From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Web 1.1 YouTube 1.2 Myspace pics 1.3 Online Activity 2 Other Media 2.1 NPR quote with regards to Justin Barker "bragging" 2.2 IMPORTANT Jena times 2.3 Jena Times conflict 2.4 Columnists 2.5 News coverage 2.6 Under Newsreporting

[edit] Web

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. ^[1]

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)

Is there any non-circumstantial evidence supporting the obvious, though probably unprovable, association between the money in this picture and the money people have supposedly sent directlt to his family? Is there any evidence that shows this picture wasn't taken BEFORE the jena 6 incident? Unfortunately, bling bling-ing is a commonly encouraged public act of social superiority among both young black AND white youths, encouraged by our pop-culture. It is only natural that he would want to appear as rich and cool as puffy, or whoever. In my experience both white AND black youths will fake it (cubic Z jewelry, flashy clothes, etc) no matter how poor they are. Furthermore, is there any evidence to suggest that he was spending this money on anything but his defense? It is only natural for kids to try to present themselves as socially/economically much more successful than they really are, to try to impress young ladies on what amounts to dating sites like Myspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.31.167 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The source does not state the $ was real, nor does it state the money was sent to him, nor does it, in fact, state anything but the Barkers' speculation that he's "making money off the case." One source is insufficient for this type of allegation, IMO: Including this type of content with only one source is questionable; two are better, and MySpace isn't a source. If it is included it should be clear that it is allegations by Justin Barker not information from any other source. The reporter quotes Justin, and that is the only place where the image and the speculation are tied together, or indeed where the speculation is made at all so far as I can tell. We must be very careful in this article not to conflate what one of the parties said in an interview, and what a reporter stated as part of a story. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see where it goes. It isn't in the article now. If it is brought up by another RS, then let us see how it is treated. If Bell is convicted (or if the adult conviction is reinstated) and the prosecutor waves the photos at his sentencing then of course we'd have to put it back in. Play it by ear, I say.--Wehwalt 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The pics are of Bailey, not Bell.Ophois 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online Activity

The case of the Jena 6 has highlighted a new dimension to the world of public debate, namely online activism. As evidence by the increasing popularity of websites such as Facebook, Youtube, Wiki and others, more and more people are researching topics online and sharing their opinions.

This new forum has increased peoples ability to get much more factual information where people do not need to rely on the mainstream media to provide biased reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peskytruth (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Online activism has been an important aspect of this case. The mainstream media, contrary to what many right-wingers believe, actually ignored this case for months. Why don't you jump in and start the Online Activism section of the article and we'll see where we can go from there? Qworty 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just made a section on internet and Blogs that talks about this. There is a lot of great information out there about how the word spread so fast before mainstream media picked up this story. futurebird 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had trouble adding to the section on internet blogs etc.. any thoughts? It is an important aspect of this case and I strongly believe that without this level of internet discussion this case would not be a topic of discussion around the world. Mainstream media are paying attention because they have been forced to catch up. Peskytruth 06:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why there should be any trouble with this new section it's well sourced. [1]. futurebird 12:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Media

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Jena Times conflict

I see that the Jena Times part of the assembly keeps getting reverted. However, the article pretty much already says what is mentioned in the Jena Times article. It's only missing the quote "Don't even go there".

The Jena Times article also has some info about the schoolboard address that can be worked into our article. Ophois 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Qworty seems dead set on saying the Jena Times should not be used. However, it was already being used in the article, and is prima facie a reliable source under WP:RS. I'm not sure what his/her logic is for saying it is not, other than it is racist and all that, which I haven't seen any citations to back up.--Wehwalt 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jena Times is a racist Jim Crow small-town Southern paper with an agenda of blaming ALL of the race problems in that town on African Americans. Go read their "timeline" and see for yourself. Whites are guilty of nothing in that rendition--everything is the fault of the blacks, even the black churches. In no way does that paper constitute a reliable source. Everything it says now has to be considered tainted. It's a mouth-piece of the white power structure in that town. The WP article as it stands already doesn't agree with many of the assertions in the paper. Qworty 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some reliable sources that say that the Jena Times is racist, Jim Crow, and has an agenda of blaming all of the race problems in that town on African Americans. I'll concede they are Southern and small time, but that is not an offense. I'd like to hear from other editors on whether the deleted paragraph should be restored.--Wehwalt 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The paper editorializes in the "news story" timeline to the following underlying assertions:

1) Hanging nooses, which is actually the moral and legal equivalent of painting a swastika on a synagogue, is just a "prank"

2) Every single racial incident in the town is the legal and criminal fault of African Americans; whites are never guilty

