released to the public. I think that mentioning that the documents are online in the article is useful (the way it currently is). Ophois 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . if this was about them being released to the public, that's one thing. This is about someone building a private web site to host what was already in the public record. That's laudable, but that's not really part of the case. It should be just an external link. I suggest a little self promoting is going on, but the point is, it's not germane to the story.--Wehwalt 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Yeah, I guess it should be put back into external links, although I think it should be noted somewhere within the article about them being accessable.Ophois 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(Sam gunn 23:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)) I have been checking up on the media entries, which seem to be cursed with people wanting one quote from the media. Previously there was a quote from a random blogger which was innapropriate. Now there is a quote present relating the Jena 6 highschool assault to the Columbine murder/suicides, and therefore these Adolecents to the same privileged middleclass-white-male students who shot up Columbine. 1)This is an idiotic reference, no matter who the source is. 2)This quote is not relevant to the article, especially when no other significant quoting is done in the media section. 3) This quote is definitely biased against the Jena 6, while there is no quote demonstrating an opposite bias. Wikipedia has now locked this quote in so that it now creates a page with a bias. It should not be allowed to stay. Whatever the guilt, innocence, racism or lack thereof these students faced, this quote has no buisness in this document. IF it is so important for Ted Rall to get his opinion out there, I'm sure he will be able to get it printed somewhere else.

Per discussion here, I am going to keep moving that site back to external links. It is a useful resource. But it is not official, not authenticated, and may be selective for all we know. I think we should describe what it is, and keep it in the external links.--Wehwalt 18:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Noose hangings at Jena High School

This section should probably be broken into subsections. There's too much varying info in the section, IMO.Ophois 03:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

School board

The article currently says, "On September 10, 2006, black students attempted to address the school board concerning the recent events but were refused because the board was of the opinion that the noose incident had been adequately resolved." The cited source says that "dozens" of students attempted to address the school board. However, most newer sources I've seen just say that the parents were the ones trying to do so. What does everyone think? Ophois 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen differing sources on this, including ones that say the reason the board would not hear from the people was that it was leading into student privacy issues (i.e. disciplinary). I would use our standard dodge and say that accounts differ, then tell the reader how they differ. I suspect we're gonna have to do more of that--Wehwalt 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, as i noted elsewhere, the one source listed i had to remove as unreliable. I think we should just remove it. Cryo921 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New stuff

Here's some articles with some new info that I think would be good for the article.

A new bill passed by the Senate: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/US_Senate_Passes_Jena_Six_Legislation_Introduced_By_Louisiana_Mary_Landrieu___4833.asp

"Free the Jena Six" t-shirt controversy: http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1624&year=

Song by John Mellencamp: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLrTu5j8j4sxFG_2EZU0I6PtR5pQD8S3FSLO2 Ophois 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. The Mellencamp one is the one that's gotten the most attention; we can probably do without the other two.--Wehwalt 07:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The bill passed by the Senate might be appropriate here. The other two seem somewhat Trivial to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.184.132 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Mellencamp song, and the reaction to it, are prominent enough to be included. Jena's mayor have decried it and the video as inaccurate. I think that's worth putting in, I've heard radio stories about it. The other two don't seem to be going anywhere. There have been bans on the Free the Jena 6 t shirts at a number of schools, including Jena High. If we were to put that in, I would suggest adding a new subsecion called "student reaction" and include that and the student walkouts that have occurred here and there.--Wehwalt 15:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Invalid reference pages?

It appears references #6 and #9 do not point to valid articles, at least when I attempt to follow them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.231.29 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mael-Num

Please stop adding uncited info to the article. The only source that has what you claim is a blog (the description for the site even calls itself a "weblog"), which isn't a reliable source. As well, what it says is a quote from a forum, nothing reliable.Ophois 20:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

By my count, close to half of what's been cited in this article can be called a "weblog". That's just the nature of Web 2.0. Everyone's using it. However, it is an article, which is referenced, and published on 3 different sites. My info is cited, and their info is cited, even if you don't like it.

Probably a good idea to stop edit-warring, too. I'll follow my own advice and wait until the administrative case I've filed against you is resolved before I take further action. Mael-Num 20:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The info isn't published on three different sites... one site just says that there was a football game, and the other is a quote taken from a message board. The third one, which is still in the article, mentions none of what has been removed.Ophois 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Read very carefully, that's all I can say. The article I am citing has been published by 3 different online sources. I quote the one because it's easier. Appealing to ignorance helps no one.

Oh, and I'd like to also point out that, despite your claim to have attempted to "talk" before your last revert, your timestamps show you reverted before you attempted to parlay. Cute pretense, but you're fooling no one. You don't own this article, so stop acting like it. Mael-Num 21:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I posted the talk after I reverted. It's your burden of proof to cite what you added, so you were supposed to talk here before reverting again. And you keep saying that it's "thrice-published". If that's the case, why don't you just post the other articles when one's validity is being debated? Ophois 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the article for a week, until disputes can be worked out. This is not an endorsement of the given version, etc etc. --Haemo 00:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Since this is for all intents and purposes a debunking of a major event in this saga, I think we are correct to insist on a RS per WP:RS if it is to be included. I suggest we use this interim time for Mael-Num to seek out and post a RS and for other editors to evaluate it. Get on with the process, please.--Wehwalt 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, just look at the sources being cited!

This is the diff of the change that was part of the 3RR warring by Mael-Num: [5].

The source [6] is just a scoreline of the game being played that weekend. No mention of lasso or mascot, inferring anything else would be OR. Is it reliable source? Yes, sure maybe for the game BUT NOT for lasso citation as it seems to be the case here.

The source [7] is an opinion blog. It is a self-published source itself citing random sources like talk forums. This particular blog fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:SPS.

The source [http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/10/what_really_rea.php] is a whopper. Do you seriously intend to cite American Renaissance (magazine) as a reliable source? A magazine noted as "a monthly racialist magazine published by the New Century Foundation. The magazine's founder Jared Taylor has been called a white separatist." (the article cited was incidentally written by Taylor). From WP:RS: Extremist sources - Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. American Renaissance (magazine) is totally unusable in a Wikipedia article as a source.

As for the source of the contention itself - I have no problems whatsoever if new facts surrounding the original "Noose Hanging" incident appears and the accepted media potrayal is 'debunked' - BUT - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Frankly the 3 above sources stink on ice.

I request that the page be unlocked to delete the contentious material added in the 3RR warring that fails all aspects of WP:RS and WP:V.

While we are at it - yes, the article needs some cleanup on sources being used.--Eqdoktor 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think a total lockdown for a few months as a concept is not a bad idea. Wikipedia articles on current events tend to read like breathless amateur newspaper editorials. A bit of distance from the event will improve the quality of the article. WP:NOT#NEWS - The Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Eqdoktor 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. But I think it should be unlocked and we should keep up to date. People expect if they consult WP, they are going to get info, and it shouldn't look out of date. I agree with you on the sources. I think the lassos are a white supremecist urban legend, though the "school colors" thing has leaked into advocacy articles pushing a different viewpoint.

It is rather a hole in the story, no pun intended. What was really the motive of these stupid kids who posted the nooses? It seems to have been a response to Purvis's question, but is that actually true or isn't it? I hope more info comes out and we can clear this up in the article. But it needs to be reliably sourced.--Wehwalt 17:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair to completely dismiss a source because its publishers are of a certain political belief? That's all I want to know with regard to the rejection of the article I cited. If it is wikipedia's policy to censor sources because its editors do not agree with their ideologies, then so be it. Though, perhaps there should then be a disclaimer somewhere on the front page that Wikipedia is a worthless source of information, because its editors slap on blinders and only print what they already agree with. Mael-Num 22:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kindly assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors - trolling like the above response is counter productive. To rehash what I wrote above, simply - the content you provided cited sources that just do not conform to the following policies:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Verifiability - specifically Self-published sources (online and paper)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
WP:REDFLAG - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
WP:RS#Extremist_sources

I'm not inclined to write an entire essay about the need about sources conforming to Wikipedia policies. Apart from familiarity of the rules from daily use of the Wikipedia - I am in all truthfulness not qualified such an essay. Frankly everyone will be bored to tears with such Wiki-lawyering anyways. If you have already made up your mind as in your response - there is no point anyway.

As to American Renaissance (magazine) source you cite, it is an unreliable source not because the publishers (and editors) hold a certain belief - it is unreliable because it is an explicitly political publishing organization PUSHING AN EXTREMIST POLITICAL AGENDA AND BELIEF. It is not neutral, unbiased and factually reliable. If you cannot see a problem with that and and how it breaks all the policies I list above - no amount of explanation I (or anyone else) can write will satisfy you. * For pete's sake, AmRen claims that the untreated Syphilis experiment was good science. This is the topsy-turvy 180° extremist world it lives in.

It is also telling that Craig Franklin (supposedly a reporter from Jena Times) can only publish his findings (that the nooses were actually jokes meant for white friends) in a right wing extremist publication AmRen rather than in the Jena Times itself (a publication I follow with some interest). --Eqdoktor 07:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For all your "frank" and "truthful" claims that you are "not qualified such an essay [sic]", you seem to have done a pretty good job of producing an overly wordy and rhetorically flawed argument. I wasn't aware of AmRen's political leanings (though the contents listed elsewhere on the site gave me an idea that they are likely racialists. Please note, there is a distinction between racialism and racism, even if you're not aware of it.

You may or may not agree with them, but that's clearly original research on your part to take a cited journalistic piece and disqualify it because you disagree with what's being said in other articles which are completely unrelated to the subject at hand. Logically, just as we must not include original research as valid in an article, we may not exclude valid, third-party published, cited sources because some editor has a "bad feeling" about what other authors have written elsewhere at other times in that publication. If I may now have a moment of honesty, I can't believe I even need to explain this. It's laughable that you're trying to dismiss a source as prejudiced using your own prejudices as a rationalization. "Consensus" these days on WP seems to amount to the "lowest common denominator", which of course means "crap". But hey, it's crap by committee so that counts for something.

Hell, since we're being frank and all that, I think the story (as told in AmRen) is BS too, I couldn't possibly imagine someone growing up in the South in America in the 21st century who doesn't understand the possible implication of hanging a rope in a tree, regardless of the number of loops tied into the knot. However, that account of events is everywhere on the internet, and it's become part of the backstory of this event. Major news outlets may not be carrying it, but that may be more a reflection of the media than anything else (also worth noting that major media sources also conflict with respect to other details of the "white tree", so errors and omissions are known to exist in their coverage). To wholly exclude it from the article is censorship and plainly POV pushing. Due to the fact that I find the story dubious, I think it should be included. It offers an alternate explanation for the events surrounding the "white tree", albeit a minority report. My opinion is that it should be included, to challenge the reader to decide which story is more likely. In my country, we protect the speech of the few...maybe you live someplace else, but our system is clearly better.

And finally, kindly save your WP:AGF for when it applies. I don't need to assume anything when one's actions have demonstrated the opposite (i.e. the duck test). Mael-Num 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not all. Rereading the original post under this header is irking me. The first source is used for nothing else but to show that a game was taking place, and who the opponent was. If you believe otherwise, you're mistaken. The second source is not self-published, but rather appears on 3 different blog sites, and moreover offers its own citations and sources. Of course, I've already discussed the third source. Mael-Num 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The citations the second one offers is to a forum, where a user posted the used quote. That is not a reliable source. You keep saying that it's on three different sites, yet you've yet to give the links to the other sites. If they are reliable sources, then it can be added (though if all three are blogs, then they probably wouldn't count as a RS). Ophois 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to give the additional links, because they're right there on the page. Mael-Num 04:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And finally, kindly save your WP:AGF for when it applies. I don't need to assume anything when one's actions have demonstrated the opposite (i.e. the duck test). In that case, Duck (quack) test says WP:DNFTT applies to you. :) --Eqdoktor 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for an edit

Kindly revert the article to the version here: [8].

The diff of the material removed is here: [9]. The paragraph is a POV allegation that cites a racist magazine as a source. See above. --Eqdoktor 17:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Granted. I don't know why my protection of the page reverted to that version. Very odd. --Haemo 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of the given version, etc etc.

So much for that bit of good practices. Mael-Num 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The protection is off. Frankly, I would have been agreeable to a full lock down for a month or more.--Eqdoktor 09:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

clean up sources and quotes, also editorials

Will need to look at some of the sources and quotes used in the article. Need to clean up some of the editorializing.

