Talk:Jena Six/Archive 1

message: === By Section ===
==== Talk:Jena_Six/SectionsAndFlow ====
==== Talk:Jena_Six/SeeAlso ====
=== By Topic ===
==== Talk:Jena_Six/Assault ====
==== Talk:Jena_Six/Legal ====
http://www.babcockfirm.com/statutes/aggravatedbattery.html "dangerous weapon" not deadly. Incoretly reported in new media  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.41.183 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forked Threads of Discussion 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Oh, thank you, I see what you're saying. Qworty 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Can we just archive in the normal way? The forks are confusing... futurebird 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To whom? But I have stopped. Lycurgus 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we archive? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article has one aspect backwards 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other references 

message: 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)
replies: text: What specifically do you want added to the article? Ophois 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dates in the future? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  shotgun incident 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: other controversy

message: :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)
replies: text: Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor error in article's wording 

message: :On September 4, 2007, charges against Carwin Jones and Theo Shaw were reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy,[48] as were those of Robert Bailey, Jr., on September 10.[49]
Despite the overturning of Mychal Bell's conviction, the charges against the other four teenagers remained unaffected because they were over seventeen at the time of the incident, thus making them adults under Louisiana law.[4]
Aren't there only *two* teenagers left who didn't have their charges overturned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.21.94 (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another minor error in article's wording 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Entry paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alexandria Incident 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this?Ophois 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed weasel words from lead paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Racist "black panther" types turning wiki into joke

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Relevance of critics opinion in header

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I would give them names and titles, if they have titles.  Was it unanimous?--Wehwalt 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of header

message: 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)
thread_title: Best sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Attendees

message: 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)
replies: text: That's already in the article.Ophois 05:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New source, more information: 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yeah, I know. But most of the stuff that we would use are quotes. Ophois 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New source on attack 

message: 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)
thread_title: Congressional Hearings

message: 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)
replies: text: What point are we trying to document?--Wehwalt 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you fixed it.Ophois 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Citation 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: This Really Needs to Be in the Article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Walter's reason 

message: I find this bit interesting as it has not been brought up in the Wikipedia article. 
A Chicago Sun-Times editorial reports that students that hung the nooses on the tree claimed to have been  'inspired' by a hanging scene from the TV series Lonesome Dove. An interesting coincidence (or so it is reported) is that on that particular week, JHS footbal team was playing against a team whose mascot was a cowboy. The nooses were in school colors, and taken in that light, I can see the school board accepting the claim that the nooses were an innocent 'school spirit' prank (to support the school football team) that went awry.
*Did Civil Rights movement pass Louisiana by?
*The Jena 6: Since When Do Teenage Boys Watch Lonesome Dove?
*Snopes forum discussion - VERY interesting with a lot more detail on the various incidents provided by a resident from Jena. 
It puts an interesting spin on the noose hanging. There appears to be (depending on who you ask) a certain "plausible deniability" to the racism accusations in the initial Jena 6 chain of events. A simple fact checking would reveal if JHS was playing against a team whose mascot was a cowboy that particular week. And it also gives a plausible (non-racist) reason why the school board did not expel the students. If nothing else, it illustrates an interesting aspect of the Butterfly effect.--Eqdoktor 07:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This might help - actual archived police statements of the various events leading up to the beating :
* http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003979.html 
--Eqdoktor 07:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that the nooses being in the school colors was a another myth that was debunked (?) futurebird 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware it was debunked. Can you provide a link? --Eqdoktor 15:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never-mind I was thinking about the fact that nobody seems to know if it was two or 3 nooses. futurebird 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently both the school colors thing and the Lonesome Dove thing are in the Bean statement that he circulated in an effort to get the story covered.--Wehwalt 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noose hangers "inspired by movie"?  

message: I got a comment on my user talk page about not having all of the images on one side. I've moved two to the left, but what do you guys think? Is it better or worse? I think I liked them better all on one side... futurebird 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it would be better in concept to have them on different sides, it messes up the look of the page if we do that. Ophois 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. futurebird 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: left/right images