3) There is no racism in Jena; it is not a "social" problem

4) The real problem is uppity blacks causing trouble, outsiders interfering, and the media reporting on what's happened--welcome to Jim Crow journalism, folks. Qworty 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Qworty. If you look at the timeline, they do omit things against the whites (such as the shotgun and the pen statement). As I've said before, the part that keeps getting reverted is already basically said in the article we have. However, the other stuff that we already have taken from the Jena Times should stay, as it's nothing big that's disputed. Ophois 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The section Wehwalt and I are disputing is indeed redundant, and should be removed on that basis. However, the greater problem is with the Jena Times as a source. Qworty 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, what you are doing is judging whether a publication is a RS based on what you like or don't like. And even what you write isn't accurate, the Times reported on the white kid who was placed on probation for battery. The only conviction we have so far, in fact.--Wehwalt 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I personally like or don't like. That timeline would be racist if I had never been born. So leave me out of it. The fact is it's a racist source and therefore a tainted one. So what if they mention one white kid who was on probation? Be honest with yourself and look at the prejudice behind the entire timeline article. Don't just nitpick one little point in order to find and use a source that supports your position that the real problem is blacks complaining about "nothing," outsiders interfering, and the larger media reporting on what's happened. Qworty 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not my position. I don't have a position on this. You are saying, though, that what is prima facie a reliable source is racist. If you want to disqualify a publication, you should go out and find RS that say they are racist. Ophois, they do report on the shotgun incident, though they do not go into the details (the he said she said sort of thing), they merely report on the arrest.--Wehwalt 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Their report on the shotgun incident is completely racist. They report only the official white power structure version of events. This WP article we're working on contains balance in describing the various interpretations of this incident while the source you are citing does not. Therefore, it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, if by your own admission their position is not the same as yours, then it boggles the mind why you would insist so strenously that the paper be used as a source. Qworty 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have a position. I want the reader to have full information. But I think it is significant that there are so many differing reportings. That is why, in the edit you deleted, I mention that it is Jena Times reporting. The varying accounts are a part of the story. This story is Roshomonesque, almost every issue is seen from multiple perspectives, and that is what I am trying to make clear to the reader. If I have a position, it is to tell the reader that there are many positions, and leave the rest to him to decide which is right.--Wehwalt 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If that's what you're interested in doing, I'm sure there are plenty of places on the Internet where you could do that. This article doesn't exist because you think there's a "Roshomonesque" story going on here. This article exists because of the unequal ways African Americans are treated by the police and justice systems in Jena and, by extension, throughout the U.S. That's the story here. If it weren't for that story, you would've never heard of Jena and there wouldn't be any article here on WP to argue about. You are pushing POV if you want to insert into this article your personal view that it's about anything else. I think there've been a lot of people commenting on this discussion page, and in some instances making edits to the article, who have no idea what the article is about.Qworty 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Go read about the Three Pillars of Wikipedia. We are here to report fact, not advocate as you propose. I worked on the Duke lacrosse article while other editors first wanted to crucify the players, and later the D.A. We report neutrally here. How this case came to public attention is not the point. We're here so that if members of the public want the facts (i.e., info about the kid asking the school official if he could sit under the tree, not our opinion that he's the second coming of Rosa Parks or Emmitt Till) they can find it. They can go elsewhere for advocacy.--Wehwalt 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't report accurately on the facts if you're using an unreliable source like the Jena Times, one that has a demonstrably racist white power structure agenda. If you insist on unquestioningly using such a source, you call into question your own NPOV. As far as advocacy goes, this is an article about advocacy. That's the story here. Go read the WP article about Rosa Parks and her experiences. The whole thing reads like "advocacy." Are you in favor of inserting into that article some contemporaneous quotes from Jim Crow racist Southern newspapers? If not, then there's no reason to insert them here. In any case, time will tell with all of this. Donald Washington isn't going to last long in that intro paragraph, for instance. Qworty 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Though the timeline has missing facts, I don't think that there are any lies. I don't see why it shouldn't be a RS for other stuff like the lockdown.Ophois 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why it shouldn't be a RS for the deleted matter as well . . . It is at least as reliable, probably more so, than the Dallas paper we wove into the article this morning while holding our noses.