Why does the article feature Jason Whitlock and Ted Rall's views specifically? Why single them out and not other op-eds written about the Jena 6? Come to think of it, why does the article push Whitlock's editorial POV twice? - WP:Undue weight issues here - are we giving his views (and Rall's) more prominence on the issue than they warrant? Since they are not directly involved with the case, I'm thinking of compressing their views to a single line or 2 explaining their POV articles. --Eqdoktor 10:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your PoV about it being undue weight. They're in there as representatives of larger viewpoints in and about this event(large enough to be signifigant to this issue and article), chosen because of how they say their points, to some extent their backgrounds, and most importantly because they can be traced to reliable sources. Essentially they're reasonable choices to offer their views and be wikipedia appropriate, would you prefer MaelNums choices? Or the stuff that had been on here that was sourced to black power magazines on the other extreme? While I can agree it might be appropriate to better organize how they're presented in the article, I think trying to compress the complexity of their views into "one or two lines", given you aren't a professional writer and offhand it doesn't appear you agree with them, might be something you'd be better off asking someone else to do even if you want to continue with that line of changes. Much of this article could use compressing, but I think we'll get the best results if people on their respective sides of the fence on this edit down their sides parts (or at least are given a chance to first), and each side doesn't go after the others right away. That just asks for more of what this article doesn't need again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.184.179 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned editor. We have to have some representative viewpoints in there. We have others. We have an actor's viewpoint whose sole qualification to give that viewpoint is that he gave money to the defense fund (money talks, I guess). We have those who spoke at the rally. We have to have viewpoints, if we took all viewpoints out, the article would be dry and confusing to the reader. I did, however, slice some off the Whitlock, Rall, and Bowie quotes--Wehwalt 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mychal Bell

Apparently he had a prior conviction and was on probation prior to the assault. News outlets seem uncertain as to what that conviction was for. Does anyone have any source for it? Ikilled007 09:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article...Ophois 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. All the article says is "for previous convictions." It doesn't say what he was on probation for. I think that might be important. Does anyone know what Mychal Bell was on probation for before the assault? Ikilled007 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Look in the section "Mychal Bell proceedings". Two counts of battery, two of property destruction.--Wehwalt 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still in the article isn't it, I think it was to an ESPN reporter of all people, that the previous battery had been because he had battered his girlfriend? Just seems important to me that in the perspective of 'neutral' encyclopedia a black male who beats a women and is then deified in the media for political purposes be shown for the truth here. I don't get how so many of our sisters are hurt every day, and to make one of those men a martyr when their is so much real injustice against true black heroes. However that wouldn't incite white people like Al Sharpton supporting criminals, and then he wouldn't have the racial tension he needs to continue to be as rich and powerful as he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.110.62 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is hiding information about the beating and the victim from the intro

Why talk about the nooses and not mention that the victim was beaten because of his White race? The lead is one-sided.BBandBeyond 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do not actually know that he was beaten because of his race. The purpose of the lead is to give the reader a very brief introduction to the topic in the article (WP:LEAD). There is considerable information on the beating further down.--Wehwalt 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

He was beaten because he was White. Wehwalt here is some new info that we could incorporate into the article: http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070825/NEWS01/708250317/1002 BBandBeyond 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add the stuff. But you are using a machete instead of a scalpel. Be more subtle with your edits. If you put in eight or ten lines enumerating bail factors, you are creating a pov problem and you're gonna get reverted. Put nuggets of info in, not the whole bucket.--Wehwalt 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Hearings

CSPAN has been broadcasting the Congressional testimony (See CSPAN main page). Can anyone get a good link to the actual hearings or a transcript of the hearing to the page? Remember 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing information in public response

I am new to this page so want to propose some changes on Talk before making them on the article. It seems like there are a lot of details missing from the public response section. Here are some of the things I want to introduce:

There was an initial march on Jena to coincide with Mychal Bell's original sentencing date, July 31. It was small (about 300 people, I think) but helped build the momentum around the case.
At that first march a petition was delivered to the DA with 44,000 signatures.
The public response section lists a petition that got more than 400,000 signatures. There is also a second petition launched by the group ColorOfChange that gathered about 300,000 signatures. Seems like they should both be in there.
Also, there is at least one other legal defense fund besides the NAACP. ColorOfChange raised more than 200K, which I think is more than the NAACP (although the article doesn't say the size of the NAACP fund).
I also think Media coverage should be a separate section
And re: media coverage, there was a lot of discussion post jena about the role of MySpace and black bloggers. I don't see that in here, and it seems like it belongs.
Also there is at least one other Jena song out there--by Bomani Armah, the guy who did the "Read a Book" song that got a lot of play on YouTube.

Does anyone object if I make these additions/changes? Thanks! And great work to all who have been contributing to this article. Great example of how WP can be a leading source on current events. --Mackabean 05:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments. The initial efforts (march, signatures) are fine if sourced, but keep it to one paragraph, I would say. If you go to Myspace and black bloggers, that becomes a problem because then we have to put in comments from other bloggers, for balance. As for myspace, that opens the door to Bailey's infamous myspace photos, you know, the money of color (I like that, actually. Hmmm.) So I would be cautious. And make sure that you cite extensively to reliable sources. We're trying to run a good quality article here, even if it hasn't been stable enough to ask for Good Article status.--Wehwalt 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Of course I will cite all sources extensively. Wouldn't have it any other way:) In terms of the bloggers, I wasn't talking so much about including lots of blog posts so much as making note of their role in driving the protests. For example, this article discusses the role of bloggers: [10]. The article is cited once, but the point about blogs isn't really included in the article. I'll work on some of the additions tomorrow. --Mackabean 07:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Three empty citations

There are three citations in the references section that have no text in them. It kind of gives the appearance that uncited statement are cited. Can anyone replace them with appropriate sources? 212.179.71.70 10:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed --Eqdoktor 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hip Hop Awards

I am continuing to add sourced info on the appearance by two of the Jena Six and assorted family members at the BET Hip Hop Awards. I know this gives Eqdoktor concerns. However, this case is really about perception in a way, how these defendants are perceived by others, and if an element of society is acclaiming them as heroes, we have to grit our teeth and cover it. Eqdoktor deleted my link to a site with photos of them on the red carpet. I propose to return that, but not in the text, but as an external link.--Wehwalt 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the mention of it is kept brief and sourced within the article, I see no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the inline text of the article somewhere. They were there, the only reason they were there was over this, and it is a definete subsect of society they're appealing to by going there and is supporting them in inviting them there. It doesn't need a paragraph, but a sentance and link sounds just fine to me. It's actually one of the more neutral things ever attempted to be put here, either faction can spin it to their side.

Well, what do you think of the paragraph as it stands now?--Wehwalt 01:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with whats in the article at the moment. Wording needs to be strictly neutral. The 'red carpet' photos link should be eliminated as they are irrelevant to the main thrust of the article - which is about the 'Jena 6' incident. Much as the Bailey myspace photos are not included in the article. --Eqdoktor 09:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Petitions before rallies

I see that rallies have just been moved above petitions. I actually think the petitions should come first, as they happened first chronologically, and were quite instrumental in spreading the story and building momentum for the marches.--Mackabean 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see it more as for the convenience of the reader. The rally was the most prominent and best known event. However, I don't have strong views on the subject.--Wehwalt 04:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Media coverage: Black radio, black bloggers, and timeline

I see that Wehwalt has taken out the subheading on black radio. Because black radio was so instrumental in driving this story, I think that subheading should be reinstated. I also think there should be a subsection on the black bloggers. I've seen multiple reports that say this was the first major story really pushed by the black blogosphere, which has apparently grown significantly in the past few years. Finally, the media response section is inaccurate as it stands right now. It says coverage began in September, coinciding with the marches. In fact, the coverage began in May with reports from the BBC, the Tribune, some alternative media sources, and then CNN following in July. If there is going to be a media coverage section, I think the development of the story should be described more accurately. With everyone's assent, I would like to make those changes. Please let me know any thoughts. Thanks. --Mackabean 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was only one paragraph on the black radio, I felt it pointless to have its own subsection. Don't mean to dis them. As for the media, go ahead and change it if you like. I'll probably put a cite to the Whitlock article noting that Bean spoon fed the story to the Tribune among others. As for the bloggers, like I said before, go ahead and put them in, noting my previous concerns about reliable sources and also opening the door for the need for balance (which can possibly be avoided if we don't quote from them, just note their influence.--Wehwalt 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do we give Whitlock so much space? Whitlock's article is an opinion piece - nothing more. He accepts the Jena Times (not an unbiased source - its a small town paper with close ties to the Jena authorities under the microscope) version of the events hook, line and sinker and creates a conspiracy theory out of thin air ('the media is evil!' says he). Frankly, I place more credibility on the reporting of the Chicago Tribune and the BBC (two main source that broke the Jena 6 story) over that of the Jena Times and Whitlock ANYTIME. Why the heck is Jason Whitlock cited so many times in the article? He himself is a bit of a joke being fired from ESPN for publically disparaging his work colleagues. Since when did he get any authorative credibility to comment on the Jena 6 case for him to be cited so many times in Wikipedia? All his points are already covered in this AP link. Cite that rather than Whitlocks POV media conspiracy theory! --Eqdoktor 11:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a RS. I would be taking it for his factual statement, rather than his opinion. A number of the sources blend fact and opinion. And others simply get the facts wrong (three days of in school suspension). Let's not be that picky.--Wehwalt 13:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles are STILL getting the facts wrong. I see an article in the Washington Post today which says the noose kids were suspended for three days and forced to attend a week of disciplinary classes. The ghost of Alan Bean's spin still walks.--Wehwalt 13:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Its an opinion column. The newspaper he is published may be a RS but it does not imply that Whitlock's own opinion carry any more credibility than he warrants. He is mentioned in the article under the columnist/editorials section to represent differing viewpoints in the media, we should NOT be quoting his conspiracy theories as facts. (IE: I'll probably put a cite to the Whitlock article noting that Bean spoon fed the story to the Tribune among others.) Don't fall into the trap of accepting Whitlock's POV media conspiracy rant as fact - the news media reporting IN FACT has reported on the gray areas of case (ref: this AP link as one example) in spite of what Whitlock says. As for the Alan Bean canard, its HIS POV ("shoot the whistle-blower") not a proven fact. This Wikipedia article will not misrepresent his opinion as "factual".

PS: Your post above indicates that you have bought into the conspiracy theory that the whole Jena 6 incident is just media spin. Are you editing the article with that in mind? --Eqdoktor 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of times you've edited this article with clear personal bias, not wikipedia policy backing, and often edited it directly w/o attempting any discussion on questionable issues here first, you are probably the last person that should be throwing out accusations like that against someone else. Agreement or disagreement with your statement isn't even relevant, I disagree with you, given your history, making attacks on other posters percieved bias or credability. Debunking his source, fair enough, trying to make it personal, you aren't the one to go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.180.208 (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Alan Bean spin orchestrated and distorted the initial Chicago Tribune and BBC expose - lets have some reliable references and sources to back it up. Alan Whitlock's column is a POV essay - do we have any serious and reliable news sources that says that there was anything improper with the initial exposes? (no, not AmRen please). --Eqdoktor 13:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who edits this article has opinions. What is important is the edits. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Shall I cross examine you?

We are citing to the NPR article which blends fact and opinion, even though we know a lot of the facts in the article are wrong. And God knows Witt's articles for the Tribune are strong POV. The important thing is to winnow through that for facts. I suggest that we note that Bean provided his version of events to Witt and the BBC. That is a fact stated in a reliable source, and it has not been contradicted to my knowledge. If it causes you concern, we can note "According to Whitlock, . . . ". If it helps the reader understand a version of events about how this whole thing came to be, it is for the good. If there are other versions of events, we can cite those too.--Wehwalt 14:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I reverted your edit undoing mine which caught up in it the Wash Post article I added and the needed reorganization of the media coverage section. Try again and take out what you think needs to be taken out without going overboard. Since I don't have time to spend slaving over a hot laptop, you'll probably make a lot of, er, progress before I have time to look at things again.--Wehwalt 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a big problem with a Criticism of mistakes in coverage with Whitlock as 'main source' with numerous quotations and highlights of his POV conspiracy theory. The Jena 6 story in the media (if one were to do the research) does not have more or less errors in reporting than any other media reporting of a news scandal. A seperate section entitled Criticism of mistakes in coverage pushes a POV (of which Whitlock is a mainstream believer) of a conspiracy theory on the part of the media. It does not help that the Jena 6 incident has numerous aspects of "he says, they said" (one word against the other). Such a section gives wholly undeserved undue weight in the encyclopedia on the part of "Jena 6 is a media conspiracy" theorists. --Eqdoktor 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put in a WP:RFC request for on the issue. RfC is the next step in the process if we cannot reach an agreement after negotiation. The step after RfC is Wikipedia:Third opinion - asking for a third opinion. --Eqdoktor 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Incidently, if you put in the black bloggers (the Afrosphere), the trail leads right back to Alan Bean. See http://listentomeforaminute.blogspot.com/2007/04/racial-tension-in-small-louisiana-town.html for a copy of his narrative, referenced in the Whitlock article, posted in the Afrosphere. Unless you want a very censored version of events, it's all going to come back to the same thing. Trail's pretty clear.--Wehwalt 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC Media coverage of Jena 6

The creation of a separate section entitled, "Criticism of mistakes in coverage" gives undue weight to the media conspiracy theory view of a single editorial columnist cited in the section. --Eqdoktor 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter does not meet the standards for WP:RfC as Eqdoktor has not attempted compromise, he's doing wholesale reversions. But if we ignore that: All due respect, but what conspiracy theory? A reliable source has indicated that the Jena Six story was publicized by a guy named Alan Bean, who packaged it to the Chicago Tribune and other sources. There were any number of errors and POV's, from an allegation that the noose kids were only given three days suspension to characterizing Bell as an honors student (the latter of which I have not put in the article). Where's the conspiracy? At best, there is a failure to independently confirm. I think Eqdoktor, who is pushing for more and more space for things like the effects of black bloggers on building the story, wants to paint this as a grass roots sort of thing. Guess what. They are not mutually inconsistant, and both things can be true. We are not equipped to judge what is true and what is not, and the best we can do is give space to any reliably sourced reporting.--Wehwalt 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, Howard Witt of the Chicago Tribune agrees that Bean gave him the story, though he disagrees with the way Whitlock characterizes it. See http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/howard-witt-responds-indirectly-to-jason-whitlock/ . So I am unclear exactly what it is we are arguing about.--Wehwalt 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're pushing Whitlock's opinionated libels on Bean as fact in Wikipedia - thats what we're arguing about. --Eqdoktor 09:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If Whitlock libelled Bean, I'm sure Bean can find a lawyer. You aren't Bean's lawyer. Don't call your edits "reversion of libel" (I paraphrase) as a way of avoiding 3RR. Or else make a case, citing a definition of libel (Bean is a public figure, by the way) that Whitlock's comments are libel and put it on the talk page here. Over to you, Doctor.--Wehwalt 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In a column in the Kansas City Star, Jason Whitlock drew attention to what he called factual inaccuracies in reporting of the story. He focused on the piece circulated by Bean to news outlets, "Bean’s story is framed — by his own admission — as an indictment of the criminal justice system and the people in power in Jena and, therefore, the story is unfairly biased."[20]

