Talk:Jena Six

Mychal Bell Trial

I think the point about claims made by Bush appointee, Donald Washington, needs clarification and qualification. When I looked at the sources, Washington said that it would be difficult to make the case in a court of law that the beating of barker was related to the noose incident, because none of the 40 students questioned about the beating mentioned the noose incident. That does not mean that the incidents are not related (it seems to me that they obviously are), or that, if directly asked about the relationship, at least some of the students involved would not say that they are related.

I also think that from the perspective of many people, especially blacks, the fact that Donald Washington is a black US Attorney appointed by Bush sheds light on his perspective and role in this case. For a black attorney to be appointed by Bush, he would have to interpret civil rights issues in a way that is contrary to the perspective of most black people and most civil rights attorneys. As the reference to Donald Washington stands now, it falsely implies that he is black and therefore is more reliable and without political bias in claiming no connection between the nooses and the attack on Barker. That it not likely to be a valid assumption.````

What you think is interesting. What is out there is what goes in the article. And the page on Washington shows a black man. Would you deny the reader this information?--Wehwalt 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the line be changed to say "US Attorney Donald Washingtion who is black AND a Bush appointee."

This is not just what "I think" it is a fact, it is "out there" and it is information that will better allow the reader to understand and assess for themselves the political motives and inclinations of the US Attorney assigned to the this case. Here is a link to the report Bush administration Takes Aim: Civil Rights Under Attack from the oldest and largest coalition of civil rights organizations

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/taking_aim/

Without this qualification on Washingtion, the article is misleading and less informative, and definitely NOT nuetral.Kelmad 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - if it is relevant that Washington is black (The implication being "if even a black man doesn't find the incident racially motivated...") then the fact that he is appointed by Bush is also relevant for the opposite reason (The implication being "Naturally, the Bush apointed attoney did not find any racial motivation..."). Either mention both - that he is a Bush appointed Black attorney or don't mention either.24.69.35.203 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I did, and I moved it out of the lede so as to avoid putting emphasis on the point. However, it was restored in a rather pov way.--Wehwalt 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

=================

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)

As an attorney the statement appears quite clear to me without implication however that may be because of my profession, to clarify try something like this: "There are some people who have implied racism in the fact that the jury was an all white jury, however, of those solicited to be on the jury, most of the whites and all of the blacks contacted did not appear for jury duty and thus there was only an all white jury pool from which to chose the jury members".CyberQue 23:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

In fact the article linked as the source does not state or imply that any of the citizens called for jury duty were black, so I am editing language to that effect in the Wikipedia article. Honestshrubber 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

---

Minor point, but rather than "The jury found Bell guilty and faced the possibility of up to 22 years in prison." Suggest "When the jury found Bell guilty, he faced the possibility..." or "The jury found Bell guilty and he faced the possibility... Nr2pencil 03:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The Assault

This sentence is wrong, but I can't seem to edit the page:

"Bailey was hit and kicked by the six and was temporarily knocked unconsious."

That should read:

"Barker was hit and kicked by the six and was temporarily knocked unconsious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.40.5 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

POV problems mostly

This section entitled "The Assault" belittles the acts of the 6 on 1 Assualt - and barely covers what actually happened during the assault. It uses the word group instead of the accurate number of attackers (6) and furthermore, the wording of his injuries belittles the fact that he was found to have a concussion by dismissing it in the same sentence that states he was released 2 hours later. This section also does not state that he was knocked unconscious and then continuously kicked while defenseless/unconscious and on the ground - which belittles the gruesomoe nature of this attack. This section talks too much about everything that is not the assault and too little about the actual assualt. I would propose moving his injuries to a seperate section so that they are not belittled in the current fashion - if his injuries are found to need to be belittled then giving them their own section will show that he was not beaten badly. his injuries having their own section can only lead to a better understanding of what happened that day. I would also propose that the 6 on 1 assault should be called a 6 on 1 assualt instead of a group of students... Also the reported unconcious status of justin barker during the continued "stomping" should be reported as it has been in many news articles around the country. This page is currently suffering from the same problems most news stories about the incident are suffering from - which is over reporting the racial tensions that happened months in advance and were never mentioned in any of the testimonies during the trial, and under reporting the serious nature of the cowardly attack of the 6 on 1 fight and the injuries justin barker recieved as a result of the actions of the jenna 6.

Seeing as there were a ton of conflicing witness testimonies even as to who the attackers were, we can't say that it was six students, hence "group". As for his injuries, they're already listed. It wouldn't make sense to have an entire section for one sentence. However, I will look into rewording the events of the attack. Ophois 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the attack. I also looked up stuff about Barker's injuries, but couldn't find any reliable sources that said more than what is stated here. If you can find a reliable source with more info, I will gladly look over it and add the needed info. The same goes with court testimonies. Though I have read numerous sites about it, none of them can really be considered reliable. Ophois 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I managed to find a source with a bit of info. I don't have time to do it now, but I'll add it tomorrow and may end up making a subsection for the injuries. Ophois 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes you have already made - cnn.com is listing his injuries as injuries to both his ears and both his eyes with cnn quoting his mother as saying he had a clot in one of his eyes "Barker was taken to a hospital with injuries to both eyes and ears as well as cuts. His right eye had blood clots, said his mother, Kelli Barker." from - http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/20/jena.six/index.html

from the same link " LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters urged the world not to forget the victim in the case. 'The injury done to him and threats to his survival have become less than a footnote,' Walters said Wednesday." I urge the editor of this article to make sure that the threats to the victims survival do not become less than a footnote. I still believe that saying he was released within 2 hours, in the same sentence as you describe his injuries, belittles the injuries that the victim suffered. Surely if this a white women or a black man - no one would word this sentence the same way - as if to say they were minor and only required 2 hours of medical attention. The sentence could just as easily read "Justin Barker sustained a concussion, both his eyes were injured, having multiple clots in one of them, he was bleeding from both his ears, as well as sustaining many cuts and bruises to his body. His injuries required prompt and quick medical care that lasted about 2 hours." I can't believe that Justin Barkers injuries are being dismissed and belittled in such a fashion by the entirety of the american press. Because he is a white male he is just suppose to "man up" and get over his injuries... If the injustice done to these 6 men is so horrible - then no one should be afraid to admit what the true injuries to justin barker were. I might also suggest a section of the article to be titled "controversy" in which the quotes 'The injury done to him and threats to his survival have become less than a footnote,' is listed. It is extremely difficult to find out any information as to the actual damage done to justin barker because of the media frenzy that centers around racial tension... - which is leading to an injustice being done to the white victim in the case and even on this wikipedia page. The "background" section that lists racial tensions gets several paragraphs while the actual description of justin barkers attack gets about 2 sentences. I don't understand the importance of listing Justin Barkers ability to attend a ring ceremony later in the day under a section titled "The Assault" it has nothing to do with the assault and only serves to belittle his injuries and the violence that he was a victim of.

Is it not true that he was released within 2 hours? The sentence is true, and as such I see no problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.182.183 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have already said, I will update his injuries when I can. As for the article given, the victim's mother can't really be considered a reliable source... Ophois 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for doing an excellent job managing this article.

Your summary is inaccurate. The white student threatened the black students with a loaded gun--a felony. When the black students defended themselves, they were arrested and charged. The charge does not fit the crime. The 6 kids were defending themselves and were lucky to get the loaded firearm away from their attacker. - It is also misleading to ignore the catalyst for the racially charged sequence of events in Jena. After three African American student dared to sit under the "white" shade tree (with the blessing of the school principal), three nooses were hung in the tree. This is a clear reference to the south's history of lynching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.118.12 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

..which is irrelevant. Threatening someone's life is a crime, which is a possible reading of the nooses, but "referencing the South's history of lynching" (as we have both done here, is certainly not. In American one can still make racist comments without being prosicuted for a crime. Also kicking someone who is unconscious is not self-defense. It's assult. 128.84.234.185 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of the section to keep the flow intact. To respond to your statement. The gun incident and the tree incident have both been included and they are documented based on media coverage that does not include Barker threatning the Jena 6 with a gun. As far as the nooses are concerned, that's exactly what people in that town felt. That's why it's described in the article as a catalyst. CJ 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above- "The gun incident and the tree incident have both been included and they are documented based on media coverage that does not include Barker threatning the Jena 6 with a gun." You may wish to consider rewording this sentence, as it may confuse some readers into mistakenly believing that Justin Barker was the white student who threatened the Jena 6 with the shotgun, when in reality it was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.63.64 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

I recently found out about this case from the YouTube video The Jena 6. The article seems to be overall well sourced, but obviously has some formatting issues and needs significant clean up. Please leave suggestions and commentary. --Coldbourne 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What the article fails to mention is that Mychal Bell was convicted of attacking some one a year before the Jena six assault.While on probation for that attack he committed 3 more violent crimes.This would have been his fith conviction for violent crimes and the Judge had taken this into account.Mychal Bell had committed 5 violent crimes at the ages of 15-16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaheedus (talk • contribs) 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell's criminal past has been in the article since it was released... It's under the "Mychal Bell" section of "Trial, prosecution, and legal proceedings". Ophois 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell's criminal past is directly contradicted in the opening paragraph of the Jena Six page. References [5] and [9] are inaccurate (hense the inaccuracy of the opening paragraph using those references) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.13.149 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the convictions were on his juvenile record, nobody knew about the prior incidents until they were brought up.Ophois 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Article has one aspect backwards

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)

As of Wednesday, August 29, 2007 the number of signatures on petitiononline.com is 114,581.Newlocalculture 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Other references

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)

The Jena Times (http://www.thejenatimes.net/home_page_graphics/home.html) has a very detailed chronological order of events that would be useful to reference. (Tragic Story 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Dates in the future?

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)

What specifically do you want added to the article? Ophois 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

court transcript

....from the first trial. Where is it? It's a matter of public record. Could a Jena Wikipedian (no lols intended) go to the courthouse, copy it, and scan it? 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's available online, I don't think we could use it. The info has to be verifiable. Ophois 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable, at the courthouse. That's why I'm asking someone to verify it. There's no policy that sources have to be online. Dsol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsol (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Alexandria and our local paper printed a few excerpts from the court transcript and police investigation. One of the defendents (they did not identify which one) was asked about his comments immediately after the assault. Most of the defendants were scared afterwards, but one was heard to say, "Don't worry, they won't be too [s] harsh on us. We'll just make up some shit about the white boy keep calling us nigger." We ['ll] just say they are racist."

I'm going to go back and look at other papers for that week to see if anything else from the court or police was printed. By the way, I had this part in the wrong area before moving it to this "court transcript" part of the discussion.

