![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This article describes the facts of the case as reported by the sources and the campaign for pardons, and that's all you can find short of doing primary research. The only "non neutral" thing here is the attempt by 64.38.197.208 to manufacture a controversy who doesn't exist anywhere else. 82.52.181.229 ( talk) 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The tag should be removed unless someone can find any source which has a differing point of view. If all sources say one thing, then that is all the article can say, what more can we have? Those objecting to the article should find alternative sources of opinion; if they cannot find any, then there is no need to have a discussion. The only facts that we have are that the prosecution and judge believed these women guilty of a crime and sentenced them (for whatever reason) to life imprisonment and that many other people believe this to be an injustice. Unless there are other view points out there, that's really all we can report on. I would therefore say that unless such sources are found, the article is neutral and non-biased. -- Hibernian ( talk) 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Article reads pretty biased to me so the tag is a probably good idea. In comparison the Mumia Abu-Jamal case shows the loudest voices aren't necessarily the majority opinion. Just because some big city journalists write stories sympathetic to a cause doesn't make it a majority opinion. These women afterall were convicted by a jury of their peers and that conviction was upheld on appeal. None of the news stories for this article are from Mississippi and they may have a different view of this case. 208.83.61.206 ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This story is very slanted. It sounds like it was written by the ladies appeals lawyer. Problems I see with one read:
1) They were convicted of armed robbery, much more serious than robbery. Not even mentioning the armed robbery conviction soft peddles what really happened.
2) Story makes a big deal right at the start that no one was hurt. That's true for nearly all armed robberies. This is the kind of thing defense lawyers make a big deal about to tug at jury emotions.
3) Amount of stolen money trivialized right at the start. The firearm made this a serious offense not the amount of money stolen. In many armed robberies the perps end up with nothing because their crime is stopped in progress. Another reason this sounds like a defense lawyer sob story to appeal to jury.
4) The one lady has poor health. That is an emotional matter that had no bearing on their conviction. Lots of convicted criminals have health problems. More sob story meant to tug at heartstrings..
5) All the mention about their lawyer being disbarred in an unrelated case. So what? Maybe he was spending too much time on the Scott case and that's why he got into trouble. Again sounds like a defense lawyer sob story.
6) Links to sites sympathetic to the convicted criminals. Link to their appeals brief. No link to the prosuctor's brief.
7) Big city editorials written by people with no involvement in the case given lots of play in this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.218.159 ( talk) 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been a law enforcement officer for 20+ years and have seen plenty of cases where convicted criminals are retried in the big city press with slanted news stories telling only one side of the case to tug at bystander's heart strings. The way this story here is written about the Scott sisters sounds like exactly the same thing IMHO.
Addressing a few points above:
1) I would probably agree with this. The only caveat might be that the sisters were apparently lured the individuals to the area, and did not engage in the robbery otherwise. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that's still considered armed robbery.
2) I agree that this was slanted. Since you've last seen the article, I reformatted the lead slightly. Now, it says that many believe that the sisters were dealt to harsh a sentence for that reason. It now reads like a fact where it once read as an appeal.
3) Again, this has been changed. It now says the amount stolen, noting later that critics of the sentence believe this was a trivial amount.
4) Agreed. I will change this.
5) I agree that this seems like an unrelated comment, but I'm not sure enough to remove it altogether.
6) I agree with this statement.
7) I don't quite understand how the fact that the editorials are published by "big city" periodicals has any relation to the neutrality. It seems as though any editorial could definitely be considered questionable as a source of unbiased coverage. I do agree, however, that more reliable news sources should be added for the straight facts of the article, and the opinion pieces should be used only to verify the opinion. For instance, if the article says "XYZ believes that ABC is not guilty", then the reference should be the opinion piece in which XYZ declares ABC to be not guilty, but if it says "ABC was convicted of 123", the reference should probably be a news story rather than an op-ed.
