Talk:Jena Six

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)

---

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)

The Assault

This sentence is wrong, but I can't seem to edit the page:

"Bailey was hit and kicked by the six and was temporarily knocked unconsious."

That should read:

"Barker was hit and kicked by the six and was temporarily knocked unconsious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.40.5 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

I recently found out about this case from the YouTube video The Jena 6. The article seems to be overall well sourced, but obviously has some formatting issues and needs significant clean up. Please leave suggestions and commentary. --Coldbourne 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What the article fails to mention is that Mychal Bell was convicted of attacking some one a year before the Jena six assault.While on probation for that attack he committed 3 more violent crimes.This would have been his fith conviction for violent crimes and the Judge had taken this into account.Mychal Bell had committed 5 violent crimes at the ages of 15-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaheedus (talk • contribs) 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell's criminal past has been in the article since it was released... It's under the "Mychal Bell" section of "Trial, prosecution, and legal proceedings". Ophois 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell's criminal past is directly contradicted in the opening paragraph of the Jena Six page. References [5] and [9] are inaccurate (hense the inaccuracy of the opening paragraph using those references) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.13.149 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the convictions were on his juvenile record, nobody knew about the prior incidents until they were brought up.Ophois 20:10, 22 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)

court transcript

....from the first trial. Where is it? It's a matter of public record. Could a Jena Wikipedian (no lols intended) go to the courthouse, copy it, and scan it? 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's available online, I don't think we could use it. The info has to be verifiable. Ophois 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable, at the courthouse. That's why I'm asking someone to verify it. There's no policy that sources have to be online. Dsol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsol (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Alexandria and our local paper printed a few excerpts from the court transcript and police investigation. One of the defendents (they did not identify which one) was asked about his comments immediately after the assault. Most of the defendants were scared afterwards, but one was heard to say, "Don't worry, they won't be too [s] harsh on us. We'll just make up some shit about the white boy keep calling us nigger." We ['ll] just say they are racist."

I'm going to go back and look at other papers for that week to see if anything else from the court or police was printed. By the way, I had this part in the wrong area before moving it to this "court transcript" part of the discussion.

Eyewitness Testimony: what was it?

Local police reported that the accounts of the white student and black students contradicted each other and formed a report based on testimony taken from eyewitnesses. This resulted in Bailey being charged with three counts: theft of a firearm, second-degree robbery and disturbing the peace. The white student who had produced the weapon was not charged.[1][3]"

I am concerned about the integrity of this part of the article because there is no example of the eyewitness testimony. I feel that without an example, the simple connecting sentence is easily ignored so people jump to one conclusion: racism. Though it may have been due to racism, there may also have been valuable eyewitness testimony that resulted in Bailey being charged for 3 crimes and the white student being charged with nothing. If there is any source where we could pull that information from, it would be pivotal.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A reference to the witness testimonies are later in the article, but to my knowledge, they haven't released any testimonies. It's only been said that they were conflicting, including some who don't even remember Bell being involved. Ophois 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NPR quote with regards to Justin Barker "bragging"

Many news sites seem to contradict what NPR says with regards to Justin Barker bragging. It's been acknowledged that he taunted one of the Jena 6 (more specifically Bailey). The article also seems outdated (July 30) considering the recent influx of facts (which I assume can be attributed to increased national media coverage).Jim 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of a source that contradicts NPR? Ophois 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

apologies, contradict is probably the wrong word to use. However, most reliable sources I see refer to it as taunting. None of us were there(presumably) so we don't know what Barker's demeanor was when he was saying this. It just seems more sources use a word less potent. Sorry for the late responseJim 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when is NPR not a reliable source? 209.159.98.1 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You must have misunderstood. I wasn't asserting that NPR is an unreliable source. I was stating most reliable sources have referred to it as taunting. If you really want me to question NPR, look at some of the information they present in citation 3. Compare that to the information we have now.Jim 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assault with a Deadly Shoe argument

The author of the shoe paragraph obviously thinks the shoe stuff is ridiculous, but the jury did not. Does anyone have any insight as to why one teen's shoes were considered deadly weapons, while, for instance, the other shoes were not? Kicking people unconscious, sadly, happens every day... hasn't this argument then been used before, if not daily, somewhere in America? Can we find a source to explain what's going on? I have to assume one kid had heelies, or steel toed boots, or something... --Mrcolj 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you seen Austin powers? That movie sets a strong legal precedent in cases such as these. Dsol 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most people think the argument is ridiculous. It's being presented in the media as a tactic by the prosecution to increase the severity of the charges. Remember, the aggravated assault charge was a drop down from attempted murder 2. I'm sure the tactic has been tried before several times, just not in the public spotlight. There are a few other things to remember. First up the defense attorney was a public defender who's competence has already been questioned. It's possible that he never filed an objection to the characterization of the shoes as deadly weapons. Secondly, the jury was probably predisposed to convict and that's even before you bring race into the mix. I'm sure we'll see some analysis of this case by professional law journals or in the media. It just will take time and effort to find it.CJ 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The shoe argument has only been made against Bell because he's the only one that's been tried yet. Anyways, I looked it up, and according to the Supreme Court, anything can be a deadly object (including a foot), so I added it to the artcle. Thanks for pointing that out. Ophois 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The law in Louisianna defines a "Dangerous (not deadly) weapon" to "include[s] any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm." LA. R.S. 14:2(A)(3).

Under this definition, anything that can be used in a manner likely to cause "death or great bodily harm" can qualify as a "dangerous weapon." This can include hands, feet, shoes, guns, knives, cars, ect. Really, a lot of things that don't normally consitute a weapon can be used as a dangerous weapon - given the right set of facts.

Nevertheless, it's a no-brainer that kicking somebody in the head, regardless of the style of footwear, could likely cause thier death or great bodily harm. The prosecution could have alleged "foot" as the dangerous weapon. So the nature of the shoes worn may be such that they were capable of causing more injury than an uncovered foot.

BTW - It is perfectly acceptable, and generally the usual course of practice, (regardless of the race of an offender), for the prosecution to allege the highest level of offense committed under the facts and then to later agree to a lesser charge. My experience has been that this is typically done with the approval of the victim and/or his family.

Six people kicking someone laying defenseless on the ground into unconsciousness is a real crime. It is ridiculous to attempt to equate a potentially deadly assault by multiple attackers on a single unarmed victim to hanging rope from a tree branch. Or to claim that the attack was justified because some other persons hung the rope in the tree the day before. Particularly where your article says the victim was attacked because he taunted one of the attackers, not because he personally hung a rope from a tree. Mwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.24.194 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please find a source for the above info about deadly weapons in Louisiana and replace the part about the Colorado Supreme Court? If not, I can do it later. Ophois 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Information about the nooses

It turns out that the nooses were placed there because of a high school sports match. The school the team was to play in an upcoming game's mascot was a cowboy. Several students made the nooses in order to demonstrate that the Jena team would "hang 'em high". Race probably had nothing to do with it. I got the information from a local Louisiana newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.235.2 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Ophois 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been quoted several places, like here : http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=2427&format=html that the nooses were in school colors. The nooses where hung on Friday Sept 1, 2006. Friday is of course high school football time. I have worked as a teacher in various high schools for 7 years, and Fridays are always crazy during football season. There is always some motto for the opponent of the week. eg: "Lock up Lexington". On Friday Sep 1 2006 Jena High School played the Avoyelles Mustangs from Moreauville, LA. [Info from Maxpreps.com] As a prior service member in the US Army 1st Cavalry Division, we saw plenty of Cavalry equipment. One such piece is the 'Neck Rope' like so: Image The properly tied neck rope does look a lot like a noose. It could be debated what a proper noose looks like. Traditional hang mans nooses have 13 coils. A horse neck lead has more like 6 coils. Yes this is splitting hairs, but the fact remains that a neck lead is a reasonable symbol for the Jena Giants to use prior to a football game against a 'Mustang' opponent. Some type of lasso seems more than appropriate. I believe I read the nooses in the White Tree were removed by custodians before the police arrived; we may never know the truth. In this age of political correctness, the noose has more evil connotations, but a lasso is just a cowboy tool. 64.234.45.87 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)TJ Tx