POV again

It seems to me that the majority of people are bias towards the side of the black students. We really should maintain the the information in the article contains a neutral POV. I would suggest using more neutral POV sources. In reference to that facebook group- it basically contains a bunch of immature students who know nothing about prosecution or law arguing to free the "Jena Six", and I doubt its relevance or even citation is necessary. Deathsythe 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than white supremacy sites, it's gonna be pretty hard to find reliable sources that aren't slightly biased. I think that this article is pretty neutral. Ophois 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

White supremacy sites are unbiased and reliable sources?Dafhgadsrhadjtb 02:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased towards the black students. Ophois 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias towards the side of the black students? What 15 year olds do you know that get charged with third degree murder for getting into a school fight but yet 15 year old white students that hung a noose for the "white" tree were not charged with commiting a hate crime because they were considered to be juviniles? Or better yet the 15 year old white student that brought a gun on campus wasn't disciplined? Ignorance is bliss and from your comments Deathsythe I can see you are one happy fellow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.107.252 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I have a vague feeling that we have something in this country called "freedom of speech," which includes symbolic speech. Your move, Hitler. 68.32.238.94 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech does not include threats which also includes "symbolic threats". Treat people as you would like to be treated. You lost out the moment you called names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.129.81 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite to a court case, Stalin. 68.32.238.94 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a case where a guy's speech/symbolic speech was considered threatening enough that he was put on trial[1]. I think the Jena Six noose incident could also be called [Fighting Words|fighting words]Katsam 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with a lot of what you said, 71.171.107.252, I would like to point out that it wasn't a fight (as many media sources say), it was an assault. Many media sources are biased towards the black students instead of being neutral (though most news sources are biased in some way). For example, nearly every news source said that the Jena Six had no previous problems with the law, yet it has been shown that Mychal Bell had a history of violent crimes. However, I feel that this article has covered both sides. Ophois 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

CPE0018f8d6bdf2-CM0014e8279210.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com, so, how is that around canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.110.8 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

2 POV problems

listing that justin barker was able to attend a ring ceremony later that day has nothing to do with his injuries and has no business being listed in a section entitled "injuries" listing his attendence of the event does nothing but belittle his injuries. his injuries should not be belittle simply because he was a strong person who wanted to go to an important high school ceremony he had been waiting 11 years for. in the following article (which is already linked on the page as a reference) http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6719374 justin barker is quoted as saying "I waited 11 years to go to it. I wasn't going to let that get in my way" as if to say he would have been there no matter how bad his injuries were.

I respectfully disagree. Disclosing his attendance at the ring ceremony the same day helps to explain the extent of his injuries. Barker was not medically prohibited from attending the ceremony due to life threatening injuries or risk of medical complications that would require inpatient treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.96 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

listing the previous racial tension issues in this article makes no sense unless the 6 or justin barker were directly involved. justin barker was not punished or found guilty of hanging the nooses and the 6 reportedly never took part in any of the other racial tension escalations. these racial tension events should be listed on a page chronicling the history of racial tensions in jenna... but if the jenna 6 or justin barker were not involved they have no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're trying to argue that the context and situations which led directly to the incident are not relevant in an article about the incident? I don't think Wikipedia policy agrees with you on that. ThatGuamGuy 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)sean

Reportedly, Bryant Purvis's cousin was the one who asked about sitting there, and Bryant was one of the people who did sit under the tree. I'll update the page for that later, unless someone else can find a reliable source for that? Ophois 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Alexandria and our local paper printed a few excerpts from the court transcript and police investigation. One of the defendents (they did not identify which one) was asked about his comments immediately after the assault. Most of the defendants were scared afterwards, but one was heard to say, "Don't worry, they won't be too [s] harsh on us. We'll just make up some shit about the white boy keep calling us nigger." We ['ll] just say they are racist."

This would be heresay and also could not be evaluated without knowing something about who said it, what the defendents testimony was about his comments, whether other witnesses (and which witnesses if any)coroborated the testimony, etc. On the face of it it sounds suspicious. Also, the excerpts of the "police investigation" cannot be taken without a serious grain of salt, given the pontential "white" bias of the the local police (demonstrated in their response to the other incidents). Finally, I have read that Mychal Bell's PD did not really put on a defense (!), so the trial transcripts have to be read with that in mind, i.e. we are not hearing both sides of the story. Kelmad 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go back and look at other papers for that week to see if anything else from the court or police was printed.

Eyewitness Testimony: what was it?

Local police reported that the accounts of the white student and black students contradicted each other and formed a report based on testimony taken from eyewitnesses. This resulted in Bailey being charged with three counts: theft of a firearm, second-degree robbery and disturbing the peace. The white student who had produced the weapon was not charged.[1][3]"

I am concerned about the integrity of this part of the article because there is no example of the eyewitness testimony. I feel that without an example, the simple connecting sentence is easily ignored so people jump to one conclusion: racism. Though it may have been due to racism, there may also have been valuable eyewitness testimony that resulted in Bailey being charged for 3 crimes and the white student being charged with nothing. If there is any source where we could pull that information from, it would be pivotal.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A reference to the witness testimonies are later in the article, but to my knowledge, they haven't released any testimonies. It's only been said that they were conflicting, including some who don't even remember Bell being involved. Ophois 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell's past criminal history

The website in the reference does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IWikiMe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to write a summary of what Jason Whitlock presents with regards to Mychal Bell's criminal history. It is somewhat vague, but it does mention his violent criminal history. http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7170510Jim 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any law, that would maybe say that after so many charges that he would have to tried as an adult??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1hotmba (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No proof, but I believe youths in Louisiana cannot be charged as adults for assault/battery charges. This even if the kid has 4 priors *cough*70.109.116.216 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Righ now, Bell's section starts off with his criminal past. However, this seems to be POV. Does anyone else agree that this should be moved farther into the article?Ophois 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

NPR quote with regards to Justin Barker "bragging"

Many news sites seem to contradict what NPR says with regards to Justin Barker bragging. It's been acknowledged that he taunted one of the Jena 6 (more specifically Bailey). The article also seems outdated (July 30) considering the recent influx of facts (which I assume can be attributed to increased national media coverage).Jim 05:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of a source that contradicts NPR? Ophois 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

apologies, contradict is probably the wrong word to use. However, most reliable sources I see refer to it as taunting. None of us were there(presumably) so we don't know what Barker's demeanor was when he was saying this. It just seems more sources use a word less potent. Sorry for the late responseJim 05:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when is NPR not a reliable source? 209.159.98.1 17:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You must have misunderstood. I wasn't asserting that NPR is an unreliable source. I was stating most reliable sources have referred to it as taunting. If you really want me to question NPR, look at some of the information they present in citation 3. Compare that to the information we have now.Jim 18:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional information on public defender in Mychal Bell's case

I have added the public defender’s name and specified his race for the following reasons: Since the controversy is about race, it should be acknowledged that the public defender that has been criticized for his handling of Bell’s defense is himself African-American. The source is unchanged, it's the same Chicago Tribune article previously referenced. As it reads now, the article mentions the all-white jury and immediately accuses the public defender of incompetently handling the case. This implies a racial motive on his part, which also makes the mention of his race relevant to presenting a neutral point of view. Typing monkey 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, though I reworded it a bit to fit better. Ophois 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Did they actually sit under the tree?

A detail of moderate importance that I have found in only one story[2]:

Told by the vice principal they could sit wherever they pleased, the student and his pals sat under the sprawling branches of the shade tree in the campus courtyard.

Does anyone have any info to corroborate this?--macdonja 00:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall, different news stories seem to have different versions. Ophois 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I found some more articles.[3][4]--macdonja 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try and look over them tomorrow. Ophois 05:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"White Tree"

Does anyone have a source as to why it's called "the white tree"? It's really simple, and perhaps true, to imply that it's called the white tree because it's where all the white people sit. But my first assumption is still that it has always been called a white tree for some school or taxonomy reason, and that it became a slur because of its scientific title. I have no idea either way, and can't find anything about it. PS NPR's not generally a great source. I'm a fanatical listener, but no matter how hard they try, it is an extremely liberal POV franchise. --Mrcolj 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But my first assumption is still that it has always been called a white tree for some school or taxonomy reason, laughs so hard cola shoots out nose! Hahahahaha! Priceless! You, Sir, are a comedic genius! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.191.126 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The only references I've seen to it seem to indicate the name is because the White students sat under it. Perhaps someone from Jena will be able to provide further information. CJ 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How many people could fit under this tree at a time? A small group of white students sat under it. Just like at my school, there was a picnic table that a group of black students all sat at, and no one else. We didn't call it the "black picnic table" though. People divided themselves into groups, and have one area they all gather at. Dream Focus 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

^so true199.80.117.25 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

^ Almost all students separate themselves by color true. Yet, how many times at your school did a black kid sit at the white table and the next day there was a noose on the seat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.251.210 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC) ^Every fucking time, I dunno where you went to school. ----

Assault with a Deadly Shoe argument

The author of the shoe paragraph obviously thinks the shoe stuff is ridiculous, but the jury did not. Does anyone have any insight as to why one teen's shoes were considered deadly weapons, while, for instance, the other shoes were not? Kicking people unconscious, sadly, happens every day... hasn't this argument then been used before, if not daily, somewhere in America? Can we find a source to explain what's going on? I have to assume one kid had heelies, or steel toed boots, or something... --Mrcolj 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you seen Austin powers? That movie sets a strong legal precedent in cases such as these. Dsol 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most people think the argument is ridiculous. It's being presented in the media as a tactic by the prosecution to increase the severity of the charges. Remember, the aggravated assault charge was a drop down from attempted murder 2. I'm sure the tactic has been tried before several times, just not in the public spotlight. There are a few other things to remember. First up the defense attorney was a public defender who's competence has already been questioned. It's possible that he never filed an objection to the characterization of the shoes as deadly weapons. Secondly, the jury was probably predisposed to convict and that's even before you bring race into the mix. I'm sure we'll see some analysis of this case by professional law journals or in the media. It just will take time and effort to find it.CJ 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The shoe argument has only been made against Bell because he's the only one that's been tried yet. Anyways, I looked it up, and according to the Supreme Court, anything can be a deadly object (including a foot), so I added it to the artcle. Thanks for pointing that out. Ophois 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The law in Louisianna defines a "Dangerous (not deadly) weapon" to "include[s] any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm." LA. R.S. 14:2(A)(3).