A note to the primary author: Would you object to moving the page from "The Scott Sisters" to "Scott sisters"? Generally, "the" would not added unless it was the title or a book or something, and I don't think that "sisters" is considered a proper noun in this context.- RHM22 ( talk) 19:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a question. Were either of the sisters armed? Or just some of the male accomplices from the following car? I understand totally that in some jurisdictions playing any part in an armed robbery makes you an armed robber (seems reasonable), but if the people that actually carried the weapons took plea bargains and combined with the fact that they were teenagers... well, actually, there's another thing I'd love to know ... how long were their teenage accomplices sentenced for? Can anyone using primary sources indicate what reason the police or prosecutors gave for letting the three teenagers plea and throwing the book at the sisters? Have the police or prosecutors ever stated why they chose that?
Lots of people that read the article will be unfamiliar with typical/normal sentences for certain types of crimes in different jurisdictions. You want others to understand why they are in jail for the rest of their lives, show context. Are most first time armed robbers in Mississippi given life sentences? What conditions or contexts result in armed robbers not receiving life sentences? We can't do original research here, but I hope you can find something in amongst other Mississippi news articles about armed robberies. CraigWyllie ( talk) 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The sisters are convicted felons. That's a fact as a matter of law. Removing facts like that from the article are what makes it read biased and subjective. There's nothing in BLP about distorting facts to make things sound more pleasant to one side. 208.83.61.202 ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved the page to "Scott sisters" to comply with the MOS. All links to "The Scott Sisters" will be automatically redirected to the new page.- RHM22 ( talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
A sentence was added: "The sisters have remained in prison since their conviction." That's true for most criminals, particularly when they lose multiple appeals. While factually correct, it's trivial and contributes nothing to the article. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 03:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I re-read the various comments here and previous versions of the article. The original article seemed to be almost entirely about the sisters' cause celebre than the underlying case itself. I think that was the source of many problems because focusing only on the cause celebre results in a very one-sided story, as would be true for nearly any controversial case. In a factual assessment of the whole matter, the underlying case history and appeals cannot be ignored or subordinated to the cause celebre. Someone mentioned Mumia Abu-Jamal, and I think that's an important point because the cause celebre can drown out consideration of the criminal case. The Wikipedia article on Mumia Abu-Jamal might be a good reference for further study in balancing both the legal issues and the cause celebre. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Did any of the courts denying appeals issue an opinion? If not, can we at least cite to the state's brief? For example, the proponents of clemency cite the fact that very little money was taken, but that's hardly a relevant fact in sentencing for armed robbery--it's almost worse that a criminal would put a victim's life at risk over so little. It's OR if my opinion is in there, but I can't be the first person who thought of it. THF ( talk) 03:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Today's Washington Post had an article that should provide a lead sentence or two for this section, as well as give a sense about how to neutrally phrase matters in the lead. THF ( talk) 03:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
In short, Mississippi Governor has suspended their sentence. Since I'm not English-native and I wouldn't want to just cite [ the article], I'd like to ask someone to update the page.-- 82.143.163.12 ( talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Before the suspension of sentence and the sisters' release, arguably the various organizations and columnists calling advocating for the sisters was a more important part of the story. Now that they've been released, however, the prominence in the lead is unnecessary and slants the piece in one POV. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be "a summary of [an article's] most important aspects." Laundry listing all the advocates for the sisters is now not a "most important aspect" and skews the reader to the advocates' POV before reading key issues in the case. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Some sources say the sisters are on parole for the rest of their lives, other sources say probation. In the United States, probation is given to someone being punished but not being sent to prison, typically first offenders. Conversely, when someone is released early from prison, one is on parole. In that the sisters were released from incarceration, they would be on parole. If you read the two articles here on Wikipedia about parole versus probation, that distinction is clear. Hence, the sources stating the sisters are on probation appear to be in error. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 12:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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:
