Talk:Jena Six/SectionsAndFlow

message: I don't believe anyone can organize this article while it's still a hot topic, but 6 months from now, someone needs to put these paragraphs in a better order.  As always, I think the wikipedia is the best place to go for great summary articles on controversial topics, but nevertheless this article is pretty hard to follow from the beginning.  I came on here to read it for the third time, because I first read it aloud in my urban public school class, most of whom had not heard of the issue--and not a single student understood what was going on.  There are all kinds of subjective side issues about tensions given equal weight to the crime itself.  Anyone who reads the article has to walk away wondering what the difference in the six attackers was, why it's as newsworthy as it seems to be, why Bell gets all the press, what the current status really is, etc.  Okay, after all that complaining, let me give a summary suggestion: Someone rename the categories so the outline can be read as a chronological summary without reading the article.  That's at least how my professors taught me to name subheadings--they should be able to be either skipped entirely or read alone without affecting the flow of the article.  --Mrcolj 12:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the sections in chronological order, as it was until a couple of days ago. Ophois 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out.  I took a shot at editing for sequence, flow, and transition.  Rklawton 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am not sure of the right time to do this is, but I believe there could be a great consolidation of sources (down to reliable ones)Jim 17:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flow of article

message: Rarely has a "incicent" gain such media attention and at the same time had the media making so many complete lies related to the facts of the case. Even MTV has had to come out and take not of the massive amountas of lies they and others have been passing off as "facts" for the majority of this case's existence in the national spotlight, no doub exagerrating the response and claims of "racism" and whatnot that resulted from the repeated telling of lies and half truths. http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1570444/20070924/id_0.jhtml
"Even here at MTV we have reported some of these "facts," plucked from local and national stories on the incidents, which, according to an Associated Press story, did not accurately tell the whole story. 
Following interviews with a number of townspeople, both black and white, AP reported that the citizens said the story has taken on a life of its own during repeated retellings, which have made Jena — a town whose race relations they admitted are not "unblemished" — seem like a broiling cauldron of bigotry and intolerance, something they argue it is not (see "Jena, Race And The N-Word, By Shaheem Reid, Reporting From Louisiana"). 
After speaking to teachers, officials and students at Jena High, reviewing court testimony and going over public statements from a U.S. attorney who reviewed the case for possible federal intervention, AP uncovered these inconsistencies AMONG OTHERS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to be seriously redacted. It appears these are the facts, as opposed to the articles that have come before the AP article and this MTV article.Jim 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point I've been trying to make all day is that we need to include all sourced versions of events, even when they are contradictory, because we don't know what is true and what isn't and it is not our place to judge.--Wehwalt 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a tremendous can of worms you're opening, but if that's the way you'd like me to edit, you've got it. Qworty 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section detailing massive amounts of misinformtaion