message: Here is the text that was removed:
Michael J. Copps, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission wrote in a letter to the Washington Post that the initially poor coverage of the Jena 6 case was probably related to the low rate of minority ownership of commercial broadcast television and radio stations.The Jena 6 and the Media
And here is what he said:
The Jena 6 and the Media Wednesday, September 26, 2007; A18
Eugene Robinson's Sept. 21 op-ed, "Drive Time for the Jena 6," rightly concluded that black radio played a critical role in bringing to light what happened in Jena, La. These radio hosts are to be commended. But I worry that as the media grow ever more consolidated, they are doing less and less to serve people of color.
Last week in Chicago, I heard passionate testimony during an eight-hour Federal Communications Commission hearing on minority media ownership. Many people of color are tired of big media ignoring their concerns, distorting their contributions to society and caricaturing them as individuals. One reason is the lack of minority media ownership. A Free Press study says that while racial and ethnic minorities are more than 30 percent of the U.S. population, they own just 3.26 percent of all commercial broadcast television stations and 7.7 percent of full-power radio stations. This is a national disgrace.
Before the FCC again heads down the dangerous road of permitting huge media conglomerates to grow even bigger -- something it's looking at right now -- it should act on proposals to increase minority ownership.
MICHAEL J. COPPS, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, Washington
He's saying that although black talk radio got the word out, there still needs to be improvement in the area of black media ownership. A central issue related to the Jena 6 has been media coverage. "Many people of color are tired of big media ignoring their concerns" he says the remedy is black media ownership. Is there some way we can compromise so we can put this back in? I don't understand why it was removed. futurebird 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it carefully, futurebird.  He uses Jena as a lead in, then goes on to talk about something quite different.  You are the one who is conflating the two, I'm afraid.  You're putting in cause and effect that don't exist in the letter.--Wehwalt 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think his point is that minority presence in media was crucial to getting the word out? Isn't that why he used it as an example? If not, why did he bring up the Jena 6? futurebird 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not his point.  He brought up the Jena 6 as bait to get his letter printed and beat the drums for his agenda.  People do it all the time.--Wehwalt 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I misread the source. You're right, it is what he said. My apologies. Ophois 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you agree with the wording I proposed, could you please insert it where it belongs in the article, with the appropriate citation?  I came to this discussion late and I'm having trouble finding those two elements.  Thank you. Qworty 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it back in. Ophois 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Better?  I'm trying not to draw connections which aren't actually in the article.--Wehwalt 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least it's back in. That's a start. futurebird 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: lack of minority media ownership

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

message: There seems to be some doubt over whether or not to use the quotation from Braxton Hatcher.  I believe quotations should be used like illustrations (images).  They're great when used to illustrate a point - so long as that point is significantly supported elsewhere in the article. 
For example, if the article cites surveys or significant leaders indicating a distrust of the legal system, then Hatcher's quote helps illustrate this point very well.  However, his quote should not be used to "prove" that such a situation exists, since it is only one person's  opinion (and not a particularly notable one at that).  Rklawton 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the quotation should remain.  The argument I've seen for being against it is that it unfairly represents the town's opinion as it is 'only' one man's opinion.  However, the article does come from a Jena resident, and is properly sourced.Jstanierm 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Rklawton's point was, that the case for keeping it has not been made.  I agree.  It is a "man on the street" reaction, representing one man's opinion.  I moved it (Jstanierm reversed for unknown reasons, but I rv'd that) to its own subsection.  If we leave it in, it will not be the only Jena resident's reaction to be quoted.  Sure you want to open this door?--Wehwalt 00:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a quote that represents a wider public response, and therefore belongs under "Public Response."  The man not only lives in Jena, but works at the high school.  You've inserted a lot of quotes that are nothing but the opinions of individuals and yet we're letting those quotes stand because they represent a wider public response.  If you want Hatcher out, then all of the "one man's" opinions that you've inserted should be struck out as well. Qworty 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the rest of what Hatcher said, that he thinks it was just a fight between boys and so forth.  If we are to use this quote at all, that HAS to be in there because it is the only place he talks about the case, not just his views on criminal justice generally in Jena.  Does this mean that if I find quotes from other Jena residents which presumably represent a wider public response, that you have no objection to them coming in?--Wehwalt 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I've added quotes from a white resident, who thinks things are fair, and from a black public official, with a neutral view of "Can't we all just get along?"  I think it makes for a nice summary of disparate views.--Wehwalt 01:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Though I would term them "illustrations" rather than "summaries".  Rklawton 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Braxton Hatcher

message: Not all bloggers who wrote about the incident were in favor of dismissing the charges against the six. "I am very sympathetic to the point that there has been a systematic tendency to treat the black kids involved as thugs, while treating the white kids as just adolescent pranksters horsing around." Wrote Megan McArdle of Assymetric Information, "But they shouldn't be freed. Six guys assaulted one, and after he was lying on the ground unconscious, kicked him repeatedly in the head. They should go to jail for this."Jail the Jena 6.  Sandra Rose wrote:  "I still think the rally in support of the Jena 6 boys was noble, but a little misguided.  Only one of the Jena 6 remains in jail and based on his history of violent behavior - he needs to stay right where he is.  The reality is if the 6 boys didn't beat one boy unconscious and kick him while he was on the ground, none of this would be happening. . . All this over a tree?  MLK is rolling."Pics from Jena 6 march in Jena, Louisiana
This paragraph seems to imply that all the other bloggers felt otherwise, and that isn't really true. There are plenty of people who protested because they felt that the charges were too harsh, but who didn't want *all* charges dismissed. 
: I don't get that from it, at least not to that degree that it implies ALL other bloggers. I think an implication can be taken from it perhaps the the majority of bloggers feel the opposite and the minority feel as those two listed do, however it can't be taken from that if it's a 51/49 or 99/1 ratio. It could possibly be reworded a little better, but I don't think it's quite that bad.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's sourced, and kept within reason to it's actual importane in the grand scheme of the article (like maybe one or two of the better blogs at most from any viewpoint), I think it could be appropriate. I also think it has the potential to rapidly devolve into something that would need to be removed because it could become inappropriate. However I don't think it's at that point yet, and 50% of this page falls under the potential to rapidly devolve given the conflicting views of many of the editors and sources being used. I vote keep it for now, but keep an eye on, and hope everyone can play nice about it in context of the article. If not, or if people use it as a battlefield for an edit war, then remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.178.226 (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all bloggers... etc. 

message: We're having a hard time agreeing if text in the section here is well sourced enough to be included in the article. See the debate above.
An elderly white resident of Jena addressed a town hall meeting by asserting, "We love our niggras down here. They go to church with us, we let them eat in our restaurants and we all shop at the same grocery store. We love our niggras and our niggras love us. We don't have a race problem down here." Source Used: 
:Remove it completely - it gives undue weight to the views of "elderly white resident" and unbalances the article. Refer to this policy guideline - WP:Undue weight. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. It may be sourced yes, but its one random person's view quoted in the newspaper because it makes good type (sensationalistic reading). Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. --Eqdoktor 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around but I can't tell. I think so, but I don't have a link between the two.  The paper has strong ties to the local NAACP as they explain in their about section on the website. Giving him a billing "as forner NAACP president and journalist" might help put the excerpt in context. futurebird 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't explain the many mistakes in the article.  --Wehwalt 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if there are factual errors in that article, as quote is still a quote. Ophois 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it?  From whom?  And this quote wouldn't meet any of the standards discussed yesterday when we were debating whether to put the Hatcher quote in.--Wehwalt 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't see that they didn't give who said it. Ophois 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Question: the article lists Eric L. Wesson as the author of the article.  Is Wesson the former president of an NAACP branch as this excerpt 
would suggest? Remember 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around but I can't tell. I think so, but I don't have a link between the two.  The paper has strong ties to the local NAACP as they explain in their about section on the website. Giving him a billing "as forner NAACP president and journalist" might help put the excerpt in context. futurebird 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't explain the many mistakes in the article.  --Wehwalt 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if there are factual errors in that article, as quote is still a quote. Ophois 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it?  From whom?  And this quote wouldn't meet any of the standards discussed yesterday when we were debating whether to put the Hatcher quote in.--Wehwalt 21:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't see that they didn't give who said it. Ophois 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Someone else has a problem with the Bush appointee point. I reverted his removal for now, due to the debate over it (though I think it was deleted from this talk page). If anyone wants to keep it, please give your argument.Ophois 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to mention that he's black you need to mention that he was appointed by Bush since both are meaningful in this case. I would like to see both his race and the information about bush removed. However, if we must have one we should have them both. (We've been through this three times now!) futurebird 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Both need to be removed. Mentioning his race and political affiliation does not naturally flow within the introduction and therefore suggests a bias to the reader that the writers of the article are going out of their way to attack (or promote) his credibility. — OcatecirT 08:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we reproduce the photo from the DOJ web site here instead?  We need more illustrations, especially since I think the photo of the white supremecist is gonna go.  And government photos are public domain.--Wehwalt 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Appointee 

message: The article needs some clean-up. In the present state, its a bit confusing and lacks focus. One of the reason is that people tend to throw in anything that shows up in the news without taking into the account the overall importance of the added item in Jena 6 encyclopedia article. A useful guideline essay to refer to is WP:NOTNEWS. I'm going to either delete or integrate the following sections from the Jena 6 article and I think its best to highlight my reasons to do so here:
*Religious speech controversy - section needs to be deleted or compressed severely. Walters made a statement that some people took to be religiously condescending. How one interprets the statement is tellingly POV ("Jesus averted a disaster"). Storm in a tea-cup and a distraction in the article (a simple mention or complete deletion) - don't waste article space on it. 
*Self-described white supremacists - why does an encyclopedia article on the Jena 6 need to devote and entire section and image to them? They showed up to get publicity for their cause and we obliged. They had ZERO effect on the rally and at best, a simple MINOR mention. Merge into a single line or two ("White supremacists also showed up."). Anything more gives WAY TOO MUCH WP:Undue weight to their presence - why are we devoting nearly the same amount of space describing maybe a dozen white supremacists compared to the space devoted to describing the 30,0000 strong rally? (PS: the main rally section needs expansion, not very detailed for an important event).
**That image of the white supremacists has to removed really - per above. Gives them too much credit as an opposing viewpoint. Yes, there is a backlash, but white supremacists are the extremist minority.
*Other developments 
**Remove the mention of Bailey's ill advised MySpace photos. Unless there is significant major coverage of these photos in mainstream media, I believe that the mention of the images is not necessary in the encylopedia article. This may change if there are reports that the donated money has been mishandled or mismanaged. 
**Barker's arrest and expulsion for gun charges. Ditto as above. Its not relevant what happened to the victim afterwards. Barker's gun charges is not related to the Jena 6 incident and should be irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. There is no real media coverage on the issue because Barker is still a juvenile and he avoided the expulsion by dropping out.
There is also a need to go through the entire article with an eye out for WP:Undue weight POV issues, that is:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
The changes will be implemented after a short discussion here for consensus. --Eqdoktor 07:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with all those changes.  Frankly, a lot of it is due to compromises with a couple of editors who have very strong views that this should be an "article on racism" and who are very insistent on getting their way, to the point of violating 3RR.  Why don't you go through it, do what needs doing, and we'll see what happens next?--Wehwalt 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Eqdoktor 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wasn't this attempted a week or two ago, and Qworty just reverted anything back he had an opinion on? He's still got the power to do that right? Just don't see what good this is going to do. Maybe in 6 months when they've moved on to their next OpEd crusade, but right now since none of them have agreed to put up with it here, what's to make us think any edits you put the time in to do won't just get thrown back like last time? I'm for you doing this, I just think it'll be a waste of time. Even if you pull some of the crappy sources, what's to stop him from coming in and saying it's only your opinion the source he liked was crappy and putting it back (or what's to stop anyone on the opposite side from doing the same, like with some of the hearsay on the juvy records).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the "get enough people" is the problem. That's just a popularity contest to who shows up. On a given day that could be a roll of the dice. I think the issue here is that at times, the voice of the masses here is already speaking... and it's speaking out saying 'screw policies or accurate encyclopedia writing, we want our voices heard'. Unfortantly 10 uninformed, uneducated people with strong opinions all speaking together don't make something any more academically credible (especially with the weatlh of incredibly biased and discredible sources willing to support either extreme here). That's a problem with Wikipedia as a whole though. It's just why trying to fix this page now is going to be like pissing on a raging forest fire. Right area, but what's the point when the fuel that's keeping it going in the first place is still so strong. Might as well wait till it's smaller and you have a chance of doing the right thing when it'll actually work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but right now is when people are seeking us out for information.  Keep pissing.--Wehwalt 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL well best of luck to you, if you guys think you can clean this article up to be something resembling actual academic viability and less political hype (mostly leftist but the right shoots in now and again) I wish you luck. Hope you guys drank more coffee then the last folks who tried this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So you're saying that you want to teach your students the incorrect info that's being reported by the media? It sounds to me from what you just said that you're upset because we're including stuff that contradicts possibly racist events. If reporting of events conflict, both sides have to be in the article. 
Ophois 01:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry that is all you managed to get out of what I said Ophois... but thanks for proving my point with your complete and utter obfuscation. Try going back and looking at the pattern of how this page has developed, what has been left in and what has been reversed or deleted, what has been emphasized and what has been marginalized, and then maybe you will understand my actual point...Kelmad 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of generalizing, why not list specific points in your argument? You say that the media has claimed that the noose incident started the whole thing, yet you're criticizing because we're introducing new reliable sources that say otherwise? As I said before, it sounds like you just want this article to be all about racism, even though new information about the events are proving somewhat otherwise. Ophois 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We are here to report neutrally and dispassionately.  We care about what went on in Jena, or we would not be interested in this article, but we are upholding WP standards to the best of our abilities.  We don't always agree, but we are doing our best.  We're not here to say "what it represents"; that's opinion.  We are here to report the facts.  You would be justifiably upset were an article you are interested was slanted away from your views.  We are doing our best to make sure this article has no slant, no bias.  Yes, there are those who think having no bias, is itself biased.  I can't help that.--Wehwalt 01:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One would only have to look at the history of your edits and comments, Wehwalt, to see how absurdly disingenuous your statement is.  If you mean what you say, try being a bit more neutral in your practice.Kelmad 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Empassioned speech aside, would you please take the time to actually cite some of what you're accusing them of? All I see is they pulled some questionable sources and from what they're saying here they're being very careful to follow wikipedia policies in doing so (and they're being pretty open about it here). I think some of us are willing to listen to you, we want neutrality here, but that was kind of rhetoric and just saying you teach a University class here is the Wiki equivlant of going to a matchmaking site and claiming you're a weightlifting astronaut that looks like a tall young Tom Cruise. I think we all get you have some frustration but please back it up with exactly what they've done... and what they've violated... if you think they're doing something wrong. You seem to have things in mind so please point them out in detail and people will listen. All I've seen discussed here from these people you're attacking is removing things that wikipedia says should go... not these guys personally say, but Wikipedia says. If that hurts how you view things should be and how you view this event, well, tough. Your a personal view isn't relevant at all. However if you want to come here with a valid thing they did wrong, with a valid reason why, especially with good sources or counter sources, then not only are we more apt to listen but we're more apt to back you as you change it back. Otherwise I'd think a University professor of all people would know to counter their arguement, sources, and wikipedia uses not their motivation which is irrevelvant, since even if they have some as long as they source properly and follow wikipedia guidelines they can still do what they do. Just as you can still do what you do despite your bias on the other side, as long as you follow Wikipedia and use outside valid, credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.168.252 (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested clean-ups 

message: Several days ago, we inserted an external link with a number of witness statements.  An editor is insisting on making the fact the page with the documents went up part of the narrative of the article, together with a short legal argument about a prior case which apparently was the basis for the tennis shoe as deadly weapon ruling.  I suggest we restore it as an external link.  None of this needs to be in the text of the article.  It is not news.--Wehwalt 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the part about the other case, since it has nothing to do with the Jena Six documents being released to the public. I think that mentioning that the documents are online in the article is useful (the way it currently is). Ophois 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well . . . if this was about them being released to the public, that's one thing.  This is about someone building a private web site to host what was already in the public record.  That's laudable, but that's not really part of the case.  It should be just an external link.  I suggest a little self promoting is going on, but the point is, it's not germane to the story.--Wehwalt 22:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying. Yeah, I guess it should be put back into external links, although I think it should be noted somewhere within the article about them being accessable.Ophois 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official documents

message: This section should probably be broken into subsections. There's too much varying info in the section, IMO.Ophois 03:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noose hangings at Jena High School 

message: The article currently says, "On September 10, 2006, black students attempted to address the school board concerning the recent events but were refused because the board was of the opinion that the noose incident had been adequately resolved." The cited source says that "dozens" of students attempted to address the school board. However, most newer sources I've seen just say that the parents were the ones trying to do so. What does everyone think? Ophois 13:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen differing sources on this, including ones that say the reason the board would not hear from the people was that it was leading into student privacy issues (i.e. disciplinary).  I would use our standard dodge and say that accounts differ, then tell the reader how they differ.  I suspect we're gonna have to do more of that--Wehwalt 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, as i noted elsewhere, the one source listed i had to remove as unreliable. I think we should just remove it. Cryo921 (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School board 

message: Here's some articles with some new info that I think would be good for the article.
A new bill passed by the Senate: http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/US_Senate_Passes_Jena_Six_Legislation_Introduced_By_Louisiana_Mary_Landrieu___4833.asp
"Free the Jena Six" t-shirt controversy: http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1624&year=
Song by John Mellencamp: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLrTu5j8j4sxFG_2EZU0I6PtR5pQD8S3FSLO2
Ophois 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose.  The Mellencamp one is the one that's gotten the most attention; we can probably do without the other two.--Wehwalt 07:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bill passed by the Senate might be appropriate here. The other two seem somewhat Trivial to include.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.184.132 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stuff 

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

message: Will need to look at some of the sources and quotes used in the article. Need to clean up some of the editorializing.
Why does the article feature Jason Whitlock and Ted Rall's views specifically? Why single them out and not other op-eds written about the Jena 6? Come to think of it, why does the article push Whitlock's editorial POV twice? - WP:Undue weight issues here - are we giving his views (and Rall's) more prominence on the issue than they warrant? Since they are not directly involved with the case, I'm thinking of compressing their views to a single line or 2 explaining their POV articles. --Eqdoktor 10:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with your PoV about it being undue weight. They're in there as representatives of larger viewpoints in and about this event(large enough to be signifigant to this issue and article), chosen because of how they say their points, to some extent their backgrounds, and most importantly because they can be traced to reliable sources. Essentially they're reasonable choices to offer their views and be wikipedia appropriate, would you prefer MaelNums choices? Or the stuff that had been on here that was sourced to black power magazines on the other extreme? While I can agree it might be appropriate to better organize how they're presented in the article, I think trying to compress the complexity of their views into "one or two lines", given you aren't a professional writer and offhand it doesn't appear you agree with them, might be something you'd be better off asking someone else to do even if you want to continue with that line of changes. Much of this article could use compressing, but I think we'll get the best results if people on their respective sides of the fence on this edit down their sides parts (or at least are given a chance to first), and each side doesn't go after the others right away. That just asks for more of what this article doesn't need again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.184.179 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the unsigned editor.  We have to have some representative viewpoints in there.  We have others.  We have an actor's viewpoint whose sole qualification to give that viewpoint is that he gave money to the defense fund (money talks, I guess).  We have those who spoke at the rally.  We have to have viewpoints, if we took all viewpoints out, the article would be dry and confusing to the reader.  I did, however, slice some off the Whitlock, Rall, and Bowie quotes--Wehwalt 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up sources and quotes, also editorials 

message: Apparently he had a prior conviction and was on probation prior to the assault. News outlets seem uncertain as to what that conviction was for. Does anyone have any source for it? Ikilled007 09:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article...Ophois 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not. All the article says is "for previous convictions." It doesn't say what he was on probation for. I think that might be important. Does anyone know what Mychal Bell was on probation for before the assault? Ikilled007 22:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Look in the section "Mychal Bell proceedings".  Two counts of battery, two of property destruction.--Wehwalt 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's still in the article isn't it, I think it was to an ESPN reporter of all people, that the previous battery had been because he had battered his girlfriend? Just seems important to me that in the perspective of 'neutral' encyclopedia a black male who beats a women and is then deified in the media for political purposes be shown for the truth here. I don't get how so many of our sisters are hurt every day, and to make one of those men a martyr when their is so much real injustice against true black heroes. However that wouldn't incite white people like Al Sharpton supporting criminals, and then he wouldn't have the racial tension he needs to continue to be as rich and powerful as he is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.110.62 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mychal Bell 

message: Why talk about the nooses and not mention that the victim was beaten because of his White race?  The lead is one-sided.BBandBeyond 21:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do not actually know that he was beaten because of his race.  The purpose of the lead is to give the reader a very brief introduction to the topic in the article (WP:LEAD).  There is considerable information on the beating further down.--Wehwalt 22:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I've deleted that section.  People were using it to insert links to articles which apparently reflect their point of view, as crime or civil rights.  We really don't need it, we were sort of violating WP:SEE ALSO, and it is one less thing to argue about.  What do people think?--Wehwalt 02:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda is a coin with two sides.  Be careful.  I am very much afraid that BBandBeyond is as zealous, and counterproductive, in his views as Qworty was in his.  Keep this in mind, though.  IF YOU PUT IN BLATANTLY POV STATEMENTS, THEY WILL JUST BE REVERSED, AND EVEN IF THEY AREN'T, ALL THEY DO IS PISS OFF THE READER.--Wehwalt 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I am new to this page so want to propose some changes on Talk before making them on the article.  It seems like there are a lot of details missing from the public response section.  Here are some of the things I want to introduce:
*There was an initial march on Jena to coincide with Mychal Bell's original sentencing date, July 31.  It was small (about 300 people, I think) but helped build the momentum around the case.  
*At that first march a petition was delivered to the DA with 44,000 signatures.  
*The public response section lists a petition that got more than 400,000 signatures.  There is also a second petition launched by the group ColorOfChange that gathered about 300,000 signatures.  Seems like they should both be in there.  
*Also, there is at least one other legal defense fund besides the NAACP.  ColorOfChange raised more than 200K, which I think is more than the NAACP (although the article doesn't say the size of the NAACP fund).  
*I also think Media coverage should be a separate section
*And re: media coverage, there was a lot of discussion post jena about the role of MySpace and black bloggers.  I don't see that in here, and it seems like it belongs.  
*Also there is at least one other Jena song out there--by Bomani Armah, the guy who did the "Read a Book" song that got a lot of play on YouTube.  
Does anyone object if I make these additions/changes?  Thanks!  And great work to all who have been contributing to this article.  Great example of how WP can be a leading source on current events. --Mackabean 05:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments.  The initial efforts (march, signatures) are fine if sourced, but keep it to one paragraph, I would say.  If you go to Myspace and black bloggers, that becomes a problem because then we have to put in comments from other bloggers, for balance.  As for myspace, that opens the door to Bailey's infamous myspace photos, you know, the money of color (I like that, actually.  Hmmm.)  So I would be cautious.  And make sure that you cite extensively to reliable sources.  We're trying to run a good quality article here, even if it hasn't been stable enough to ask for Good Article status.--Wehwalt 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for comments.  Of course I will cite all sources extensively.  Wouldn't have it any other way:)  In terms of the bloggers, I wasn't talking so much about including lots of blog posts so much as making note of their role in driving the protests.  For example, this article discusses the role of bloggers:     .   The article is cited once, but the point about blogs isn't really included in the article.  I'll work on some of the additions tomorrow. --Mackabean 07:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information in public response 

message: There are three citations in the references section that have no text in them. It kind of gives the appearance that uncited statement are cited. Can anyone replace them with appropriate sources? 212.179.71.70 10:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed --Eqdoktor 12:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three empty citations 

message: I see that rallies have just been moved above petitions.  I actually think the petitions should come first, as they happened first chronologically, and were quite instrumental in spreading the story and building momentum for the marches.--Mackabean 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it more as for the convenience of the reader.  The rally was the most prominent and best known event.  However, I don't have strong views on the subject.--Wehwalt 04:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petitions before rallies

message: The creation of a separate section entitled, "Criticism of mistakes in coverage" gives undue weight to the media conspiracy theory view of a single editorial columnist cited in the section. --Eqdoktor 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidently, Howard Witt of the Chicago Tribune agrees that Bean gave him the story, though he disagrees with the way Whitlock characterizes it.  See http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/howard-witt-responds-indirectly-to-jason-whitlock/ .  So I am unclear exactly what it is we are arguing about.--Wehwalt 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're pushing Whitlock's opinionated libels on Bean as fact in Wikipedia - thats what we're arguing about. --Eqdoktor 09:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Whitlock libelled Bean, I'm sure Bean can find a lawyer.  You aren't Bean's lawyer.  Don't call your edits "reversion of libel" (I paraphrase) as a way of avoiding 3RR.  Or else make a case, citing a definition of libel (Bean is a public figure, by the way) that Whitlock's comments are libel and put it on the talk page here.  Over to you, Doctor.--Wehwalt 12:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Media coverage of Jena 6

