Talk:Jena Six/SectionsAndFlow

Flow of article

I don't believe anyone can organize this article while it's still a hot topic, but 6 months from now, someone needs to put these paragraphs in a better order. As always, I think the wikipedia is the best place to go for great summary articles on controversial topics, but nevertheless this article is pretty hard to follow from the beginning. I came on here to read it for the third time, because I first read it aloud in my urban public school class, most of whom had not heard of the issue--and not a single student understood what was going on. There are all kinds of subjective side issues about tensions given equal weight to the crime itself. Anyone who reads the article has to walk away wondering what the difference in the six attackers was, why it's as newsworthy as it seems to be, why Bell gets all the press, what the current status really is, etc. Okay, after all that complaining, let me give a summary suggestion: Someone rename the categories so the outline can be read as a chronological summary without reading the article. That's at least how my professors taught me to name subheadings--they should be able to be either skipped entirely or read alone without affecting the flow of the article. --Mrcolj 12:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the sections in chronological order, as it was until a couple of days ago. Ophois 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I took a shot at editing for sequence, flow, and transition. Rklawton 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not sure of the right time to do this is, but I believe there could be a great consolidation of sources (down to reliable ones)Jim 17:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the "White Tree Incident" section, there's a simple compositional problem with the following sentence: "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." Which beating? The phrase "the beating" appears without a proper antecedent, i.e., there's been nothing said anywhere in the preceding text about a beating. Perhaps the current first sentence of the article needs to be improved by having it refer to "...their alleged involvement in the assault and beating of a white teenager...". In the legal sense, "assault" involves causing a victim to fear for his life or personal safety; "assault and battery" refers to both instilling fear and causing physical trauma. If the white teenager being discussed in this case was beaten, the best way to state this is to say that he was "assaulted and beaten" or simply "beaten". 87.49.45.169 13:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

New sections

I created a new section and added stuff in. Feel free to edit if you see any problems.Ophois 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I am going to take out the Justin Barker interview thing. Being interviewed by someone doesn't affiliate you with them. Accordingly, I don't see how it is relevant. If it doesn't tar him with the same brush (no color pun intended) then what's the point?

I'm mulling over a section, tentatively called "Media response", covering the manner in which the media have covered this, perhaps move the D.A.'s comments there, that kind of thing.--Wehwalt 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to continue suggesting a separate page for the responses. Both the events and responses are notable in themselves.Jim 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The event (the attack) is utterly non-notable. Kids get their asses kicked all the time. It's the response that's notable. Rklawton 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the response to a call to action that was itself shot through with misinformation posted on websites like colorofchange and on numerous blogs. 76.0.226.212

I'm kinda iffy about whether to have the mayor interview included. It implies that the mayor is a white supremacist (which he may actually be). I think the white supremacist section should be about actual actions against them (such as the website), not just a publication that's opposing them. What does everyone else think? Ophois 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd axe it. I really don't see what it is proving other than guilt by association (why I deleted the Barker interview thing). I'm sort of uncomfortable with the Potok statement that there is a major white supremacist backlash building. That may be true, I don't know, but saying it don't make it so. Let's stick to white supremacist actions and quotes regarding Jena.--Wehwalt 03:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is newsworthy that the leader of the Nationalist Movement was running around Jena LA interviewing people for their newspaper. It is also strange that these people gave interviews to some one from an organization with a White Power sounding name. I think the Justin Barker interview should go back. He made some controversial statements in that interview. The Potok statement is actually the thing i would have removed. He doesn't back it up with any facts. Or at least I haven't seen an article that quotes the facts he uses to back it up with. Hmmm... I may try to check that out. Mrbusta 03:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of them deny knowing that he was a White Supremacist though, and the mayor says he didn't know it was an interview (Barrett says that the quotes are from memory), and that the "moral support" part was never said. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14692227) Ophois 04:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Mrbusta now, that it should be mentioned because he a white supremacist went there and did the interviews. However, I found another source that gives both sides of the story. I readded Barker being interviewed, but cut it down. Ophois 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Section detailing massive amounts of misinformtaion

Rarely has a "incicent" gain such media attention and at the same time had the media making so many complete lies related to the facts of the case. Even MTV has had to come out and take not of the massive amountas of lies they and others have been passing off as "facts" for the majority of this case's existence in the national spotlight, no doub exagerrating the response and claims of "racism" and whatnot that resulted from the repeated telling of lies and half truths. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1570444/20070924/id_0.jhtml

"Even here at MTV we have reported some of these "facts," plucked from local and national stories on the incidents, which, according to an Associated Press story, did not accurately tell the whole story.