I think that this short quote is the right amount of coverage for this article. Anything more than this would give undue weight compared to the other columnists. futurebird 04:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eqdoktor

Let's negotiate. Each of us is going to have to accept some opinion, because this case is about opinion. Personally, I'd delete David Bowie's opinion, I don't think paying 10 grand makes his opinion worthwhile. So why don't we see what each of us can live with? You seem to have a problem with the Whitlock, but I've deleted most of his opinion, and Witt confirms that Bean gave him the story. I've avoided using the Whitlock reference when we talk about the history of the coverage. So let's negotiate.--Wehwalt 14:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of Bowie (why single him out as a donor?). As to compromise, I just want to make sure that it is clear that Whitlock published his version of the events and on the media reporting in an opinion column. His views belong up in the Editorials section and not as an authority on the media as presented in previous reversions. --Eqdoktor 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Then how about we keep it where it is, and note "in an opinion piece, columnist Jason Whitlock alleged . . ." I mean, Bean gave Witt the story, he's confirmed that. Agreed on Bowie. Incidently, in the fundraising section, we should probably note (Witt covers it) that the NAACP originally used the Jena Six for its own fundraising and only after black bloggers objected did they put a link to the the ColorofChange site. And, by the way, if there is no Color of Change article, why not write at least a stub so we have a valid internal link? And as for that quote about the football team you don't like, I think someone involved did talk about the fact that there were no problems during football season. Might have been Washington. I'll look for it when I have more time.--Wehwalt 15:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Related to the RFC above - undue weight issue

I have a very big problem with the section you put in labelled "Inaccuracies in coverage"

Here is the section of the latest revision - [11] with my annotations (references stripped out since they are not needed in a talk page)

===Inaccuracies in coverage===

Very big provocative section heading right there though in or two instances (no more than is usual in breaking news stories), gives a bad and misleading impression that the news reporting of the Jena 6 is riddled with inaccuracies. Such a section heading gives undue weight to a POV OR supposition - "give the man an inch, he'll take a mile" or "building a mountain out of a molehill (of minor errors)".

Some sources have pointed out inaccurate reporting by the media. The Associated Press published an article noting the various reporting errors that were made in early stages of the story. Based on this, MTV posted a retraction for incorrect information that it had reported on the case from other news sources.

Two sentences in a paragraph does not warrant entire bolded section heading. It can be put into into the "media coverage" section without any loss of information or quality of the article. There have been errors, AP has pointed out some of them but it is not major enough to warrant an entire section dedicated to it.

In an opinion piece, columnist Jason Whitlock indicated that the initial publicity (including the compact story that the noose incident triggered the other incidents, culminating in the beating) surrounding the Jena Six case was the result of serious distortions by Bean, who gave his version of events to several media outlets and bloggers.

My bolding above for emphasis. I have discussed this at length up above and in various parts of this talk page. This entire paragraph is WHITLOCK'S OPINION. Whitlock wrote a very nice opinion article - it is very well written (its his job) BUT these are HIS INTERPRETATIONS of the Beans role. I see that my edits of "claims" and "alleged" was stripped out - you are trying to POV push the insinuation that the media coverage of the Jena 6 affair was an error riddled creation of one man - Alan Bean. Thats libel (even if you just parrot Whitlock) that has no place in Wikipedia. Bean himself has disputed Whitlock accusation. This paragraph belongs to "columnists and opinion editorials" section. It does not even address any specific error in coverage. Just a general libel on Bean.

Despite Bleithaupt's statement regarding the discipline imposed on the students, a October 20 article in the Washington Post alleges that the Jena Board of Education chose to "suspend the students (who hung the nooses) for three days and force them to attend a week of disciplinary classes.

Why is this even notable enough to be in the article? Its a supposedly minor error in an article discussing nooses as the new hate symbol fad - Jena 6 is not the main focus of the article. Again, you are POV pushing and giving undue weight to minor errors (frankly I dispute this as an error - see below).

Now as to the supposed "error" in the initial news reporting that the perps got a minor suspension of 3 days from school. This may actually have been TRUE when the story broke in the Chicago Tribune and BBC and was NOT disputed at that time. Juvenile school records sealed as it is, we may never know the full story behind the school boards actions whether or not additional sanctions were added in later after the news broke to cover the school board's asses. --Eqdoktor 10:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to your compromise. Now you come back with demands for more? And you delete the whole section without waiting for comment? That's not good faith.

I know you've been pounding the turf trying to get Whitlock out of there. But this is a factual statement made by Whitlock subject to editorial review, and thus is a reliable source. It is not his opinion, it is an asserted fact! That there have been inaccuracies in coverage is not subject to reasonable dispute. If you like, I can include a link (it's on this talk page in fact) to Bean's version of events which includes statements that the nooses were decorated in the school colors, and other wild inaccuracies. Bean calles the Fair Barn incident and the Barker beatdown "mirror images". If you want to go this route, I'm going to take out all the Howard Witt articles, which are replete with opinion and POV (for example, that the judge was "forced" to release Bell on bail and quoting a Jena Six defense attorney as a "juvenile justice expert" when Bell got himself locked up again.

I did what you wanted and proposed good faith measures to improve the article. I didn't touch your edits. So you go ahead and act unilaterally? Not appropriate.--Wehwalt 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - To me the Whitlock opinion is notable and should be included but all of his statements should be prefaced by the fact that this is Whitlock alleging that this is the way the storywas created since there is no corresponding corroborating information. As for the header, how about changing it to something like Mistakes and Alleged Inaccuracies in Reporting or something that hedges whether all the information in the subsection is correct since we can't confirm all of the facts mentioned there but we can point out those people that are alleging that the reporting was inaccurate. Remember 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable. I termed the subsection "Inaccuracies and inconsitencies", which I thought scanned better. We are under the Media coverage section, so people will know we are talking about reporting. We do have Witt's confirmation that he got the story from Bean; we can link in the article to Bean's version of events (see above) which contains some howlers. But I don't think the title is what is getting Eqdoktor's goat, he clearly objects to the content and wants it out.--Wehwalt 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The last compromise was okay by me, this one is just re-upping the issue again. A seperate section entitled "Inaccuracies and inconsitencies"(sic) is completely unacceptable to me. I'm getting tired typing the same points over and over again. ITS UNDUE WEIGHT on the matter - whatever inconsistencies and errors can be adequately covered in the media coverage section. --Eqdoktor 14:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a subsection in the media section entitled "Alleged Inaccuracies and errors" to discuss the issues of alleged reporting errors? What are your feelings on that Eqdoctor? Remember 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If its "alleged" then there would be no need whatsoever for it to be in an encyclopedia article.--Eqdoktor 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleged just means someone is alleging it but it can't be confirmed. I would argue that notable allegations are encyclopedic because there is no other way to report conflicts where there are two conflicting factual accounts. But getting back to the question at hand: would you have a problem with my proposed title. I assume you do, but you didn't explicitly say so. If you do, could you propose a title that would be acceptable to you. Or if not title or subsection is acceptable to you, please state that. Remember 18:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "inaccuracies in reporting" should be a section of the article at all, regardless of how it's titled. Every major news story that's covered this widely has some inaccuracies--are we going to stick such a section into thousands of WP articles? I think not. Such a section here would be important only to those who believe that Jena Six is a "false," "made-up," "manufactured" story. Such a section constitutes extreme POV-pushing. Qworty 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So, as I understand your position, you would oppose any inclusion of a section in this article that would describe inaccuracy in the reporting of any aspect of this story, even if there verified reports of how certain items that were once reported turned out to be false and widely reported. Is that correct? Remember 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the article is to report what is known now, not what wasn't known way back when. I'm not laying this down as a rule, as it's not my business to make up rules. I just think the inaccuracies here are, at best, a trivial part of the story, underserving of their own section, and at worst they are an instance of right-wing POV pushing. The inaccuracies are not that important: They're not like Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, where people's misperception of reality is the story. Qworty 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So is your position that you think all of the alleged inaccuracies are merely non-notable? I would like to clarify people's objections to the information here. Are you opposed to this section because you think these issues are non-notable or because you believe they violate NPOV or both or something else? Remember 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So far as I understand it, notability is a WP criterion that's applied to articles as a whole, rather than sections. So I don't think "notability" is an issue here. Even if it were an issue in the way that I think you are using the word, I would point out that a yes or no would constitute a false dichotomy. In other words, there are degrees of "notability" in terms of how I believe you are using the term. I don't think the early inaccuracies are very important here--if you think they are, then I encourage you to add an "Early Inaccurate Reporting" section to the Battle of Gettysburg. Millions of news stories have some measure of inaccurate reporting early on. So what? What's so special about that in terms of this article? That's where the POV-pushing comes in. There are those who believe that the "inaccurate reporting" IS the story of the Jena Six. That's why such a person might want that info prominently presented in its own section in the article. Well, that's POV-pushing and I oppose it. I hope I've made my position clear, and that I don't have to keep repeating it endlessly. Qworty 20:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Eqdoktor here. And I will add that Wehwalt is one of those people who believes that the Jena Six case is nothing more than a media event that was artificially manufactured and packaged by purported left-wing media. He essentially agrees with the Jena Six white community leaders that there is no racial aspect to this case, that the whole thing has been exaggerated and blown up, that race didn't become a factor until Jackson and Sharpton stuck their faces into it after the media "manufactured" it. This is the POV that Wehwalt is here to push, regardless of his protestations that he is neutral.

However, the truth in this matter is the exact opposite. The white corporate media is not left-wing, but right-wing, and further proof of this is the fact that they completely ignored the Jena Six case until African-American writers, bloggers, etc. started turning up the heat. The media estalishment was extremely late to this particular party, rather than planning and hosting the party, as Wehwalt and others allege. All of this is borne out by the established, extremeley well-sourced chronology.

And the source upon which Wehwalt has erected this very shaky house of cards? A football player who writes for the sports division of Murdoch's right-wing Fox "News." Mmm-hmm.

Meanwhile, Wehwalt busily and without discussion deletes, contracts, or twists information that is multiply-souced simply because he disagrees with it. This is the epitome of POV-pushing and bad faith editing. Have a look at the Columnists section, which is being discussed below--due to Wehwalt's edits, it looks like the columnists who disagree with Wehwalt are a small minority of kooks, while his undue weight edits make the positions that actually are minority views look like the majority view. This is very bad for the article.

While many of his minor edits on Jena Six are okay, I think his recent concentration on this article is beginning to show ownership issues, and I advise him to take a break from it for a while. Wikipedia is about consensus--it's not about wikilawyering for weeks with every editor until POV-pushing "compromises" are hammered out to satisfy one editor. That's not how consensus is achieved here. Consensus is about doing what the community agrees should be done. It's not about pleasing one persistent guy. Qworty 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Thanks for the advice. If I have done anything improper, I'm sure an admin will let me know. So these faults are in addition to the racism you basically accused me of above, or are they merely symptomatic?--Wehwalt 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically this is true. It's also why wikipedia is such a joke in academia, and why one of wikipedias founders points out that articles like this on contraversial social issues are academically worthless. Truth by popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.132.73 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Columnists and editorials

I would like to suggest a change to the columnists and editorials section. First, I would like to suggest striking the Mumia reference. He is not really a columnist in the traditional sense, and he represents a rather fringe political element, so his inclusion makes the sympathetic position seem more outside the mainstream than it is. I would like to propose replacing it with a more mainstream source, such as the NY Post, which ediotrialized as follows:

"It’s impossible to examine the case of the so-called Jena Six without concluding that these black teens have been the victims of a miscarriage of justice, with a clearly racial double standard at work."

Second, right now there is one sympathetic columnist quoted. two that are basically unsympathetic/skeptical, and Reed Walters (who I think belongs in by right of his importance in the case). By my estimation the number of sympathetic columnists and editorials nationwide far outweighed those that were unsympathetic, so I think the unsympathetic position is right now getting undue weight. I would suggest having two sympathetic columnists quoted and one unsympathetic, or a statement at the outset saying the majority of mainstream media columnists and editorials were sympathetic. So I think either Keith Pounds or Ted Rall should go. Thoughts? --24.7.66.139 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said. Have at it. Qworty 08:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, You may not like his politics but Mumia Abu-Jamal is a lot more mainstream than you think and he has significant international and US support for his plight. Ref Free Mumia campaign, Mumia Abu-Jamal legal proceedings, 1982 trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Not to get into the details of his case (which can get very heated), he has WAY MORE credibility and notability to discuss race issues in the USA than people like Ted Rall, Keith Pounds or Jason Whitlock. I agree now that there are far better choices than Abu-Jamal to comment on the issue. --Eqdoktor 10:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the Mumia comment. And I put it in there exactly because quoting Mumia is a two edge sword. Those who agree with him will like it, those who think of him as a cop killer will think "With friends like this, do the Jena 6 need enemies?". Accordingly, I felt it was an insertion that everyone could support, which is rare for an editorial piece. If anyone else had said it, it wouldn't be terribly notable, but having Mumia say it is interesting and noteworthy, and balanced POVwise because different people will consider what it means differently. Not often you can do that.--Wehwalt 12:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you put it in. And your reasons are pretty much why I want to take it out. I think it brings up a bunch of issues, such as Mumia's guilt or innocence and whether those supporting the Jena Six also support Mumia, that divert from the main thrust of this issue. Had no other columnists/editorial pages sounded off on this issue, then I would probably support Mumia's quote being in. But since so many have, I think it is only appropriate to quote more mainstream sources, such as the NY Post. To put it another way, the average reader of this article (in my opinion) will be more interested in what a major daily newspaper's editorial board said about the case than what Mumia Abu Jamal said.

