Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

POV problems

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]
I've looked pretty thoroughly at all of the news articles related to this case. Can you find any other perspectives? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:59, 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]
I've now run a Lexis-Nexis search, by the way, and found nothing that I did not have before. Do you have any sources you'd like to add or other suggestions to improve this article? CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you did a thorough Nexis search, you should have seen both the state's appellate brief and the amicus briefs against the sisters. Right there you have sources you're not using. 64.38.197.224 (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are primary sources, so it would be original research to incorporate these directly into the article. If you feel it would improve the article, please do add a link to these sources in the external links section. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the state's pleadings, which are part of the official proceedings, is not original research, no more than citing the Bill of Rights would be original research in a discussion of constitutional rights. And what about the law enforcement press? What have their articles said? 64.38.198.55 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me but I've never used Nexis before and am confused about how to do it. Please could you provide a link to those sources here, or quote them in the article yourself?--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tone of the article is a big problem unrelated to the sources. The end of the second sentence and the third sentence immediately inject an emotional appeal into the subject. It reads like POV pushing. The article sounds like someone is asking for donations in the sisters' appeal. All the people pushing for them is listed up front without listing who opposes them.71.175.4.207 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, I can't find anyone who says they oppose them! It seems bizarre - I don't know where else to look really. You say "Most of the media sources on this are on the left side of the political perspective.", but perhaps right wing sources are staying silent on the issue: if so then how can we possibly present their POV? I agree that maybe the article tone could be adjusted - feel free to improve it if you have any specific ideas.--Hermajesty21 (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original poster, but I also understand your dilemma. I'm no expert, but perhaps a compromise could be reached. Obviously there will be very little opposition to the sisters, but maybe a few sentences could be removed. For instance, you mention the views of unrelated parties, such as the NAACP. This seems unnecessary, in my opinion. Also, the entire tone of the article suggests that not only were the sisters given too harsh a sentence, but that they weren't even guilty of the crime they were convicted of. Again, these are just suggestions, and I really don't want to interfere with the progress of sorting out these neutrality issues.-RHM22 (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for the helpful suggestions! I think that it's quite appropriate to mention the view of the NAACP, since it's a major organization that has spoken prominently on the case, but would welcome other perspectives. What I'm seeing from reliable sources is that there is unanimous consensus that the sisters received too harsh a sentence, and divided opinion on whether the sisters were guilty in the first place (the news sources tend to suggest that there is a possibility sisters may have been innocent, and that there were problems with their trial; the prosecutor who originally tried the case believes that the sisters were guilty, but that their sentence should be commuted). I've tried to reflect the balance of sources in the article; please feel free to adjust the article if you see specific ways to improve it. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So, can we remove the POV tag? CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tag should stay. The article reads as biased in my opinion and I'm not alone here in that opinion. What's the big hurry to remove the tag? 71.175.4.207 (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is linked from the main page right now, which makes the removal of the tag time-sensitive. No one has presented concrete suggestions for improving the article, so I don't see the need for the tag. Again, please feel free to improve the article, if you see specific ways that it could be made more neutral or otherwise improved. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree the tag should stay, given I flagged it in the first place. Cordelia, we have also put forward many concrete suggests, so your characterization is incorrect. And, as I've stated before, the link on the front page is irrelevant. You keep harping on that point as that should somehow magically render the article objective. I think you should step away from this and allow neutral editors to work on the article. 64.38.198.55 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tag should probably not be removed. A consensus needs to be reached first, and that hasn't happened yet.
