Talk:Jena Six

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 RASCIST

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)

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)

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)