Talk:Jena Six/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New Article on Bean's involvment

Here's an article exploring Bean's involvement in the history of the Jena Six case. Link. Seems like there is so would be some good information to incorporate into the article. Remember (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I had read it. The thing is, it doesn't talk that much about the case itself. And there are a couple of things that raised my eyebrows, like the beer bottle thing. And saying the cases were transferred to juvenile court. Only Bell's was, four of them are still in adult court and likely to remain there, and the sixth never left juvenile court. At least it didn't say the fire was part of it, that seems one thing put to bed. But if there's something worth incorporating, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard Ford and Paul Butler

What's wrong with posting a link to a very, very illuminating and intelligent discussion about this case by two prominent American civil rights lawyers - Richard Ford and Paul Butler? Every time I post it, it gets deleted. I don't think I can be convinced that a link to this discussion shouldn't be included on this page. If it's because it 'goes against' Wikipedia's rules, then maybe these rules need to be changed. I don't mean to sound snotty, but I'm really baffled. Sstteevvee (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they are not a RS. They are a blog. Blogs are not RS. We have some commentaries in there, but they are all from major news sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back. What is RS? Also, am I the only one who can see the value in Richard and Paul's discussion? Sstteevvee (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source. Run a search for WP:RS and it should point you in the right direction. As for the discussion, it is probably interesting, but these are just two random lawyers with no particular connection to the case, though I have no doubt that they are prominent in their fields. Read the policy, then let me know what you think. Make your case. By the way, you speak of them in first names. Do you know them?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, I would think that Paul Butler would definitely qualify as a reliable source as a professor at GW law even if the discussion is on a blog. However, I found most of the discussion only tangentially related to the specifics of this case and more about race and criminal punishment in the United States. Remember (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue with that, as a graduate of GW law school (before Butler got there, I think). Is there a transcript of their conversation someplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They're not "random lawyers". If they were random then you would have, for example, an entertainment lawyer talking to a divorce lawyer, or a real estate lawyer talking to a workplace safety lawyer. Richard and Paul have specific expertese in the areas that are 'touched upon' by this case. They're not "random". In light of the other statements above, for which I am grateful, and Wikipedia's rules about RS, I'm still not convinced that this link shouldn't be included on the page. I also don't know Richard and Paul personally. Sstteevvee (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, how do you answer Remember's comment that he's listened to the thing, and it is really tangentially related to the Jena Six case? And, so that editors don't have to go listen to the thing if they want to weigh in, is there a summary or transcript someplace?

Let me expand on that for a second. Sstteevvee, it is clear that you are convinced this should be in. But you aren't really conveying the reasons you are convinced, other than the fields of work of the videobloggers. Can you point to certain areas of the piece and make a case that this is a valuable resource and a necessary addition to the piece? With specifics. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of the discussion if it were referenced by a reliable source contributing editorial comment on the situation. But blogs and interviews and original research conducted on blogs alone are not reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. This is not the battleground for this discussion. Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Students attempt to address school board (removed)

I took the liberty of removing this section:

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 section was only one sentence long and technically should have qualified as nothing more than a header, certainly not an entire section. More importantly, it was marked in November as needing a citation. I did some research to try to find a citation to help clean up the article a little, but the results were pretty negative.

When I searched for reports on the supposed school board meeting refusal, all I found were numerous shady references to dubious "press accounts" relating the story. My searches for occurrences relating to the case in general happening on September 10 were just as futile. I've been unable to find any original reporting, or even clear references to original reporting, involved in the story. As such, I've deleted the section for apparently lacking any real evidence to validate it. I'm open to being proven wrong, however. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am OK with that. I read about seven different stories, all apparently deriving from the Bean paper, one said it was students, one parents, another that the Board refused to discuss it due to educational privacy, etc. I saw nothing in the Louisiana papers, who I think would be the best source if there were original reporting to be found. Who knows?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

new long article looking back on controversy

It is here [1]. I haven't read it all, but it may have more interesting facts to include. Remember (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it. I didn't see anything the article must have. However, if anyone else sees anything, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I read it, too, it's an excellent and very interesting article with perspectives not otherwise covered in the Wikipedia entry. It might be good to include in the "Columnists and Editorials" section.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 07:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mention it as a whole? Probably better than trying to parse out some quotable quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, but good luck getting it officially mentioned on LiberalPedia. Just like Mellencamp writing songs about it and politicians acting mortified about it, now that the truth of the incident is out they don't want to deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

