Talk:Mississippi Burning/Archive 1

Archive 1

Irrelevent Links

Someone continues to add links that deal with the actual events when this article is about the fictional movie. The links should not go to the article dealing with the actual events.

You, and your typos, are IRRELEVANT!177.159.43.7 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor wording

The page presently says "On June 21, 2005, 41 years to the day, Edgar Ray Killen was convicted of manslaughter in the 1964 slayings of the three civil rights workers." I think this was poor wording---at first I thought this was saying Killen was 41 years old when convicted rather than his crime.PHILSKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reworded. --Kevin Myers 03:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

Is there any particular reason that Howard Zinn is singled out as being critical of the movie? I've heard/read a number of historians critical of the movie. I wonder if this non-NPOV?

I concurr, Howard Zinn is definitely a notable source, but if there is a less politicized source it would be better, otherwise people can discount the criticism based on their own distaste for Zinn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.84.44 (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

The "analysis" section is entirely original research. --Trafton 09:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is incredibly critical of the FBI involved in the real-life case, and a description in the topic sentence such as "highly fictionalized" needs to be sourced. I'm removing it for the moment, because it sounds a lot like someone's personal opinion. Black-Velvet 06:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV comment == :-)

The paragraph critical of the FBI role was largely taken from a Time magazine artical and other published accounts.

The source is the January 1989 edition of Time Magazine and "highly fictionalized" is a description used both by Time and also in a similar artical by film critic Vincent Canby in the New York Times newspaper to describe the role of the FBI (as portrayed in the film) and the exclusion from the film of the work of other groups that had a large part in the "solving" of the case. Interviews with the widow of MLK and the parents of one of the rights workers support the Time artical.

To comment on the mention of H. Zinn. Howard Zinn is arguably Americas leading civil rights authority. The article, by the use of "including Howard Zinn", gives NPOV credibility to the critism of the movie without the need to list a long lineup of lesser critics. Wayne 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Zinn is a highly tendentious, politicized hack, and his inclusion, far from adding some supposed weight of authority, badly undermines the article and makes it look like what it is: A left-wing hit job. 72.71.200.6 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Learn to write before expressing an opinion, motherfcker!177.159.43.7 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

objectivity probably would be ok without the above comment of 18 March 2008. just a thought. also, any work about Civil Rights and the Civil Rights movement will be labelled as "A left-wing hit job" by some. These pages exist to maintain objectivity. if you are unhappy with Zinn's (alleged) "left wing" perspective, then add the criticisms of a "right wing" historian, critic, or civil rights authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.29.117 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Wisconsin v. Mitchell From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 (Redirected from Wisconsin v mitchell)

Wisconsin v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 21, 1993 Decided June 11, 1993 Full case name Wisconsin v. Todd Mitchell Citations 508 U.S. 476 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2194; 124 L. Ed. 2d 436; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 4024; 61 U.S.L.W. 4575; 21 Media L. Rep. 1520; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4314; 93 Daily Journal DAR 7353 Prior history Defendant convicted, Kenosha County Circuit Court; affirmed, 473 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. App. 1991); reversed, 485 N.W.2d 807 (Wis. 1992); cert. granted, 506 U.S. 1033 (1992) Subsequent history On remand, affirmed, 504 N.W.2d 610 (Wis. 1993) Holding Enhanced sentencing for bias-motivated crimes does not violate a defendant's First Amendment rights. Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Case opinions Majority Rehnquist, joined by unanimous Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. I; Wis. Stat. § 939.645

Wisconsin v. Mitchel

l, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It is an important and noteworthy precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation. In effect, the Court ruled that a state may consider whether a crime was committed or initially considered due to an intended victim's status in a protected class. The case involves the ovie a white 14 year old was beaten after black teens watching the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.6.229 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)