--Wehwalt 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could be a RS for the deleted stuff, but we already had that in the article anyways. What I meant in my previous post was that it shouldn't be disputed for stuff like the lockdown.Ophois 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, though I see what you're saying, you're forgetting (or not mentioning) the fact that most of the sources we used for this article were biased towards the black students.Ophois 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The rhetorical assumption behind what you're saying is the falsely dichotomous one that there are "two sides" here, black students versus white students. That's an oversimplification, and not just rhetorically in terms of "sides," but rhetorically in terms of what the real dispute is about in the case of the "Jena 6." This is not a dispute between white students and black students that we must report on in a tit-for-tat "balanced" manner, one point for each "side." As far as this is a dispute at all, it's a dispute over whether or not African Americans are discriminated against by the police and justice system in Jena and, by extension, in other parts of the country. And that is a dispute that has already been resolved, as we now know that in the U.S. black males are three to four times more likely than white males to go to jail for exactly similar crimes. So there is no real dispute as to the facts regarding this article. Now it's our responsibility to report the facts, not just repeat the nitpicking of racists who want to make sure every possible "pro-white" position is inserted into the article.Qworty 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly do you know what is fact and what is not? Were you there to witness all of these events? Over half the stuff in this article has had to change in the past month because people weren't reporting the facts correctly and were playing things down. Ophois 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we want to create a reductive argument here, as doing so drops it to the level of absurdity pretty quickly. Obviously, you weren't in Jena either. Yet we're both going to sit here editing the article, aren't we? To be sure, everybody editing this thing has an opinion, not just me. Finally, the perspectives of any WP editor who may have been in Jena would very quickly be reverted as original research. Qworty 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm made rather curious by one thing: Qworty, exactly who are the racists who are nitpicking to make sure every possible "pro-white position is inserted into the article? Please be specific.--Wehwalt 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, how the heck should I know? We've got hundreds and possibly thousands of edits here. I'm not going to go stalking through all of these edit histories and then go to the highly dubious trouble of picking fights that are off-topic with reference to the purposes of this discussion page. I'm just trying to make sure the danged article doesn't become a mirror site for the racist Jena Times. But of course racists exist. You can't argue that racism exists without arguing that racists exist. And they're not just in the KKK or in the Nationalist Movement or any of those other organizations that serve as scapegoats for mainstream America's racism. Qworty 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast, Qworty. An overwhelming majority of the edits, just glancing back through the history pages last few days, have been done by you, me, and Ophois. And you referred to a plural, "racists", meaning more than one, who want to make sure pro-white positions are inserted in the article. Please be more careful in what you write. If I pick up even an implication that I am a racist, or anything else I would resent, I will seek out administrators and work to have you banned. Edit as you like, but watch your fingers when it comes to implications about fellow editors. That's no attack; that is fair warning.--Wehwalt 22:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're getting agitated over the possibility that I might call you a racist in the future or write "anything else I would resent"? On the first point, I have not called you a racist and have no intention of doing so; on the second point, well . . . I have no idea what that means. I assume good faith with you and I assume that you assume good faith with me and I assume that we all assume that we can all assume good faith in perpetuity, etc. There is no need for you to attempt to personalize any of it. Between us, there's been only one personal attack--on me by you two days ago--and I've been more than happy to ignore it, as you know, and have no intention of "reporting" you for it--it would be danged silly. All of this personal stuff is silly and has nothing to do with the editing of the article. I'm not here for a personal flame war and you shouldn't be either. Now I suggest that we both delete these last two posts and have something to eat. What do you say, my good friend? Qworty 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll let the discussion stand and speak for itself.--Wehwalt 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, all right, but neither of us should be surprised if somebody else comes along and wants to scrub it off as off-topic. Apart from that, the WP ethos is that editors should back off when potentially personal conflicts show the possibility of escalating or getting out of control. I don't think we got anywhere near that point, but I'd just as soon turn down the pilot light at this juncture, no matter how small it might be. Qworty 23:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'll let it stand and speak for itself.--Wehwalt 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to what a goshawful lousy source The Jena Times is, we can't have the contradiction that the nooses came down immediately at 7:15, according to the paper's timeline, and yet one of the teachers saw students playing extensively with them. This contradiction needs to be addressed in the article. You see, this is what happens when you use tainted sources like the Jena paper. Qworty 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All we have to say is what we say elsewhere in the article, that accounts differ. Not everything is known with crystal clarity. It's like with the shotgun incident, there were at least two different accounts. In the case of the nooses, the teacher said one thing, the Times another. We don't know which is right, so we include what we can and see what happens from there. More than likely the Times is right, it is hard to imagine the nooses remaining up very long once staff got there, but we can't judge this.--Wehwalt 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the Jena Times timeline, it says that some students saw the nooses. It doesn't contradict the teacher.Ophois 01:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