You have a good point. However, the article you gave only says that they were painted in school colors. It makes no reference to a football game or anything else. For us to suggest that it was football-related without providing a source would be speculation. However, if you find a source that covers what you said above, please post it. Ophois 13:30, 21 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)

This Wikipedia Article is Biased

After reading many other articles on this matter it becomes clear that the author of this piece is slanted against the Black children. They do have some responsibility in this incident but the major issue is the unequal treat meeted out by the authorities in that town. From speaking to many black people there is a different America for them than their white counterparts There are huge pockets of rural america where if a black person ventures their safty would be at risk, only because they are black this is not the America of MLK's dream. PLEASE ADJUST THIS ARTICLE IT DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON WIKIPEDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.72.103 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased against the Jena Six? Because it gives facts that most newspapers choose to ignore? I am in support of the Jena Six, but this article must remain neutral, so we must report both sides. You say to adjust the article, so please cite where it is biased, and I'd be happy to fix it if you are correct. Ophois 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not biased, if anything it is biased in favor of the jena 6. It belittles barker's injuries by dismissing them saying that he went to his high school ring ceremony later that day. I have asked several times that this be deleted from the article or moved to another section - as it certainly doesn't have anything to do with his injuries... but his injuries, and the seriousness with which he was attacked, continue to be belittled.

Could the author of the above statement please sign his name? I want to nominate him to the Guiness Book of World Records for using the word "belittle" the most times on one webpage. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.99.30 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What, you mean twice? Well hold the press, we have a record indeed. Anyway, his/her comment is still valid, Barker attending the Ring ceremony has nothing to do with the case.

Uh, the injuries have been given its own section... as well, it goes into more detail and shows that he testified he had to leave early due to pain... Ophois 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having no place else to put this I have posted it in this section - In reading all of the comments posted I am mindful of the rules relating to Wikipedia and “What Wikipedia is not” (a section all should read). With the preceeding in mind and in the spirit of Wikipedia I strongly suggest that a proper understanding be given to the whole “Jena Six” issue. In reading the posted statements it is very apparent that many of the posters don’t have a clue as to what the whole “Jena Six” issue is all about. In fact the whole artile in and of itself lacks a real statement helping others to understand the full ramifcations of “Jena Six”. In the narrow view “Jena Six” is about six Black teenagers who assaulted a white teenager. As it is written, that is what the Wikipedia article is all about. However, the “JENA SIX” issue IS NOT ABOUT SIX BLACK TEENAGERS WHO ASSAULTED A WHITE TEENAGER, it is about the unequal treatment of blacks versus whites under the laws of our country. If the Blacks had been charged with a simple battery, as was the white man who beat up the Black teenager in Jena, then there would really be no issue to complain about. Jena Six is in essesence simular to a class action lawsuit. A class action lawsuits may be brought if the claim arises under federal law, or if all named representative members of the potential plaintiff class are from a different state than the defendant. Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. With regards the “Jena Six” the focus is being placed upon the numberous insidents of such injustice across the United States where Blacks of being imprisoned upon trumped up charges and sentenced to long prison sentences for crimes that were improperly classified. No one is saying that the teenagers involved in the “Jena Six” event aren’t entitled to some form of punishment for their deeds but 20 to 80 years in prison is just beyond reason. If not for the media attention Mychal Bell may very well have been convicted of the attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, carrying sentences of up to 80 years in prison. Instead he was convicted of the aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery (up to 22 1/2 years in prison, 15 years after the conspiracy was dropped). Basically, that is the problem, Mychal Bell and his friends are guilty of a simply battery, a six month misdemeanor, and not a 80 year felony as it was when the rally was planned or the 15 years as it stood before the court threw out the remaining conviction. I trust there are those who will want to talk about how bad the victim was beat without knowing the truth [you can not believe every thing you read without a through investigation. I bet the medical records will not show there was a cat scan done which is required when there is any indication of a head trauma]. However, given the facts as they have been disclosed, does it warrant locking up a 16 year old for 15 years? No, I don’t think so and nether does a lot of the Black community. Thus in closing I again would say that the article should reflect the big picture and not just the narrow view of the incident in question. Only then will people understand all of the relevant factors starting with the request to sit under the “Whites Only” tree. CyberQue 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the wiki article...? Everything is covered, not just the attack. Ophois 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have both the article and all of the posting in the discussion area. In fact I just read everything again to make sure I was not missing anything. I do belive everything is well covered from the narrow point of view and with the exception of a one sentence statement regarding the NAACP I sincerely doubt that readers will really under stand the big picture. It is not about the incident in question it is about injustice in the U.S.= Commentary 'Jena 6' rally was about equal justice, not race - It was great seeing so many people exercising their free speech and right to protest, but to also demand a change to what they felt is an unjust legal system. Roland Martin, Newscaster [1]

On Thursday, I wore black in support of the Jena 6, and turned on CNN's webstream in my office so that I could quietly watch the thousands who gathered in Washington and Jena, Louisiana at rallies in support of the Jena 6. They served as a fervent reminder of the realities of criminal injustice across racial lines Janine Beach columist [2] It's a story that reads like one from the Jim Crow era, when judges, lawyers and all-white juries used the justice system to keep blacks in "their place"--but it's happening today. [3] Injustice in Jena as Nooses Hang From the "White Tree" By Bill Quigley - At a rally in front of the courthouse: Alan Bean, a Texas minister and leader of the Friends of Justice, said: "I have seen a lot of trials in my time. And I have never seen a more distressing miscarriage of justice than what happened in LaSalle Parish yesterday." Khadijah Rashad of Lafayette Louisiana described the trial as a "modern day lynching." Tory Pegram with the Louisiana ACLU "People know if they don't demand equal treatment now, they will never get it.” Hebert McCoy, a relative of one of the youths who has been trying to raise money for bail and lawyers, challenged people everywhere at the end of the rally when he said: "You better get out of your houses. You better come out and defend your children - because they are incarcerating them by the thousands. Jena's not the beginning, but Jena has crossed the line. Justice is not right when you put on the wrong charges and then convict. I believe in justice. I believe in the point of law. I believe in accepting the punishment if I'm guilty. If I'm guilty, convict me and punishment, but if I'm innocent, no justice." The crowd joined with him and shouted, "No peace!" [4] On Thursday, the case drew thousands of protesters to this tiny central Louisiana town to rally against what they see as a double standard of justice for blacks and whites. The march was one of the biggest civil rights demonstrations in years. [5] = BTW Ophois, I think you are doing a great job on this.CyberQue 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six refers to the movement of the Black community to protest what they see as a double standard of justice for blacks and whites. The movement was sparked by an incident wherein a group of six black teenagers were arrested and charged with crimes related to their alleged involvement in the assault of a white teenager in Jena,CyberQue 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to demonstrators in front of a rural Louisiana courthouse last week, Alan Bean, a Baptist minister from the Texas panhandle, inveighed against injustice. “The highest crime in the Old Testament,” he declared, “is to withhold due process from poor people. To manipulate the criminal justice system to the advantage of the powerful, against the poor and the powerless.” As he delivered his message to the crowd, officers from the state police intelligence division watched from the side, videotaping speakers and audience. Bean was speaking at a rally organized by residents of Jena, Louisiana. In the space of a few weeks, more than 150 of this small town’s residents have organized an inspiring grassroots struggle against injustice. The demonstrations began when six Black students at Jena High School were arrested after a fight at school and charged with conspiracy to attempt second-degree murder. The students now face up to 100 years in prison without parole, in a case that King Downing, National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, has said “carries the scent of injustice.” [6]Louisiana NAACP president Ernest Johnson, who is helping to organize Thursday's march in conjunction with a coalition of civil rights groups--including Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, Al Sharpton's National Action Network and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference--says the scope of the campaign is broadening. "I think people are coming to show strength and unity against these types of injustices," he says. "They're coming to send a message to other Jenas throughout the country. To the Jena in New York, the Jena in Washington, in California--there are a lot of Jenas out there." Rich with symbolism and iconic images, the case of the Jena Six certainly makes for a compelling parable of racial injustice in America. Louis Scott, Bell's lead counsel, agrees that the protests will place a spotlight on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, but he doesn't think it will necessarily affect the way the case is litigated.[7]CyberQue 05:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like stuff that has already been discussed and placed into the article where possible. If there was a specific suggestion in there could you trim it down to maybe one or two lines? CJ 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)`