| ![]() |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
This article describes the facts of the case as reported by the sources and the campaign for pardons, and that's all you can find short of doing primary research. The only "non neutral" thing here is the attempt by 64.38.197.208 to manufacture a controversy who doesn't exist anywhere else. 82.52.181.229 ( talk) 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The tag should be removed unless someone can find any source which has a differing point of view. If all sources say one thing, then that is all the article can say, what more can we have? Those objecting to the article should find alternative sources of opinion; if they cannot find any, then there is no need to have a discussion. The only facts that we have are that the prosecution and judge believed these women guilty of a crime and sentenced them (for whatever reason) to life imprisonment and that many other people believe this to be an injustice. Unless there are other view points out there, that's really all we can report on. I would therefore say that unless such sources are found, the article is neutral and non-biased. -- Hibernian ( talk) 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Article reads pretty biased to me so the tag is a probably good idea. In comparison the Mumia Abu-Jamal case shows the loudest voices aren't necessarily the majority opinion. Just because some big city journalists write stories sympathetic to a cause doesn't make it a majority opinion. These women afterall were convicted by a jury of their peers and that conviction was upheld on appeal. None of the news stories for this article are from Mississippi and they may have a different view of this case. 208.83.61.206 ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This story is very slanted. It sounds like it was written by the ladies appeals lawyer. Problems I see with one read:
1) They were convicted of armed robbery, much more serious than robbery. Not even mentioning the armed robbery conviction soft peddles what really happened.
2) Story makes a big deal right at the start that no one was hurt. That's true for nearly all armed robberies. This is the kind of thing defense lawyers make a big deal about to tug at jury emotions.
3) Amount of stolen money trivialized right at the start. The firearm made this a serious offense not the amount of money stolen. In many armed robberies the perps end up with nothing because their crime is stopped in progress. Another reason this sounds like a defense lawyer sob story to appeal to jury.
4) The one lady has poor health. That is an emotional matter that had no bearing on their conviction. Lots of convicted criminals have health problems. More sob story meant to tug at heartstrings..
5) All the mention about their lawyer being disbarred in an unrelated case. So what? Maybe he was spending too much time on the Scott case and that's why he got into trouble. Again sounds like a defense lawyer sob story.
6) Links to sites sympathetic to the convicted criminals. Link to their appeals brief. No link to the prosuctor's brief.
7) Big city editorials written by people with no involvement in the case given lots of play in this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.218.159 ( talk) 18:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been a law enforcement officer for 20+ years and have seen plenty of cases where convicted criminals are retried in the big city press with slanted news stories telling only one side of the case to tug at bystander's heart strings. The way this story here is written about the Scott sisters sounds like exactly the same thing IMHO.
Addressing a few points above:
1) I would probably agree with this. The only caveat might be that the sisters were apparently lured the individuals to the area, and did not engage in the robbery otherwise. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that's still considered armed robbery.
2) I agree that this was slanted. Since you've last seen the article, I reformatted the lead slightly. Now, it says that many believe that the sisters were dealt to harsh a sentence for that reason. It now reads like a fact where it once read as an appeal.
3) Again, this has been changed. It now says the amount stolen, noting later that critics of the sentence believe this was a trivial amount.
4) Agreed. I will change this.
5) I agree that this seems like an unrelated comment, but I'm not sure enough to remove it altogether.
6) I agree with this statement.
7) I don't quite understand how the fact that the editorials are published by "big city" periodicals has any relation to the neutrality. It seems as though any editorial could definitely be considered questionable as a source of unbiased coverage. I do agree, however, that more reliable news sources should be added for the straight facts of the article, and the opinion pieces should be used only to verify the opinion. For instance, if the article says "XYZ believes that ABC is not guilty", then the reference should be the opinion piece in which XYZ declares ABC to be not guilty, but if it says "ABC was convicted of 123", the reference should probably be a news story rather than an op-ed.