To Eqdoktor's point above, first I am not offering an opinion on Mumia's poitics or his case, neither of which I know enough about to give a decent accounting of myself. I agree that Mumia is probably more credible than Ted Rall or Keith Pounds. As to whether he is mainstream or not, I think most people would probably say no. But both of these are really beside my point. In this case there are much more mainstream and widely read sources that have essentially been sympathetic to the Jena Six, and I think they should take precedence.

Of course, I don't want to make this change without at least some degree of consensus. Qworty seems to agree with me. Can I get a sign off from Eqdoktor and Wehwalt about taking out Mumia? Thanks for your thoughts all. --Mackabean 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

~~:Why not have both the NY Post and Abu-Jamal's viewpoint in the article? I have no strong feelings on the matter though but I do find his viewpoint on the matter interesting.~~ Abu-Jamal Mumia is a bad faith POV selection. And I fell for the trap - I have removed him from the article and replaced it with the NY POST editorial. --Eqdoktor 08:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

--Eqdoktor 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion above this one, due to Wehwalt's edits, it looks like the columnists who disagree with Wehwalt are a small minority of kooks, while his undue weight edits make the positions that actually are minority views look like the majority view. In fact, there are dozens of columnists who have written that this case is an instance of racist injustice, insofar as it constitutes unequal prosecution based on race, and here are a few. [12][13][14][15][16][17] You can extract quotes from all of them and keep Wehwalt's football player from Fox and then the ratio of actual opinion out there will be accurately reflected in the article. Qworty 18:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant POV push to rubbish the incident. No opportunity is wasted to make Jena 6 cause look bad and to spin the incident as a product "of a media conspiracy by Sharpton, Jackson and Bean". Some of the stuff off the top of my ahead in no particular order:

The BET hip hop awards section was originally provocatively worded to to emphasize frivolous "celebrity treatment" complete with a red-carpet image gallery link.
Abu-Jamal is pointedly described as a "murderer" (I should have caught that earlier - WP:WTA) when a more neutral term is needed.
A whole section devoted to backstage gossip of the NAACP (guys - this is called normal everyday politics... as notable as "The Pope is Catholic" and "does a bear cr*p in the woods?")
The persistent attempt to push a failed jock/fired ESPN writer's opinion as authoritative fact and misrepresenting his theories as the majority viewpoint.
The persistent POV push to insert an entire section to over-emphasize and inflate media mistakes and inaccuracies. Undue weight to discredit the racism expose.
The wholesale and unquestioning acceptance of statements of Jena officials and The Jena Times (people who have good motives to sweep it under the carpet) as authoritative 'fact'.
Of course, the above. Cherry picking columnists and editorials to fit a biased POV (why the heck was Pound and Rall selected? Because they said the things the editor agreed with). The only editorial favorable to the Jena 6 (out of the hundreds out there) that seems to have been found was a radical left wing convict (to be fair, he is relevant but really he was admittedly selected as "two-edged sword" booby trap - not for his views).

This is all the more reason for the RfC I have put up. We need more eyes on the article and its not healthy for one or two persistent editors (yes, me included if you will) to dictate the course of the encyclopedia article. --Eqdoktor 08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I also withdraw my acceptance of Mumia Abu-Jamal being used in the article. He was edited in to push a POV. If Wehwalt had not admitted, quoting Mumia is a two edge sword. Those who agree with him will like it, those who think of him as a cop killer will think "With friends like this, do the Jena 6 need enemies?", I would just have seen it as an odd but interesting choice. The motive is admittedly a bad faith gesture to plant an editorial booby trap to push his POV. There are better choices for favorable editorials. --Eqdoktor 08:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I could give many counterexamples to you, but hey. I'm not coming down to your level. Besides, what you've put on this talk page speaks for itself, and not favorably to you.

I agree, this page could use more eyes. However, seems there's an effort to recruit editors to push your POV. See http://community.livejournal.com/blackfolk/5333675.html Intersting.--Wehwalt 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What level are you speaking of on my part? You are so determined to push the POV to discredit the Jena 6 that it is palpably obvious to others now. Your deletion of the New York Post editorial (while Mumia Abu-Jamal is 'okay' because he is a "two edge sword") is extremely telling of the position you are editing from. Also I feel your edits are reflecting ownership issues on your part. --Eqdoktor 13:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Frankly, I'd love to see lots of editors on this page, and hope they will come back again when this story is active newswise again. As for the Post, they aren't the most reputable of papers. I think we can do better in this article. I've offered repeatedly to compromise. As is clear from this talk page, you did a Munich Pact on me, you took my compromise, then did what you wanted anyway. Not nice.--Wehwalt 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Munich Pact? So Godwin's Law finally applies here--congratulations. In any case, WP writing is not driven by "pacts" or "compromises." It's driven by consensus, which is quite a different process, one which hasn't fully evolved here (yet). It'll probably take a while--check out Killian Documents and its related talk page, three years out. But even those editors don't waste much time pretending to have "pacts." This pact approach is an anomaly of your own invention, an odd bit of wikilawyering by which nobody is bound. Qworty 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Munich Pact... Wow! First time I have ever seen Godwin's Law applied to me. Lets not hide behind Wiki-links, The purpose of the conference was to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia in the face of territorial demands made by German dictator Adolf Hitler, and it ended up dividing that state between Nazi Germany, Poland and Hungary. Unless you intend to compare me to Neville Chamberlain or Édouard Daladier; you will be better served by NOT using a Nazi comparison. I have won the argument btw according to Godwin... There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. I also think an apology is appropriate. --Eqdoktor 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the discussion, I'd say all of Eqdoktor's bullet points are spot on. Have a look at the entire Media section as it stands this morning--it is a real hash, disorganized, barely readable, about as coherent as what the barely-English-literate Turks have been doing to the articles relating to the Armenian Genocide. The Media section here is a mess specifically because of Wehwalt's POV-pushing edits. Right now that section is such a lousy bit of prose that it looks like George W. Bush wrote it--it's amazing what a right-winger can achieve when he really puts his mind to it. Granted, this no doubt isn't how Wehwalt envisioned his Media section--as it stands, it exemplifies the worst of Wikipedia. Great minds are coming together to produce gibberish. The only consolation is that this POV-pushing section is likely to remain gibberish. Qworty 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As for winning arguments and so forth, you are entitled to your views and so forth. But if you are going to make compromises, you are called upon to keep your word, not to think better of it a few hours later and undo it.

Got an idea here. Instead of wholesale reversions and so forth, why don't you try doing some edits in a way I can accept and I will do the same for you. That way, we WILL reach consensus. As I pointed out above, you are going to have to accept some things you don't like, and I'm gonna have to do the same, and other editors, if and when, ditto. For one thing, let's swear off the word "claim" and its derivations. POV, pure and simple. And stop doubting my good faith, look at how many of Qworty's flurry of edits this morning I haven't questioned, or Eqdoktor's last night. And you yourselves have admitted that you find many of my edits acceptable. So let's stop sniping and let's keep the reactions of other editors in mind when making edits. I have tried to do this, with some but limited success. Let's get on with it. And Qworty, if you want to clean up the media section while keeping the content more or less as is (keeping in mind what I just said) feel free.--Wehwalt 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the one thing we can all agree upon is this - We need more editors involved in this page. So let's focus our efforts on doing that. With that in mind, does anyone know how best to get the community involved in this page? Remember 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:Requests for comment request up for the article. --Eqdoktor 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mackabean's recent edits [18] to the Columnists and Editorials section are quite good. I can live with this subsection as it currently stands. Proportionally, it is a faithful reflection of the bulk of editorial opinion out there, eliminating the undue weight problems this subsection has recently suffered from. The new edits also have the virtue of being coherent and flowing nicely. Good job, Mackabean! Now I'm hoping Wehwalt won't turn the subsection back into hash by wikilawyering every other phrase out of existence with right-wing POV-pushing edits. It's rare for coherent and accurate edits to be made to this article in any kind of substantial way, and it's a real shame when they don't last very long. Qworty 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that it cited many more articles for one "side" of the issue than the other, I added a couple to balance things. I also deleted a few characterizations and, out of fairness, if you quote from one "side" of the issue, you should quote, not just describe on the other side of the issue. And Qworty, "right-wing POV-pushing edits" is not my idea of civility, which we have been asked to strive for in this article. Is it yours?--Wehwalt 22:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I notice that you have revised my edits of the editorial and columnists section. I would like to respectfully disagree with your changes. I have two main issues, both of which I have described above. First, you have changed the opening line to quite a bland intro: "Editorial pages and columnists have presented a variety of views about the Jena Six." While this is, by definition, true, it doesn't really help the reader understand where the weight of editorial commentary has fallen. By my estimation, there have been far more sympathetic than skeptical editorials in the mainstream media, by at least a 2 to 1 margin. I think it is incumbent upon us as encyclopedists to accurately reflect that. This is not a value judgment that these editorialists get the issue right, but rather an attempt to translate what is going on in the media on to Wikipedia. Second, and this point is directly related, You have now once again made it so that there are more unsympathetic editorials than sympathetic editorials. If my assessment about the overall weight of editorial commentary is correct (and I think there have been substantial links offered on this talk page to back it up) then the section now gives entirely undue weight to the unsympathetic or skeptical columnists. Having the same number of skeptical editorials is, in essence, inaccurate from an encyclopedic point of view. I am not going to revert your edits right away, in hopes that we can find some common ground. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. --Mackabean 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. First, several more editorials on the "pro" side are cited, the long list which does the Urban Legue study. We don't quote from them all. And I'm sure you are right--there seem to be more with a "pro" POV--but how do we phrase this in a verifiable way so that it is not OR? How can we be accurate so that a skeptical reader finds the same facts, if he checks up on us? Counting is sort of ORy. That's my concern there. As for the numbers, we can play with them, add a couple "pro", delete one "anti", whatever. By the way, "pro" and "anti" are not value judgments, they are just a convenient way of terming it. --Wehwalt 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, I just went to the Full Coverage report on Yahoo! News and clicked on Opinion and Editorials. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Jena_Six_Case/oped/1;_ylt=AicZORrfBTHG40WhvoYv3HskeedF If you just read those which are reliable sources (i.e., deleting blogs and the like), it is a very mixed bag and some of them defy characterization of "pro" and "anti" I don't know how you would count some of them. This is more complicated than I thought it was . . . Mackabean, what do you think?--Wehwalt 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, it is true that more "pro" editorials are cited. But I think the most important thing from the reader's POV is how many are quoted. Most folks will not follow the cites to read all the editorials. That is, in fact, the great value of WP in my mind--that they shouldn't have to follow cites to get a good accounting of the media reaction. So, to be very precise, my proposal is that a) we quote 4 pro editorials and 2 anti editorials, reflecting our best estimate that this reflects the weight of editorial commentary; and b) we reinstate a summary sentence that says that the majority of editorials have been sympathetic. How does that sound to you? --Mackabean 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As to whether or not our analysis of the editorial commentary is OR, I don't think it is, at least not in the primary meaning, which is publishing a fact or theory that has no citation. To put it another way, what is our alternative? We have to make some assessment as to where the weight of editorial commentary falls, otherwise we leave readers with an undifferentiated mishmash. As best as I can figure, our only option is trying to objectively analyze the issue using search engines and, yes, counting, and go from there. If there is some other option, I'm more than willing to hear thoughts. But simply listing the same number of editorials from "pro" and "anti" seems entirely insufficient and inaccurate. --Mackabean 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is not two to one. Not looking at the list I just looked at. I'd say that leaving aside the big middle ground "Well, they were overcharged, and that was wrong, but Mychal Bell is not a good poster boy for the civil rights movement" it is maybe 60 percent pro and 40 percent con. And a lot of them repeat the three days of in school suspension myth. How about five and three, deleting the Pounds comment from the anti? I think that's the least valuable. The Whitlock and Rall comments have survived many efforts to delete them, and the Franklin one is from someone who actually lives in Jena and is worth keeping. And put in something a little more substantial, but vague, like "While columnists have interested themselves in all aspects of the case, a majority have expressed concerns with how the case has been handled." I'm not wedded to those exact words, but just the general idea.--Wehwalt 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to again respectfully disagree with you. I have found no mainstream editorial pages that came out as anti. I have found at least three that were sympathetic:

Philadelphia Enquirer [19]
New York Post [20]
Christian Science Monitor [21]

It is a bit harder to deal with the columnists because there are so many, but my review of that Yahoo search page confirms my feeling that at least twice as many are sympathetic, especially if we are focused on the larger papers, which I think is appropriate on a story where there was so much coverage. Indeed, if anything, I think mainstream media columnists have been more than 2 to 1 sympathetic. So, I'm gonna stick with my suggestion of 4 pro and 2 anti.

