Talk:Jena Six/POV

message: I decided to use the POV dispute. I believe many good points have been brought up here on the discussion page. I believe they should be answered before the POV dispute is resolved.
The Jena 6 wouldn't be the Jena 6 if they hadn't battered a white student. 
I am challenging the following sources that are used for information:
#13 - http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=3594 ; If you really need me to explain why, you should not be moderating this page. "Kangaroo court", "white vigilantes"
This is just 1 issue. I will continue to add more, but I think it's easier to address 1 issue at a time. So please, don't consider this resolved.Jim 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to concur with the challenge over this source. This is obviously some sort of op-ed piece. Keithbrooks 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kangaroo court" is an actual term. There's even a wiki page for it. But I see what you mean about other stuff in it. The info that cites it is only one minor thing, so I'll try and find another source for it when I can. Anything else?Ophois 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is an actual term, I know this and I am sure Keith Brooks does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court. The article suggests that the legal proceedings were sham... read the Donald Washington quote on citation 2. Some might say it says otherwise.Jim 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  People aren't on every second of the day... you should let people reply. Also, there is more than 1 reason why it's up there. Jim 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I replaced the source listed above and reworded it a little. What are the other POV issues that you have? Ophois 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the page: "According to some accounts, on September 5, 2006, a number of black students organized a peaceful sit-in under the white tree in response to the reduced punishment of the perpetrators. The protest was then dispersed by police.[10][11]". I understand you have the part where Donald Washington says there's no proof of this occurring, but there is still no reason for that to be on the page IMO. Supposed to be about what happened... not what supposedly happened and a DA saying it didn't.Jim 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and removed it. I had wanted to keep it in because it said that police were called to disperse it. However, the source says that police were called and the DA came, not that they did anything to the protest. What else?Ophois 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assembly with Walters and Fowler. "Walters and school board member Billy Fowler, also present, deny that the comments were specifically directed at black students.[3]". If there's no mention of the comments being intended for the Black Students, then there should be no mention of them refuting that. It seems like it's the words of 2 authority figures, against who NPR describes as black students. By the way, nice job with the hard work maintaining this page. I have not edited much knowing you have spent a great deal of time on here.Jim 18:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagreee. Just because they are authority figures doesn't make them more credible than the students. Both perspectives should be kept in for neutrality. Especially since both are sourced. And it's not just NPR that says the kids said they felt like the statements were directed at them. It's nearly every news source I've seen that mentions the assembly.CJ 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when specific names are mentioned. It's been said in this discussion that Justin Barker's mother is not a reliable source; yet we are accepting hearsay by what NPR calls "black students".Jim 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed it to "Though black students state that Walters was looking at them as he made the comments, Walters and school board member Billy Fowler, also present, deny it." A similar phrasing used to be in the article, but someone changed it. Ophois 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks for your work on this page. I will remove the POV dispute for now.Jim 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Barker's mother's statements probably can be used, but just clarify that she made the statements. Ophois 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute