Talk:Jena Six/SeeAlso

message: I quote: 'A See also section should ideally not repeat links already present in the article, links that are only vaguely related to the topic
I removed the following links:
Brown vs. Board of Education - Vaguely related. Although criticized by a US attorney, no evidence of wrongdoing any institution.
 
Jim Crow - Are you serious? Vaguely related. Jim Crow refers to unfair (institutional) treatment, POV. 
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 - Maybe someone can explain this one to me...? POV, institutional.
Scottsboro Boys - One of the kids was found guilty (although overturned), but is still in jail waiting for charges to be brought against him(as a juvenile). I don't know where to begin...
Wisconsin v. Mitchell - No evidence of a hate crime here.
Jim 17:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added Brown v. Board and the other decision which is it's antipode, the reversal of Brown. The relevance is obvious, but per my established practice I don't  engage in edit wars or contretemps with users. Also your POV is clear in your statements above. For an example of the normal WP standard of relevance for a current events See Also § see 2007 Peruvian meteorite event. Lycurgus 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My POV may be obvious because I stated what it was: pro-justice. I'm not imposing it on people through a Wikipedia article, though(like it seems others are trying to do). I removed them because I see no relevance to the Jena 6 case.Jim 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps. Granting best faith, perhaps you just have a very narrow concept of justice. But it's clear that you ARE  pursuing a POV. NPOV means you're not supposed to do that. The exception is when your held POV is in alignment with the thing being reported. For example: in an article on white racism, if you were a white racist, your reportage on that topic as a SME would both satisfy encyclopædic Q and align with your pursued POV. I don't know if you are a lawyer but this is not an article about law or JustUs, it's about a racial incident at a high school whence the specific relevance of the two landmark Supreme Court decisions about race in public schools. Lycurgus 09:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of See Also Links

message: The "See Also" section includes a link to 'racism in the united states', I don't think that's fair- This isn't racism. --146.163.188.235 08:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arf, the reason people talk about the "Jena 6" is the accusation of racism. Maybe the accusation is not fair, but still, it is the principal subject in this article. Kromsson 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave it in.  For now.--Wehwalt 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken them out twice.  Scottsboro Boys?  Oh, come on.  The idea of a See also section (see WP policy on this) is that it is for things that really ideally should be in the article, but aren't.  There is no connection between the Scottsboro boys, who were likely falsely accused, and this.--Wehwalt 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scottsboro Boys were defendants in a criminal case which galvanized the civil rights movement in the 30s.  This is a present criminal case which is galvanizing the civil rights movement.  A lot of commentators have pointed this out.  Putting a See Also link seemed the best thing to do.  Do you think the article should mention commentators who have compared it to the Scottsboro Boys situation? Mrbusta 03:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also (2nd thread)