As for your suggested language, I again have to disagree. Editorialists and columnists have not simply "expressed concerns with how the case has been handled." They have called it unequivocally racist, an echo of Jim Crow, cause for a new civil rights movement, etc., etc. I think the kind of bland summary description you offer would, again, be inaccurate. So I propose returning to my original language that you deleted. At this point we may have reached an impasse. If so, I would suggest bringing the question to a vote among the editors on this page, with the agreement that we will both abide by the majority decision. --Mackabean 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, WP is not a democracy. It is about compromising and building consensus. If we reach an impasse, we don't put it for a vote and have it binding for all time. This is a developing story. Columnists are writing columns all the time on this. I think your language is not verifiable and is questionable factually. In addition, you are proposing to have four, plus various additional cites to unquoted articles. If you want to have additional quoting from those, to bring it up to six, that is fine, but I think that the three anti that are appropriate are Whitlock, dealing with the Bean issue, Rall, to say the charges were appropriate, and the local viewpoint from Franklin. So respectfully, perhaps you could think of compromise language and an additional quote. Or, since we are all equal on WP, I might do that.--Wehwalt 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The six largest U.S. Newspapers have run the following Jena columns/editorials:

USA Today: "'Jena Six' case awakens civil rights movement"
Wall Street Journal --Did WSJ not run any Jena opinion pieces?
New York Times: "Justice in Jena"
Los Angeles Times "Soul-searching in Jena"
Chicago Tribune: "Injustice is bigger than Jena 6"
Washington Post "Drive Time for the 'Jena 6'

Of these, only the NYT piece--"Justice in Jena"--is what would be called "con." It happens to be written by Reed Walters, the District Attorney.

These are only the most prominent columns/editorials in their respective newspapers. Perhaps they also published "con" pieces? Can anyone find an example?

If not, I suggest using the ratio given by this survey of the major U.S. newspapers. (Would be a survey of top 10 english-speaking newspapers be better?) That ratio is 4:1.

I have to side against you on this one, Wehwalt. I like your name though! Isn't that what Siegmund calls himself in Richard Wagner's Ring cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen?

Cyrusc 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it is from. Nice catch. Sorry, can't agree. Almost all of those are op-ed pieces (including Walters') and don't reflect the viewpoint of the newspapers. Newspapers print columns with a variety of views, that doesn't mean they endorse them.

By the way, one editorial which is "anti" is http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070927/EDITORIAL/109270007/1013/editorial Mackabean said he couldn't find any. And you don't have to like the Washington Times to admit they are a mainstream newspaper (yes, I know who had an ownership interest in them).

Any event, I played with the language and modified the ratio to 6-3.--Wehwalt 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have to disagree with you. First, the Washington Times is not a mainstream newspaper, at least not in the sense that I mean it. I think of a mainstream newspapers as either a) the five or six national circulation papers in the US, or b) thepa per of record in their local area. The Washington Times is neither. Rather, it is a consistently conservative newspaper that is more or less the equivalent of the Nation, a self-consciously left-leaning weekly. Second, I still do not agree with your summary language, which again soft pedals where the weight of editorial commentary has been. The view is not merely that an "injustice has been done," but rather that the actions of the DA were systematically racist. And that view does not "appear to predominate," but quite clearly predominates among the mainstream media. CyrusC's analysis of the major papers is helpful, and speaks to what I said above, which is that, if anything, the ratio of pro to con editorials is much greater than 2 to 1. I don't want this section to be too long, which is why I am resisting going up to 6 to 3. I also think the Whitlock and Franklin piece essentially make the same point, which is that the media got the story wrong. But I would be willing to compromise and have those two pieces (Whitlock and Franklin) grouped into one sentence, with Franklin not being quoted. Again, this is all in the interest of WP reflecting what is going on in the outside world. --Mackabean 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added an external link to a CS Monitor article, Media Myths about the Jena 6, written by a local Jena journalist. His wife teaches at the school, and the article tends to rebut a lot of the national media reports.Jas public 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And right after I did, I saw that there was already a paragraph mentioning this down at the bottom of the article. *blush* Jas public 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight Question: Songs

I admit, I'm no veteran wikipedia editor or social agenda pusher here, nor do I want to be (and maybe that hurts me here amoung this crowd). However the 'undue weight' thing is getting kicked around alot and it made me curious about some things. How are songs about this deserving of more article space then facts like Bell violating his probation? Since this is, at least at the top, labeled an article about a current court case isn't something like pop songs of less value then actual legal action taken against one of the defendants in the case? How does one of the offenders violating his terms not deserve more information then a song by a 2nd rate star that doesn't even rate radio time on major stations? That seems really PoV to me, that legal matters take a second seat to what big name protestor showed up, or what article got written by whom. I understand the court case doesn't really help the liberal left bloggers here because it shows the young men were habitual criminals, and I understand it doesn't really help the radical right bloggers because it highlights differences in how offenders were sentanced and the law was originally ignored against them likely because to at least some extent their race, but the most important thing here seems like it's getting lost because both sides are trying to highjack the actual events to crusade for bigger causes that already have their own pages on wikipedia. Sure other things deserve mention, but footnotes for legal actions compared to paragraphs about folk songs just seems like the wrong ratio, and that's just one issue of this article as a whole. I understand the Jena 6 are considered examples of other topics here on wikipedia, but since those topics for both sides already have their own pages, shouldn't this page focus on the actual facts of the case? This page looks like a pissing contest between both sides, and that just makes the whole thing smell like a mens room. It seems to me, and this is an opinion, that these were bad men that got punished (which means the right is right), but got punished too harshly (which means the left is right too). However no one wants to admit it's a grey area, so one side is arguing they weren't criminals, and one side is arguing they didn't get punished too harshly, and because no one wants to give any ground it's like what actually happened is getting totally lost in both sides combining to corrupt all the actual facts of what happened for a page that's 90% opinions and 10% facts. Instead of looking at the facts known and letting this page show both sides have merit, it's like each side is desperate to pretend the case is something it's not, a simple issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.11.132.73 (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never said that the Jena 6 are not criminals. I take it some of them have been convicted of crimes and others haven't, so some of them are criminals. The issue is that, criminals or not, they've been treated in a racist manner. That is what the Jena 6 issue is about--if it weren't for that issue, none of us would have heard about this case. So is it okay to treat criminals in a racist manner simply because they happen to be African American criminals? And do you not think the article addresses the gray areas that you correctly identify? If not, then by all means propose specific changes. I didn't put in any of that stuff about the songs. You're right to start a debate about them if you don't think they're relevant. A consensus in favor of their innclusion or against it will eventually evolve. It might take weeks, but it'll evolve. Qworty 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedias main strength lies in cataloging popular culture - stuff like Pokemon, Star Wars, obscure TV shows and the like. Its fairly reliable on technology and some hard sciences, but its on obvious shaky ground when it comes to historical and cultural articles which actually require some expertise to write (everyone thinks they are a 'professor' expert after a year or two of elementary 101 classes). IMHO, it faws down and flames out horribly when it comes to covering social and recent news event like these. If you think this is bad, head on down to Britney Spears for the estrogen version. I have no illusions about the quality of the article here - its most definitely stuck at less than "Start" quality. In fact, I'm rather surprised I'm spending so much time on it but given the egregiously biased editing I have seen on it - I think the Wikipedia (and Jimbo Wales) deserves better than that.

As to your concerns, feel free - BE BOLD, read the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, pull up your sleeves and fix what you think is wrong. We are all equals here, and your fellow editors are trained NOT to bite the newbies! Well at least some of us are - but not to worry, the wounds heal fast and you'll get used to the random chomp or two...

As to your concern that more space seems to be devoted to frippery like songs rather than the aspects of the case you think should be covered (your concerns have in fact been given some space in the article - just not as much as you'd like it to be). The Jena 6 do have a criminal past but most of it happened while they were juveniles whose records are sealed under the law. It's illegal to release and publish juvenile records - hence the newspapers/reliable sources cannot provide details and it follows that Wikipedia also cannot put in details due to WP:Vand WP:REL issues. (don't be intimidated by the jargon - I'm just a lazy typer). Please keep an open mind on the case, apart from the authorities and the Jena 6, no one really knows whats in their sealed juvenile records. Everyone is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, the only conviction in the case has been overturned (though Bell is back in Jail due to previous probation violation).

As to the songs, IMHO, I would rather delete the whole section as I think they are trivial publicity for third rate musicians. They are in the article because AP (CNN and other news outlets) decided to give Mellencamp some airtime on a slow news day (some social relevance AND entertainment!). As you will soon know as you get used to Wikipedia, some fights are worth an edit war over and some aren't. These songs aren't, they take up a few kbs of space and do not interfere with the main thrust of the article.

Again, welcome to the Wikipedia, get an account and username. Go forth and BE BOLD! --Eqdoktor 10:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Mellencamp song has gotten enough publicity to be notable. However, if it is deleted, I won't restore it. I think it is a sideshow by a fading musician seeking to get some cheap publicity, but it has been covered in the media. Alternatively, we could move it all to the John Mellencamp article and just put one sentence in.--Wehwalt 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the song. I think it is relevant to show how much attention that this subject has gotten by showing how notable musicians have written songs and created videos just about this issue. While there may be other issues with this page, I don't think the inclusion of this bit of information is one of them. But that is just my two cents and I have been wrong before. Remember 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to keep the songs, for basically the same reason as Remember. They are a reflection on this issue as not just a court case but a social phenomenon. And they don't take up a lot of space. I vote for keeping them in. --Mackabean 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I scaled back the section since we have new users coming in complaining that undue weight is given "trivial" songs while some other aspects of the case is not given due consideration (see above). Yes, I agree its harmless but I won't be too bothered if you put it back in - see how my change scans with you first. --Eqdoktor 08:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I slightly revised Eqdoktor's edits to add a little more context about the Mellancamp song. Let me know if there are any issues with this revision. Remember 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Copps, revisited

Could we consider the discussion to keep the Copps letter, at some length, in the media section? It is an obstacle to the cleanup but I hesitate to delete it because of the talk page discussion. I would propose covering the Post's article on black radio covering the J6, and then note that Commissioner Copps agreed with them, deleting the part where he goes on to talk about Big Media. That way we keep it about the J6.--Wehwalt 14:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some civility please

I would like to request a return to civility on this talk page and this article. You all want to recruit more editors, which is fine with me. But if I was a new editor to this page and saw the level of discourse, I would likely turn away. It is fine to disagree, and even to disagree strongly, but the personal attacks are unnecessary and are exactly the thing that turn people away from editing on controversial topics. --Mackabean 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. The fighting only illustrates the reason the issue is so heated. You know that saying, "Won't start nothin', won't be nothin'?" It applies both in this case and on this edit page. I honestly believe that this situation could have just been another fight, albeit a much more violent one. People love to make it about race, because people love to have a reason to defend themselves. I wish that more people could know how it feels to put their walls down, take a breath, and realize that everyone you meet is not always looking for a reason to hate you for who you are. I am Caucasian, but I agree with what someone else said; the Great MLK must be frowning from Heaven over all of this. He would be talking about the lack of parenting in the lives of the boys who were involved. If race even entered into it, MLK would think it not because of anti-black sentiment, but because of a lack of opportunity for a safe and happy homestead for Micheal and the others. And even then, given the location, it really isn't about race in that case, either. It's all happenstance. --Chacharu 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a semi-protect on this article, due to the many uninformed who are posting jokes, inappropriate remarks, and biased viewpoints. Wise King Otto 01:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikirage

I see we are at #13 on http://www.wikirage.com. Not sure if that is a good or a bad thing!--Wehwalt 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Initial media coverage and Alan Bean

I would like to propose deleting the lengthy paragraph about Alan Bean in the initial media coverage section. Every story in the news is given to newspapers by someone--a PR rep, an inside source, etc. I think it is fine to mention who the source for this story was, and even to say that his version of the events are the first recorded version. But to go into depth about what his version is seems unnecessary, especially in a section about media coverage. It insinuates that his version is somehow wrong. In this case, it seems like the benefit of the doubt should go to Witt, who is a reporter with a 25 year history in the business. He got the tip from Bean and then went and reported on it. If readers want to see more about the Bean report, they can follow the cites. If we want to highlight Bean's role in all this, there are better places to do it. Here is sticks out like a sore thumb, and can only leave the average reader wondering why so much about Bean in a section on media coverage. --Mackabean 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"the average reader wondering why so much about Bean in a section on media coverage"

It is part of a not too subtle attempt to discredit the media reporting of the Jena 6. If you can't attack the Chicago Tribune or the BBC, attack the source of the expose. This is in lieu of pushing more failed jock/columnists theories as "fact". Go ahead remove the paragraph, but don't be surprised to see it persistently come back in multiple variations as "compromises" (see below).

Bean's document should be treated in a historical context, it contains what is later shown to be inaccuracies and inconsistencies after the expose broke. These inaccuracies and inconstancies are inherent in such documents when the facts were gathered in the face of hostile and uncooperative Jena authorities (2 nooses or 3 nooses? how many days suspension? whats the beating about? the murder charges? - the authorities chose not to disclose, cooperate or elaborate). This is the best that could be done in the face of the hostile environment in which the document was compiled before it was sent out to the news media. Such whistle blower documents must be taken in the context.

Here in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, it is be ripped out of its historical context - the unavoidable mistakes/inconsistencies made in the early days displayed without explanation - giving the wrong impression of misconduct or willful mispresentation. Bean's conclusions and demands made in the early days of the case is shown "as is" and twisted (without the historical context in which they were made in, they sound unreasonable in light of later disclosures) to give more credence to media conspiracy theories - that the Jena 6 is a product of one man - Alan Bean. This is why the document is plopped incongruously out of context in the narrative. --Eqdoktor 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is appropriately sourced and relevant. Unless you want an unbalanced article, with the reader not knowing where the story came from, and perhaps you do, the Bean information should stay. You would deny the reader the information he needs to interpret the complaints of Whitlock and Franklin. The readers, not knowing that information has been withheld from them, will conclude that there is no basis (since none will now be in the article) for their concerns. Then, I suspect, those columns will be deleted so as not to confuse the reader or on the grounds they give undue weight to extreme positions. And Mackabean, as you yourself pointed out, few readers follow the cites, so that is equivalent to burying the information. But I suspect the objection is to the content, not to the context. It's a little like the Red Queen's Race here, running hard just to remain in place, as when the Bean reference relied on the Whitlock story, Eqdoktor demanded a non-opinion source. Now that I've provided it, it suddenly becomes irrelevant and out of historical context. Any stick will do to beat a dog, I guess.

