Talk:David Milgaard
 | Larry Fisher (murderer) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into David Milgaard. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | A news item involving David Milgaard was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 May 2022. |  |
 | It is requested that a freely-licensed image or photograph of David Milgaard be included in this article to replace copyrighted images in order to better comply with our policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at Wikimedia Commons, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyvio edit
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 edit
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. BigNate37(T) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Freeze! Police! edit
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)