Talk:Jena Six

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Jena Six. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Jena Six has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jena Six article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject African diaspora. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles related to topics concerning persons of African descent and their cultures. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora for more information. (See: Category:WikiProject African diaspora for more pages in this project.)
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within African diaspora.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Archive 2 New Article on Bean's involvment 3 Richard Ford and Paul Butler 4 Students attempt to address school board (removed) 5 new long article looking back on controversy 6 Summary style 7 General issues with the article 8 Alan Bean information

[edit] Archive

I've archived the discussions per previous comments and because there is very little discussion right now. We seem in a lull which may end as the remaining Five come to court. Seemed a good time to do it. And the page was 300K long . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Article on Bean's involvment

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

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

[edit] Richard Ford and Paul Butler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Students attempt to address school board (removed)

I took the liberty of removing this section:

On September 10, 2006, black students attempted to address the school board concerning the recent events but were refused because the board was of the opinion that the noose incident had been adequately resolved.

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

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

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

[edit] new long article looking back on controversy

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Summary style

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

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

[edit] General issues with the article

The following paragraph seems repetitive:

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

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

[edit] Alan Bean information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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