"This is the best that could be done in the face of the hostile environment in which the document was compiled before it was sent out to the news media." How do you know? Sez you! That's not even original research, that's original fantasy, Eqdoktor, making up stuff to (you think) support your position! Let the reader be the judge, not you!--Wehwalt 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Bean paragraph has been deleted. I added back in a sentence that indicates that questions have been raised about the accuracy of Bean's report. I think that is enough to let the reader know about the alleged inaccuracies, and if they want to find out more, they can follow the links. I did say previously that following links is not always the best way to help readers, but I think the benefit of the doubt in this should go to Howard Witt, a 25 year veteran reporter (not a columnist) who attests that he checked every piece of information given by Bean. Giving any more air to the alleged inaccuracies seems undue weight to me. --Mackabean 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it back. I'm not saying they are inaccuracies. They are another version of events, and the reader should be informed. Alternatively, we can, if you like, break up the Bean paragraph and note his version of events in each of the events in the timeline section. He may be right about the school colors and the Lonesome Dove thing, the school has never told us. Why do you think he's inaccurate anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph. It is a useful source and may be more accurate than anyone else, we don't know and shouldn't be judging. I think the earliest known sequence of events is worth having in the article, and may well be worth putting into each section in the timeline.--Wehwalt 11:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I renew my objection to the inclusion of this entire paragraph. A full half of the section on initial media coverage now details Alan Bean's version of the events. That just seems entirely too much space. I thought a sentence saying that his is the first version of events, and that some people (mainly Whitlock, as far as I can tell) have raised questions about the accuracy, is enough to let the reader know about the potential controversy, and allow them to follow the links on their own. I just don't see how it deserves this much space. I also would request that you try to develop consensus around this before making any more edits. Can you explain why my proposal is insufficient? Especially after a 25 year veteran reporter (Howard Witt) confirmed Bean's story. Why is Whitlock (not a reporter, but a columnist, who spoke mainly to official Jena sources) any more credible than Witt? ----Mackabean 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)24.7.66.139 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)--Mackabean 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt

Seeing as an apology for your uncivil Nazi comparison insults is not forthcoming, this is but one more step in gathering evidence of your bad faith edits in this article. Godwin's Law jokes aside, I will also tell you this: hiding insults behind innocuous links is neither clever nor conducive to consensus building. What you like to call "compromises" appears to be nothing more than an envelope pushing style of editing - Persistently flood the article with as many POV biased edits as you can and hope that some of them get through as "compromises". This is not the way Wikipedia is run. --Eqdoktor 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: My apologies to the other users in here, even after a call for civility. But this needs to be said.

Your exaggerations disgust me--I called you no such thing. You compromised, then broke your word and did what you wanted anyway, agreeing to take half then taking all. The comparison was apt. You made it clear you can't be trusted. That having been shown, you are taking some of the dirt you have put on yourself and throwign it at others. Sickening. As for your comments about my editing, I am trying to make sure the reader has info on each media-covered theory regarding the J6. You wish to minimize the one you don't agree with. I join in your PS. I was going to let it lie, but I can't leave this unrebutted. Frankly, I'm tired of being told that I espouse "right wing" and "racist" positions and assorted other insults by Eqdoktor and another editor, who know nothing about me. That being said, Eqdoktor, let's leave these things to the side or else go out to the sandbox.--Wehwalt 10:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for a while now -- monitoring the edits being made to it -- so I've gotta agree with Eqdoktor on the issue he brings to light: it does seem like you are trying to push a certain ~~biased~~ non-neutral PoV, Wehwalt. IMO, it looks like you're trying to make the whole Jena 6 incident appear to be nothing more than media propaganda. I've also noticed several other editors pointing this out throughout the debates on this page [that you've been involved in], which makes me wonder how many people are actually taking notice of this. It's not something that you just started doing, either; it's been going on since you first started editing the article, which is probably why there have been so many arguments concerning your edits. That being said, I think you should really think about how this article affects you before you make any further edits, because it really looks like you're ~~non-neutral~~ biased on this matter. Sekhem Ka 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A recidivist violent juvenile offender on probation is prosecuted for another violent offence, and the media criticizes the prosecutor. What doesn't sound like "media propaganda" about that? If we assume the mainstream media is neutral on this matter, then I would agree with Sekhem Ka. However, I see no evidence that supports a neutral media theory. Rklawton 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. This may not be the page your looking for. Let me refer you to Conspiracy theory and Media bias and Media bias in the United States. Have fun over there. --Eqdoktor 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just referring to this specific case. Here's a citation which supports this view. Note that it comes from a media source that is well noted for its integrity in reporting.[22] In short, Wehwalt's concerns are quite valid. Rklawton 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats not a report, thats an opinion essay. And its already cited in the article. --Eqdoktor 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's nothing new, but it does contradict your point that Wehwalt's efforts to add balance are not appropriate. Rklawton 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have espoused at length what I think is wrong with Wehwalt's edits - I typed it over and over - look up in the earlier posts on this talk page. If it was good faith "adding balance", I'd be applauding and throwing barnstars at him. The problem are edits like these, [23], [24], and the dozen or so bulleted points discussed up above and the persistent edits (check the diffs) pushing a POV opinion column as fact (a conspiracy theory reffed only from that single source column, right wing blogs and a ~~racist~~ racialist magazine). And thats only edits that I have handled, I haven't had time to check up on the other disputes he has had with other editors. Its not "adding balance" - its "no opportunity lost to try discredit the Jena 6". --Eqdoktor 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you refuting any of the facts cited in the CS article? Rklawton 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Alan Bean mentioned in the CS article? Thats a rhetorical question. --Eqdoktor 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As you think it is apt to use Nazi analogies on your fellow editor - I have added a user warning on your talk page. --Eqdoktor 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the Jena Six page is the proper place to comment on the appropriateness of Wehwalt general editing style or comments (outside of specific disagreements on the article itself). This debate would better be suited for a discussion on his talk page or a Wikipedia:Requests for comment page (which could be linked here). Creating a whole section on the talk page to point out the failures or problems with a particular editor seems to invite problems unnecessarily and prolong useless debate. I would ask that all editors please refrain from doing this in the future. Remember 15:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Mea culpa, stopping the Wikipedia and back to playing Puzzle Pirates --Eqdoktor 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't bothered to read most of this. I've left a warning on Eqdoktor's page, which I hope he will heed. In my view, dishonesty on WP is not favored, but that's just me. I will not be deterred from efforts to keep the article balanced. Thanks for Rklawton for his/her thoughtful comments. I hope we get some more editors in here soon.--Wehwalt 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you intend to trade warning messages. Petty games aside, your biased behaviour editing this page is noted and becoming very clear. --Eqdoktor 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to work with Franklin

Eqdoktor keeps deleting Franklin's status as the husband of a teacher at Jena High. I think it is important to note that. I'm not quite sure what his rationale for this is. It is information that can only help the reader in perusing the article, indicating that Franklin may have information of interest and motivating the reader to look into it further. It is the closest thing we have to firsthand knowledge among the columnists.--Wehwalt 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Franklin's impartiality was called into question once before when he gave an interview to AmRen and reported findings there rather than in his own magazine?

I don't think his status as the husband of a teacher gives him more insight; it might give him more timely reports or leaks but that doesn't mean they would not be biased in their own right; thus it is pretty much inconsequential. The V Chip 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your other tendentious edits do not engender confidence in your motives to put such extraneous information in. All other reporters (based in Jena or not) do not to have family relationships described, I saw no need to make an exception for Franklin for consistency sake. --Eqdoktor 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Eqdoktor, you just don't learn anything, do you? You expend half of your space on an assault with little relevance to the topic. Can we just take it as read? Perhaps you could just say "ditto" each time you post and that way we won't have to take up the space (and I am not a dittohead and can't stand the man.)

The fact that he is a resident of Jena and his wife is a teacher at Jena High certainly puts him on the inside when it comes to getting information and helps the reader evaluate whether or not he is worthy of belief. I would be happy to list familial relationships for other reporters if relevance can be shown. After all, you have chosen to insert Witt's status as "Southwest Bureau Chief" (which means he leads a very small Houston office and may be their only person there), while choosing not to list formal titles for anyone else. If it is relevant, include it, if it is irrelevant, exclude it. Do you want to comment on the relevance or lack thereof?--Wehwalt 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Snideness now - thats to be expected of you. Kindly check the diffs, I never touched or edited Witt's credentials. Your barking up the wrong tree. On the other hand, you demeaning Witt's credentials and position (The Chicago Trib reporter who broke the story) is very telling of biased and damaging approach you take to the Jena 6 article. --Eqdoktor 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Stick to the point. Relevant or not relevant and why?--Wehwalt 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think noting that his wife is a teacher there is important because (to me at least) it would indicate a bias to the school over the story of the students. So I would have thought more editors would want this information in the article to show his possible bias towards the administration of the school and their handling of the matter. Remember 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This business about a white reporter's white wife working at the school is a complete double standard. This white man's POV is supposed to rule supreme because his white wife works at the school, huh? But when the perspective of an African American man who works at the school is placed in the article, Wehwalt deletes it multiple times. Mm-hmm.

Tally it up:

White woman works at the school, therefore we must all listen to her white husband.

Black man works at the school, therefore we must silence him. Qworty 22:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with Wehwalt's initial post in this section of discussion, I have now restored the Braxton Hatcher quote that Wehwalt has deleted several times. If the opinon of a white man who's married to a white lady who teaches at the school is important because of that white man's "connection" to the school, then surely the view of an African American man who actually works at the school must be even more significant than that of the white man whose only connection is that his white wife works there. Qworty 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Hatcher's comment [25] is regarding the Jena criminal justice system, and not specific to Jena High School. Flatscan 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know Franklin is white? How do you know his wife is white? I seem to recall at least one famous black with the last name Franklin. She sings.

Correct, I did delete it multiple times. The discussion, for the interested reader, is above. We compromised by having other Jena residents' quotes put in, and then someone took out all the quotes, which I was fine with, and which has been so probably for two weeks.

Were Mr. Hatcher opining regarding Jena High School, or giving us a version of events in this specific case, I'd be fine with it. The janitor sees a lot. Ever see "The Breakfast Club"? And the janitor at my high school, I learned years later, was on the payroll of the local police department as in-house spy, in that era before school security officers. Mr. Hatcher is opining regarding the course of justice in Jena, which is not within his professional competence. Therefore, your analogy fails. I've deleted the quote again, lest we get back into a quote war. But if people desperately want the quote in (the full quote, not this half-quote), I"m OK with it as long as we include others. (and not that nigra quote again without a named individual).--Wehwalt 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt asks: How do you know Franklin is white?

This is what you have finally brought this page down to? Demands of racial proof?

The picture from his column header

Spin what you like if he looks white (or not) enough for you.

Fairly useless arguing with this editor, as he himself said, "any stick to beat a dog with". Racial credentials differ whenever it suits him - black comedians* saying stupid jokes for a laugh becomes "leaders of a community" when it fits his agenda (ref this diff [26]). Just be bold go ahead and put back any changes you see fit. Consensus discussions for reasonable and proper changes can always be achieved - but only with reasonable people acting in good faith without a POV to impose. There needs to be a coordinated and united effort to minimize the harm biased and tendentious editors do to this article.

*well I haven't heard this comedian personally so i don't know about him being a leader of anything - entertainment or otherwise, but then I wasn't aware that Conan O'Brien is the leader of the Leprechaun community. --Eqdoktor 06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Little OR there, but thanks for the info! Do you also have a photo of his wife, whom Qworty asserts is white? Thanks for focusing on the edits and not on the editor!

As for the Kitt Williams thing, jokes arent' made unless they will appeal to a community. Perfectly appropriate to put it in as showing the POV of those who invited them to the Awards. And if the kids are standing on the red carpet, making "six" signs, why not say so?--Wehwalt 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eqdoktor says "Just be bold go ahead and put back any changes you see fit. Consensus discussions for reasonable and proper changes can always be achieved - but only with reasonable people acting in good faith without a POV to impose. There needs to be a coordinated and united effort to minimize the harm biased and tendentious editors do to this article." Do you seriously think that you have no POV? Your POV is to show one, and only one, storyline in the Jena Six story, and never let the reader see any others. Any information which is not consistent with that storyline is ruthlessly suppressed. Any editor who stands up and keeps trying to keep the story neutral, you also try to ruthlessly suppress, mouthing WP adages which you don't follow.