Following interviews with a number of townspeople, both black and white, AP reported that the citizens said the story has taken on a life of its own during repeated retellings, which have made Jena — a town whose race relations they admitted are not "unblemished" — seem like a broiling cauldron of bigotry and intolerance, something they argue it is not (see "Jena, Race And The N-Word, By Shaheem Reid, Reporting From Louisiana").

After speaking to teachers, officials and students at Jena High, reviewing court testimony and going over public statements from a U.S. attorney who reviewed the case for possible federal intervention, AP uncovered these inconsistencies AMONG OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be seriously redacted. It appears these are the facts, as opposed to the articles that have come before the AP article and this MTV article.Jim 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Point I've been trying to make all day is that we need to include all sourced versions of events, even when they are contradictory, because we don't know what is true and what isn't and it is not our place to judge.--Wehwalt 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a tremendous can of worms you're opening, but if that's the way you'd like me to edit, you've got it. Qworty 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just read the "timeline" published by the Jena Times. That kind of "reporting" goes a long way to proving that Jena is run by white racists. Qworty 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your personal denial of facts goes a long way. You compromise the POV of this article simply by poisoning this discussion page with such.Jim 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair comment, I'd say.--Wehwalt 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I haven't denied a single fact here. You have both crossed the line into personal attacks, however. Qworty 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious controversy

I'm sort of rolling my eyes at the new section, "Religious controversy". Walters apparently said something that a local minister took offense at. I'm rather doubtful that it is worth a major section in this article. Suggest we wait a few days, and if the "controversy" on Walters comments dies there, delete the section, if it does not, cover it of course as events justify.--Wehwalt 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I understand why it was added, but it's more connected to the rallies than to the Jena Six case (like the drunk guys who got arrested for driving with the nooses during the rallies). Ophois 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But in this case one of the people involved is connected to the case. So it's not like the drunk guys. futurebird 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I felt it was a significant new addition to the article. It gives us a sense of the different ways the members of the community view each other and the protesters. futurebird 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue here is if your definition of what qualifies as signifigant is the same as what wikipedia asks the definition to be. Looking at something in an article ask yourself, will it matter 1 year from now (especially in how it effects the other things present)? If you still think 'yes' then by all means stick to your convictions, but also understand why other people would be curious how you could think so. I tend to agree this is so minor as to not be worth noting, unless more comes of the issue. Just because something involves one of the key players in the events, doesn't mean it has a noteworthy effect on them, and I don't think in the scope of the Jena 6 incident this matters (at least not yet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.190.45 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how it won't matter! In five or ten years time people will wonder "what were people so upset about?" (Some people "don't even know what people are upset about *now*) -- It's not that kids got in trouble for beating a kids up, that's normal, they should get in trouble. Right? No, people are up set because of the way that they have gotten in trouble... and because of what they perceive to be pervasive racism on the part of the people in power charged with the duty of protecting everyone.

This is why a seemingly little thing like jury members eating with the family of the defendants, and the comment that implies that this guy expected the protests to be violent matter.

It gives the story context. Even if you don't agree with the people who are upset it can help you to understand why they are upset. As time passes this will only become more important. It's hard to document this kind of racism and when we have sources and clear quotations we should hang on to them. futurebird 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We are up to our ears in context and background in this case. There is a limit to what you can expect the reader to wade through. I suggest that if this part of the story has legs, then we leave it in, otherwise we take it out in a few days.