In the Public Outcry section there are three items listed “The Petition” (by the way there are several petitions), the “Defense fund”, and “Rally in Jena”. I don’t see any of the above listed AND more importantly no where n the whole article do I get an understanding of why the Jena Six issue is such a big deal – Blacks have been railroaded off to prison in many other cases and in every state of the United States. Unless the “WHY” is answered the whole matter is one of the Black population coming to the aid of the six Black boys in Jena. HOWEVER, if you will note the highlighted statement above you will note that the Black population is not talking about the six Black boys, they are talking about racial inequality in the legal system when it come to how Blacks are treated within the criminal justice system. The NAACP, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, Al Sharpton's National Action Network and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not to mention the numerous other Black organizations involved, have all come together for what? Because of an incident involving six Black boys in Jena, that’s the narrow viewpoint of what is occurring. They have come together with one statement in mind – “stop railroading our Black men into prison on trumped up charges”, and since the Jena incident is a perfect example of what Blacks are upset about, it was time to take the issue to the public forum. Reading the Wik article I would have no awareness of the bigger picture involved as I read about the attack, the injuries and the events leading upon the attack. In fact I would believe that Blacks were upset because the whole thing started with a Whites only shade tree and some nooses were hung from the tree after some Blacks sat under the tree. If you really want to make an entry about the Jena Six event look at the big picture and help your reader understand what is really going on. I suggest changing the lead sentence, “Jena Six refers to a group of six black teenagers who have been arrested and charged with crimes ..” to “Jena Six refers to the movement of the Black community to protest what they see as a double standard of justice for blacks and whites. The movement was sparked by an incident wherein a group of six black teenagers were arrested and charged with crimes …” CyberQue 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Ignites a Movement, By Jordan Flaherty, Left Turn. [8]

I am a relatively new user/editor of Wikipedia and have a recommendation. When I first heard about Jena 6 on CNN, I was very confused as to what really happened and why there was rally. I went to my computer to search wikipedia because I know that it strives to give detailed and unbiased information. When I read the article I was pleased to see that the community at Wikipedia was coming together well to create a page that represents this incident (and the preceding incidents as well) in a way that I - as a reader - could explore the details and come to my own educated oppinion. Wikipedia is not designed to guide people to a specific view of a topic - as so many other news sources are. Having read all of the article and everything is this talk page, I believe there is real injustice going on and that America has a big issue to deal with. Having said that, I do not believe that there should be more direct information listed in this page about the overall issue of injustice in America for African Americans (or any other race/minority). This is not the place for that. I recommend that those people who have evidence of the numerous events in our country that prove this injustice is happening create a page about that injustice. There could be a link to it on the Jena six page. And that article could reference the Jena six events as proof of the injustice throughout America. This way, the issues that CyberQue is expressing will be available to the wikipedia public. And, this article about the Jena six incident(s) may stay as unbiased as possible. NatalieOne 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that this is a bias report. Why does the intro sentence NOT include that the six teens were originally charged with ATTEMPTED MURDER? But there were no charges in the attacks against the black kid at the party AND the gunshot incident. It's not equal justice. That's WHY they are the Jena 6! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.218.152.178 (talk) 14:42, 27 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)

[9]

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)

IMPORTANT Jena times

Apparently we have another "duke rape scandal" here, where the mass media is getting everything wrong by heresay, either that or the bias in wording of this wiki is atrocious. please read the entireity of the chronology in the Jana times to get the real info. http://www.thejenatimes.net/home_page_graphics/home.html

Have you read the article here? Other than a few facts, it basically matches up with the timeline in your reference. However, thank you for providing it, as it does give some good info. Ophois 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, no. This wiki is full of bias. The "claim" that the prosecutor looked at the black students with his pen comment is complete lie. The fact the FBI and the US Atorney for the state have thoroughly reviewed everything in the town including all these side events and have found no evidence of any infringement of civil rights is buring in a bunch of confusing text slapped together in random places. I still don't even see how any of the "other" things have anything to do with the Jena 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if their claim was false (that part has been removed anyway), it was still a cited claim, which was followed by the administrators and people saying otherwise. And I find it interesting that you ask why the side incidents are on this page, when the article you reference details nearly all the side incidents on this page. The side incidents are in this article because a) some of the incidents involve those accused, b) they are still connected to the whole story by the media and everyone else, whether they influenced the attack or not. Ophois 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

a) No, they do not. Where do you come up with this? More MISinformation? b.) proof? I think a history of spouse and child abuse were pretty connected to bobby cutts mudering his unborn child and the childs mother. But no-no. That's nto allowed! I can't "prove" they have anything to do with each other. So why is it that is evoked to protect Bobby cutts image, yet we have all these other incidents which there is no proof of a connection to the Jena 6???? Race and bias at wikipedia? Nah, that never happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I guess you didn't even read the article you gave... according to your article, Robert Bailey was involved in at least 2 of the 4 preceding events. Ophois 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the wiki article on the Cutts case does mention allegations of previous abuse. Please fully read stuff before arguing about them. Ophois 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it mentions allegations of abuse, but what kind of abuse and directed at WHOM and just how severe was it? And btw, the Sherif's department in Jena already released a statement that there was no connection found between earlier incidents and the attack of Barker. But as usual at wikipedia, everything is amde up on the fly and the only POV that ever gets in is the guy with a mod in his back pocket.68.187.117.71 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assault Section Changes

"From there, according to white witnesses, a group of black students followed suit by repeatedly kicking him, though black witnesses deny that this occurred."

A black Jena student corroborated the "repeated kicking" version of the story today on CNN. Why does the current wording imply that all of the black witnesses deny this action took place. It should say "... though some black witnesses deny this occurred." Thedeparted123 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because we hadn't seen that story today, or because the current source in use says that the black witnesses denied it? Do you have a link to the story you mentioned, so someone can change it? Thanks. Ophois 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated it, so it just says that some witnesses claimed he was kicked. Thanks for pointing it out. Ophois 05:14, 21 September 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 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)

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)

Public outcry and rally info

I moved Public Outcry to its own section. If anyone has a problem with this, please say so. Anyways, does anyone mind updating the rally section with the number of people attending, who attended, etc.? I'll try to do it tomorrow if nobody does.Ophois 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Qworty 05:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the rally section, it says "a rally hailed as the new civil rights struggle of the 21st century was a poignant reminder of incidents which punctuated the civil rights struggles begun in the 1950s was held". Does that sound POV to anyone else?Ophois 02:16, 24 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)

Myspace pics

Someone added to the page about Robert Bailey's myspace page having pics of him parading the money he's been sent. It didn't have a source and was removed, though I found a reliable source that confirms it. Does anyone think it should be added to the article? (http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NEWS01/709220329) Ophois 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no relevance. Just seems like another reason to have a separate page for public response. Including it might take away from anyone forming an objective POV.Jim 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be added. This article is supposed to document the whole case for all time, and if we left it out we would be showing a historical bias. Also, a YouTube video with all the pictures: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OAZQlgPO8qc (Don't read the comments on the page, as they make me lose faith in Americans.) Ironman5247 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And since the time of the article, Robert has deleted his Myspace account. Ironman5247 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article I gave has one of the pics in it. However, if we add this, we first need to make a new Public Outcry subsection stating that people have sent them money (cite, too). Then add this in. Ophois 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added the section, source, and subsection. Please revise as needed. Ironman5247 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that a subsection be added under Public Response saying that people have sent him money (like the Rally and Defense Fund are set up). Then add this part after it. Ophois 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

FIRST find a source that says people have sent money to the Jena Six. THEN put this in. The NAACP set up the defense fund, so I doubt that the money is from that. Ophois 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is public information! Quite a few schools have been collecting money to send to the six. The source of the money, however relevant, is a separate discussion. These photos will have an impact on the case no matter the source. If I changed the language to this, could it be a keeper?

