Talk:Brother's Keeper (1992 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Needs clean-up

The article needs to be cleaned up to meet the above standards for a movie articles. Also the article has a clear bias in favor of the subjects of the documentary and the local community shown in the film which violates NPOV policy. Their article should remain neutral and simply describe the contents of the film. --Cab88 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality seems fine to me. Would rather authors add details about the trial not available by watching only the movie. There must be a lot of info out there.--Mlprater 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very biased to me. For example: 'undeniably likable "rural folk,"'. I deny that I liked them.Odradek5 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article was biased, but more importantly the entire thing appeared to be prohibited original research (see WP:NOR). Claims like, "The movie makes the viewer feel like...." or "Makes the viewer want to see a not guilty verdict" are personal claims by the editor and not allowed in Wikipedia. If there is a reliable source making these claims then we need to specifically identify the source of the claim before we put it in the article. Vivaldi (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above comments, I removed most of the original research from the article and I removed or reworded the claims to more neutral point of views. I also removed a bunch of other claims that had no references cited. I then removed the NPOV tag, since I no longer think the article is biased in favor of any editors' POV. Vivaldi (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is cleaned up, I would hate to see it before. Whats the population of the sprawling suburb of Munsville these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.15.215 (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide dates?

There's no date of the death (alleged killing), or the trial. Can these be research and added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.183.6 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What became of the farm?

Did the niece inherant the farm? If someone knows. could they answer here. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.48.217 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy Report

The article makes sensational use of the fact that semen was found on William Ward's body after death. It should have added the simple fact that the semen was William's own. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]