I've been doing formatting cleanup and other stuff with the article and also requested a peer review for it. One of the things that the automated peer reviewer spat out when it did its automated thing was that, as the article is a bit lengthy, splitting it up into smaller sub-articles and making the main one more concise would be something to consider. I think that this may be worthwhile to do, but want to gather some opinions as to (1) whether it is indeed worth doing and (2) what portions would be better suited to their own articles. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe filter out the media coverage into its own article "Reactions to the Jena Six affair". I would keep the Bean thing in the main article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

General issues with the article

The following paragraph seems repetitive:

U.S. Attorney Donald Washington stated that the FBI agents who investigated the incident and the federal officials who examined it found that the hanging of the nooses "had all the markings of a hate crime." However, it could not be prosecuted as such because it failed to meet federal standards required for the teens to be certified as adults.[20] In hearings before the House Judiciary Committee on October 16, 2007, Washington stated that the hanging of nooses did constitute a hate crime but that the federal government could not bring charges because those responsible were juveniles.

Can someone edit it to keep it shorter? Neutralityisimportant (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Alan Bean information

I'd like to propose deleting the information about Alan Bean's account of the events. The article is already too long (as the peer reviewer noted) and there is an easy link for readers to follow if they want to view Bean's account. It really doesn't seem necessary to restate it in an entire paragraph here, and appears included only to push a POV (which is favored by a distinct minority of the media) that Bean's account was somehow inaccurate. Further, all of the plot points in Bean's summary are detailed earlier in the article, so it is repetitive. Thoughts? --Mackabean (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That portion of the section does seem to add undue weight to these views, and it does not support its claims with enough evidence. I suggest that we prune it quite a bit, but not remove it entirely; the viewpoints we have in the article should be included, but not enough to usurp each other. Perhaps removing the large paragraph and keeping the couple of sentences that are in the first paragraph of the "Initial coverage" section would be appropriate. Again, thoughts? Kakofonous (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! I'd be fine with keeping the few sentences in the initial paragraph of "Initial Coverage" and removing the large paragraph that follows. I think the two sentences give enough information for the readers to learn more.--Mackabean (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps it has been overpruned. I added a sentence and ref that the accuracy of Bean's account has been questioned. That way the interested reader can go look at the ref and we don't need a paragraph in the article. Otherwise, the reader will have no reason to know there is any question.

I think that there is much that we added in in the fall that has really proven to be not terribly relevant and this article could be pruned a bit (given that this deals with nooses hanging from a tree, some say, perhaps that is not the best phrase, but what can you do?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree here with keeping all the ancillary material about Bean (particularly the note about there being a picture with three nooses on the Friends of Justice Web site). And I have removed it gaain. There are other portions of the article where it is noted clearly that Bean's account has been questioned. But I think putting a lengthy reiteration of the account in this section pushes a POV that it is in some way inaccurate. Only a small minority of media coverage has questioned the basic facts of Bean's account, so I think it is unfair to the reader to privelege the view of that small minority. --Mackabean (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under WP:UNDUE. There's been enough so that this is an issue. Certainly, if you don't like that parenthetical, feel free to remove it. It doesn't say he's right or wrong, it is just reported.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclear

"...the nooses were actually a prank by three students aimed at white members of the school rodeo team in school proceedings..."

In this sentence, I can't figure out what "in school proceedings" means. --Hordaland (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the phrase. It seems to be a hangover from another sentence referring to the disciplinary actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unclear (2)

District Attorney Walters stated that Washington had found no federal statute under which the teens could be prosecuted, just as he had found no applicable state statute."[19]

What is that quotation mark doing there? Where's the first half? Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently at one time the sentence contained a quotation from Walters, which became a paraphrase. I'll clean it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jena Six/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm going to review this GA nom. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) I had some knowledge of this event, and I was pleasantly surprised that it was totally NPOV! Good job everyone who worked on this. I think everything checks out, so I'm going to go ahead and promote this to GA status. Below are my rationale:

1.Well-worded, organized
2.Plenty of reliable refs
3.Relevant events
4.NPOV!
5.stable
6.pics have tags