Pictures have surfaced on the internet from Robert Bailey's MySpace account showing him with a large amount of money scattered over his bed, in his mouth and hands. The source of this money is not known at this time. He has since deleted his MySpace account, along with all of the photographs, but there are several places where these have been recorded.

Ironman5247 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what do Baily's my space pictures have to do with the Jena six case? No one here knows whether such pictures have anything to do with with anything about this case! Until someone can prove that it does, it should not be included. BTW, isn't Bailey that one that moved to live with his Pro-Football playing relative? Maybe he is getting allowance: )```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmad (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Source? 71.71.200.176 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is at the beginning of the discussion... Ophois 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Until the source of the money has been determined, I think that the section should be removed. What does everyone else think? Ophois 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Withholding facts from the reader should not be done. It may never be "determined" to your satisfaction.--Wehwalt 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed until it is proved to be even related to the case.````

Thank you for posting this. I removed the section from the article.Ophois 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ophois, I just looked more carefully at the Democracy Now interview that I posted the link to and Tina is Bryant Purvis's mother, not Robert Bailey's mother. Sorry for the mistake. I still think the myspace thing should be held until the souce of the money is known and I still don't see the relevance either way. Domocracy Now! is a great source of info on this topic. They have been doing indepth reporting on it for weeks. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for doing such a good job on such a controversial issue: )````

Ophois, I think it should be allowed. That townhall article talk about the struggles of the victims family. Maybe if just ignoring the myspace page till that's settled but adding in the victims families story would be a bit more balancing. The article has turned into a biased story in favor of the accussed attackers rather while nothing is really said about the victim. Witchinghour73 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, looking at the supposed sources that were there, I'd say leave it out (but keep an eye on things) but if the media report on it, put it in. We can assume they do the fact checking.--Wehwalt 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If these questionable pictures are to be referenced here in the future, then the far more relevant fact that Justin Barker was interviewed by a racist, segregationist, right-wing website should also be included. Qworty 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been interviewed by the Washington Post two or three times. That doesn't make me a inside-the-Beltway liberal. What's your point about Barker?--Wehwalt 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My point about Barker is that white racists are interested in supporting him. That is a fact. However, the source of the money in the myspace photos is unknown, and therefore there is little we can say about it that is factual. Qworty 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Witchinghour73, what does Bailey having money have to do with the Barker family?Ophois 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make my point clearer. The source for the myspace pictures "http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NEWS01/709220329" is mainly an article from an interview with the victim's family. I didn't think that should be deleted out. But it was when the myspace picture section was taken off the article. To me, it seemed like the author of that was simply putting the sources article on the page and the myspace pictures was a mention in that. Witchinghour73 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the information that cited the article is removed, there's no point in having the article as a source. Pretty much all that is said by Barker is him complaining that he has to work and the Jena Six don't. All other stuff are quotes from a white supremacist.Ophois 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any non-circumstantial evidence supporting the obvious, though probably unprovable, association between the money in this picture and the money people have supposedly sent directlt to his family? Is there any evidence that shows this picture wasn't taken BEFORE the jena 6 incident? Unfortunately, bling bling-ing is a commonly encouraged public act of social superiority among both young black AND white youths, encouraged by our pop-culture. It is only natural that he would want to appear as rich and cool as puffy, or whoever. In my experience both white AND black youths will fake it (cubic Z jewelry, flashy clothes, etc) no matter how poor they are. Furthermore, is there any evidence to suggest that he was spending this money on anything but his defense? It is only natural for kids to try to present themselves as socially/economically much more successful than they really are, to try to impress young ladies on what amounts to dating sites like Myspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.31.167 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The source does not state the $ was real, nor does it state the money was sent to him, nor does it, in fact, state anything but the Barkers' speculation that he's "making money off the case." One source is insufficient for this type of allegation, IMO: Including this type of content with only one source is questionable; two are better, and MySpace isn't a source. If it is included it should be clear that it is allegations by Justin Barker not information from any other source. The reporter quotes Justin, and that is the only place where the image and the speculation are tied together, or indeed where the speculation is made at all so far as I can tell. We must be very careful in this article not to conflate what one of the parties said in an interview, and what a reporter stated as part of a story. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see where it goes. It isn't in the article now. If it is brought up by another RS, then let us see how it is treated. If Bell is convicted (or if the adult conviction is reinstated) and the prosecutor waves the photos at his sentencing then of course we'd have to put it back in. Play it by ear, I say.--Wehwalt 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The pics are of Bailey, not Bell.Ophois 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite the overturning of the convictions

An editor insists on prefacing the third paragraph of the intro with the above words, so that it reads:

Despite the overturning of the convictions, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has stated there is no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing. Washington has indicated that he does not think there is a link between the nooses incident and the beating.

It is a matter of opinion (presumably Qworty's) whether the overturning of the convictions (on the grounds that the defendant should have been tried as a juvenile, not an adult) constitutes "evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing." An editor should not insert his opinion to rebut the facts that we are attempting to present in an article. It is inherently POV and unfair. We should delete the introductory phrase. Other views?--Justin Sloan Wehwalt 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If he was tried as an adult when he was supposed to be tried as a juvenile, then yes, that is considered unfair.Ophois 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, appeal courts reverse all the time because trial judges are imperfect. That doesn't mean that the defendants are treated unfairly, just that a judge got it wrong. In this case, according to the sources, it is a question as to whether conspiracy to commit a violent crime is itself a violent crime permitting a 16 year old to be tried as an adult.--Wehwalt 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it just the trial judge who was wrong? Walters was the one who prosecuted on those charges. Ophois 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. In any issue at law, one side is generally wrong. In cases which are reversed, it tends to be the prosecutor. But anyway, I think the new phrasing satisfies my concerns.--Wehwalt 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(comment by another editor, to which wehwalt replied, was deleted here)