Under this definition, anything that can be used in a manner likely to cause "death or great bodily harm" can qualify as a "dangerous weapon." This can include hands, feet, shoes, guns, knives, cars, ect. Really, a lot of things that don't normally consitute a weapon can be used as a dangerous weapon - given the right set of facts.

Nevertheless, it's a no-brainer that kicking somebody in the head, regardless of the style of footwear, could likely cause thier death or great bodily harm. The prosecution could have alleged "foot" as the dangerous weapon. So the nature of the shoes worn may be such that they were capable of causing more injury than an uncovered foot.

BTW - It is perfectly acceptable, and generally the usual course of practice, (regardless of the race of an offender), for the prosecution to allege the highest level of offense committed under the facts and then to later agree to a lesser charge. My experience has been that this is typically done with the approval of the victim and/or his family.

Six people kicking someone laying defenseless on the ground into unconsciousness is a real crime. It is ridiculous to attempt to equate a potentially deadly assault by multiple attackers on a single unarmed victim to hanging rope from a tree branch. Or to claim that the attack was justified because some other persons hung the rope in the tree the day before. Particularly where your article says the victim was attacked because he taunted one of the attackers, not because he personally hung a rope from a tree. Mwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.24.194 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please find a source for the above info about deadly weapons in Louisiana and replace the part about the Colorado Supreme Court? If not, I can do it later. Ophois 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Flow of article

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)

I put the sections in chronological order, as it was until a couple of days ago. Ophois 15:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I took a shot at editing for sequence, flow, and transition. Rklawton 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Under the "White Tree Incident" section, there's a simple compositional problem with the following sentence: "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." Which beating? The phrase "the beating" appears without a proper antecedent, i.e., there's been nothing said anywhere in the preceding text about a beating. Perhaps the current first sentence of the article needs to be improved by having it refer to "...their alleged involvement in the assault and beating of a white teenager...". In the legal sense, "assault" involves causing a victim to fear for his life or personal safety; "assault and battery" refers to both instilling fear and causing physical trauma. If the white teenager being discussed in this case was beaten, the best way to state this is to say that he was "assaulted and beaten" or simply "beaten". 87.49.45.169 13:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

nooses

I think it should be in there that the children that hung the nooses where not charged because---

"The district attorney who is prosecution the teens, Reed Walters, denied on Wednesday that racism was involved in the charges.

He said he didn't charge the white students accused of hanging the nooses because he could find no Louisiana law under which they could be charged. In the beating case, he said, four of the defendants were of adult age under Louisiana law and the only juvenile charged as an adult, Mychal Bell, had a prior criminal record."

Anybody know what is previous charges were??

==

with regard to the nooses: I do not think the claim by Walters that `he could find no law under which to charge the noose hangers' should be allowed to stand in the article without noting that he could have charged them under the Louisiana Hate Crimes statute. This law makes it "unlawful for any person to select the victim of [the offense of "terrorizing"] because of actual or percieved race..." (Federal Hate crimes law adds that this vioaltion especially protects people engaged in activities that are a basic civil right, like going to school). Lynching is typically described by scholars as an act of terrorism, and given the history of Louisiana (at least 471 lynchings between 1878-1946) the hanging of nooses in a tree after black students sit under it can quite logically be construed as "terrorizing." Indeed, that is what alot of the hoopla is about in this case: the failure of authorities to respond appropriately to an act of terrorism, which precipitated a series of violent incidents.

Please add your comments to the BOTTOM of the talk page! If you can find an article which discusses what criminal charges could have been brought, and states that Walters is wrong, then it certainly should be included. However, for us editors to leaf through the Penal Code and do it ourselves is original research.--Wehwalt 02:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6936337,00.html

"Three months prior to that attack, Bell committed two violent crimes while on probation for a Christmas Day battery in 2005, according to testimony. Later that same week, he led the Jena Giants to a shutout victory in a football game against the Buckeye Panthers. Bell was adjudicated -- the juvenile equivalent to a conviction -- of battery on Sept. 2 and criminal damage to property on Sept. 3, said Cynthia Bradford, LaSalle Parish deputy clerk. A few days later, on Sept. 8, Bell rushed 12 times for 108 yards and scored three touchdowns -- one of the best performances of the year for the standout athlete." http://thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070825/NEWS01/708250317 216.83.230.132 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but his criminal past is already in the article.Ophois 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Were the previous "attacks" on white students also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.115.251.210 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the ESPN Jena 6 special aired at 8:30 Eastern time 9/23/07. They mentioned one of Bell's prior battery charges having something to do with him punching a girl in the face. I have read everything I can find about this case, and can't find anything about this, though someone did mention Bell allegedly beating his girlfriend on this discussion page. Has anyone found an article or source to verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.103.159 (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked before about the punching the girlfriend thing, but I couldn't find anything. Ophois 16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In the ESPN special the interviewer presented the punching of the girl in the face by Mychal Bell as fact, not something that was disputed. Bell's new Atty. responded not by contradicting the woman beating incident, but rather stated that juvenile discretions shouldn't be brought up in cases where the defendant is being tried as an adult, or something like that. I will find a link to a transcript and get paste it here later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.31.167 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

New Information about the nooses

It turns out that the nooses were placed there because of a high school sports match. The school the team was to play in an upcoming game's mascot was a cowboy. Several students made the nooses in order to demonstrate that the Jena team would "hang 'em high". Race probably had nothing to do with it. I got the information from a local Louisiana newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.235.2 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Ophois 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been quoted several places, like here : http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=2427&format=html that the nooses were in school colors. The nooses where hung on Friday Sept 1, 2006. Friday is of course high school football time. I have worked as a teacher in various high schools for 7 years, and Fridays are always crazy during football season. There is always some motto for the opponent of the week. eg: "Lock up Lexington". On Friday Sep 1 2006 Jena High School played the Avoyelles Mustangs from Moreauville, LA. [Info from Maxpreps.com] As a prior service member in the US Army 1st Cavalry Division, we saw plenty of Cavalry equipment. One such piece is the 'Neck Rope' like so: Image The properly tied neck rope does look a lot like a noose. It could be debated what a proper noose looks like. Traditional hang mans nooses have 13 coils. A horse neck lead has more like 6 coils. Yes this is splitting hairs, but the fact remains that a neck lead is a reasonable symbol for the Jena Giants to use prior to a football game against a 'Mustang' opponent. Some type of lasso seems more than appropriate. I believe I read the nooses in the White Tree were removed by custodians before the police arrived; we may never know the truth. In this age of political correctness, the noose has more evil connotations, but a lasso is just a cowboy tool. 64.234.45.87 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)TJ Tx

You have a good point. However, the article you gave only says that they were painted in school colors. It makes no reference to a football game or anything else. For us to suggest that it was football-related without providing a source would be speculation. However, if you find a source that covers what you said above, please post it. Ophois 13:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

shotgun incident

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)

Other additions such as a laser sight also do not point to the danger of the weapon, only to cosmetic features that it posses. Often cited by individuals trying to make a dangerous weapon more dangerous than it already is, simply on cosmetic appliances. adding un-needed words here can affect the neutrality of the article to appear to favor one side over the other. A shotgun with a pistol grip and laser sight is still a shotgun, that functions exactly the same way as any other shotgun, that is just as dangerous as any other shotgun of equivalent barrel length and gauge. Mim37204 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

This Wikipedia Article is Biased

After reading many other articles on this matter it becomes clear that the author of this piece is slanted against the Black children. They do have some responsibility in this incident but the major issue is the unequal treat meeted out by the authorities in that town. From speaking to many black people there is a different America for them than their white counterparts There are huge pockets of rural america where if a black person ventures their safty would be at risk, only because they are black this is not the America of MLK's dream. PLEASE ADJUST THIS ARTICLE IT DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON WIKIPEDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.72.103 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it biased against the Jena Six? Because it gives facts that most newspapers choose to ignore? I am in support of the Jena Six, but this article must remain neutral, so we must report both sides. You say to adjust the article, so please cite where it is biased, and I'd be happy to fix it if you are correct. Ophois 19:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not biased, if anything it is biased in favor of the jena 6. It belittles barker's injuries by dismissing them saying that he went to his high school ring ceremony later that day. I have asked several times that this be deleted from the article or moved to another section - as it certainly doesn't have anything to do with his injuries... but his injuries, and the seriousness with which he was attacked, continue to be belittled.

Could the author of the above statement please sign his name? I want to nominate him to the Guiness Book of World Records for using the word "belittle" the most times on one webpage. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.99.30 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What, you mean twice? Well hold the press, we have a record indeed. Anyway, his/her comment is still valid, Barker attending the Ring ceremony has nothing to do with the case.

Uh, the injuries have been given its own section... as well, it goes into more detail and shows that he testified he had to leave early due to pain... Ophois 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having no place else to put this I have posted it in this section - In reading all of the comments posted I am mindful of the rules relating to Wikipedia and “What Wikipedia is not” (a section all should read). With the preceeding in mind and in the spirit of Wikipedia I strongly suggest that a proper understanding be given to the whole “Jena Six” issue. In reading the posted statements it is very apparent that many of the posters don’t have a clue as to what the whole “Jena Six” issue is all about. In fact the whole artile in and of itself lacks a real statement helping others to understand the full ramifcations of “Jena Six”. In the narrow view “Jena Six” is about six Black teenagers who assaulted a white teenager. As it is written, that is what the Wikipedia article is all about. However, the “JENA SIX” issue IS NOT ABOUT SIX BLACK TEENAGERS WHO ASSAULTED A WHITE TEENAGER, it is about the unequal treatment of blacks versus whites under the laws of our country. If the Blacks had been charged with a simple battery, as was the white man who beat up the Black teenager in Jena, then there would really be no issue to complain about. Jena Six is in essesence simular to a class action lawsuit. A class action lawsuits may be brought if the claim arises under federal law, or if all named representative members of the potential plaintiff class are from a different state than the defendant. Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. With regards the “Jena Six” the focus is being placed upon the numberous insidents of such injustice across the United States where Blacks of being imprisoned upon trumped up charges and sentenced to long prison sentences for crimes that were improperly classified. No one is saying that the teenagers involved in the “Jena Six” event aren’t entitled to some form of punishment for their deeds but 20 to 80 years in prison is just beyond reason. If not for the media attention Mychal Bell may very well have been convicted of the attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, carrying sentences of up to 80 years in prison. Instead he was convicted of the aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery (up to 22 1/2 years in prison, 15 years after the conspiracy was dropped). Basically, that is the problem, Mychal Bell and his friends are guilty of a simply battery, a six month misdemeanor, and not a 80 year felony as it was when the rally was planned or the 15 years as it stood before the court threw out the remaining conviction. I trust there are those who will want to talk about how bad the victim was beat without knowing the truth [you can not believe every thing you read without a through investigation. I bet the medical records will not show there was a cat scan done which is required when there is any indication of a head trauma]. However, given the facts as they have been disclosed, does it warrant locking up a 16 year old for 15 years? No, I don’t think so and nether does a lot of the Black community. Thus in closing I again would say that the article should reflect the big picture and not just the narrow view of the incident in question. Only then will people understand all of the relevant factors starting with the request to sit under the “Whites Only” tree. CyberQue 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the wiki article...? Everything is covered, not just the attack. Ophois 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have both the article and all of the posting in the discussion area. In fact I just read everything again to make sure I was not missing anything. I do belive everything is well covered from the narrow point of view and with the exception of a one sentence statement regarding the NAACP I sincerely doubt that readers will really under stand the big picture. It is not about the incident in question it is about injustice in the U.S.= Commentary 'Jena 6' rally was about equal justice, not race - It was great seeing so many people exercising their free speech and right to protest, but to also demand a change to what they felt is an unjust legal system. Roland Martin, Newscaster [5]