Now, for the criticism: This still needs work before it is nominated for FA, but nothing too big to stop it from being a GA. There are some places, especially when describing the event, that do not flow very well because of the lack of clarity of the events (see the court case proceedings). Also, it is not specified how some things before the attack on Barker relate to the assault and the Jena Six Case. You might want to make sure everything is obviously relevant. Here are a lot of ideas, take what you will from them. Basically make sure everything is crystal clear and relevant and seamless. If I can be of any service, you know where to find me! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Augh! First pic has a MetsBot tag! I think it's an incorrectly placed tag (the image has a public domain tag also), but you need to check that before you go for FA.
IMO, it'd be nice if the entire article was in chronological order (see Reprecusions section, particularly the stuff about the arson and the later assault), but I realize that it's probably not possible. Just a suggestion, though.
There are a lot of "According to"s and "It has been reported that"s, especially at the beginning, and they're affecting how the article flows. Again, it'll be hard to get rid of these, because of the nature of the incident.
In Arson, please update the sentence "Another sales tax increase, for similar purposes, is on the March 8, 2008 ballot."
Also in the Arson section, you start by saying it was cited as being racially-motivated, and at the end, it's not. You might want to put the two sentences together: "Originally it was cited as being racially motivated... Now it is not because ...". Also, if it wasn't racially motivated and isn't related to the Jena Six, does it deserve an entire section in the Jena Six article?
Same thing goes for the Fair Barn party and the convenience store sections. Do they really merit an entire section in this article? You might try combining all racial tension sections prior to the actual Jena Six assault to one section. Just a suggestion. :)
Haha I went to move the convenience store picture and I see that it's already been done! It'd be nice if you could find a way to move it, but I guess it's okay where it is.
I moved the last two sentences in Assault on Barker' to The other five section, where I think they fit better, but feel free to move them back if there's a reason.
In Petitions you have a ^{citation needed} tag.
In Songs of Jena, the relevance of the tidbit about Bonami Armah's earlier Internet single could be challenged by an FA reviewer. You might consider getting rid of it.
In Action by members of Congress, you say that "Washington responded that the federal government had a limited role to play in the matter" to Rep. Lee's statment. Who specifically responded? The White house?
Has the Barker lawsuit been resolved yet?

I've resolved all these matters, and will simply note that the Barker suit remains pending. I'm going to ask for a peer review in preparation for FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review addition

I'd like to point out that the lead for this article doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. For an article this size, the lead should be full four paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article. I'd like to see this fixed, or the article can no longer be listed as GA. The lead is one of the major aspects we look at as GA reviewers, and I'm afraid the reviewer who looked at this article was unaware. I have informed him/her of this requirement. Nikki311 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Check back in a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a little hasty, but I think that should do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough...great job! Nikki311 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Names of minors

An editor has objected to mentioning the subsequent legal problems of the Jena Six during the FAC of this article [2]. I think it is perfectly appropriate. It's gotten considerable coverage, and besides, it's public record. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming from the RfC (below?): If reliable sources have published it, then so should wikipedia. To say they must be protected in one POV. In my opinion it is unethical to not report notable news, including their names. If only criminals could have their names on wikipedia, it would be a sad project, lol.Yobmod (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mostly legal rather than moral rules that come into play. Once the court has sanctioned or the law sanctions that names can be made public, they are in any case in the public domain, I can't see why we shouldn't publish them as well. When we are merely re-stating publicly known facts like "X has been charged with an offence" or "Y was acquitted by a jury of..." I can't see what's (morally) wrong with it. (I confess in my neck of the woods, it's illegal to publish the names of minors in connection with criminal offences, even if they're convicted. But there it is.) Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is correct, if we legally can publish the names, we can do so. We don't have to. I would vote no, but consensus (wp:consensuswould be required to not publish because this is not a policy issue, but is a content issue. Since there is no consensus to not publish, and no policy limiting this, it should be published. Raggz (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One editor questioned it. As the article has been promoted, and, more importantly, everyone seems to agree, I'll close the RFC. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article!

Well, who would have thought it when this was the subject of so many edit wars last fall . . . Featured article . . . thanks to everyone who helped. Amazing.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Weakness in the article

Hello, I found that a lot of foreign reactions (medias, personalties) are missing. French newspaper Le Monde had several articles on the case for example. I am not saying that every newspaper should be mention but this point should be described more extensively.

Poppy (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Give me some links and if they are worth including, I will. Or feel free to make improvements to the article yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

L'arbre de la colère, Annick Cojean, Le Monde, July 18th, 2007, an article very favorable to the Jena Six relating the complete story until mid July.