I've known many judges and prosecutors in my time to be wrong. I've known very few to be unfair. There's a big difference.--Wehwalt 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Even they were "wrong", it was still unfair to Bell. Like in a game, if a referee makes a bad call by mistake, it's still unfair to the team who suffers because of it, whether it was intentional or not.Ophois 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've always known that as long as I've had one hundred checks sitting in my checkbook I could go out and find 100 lawyers who disagreed with any other lawyer on any matter at all. Qworty 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how the appeals work out. If you took the second-level decision in Brown v. Board of Ed as definitive, you'd say how wrongheaded the plaintiffs were, after all, they lost in the first appeals court. Roe v. Wade lost in the second highest court, you know. The case is not final.--Wehwalt 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. And as it stands now, Washington is wrong. If the courts ever say he's right, I'll make the edit here myself. BTW, I just love it how people like you assert that I "have an opinion." What it the world do you think it is you have??? I guess the letters on your keyboard just keep getting pressed by accident. Qworty 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I must say that I had no reason to believe you were a lawyer until I saw you arguing on here for an hour about the inclusion of a single word. LOL! Qworty 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, with respect, you've reverted about a dozen edits to keep that one little word in there. If it is one little word, how about we just get rid of it, OK? After all, there is only one, and it is little. No problem, right?--Wehwalt 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "compromise" edits aren't bad. Unfortunately, if we both walk away from the computer at this point, we'll come back in an hour or in the morning to find the intro paragraph largely unrecognizable. And two other people will be here arguing similar points. Qworty 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. At this point, it is like we are writing on the sand with the tide coming in. Maybe we can think of a way that will satisfy you that doesn't carry an implication that anyone is right or wrong, which as it stands is rather undetermined.--Wehwalt 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I have a specific point and a general point about the Washington issue. First, we seem to have lost track of the ref for Washington saying there's no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing. It isn't ref #1 as is given in the article now. I could hunt the right ref down myself, but those of you more familiar with this article will be able to do so faster. Second, in my opinion, the three of you are reading too much into Washington's "prosecution or sentencing" statement. If I remember right, it wasn't given as a quote, but rather a reporter's interpretation. And even if it was a quote we wouldn't be able to tell exactly what he meant by it. He might have been speaking within the context of the Jena 6 cases; he might not have meant to address the fairness or unfairness of the lack of prosecution or harsh sentencing with respect to white youths involved. And he certainly wasn't addressing the fairness or unfairness of arrests made or not made, because arrests are neither prosecution nor sentencing. My suggestion, which I've made before on other grounds, is that the "no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing" point be moved from the intro to somewhere else in the article, such as the "Trial, prosecution, and legal proceedings" section. --Allen 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the quote a couple of days ago when this thread began. It was a quote, it was a narrow quote, and it applied specificially to the one case prosecuted and not to the overall justice situation in Jena. Rklawton 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Allen. I've never understood what the Washington quote is doing in the introduction. Shall we eliminate it? Qworty 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it more appropriatly belongs somewhere else within the article? I'd consider that before going to deleting it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.136.84 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to have a balance. You can have the Washington quote, or something fulfilling a similar function, AND the protesters' concerns in the intro, or you can have neither. Having just one of those is pov. People need to know that there are multiple points of view on what is going on, and if you have only one point of view in the intro, well, for many, that is as far as they read.--Wehwalt 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So why don't we find a quote that isn't as problematic as Washington's? Qworty 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, so that we don't run into another long debate, I hope, tell me what is problematic about it?--Wehwalt 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot that's problematic about it. For one thing, he's only one guy, as opposed to the thousands of people who showed up to protest against him and the system he represents. For another, as already extensively discussed, a higher court came to a conclusion that was the opposite of his. A court decision has the force of law; the opinion of a government lawyer doesn't. The fact that he's a lawyer doesn't mean anything, because I can go out and find another 500 lawyers that don't agree with him. Of course, maybe you could go out and find some assertions that, unlike his, haven't yet been tested by the courts. I'm sure there are plenty to be found on KKK websites, Skinhead sites, other white-supremacy websites, etc. Then the article intro will have "both" POVs and be "balanced." In other words, this whole thing is a false dichotomy, but if you insist on dichotomizing, let's really get it out there and dichotomize, dichotomize, dichotomize. I think the intro should say something about the fact that some white people just don't like black people, no matter what. We can find plenty of examples of this attitude that would shore up the "other" side of the debate, right? Qworty 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The man is the person responsible for federal law enforcement in the district where Jena is. He has stated his conclusion. It is possible he is wrong, I have no idea. WP does not judge. He may be right, he may be wrong, but WP would be the poorer if we emphasised one point of view over another in the manner you suggest.--Wehwalt 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying one POV should be emphasized over another. I'm agreeing with you, for the time being, that "both" POVs should be represented. By all means go out and find some KKK quotes that, unlike Washington's quote, haven't yet been debunked by the courts, and include those in the intro. Then we'll have "both" sides. Qworty 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Washington's quote is in response to allegations of the charges being because of their skin color etc. I think it's only controversial to some because it doesn't fit their way of thinking with regards to the case. We had it framed correctly before when it succeeded the "black community" leaders sentence where their feelings were heard. It's also arguable whether or not the charges can be considered unfair because of an appeals court decision. I say this because it's the job of the prosecutor to follow the laws and the appeals court to interpret them in individual cases. Ask any lawyer who hasn't heard about this case and they would probably concur with Walters that Bell should have been tried as an adult. Share details about the attention paid to the case and it's not so wrong to think the overturning was a concessionJim 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

I'd agree, at least on the Washington quote. Look, this guy headed an investigation into this matter, sent FBI agents and others in there. It is hard to think of someone who would know more about this case than him. You may not like that he is a Bush appointee, but he is the responsible Federal official, and a quote from him is perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, like government lawyers and the FBI never get anything wrong. A high court has already ruled that Washington got it wrong. Why do you, as an attorney, insist on sticking material into this article that has already been ruled false by the courts? That hardly makes for balanced POV! Qworty 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is Mychal Bell is sitting in whatever jail serves the Lasalle Parish waiting for the same charges to be filed (this time as a juvenile)Jim 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is he'd be walking the streets right now if he were white. Qworty 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You've failed horribly trying to prove this. It's bad enough you've turned it into a discussion board topic with this post. Mychal Bell is in jail for a reason, and it has nothing to do with skin color. As noted in this article, he is accused of kicking the shit out of another kid(along with 5 others). Some people can't accept the fact that 6 minorities acted in an immature manner and are being punished for it. Oh yes, that's right: there's been several cases where whites have done the same thing and have gotten off. Proof? burden of proofburden of proofburden of proof. Please. Donald Washington's quote is relevant because he led an investigation into what happened. You fail miserably at understanding the context of it also.Jim 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (addendum: this not even considering why appeals courts exist!)

That's an interesting speculation. Is there any evidence that this is true? Is there a record in Jena of a group of white kids stomping some black kid into unconsciousness in the last ten or twenty years who then got to walk free? Such an instance would be quite interesting to add to the article for comparison. Do you suppose one of those activists might have entirely overlooked this possibility? Rklawton 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not speculation at all, but rock-solid fact. Oh yes, indeed, there are many whites in Jena who are walking around free after having beaten blacks. By all means read the news stories about them and become educated and informed on the issues. At the very least, Bell would've been out on bail by now if he were white. Qworty 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd post links, I'd appreciate it. I've read a lot of the sources used in this article, but I don't recall anything other than vague claims that whites would be treated differently. Adding a real-life example to the article would provide an excellent illustration of the disparity claimed by the activists. Rklawton 01:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The links have been up there for days. By all means go through them and read them. There were many whites in Jena who beat up black people, but none of the whites was charged with attempted murder. And this is also the case nationwide. Qworty 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So you can't find them either? I didn't see any that pointed to a specific case. I don't doubt, however, that what you say is true. I've heard that the federal "hate-crimes" legislation passed by Congress years ago has been used disproportionately against blacks. Rklawton 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, the Justin Sloan example is sitting right there in the article. If you don't believe it belongs there, by all means try to have it removed. If you're still having trouble reading it, I can repaste it for you here... Qworty 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloan was charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced. Yes, he's not in jail, but no, his victim wasn't hospitalized. And it was one attacker against a group of victims rather than the other way around. No, I'm looking for something more along the lines of a black victim beaten senseless by a group of white teenagers - you know, something more comparable. Rklawton 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloan wasn't charged with attempted murder. He was charged with battery. The charges in the Jena 6 case have been reduced from the incorrect attempted murder charge to the correct charge of battery. So the charges are comparable, except for the fact that six blacks initially were incorrectly overcharged with attempted murder. Of course, these are only the facts, and just to keep us on topic here, I see that they are presented accurately in the article. Qworty 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And, I might add, the problem is not at all limited to Jena, as you incorrectly state, but is a national one. Qworty 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say that they'd walk free. He said that Bell would be out by now. Bell was a juvenile, and should have been charged in juvenile court. And they were allegedly involved. There have been conflicting testimonies. Ophois 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we dispense with the argument. Quorty has made his position, and his adherence to his position, clear. If we listened to Quorty, this is how the article would open:

The Jena Six are six innocent black teenagers falsely accused by the Ku Klux Klan-appointed prosecutor in Jena, Louisiana. The nation has lifted up its voices with a roar to ensure these selfless boys are freed and the youths who hung nooses from trees have their lives ruined forever. Uncle Tom U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, an appointee of the evil Bush administration, and who was born black but isn't anymore, was disgraced by a court recently, and will soon be disbarred, arrested, and made to occupy the former cell of one of the Jena Six.

