Talk:Barry Scheck

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.

Why is he part of WikiProject Judaism?

?? Anchoress (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet lead forensics discreditation

Mr Scheck has been selected to assist with an inquiry into the ramifications of a now-discredited FBI forensics analysis of bullet lead; I wonder if this info should be included in his article, and/or if an article on the forensic process is warranted? I can't find one if there is one. Link to Washington Post article. Anchoress (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the proposed article to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Requested articles, as Comparative bullet-lead analysis. Anchoress (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to include section on Scheck's role in the O J Simpson case

I'd like to include a section specifically about the arguments that barry scheck made during the Simpson case. I will be using as sources CourtTV.com, The simpson trial transcripts, Google books, and links to interviews they have done since that trial. Scheck and Neufeld are often credited with raising reasonable doubt about the DNA Evidence in the Simpson case without any explanation how so that is why Im adding this material here. Scheck received a lot of kudos for his role in that case, especially his cross-examination of dennis fung, but it remains dubious why he never published anything explaining how he raised reasonable in his most famous case he defended. All feedback is appreciated.Samsongebre (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on Representation in the Simpson Case

The section discussing Scheck's work on people v. Simpson seems to rely very heavily on only critical sources and also makes arguments without clear attribution to a source that directly accuse Scheck, a living person who no doubt would dispute those characterizations, of misleading and dishonest acts during the trial. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and don't know how to address this myself so I am adding the NPOV tag in the hope that someone with a better understanding of how to bring the section into line with NPOV guidelines will do so.

Elborgnine (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and rewrote the entire section and removed the NPOV concerns. It no long mentions "deception, dishonest" or any other opinionated language.It just mentions the claims made and their refutation.Samsongebre (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elborgnine: - I wanted to ask if you have any objections to removing the NPOV. I've addressed the issues you mentioned. Is there anything else your concerned about?Samsongebre (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure

The structure in the paragraph starting with: "Lee explains in Blood Evidence why he rejected Scheck’s contamination claim." is miserable. It comes down to commas. There are none. Reads like a guy on coke speeding through the story so he can take another hit. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to mess anything up. 2600:8806:1400:314:19A4:5C50:B3D4:7901 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]