--- Hi! I'm here as a third opinion. Normally a local newspaper would be a great source, but in this case, due to the nature of the incident, I don't think that the Jenna Times can be considered an objective source. Information from the Jenna Times should be presented alongside criticism for the way that they have covered the events.

If at all possible, another source should be used for parts of the article that should not represent opinions. (Such as timelines)

What I'm saying is that information from the paper can be used but it must be framed properly. "According to the local newspaper... etc." "This paper has been criticized for ______ by sos-and-so."

Something along those lines. Hope this helps. futurebird 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline seems to be more of an editorial trying to prove that everything that has happened is the result of a "joke" that got blown out of proportion. That seems fairly implausible. However, it is what some people think. futurebird 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Qworty, in all of this time you've been making such an uproar and accusing everyone of being racist, have you even bothered to look at what facts are cited from the Jena Times? 1) The nooses were removed at 7:15 2) There was a lockdown after there was a report of someone bringing a gun to school 3) There were some blacks at the Fair Barn party (which we already know is true) 4) They were charged with 2nd-degree murder. Ophois 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Qworty is making this discussion difficult with their belligerent attitude and broad accusations of racism toward WP editors, but I am grateful that they were so insistent about telling the rest of us to read the Jena Times timeline. I finally did so, and I agree with Qworty and futurebird: Jena Times appears to be something quite different from what I think of as a newspaper, and from what I think WP:RS means by "newspaper". All papers must struggle with the line between reporting and editorializing, but it doesn't seem like the Jena Times is even trying. Their reporting is blatantly biased against the Jena Six, against the idea that racism might be a problem in Jena, and probably against black people in general. They frequently add "it should be noted that..." sentences that read like they came from a bad WP article. They can't even use the phrase "hate crime" without putting "hate" in scare quotes. How much room for case-by-case judgment is allowed by WP:RS when it comes to newspapers? I'm not prepared to say right now, but if any leeway is allowed I suggest we use it to exclude the Jena Times, at least wherever we have a half-decent alternative. --Allen 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that another source should be found for the info. However, as I said before, what is being cited from it are minor facts that aren't disputed or anything. Ophois 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

By "not disputed", do you mean other sources agree, or that no one has contradicted it? If the former, I'd say let's use the other sources; if the latter, I'd say let's remove the info. --Allen 11:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When I get the chance, I'll try and redo the sources for some of the above. However, the Jena Times is the only source for what caused the lockdown (every other news source just says fights occurred and the school was put on lockdown the next time, not giving a reason why).Ophois 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columnists

I removed part of the columnists section because those facts have appeared in news stories (which is why we have them in the article). If we want to mention facts left out, then we need a source that points out that stuff, not just columnists who give facts. There should be a lot of links throughout the discussion page for the Controversy section that we were going to make. Ophois 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I think we are seeing more and more columns commenting on how the packaged story differs from the reality.--Wehwalt 20:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News coverage

I've started a section on news coverage. Please feel free to add a representative sample of opinion. As everyone has pointed out, the reaction to this case is the real story, not the attack itself. We've been ignoring the forest (albeit, the forest has been cut down for newspapers) for the trees (ditto). Let's see where this goes. Let us stick to highlights, or, if you don't agree, lowlights.--Wehwalt 11:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Put back in what the African American Jena High School employee said about the justice system in that town. Gee, he only works at the school and lives in the town, unlike you. Qworty 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in the article.Ophois 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a "man on the street" opinion, near as I can tell. How is it authoritative in any way? The guy's only qualifications for the quote are that he is a) black and b) lives in Jena. Bring in ten more people, they will probably have ten opinions, all differing from this guy's and each other.

Quorty is a little quick to delete the news coverage section. I've reverted. Let's do edits retail, rather than wholesale deletions, and let's discuss.--Wehwalt 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under Newsreporting

Shouldn't "or that the jury was all-white because none of those summoned who showed up were black" by changed to something more like "or that the jury was all-white because none of the african americans summoned for jury duty that day showed up to serve" because wasn't it verified that several african americans were part of the jury selection summons sent out that day? The way it currently is written it leaves some confussion if any blacks were summoned at all in the process, and I thought that issue was resovled, that summons HAD been sent to blacks, it's just none bothered to show up on the day of jury selection. If I'm wrong and this wasn't resolved in the media earlier, ignore this. And if no blacks were even part of the jury summoning process at all, even in the mailings, shouldn't that then be added (since given the population demographics that would be odd). Either way, it seems like it would be relevant to one side or the other.

Crap... Sorry for deleting your reply Ophois... I was trying to correct a typo and something else and accidently removed your response. If I knew how to put it back I would but I only know how to screw wiki up not fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.188.221 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. It's been fixed. Ophois 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)