A note to the primary author: Would you object to moving the page from "The Scott Sisters" to "Scott sisters"? Generally, "the" would not added unless it was the title or a book or something, and I don't think that "sisters" is considered a proper noun in this context.- RHM22 ( talk) 19:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a question. Were either of the sisters armed? Or just some of the male accomplices from the following car? I understand totally that in some jurisdictions playing any part in an armed robbery makes you an armed robber (seems reasonable), but if the people that actually carried the weapons took plea bargains and combined with the fact that they were teenagers... well, actually, there's another thing I'd love to know ... how long were their teenage accomplices sentenced for? Can anyone using primary sources indicate what reason the police or prosecutors gave for letting the three teenagers plea and throwing the book at the sisters? Have the police or prosecutors ever stated why they chose that?
Lots of people that read the article will be unfamiliar with typical/normal sentences for certain types of crimes in different jurisdictions. You want others to understand why they are in jail for the rest of their lives, show context. Are most first time armed robbers in Mississippi given life sentences? What conditions or contexts result in armed robbers not receiving life sentences? We can't do original research here, but I hope you can find something in amongst other Mississippi news articles about armed robberies. CraigWyllie ( talk) 23:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The sisters are convicted felons. That's a fact as a matter of law. Removing facts like that from the article are what makes it read biased and subjective. There's nothing in BLP about distorting facts to make things sound more pleasant to one side. 208.83.61.202 ( talk) 20:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved the page to "Scott sisters" to comply with the MOS. All links to "The Scott Sisters" will be automatically redirected to the new page.- RHM22 ( talk) 20:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
A sentence was added: "The sisters have remained in prison since their conviction." That's true for most criminals, particularly when they lose multiple appeals. While factually correct, it's trivial and contributes nothing to the article. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 03:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I re-read the various comments here and previous versions of the article. The original article seemed to be almost entirely about the sisters' cause celebre than the underlying case itself. I think that was the source of many problems because focusing only on the cause celebre results in a very one-sided story, as would be true for nearly any controversial case. In a factual assessment of the whole matter, the underlying case history and appeals cannot be ignored or subordinated to the cause celebre. Someone mentioned Mumia Abu-Jamal, and I think that's an important point because the cause celebre can drown out consideration of the criminal case. The Wikipedia article on Mumia Abu-Jamal might be a good reference for further study in balancing both the legal issues and the cause celebre. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Did any of the courts denying appeals issue an opinion? If not, can we at least cite to the state's brief? For example, the proponents of clemency cite the fact that very little money was taken, but that's hardly a relevant fact in sentencing for armed robbery--it's almost worse that a criminal would put a victim's life at risk over so little. It's OR if my opinion is in there, but I can't be the first person who thought of it. THF ( talk) 03:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Today's Washington Post had an article that should provide a lead sentence or two for this section, as well as give a sense about how to neutrally phrase matters in the lead. THF ( talk) 03:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
In short, Mississippi Governor has suspended their sentence. Since I'm not English-native and I wouldn't want to just cite [ the article], I'd like to ask someone to update the page.-- 82.143.163.12 ( talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Before the suspension of sentence and the sisters' release, arguably the various organizations and columnists calling advocating for the sisters was a more important part of the story. Now that they've been released, however, the prominence in the lead is unnecessary and slants the piece in one POV. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be "a summary of [an article's] most important aspects." Laundry listing all the advocates for the sisters is now not a "most important aspect" and skews the reader to the advocates' POV before reading key issues in the case. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 17:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Some sources say the sisters are on parole for the rest of their lives, other sources say probation. In the United States, probation is given to someone being punished but not being sent to prison, typically first offenders. Conversely, when someone is released early from prison, one is on parole. In that the sisters were released from incarceration, they would be on parole. If you read the two articles here on Wikipedia about parole versus probation, that distinction is clear. Hence, the sources stating the sisters are on probation appear to be in error. 71.175.4.207 ( talk) 12:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)