On Thursday, I wore black in support of the Jena 6, and turned on CNN's webstream in my office so that I could quietly watch the thousands who gathered in Washington and Jena, Louisiana at rallies in support of the Jena 6. They served as a fervent reminder of the realities of criminal injustice across racial lines Janine Beach columist [6] It's a story that reads like one from the Jim Crow era, when judges, lawyers and all-white juries used the justice system to keep blacks in "their place"--but it's happening today. [7] Injustice in Jena as Nooses Hang From the "White Tree" By Bill Quigley - At a rally in front of the courthouse: Alan Bean, a Texas minister and leader of the Friends of Justice, said: "I have seen a lot of trials in my time. And I have never seen a more distressing miscarriage of justice than what happened in LaSalle Parish yesterday." Khadijah Rashad of Lafayette Louisiana described the trial as a "modern day lynching." Tory Pegram with the Louisiana ACLU "People know if they don't demand equal treatment now, they will never get it.” Hebert McCoy, a relative of one of the youths who has been trying to raise money for bail and lawyers, challenged people everywhere at the end of the rally when he said: "You better get out of your houses. You better come out and defend your children - because they are incarcerating them by the thousands. Jena's not the beginning, but Jena has crossed the line. Justice is not right when you put on the wrong charges and then convict. I believe in justice. I believe in the point of law. I believe in accepting the punishment if I'm guilty. If I'm guilty, convict me and punishment, but if I'm innocent, no justice." The crowd joined with him and shouted, "No peace!" [8] On Thursday, the case drew thousands of protesters to this tiny central Louisiana town to rally against what they see as a double standard of justice for blacks and whites. The march was one of the biggest civil rights demonstrations in years. [9] = BTW Ophois, I think you are doing a great job on this.CyberQue 04:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six refers to the movement of the Black community to protest what they see as a double standard of justice for blacks and whites. The movement was sparked by an incident wherein a group of six black teenagers were arrested and charged with crimes related to their alleged involvement in the assault of a white teenager in Jena,CyberQue 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking to demonstrators in front of a rural Louisiana courthouse last week, Alan Bean, a Baptist minister from the Texas panhandle, inveighed against injustice. “The highest crime in the Old Testament,” he declared, “is to withhold due process from poor people. To manipulate the criminal justice system to the advantage of the powerful, against the poor and the powerless.” As he delivered his message to the crowd, officers from the state police intelligence division watched from the side, videotaping speakers and audience. Bean was speaking at a rally organized by residents of Jena, Louisiana. In the space of a few weeks, more than 150 of this small town’s residents have organized an inspiring grassroots struggle against injustice. The demonstrations began when six Black students at Jena High School were arrested after a fight at school and charged with conspiracy to attempt second-degree murder. The students now face up to 100 years in prison without parole, in a case that King Downing, National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling, has said “carries the scent of injustice.” [10]Louisiana NAACP president Ernest Johnson, who is helping to organize Thursday's march in conjunction with a coalition of civil rights groups--including Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, Al Sharpton's National Action Network and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference--says the scope of the campaign is broadening. "I think people are coming to show strength and unity against these types of injustices," he says. "They're coming to send a message to other Jenas throughout the country. To the Jena in New York, the Jena in Washington, in California--there are a lot of Jenas out there." Rich with symbolism and iconic images, the case of the Jena Six certainly makes for a compelling parable of racial injustice in America. Louis Scott, Bell's lead counsel, agrees that the protests will place a spotlight on racial disparities in the criminal justice system, but he doesn't think it will necessarily affect the way the case is litigated.[11]CyberQue 05:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like stuff that has already been discussed and placed into the article where possible. If there was a specific suggestion in there could you trim it down to maybe one or two lines? CJ 09:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)`

In the Public Outcry section there are three items listed “The Petition” (by the way there are several petitions), the “Defense fund”, and “Rally in Jena”. I don’t see any of the above listed AND more importantly no where n the whole article do I get an understanding of why the Jena Six issue is such a big deal – Blacks have been railroaded off to prison in many other cases and in every state of the United States. Unless the “WHY” is answered the whole matter is one of the Black population coming to the aid of the six Black boys in Jena. HOWEVER, if you will note the highlighted statement above you will note that the Black population is not talking about the six Black boys, they are talking about racial inequality in the legal system when it come to how Blacks are treated within the criminal justice system. The NAACP, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH, Al Sharpton's National Action Network and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, not to mention the numerous other Black organizations involved, have all come together for what? Because of an incident involving six Black boys in Jena, that’s the narrow viewpoint of what is occurring. They have come together with one statement in mind – “stop railroading our Black men into prison on trumped up charges”, and since the Jena incident is a perfect example of what Blacks are upset about, it was time to take the issue to the public forum. Reading the Wik article I would have no awareness of the bigger picture involved as I read about the attack, the injuries and the events leading upon the attack. In fact I would believe that Blacks were upset because the whole thing started with a Whites only shade tree and some nooses were hung from the tree after some Blacks sat under the tree. If you really want to make an entry about the Jena Six event look at the big picture and help your reader understand what is really going on. I suggest changing the lead sentence, “Jena Six refers to a group of six black teenagers who have been arrested and charged with crimes ..” to “Jena Six refers to the movement of the Black community to protest what they see as a double standard of justice for blacks and whites. The movement was sparked by an incident wherein a group of six black teenagers were arrested and charged with crimes …” CyberQue 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Ignites a Movement, By Jordan Flaherty, Left Turn. [12]

I am a relatively new user/editor of Wikipedia and have a recommendation. When I first heard about Jena 6 on CNN, I was very confused as to what really happened and why there was rally. I went to my computer to search wikipedia because I know that it strives to give detailed and unbiased information. When I read the article I was pleased to see that the community at Wikipedia was coming together well to create a page that represents this incident (and the preceding incidents as well) in a way that I - as a reader - could explore the details and come to my own educated oppinion. Wikipedia is not designed to guide people to a specific view of a topic - as so many other news sources are. Having read all of the article and everything is this talk page, I believe there is real injustice going on and that America has a big issue to deal with. Having said that, I do not believe that there should be more direct information listed in this page about the overall issue of injustice in America for African Americans (or any other race/minority). This is not the place for that. I recommend that those people who have evidence of the numerous events in our country that prove this injustice is happening create a page about that injustice. There could be a link to it on the Jena six page. And that article could reference the Jena six events as proof of the injustice throughout America. This way, the issues that CyberQue is expressing will be available to the wikipedia public. And, this article about the Jena six incident(s) may stay as unbiased as possible. NatalieOne 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

other controversy

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)

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)

The only reason this is important to the case is because people have been told the "story" of the Jena 6, like it was an important part of the story. This is clearly not an important part of the story, which is what the attorney is saying. This is another reason this page needs a "controversy" section - news reports are reporting this like a fairy tale of racial tension in a small back water town - like good kids are being treated like hardened criminals - but it has been shown now that there were 2 nooses instead of 3 - (when 3 is the KKK calling card not 2) - that both black and white kids played with the nooses (as if it were a prank) - its been shown that bell has a criminal past and specifically a history of assault, black and white students sat under the tree and it was never the "white tree" like it is being told - this story has been reported incorrectly for weeks and there IS a controversy here about how the story has been reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorting through misinformation

http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707310322 compiles a lot of information on the various aspects of the case. Google shows they had some quotes from various officials they later erased from their site, reasons unknown. Odd.

On Dec. 1, there was a private, invitation-only birthday party at the Fair Barn. Around 11 p.m., five black students tried to come into the party but were told by a woman that they weren't allowed inside without an invitation. The boys persisted, saying they had friends inside. A white man then jumped in front of the woman, and a fight started.

A group broke the two up, and the woman asked the white man, not a student, and the black students to leave the party. Once outside, another fight started between a group of white men, not students, and the black students. Police were called, and a white man was arrested. He pleaded guilty to simple battery.

Even though there were reports of one of the black students receiving injuries that required medical attention, there is no record of that.

There is a lot of stuff out there which contradicts itself, and people getting emotional, and jumping on the bandwagon without thinking things through. Are there any court records to be found at all? What about the shotgun incident?