Mychal Bell, rescapé de la justice sudiste, Annick Cojean, Le Monde, October 2nd, 2007, relating the complete story until September 27th (Mychal Bell's release) and focusing on the medias reaction and public demonstrations.

I don't have any weblink, those archives aren't free. Poppy (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Miles de manifestantes negros protestan contra la justicia en Luisiana, Yolanda Monge, El País, September 21th, 2007, [3]

Poppy (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absent translations, the best I can do is note that it was covered by the international press and give a couple of examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would foreign articles be relevant? Did Le Monde send English-speaking reporters to Jena to research the story? It seems to me that, unless they did, any such articles would just be editorializing and/or summarizing from the other side of the world. Unless their content is unusually noteworthy, I don't see why they should be included just because they're foreign. Bricology (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that it attracted attention abroad. Brutannica (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It already mentions coverage in a UK newspaper or two, which are actually relevant to the development of the story.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jena Six

This may have been addressed previously, but should we include the word "The" before "Jena Six"? For the article on the Chicago Seven, it says, well, it say "The Chicago Seven". Not in the actual name, but in the opening paragraph. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a stylistic thing. I wouldn't put it in the opening sentence. I don't really think it is necessary, but no big deal either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is a minor issue. it's just that usually people say "the Jena Six", "free the Jena Six", etc., etc. "Free Jena Six" is the kind of talk reserved for large-fonted poster-board protest signs! I just didn't want to spark an edit war, because I've seen them erupt over waaay stupider things. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but I didn't want to call the article "The Jena Six", so this seemed the best course.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Belief and Speculation

It is not possible to know what a person believes without taking their word for it; it is somewhat speculative and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia unless labelled as such. For example, in Australia at the moment, one of the reasons why some politicians refuse to support the legalisation of euthanasia is that they apparently do not trust certain members of the pro-euthanasia movement, i.e., they apparently suspect that these people are in the movement for reasons other than the welfare of the terminally ill or chronically suffering. This is why I changed the word "believed" to "asserted" in the article. Kipholbeck (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. It's a fine point, but a valid one. Please sign your post.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an eye for fine points; I trust I will be corrected if I err too far on the side of pedantry. :) Kipholbeck (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an attorney, I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

confused

Can someone tell me what this phrase means? "between 15,000 and 20,000 protesters marched on Jena" (Isn't Jena the name of the school?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jena is also the name of the town. "March on..." is a common way to describe a protest march with a specific geographical destination, see March on Rome, March on Washington etc. 131.111.129.69 (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP Lead and POV

The lead implies through omission that Justin Barker was involved in hanging a noose from a tree, involved in the two violent "white and black" youth confrontations, and/or involved in setting fire to Jena High School and that is why he was beat. There needs to be a statement in the lead to remove this BLP implication about Barker (and not something like "There is no evidence that Barker did any of these things, but we know what this "white" student did (wink-wink)"). The article also twists its way out of presenting Barker's injuries as facts by setting them in the opinion of a third party ("Superintendent Breithaupt described ..." "The emergency physician's record shows ..." "Barker also testified ..." "He also stated...") and then implies that Barker exaggerated his injuries. This article obviously has overcome a lot to get where it is, but it still needs to present views fairly and without bias. -- Suntag ☼ 14:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, there is no such lack in the article. The lede implies no such thing, and the article is very clear that Barker was not involved in any of the incidents. And if you think I am somehow biased against Barker (I'm the principal editor) go read the archive and see how I was attacked for taking the contrary point of view. Jeez.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading this article, I feel that the victim's point of view has been slightly subdued by the perpetrators' point of view. Obviously it is wrong for any student to hang nooses on trees and provocate fellow students based on racial or ethnic origin, but it is also wrong to react to these provocation by an excessive use of violence. The Jena Six could have saved a lot of trouble for themselves, had they just informed school officials of these incidents, in which case no one would have been physically hurt. There is no doubt that the issue of race played an important factor here, but physically assaulting anyone in the United States is a serious crime, for which the teenagers must be held accountable. Not even the marches of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton can save the perpetrators from justice. Unfortunately, these views have not been included in this article, which clearly shows a certain POV. Having become a featured article without a serious investigation of the victim's point of view is an example of Wikipedia's bias. Thank you, (98.213.68.167 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remember this is an article about the Jena Six, not about Barker. Accordingly, we focus on the six individuals and the public response to their actions. The article gives, at least twice, the POI of the adults such as Washington, who state that there was no connection between the nooses and the Barker assault. You allude to an issue that we decided upon quite a while ago, which was not to focus on Barker. One reason for this, in addition to the fact it is the Jena Six article, is that what we know of Barker isn't too good, and we don't want to seem to blame the victim. Barker was, in the spring of '08, kicked out of school and also arrested (not sure about a conviction) because he brought a gun onto school property. It was apparently inadvertent, he has a gun rack in his pickup, not unusual in rural Louisiana, and forgot to take the gun out and bring it inside his house, but it got some media play. In addition, some of the J6 and their people have stated that Barker had taunted some of the J6 (apparently Bailey) about the Fair Barn incident, and the beatdown was revenge therefore. We chose not to put this in the article because it seemed of doubtful relevancy and there was a feeling, which I share, that it would be blaming the victim. Accordingly, an editorial decision was made not to go into any depth about Barker. We could not go into any depth about Barker as you propose without bringing this stuff up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bell arrest, suicide attempt