--Wehwalt 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think you're verging on violating WP:NPA here. Clearly that is not how Quorty would write the opening paragraph. Putting words in people's mouths is bad enough, but your version of Quorty's paragraph is a little bit racist, which is what really puts it over the line. --Allen 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(just to clarify what I just said, which I realize could be misinterpreted, I don't mean that you putting the words in Quorty's mouth is a racist act, but rather that the paragraph itself is a little bit racist because of the "born black but isn't anymore", so I'm saying you're sort of indirectly accusing Quorty of being racist. I'm not saying you or anyone is racist.) --Allen 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. It was intended as satire. I'm not accusing Quorty of anything except poor editing, just extending his arguments and edits to the logical conclusion. I've had a day with him!--Wehwalt 12:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of neutrality, It needs to be reiterated that Donald Washington is a Bush appointee and would not have been selected by Bush to be a US Attorney (anyone here know about the US attorney scandal?) if he were not biased in a way that suits the Bush administration's agenda which has been, in part, to undermine Civil Rights law enforcement and procecution. Including a quote from Washington, in the introduction or anywhere else, without this caveat/fact, is not being neutral or informative to the subject or to the reader. Neutrality does not mean that the article does not present points of view. Explaining the opposing points of view on the case is essential to explaining the issue of the "Jena 6." This article just needs to be BALANCED in presenting not only the facts but the different interpretations of the facts, and the context in which this is all happening. The point of the article should be to present the reader with enough relevant information to make their own assessment of the case. That includes a description of the dominant opinions on both sides of the issues. It seems to me that in its current form this article is not very balanced. The article as it stands now seems systematically dismissive of the side that is arguing that the noose incident was improperly handled and the charges were excessive and racially discriminatory.````

I agree. I moved it from the noose incident to the intro.Ophois 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, and let us discuss on this point (and perhaps open a new section for simplicity's sake). If you put his Bush appointee status in the intro, you are saying that is hugely relevant to the article. That carries an implication that he is biased against blacks, self hating, I think the phrase is (or, as I stated above, an Uncle Tom). ALL U.S. attorneys are Bush appointees, just like under Clinton (who fired all U.S. attorneys on January 20, 1993) they were all his appointees. By drawing attention to his status in such a prominent place in the article, you are implying something. We're not here to imply things.--Wehwalt 12:16, 24 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)

Rally

The previous wording made it seem like the rally was held even though every thing was fine, which it is not. The overturning of the attempted murder conviction still leaves Bell facing a hefty sentence, which isn't even the issue to begin with, but the lack of fair judicial process which hasn't been addressed. Jstanierm 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and not only that, but the current wording makes it sound like the rally was only for the Jena 6, when in fact it was held for all African Americans throughout the United States who have been and are being unfairly treated by a justice system that has been scientifically proven to be racist. Qworty 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It was worded that way because it was scheduled to be held when Bell was sentenced, and some were considering cancelling the event because the charges were overturned.Ophois 18:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientifically proven, eh? Dear non-biased wiki-editors, you are going to have your handsful with this one.

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)

All white jury

The issue of the all white jury should be discussed in the article. Here is a quote from an ABC article,

"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." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=3641855&page=2.)

There has been contempt over the fact that the jury was all white, the above quote should alleviate some of these concerns of injustice, particularly due process concerns, by revealing that the all white jury was not a result of bias but of a fair jury selection process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerrickS123 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That fact is already in the article. Ophois 05:11, 25 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 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)

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)

U.S. Attorney Donald Washington

I was wondering what U.S. Attorney Donald Washington's race, and the fact that he was appointed by Bush, had to do with this article? In my view it lends no credence to his opinion/qualification as an attorney, and is therefore irrelevant and should not be included. (Allegedly 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Please read discussion on this page to see how the consensus grew that this should be in there. Basically a compromise.--Wehwalt 18:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree. If Washington had a more central role in the case, specifically if there were suspicion of his motivation central to the Jena 6 case, then these details would be important (and should be elaborated upon). Washington's office is not under suspicion with regards to the Jena 6 (as Walters IS), and so the inclusion of his race and connection to Bush are superfluous and irrelevant.(Allegedly 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Okay now it just says that he's an African American, but nothing about him being appointed by Bush. If we're going to mention his race his political affiliations are at least (if not more) relevant. I'm inclined to include neither his race nor who appointed him, I think it's just confusing, but if people don't like that we ought to include both. futurebird 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit removing mention of his race, futurebird, simply because the article and the controversy are race-related. I have no objection to including the fact that he is a Bush appointee.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Typing_monkey. I still think it's cluttered, but at least it is balenced now. People can make what they wish out of the information. futurebird 17:19, 28 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)

Jena Times conflict

I see that the Jena Times part of the assembly keeps getting reverted. However, the article pretty much already says what is mentioned in the Jena Times article. It's only missing the quote "Don't even go there".

The Jena Times article also has some info about the schoolboard address that can be worked into our article. Ophois 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Qworty seems dead set on saying the Jena Times should not be used. However, it was already being used in the article, and is prima facie a reliable source under WP:RS. I'm not sure what his/her logic is for saying it is not, other than it is racist and all that, which I haven't seen any citations to back up.--Wehwalt 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jena Times is a racist Jim Crow small-town Southern paper with an agenda of blaming ALL of the race problems in that town on African Americans. Go read their "timeline" and see for yourself. Whites are guilty of nothing in that rendition--everything is the fault of the blacks, even the black churches. In no way does that paper constitute a reliable source. Everything it says now has to be considered tainted. It's a mouth-piece of the white power structure in that town. The WP article as it stands already doesn't agree with many of the assertions in the paper. Qworty 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some reliable sources that say that the Jena Times is racist, Jim Crow, and has an agenda of blaming all of the race problems in that town on African Americans. I'll concede they are Southern and small time, but that is not an offense. I'd like to hear from other editors on whether the deleted paragraph should be restored.--Wehwalt 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The paper editorializes in the "news story" timeline to the following underlying assertions:

1) Hanging nooses, which is actually the moral and legal equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue, is just a "prank"

2) Every single racial incident in the town is the legal and criminal fault of African Americans; whites are never guilty

