Talk:David Milgaard

Copyvio
the timeline was just copied and pasted from the CBC site, what a fucking joke. you can't do that, it's called plagiarism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.57.184 (talk • contribs)


 * Good catch. The timeline was inserted in this edit on December 14 2006. The copyright infringement does not seem to have been malicious, considering that the user put a link to the page in question at cbc.ca. I left a note at the talk page of the user who inserted it but he/she has been inactive for a couple of months, so I went ahead and undid the insertion. --Mathew5000 06:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Section on Milgaard inquiry results NPOV
The point of view of the Inquiry Results section is heavily biased. The section reads like an angry rant. I believe the information in that section is important to the article, and should be retained, but it desperately needs to be rewritten.Neuron (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Yeah, that was added onto what I wrote, I found it filled with quite a bit of vitriol. Frankly, it should just be reverted to what I originally wrote without any personal views on the matter. It can then be amended with any other relevant, non-POV information. TomeOne (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)"

The whole thing seems pretty NPOV to me 76.68.73.244 (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the second part of the section and removed the neutrality notice. It's obviously not received much attention since October 2008, so I doubt there will be much response to my changes. Looking over how the section has evolved, it is clear (to me, at least) that the material is not neutral and is in fact very opposed to the inquiry and the justices involved. While I left the major point of the rant in my rewrite, I wrote it as neutrally as I could based on the actual quote given, and I also took the statements about Linda Fisher and the Saskatoon police for granted. This is why I affixed a fact tag—no source is given for the first three sentences of the paragraph. I think this still gives the benefit of the doubt to the author of the original nasty paragraph.  Big Nate 37 (T) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Freeze! Police!
How is it the chief of police & the prosecutor who hung a frame on an innocent man don't even get mentioned? BTW, they deserve a mention here, too. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  02:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)