I see traffic stats say that traffic to the article has increased from about 500 a day to 20,900 yesterday. Welcome, all. If you are going to edit this article, please be careful what you say. Wikipedia policies admonish us to be very cautious with material relating to living people.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Barker's civil suit

After reading this article, I notice that Barker's civil suit was filed in December 2007, but the article never addresses the resolution. Is the civil suit still ongoing? It mentions in "Other Developments" that the case was delayed, but that was in September 2008 and I have thought there would have been some update on the progress of the suit by now. In any event, I'll tag it as a current court case. --Pstanton (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the papers. Justice delayed is Louisiana justice, it seems.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss?

Ok, the line "The following morning, nooses were discovered hanging from the tree. Reports differ as to whether there were two or three." really sounds funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.106.217 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys really need to Research what was hanging from the tree. It was a Rodeo Lasao hanging from the trees, in the same fashion as the Lasao hanging from the tree limbs in Lonesome Dove tv series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc1184 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point! I'll do something about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Injuries & ER

"Barker was injured, but was released from the emergency room the same day." The but seems to downplay the fact that he was injured. Would it be best to say he was admitted to the hospital for a few hours due to his injuries or something along those lines?Cptnono (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on a rephrase. Though being in the emergency room doesn't admit you to the hospital. Also, I guess this page is getting a lot of traffic because the Five pled guilty. I'll work on that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Representation

Seems to me, legal representation is completely relevant to the story, especially the outcome. What if Mychal Bell had adequate counsel from the beginning? Who submitted the various motions to recuse Mauffray? Then again, the legal angle is what attracted me to the story, so I may be giving the courtroom particulars too much weight here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSeek (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was never really decided if Bell had adequate representation. His lawyer advised him to take the plea, and he later did plead guilty, so it's even harder to judge. Not putting Bell on the stand under those circumstances (presumably Bell did not insist on it) is not necessarily a bad move, and I'm not sure if the jury venire could have been challenged, after all, it is not the court's fault if no blacks show up despite being summoned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Members' subsequent activities"

Do we really need this section, which recounts not only what misdemeanors the Jena 6 have subsequently committed, but also what traffic violations they've received? This whole section just stinks of POV. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so. This was discussed at the time of the FA drive and some changes were made. We're trying to keep this updated; thus we have the convictions. I'd like to find out what became of some of these ancillary charges, some courthouse digging might be in order someday. It is not POV to dispassionately state the charges.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but traffic violations? Djma12 ^(talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the Bell situation in Olla? That's in there because he supposedly violated terms of parole by leaving Monroe. I agree that a traffic violation by itself is not notable, but his leaving Monroe is when he wasn't supposed to, and then you have to explain what happened.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you point me to the prior consensus discussion about including this sub-section? If there's already a community consensus on this issue that seems reasonable, it doesn't need to be re-addressed. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed during the FAC, click under article history above. I also got some feedback at the Village Pump on that, but I don't have the link handy.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation clean-up

Some of the citations for this article are either dead or do not completely support the statement listed. (Ex., the "over 40 statements collected" claim is not supported by the citation given.)

Furthermore, let's try to keep from stating that the opinions of some law enforcement officers are fact -- merely that it is their belief.