It won't work, sorry. Because by attacking, you have damaged yourself. . And no number of Barnstars you award each other [27] will change that.--Wehwalt 11:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! So Franklin is an expert because he's a white man who's sleeping with a white woman who happens to work at the school. But Hatcher can never be a source on what's going on in the town and school, because he's only a black man who's only a janitor who works at the school. Meanwhile, you continue to be an expert on what goes on in the town and the school because you're a white man who lives a thousand miles away. As the old song goes, "That's entertainment!" Qworty 13:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh, nice one. I may be no expert on Jena (though I spent about an hour there once), but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Can we compromise this? If this set of editors does want quotes from local people in there, then we should put back in the three or four quotes we used before.--Wehwalt 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Media Petition for Intervention to Unseal Court Records and Lift Gag Order

The allegations of the media coalition's petition for intervention are certainly relevant to the topic. The prior entry only mentioned what remedy was sought, not the basis. This information belongs in the article. I also believe it belongs in the media section rather than the Bell trial section since it does not deal directly with any allegations concerning Bell.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is fine. So long as it is only in there once. Can I suggest that you select two or three of the plaintiff and then say "and other media organizations"? Not sure we need the laundry list (I understood there were over twenty). I would suggest summarizing the allegations rather than using lengthy quotes.--Wehwalt 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I thought the challenge was to open the courtroom as well? You don't mention that.--Wehwalt 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both your suggestions. Thanks for making the edits.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[indent reset]I added a sentence with reference that discusses the allegations of the petition according to Louisiana Children's Code. The argument that the juvenile proceedings are not subject to privacy protections due to the nature of the prior adjudications is relevant to the article.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Robinson column

Robinson's op-ed column is used as the exclusive source for what is said regarding black talk radio. It needs to be treated exactly the same as Whitlock's piece, no better, no worse. To begin with, I have put in similar language making it clear that what is said is merely Robinson's opinion. I can see no reason to differentiate between the two, and if anyone is sufficiently motivated, it might be a good idea to find another RS. I haven't checked as to whether Robinson played football. He did once cover a prizefight in London, according to his bio, so he's a former sportswriter!--Wehwalt 22:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Still smarting from not being able to insert Whitlock's conspiracy theory into every other section of the article? Even Franklin "the reporter who was in on the story from the very beginning so I ought to know better and my wife is a teacher there too" chose not to put the 'Bean conspiracy' into his 'myth breaking' story. Jokes aside, the snide manner in which you wrote the last two lines of the above paragraph indicate that any edits done will not conform to to a neutral point of view. My advise is take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard, take a wikibreak before you start editing the article in an angry and resentful manner. Don't take the edits on Whitlock personally and don't take frustrations out on the article. I believe other editors will have a better perspective on the matter than you do at the present moment. In a word - No. --Eqdoktor 07:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I've applied a consistent standard and taken the info out since I don't think it fits well into the opinion section! Always good to find an editor who concentrates on the edits, not on another editor!

I take it you agree on the need for a consistent standard, since you didn't dispute it, so I've gone ahead and deleted the Robinson source and that sentence on the grounds we don't have a factual basis for it.--Wehwalt 11:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

Some editors on this page like to throw around the term "POV pushing". Let me remind everyone of what that is:

POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view.

"POV pushing should not be permitted on any Wikimedia server. The purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create an unbiased and comprehensive encyclopedia which makes the world's knowledge freely available to all people.

It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics — such as politics, morality, and religion. But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of NPOV or simply do not wish to abide by it, and hence they routinely and deliberately engage in POV pushing.

The reason they do this is probably that they believe that a neutral presentation of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison to opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make its argument. Failing that, the goal may just be to make the other side look bad (ad hominem) or to distort that side's views.

It seems to me that the insistence of certain editors of keeping to a certain POV "Jena Six as victims, town racist, no one has ulterior motives" is just this sort of POV pushing and intolerance of any information which doesn't hew to this line. I suggest the involved editors think well as to what they are doing and either think better of it or step away from the article. I now see spite edits which are not helpful to anyone. I count five reverts in 24 hours by Eqdoktor, but I'm not making an issue of it because I don't think he's the only editor that would get looked at. So let's all take a deep breath and consider this policy well.--Wehwalt 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If Jena is so racist...

Then I have got to ask... has any media source come out showing how the town discriminates against hard working blacks, or black students who do well/don't have criminal records? I mean right now all we have for accusations of racism has come because the legal system there treated repeat offenders harshly (who happened to be black), at best it's a theory race was an issue, as their prior history would be an equally if not more likely reason. Media bias WOULD be a factor (and Wehwalt would deserve his say, no matter how many people thought that popularity could override his facts), because occams razor has to be ignored in saying these young men were treated differantly because they're black. The media would deliberaly have to underreport an equal or perhaps more reasonable answers to jump to the race one. You'd have to essentially ignore that they could be being treated differantly because they're habitual offenders. However with all the hints and accusations of racial bias in the media, if the town was really so hugely racist shouldn't there be a report somewhere showing how the residents of the town or the legal system of the region sides against blacks in general? Shouldn't MORE victims of injustice there have turned up by now? If this was such a ripe injustice, shouldn't we be hearing of more cases in Jena where blacks were treated unfairly? Unbiased reporting would have to state the history of the perps as well as the circumstances, it would have to give the totality of the situation. Yet none of the initial reports seem to have done that. That sounds like the definition of media bias to me, omiting or underplaying equal relevant legal factors because they would impede the sensationalism of the story. After all no one buys paper that say '6 repeat offenders treated harshly', but change that line to '6 black men treated harshly' and you've got newstand gold. I guess we just have to ignore the fact that, for an area hinted to be so overridden with modern racism, nothing else seems to have been uncovered by the media in that area since... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.75.62 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from generalities, such as that spoken by Mr. Hatcher (see discussion above), I have not heard of any specific discrimination practiced by any authority figure in Jena outside of the context of this case. I can't say whether or not they "should" have turned up by now. Maybe they are out there if the media would only look for them. Maybe they are not, and Jena is like any other small southern town. I don't know. But we can't argue, because no such stories have turned up, therefore the Jena 6 story is garbage. That would be a fallacious argument.--Wehwalt 14:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing it proved the Jena 6 story was garbage, I was arguing it proves the media bias existed in the coverage and the media reporting was garbage and thus the story was one possible over represented view, because if it had been unbiased reporting the initial story would have contained more of the total picture, and the later stories would have followed up into a deeper investigation of injustice, or lack therof, in that area. The fact they didn't and didn't shows it was just sensationalist heart strings reporting, not accurate unbiased journalism. Given the mass of arguements on this page as to what constitutes credible sources I think that's a pretty important consideration, especially in giving minority views (of the events, not in the racial sense) some respectable coverage, since the majority of news sources did questionable reporting and fact finding in this, especially in the begining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.75.62 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the racist nature of the town and parish have been reported by the media, though not as extensively as it should have been reported. In the entire history of the town and parish, for instance, there has never been a single African American leader. Not one. Jena did have a white woman as mayor several decades ago, and all of the other local leaders have all been white. African Americans are segregated in the town, living on the outskirts, in a less-desirable section known locally as "The Country." And, as is better known to editors of this article, Klansman David Duke carried the town and parish in the 1991 gubernatorial election. Finally, the Jena Times is a racist newspaper, as I discussed above. Have a look at their "chronology"--according to the Jena paper, everything bad that happened was the fault of African Americans--the paper even goes so far as to blame the black churches. When the writer from the Jena paper tells the Christian Science Monitor that there are "no racial divisions" in the town, what he means is that the whites in Jena are ordinarily very good at keeping the African Americans down. He doesn't say there's no discrimination, just no racial strife--which means that discrimination (racism) is working quite well, thank you very much. In this typically white Southern view, racial strife exists only in Nawthun cities, where "nigros have too much sayso." As long as they continue to know their place, peace will prevail and there are "no racial problems." All in all, Wehwalt is correct when he says "Jena is like any other small southern town." Qworty 23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"In this typically white Southern view, racial strife exists only in Nawthun cities, where "nigros have too much sayso."" Wow, Qworty you sure did come into this issue with an unbiased view of the South. So basically, if they have problems, they're racists, if they don't have problems... that just means they're more effective racists. So pretty much why let silly things like logic or facts get in the way, if this happened in the south, and blacks were in anyway involved, clearly it's racism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.131.91 (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in defending the South, I'm afraid you're 142 years, 6 months, 13 days, 11 hours and 9 minutes too late. What we need is another March to the Sea. Qworty 08:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I like being correct. Small caveats with your comments. Ben Reid, a black resident of Jena, is a member of the LaSalle Parish Council. I do not know if there is more.[28] The same article seems to be the one you got "The Country" from said that was a predominately black area (outside the city limits, by the way). It did not say blacks didn't live elsewhere. The comment in full ws "Huey Crockett, 50, lives with his wife, Carla, 45, in a heavily wooded, predominantly black district just beyond Jena's limits, an area known as "The Country." The Crocketts, who are black, have complained to police that Bell and other youngsters were causing trouble in their neighborhood — scratching cars with keys, breaking the windows of parked cars, spraying property with paint." As for Duke, that was in 1991, and in 2007, LaSalle Parish gave non-white Bobby Jindal a majority, and a larger majority than he got statewide. And as for your comments re the Jena Times, no less a personage than Alan Bean has said the owners of the Jena Times "publish a first class small-town newspaper."[29]--Wehwalt 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Jindal doesn't count--he isn't African American. Sometimes I wonder if you know what prejudice is. You can't prove a person loves blacks simply because you've proven he loves Mexicans or Hungarians or Jews. It doesn't work that way. And the statement from the Crocketts--thanks for finding it, btw--is further indication of the racist nature of the police and judicial system in the parish. If the Crocketts and other black victims of Bell had been white, the cops and DA would have been a lot more interested. Instead, the Crocketts and other black residents had to keep complaining and complaining to white authorities who don't give (as much of) a damn about black victims of crime. As for the Jena Times being a "first class small-town newspaper," all that means is that it belongs on the same shelf as a first-class barbed-wire enema. To paraphrase George Wallace. Qworty 00:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have known prejudice a few times in my life . . . but that's neither here nor there. And I love your George Wallace comment. BTW, the Crockett quote doesn't actually say that the victims were black. The neighborhood is "predominately black", not entirely black. Bell was probably darn lucky (or perhaps careful) that he only vandalized the cars of blacks. If he did. If they were.--Wehwalt 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He did, they were:

Huey Crockett has a much different view of Jena 6 defendant Mychal Bell than the thousands of protestors that stormed Jena to demand his freedom. Months before Bell became a cause celebre, Crockett said he called the police to report that Bell and some other youths were vandalizing cars in his mostly black neighborhood outside Jena. Crockett bitterly charged that police moved with glacial speed to come out and investigate. Crockett chalked police lethargy and indifference to it being just another case of blacks committing criminal acts against other blacks. If Bell and his pals had been vandalizing cars in white neighborhoods, the police would have been all over it, said Crockett. (emphasis mine)

http://www.diversityinc.com/public/2491print.cfm Sekhem Ka 12:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to judge this. Bell did have two convictions for criminal damage to property; we don't know the acts that brought the convictions, but it may well have been damage to vehicles.--Wehwalt 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: This talk page is for discussion of the article and article edits only. Please do not use this space to discuss the Jena 6. Please take this discussion elsewhere. --Strothra 06:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several places in this it discusses the article, edits within it, requests for more clarification, and it addresses why some editors chose the edits they did. If what is below is considered topical enough to stay, so should this be. How else are we expected to discuss issues like crime in the region related to the incident and if it goes in or not.

uh, what other "racially charged" incidents??

From the opening paragraph.

"The beating followed a number of racially-charged incidents in the town, notably when three white students hung nooses from a tree at Jena High School following a black student asking if he could sit under the tree."

The noose was only alllegedly "racially charged", and there are no other "racial" incidents that occured during this. claiming incidents are "Racially" charged completely baseless makes this a very poor inclusion in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There were no ~~racist~~ "racially charged" incidents preceding Barker's beating? Huh. Isn't it fascinating how in a world with so ~~much~~ little racism, almost ~~nobody~~ everybody is a racist? Sekhem Ka 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said. JJJamal 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrase came out of an effort to find phrasing acceptable to everyone, that wouldn't imply cause and effect relationships or motivations, while not ruling them out either. If you have other suggestions, why not submit them (I'm talking to the IP user) and we can talk them out.--Wehwalt 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Motive for attack on Barker

So why was Barker attacked? While I am aware that the real reason may never be known, the current article gives no motivation for the attack at all. Has Barker said anything about why he thinks he was attacked? Have the defendants in the case offered a reason for the attack (if they are not arguing that they did not attack him)? Remember 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they admit it. Bell does say the N word was used. According to Barker, the black youths said (presumably before Barker was hit and knocked unconscious) "This will teach you to run your fuckin mouth"--Wehwalt 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for this information that we could use in the article? Remember 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Barker statement is http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/jena/Jena6Incident31.pdf

Other statements on that site too. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003979.html including three of the defendants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the evangelicaloutpost. Can we trust these documents? Remember 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt a place named evangelicaloutpost will meet enough peoples criteria here to be allowed in, however the documents appear to be photocopies of the police records or other public domain documents. If that's true, then yes it is valid to use, since the source is technically the public records themselves. What do they say about their source? Perhaps more importantly, would it be possible to just cite the public records themselves and not go through a 3rd party? Or find a 2nd source to add to the credability of evangelicaloutpost? I think either would go over here a bit better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.131.91 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Remember 12:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked and this is the only source for the documents I have found. I have been concerned about the nature of the source as well, esp since an editor I deem to be connected with the source kept pushing to have a sentence included in the article dealing with the source (see discussion above). But they seem to be valid scans and the only source of original documents we have. Given the many spins in this case, I'd take them for what they're worth.--Wehwalt 13:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Until there is some way to actually verify the authenticity of the documents scanned, I would vote against including any of this information in the article. It may be legit, but I have no way of being able to tell. Regardless of the authenticity of these documents, isn't there any other source we can cite to regarding the motivation behind the attack? If the accused deny being involved in the attack at all, then this should be mentioned in the article. If Barker has no idea for why he was attacked, then this should be mentioned. But we need to have a source that we can cite to. Remember 14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it could be appropriate to add them, assuming you note the source, that they are said to be the court documents, and that no one refutes it. However I think it's important that in the description it be made clear they're documents obtained by a 3rd party, not documents straight from the courthouse itself. I also think for now it deserves a minor mention, and lets the reader decide validity. I say that mostly because if those songs can get a mention here, then potential documents being found deserve a mention... but only a mention that potential documents have been found, and a link to where... we shouldn't claim their legit till we know more. For now, letting a reader know the exist is a valid addition here, anything more probably goes too far. Also, has anyone considered actually contacting that site, and asking them if it's authentic and how they can prove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.131.91 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

At trial, Barker said: He told the jury that he was angry and confused after the fight.