3) There is no racism in Jena; it is not a "social" problem

4) The real problem is uppity blacks causing trouble, outsiders interfering, and the media reporting on what's happened--welcome to Jim Crow journalism, folks. Qworty 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Qworty. If you look at the timeline, they do omit things against the whites (such as the shotgun and the pen statement). As I've said before, the part that keeps getting reverted is already basically said in the article we have. However, the other stuff that we already have taken from the Jena Times should stay, as it's nothing big that's disputed. Ophois 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The section Wehwalt and I are disputing is indeed redundant, and should be removed on that basis. However, the greater problem is with the Jena Times as a source. Qworty 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, what you are doing is judging whether a publication is a RS based on what you like or don't like. And even what you write isn't accurate, the Times reported on the white kid who was placed on probation for battery. The only conviction we have so far, in fact.--Wehwalt 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I personally like or don't like. That timeline would be racist if I had never been born. So leave me out of it. The fact is it's a racist source and therefore a tainted one. So what if they mention one white kid who was on probation? Be honest with yourself and look at the prejudice behind the entire timeline article. Don't just nitpick one little point in order to find and use a source that supports your position that the real problem is blacks complaining about "nothing," outsiders interfering, and the larger media reporting on what's happened. Qworty 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not my position. I don't have a position on this. You are saying, though, that what is prima facie a reliable source is racist. If you want to disqualify a publication, you should go out and find RS that say they are racist. Ophois, they do report on the shotgun incident, though they do not go into the details (the he said she said sort of thing), they merely report on the arrest.--Wehwalt 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Their report on the shotgun incident is completely racist. They report only the official white power structure version of events. This WP article we're working on contains balance in describing the various interpretations of this incident while the source you are citing does not. Therefore, it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, if by your own admission their position is not the same as yours, then it boggles the mind why you would insist so strenously that the paper be used as a source. Qworty 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a position. I want the reader to have full information. But I think it is significant that there are so many differing reportings. That is why, in the edit you deleted, I mention that it is Jena Times reporting. The varying accounts are a part of the story. This story is Roshomonesque, almost every issue is seen from multiple perspectives, and that is what I am trying to make clear to the reader. If I have a position, it is to tell the reader that there are many positions, and leave the rest to him to decide which is right.--Wehwalt 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you're interested in doing, I'm sure there are plenty of places on the Internet where you could do that. This article doesn't exist because you think there's a "Roshomonesque" story going on here. This article exists because of the unequal ways African Americans are treated by the police and justice systems in Jena and, by extension, throughout the U.S. That's the story here. If it weren't for that story, you would've never heard of Jena and there wouldn't be any article here on WP to argue about. You are pushing POV if you want to insert into this article your personal view that it's about anything else. I think there've been a lot of people commenting on this discussion page, and in some instances making edits to the article, who have no idea what the article is about.Qworty 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Go read about the Three Pillars of Wikipedia. We are here to report fact, not advocate as you propose. I worked on the Duke lacrosse article while other editors first wanted to crucify the players, and later the D.A. We report neutrally here. How this case came to public attention is not the point. We're here so that if members of the public want the facts (i.e., info about the kid asking the school official if he could sit under the tree, not our opinion that he's the second coming of Rosa Parks or Emmitt Till) they can find it. They can go elsewhere for advocacy.--Wehwalt 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't report accurately on the facts if you're using an unreliable source like the Jena Times, one that has a demonstrably racist white power structure agenda. If you insist on unquestioningly using such a source, you call into question your own NPOV. As far as advocacy goes, this is an article about advocacy. That's the story here. Go read the WP article about Rosa Parks and her experiences. The whole thing reads like "advocacy." Are you in favor of inserting into that article some contemporaneous quotes from Jim Crow racist Southern newspapers? If not, then there's no reason to insert them here. In any case, time will tell with all of this. Donald Washington isn't going to last long in that intro paragraph, for instance. Qworty 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Though the timeline has missing facts, I don't think that there are any lies. I don't see why it shouldn't be a RS for other stuff like the lockdown.Ophois 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why it shouldn't be a RS for the deleted matter as well . . . It is at least as reliable, probably more so, than the Dallas paper we wove into the article this morning while holding our noses.--Wehwalt 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could be a RS for the deleted stuff, but we already had that in the article anyways. What I meant in my previous post was that it shouldn't be disputed for stuff like the lockdown.Ophois 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, though I see what you're saying, you're forgetting (or not mentioning) the fact that most of the sources we used for this article were biased towards the black students.Ophois 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The rhetorical assumption behind what you're saying is the falsely dichotomous one that there are "two sides" here, black students versus white students. That's an oversimplification, and not just rhetorically in terms of "sides," but rhetorically in terms of what the real dispute is about in the case of the "Jena 6." This is not a dispute between white students and black students that we must report on in a tit-for-tat "balanced" manner, one point for each "side." As far as this is a dispute at all, it's a dispute over whether or not African Americans are discriminated against by the police and justice system in Jena and, by extension, in other parts of the country. And that is a dispute that has already been resolved, as we now know that in the U.S. black males are three to four times more likely than white males to go to jail for exactly similar crimes. So there is no real dispute as to the facts regarding this article. Now it's our responsibility to report the facts, not just repeat the nitpicking of racists who want to make sure every possible "pro-white" position is inserted into the article.Qworty 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly do you know what is fact and what is not? Were you there to witness all of these events? Over half the stuff in this article has had to change in the past month because people weren't reporting the facts correctly and were playing things down. Ophois 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we want to create a reductive argument here, as doing so drops it to the level of absurdity pretty quickly. Obviously, you weren't in Jena either. Yet we're both going to sit here editing the article, aren't we? To be sure, everybody editing this thing has an opinion, not just me. Finally, the perspectives of any WP editor who may have been in Jena would very quickly be reverted as original research. Qworty 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm made rather curious by one thing: Qworty, exactly who are the racists who are nitpicking to make sure every possible "pro-white position is inserted into the article? Please be specific.--Wehwalt 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, how the heck should I know? We've got hundreds and possibly thousands of edits here. I'm not going to go stalking through all of these edit histories and then go to the highly dubious trouble of picking fights that are off-topic with reference to the purposes of this discussion page. I'm just trying to make sure the danged article doesn't become a mirror site for the racist Jena Times. But of course racists exist. You can't argue that racism exists without arguing that racists exist. And they're not just in the KKK or in the Nationalist Movement or any of those other organizations that serve as scapegoats for mainstream America's racism. Qworty 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast, Qworty. An overwhelming majority of the edits, just glancing back through the history pages last few days, have been done by you, me, and Ophois. And you referred to a plural, "racists", meaning more than one, who want to make sure pro-white positions are inserted in the article. Please be more careful in what you write. If I pick up even an implication that I am a racist, or anything else I would resent, I will seek out administrators and work to have you banned. Edit as you like, but watch your fingers when it comes to implications about fellow editors. That's no attack; that is fair warning.--Wehwalt 22:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're getting agitated over the possibility that I might call you a racist in the future or write "anything else I would resent"? On the first point, I have not called you a racist and have no intention of doing so; on the second point, well . . . I have no idea what that means. I assume good faith with you and I assume that you assume good faith with me and I assume that we all assume that we can all assume good faith in perpetuity, etc. There is no need for you to attempt to personalize any of it. Between us, there's been only one personal attack--on me by you two days ago--and I've been more than happy to ignore it, as you know, and have no intention of "reporting" you for it--it would be danged silly. All of this personal stuff is silly and has nothing to do with the editing of the article. I'm not here for a personal flame war and you shouldn't be either. Now I suggest that we both delete these last two posts and have something to eat. What do you say, my good friend? Qworty 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll let the discussion stand and speak for itself.--Wehwalt 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, all right, but neither of us should be surprised if somebody else comes along and wants to scrub it off as off-topic. Apart from that, the WP ethos is that editors should back off when potentially personal conflicts show the possibility of escalating or getting out of control. I don't think we got anywhere near that point, but I'd just as soon turn down the pilot light at this juncture, no matter how small it might be. Qworty 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'll let it stand and speak for itself.--Wehwalt 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to what a goshawful lousy source The Jena Times is, we can't have the contradiction that the nooses came down immediately at 7:15, according to the paper's timeline, and yet one of the teachers saw students playing extensively with them. This contradiction needs to be addressed in the article. You see, this is what happens when you use tainted sources like the Jena paper. Qworty 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All we have to say is what we say elsewhere in the article, that accounts differ. Not everything is known with crystal clarity. It's like with the shotgun incident, there were at least two different accounts. In the case of the nooses, the teacher said one thing, the Times another. We don't know which is right, so we include what we can and see what happens from there. More than likely the Times is right, it is hard to imagine the nooses remaining up very long once staff got there, but we can't judge this.--Wehwalt 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Jena Times timeline, it says that some students saw the nooses. It doesn't contradict the teacher.Ophois 01:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

--- Hi! I'm here as a third opinion. Normally a local newspaper would be a great source, but in this case, due to the nature of the incident, I don't think that the Jenna Times can be considered an objective source. Information from the Jenna Times should be presented alongside criticism for the way that they have covered the events.

If at all possible, another source should be used for parts of the article that should not represent opinions. (Such as timelines)

What I'm saying is that information from the paper can be used but it must be framed properly. "According to the local newspaper... etc." "This paper has been criticized for ______ by sos-and-so."

