::I just read the article and was immediately struck by the one-sided tone. I agree with the original point that it sounds like a polemic fundraising appeal. Most of the media sources on this are on the left side of the political perspective. There's obviously more to this story. [[Special:Contributions/71.175.4.207|71.175.4.207]] ([[User talk:71.175.4.207|talk]]) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
::I just read the article and was immediately struck by the one-sided tone. I agree with the original point that it sounds like a polemic fundraising appeal. Most of the media sources on this are on the left side of the political perspective. There's obviously more to this story. [[Special:Contributions/71.175.4.207|71.175.4.207]] ([[User talk:71.175.4.207|talk]]) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Can anyone find a source that presents another side to the story? Two editors, myself and Hermajesty21, have yet to come up with the other perspective. Otherwise, the article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources, and the tag should be removed. Thanks, [[User:CordeliaNaismith|CordeliaNaismith]] ([[User talk:CordeliaNaismith|talk]]) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Can anyone find a source that presents another side to the story? Two editors, myself and Hermajesty21, have yet to come up with the other perspective. Otherwise, the article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources, and the tag should be removed. Thanks, [[User:CordeliaNaismith|CordeliaNaismith]] ([[User talk:CordeliaNaismith|talk]]) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
::::You claim "otherwise, the article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources." ''That is a fallacy.'' Because someone can't find something with a two-minute Google search does not magically render your article objective. You keep rushing to remove the tag than for no other reason than the article is linked on the front page. The linking is irrelevant. In fact, it's good both the tag and the link are there because additional people might step in and assist.[[Special:Contributions/64.38.197.224|64.38.197.224]] ([[User talk:64.38.197.224|talk]]) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from Scott sisters appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 December 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Scott Sisters of Mississippi are serving life sentences for their alleged involvement in a robbery in which $11 was stolen and no one was injured, although they had no previous criminal records?
With an obvious bias and slant in favor of the subjects, this article reads like a fundraising appeal, not a neutral, non-biased encyclopedia article. While their point of view certainly should be presented, it should not dominate nor represent the entirety of the subject. They were convicted and that conviction was affirmed on appeal[1], so obviously there is another point of view on this matter from the law enforcement and prosecutorial perspective. Unless and until the "other side" of this matter is presented, this article should be tagged with a POV flag. 64.38.197.204 (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources. Are there reliable sources that bring other views to the case? I didn't find any. I'll link to the appeal document from the external links section of the article. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove a POV tag until the problem is remedied; that is in contradiction of Wikipedia policy. See the procedures on the NPOV dispute page. As well, your claim "the article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources" is unsubstantiated. Simply because you didn't find any other perspectives doesn't mean they don't exist.64.38.197.208 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I, personally, do or don't find is irrelevant. The article as it is written now is one-sided and lacks objectivity. Simply relying on media coverage is not an objective nor exhaustive review of a matter. There are many sources that are not found via Google. Have you done a Lexis search, for example, and examined the prosecutor's pleadings in the case? 64.38.197.208 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prosecutor's pleadings on the case are a primary source. Actually I did read much of the case transcript, which gave me pretty much the same impression as the news articles, but please see WP:OR. The article should reflect the balance of opinion in secondary sources. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleadings and transcripts are not the same thing. Did you read the state's brief in the appeal? As well, directly quoting an appellate brief or a press release from the prosecutor would not be original research. What has the law enforcement press said about this case? 64.38.197.208 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original poster, I found the article interesting but am left wondering what the other side of the story is. Are there no quotes available from people opposing the sisters' release?--Hermajesty21 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't found any quotes from anyone opposing...even the prosecutor who initially tried the case thinks that it would be appropriate for the sentences to be commuted, apparently. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, per my note above, because you haven't found something doesn't render the article magically objective. Cases of this magnitude are tried by more than one prosecutor, and would have been appealed by a different set of attorneys. Other points of view exist. Until they're added to the article, the POV issue is a serious problem. Wikipedia is not an advocacy site; it's an encyclopedia. 64.38.197.208 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a google too, i haven't managed to find any yet! I see your point Cordelia. But it is important that we try to find dissenting voices, and then allow readers to make up their own minds.--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but at the same time, the article has to reflect the balance of reliable sources, so if this is what the sources say, than the article should reflect that. Any objections to removing the POV tag? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arg, I don't know. The article as it stands doesn't appear balanced, but then when you look into it further, nor does the rest of the internet! The New York Times says "No explanation has ever emerged as to why Jamie and Gladys Scott were treated so severely."link which makes me doubt whether we'll be able to find one. 64.38..... or anyone else, what do you think?--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object. Cordelia, there are many sources you have not consulted -- the proscutor's pleadings, the appellate pleadings, etc. You haven't done a Lexis search. Googling something is not exhaustive research. As well, you could strip out the subjective language and attribute it to the sources, not include it in the article as ironclad fact. You are trying to promote an article you wrote -- you are not an objective party in this matter. 64.38.197.208 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The case documents are primary sources, so any analysis of them would be original research. From what I've read of the case transcript, the primary sources seem consonant with the coverage of the case in the news, but it's actually not relevant for writing the article what the primary sources say, since this is considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in general, attributing subjective language to sources is a good idea, any particular phrases you had in mind? I'd like to resolve this quickly since it seems unfortunate to have an article tagged while it is linked from the main page, if there are no concrete suggestions for improving it. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article and was immediately struck by the one-sided tone. I agree with the original point that it sounds like a polemic fundraising appeal. Most of the media sources on this are on the left side of the political perspective. There's obviously more to this story. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone find a source that presents another side to the story? Two editors, myself and Hermajesty21, have yet to come up with the other perspective. Otherwise, the article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources, and the tag should be removed. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You claim "otherwise, the article reflects the balance of opinion in reliable sources." That is a fallacy. Because someone can't find something with a two-minute Google search does not magically render your article objective. You keep rushing to remove the tag than for no other reason than the article is linked on the front page. The linking is irrelevant. In fact, it's good both the tag and the link are there because additional people might step in and assist.64.38.197.224 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