One side note to the editors who are concerned about the neutrality: Wikipedia rules state that minority views should not be given equal coverage. For instance, if 99 people believe one thing and 1 person believes something else, the viewpoint of this one individual should not be noted because that would give it undue coverage. Since you're unlikely to find any viewpoints in favor the sisters sentence, the news coverage provided by the article creator seems appropriate. As I've said before, I don't think the NAACP quotes are especially helpful, but the author's journalistic sources are perfectly appropriate. The problem with the article is the wording, but I really don't think it's slanted enough to warrant so much controversy. Like I said, I don't want to edit it myself because I know nothing about this case. This is just my opinion, so please don't put too much faith in it!-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, don't worry about it being on the main page. DYK articles often have some problems, since only one fact need be referenced.-RHM22 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::::I'd normally like to give a discussion like this lots of time, but I haven't seen any concrete suggestions for improving the article from the editors objecting, (basically, the editor who originally added the POV tag suggested looking for more sources on Lexis-Nexis, which I've done, didn't find anything else worth including, and he's been advised that if he'd like to link from the primary sources in the external links section or add additional information from other sources to the article he's more than welcome to do so). Again, I'm delighted if people will tweak the article to improve it and make it more neutral, but I don't think that the POV tag is warranted, and I'm not happy having the POV tag there while the article is linked from the main page. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, I've included all of the perspectives I can find. If you can find other sources presenting different views, please introduce them into the article or discuss them here. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To 208.83.61.206: I understand your objections, but we cannot showcase the opinion of certain individuals if no opinion is to be found. Certainly white supremacist groups are likely to be against commuting the sentence, but they represent a group of people that is comparatively very small. As stated, if you can find some contrary viewpoints, you're welcome to add them. That said, it is not up to one or two editors to determine whether or not a NPOV tag should be removed. Except perhaps in obvious cases of abuse, the NPOV tag must remain until a consensus has been reached. The fact that the article is on the main page will likely create interest, so I'd imagine that a consensus will be reached soon. Otherwise, I am personally opposed to removal of the tag. I suppose I can work a little bit on rewording some of the comments that seem biased, if no one objects.-RHM22 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate if you'd do that. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One small note: it is certainly a conflict of interest for the principal author of the article to remove the NPOV tag.-RHM22 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think that the article is close enough to neutral that the tag is not warranted, will you please remove the tag? We have some editors that still aren't convinced that it's neutral, but they want sources that don't seem to exist. The article is on the main page for another 15 min. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made a few small alterations that I think improve it slightly. I don't feel comfortable removing the tag myself, but I'm going to see if I can contact someone with more experience on the subject of neutrality to see what they think. Anyway, after I get in touch with a more experienced editor, that'll be just about all that I can do on the article. Good luck with it. Hopefully all these kinks will be worked out soon enough. It's a very interesting subject, and a case that I hadn't heard of before.-RHM22 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added a line about their appeal being denied twice including the US Supremes and also the governor denied their appeal for clemency. The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss has extensively covered this case but their website charges $ to read the articles so links would not be helpful. Our public library has ProQuest which is like Nexis/Lexis so I may be able to see the articles there for free. I'll dig some when I'm there Monday and see what turns up. They're closed through the holiday. 208.83.61.202 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context