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

message: I would like to request a return to civility on this talk page and this article.  You all want to recruit more editors, which is fine with me.  But if I was a new editor to this page and saw the level of discourse, I would likely turn away.  It is fine to disagree, and even to disagree strongly, but the personal attacks are unnecessary and are exactly the thing that turn people away from editing on controversial topics. --Mackabean 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Remember 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also agreed. The fighting only illustrates the reason the issue is so heated. You know that saying, "Won't start nothin', won't be nothin'?" It applies both in this case and on this edit page. I honestly believe that this situation could have just been another fight, albeit a much more violent one. People love to make it about race, because people love to have a reason to defend themselves. I wish that more people could know how it feels to put their walls down, take a breath, and realize that everyone you meet is not always looking for a reason to hate you for who you are. I am Caucasian, but I agree with what someone else said; the Great MLK must be frowning from Heaven over all of this. He would be talking about the lack of parenting in the lives of the boys who were involved. If race even entered into it, MLK would think it not because of anti-black sentiment, but because of a lack of opportunity for a safe and happy homestead for Micheal and the others. And even then, given the location, it really isn't about race in that case, either. It's all happenstance. --Chacharu 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some civility please

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

message: Seeing as an apology for your uncivil Nazi comparison insults is not forthcoming, this is but one more step in gathering evidence of your bad faith edits in this article. Godwin's Law jokes aside, I will also tell you this: hiding insults behind innocuous links is neither clever nor conducive to consensus building. What you like to call "compromises" appears to be nothing more than an envelope pushing style of editing - Persistently flood the article with as many POV biased edits as you can and hope that some of them get through as "compromises". This is not the way Wikipedia is run. --Eqdoktor 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your exaggerations disgust me--I called you no such thing.  You compromised, then broke your word and did what you wanted anyway, agreeing to take half then taking all.  The comparison was apt.  You made it clear you can't be trusted.  That having been shown, you are taking some of the dirt you have put on yourself and throwign it at others.  Sickening.  As for your comments about my editing, I am trying to make sure the reader has info on each media-covered theory regarding the J6.  You wish to minimize the one you don't agree with.  I join in your PS. I was going to let it lie, but I can't leave this unrebutted.  Frankly, I'm tired of being told that I espouse "right wing" and "racist" positions and assorted other insults by Eqdoktor and another editor, who know nothing about me.  That being said, Eqdoktor, let's leave these things to the side or else go out to the sandbox.--Wehwalt 10:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching this article for a while now -- monitoring the edits being made to it -- so I've gotta agree with Eqdoktor on the issue he brings to light: it does seem like you are trying to push a certain biased non-neutral PoV, Wehwalt. IMO, it looks like you're trying to make the whole Jena 6 incident appear to be nothing more than media propaganda. I've also noticed several other editors pointing this out throughout the debates on this page [that you've been involved in], which makes me wonder how many people are actually taking notice of this. It's not something that you just started doing, either; it's been going on since you first started editing the article, which is probably why there have been so many arguments concerning your edits. That being said, I think you should really think about how this article affects you before you make any further edits, because it really looks like you're non-neutral biased on this matter. Sekhem Ka 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A recidivist violent juvenile offender on probation is prosecuted for another violent offence, and the media criticizes the prosecutor.  What doesn't sound like "media propaganda" about that?  If we assume the mainstream media is neutral on this matter, then I would agree with Sekhem Ka.  However, I see no evidence that supports a neutral media theory.  Rklawton 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern is noted. This may not be the page your looking for. Let me refer you to Conspiracy theory and Media bias and Media bias in the United States. Have fun over there. --Eqdoktor 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm just referring to this specific case.  Here's a citation which supports this view.  Note that it comes from a media source that is well noted for its integrity in reporting. In short, Wehwalt's concerns are quite valid.  Rklawton 15:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not a report, thats an opinion essay. And its already cited in the article. --Eqdoktor 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's nothing new, but it does contradict your point that Wehwalt's efforts to add balance are not appropriate.  Rklawton 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have espoused at length what I think is wrong with Wehwalt's edits - I typed it over and over - look up in the earlier posts on this talk page. If it was good faith "adding balance", I'd be applauding and throwing barnstars at him. The problem are edits like these, , , and the dozen or so bulleted points discussed up above and the persistent edits (check the diffs) pushing a POV opinion column as fact (a conspiracy theory reffed only from that single source column, right wing blogs and a racist racialist magazine). And thats only edits that I have handled, I haven't had time to check up on the other disputes he has had with other editors. Its not "adding balance" - its "no opportunity lost to try discredit the Jena 6". --Eqdoktor 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refuting any of the facts cited in the CS article?  Rklawton 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Alan Bean mentioned in the CS article? Thats a rhetorical question. --Eqdoktor 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: My apologies. Mea culpa, stopping the Wikipedia and back to playing Puzzle Pirates --Eqdoktor 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I haven't bothered to read most of this.  I've left a warning on Eqdoktor's page, which I hope he will heed.  In my view, dishonesty on WP is not favored, but that's just me.  I will not be deterred from efforts to keep the article balanced.  Thanks for Rklawton for his/her thoughtful comments.  I hope we get some more editors in here soon.--Wehwalt 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you intend to trade warning messages. Petty games aside, your biased behaviour editing this page is noted and becoming very clear. --Eqdoktor 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehwalt 

