Talk:Daubert standard
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Comment by 128.120.168.131
[edit]This article is either grossly plagerized from answers.com, or vice-versa. Someone really should look into that - Nat — Preceding undated comment added 04:26, June 5, 2006
Pronunciation
[edit]Could we have a pronunciation of "Daubert" please? It's not obvious to this Brit.Cutler (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I have added that as a section to the article on the case. I did not add it to this one, as I suspect the two will become joined one day. 204.64.42.246 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
An explanation for the dense?
[edit]From the language quoted from the decision, it sounds like the Court intended/expected the Daubert standard to lower the bar to get juries to hear expert testimony compared to the Frye test, but the rest of the article seems to indicate that it had the opposite effect. Anyone who knows why willing to add a little bit of explanation for this to the article? 24.5.193.228 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anya Anand.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)