Sorry for a few anon edits -- I was on a public computer and forgot that I didn't have my standard wiki login. Djma12 ^(talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Just because a link is dead, by the way, doesn't mean the info that was there can't be used. It's been ten months since the FAC and the last thorough link check. The answer isn't deleting the information,it's replacing it with another if possible. So mark it dead link and give people a chance to replace, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

Preface: maybe I'm being just a little too sensitive. :)

Been doing the whole wiki thing today (following a chain of links through unrelated topics) that took me through a who's who of civil rights figures from the 60s and 70s. Wound up here. Now, having been inundated with all of this 30-year-old information, I had a complete brain fart with regard to the "Jena Six" and had entirely forgotten the (comparatively recent) mess. The photograph at the top of the page seemed to fit with the idea that this did indeed happen in the time of King and Malcolm X, back when busing and the Airborne were both big parts of race relations in the US--you know, decades before I was even born.

December 4, 2006.

...not quite, huh? So, just because all of the articles that link to this are prefaced with "old" looking photographs, I was wondering if we might consider having a color photograph on this page. (Ooo, look! I remembered to sign this time. Why does it not do this automatically on the talk page? Dumb software...) 12.19.84.33 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, we have very little choice in the photographs in this article because we try to use as much as possible "free use" photographs, in the public domain or that we have permission to use. There's no justification that I can see to use a fair use photo, that is, copyrighted. Read up on our image policy. I'd love to have photos of the Six or Barker. We don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could ask the guy we got that one from if he has the original. I'm guessing just about 100% of the photos of this event were digital; there's bound to be a color copy somewhere. I'll see about emailing the owner of the site listed as the source, maybe? Edited to add: God I hate this manual signing business. J.M. Archer (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the word nigger from the first sentence

as above(unsigned by IP)

Yes, thank you for reverting the vandalism, you caught it several minutes after it went in. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening picture is racist

IT HAPPENED LIKE 3 YEARS AGO. THERE COLOR PHOTOS NOW WHY IS THIS IN BLACK AND WHITE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.180.191 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As previously discussed on the talk page, there was no non-copyrighted color image available, and the use of a copy-righted photo did not fall under "Fair Use" for this article. And I completely fail to see why using a black-and-white photo is "racist," unless you're trying to be funny by taking the phrase to an illogical extreme. 97.104.80.74 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't it included here that Barker was not simply beaten to a state of unconsciousness but witnesses say he was knocked unconscious and THEN stomped as he lie on the ground non-responsive? This is relevant especially to the supposedly "excessive" initial charge of "attempted murder". Ask a neurologist what the risk is of death or grave bodily harm to someone who is already unconscious having his head repeatedly stomped on. It should also be included that Barker categorically denied making any racial remarks or jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.89.112 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone explain...

I can't understand by reading the article whether the Jena 6 were actually guilty of beating Barker or not. If they are, then why was there so much protesting over this? If you beat someone to unconsciousness, it's attempted murder. Why should the Jena 6 have their charges dropped because they're black? (Also, couldn't they be charged with a hate crime because it was racially motivated?) If there's not a good reason for this, then this article is in SERIOUS violation of NPOV. --NightDrifter145 (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The charges were not dropped, though certainly they were significantly lowered. And they certainly pled guilty and agreed not to say that the plea was false.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardly anyone claimed they were innocent, the protests were because of the belief that if the crimes in question had been committed by white kids instead, they'd have faced lesser charges. Ideally, I'd say that any thug, regardless of color, should face attempted murder charges in those circumstances. But if it's true that previous white juvenile delinquents got off easier, then so should the Jena Six have. 76.255.29.99 (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I would disagree, if six white kids ever beat a black kid it would be considered a hate crime and probably be on death row 208.120.24.105 (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And can someone explain what the supposed connection between the lassos/nooses, the arson case and the assault on Barker was? Did the perpetrators say or suggest that there is a connection? Did anyone else? Was Barker involved in any of these incidents? Did they beat him up because he was white and they had some racist agenda? All I can find in the article is people denying that a connection exists, so I can't see why it's listed under Background to the assault.--88.73.8.67 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As the article says, those incidents were often linked in news articles covering the events. They were in fact probably not related, in my personal view. There are a number of later articles, many commentary in nature, that discuss this in more detail. To maintain neutrality, we simply laid out the facts. After all, it is not for Wikipedia to say if they were in fact connected, or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Some unattributed statements were printed at the time that Barker had used a racial epithet at some point, and that this was provocation for the beating. In their statements on pleading guilty, the remaining five said that was not the case. Why they beat on Barker in particular really isn't clear. He was not at the gas station, he was not involved in the arson, and he was not involved in the nooses to the best of our knowledge (as we do not know the names of the kids who did place the nooses, this isn't 100 percent certain, but I would be absolutely amazed if they could keep that one quiet).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll get back to work on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've finished that. Most were due to expired links to a newspaper web site, now people will just have to look up the paper or electronic copies of it. There is still a bit of polishing to do in updating present tense to past tense, as the Jena Six have been quiet the past year or so, but that should stave off a FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Terminology inconsistent in article

I've noticed that the word "black" is mostly used throughout the article. There are two examples where the term "African American" are used.