message: The allegations of the media coalition's petition for intervention are certainly relevant to the topic.  The prior entry only mentioned what remedy was sought, not the basis.  This information belongs in the article.  I also believe it belongs in the media section rather than the Bell trial section since it does not deal directly with any allegations concerning Bell.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine.  So long as it is only in there once.  Can I suggest that you select two or three of the plaintiff and then say "and other media organizations"?  Not sure we need the laundry list (I understood there were over twenty).  I would suggest summarizing the allegations rather than using lengthy quotes.--Wehwalt 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I thought the challenge was to open the courtroom as well?  You don't mention that.--Wehwalt 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both your suggestions.  Thanks for making the edits.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Petition for Intervention to Unseal Court Records and Lift Gag Order

message: Some editors on this page like to throw around the term "POV pushing".  Let me remind everyone of what that is:
:POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy (Wikipedia:NPOV) by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view.
"POV pushing should not be permitted on any Wikimedia server. The purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create an unbiased and comprehensive encyclopedia which makes the world's knowledge freely available to all people.
:It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics — such as politics, morality, and religion. But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of NPOV or simply do not wish to abide by it, and hence they routinely and deliberately engage in POV pushing.
:The reason they do this is probably that they believe that a neutral presentation of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison to opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make its argument. Failing that, the goal may just be to make the other side look bad (ad hominem) or to distort that side's views.
It seems to me that the insistence of certain editors of keeping to a certain POV "Jena Six as victims, town racist, no one has ulterior motives" is just this sort of POV pushing and intolerance of any information which doesn't hew to this line.  I suggest the involved editors think well as to what they are doing and either think better of it or step away from the article.  I now see spite edits which are not helpful to anyone.  I count five reverts in 24 hours by Eqdoktor, but I'm not making an issue of it because I don't think he's the only editor that would get looked at.  So let's all take a deep breath and consider this policy well.--Wehwalt 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: From the opening paragraph.
"The beating followed a number of racially-charged incidents in the town, notably when three white students hung nooses from a tree at Jena High School following a black student asking if he could sit under the tree."
The noose was only alllegedly "racially charged", and there are no other "racial" incidents that occured during this. claiming incidents are "Racially" charged completely baseless makes this a very poor inclusion in wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no racist "racially charged" incidents preceding Barker's beating? Huh. Isn't it fascinating how in a world with so much little racism, almost nobody everybody is a racist? Sekhem Ka 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uh, what other "racially charged" incidents??

message: deinition is "dangerous weapon" not deadly 104 LA statute retrieved 11-2-07  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.41.183 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Since we have terribly varying sources, we're trying to do the best with what we have.  Editors differ as to whether the other Jena-area events we describe are "race related."  If you have seen sources which say the juror was unrelated, please include it or post it here, and we'll take care of it.  As to whether the town is racist, I don't have an opinion.  --Wehwalt 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The current state of the article doesn't make it clear who "Bean" is... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems with reference formats made a couple of lines invisible.  I've corrected it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bean"

message: I posted a link to a discussion between civil rights lawyers Richard Ford and Paul Butler about the case, but it was removed. Why was it taken down?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are not acceptable sources.  All the other columnist and editorial entries are from major news outlets.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 00:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  They are just random lawyers with no connection to the case, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that they are pretty esteemed lawyers whose discussions on the case may be illuminating to some readers.  But I think that the link should be put in a "further reading" section of the article and not in the article itself. Remember (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Ford and Paul Butler

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

message: Wikipedia does it again. It's all so confusing! Heh. Yeah, right. The original news sources LIED about the facts, or the spewed lies without checking the facts for sure. This is evidence in the MULTIPLE RETRACTIONS and the scathing AP article that stated much of the info was "massaged" to fit a very specific and racist anti-white paradigm. So here at wikipedia the same "hate whitey" narrative is constructed with convenient phrasology: "it's unclear" "early sources said" "later sources said" etc. to avoid the actual fact that there was no confusion, but instead purposeful manipulation and presentation of supposed facts. Only on wikipedia... and any other ultra liberal source 66.190.29.150 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a controversial article and every word has been argued about, as the extensive talk pages and archives attest.  If you have specific objections, list them.  Otherwise, this is not a place to air your frustration about the subject in general.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 05:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to that.  That would fail WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEASEL.  Unpublished report about what "many" people feel?  Forsooth!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is it debunked "facts" are suddenly "unclear"

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