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)[reply]

The three involved males were all juveniles at the time of the crime. In many states juveniles can receive a much lighter sentence than adult principals. Couple that with their turning state's evidence, you have a lesser sentence. The sisters were more than just passengers. The case hinged on the fact that they orchestrated the whole thing, tricked the youths into participating, and lured the victims into riding with them. It's just like in murder-for-hire. The triggerman doesn't always get the most severe penalty; it's the mastermind who plans the crime. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sisters are convicted felons

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)[reply]

I don't think that the article is slanted in a signifigant way any longer, aside from the external links section. I definitely believe that some links to comments from the prosecution (if available) should be added, but I do not believe that such links are crucial to the objectivity of this article. For these reasons, I will now support removal of the NPOV tag. That said, we must wait for consensus before the removal.-RHM22 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the tag can be removed as long as the felony mention remains in the lead sentence. Given both the Supreme Court and the state governor have declined to act the only recourse remaining for the women it seems is a presidential pardon. Until and unless that happens they remain convicted felons. (I also signed your comment for you.) 208.83.61.203 (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the unsigned comment.-RHM22 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now satisfied that it could be removed. If anything, the prose is now slanted the other way: should this sentence Dan Turner, a spokesman for Barbour, stated the governor has been "very consistent in not substituting his judgment of guilt or innocence over the court" in pardoning criminals in the past.[1] really be given the prominence of being in the first paragraph of the lead?--Hermajesty21 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's of no consequence to me where the phrase should go. I just added it to the lead since there was a mention of Barbour there.-RHM22 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the section discussed to the body of the article rather than the lead.-RHM22 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing all details about their repeated failed appeals to the very end of the article makes it again seriously biased. Their failed appeals legally reaffirmed—twice—their guilt. That was affirmed a third time when the governor denied clemency. They've exhausted their legal process and failed every time. I moved this out of the lead and into a second paragraph because it's extremely important factual background and critical to the article. That's much more relevant to the essence of this case than opinions by uninvolved third parties like Herbert and Pitts. The Turner quote need not go there and can go further down. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think stating they were convicted is sufficient. The felon mention piles it on a bit much. Stating they were defendants is incorrect because one is a defendant only until the verdict is rendered. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

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)[reply]

That was a very good idea. When you search "Scott sisters" in the search box the article wasn't even turning up when "the" was in the title. 208.83.61.203 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence stating the obvious

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)[reply]

Fundamental perspective of the article

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)[reply]

Balance

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)[reply]

The Mississippi Court of Appeals issued a written opinion with this summation of facts:
"On the night of December 24, 1993, Johnny Ray Hayes and Mitchell Duckworth left work at McCarty Farms around 10:30 P.M. Hayes drove them to the Mini Mart on Highway 35 where they bought beer and gasoline. While stopped at the Mini Mart, Hayes and Duckworth saw Jamie and Gladys Scott, sisters, pull into the Mini Mart parking lot in a blue Oldsmobile. Hayes and Duckworth were unable to see who else might have been in the Oldsmobile. Gladys approached Hayes and told him that she and Jamie wanted to go for a ride.
"The four drove toward Hillsboro after stopping at the Oakdale Apartments. As they reached Hillsboro, Duckworth told Hayes that the same blue Oldsmobile they had seen at the Mini Mart was following them. The four stopped at The Cow Pasture, a club in Hillsboro, in order to allow Gladys and Jamie to go to the restroom.
"Upon returning to Hayes’ car, Gladys asked if she could drive, and Hayes allowed her to drive his car. Gladys stopped at a house across the street from The Cow Pasture. She and Jamie got out of the car and spoke to the individuals in the blue Oldsmobile, which was parked on the side of the road. Hayes and Duckworth remained in Hayes’ car. When the women returned, Gladys continued to drive. Soon thereafter, Jamie began to complain that she felt sick to her stomach and needed to throw up. Hayes asked Gladys to stop the car so that Jamie would not throw up in his car. Gladys pulled off the side of the road, and the blue Oldsmobile pulled up behind Hayes’ car. As soon as the women got out of Hayes’ car, a man shoved a shotgun through the passenger side window and ordered both men to get out of the car and lay down on the ground. The assailants hit both men in the head with the shotgun and took their wallets. At one point during the robbery, Jamie held the shotgun. After the robbery, Jamie and Gladys left with the other assailants in the blue Oldsmobile. They returned to Jamie’s apartment where all five of the assailants split the money they had stolen.
"Both victims testified at trial and positively identified Gladys and Jamie. As required by their plea bargains, two of the three males involved in the robbery, both of whom were teenagers, testified at trial that Jamie and Gladys were involved in the robbery and, in fact, planned the robbery." 71.175.4.207 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response section

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)[reply]

Suspension of sentence

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)[reply]

I just did that. More stories are now appearing in the press from which further details about the sisters' crime and the aftermath could be gleaned. There are conditions for their release, which won't happen until about February. That may be too trivial to include in the article. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlined lead

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)[reply]

Parole or probation?

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)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_sisters