"A number of African-American bloggers also covered the story before there was mainstream national press coverage."

"Darryl Hunt, an African-American who was wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a young white newspaper reporter in 1984, was scheduled to be a keynote speaker."

What term do people think should be used throughout the article, "black" or "African American"? I think the term "African American" should be used but I don't want to make those edits until I have some idea of what people think. Russell Dent (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

i believe both are acceptable, and there is no reason to use only one. Neither is in the least derogatory. In my view, "black" is marginally preferable as it reads easier, the reader only has one syllable rather than seven to deal with, and in an article like this where the term "black" is used a lot, that adds up. I do not think the term black gives offense.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits to the lede. The lede describes what happened in a neutral tone. Your edits have the net effect of shifting "they did it" to "they were convicted of it". The members admitted it and agreed not to take back what they had said. There is no doubt they committed the offense they were convicted of. Also, you screwed up a reference for no reason I can see. Feel free to discuss, always happy to work with people--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I did not intentionally edit the reference in question but there is a difference between my edited version and the previous version, so the mistake was mine and I take responsibility for it. I will try to avoid any future mistakes of this nature when editing Wikipedia. Russell Dent (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you don't need to apologize. Forgive me if I came across a bit brusque.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Links to articles that haven't been written yet

I can't believe I actually have to defend this edit, but I added two red links:

racial tensions - perhaps should have been racial tension
racial injustice

Now, whether we have enough information about these things or not, surely the links themselves are valid; they relate to the topic; they suggest where to go for more information. Also, Wikipedia:Red link says:

It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow.

If someone can fix the links with a better link target, or by creating a redirect, then they can do so. But the advantage of having the red links is that it signals to prospective writers that we need articles on those topics. We had nothing on black poverty until I started one, and I could sure use help; you can help me by adding to the stubs, not making me waste time defending them at afd. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Aren't these topics subsumed in other articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to link to Racism, because that is "the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination" - which may or may not be the essence of the noose & tree incident. Some kids didn't like another group of kids; did they really think about it that deeply?

And if racial injustice is to be found in another article, please tell me which one. Or just go ahead and make the link point there. I welcome your input (see WP:TEAMWORK). --

Racial tensions sounds to me like a term which needs a definition, not an article, but I think the reader knows what is meant. Well, wouldn't it be more productive to start stubs on these? This is not a high profile article anymore; the Six are (I hope) quietly living their lives. I don't think you will find many people coming to this page, and less who are inspired to write articles. So the redlinks will sit there.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Black poverty is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_28#Black poverty. Si Trew (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jena Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jena Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990004
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F70916045
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C%2C-6738454%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216162408/http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue3/0307p56.htm to http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue3/0307p56.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990017
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114112430/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F09%2F05%2F1422246 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F09%2F05%2F1422246
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990133
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990122
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20090627/NEWS01/906270304/-1/NEWSFRONT2/-Jena-Six--case-ends--Remaining-5-defendants-given-7-days-probation--apologize
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20090627/NEWS01/906270303/-1/NEWSFRONT2/Secret-settlement-reached-in--Jena-Six--civil-suit
Corrected formatting/usage for http://leftturn.mayfirst.org/?q=node%2F649
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://secure.colorofchange.org/jena_fund/info.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990074
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990005
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20090320/NEWS01/903200322
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.thetowntalk.com/article/99999999/NEWS/399990227/August-13-2008-Jena-Six-member-Beard-attend-school-Connecticut
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F99999999%2FNEWS%2F399990252
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150824190929/http://archive.thenewsstar.com/article/20080829/NEWS01/808290315/Attorney-says-Bell-s-father-attacked-her to http://archive.thenewsstar.com/article/20080829/NEWS01/808290315/Attorney-says-Bell-s-father-attacked-her
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20081231/NEWS01/812310330

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jena Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jena Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jena Six. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106135112/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201404.html?nav=rss_technology to https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201404.html?nav=rss_technology

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)