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.
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]