Eating with the family of the defendants? And yet they found Bell guilty? That's interesting. Do you have a source on that?--Wehwalt 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

People putting things in the wrong context. 14,282 in the whole Parish. I can virtually guarentee if you have to pick 6 people minimum, from the % of that 14,282 is eligable, it would be impossible with a pool of people that small NOT to have some personal connection to a victim (or offender) from the population at some point in the past from at least one of the six. A defense attorney (who as far as I know has not been questioned in his integrity) didn't feel it was relevant enough to dismiss the juror. The problem here is people aren't putting this in context for future generations, they're taking things OUT of context with their own bias so future generations won't know what happened, they'll know what hearsay said happened. And no, some of this crap won't matter 10 years from now. Just look up some event in '97, or try 20 and go to '87, and if you're old enough to remember it look at all that really mattered in the end compared to the hearsay crap that flew around at the time. The reason wikipedia isn't a real encyclopedia though? Because people edit based on their heart, not their head. Time makes you look at the big picture. And the worst part is, people get so fixitated here on making up more injustices in their imaginations, they miss out on the REAL injustices that happened in the first place. Which is why sticking to legitimate, unbiasedsources is so important.

But if you have a small community where people have certain expectations for justice and they aren't really fair and everyone knows each other that would matter right? I mean the fact that the plave is small and "close-knit" is a part of the problem in a way... I think we're getting too off topic in this discussion so that's all I'll say for now. I think we should leave the comment about religion in for now. If it suddenly "becomes irrelevant" we can always remove it later. futurebird 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been hinted that the PD was unprepared, but no one will come out and say it, likely for liability reasons. Calling no witnesses is a legitimate strategy for the defense. I find it intriguing that Bell did not testify. That was Bell's decision, no one else's. That is the law.

That was a smart move on the part of Bell's defense attorney. If the defendant takes the stand, any prior history he has with the law become open to discussion by the prosecution. If he doesn't take the stand, the prosecutor faces additional restrictions on bringing anything he did criminally in the past or was accused of doing into play. They basically have to prove a more direct connection to the current crime in question if they want to bring up the past. It is actually fairly rare for defense attorneys to let their client take the stand unless either A.) they truly believe he is without a doubt guiltless and will come off as such, B.) their is some compelling reason to put him up there, or C.) the defense attorney is red hot. Given Bell's criminal past, particularly the accused beating of a woman (I've never found if that is just something he was accused of, or something he was found guilty of, since it was a Juvenile issue, but either way it wouldn't be a positive fact to bring in), their was not only no compelling reason to have him speak, but doing so would have virtually guarenteed polluting ANY jury against him. Race wouldn't have mattered... as far as I know black people don't like a woman beater anymore then whites do. People need to keep remembering here, the issue is the severity of which Bell was treated for his actions, their is no question his actions were questionable AT BEST, criminal and violent at worst. Again in seeing this as a metaphor for all racism in general, you can't forget the actual crime itself that prompted all this. Or the fact most of his prior actions weren't against whites... they were against his fellow blacks. The injustice isn't that a black man was found guilty, it was that a black man was found guilty of a harser crime then he commited, while some whites under near identical (but admitadly not exactly identical) situations were only given warnings.

As for the jury knowing people, in a small community, happens all the time. Used to happen a lot more. It isn't required that the jurors not know anyone involved, only that they are able to put aside any prejudices and be unbiased.

It also just isn't neccisarily an issue of race. In a small community, white OR black offender, someone on the jury likely had at least some mild contact with the victim. I mean look here. They were high school buddies? With almost adult children? So basically that means they weren't recent friends at all, and the reality is 20 years ago in a high school of less then 1000 people at the time they were friends. Whoop de doo, not exactly definitive grounds for bias. Even the defense attorney (who actually did a pretty good job here) didn't think it was relevant enough to care. MTV may point it out, but the fact Mr. Sharpton and and Mr. King aren't harping over it tell you the truth of it, that it isn't important here because while it may have bias it isn't neccisarily so. Most importantly, it would be the same bias vs. a white OR black defendant in such a system so it's relevance as a Jena 6 and race issue is limited. It does however make the MTV article stand out though, which is why I don't consider them a credible news source on the same tier as the AP or major papers or true news channels.

As for the religion comment, let's see in a week if that aspect of the story has continued. If not, delete it.--Wehwalt 20:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say just to humor everyone who think it's hugely relevant somehow, lets give it a month. That way no one can say plenty of time wasn't given to make sure it's meaningless, and if it somehow has real meaning, it'll still be discussed or mentioned then or something will have come of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.190.45 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)