"I didn't have no reason for this to be done to me," he said. "... I got along with everybody." http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/70916050

Best I can do. Incidently, if you're going to include it, I suggest you paraphrase. Lots of people involved in this case use improper English. That's not the point of the article.--Wehwalt 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that either way. But I don't have another source for either. Bean danced around the question of admissions in his reply to Franklin saying that there were uncounseled statements (presumably, with counsel, there would have been no statements). And the J6 have generally kept their mouths shut publicly about the specifics, near as I can tell. I'm going to search the Town Talk articles (they covered the trial) and see what Barker said at the time. Bell, as we know, did not take the stand, but that is always the defendant's choice and can't be held against him. Or his counsel, actually--Wehwalt 14:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the line "Neither Barker nor those alleged to have been involved in the incident have stated why Barker was attacked" because IMO it doesn't add anything to the article. Barker has stated he doesn't know why he was attacked; the accused haven't said why he was attacked either but then again they all have claimed innocence -- giving a reason why they attacked Barker would equal an admittance of guilt.

A witness statement on the Evangelical Outpost website (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/jena/EyeWitnessTranscripts.pdf) states that Barker got in the face of Mychal Bell and flipped the bird at the group of black students. Given the conflicting statement of the victim and at least one witness, I don't think the statement I removed added anything to the article. The V Chip (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to note the fact that no parties involved have officially stated why the beating occurred or at least the article should note the fact that Barker says he doesn't know why he was the target of the beating. Remember (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think the "Jena 6" wouldn't state why an attack occurred if they were not involved (as they claim) because they wouldn't know. Similarly, if they were involved in the attack, stating why it happened would be tanamount to pleading guilty which they have not done. So the fact they none of the 6 have said anything about it is irrelevant. The V Chip (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the position of the accused is that they were not involved in the attack, then we should make that clear in the article. Remember (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that we can make such a blanket statement. Lawyers for some, but not all, have said that their clients watched, or were 30 feet away, or similar. If we have to make a blanket statement, I would suggest "No report has stated that any of the Jena 6 has admitted involvement in the assault." or similar. With one kid, the youngest, we simply don't know much at all.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

unobjective wording and confusing

deinition is "dangerous weapon" not deadly 104 LA statute retrieved 11-2-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.41.183 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is comes off as possibly unobjective and confusing.

Were there other racial-incidents beyond the possibly alleged racist noose incident?

Is the tree a "white" tree or not? I agree the media seems confused about it too. The earlier media stories leave no doubt that it was a "white" tree. Later articles tend to invalidate that. The earlier stories also seem to rely heavily on people related to the accused in the case. The media is confused about the nooses too, with varying stories.

The school is 85% percent white 12% black, the - U.S. Census says that the U.S. population itself is only 12.3 black in 2000.

I am trying to support the conclusion this town is racist since this wikipedia page is specifically mentioned as a resource for the ciriculum at http://www.teachersforjustice.org/downloads/Revealing%20Racist%20Roots.pdf

The cirriculum compares racism in American now and Jim Crow, slavery, etc. However if this isn't a race related case itself it doesn't support the viewpoint of the cirriculum.

I forgot to mention I have also seen references on other sites where the juror was not related to the DA - one apparently only had the same last name and some articles said they were related.

Wmb1957 02:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Since we have terribly varying sources, we're trying to do the best with what we have. Editors differ as to whether the other Jena-area events we describe are "race related." If you have seen sources which say the juror was unrelated, please include it or post it here, and we'll take care of it. As to whether the town is racist, I don't have an opinion. --Wehwalt 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If some teacher is actually using this site, it doesn't matter what you do to this article (which I will agree has some of the bias you're concerned about). Any trained and liscensed educator already so leftist leaning they would use that site listed (or radical leaning they'd use some of those racist sites linked earlier), and then wikipedia from it, on an issue like this (as opposed to legitimate curriculum sources)... well frankly they're already at the point their personal politics matters more then knowledge, truth, or objectivity to them, OR they're so bad/lazy at their job their liscense should be revoked. Any trained educator who considers Wikipedia valid for ANY controversial issue like this (and pretty much most non-controversial ones as well), clearly wasn't trained well enough. No verifiable, respected, credible source would cite wikipedia (it's no minor thing in academia that his place has writers with no verifiable credentials, and if you compare this site to true academic journals, especially on articles like this, it's blatently obvious why), so any site like that that uses it, has an agenda. If a teacher is actually coming here, it's already too late for them. It's one thing for common, untrained people to come here and get some guidance. That is what the site is for. It's good for people that have no training towards looking to/in better sources, and this place is written at a level that, while often biased, at least everyone can understand. However a teacher should be trained to find more reliable sources then wikipedia, and should be trained to question any source that uses this place as an academic referance. They should trained to find the more credible sources, and it's their job to then take that material and make it something their students can learn from. Coming here for an educator? Not if they're doing their jobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.140.27 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the views, but I think there are other pages which are more suited to discuss the philosophy and utility of WP.--Wehwalt 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Bean"

The current state of the article doesn't make it clear who "Bean" is... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with reference formats made a couple of lines invisible. I've corrected it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Ford and Paul Butler

I posted a link to a discussion between civil rights lawyers Richard Ford and Paul Butler about the case, but it was removed. Why was it taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable sources. All the other columnist and editorial entries are from major news outlets.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 00:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. They are just random lawyers with no connection to the case, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that they are pretty esteemed lawyers whose discussions on the case may be illuminating to some readers. But I think that the link should be put in a "further reading" section of the article and not in the article itself. Remember (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Racially Heated

I really find this article to seem just a little biased and racially heated...with uses of terms like "black students" and "white students". Could we do without the racial descriptors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.200.239 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bush apointee

There is absolutely no reason to note that Donald Washington is a "Bush appointee" in this article, especially in the introduction. It is not relevant at all. To me it's P.O.V. pushing to even bring Bush into this. Furthermore it's redundant because U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the sitting President. I've read other editors state that the fact Mr.Washington is African–American is also not relevant or that if the African–American descriptor stays, then the Bush descriptor has to. This is just nuts. This whole story is about race and an alleged injustice that has been committed against a group of African–American kids by a racist white justice system. The fact that Mr. Washington is himself African–American is completely relevant if he is to be mentioned at all. I personally don't think he needs to be mentioned; if at all, it's in some lower part of the article. The prominence of the Donald Washington sentence and its content wreaks of Kanye West and his "George Bush doesn't care about black people" rant. Why don't we just re-write the sentence to say "The house negro Donald Washington was brought in by racist George Bush to give the illusion of an investigation, but of course no evidence of unfair prosecution was uncovered."–please note I am being sarcastic with this last sentence, but I bet this would make a lot of folks happy.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I waited a couple of days for someone to come up with a reasonable response, but it has not come. So I have taken the Donald Washington sentence and moved it to the "House Judiciary Committee hearing" section, and erased the "bush appointee" part.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to undo the edit, but the discussion was had long ago about both of the terms and the result being basically -- if one is in, the other should be for balance.

IMO his race and who appointed him have no bearing at all on the case. Black people are not a homogenous group who all think and act alike, so assuming that because someone is black they would be more sensitive to "black issues" is folly. Similarly, all appointees to an office/position by a politician will not behave on lock-step with one another, so to assume they all would ignore facts to promote a political agenda is hogwash. Both qualifiers are POV pushing ones.

However I do believe Donald Washington has a very important role in the case, in that he investigated to find evidence of unfair prosecution and sentencing and found none; while at the same time stating the initial noose incident had the markings of a hate crime but would be difficult to prosecute. Those are two important findings by a US Atty assigned to investigate.

Finally, I think where you moved the Donald Washington sentence is an incorrect place -- he shouldn't be under the House Judiciary Committee heading as he was not involved in that. I think moving it back to its original location and removing BOTH of the irrelevant qualifiers would work, or under Trial, prosecution, and legal procedings. The V Chip (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can lose both of the qualifiers. We could have a photo of Washington in the article, the one on the DOJ site is government copyright. There should be some reference to the investigation in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what I'm fine with ditching the African–American qualifier. But I don't think the DOJ investigation needs to be in the intro as it's really just a footnote in this case and was pretty much inconsequential.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . I think there should be something in the lede to indicate that not everyone agrees that Jena is a race thing. The reference to Washington's investigation would accomplish that. As it stands, the lede makes it look like the kids are being railroaded, and that only the protesters and the appeals courts have prevented that. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but there should be a second point of view in the lede, since the article reflects that and the lede should be a condensed version of the article. I would suggest returning the Washington investigation to the lede or else find some other way of so indicating. I think the Washington way is the best, since if we put something like "Jena officials have denied that there are racial motivations behind the prosecution." in, it is hard for the reader to distinguish between a good faith denial and something out of the 1950's.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am with you, but it seems that the side that says "the Jena 6 case was a case of injustice based on race" has a strong foothold on this page. Perhaps more appropriate than putting the Washington investigation in the intro would be to convey somehow that the town and certain journalists have challenged the media's depiction of this case. I think that the christian science monitor article is a lot more problematic for the "Jena 6 case was racism" side than Mr. Washington's findings.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Reporting is reporting, and the Franklin thing was in a column. The US Attorney can be assumed to have sifted the facts. His views carry a lot of weight.--Wehwalt 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to see noting he was a Bush appointee as using weasel wording to somehow imply the Bush administration was trying to manipulate this case. Their is no other way it would be a pertinent fact, and their is no evidence to support it. He was appointed before this case, not appointed FOR this case, he'd been involved in several other cases in his time, the only reason it would be noteworthy is if somehow the president had selected him just to tackle this issue... unlikely since their is little if any evidence to suggest President Bush even knew this case existed before the media attention. Do you have any idea how many important cases on a given day his appointees and all the appointees he has on from prior presidents are tackling? It's not noteworthy for anyone but conspiracy nuts (of course, that's a good portion of the Wikipedia editor base since they don't have to worry about legitimate experts countering them here if they can get popular enough).

I think you are mistaken why people have wanted the "Bush Appointee" statement in there. It's not to suggest that the Bush Administration was attempting to manipulate this case (in fact I have never even heard that accusation before). I think it was originally added to point out that in some people's opinion, his political views would taint his findings. Not very relevant to ME (nor what race he is for that matter), but that was the discussion at the time.The V Chip 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put Washington back into the lede (First in war, first in peace, first in Wikipedia). I've used neither descriptor--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

why is it debunked "facts" are suddenly "unclear"

Wikipedia does it again. It's all so confusing! Heh. Yeah, right. The original news sources LIED about the facts, or the spewed lies without checking the facts for sure. This is evidence in the MULTIPLE RETRACTIONS and the scathing AP article that stated much of the info was "massaged" to fit a very specific and racist anti-white paradigm. So here at wikipedia the same "hate whitey" narrative is constructed with convenient phrasology: "it's unclear" "early sources said" "later sources said" etc. to avoid the actual fact that there was no confusion, but instead purposeful manipulation and presentation of supposed facts. Only on wikipedia... and any other ultra liberal source 66.190.29.150 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial article and every word has been argued about, as the extensive talk pages and archives attest. If you have specific objections, list them. Otherwise, this is not a place to air your frustration about the subject in general.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

According to an unpublished report "Many white conservative southerners are upset that this issue is being discussed". I'm giving strong consideration to adding this info to the article if noone objects in a few days.Reinoe (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would object to that. That would fail WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEASEL. Unpublished report about what "many" people feel? Forsooth!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"unrelated"

At least one editor has been adding the word "unrelated" to the intro, to say that the incidents before the beating were unrelated to it. There is a school of thought on that. I happen to agree. However, there are two schools of thought on that, at least, and it is a matter of reasonable dispute whether they were. Since this is a disputed matter, please stop inserting it. All it does is get reverted as soon as one of the regular editors of this article notice it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Jena Six. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

[1] The Jena 6 and the Media

[2] Jail the Jena 6

[3] Pics from Jena 6 march in Jena, Louisiana

[1]

[2]

[3]

Forked Threads of Discussion

By Section

By Topic

About the forked talk

Should we archive?

Archive

Student Response

dunno

Article has one aspect backwards

Other references

Dates in the future?

shotgun incident

other controversy

Sorting through misinformation

Statements attributed to Donald Washington in Intro Paragraph

Minor error in article's wording

Another minor error in article's wording

Entry paragraph

Alexandria Incident

Clarification

Removed weasel words from lead paragraph

Racist "black panther" types turning wiki into joke

Relevance of critics opinion in header

Revision of header

Best sources

Controversy

Other incidents involving white youth

Current Article Status

Public response

Attendees

New source, more information:

New source on attack

Congressional Hearings

Missing Citation

This Really Needs to Be in the Article

Walter's reason

News Reporting source

Noose hangers "inspired by movie"?

left/right images

lack of minority media ownership

On the Intro

Witness Statements

Braxton Hatcher

Not all bloggers... etc.

Public Response issue

Third opinion

Comments

Bush Appointee

Suggested clean-ups

Official documents

Noose hangings at Jena High School

School board

New stuff

Invalid reference pages?

Mael-Num

For Pete's sake, just look at the sources being cited!

Request for an edit

clean up sources and quotes, also editorials

Mychal Bell

This article is hiding information about the beating and the victim from the intro

Congressional Hearings

See also

Missing information in public response

Three empty citations

Hip Hop Awards

Petitions before rallies

Media coverage: Black radio, black bloggers, and timeline

RfC Media coverage of Jena 6

Eqdoktor

Related to the RFC above - undue weight issue

Columnists and editorials

Undue Weight Question: Songs

Copps, revisited

Some civility please

Wikirage

Initial media coverage and Alan Bean

Wehwalt

Back to work with Franklin

Media Petition for Intervention to Unseal Court Records and Lift Gag Order

Robinson column