If you google around for reports on the shotgun incident you normally find only what the reports of the black teens, some with violent criminal records said, and not what the white guy who ran to get his weapon said happened. I find that rather bias. The prosecutor ignored both contridicting stories, since each side would blame the other, and relied on eye witness accounts, then made the arrest. So, the official investigators and the eye witnesses can't be trusted, but the guys with criminal records can be?Dream Focus 20:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We can only go on what we can actually document. If a reliable source can be found that tells the other side of the story in the gun incident then please do provide it. CJ 20:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[13]

In court documents, this statement from the gun owner who tells a very different story

"I drove up to the Gotta Go and started to walk in the store and saw three black males and one hollered 'we've got action'. I saw them running after me so I turned and sprinted to my truck and then got my gun out. RB, RS, and TS were wrestling for the gun. After wrestling the gun away, hitting me in the face, they ran behind the store. AC & the Gotta Go owners saw."Dream Focus 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the article to reflect this information. CJ 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT Jena times

Apparently we have another "duke rape scandal" here, where the mass media is getting everything wrong by heresay, either that or the bias in wording of this wiki is atrocious. please read the entireity of the chronology in the Jana times to get the real info. http://www.thejenatimes.net/home_page_graphics/home.html

Have you read the article here? Other than a few facts, it basically matches up with the timeline in your reference. However, thank you for providing it, as it does give some good info. Ophois 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, no. This wiki is full of bias. The "claim" that the prosecutor looked at the black students with his pen comment is complete lie. The fact the FBI and the US Atorney for the state have thoroughly reviewed everything in the town including all these side events and have found no evidence of any infringement of civil rights is buring in a bunch of confusing text slapped together in random places. I still don't even see how any of the "other" things have anything to do with the Jena 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if their claim was false (that part has been removed anyway), it was still a cited claim, which was followed by the administrators and people saying otherwise. And I find it interesting that you ask why the side incidents are on this page, when the article you reference details nearly all the side incidents on this page. The side incidents are in this article because a) some of the incidents involve those accused, b) they are still connected to the whole story by the media and everyone else, whether they influenced the attack or not. Ophois 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

a) No, they do not. Where do you come up with this? More MISinformation? b.) proof? I think a history of spouse and child abuse were pretty connected to bobby cutts mudering his unborn child and the childs mother. But no-no. That's nto allowed! I can't "prove" they have anything to do with each other. So why is it that is evoked to protect Bobby cutts image, yet we have all these other incidents which there is no proof of a connection to the Jena 6???? Race and bias at wikipedia? Nah, that never happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.117.71 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I guess you didn't even read the article you gave... according to your article, Robert Bailey was involved in at least 2 of the 4 preceding events. Ophois 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the wiki article on the Cutts case does mention allegations of previous abuse. Please fully read stuff before arguing about them. Ophois 03:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it mentions allegations of abuse, but what kind of abuse and directed at WHOM and just how severe was it? And btw, the Sherif's department in Jena already released a statement that there was no connection found between earlier incidents and the attack of Barker. But as usual at wikipedia, everything is amde up on the fly and the only POV that ever gets in is the guy with a mod in his back pocket.68.187.117.71 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tree cutting

I've removed: "Since the incident, school officials have had the tree cut down for firewood. <ref name="farwell">" because its location in the article broke the sequence of the narrative and because it failed to mention the date with respect to the sequence of events. It also seems pretty trivial. I fully support restoring this information to the article if we can place it in the proper sequence. Rklawton 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the tree has become a symbol of this whole chain of events, I support keeping it in somewhere. --cutcopy 21:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The NYT also notes that it has been cut down in an article today. --cut copy 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, but I'm very much in favor of restoring this information. At the time I removed the sentence (top), it was interrupting the article flow. Therein lies the rub. Where do we put it? I haven't seen any source that gives a date, and this article flow is entirely time-line oriented. If someone could post a source here with a date (even a month should do it), then I'd be happy to add it back in. Likewise, if someone could find a place to add this where it doesn't interrupt the logical flow, that would be great, too. Rklawton 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assault Section Changes

"From there, according to white witnesses, a group of black students followed suit by repeatedly kicking him, though black witnesses deny that this occurred."

A black Jena student corroborated the "repeated kicking" version of the story today on CNN. Why does the current wording imply that all of the black witnesses deny this action took place. It should say "... though some black witnesses deny this occurred." Thedeparted123 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because we hadn't seen that story today, or because the current source in use says that the black witnesses denied it? Do you have a link to the story you mentioned, so someone can change it? Thanks. Ophois 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated it, so it just says that some witnesses claimed he was kicked. Thanks for pointing it out. Ophois 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I decided to use the POV dispute. I believe many good points have been brought up here on the discussion page. I believe they should be answered before the POV dispute is resolved.

The Jena 6 wouldn't be the Jena 6 if they hadn't battered a white student.

I am challenging the following sources that are used for information:

1. 13 - http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=3594 ; If you really need me to explain why, you should not be moderating this page. "Kangaroo court", "white vigilantes"

This is just 1 issue. I will continue to add more, but I think it's easier to address 1 issue at a time. So please, don't consider this resolved.Jim 05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to concur with the challenge over this source. This is obviously some sort of op-ed piece. Keithbrooks 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Kangaroo court" is an actual term. There's even a wiki page for it. But I see what you mean about other stuff in it. The info that cites it is only one minor thing, so I'll try and find another source for it when I can. Anything else?Ophois 11:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an actual term, I know this and I am sure Keith Brooks does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court. The article suggests that the legal proceedings were sham... read the Donald Washington quote on citation 2. Some might say it says otherwise.Jim 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There dont seem to be any other outstanding POV disputes so I'm going to pull the tag if no one ojbects within about 5 minutes. CJ 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

People aren't on every second of the day... you should let people reply. Also, there is more than 1 reason why it's up there. Jim 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the source listed above and reworded it a little. What are the other POV issues that you have? Ophois 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From the page: "According to some accounts, on September 5, 2006, a number of black students organized a peaceful sit-in under the white tree in response to the reduced punishment of the perpetrators. The protest was then dispersed by police.[10][11]". I understand you have the part where Donald Washington says there's no proof of this occurring, but there is still no reason for that to be on the page IMO. Supposed to be about what happened... not what supposedly happened and a DA saying it didn't.Jim 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed it. I had wanted to keep it in because it said that police were called to disperse it. However, the source says that police were called and the DA came, not that they did anything to the protest. What else?Ophois 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Assembly with Walters and Fowler. "Walters and school board member Billy Fowler, also present, deny that the comments were specifically directed at black students.[3]". If there's no mention of the comments being intended for the Black Students, then there should be no mention of them refuting that. It seems like it's the words of 2 authority figures, against who NPR describes as black students. By the way, nice job with the hard work maintaining this page. I have not edited much knowing you have spent a great deal of time on here.Jim 18:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagreee. Just because they are authority figures doesn't make them more credible than the students. Both perspectives should be kept in for neutrality. Especially since both are sourced. And it's not just NPR that says the kids said they felt like the statements were directed at them. It's nearly every news source I've seen that mentions the assembly.CJ 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Except when specific names are mentioned. It's been said in this discussion that Justin Barker's mother is not a reliable source; yet we are accepting hearsay by what NPR calls "black students".Jim 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Though black students state that Walters was looking at them as he made the comments, Walters and school board member Billy Fowler, also present, deny it." A similar phrasing used to be in the article, but someone changed it. Ophois 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your work on this page. I will remove the POV dispute for now.Jim 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Barker's mother's statements probably can be used, but just clarify that she made the statements. Ophois 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We really need to avoid sweeping statements like "black and whites accused each other of the crime." This article is being written in ridiculous statements like this. Despite the tone of the media coverage, this is not 1957. Let us report facts, and facts only, in as neutral tone as possible.--Wehwalt 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates of Assembly and Noose Incident

The Jena Times claims that the first assembly occurred on August 30, 2006, with the Noose incident occuring on August 31, 2006. This article indicates that they were on the 31st and 1st respectively. Could someone please verify this? Thanks. --cut copy 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I googled it,and that site seems to be he only place that has those dates.Ophois 13:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements attributed to Donald Washington in Intro Paragraph

The following line is in the introductory paragraph:

"Additionally, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has expressed the opinion that although discipline was mishandled by the school, he has found a lot of reasons to believe that there was unfair judicial action, and also believes that this is too common in the United States for a simple protest to change anything.[2]"

The source attributed to footnote 2 does not provide any evidence that Donald Washington holds these views or expressed these opinions.

Please delete this line immediately or footnote a source that provides the proper evidence of Washington saying such statements.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.106.128 (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

75.24.106.128 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)9-20-07 by V.

I am looking for a reliable source that says he has said this... If I cannot find one, I will remove it.Jim 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to myself, it appears the source contradicts whoever typed that in. I don't know who did it. If anyone wants to look at the version history to see who misrepresented what he said (to get them off this page), please post your findings.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/092007dnmetjenasetup.3645e08.html

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.Jim 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It says I vandalized the page... I edited the Donald Washington part. Revision comparison says I deleted a bunch of sections. This is weird, can anyone help? Is it my browser or something?

FIXED to fit the the real opinion as presented by the cited source(Dallas News).Jim 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I thought it was fixed, but ClueBot reverted changes... interesting. I fixed it to reflect the information by the source. It says I deleted a bunch of stuff. I must have because the history says I did, but it wasn't on purpose. Jim 06:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now, for sure. Jim 06:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor error in article's wording

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)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Entry paragraph

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Alexandria Incident

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)

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)

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) (addendum: Jena, LA is an hour away from Alexandria, LA. Just because CNN makes a connection doesn't mean you have to, especially considering what I've already said regarding it). Jim 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

One Error and A Question on Mychal Bell possibly beating a woman

First the error, shouldn't "Mychal Bell, a juvenile" be "Mychal Bell, a juvenile at the time of the incident" since isn't he now a legal adult in that state? Secondly, I notice their is kind of a lack of details here on exactly what Mychal Bells previous convictions involved (especially in comparison to what the past convictions of the whites involved in this had been). That doesn't seem appropriate to a neutral site, because past criminal history is a vital factor in the U.S. justice system in determing everything from sentancing to bail, that's a pretty key series of details not to include on an encyclopedia. Leaving out details like that make it hard for an uninformed reader to decide if his treatment was due his race, or due his past, which should be the decision a neutral article and a reliable source leaves the reader to decide based on all the facts we can find and present here. I had read off one source that Mychal Bells prior convictions had involved him beating his girlfriend, and if that is true that is certainly an important distinction that no doubt factored into the judges decisions (and is also socially relevant if the girlfriend was also black, since domestic violence in the african american community is a very serious social issue). However since that source was citing a 2nd source, which was in turn citing a 3rd source, I do not feel comfortable making an edit like that since hearsay is so prevelant in this event and I don't think anything should be put on the main page unless it's from an unquetionably reliable source. However if it's true and someone knows a reliable source for it, that's just the sort of details on his past that should be on an neutral article on it. His race being the detemining factor can't be established unless it's shown what the other factors were IN DETAIL, and then logically excluding those as cause of his later treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.183.1 (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you look at the article, you'd see that the juvenile mistake was already fixed. Anyways, as for your claims about the beatings, please provide a source. Those were on Bell's juvenile record, so the public probably will never know what they were for.Ophois 01:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

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)

Do you have a source for this?Ophois 01:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Noose incident?