Something along those lines. Hope this helps. futurebird 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline seems to be more of an editorial trying to prove that everything that has happened is the result of a "joke" that got blown out of proportion. That seems fairly implausible. However, it is what some people think. futurebird 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, in all of this time you've been making such an uproar and accusing everyone of being racist, have you even bothered to look at what facts are cited from the Jena Times? 1) The nooses were removed at 7:15 2) There was a lockdown after there was a report of someone bringing a gun to school 3) There were some blacks at the Fair Barn party (which we already know is true) 4) They were charged with 2nd-degree murder. Ophois 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Qworty is making this discussion difficult with their belligerent attitude and broad accusations of racism toward WP editors, but I am grateful that they were so insistent about telling the rest of us to read the Jena Times timeline. I finally did so, and I agree with Qworty and futurebird: Jena Times appears to be something quite different from what I think of as a newspaper, and from what I think WP:RS means by "newspaper". All papers must struggle with the line between reporting and editorializing, but it doesn't seem like the Jena Times is even trying. Their reporting is blatantly biased against the Jena Six, against the idea that racism might be a problem in Jena, and probably against black people in general. They frequently add "it should be noted that..." sentences that read like they came from a bad WP article. They can't even use the phrase "hate crime" without putting "hate" in scare quotes. How much room for case-by-case judgment is allowed by WP:RS when it comes to newspapers? I'm not prepared to say right now, but if any leeway is allowed I suggest we use it to exclude the Jena Times, at least wherever we have a half-decent alternative. --Allen 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that another source should be found for the info. However, as I said before, what is being cited from it are minor facts that aren't disputed or anything. Ophois 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By "not disputed", do you mean other sources agree, or that no one has contradicted it? If the former, I'd say let's use the other sources; if the latter, I'd say let's remove the info. --Allen 11:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When I get the chance, I'll try and redo the sources for some of the above. However, the Jena Times is the only source for what caused the lockdown (every other news source just says fights occurred and the school was put on lockdown the next time, not giving a reason why).Ophois 15:45, 27 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)

Online Activity

The case of the Jena 6 has highlighted a new dimension to the world of public debate, namely online activism. As evidence by the increasing popularity of websites such as Facebook, Youtube, Wiki and others, more and more people are researching topics online and sharing their opinions.

This new forum has increased peoples ability to get much more factual information where people do not need to rely on the mainstream media to provide biased reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peskytruth (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Online activism has been an important aspect of this case. The mainstream media, contrary to what many right-wingers believe, actually ignored this case for months. Why don't you jump in and start the Online Activism section of the article and we'll see where we can go from there? Qworty 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just made a section on internet and Blogs that talks about this. There is a lot of great information out there about how the word spread so fast before mainstream media picked up this story. futurebird 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

News coverage

I've started a section on news coverage. Please feel free to add a representative sample of opinion. As everyone has pointed out, the reaction to this case is the real story, not the attack itself. We've been ignoring the forest (albeit, the forest has been cut down for newspapers) for the trees (ditto). Let's see where this goes. Let us stick to highlights, or, if you don't agree, lowlights.--Wehwalt 11:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Put back in what the African American Jena High School employee said about the justice system in that town. Gee, he only works at the school and lives in the town, unlike you. Qworty 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in the article.Ophois 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a "man on the street" opinion, near as I can tell. How is it authoritative in any way? The guy's only qualifications for the quote are that he is a) black and b) lives in Jena. Bring in ten more people, they will probably have ten opinions, all differing from this guy's and each other.

Quorty is a little quick to delete the news coverage section. I've reverted. Let's do edits retail, rather than wholesale deletions, and let's discuss.--Wehwalt 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Columnists

I removed part of the columnists section because those facts have appeared in news stories (which is why we have them in the article). If we want to mention facts left out, then we need a source that points out that stuff, not just columnists who give facts. There should be a lot of links throughout the discussion page for the Controversy section that we were going to make. Ophois 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I think we are seeing more and more columns commenting on how the packaged story differs from the reality.--Wehwalt 20:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Under Newsreporting

Shouldn't "or that the jury was all-white because none of those summoned who showed up were black" by changed to something more like "or that the jury was all-white because none of the african americans summoned for jury duty that day showed up to serve" because wasn't it verified that several african americans were part of the jury selection summons sent out that day? The way it currently is written it leaves some confussion if any blacks were summoned at all in the process, and I thought that issue was resovled, that summons HAD been sent to blacks, it's just none bothered to show up on the day of jury selection. If I'm wrong and this wasn't resolved in the media earlier, ignore this. And if no blacks were even part of the jury summoning process at all, even in the mailings, shouldn't that then be added (since given the population demographics that would be odd). Either way, it seems like it would be relevant to one side or the other.

Crap... Sorry for deleting your reply Ophois... I was trying to correct a typo and something else and accidently removed your response. If I knew how to put it back I would but I only know how to screw wiki up not fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.221 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. It's been fixed. Ophois 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Population ratio and jury

In regards to this edit [10] by Ophois.

The MTV article mentions the population ratio in Jena for a reason. The fact that "no black jurors showed up" would be remarkable if there were a lot of black jurors who were called, that is if there were the same number of white and black jurors called. However, it probably wasn't a large number of people 9:1 so that fact that "no black jurors showed up" is more likely an artifact of chance rather than a refection of the willingness of people in the black community to serve on a jury as the current text of our article now implies... This information is soured and relevant. It should stay in. futurebird 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. The number of African Americans called for jury duty was actually very small. Qworty 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a six member jury anyway, in a parish which is close to 90 percent white. Might have come out that way anyway.--Wehwalt 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough. futurebird 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a little curious about facts like 'one of the seated jurors was a friend of the victims father'. The whole parish is only 14,282 people counting every man, woman, and child. The newsreporting to me sounds kind of biased in making it seem like the deck was stacked against Bell in that regard when in truth in a community that small it would have been almost impossible not to draw some connection within 1 or 2 degrees of seperation. I honestly do believe some of the events were biased against Bell (particularly charging him as an adult when the law clearly said that could not be done and the releveant factors the DA considered weren't considered relevant in prior LA SC decisions), but I think their is a reason you're not seeing that fact harped on... even the pro-Bell supporters realise it's probably more fluke then noteworthy. It just looks to me like people trying to make a statistic look like a fact, when if you put it into a broader picture, it's nothing signifigant. I'd wager on most jurys in the Parish, white or black accused, one of the jurors can be traced in some way back to the victim, and I doubt at MOST you'd need even a 3 people seperation to link it. Again, only 14,282 people total.

I removed it earlier because it doesn't really fit in with the section. If it is included in the article, it should be mentioned in the Bell Trial section when it talks about the jury. Ophois 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned in this paragraph to give context to the phrase about "black jurors not showing up" --That's how it appears in the MTV article and for the same reasons. futurebird 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The MTV article isn't related to Whitlock. Anyways, I've moved it to the trial section to serve the same purpose as you intended.Ophois 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem counting MTV News as a legitimate source against some of the real news powers at play here. To me that's about on par with using the Jena Times or whatever that local paper was, it just isn't a credible enough source vs. some of the other sources at play here. MTV is an entertainment network and hardly an unbiased one, if you could find some other source I think that would speak more for the issue. If it's the only source you can find for something and the other major news sources don't address it I have to question it's validity. The AP and major news sources don't address it, but MTV does? At the least, that's just odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.190.45 (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MTV relies heavily on the AP article which first discloses that there were two nooses rather than three. Maybe use that instead, but include MTV as having relied on AP in issuing a retraction?--Wehwalt 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If MTV is sourcing the AP, then the MTV article should not even be included. The AP one should be used. I'm struggling to see anything MTV could add except bias or personal opinion to what they took from the AP. Stick with the AP.

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... I assure you, most 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.

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.

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)