Should the Noose incident (CNN Link]) be added to this page? --Sharkface217 01:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that, but we decided earlier not to add that in because it didn't occur in Jena and wasn't really connected to the Jena Six story.Ophois 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed weasel words from lead paragraph

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)

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)

Public outcry and rally info

I moved Public Outcry to its own section. If anyone has a problem with this, please say so. Anyways, does anyone mind updating the rally section with the number of people attending, who attended, etc.? I'll try to do it tomorrow if nobody does.Ophois 03:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Qworty 05:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the rally section, it says "a rally hailed as the new civil rights struggle of the 21st century was a poignant reminder of incidents which punctuated the civil rights struggles begun in the 1950s was held". Does that sound POV to anyone else?Ophois 02:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Racist "black panther" types turning wiki into joke

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)

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)

Removal of See Also Links

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)

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)

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)

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)

Relevance of critics opinion in header

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The money has been raised and he would have been out on Friday but the Judge is refusing to release him until the juvenile charges court charges are filed.````

Revision of header

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)

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)

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)

I would give them names and titles, if they have titles. Was it unanimous?--Wehwalt 02:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

incorrect number of nooses and incorrect relation of punishment of students responsible for hanging nooses ?

I'm trying to track down more information, but I came across this AP wire article on yahoo ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena ) in which the reporter, Todd Lewan, states that there were actually 2 nooses, not three, and that the three white boys responsib-le were not merely given a three day suspension but were "isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.18.3 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of info from that AP article that should be incorporated.--Wehwalt 22:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell release declined

This just in.[14] Rklawton 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's already in the article.Ophois 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Best sources

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)

Robert Bailey Jr's Myspace Pictures

Unless this quote: "Pictures have been circulating over the internet from Robert Bailey Jr's Myspace account in which he is photographed with a large amount of money, presumably from the defense fund, scattered over his bed, in his mouth, and in his hands" can be substantiated (i.e. with the URL of this supposed webpage), it should not be in this article. Kemet 16:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Myspace pics

Someone added to the page about Robert Bailey's myspace page having pics of him parading the money he's been sent. It didn't have a source and was removed, though I found a reliable source that confirms it. Does anyone think it should be added to the article? (http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NEWS01/709220329) Ophois 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no relevance. Just seems like another reason to have a separate page for public response. Including it might take away from anyone forming an objective POV.Jim 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be added. This article is supposed to document the whole case for all time, and if we left it out we would be showing a historical bias. Also, a YouTube video with all the pictures: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OAZQlgPO8qc (Don't read the comments on the page, as they make me lose faith in Americans.) Ironman5247 17:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And since the time of the article, Robert has deleted his Myspace account. Ironman5247 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article I gave has one of the pics in it. However, if we add this, we first need to make a new Public Outcry subsection stating that people have sent them money (cite, too). Then add this in. Ophois 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, added the section, source, and subsection. Please revise as needed. Ironman5247 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that a subsection be added under Public Response saying that people have sent him money (like the Rally and Defense Fund are set up). Then add this part after it. Ophois 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

FIRST find a source that says people have sent money to the Jena Six. THEN put this in. The NAACP set up the defense fund, so I doubt that the money is from that. Ophois 17:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is public information! Quite a few schools have been collecting money to send to the six. The source of the money, however relevant, is a separate discussion. These photos will have an impact on the case no matter the source. If I changed the language to this, could it be a keeper?

Pictures have surfaced on the internet from Robert Bailey's MySpace account showing him with a large amount of money scattered over his bed, in his mouth and hands. The source of this money is not known at this time. He has since deleted his MySpace account, along with all of the photographs, but there are several places where these have been recorded.

Ironman5247 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what do Baily's my space pictures have to do with the Jena six case? No one here knows whether such pictures have anything to do with with anything about this case! Until someone can prove that it does, it should not be included. BTW, isn't Bailey that one that moved to live with his Pro-Football playing relative? Maybe he is getting allowance: )```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelmad (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Source? 71.71.200.176 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is at the beginning of the discussion... Ophois 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Until the source of the money has been determined, I think that the section should be removed. What does everyone else think? Ophois 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Withholding facts from the reader should not be done. It may never be "determined" to your satisfaction.--Wehwalt 20:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed until it is proved to be even related to the case.````

Thank you for posting this. I removed the section from the article.Ophois 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ophois, I just looked more carefully at the Democracy Now interview that I posted the link to and Tina is Bryant Purvis's mother, not Robert Bailey's mother. Sorry for the mistake. I still think the myspace thing should be held until the souce of the money is known and I still don't see the relevance either way. Domocracy Now! is a great source of info on this topic. They have been doing indepth reporting on it for weeks. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for doing such a good job on such a controversial issue: )````

Ophois, I think it should be allowed. That townhall article talk about the struggles of the victims family. Maybe if just ignoring the myspace page till that's settled but adding in the victims families story would be a bit more balancing. The article has turned into a biased story in favor of the accussed attackers rather while nothing is really said about the victim. Witchinghour73 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, looking at the supposed sources that were there, I'd say leave it out (but keep an eye on things) but if the media report on it, put it in. We can assume they do the fact checking.--Wehwalt 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If these questionable pictures are to be referenced here in the future, then the far more relevant fact that Justin Barker was interviewed by a racist, segregationist, right-wing website should also be included. Qworty 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been interviewed by the Washington Post two or three times. That doesn't make me a inside-the-Beltway liberal. What's your point about Barker?--Wehwalt 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My point about Barker is that white racists are interested in supporting him. That is a fact. However, the source of the money in the myspace photos is unknown, and therefore there is little we can say about it that is factual. Qworty 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Witchinghour73, what does Bailey having money have to do with the Barker family?Ophois 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make my point clearer. The source for the myspace pictures "http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NEWS01/709220329" is mainly an article from an interview with the victim's family. I didn't think that should be deleted out. But it was when the myspace picture section was taken off the article. To me, it seemed like the author of that was simply putting the sources article on the page and the myspace pictures was a mention in that. Witchinghour73 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the information that cited the article is removed, there's no point in having the article as a source. Pretty much all that is said by Barker is him complaining that he has to work and the Jena Six don't. All other stuff are quotes from a white supremacist.Ophois 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The White Tree incident

In your article concerning this incident you list that there were 2 nooses found on the tree. However, most news websites claim there were 3 nooses (CNN and The Toronto Star)

24.36.201.159 18:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the reason some people are so eager to claim it was two nooses rather than three nooses is because traditionally, in the Klan, the hanging of three nooses stands for "K - K - K." Qworty 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline published by the Jena Times—which uses much non-neutral wording—says that there were two nooses. My default assumption would be that a newspaper is a reasonable and generally NPOV source. From it's own website, the Jena Times appears to be small operation (primarily by writer/editor/publisher Sammy J Franklin since January 1, 1968). Does anyone know more about Franklin, the paper's past, and/or its position in the community? —MJBurrage • TALK • 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that washington claims there is no relation between the noose incident and the attack. source: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=80&pid=&sid=1254410&page=2

Despite the overturning of the convictions

An editor insists on prefacing the third paragraph of the intro with the above words, so that it reads:

Despite the overturning of the convictions, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington has stated there is no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing. Washington has indicated that he does not think there is a link between the nooses incident and the beating.

It is a matter of opinion (presumably Qworty's) whether the overturning of the convictions (on the grounds that the defendant should have been tried as a juvenile, not an adult) constitutes "evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing." An editor should not insert his opinion to rebut the facts that we are attempting to present in an article. It is inherently POV and unfair. We should delete the introductory phrase. Other views?--Justin Sloan Wehwalt 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If he was tried as an adult when he was supposed to be tried as a juvenile, then yes, that is considered unfair.Ophois 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, appeal courts reverse all the time because trial judges are imperfect. That doesn't mean that the defendants are treated unfairly, just that a judge got it wrong. In this case, according to the sources, it is a question as to whether conspiracy to commit a violent crime is itself a violent crime permitting a 16 year old to be tried as an adult.--Wehwalt 20:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it just the trial judge who was wrong? Walters was the one who prosecuted on those charges. Ophois 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. In any issue at law, one side is generally wrong. In cases which are reversed, it tends to be the prosecutor. But anyway, I think the new phrasing satisfies my concerns.--Wehwalt 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(comment by another editor, to which wehwalt replied, was deleted here)

I've known many judges and prosecutors in my time to be wrong. I've known very few to be unfair. There's a big difference.--Wehwalt 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Even they were "wrong", it was still unfair to Bell. Like in a game, if a referee makes a bad call by mistake, it's still unfair to the team who suffers because of it, whether it was intentional or not.Ophois 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've always known that as long as I've had one hundred checks sitting in my checkbook I could go out and find 100 lawyers who disagreed with any other lawyer on any matter at all. Qworty 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how the appeals work out. If you took the second-level decision in Brown v. Board of Ed as definitive, you'd say how wrongheaded the plaintiffs were, after all, they lost in the first appeals court. Roe v. Wade lost in the second highest court, you know. The case is not final.--Wehwalt 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. And as it stands now, Washington is wrong. If the courts ever say he's right, I'll make the edit here myself. BTW, I just love it how people like you assert that I "have an opinion." What it the world do you think it is you have??? I guess the letters on your keyboard just keep getting pressed by accident. Qworty 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I must say that I had no reason to believe you were a lawyer until I saw you arguing on here for an hour about the inclusion of a single word. LOL! Qworty 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, with respect, you've reverted about a dozen edits to keep that one little word in there. If it is one little word, how about we just get rid of it, OK? After all, there is only one, and it is little. No problem, right?--Wehwalt 21:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "compromise" edits aren't bad. Unfortunately, if we both walk away from the computer at this point, we'll come back in an hour or in the morning to find the intro paragraph largely unrecognizable. And two other people will be here arguing similar points. Qworty 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. At this point, it is like we are writing on the sand with the tide coming in. Maybe we can think of a way that will satisfy you that doesn't carry an implication that anyone is right or wrong, which as it stands is rather undetermined.--Wehwalt 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I have a specific point and a general point about the Washington issue. First, we seem to have lost track of the ref for Washington saying there's no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing. It isn't ref #1 as is given in the article now. I could hunt the right ref down myself, but those of you more familiar with this article will be able to do so faster. Second, in my opinion, the three of you are reading too much into Washington's "prosecution or sentencing" statement. If I remember right, it wasn't given as a quote, but rather a reporter's interpretation. And even if it was a quote we wouldn't be able to tell exactly what he meant by it. He might have been speaking within the context of the Jena 6 cases; he might not have meant to address the fairness or unfairness of the lack of prosecution or harsh sentencing with respect to white youths involved. And he certainly wasn't addressing the fairness or unfairness of arrests made or not made, because arrests are neither prosecution nor sentencing. My suggestion, which I've made before on other grounds, is that the "no evidence of unfair prosecution or sentencing" point be moved from the intro to somewhere else in the article, such as the "Trial, prosecution, and legal proceedings" section. --Allen 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the quote a couple of days ago when this thread began. It was a quote, it was a narrow quote, and it applied specificially to the one case prosecuted and not to the overall justice situation in Jena. Rklawton 23:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Allen. I've never understood what the Washington quote is doing in the introduction. Shall we eliminate it? Qworty 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it more appropriatly belongs somewhere else within the article? I'd consider that before going to deleting it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.136.84 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to have a balance. You can have the Washington quote, or something fulfilling a similar function, AND the protesters' concerns in the intro, or you can have neither. Having just one of those is pov. People need to know that there are multiple points of view on what is going on, and if you have only one point of view in the intro, well, for many, that is as far as they read.--Wehwalt 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So why don't we find a quote that isn't as problematic as Washington's? Qworty 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, so that we don't run into another long debate, I hope, tell me what is problematic about it?--Wehwalt 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot that's problematic about it. For one thing, he's only one guy, as opposed to the thousands of people who showed up to protest against him and the system he represents. For another, as already extensively discussed, a higher court came to a conclusion that was the opposite of his. A court decision has the force of law; the opinion of a government lawyer doesn't. The fact that he's a lawyer doesn't mean anything, because I can go out and find another 500 lawyers that don't agree with him. Of course, maybe you could go out and find some assertions that, unlike his, haven't yet been tested by the courts. I'm sure there are plenty to be found on KKK websites, Skinhead sites, other white-supremacy websites, etc. Then the article intro will have "both" POVs and be "balanced." In other words, this whole thing is a false dichotomy, but if you insist on dichotomizing, let's really get it out there and dichotomize, dichotomize, dichotomize. I think the intro should say something about the fact that some white people just don't like black people, no matter what. We can find plenty of examples of this attitude that would shore up the "other" side of the debate, right? Qworty 00:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The man is the person responsible for federal law enforcement in the district where Jena is. He has stated his conclusion. It is possible he is wrong, I have no idea. WP does not judge. He may be right, he may be wrong, but WP would be the poorer if we emphasised one point of view over another in the manner you suggest.--Wehwalt 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying one POV should be emphasized over another. I'm agreeing with you, for the time being, that "both" POVs should be represented. By all means go out and find some KKK quotes that, unlike Washington's quote, haven't yet been debunked by the courts, and include those in the intro. Then we'll have "both" sides. Qworty 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Washington's quote is in response to allegations of the charges being because of their skin color etc. I think it's only controversial to some because it doesn't fit their way of thinking with regards to the case. We had it framed correctly before when it succeeded the "black community" leaders sentence where their feelings were heard. It's also arguable whether or not the charges can be considered unfair because of an appeals court decision. I say this because it's the job of the prosecutor to follow the laws and the appeals court to interpret them in individual cases. Ask any lawyer who hasn't heard about this case and they would probably concur with Walters that Bell should have been tried as an adult. Share details about the attention paid to the case and it's not so wrong to think the overturning was a concessionJim 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

I'd agree, at least on the Washington quote. Look, this guy headed an investigation into this matter, sent FBI agents and others in there. It is hard to think of someone who would know more about this case than him. You may not like that he is a Bush appointee, but he is the responsible Federal official, and a quote from him is perfectly appropriate.--Wehwalt 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, like government lawyers and the FBI never get anything wrong. A high court has already ruled that Washington got it wrong. Why do you, as an attorney, insist on sticking material into this article that has already been ruled false by the courts? That hardly makes for balanced POV! Qworty 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is Mychal Bell is sitting in whatever jail serves the Lasalle Parish waiting for the same charges to be filed (this time as a juvenile)Jim 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is he'd be walking the streets right now if he were white. Qworty 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You've failed horribly trying to prove this. It's bad enough you've turned it into a discussion board topic with this post. Mychal Bell is in jail for a reason, and it has nothing to do with skin color. As noted in this article, he is accused of kicking the shit out of another kid(along with 5 others). Some people can't accept the fact that 6 minorities acted in an immature manner and are being punished for it. Oh yes, that's right: there's been several cases where whites have done the same thing and have gotten off. Proof? burden of proofburden of proofburden of proof. Please. Donald Washington's quote is relevant because he led an investigation into what happened. You fail miserably at understanding the context of it also.Jim 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (addendum: this not even considering why appeals courts exist!)

That's an interesting speculation. Is there any evidence that this is true? Is there a record in Jena of a group of white kids stomping some black kid into unconsciousness in the last ten or twenty years who then got to walk free? Such an instance would be quite interesting to add to the article for comparison. Do you suppose one of those activists might have entirely overlooked this possibility? Rklawton 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not speculation at all, but rock-solid fact. Oh yes, indeed, there are many whites in Jena who are walking around free after having beaten blacks. By all means read the news stories about them and become educated and informed on the issues. At the very least, Bell would've been out on bail by now if he were white. Qworty 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd post links, I'd appreciate it. I've read a lot of the sources used in this article, but I don't recall anything other than vague claims that whites would be treated differently. Adding a real-life example to the article would provide an excellent illustration of the disparity claimed by the activists. Rklawton 01:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The links have been up there for days. By all means go through them and read them. There were many whites in Jena who beat up black people, but none of the whites was charged with attempted murder. And this is also the case nationwide. Qworty 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So you can't find them either? I didn't see any that pointed to a specific case. I don't doubt, however, that what you say is true. I've heard that the federal "hate-crimes" legislation passed by Congress years ago has been used disproportionately against blacks. Rklawton 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, the Justin Sloan example is sitting right there in the article. If you don't believe it belongs there, by all means try to have it removed. If you're still having trouble reading it, I can repaste it for you here... Qworty 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloan was charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced. Yes, he's not in jail, but no, his victim wasn't hospitalized. And it was one attacker against a group of victims rather than the other way around. No, I'm looking for something more along the lines of a black victim beaten senseless by a group of white teenagers - you know, something more comparable. Rklawton 01:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sloan wasn't charged with attempted murder. He was charged with battery. The charges in the Jena 6 case have been reduced from the incorrect attempted murder charge to the correct charge of battery. So the charges are comparable, except for the fact that six blacks initially were incorrectly overcharged with attempted murder. Of course, these are only the facts, and just to keep us on topic here, I see that they are presented accurately in the article. Qworty 01:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And, I might add, the problem is not at all limited to Jena, as you incorrectly state, but is a national one. Qworty 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say that they'd walk free. He said that Bell would be out by now. Bell was a juvenile, and should have been charged in juvenile court. And they were allegedly involved. There have been conflicting testimonies. Ophois 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we dispense with the argument. Quorty has made his position, and his adherence to his position, clear. If we listened to Quorty, this is how the article would open:

The Jena Six are six innocent black teenagers falsely accused by the Ku Klux Klan-appointed prosecutor in Jena, Louisiana. The nation has lifted up its voices with a roar to ensure these selfless boys are freed and the youths who hung nooses from trees have their lives ruined forever. Uncle Tom U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, an appointee of the evil Bush administration, and who was born black but isn't anymore, was disgraced by a court recently, and will soon be disbarred, arrested, and made to occupy the former cell of one of the Jena Six.

--Wehwalt 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I think you're verging on violating WP:NPA here. Clearly that is not how Quorty would write the opening paragraph. Putting words in people's mouths is bad enough, but your version of Quorty's paragraph is a little bit racist, which is what really puts it over the line. --Allen 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(just to clarify what I just said, which I realize could be misinterpreted, I don't mean that you putting the words in Quorty's mouth is a racist act, but rather that the paragraph itself is a little bit racist because of the "born black but isn't anymore", so I'm saying you're sort of indirectly accusing Quorty of being racist. I'm not saying you or anyone is racist.) --Allen 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. It was intended as satire. I'm not accusing Quorty of anything except poor editing, just extending his arguments and edits to the logical conclusion. I've had a day with him!--Wehwalt 12:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of neutrality, It needs to be reiterated that Donald Washington is a Bush appointee and would not have been selected by Bush to be a US Attorney (anyone here know about the US attorney scandal?) if he were not biased in a way that suits the Bush administration's agenda which has been, in part, to undermine Civil Rights law enforcement and procecution. Including a quote from Washington, in the introduction or anywhere else, without this caveat/fact, is not being neutral or informative to the subject or to the reader. Neutrality does not mean that the article does not present points of view. Explaining the opposing points of view on the case is essential to explaining the issue of the "Jena 6." This article just needs to be BALANCED in presenting not only the facts but the different interpretations of the facts, and the context in which this is all happening. The point of the article should be to present the reader with enough relevant information to make their own assessment of the case. That includes a description of the dominant opinions on both sides of the issues. It seems to me that in its current form this article is not very balanced. The article as it stands now seems systematically dismissive of the side that is arguing that the noose incident was improperly handled and the charges were excessive and racially discriminatory.````

I agree. I moved it from the noose incident to the intro.Ophois 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted, and let us discuss on this point (and perhaps open a new section for simplicity's sake). If you put his Bush appointee status in the intro, you are saying that is hugely relevant to the article. That carries an implication that he is biased against blacks, self hating, I think the phrase is (or, as I stated above, an Uncle Tom). ALL U.S. attorneys are Bush appointees, just like under Clinton (who fired all U.S. attorneys on January 20, 1993) they were all his appointees. By drawing attention to his status in such a prominent place in the article, you are implying something. We're not here to imply things.--Wehwalt 12:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See Also

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)

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)

I'd leave it in. For now.--Wehwalt 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Bailey and Robert Bailey Jr.

Are they the same person? If so, we should refer to him consistently, otherwise we should throw in a disclaimer.--Wehwalt 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Several reporters and papers/websites are writing stories now that are saying that there needs to be some accountability for the kids that participated in the assault. Also these articles are documenting the fact that many people in the media feel that the issue is being treated differently than if white boys had beaten a black boy.

Such as this excerpt from the following link:

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7170510

"Rather than report the truth, flames have been fanned by lazy or cowardly or agenda-driven members of the media. Because the white kid regained consciousness and survived the attack with only a swollen eye, defenders of the "Jena Six" have called it a typical "schoolyard fight." Would anyone call it that if six white football and basketball players jumped one black kid?"

I have read articles like this in many publications now, I will try to find them and add them here - I feel that these articles give good evidence to a growing controversy over the Jena 6. - the controversy that the original illegal acts of the jena 6 are being down played, along with justin barkers injuries, by almost all the media covering the story.

An attempt has been made to present a balanced perspective in this article including making it clear what the facts are as well as what available evidence there is as to who did what. Regardless of what is presented in the media, this is the intention here. Any information from a reliable source that presents differing viewpoints please provide it. Thanks. CJ 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

other controversy

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."" 

Yet another article reporting incorrect facts in the media about the case which lead to a woven story of racial discrimination is being reported today at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena_3;_ylt=ApvcexcbjCKgxnvxcvoZglwkeedF

from the article:

"(It was widely reported that Bell, now 17, was an honor student with no prior criminal record. Although he had a high grade-point average, he was, in fact, on probation for at least two counts of battery and a count of criminal damage to property. In any event, his conviction was overturned because an appeals court ruled he should not have been tried as an adult.)"

as well as:

"Consider:

_The so-called "white tree" at Jena High, often reported to be the domain of only white students, was nothing of the sort, according to teachers and school administrators; students of all races, they say, congregated under it at one time or another.

_Two nooses — not three — were found dangling from the tree. Beyond being offensive to blacks, the nooses were cut down because black and white students "were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them," according to a black teacher who witnessed the scene.

_There was no connection between the September noose incident and December attack, according to Donald Washington, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department in western Louisiana, who investigated claims that these events might be race-related hate crimes.

_The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days — they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.

_The six-member jury that convicted Bell was, indeed, all white. However, only one in 10 people in LaSalle Parish is African American, and though black residents were selected randomly by computer and summoned for jury selection, none showed up."

The skewing of these facts all spin the story to make it look worse from a race tensions stand point.

The existence of these articles (reporting the skewed facts) makes it clear that this wikipedia page needs a section entitled "controversy" in which the skewed reporting of this story needs to be mentioned. If reliable news agencies are reporting on how the "story" has been skewed and reported incorrectly - then it is NECESSARY that wikipedia list the existence of these articles and correct the facts and list the facts that were incorrectly reported. (Even if the section is worded weakly stating something like - "some people believe or some sources have reported a skewing of facts and misrepresentation of the "story"") People who travelled down to Jena to help "Bell the honor student" should be fuming mad at the news agencies that reported the story in such a manner. They have been lied to and told a fairy tale version of the events - with inclusions ("white tree") and exclusions (victims true injuries, bell's previous assault records), both for and against, creating what seems to be a year long racially motivated event - when it is being reported by many sources now (see all previous listings in the controversy section and court testimonies) that this was not a year long event and was a single act of assault.

See my comment below under "Current Article Status".--Wehwalt 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Other incidents involving white youth

The following should be deleted or references provided:

"....noting the lack of arrests and serious charges against white youths in Jena in earlier incidents in the town."

What are the "earlier incidents" which people felt there should have been arrests and charges for. There should be a reference to these "earlier incidents". A direct reference should be provided even if the incidents are only the incidents mentioned in the article.

That is the argument of the "pro-6" side. I know this question has been asked at least twice. It wouldnt surprise me if it's been asked more, though. Their failure to cite specific instances should be in the article. I would like to hear from Ophois, CJ, Wehwalt etc. before making an edit.Jim 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific instances are fully cited and sourced in the body of the article. Also, there is not a "pro-6" side. This is a reductive and false dichotomy. Qworty 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the inclusion in the article of the phrasing, but I felt that deleting it would open up a can of worms.--Wehwalt 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still their opinion that there were a lack of arrests of whites, so it should be in there. However, I altered the wording a little so it doesn't imply that there were necessarily unfair incidents. Ophois 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, if the incidents are fully cited in the article then at the end of the sentence in question there should be a clickable link to those incidents. It should not be left up to the reader to deduce that the incidents are only those in the article.

Ophois, not trying to pick a fight, I think you have done a great job at keeping this in the neutral zone, however, in the "Court transcript" section you made a statement about not using a court transcript that was not verifiable online, which I think is a good idea for wikipedia. My point then is this, yes, that is the opinion of the people who expressed it, but if there are no examples to cite then the statement should not be included in the article. Without proof or some sort of reference to support the statement, the opinion itself leaves the zone of neutrality and becomes the express bias of the speaker. Now, it might be fair to say, that the incident with the white youth are the nooses being placed on the tree and the gun incident at the store, so I think if would be fair to have a clickable link to jump the page down to the descriptions of each incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.109.211 (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a link to the incidents, but an admin reverted it. Besides, the incidents immediately follow the intro.Ophois 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the incidents are the ones mentioned in the article then the statement in the opening paragraph should reflect such:

"....noting the lack of arrests and serious charges against white youths for hanging nooses and for failure to prosecute a white youth who pulled out a shot-gun on several black youths."

The sentence should reflect what the complaint is, that standard introductory writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.109.211 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Similar wording existed in the intro yesterday, and I strongly supported it. Other editors, however, did not agree. For whatever reason, they don't want the specific white-on-black violence and threats stated in the introduction. Qworty 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual disputes exist as to most of the incidents in question. An introduction should be quick, and should not get bogged down in minutiae. I'd have no objection to a (see below) being put in the intro, though. The interested reader would be sure to know to read on.--Wehwalt 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then by your own definition Washington's views constitute "minutiae." Since his views are specifically discussed later in the article, then they should be replaced with something more general in the introduction. E.g., "While not everyone agrees that unfair prosecution and sentencing occurred..." So? What do you think? Qworty 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because you know as well as I do (I find you are very alive to implications of words) that this would be an implication that there is a majority view that there was unfair prosecution, etc. And as for the rest of it, we've had that discussion already.--Wehwalt 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't think you'd go for that one. But I do think this matter is going to continue to evolve, and that as things play out, we'll find that Mr. Washington's views will have become little more than a footnote in terms of this article, and their place in the introduction will no longer be tenable. Even now, keeping him in the intro makes him look more important than he is. But let's keep him in there for now. You know, the way we're keeping his boss, Mr. Bush, around just for a little bit longer... Qworty 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Article Status

The article appears to have achieved something close to a final form given all the information we presently have. If we are all somewhat dissatisfied with it, then we have probably approximated something close to actual NPOV. There isn't much left to do except nitpick and wait for further developments in the case. And yes, there will be further developments. Qworty 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the trick the talking heads use, they pull out a letter from a member of the public accusing them of pandering to the right and another accusing them of pandering to the left and sit back and look smug. It is fallacious that they are right down the middle, since they are choosing the letters.

We should continue to review this article and improve it. I think the next big thing here (absent a court decision) will be discussion of the media coverage. So many of the sources use the false info (three nooses, three days in school suspension) and come in with a storyline and make the facts fit (nooses caused fight). We're starting to see a bit of that already (see above), I think there will be more introspection.--Wehwalt 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to blame the media here. Blaming the media and "outsiders" is the old Southern Jim Crow trick. The current technological media didn't even exist when the racial problems started in this country. If you want to move in a new direction with the article, it would be better to expand the background section, giving information about the huge Klan influence in Jena and throughout the parish, including the fact that KKK Grand Dragon and former neo-Nazi David Duke carried the parish in historically recent elections. Qworty 17:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You improve the article as you see fit, ditto I will. It is true that David Duke carried LaSalle Parish in 1991. Most of the kids involved were in diapers or not yet born about then. Let us see what is written by reliable sources and where we go from there.--Wehwalt 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the kids were "in diapers" in 1991. Racism is a learned behavior and attitude that's passed down from generation to generation. Qworty 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

True, to a certain extent, "you've got to be carefully taught". However, let's cover the incident, not the history of the area back to the Louisiana Purchase!--Wehwalt 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this was an "incident." It occurred in a historical and social context. If it were just an "incident," nobody would care about it. So far as I've seen, the only people who are strongly pushing the "incident" theory are the white racists who run the parish and the local paper. Qworty 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't put media coverage into the article (they originally went by the available facts, as did we). However, I somewhat agree to the controversy section, as suggested earlier.Ophois 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We're arguing enough about what has been written. Time enough to argue about what has not, when someone writes it.

--Wehwalt 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was my point in my initial post in this section. Qworty 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough articles have been written by enough reliable sources so that you can modify this article to include a section called "controversy" or "media bias" in which you can chronicle the immense amount of spin that has been put on the media coverage. Very few media sources are reporting the truth - and when they are reporting the truth it is in the form of making corrections of the vague order of "the [official fairy tale] story goes like this - but please consider these other facts which don't add up" They don't come out and say "yeah... we spun this story and sold it to the American people to cause rallies and protests and garner news attention" but the wording is almost stronger and more telling than if they were to just come out and say that. See the section "Controversy" for links to the articles i am referring to. This story has been spun by news outlets to be a story of deep seated racial tensions and nooses in a small southern town with an all white jury. But many reliable news sources that have been listed on this page multiple times - point out that this isn't the case. The majority of people of Jena don't feel racially divided. The majority of the student population (black and white) took the noose incident with a grain of salt and joked and played with the nooses. the "white tree" wasn't a white only tree and never was. no black jurors showed up during jury duty selection. Then there is the omission of Justin Barker's injuries from almost every "credible" news agency's reports - and the fact that if his injuries are listed then they are ALWAYS listed and then followed by "but he was feeling well enough to go to his ring ceremony later that evening." You would think at least one news source would just list his injuries... Of all the news agencies reporting this story only 1 has ever listed that he lost vision for three weeks. Only one sports writer has come out to ask the question "where were the parents, both black and white?" I haven't actually seen anything besides an AP wire that said the students played with the noose. And no major media source wants to point out that the noose incident and beatings were 3 months apart - the best they will do is say that "an attorney believes, in his opinion - that the 2 incidents are not connected" WEAK. This has been the least well, fair reported news event of the year. It is yet another glaring omision that there is no "media bias" or "controversial news coverage" section of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.165.37.26 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well . . . it isn't that easy. I won't insert my own views so blatantly in constructing a sentence, though God knows anyone who spends a fair amount of time on an article has some view on the subject matter. There is one article, cited above, which criticizes the tone of the media coverage, and also the D.A. (I think it was) commented that the media coverage was trying to fit things into a preconceived story. If more RS develop with similar tone, I'll add a section and see what the consensus is. I thought of trying to spin the responses off to its own article, as was done with the Duke case article, but I don't think it is as good an idea here, where the response is itself the story.--Wehwalt 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rally

The previous wording made it seem like the rally was held even though every thing was fine, which it is not. The overturning of the attempted murder conviction still leaves Bell facing a hefty sentence, which isn't even the issue to begin with, but the lack of fair judicial process which hasn't been addressed. Jstanierm 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and not only that, but the current wording makes it sound like the rally was only for the Jena 6, when in fact it was held for all African Americans throughout the United States who have been and are being unfairly treated by a justice system that has been scientifically proven to be racist. Qworty 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It was worded that way because it was scheduled to be held when Bell was sentenced, and some were considering cancelling the event because the charges were overturned.Ophois 18:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)