![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The story overall is well told,what is IMO, but the use of present tense in several places ("Justice Clark defends his decision ...") as well as the ambiguous word "says" (rather than "writes," "argues," etc, detracts from this entry. Awkward, too, that Mapp is called "Ms. Dorlee Mapp" only after being called "Dorlee Mapp" earlier in the article. If anything, I think the references besides the first should probably drop down to simply Mapp.
I've a few things, but not many, which unfortunately leaves the entry perhaps worse for inconsistency. I'll try to get back soon to do more ... just because there is no good tone or emotion means nothing, its information, not a good story
timbo 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a good reference but another reference jumped into my new paragraph and is now in both the References and External Links sections, so if someone could mend that for me Id appreciate it. Mmcknight4 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is...bad. Although it gets to the point of the story well, it gives almost NO information about the importance of the case, the rationale for overturning Wolf v. Colorado, it doesn't even mention the fourteenth ammendment except in the template side pane! There is nothing about the judge's rationale, the list goes on and one. About the only good thing about the practical content is the use of the term amicus curae! I try and clean it up later, and will be marking this as a bad article (or a slightly lesser offense) after I have created an account and figured out how. - HappyRecusant 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
On August 23, 67.79.170.194 changed the description of the material found in Mapp's house which she was convicted of possessing from "pornographic material" to "policy paraphernalia" which 67 then said was "most likely communist propaganda" and then referred to in the next sentence as 'communist propaganda' with no "most likely" qualifier.
Reading http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html and http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/mapp_v_ohio_transcript.htm makes clear that 67's changes are mistaken. It's possible to see how the mistake was made, because the informant who told the police that there was some person connected with the bombing hiding out in the Mapp home did claim that there was "a large amount of policy paraphernalia" there as well. It's unclear just what "policy paraphernalia" in the abstract means, but in the oral arguments it's made clear that this specific paraphernalia was equipment for gambling -- not Communist propaganda. It's also made clear that on the charge of possessing that "policy paraphernalia", Mapp was tried and acquitted.
It was the other charge, the one on which Mapp was tried and convicted, which Mapp appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was "knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code." In other words -- teh pr0nz. -- 192.250.34.161 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it relevent to include in the article that Mapp, living in the New York City borough of Queens in 1969, was arrested on drug charges (along with co-defendent Alan Lyons) and subsequently convicted (along with Lyons? And the fact that she and Lyons sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, primarily on the grounds that they claimed that, in certain evidence introduced at their joint trial was the product of an unconstitutional search? (Dollree Mapp and Alan Lyons, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Warden, New York State Correctional Institutution for Women, Bedford Hills, New York, and Warden, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Comstock, New York, Respondents-Appellees) [1] [2] [3] I feel that it's very pertinent. Or perhaps should it be mentioned, along with other things about the life of Dollree Mapp, under an article separate from the Mapp v. Ohio article, entitled " Dollree Mapp"? Anybody want to chime in on this? I feel that it's very important. Slater79 ( talk) 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am finding too many of the edits by User:96.255.47.141 to be false and am therefore reverting all of them. Examples:
Dbiel ( Talk) 03:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Could link to Wolf V. Colorado
The NYT is reporting Mapp's death last October: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/dollree-mapp-who-defied-police-search-in-landmark-case-is-dead.html . The story has some substantial detail on Mapp's life post-Mapp. I think it's worth including details like this, as there are real people behind the cases, and knowing the extent to which they were affected is worth noting (Mapp, for example, maintained that she was targeted by police because of her role in Mapp v. Ohio). Buck v. Bell, for example, discusses what happened with Carrie Buck following the decision. TJRC ( talk) 00:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The story overall is well told,what is IMO, but the use of present tense in several places ("Justice Clark defends his decision ...") as well as the ambiguous word "says" (rather than "writes," "argues," etc, detracts from this entry. Awkward, too, that Mapp is called "Ms. Dorlee Mapp" only after being called "Dorlee Mapp" earlier in the article. If anything, I think the references besides the first should probably drop down to simply Mapp.
I've a few things, but not many, which unfortunately leaves the entry perhaps worse for inconsistency. I'll try to get back soon to do more ... just because there is no good tone or emotion means nothing, its information, not a good story
timbo 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a good reference but another reference jumped into my new paragraph and is now in both the References and External Links sections, so if someone could mend that for me Id appreciate it. Mmcknight4 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is...bad. Although it gets to the point of the story well, it gives almost NO information about the importance of the case, the rationale for overturning Wolf v. Colorado, it doesn't even mention the fourteenth ammendment except in the template side pane! There is nothing about the judge's rationale, the list goes on and one. About the only good thing about the practical content is the use of the term amicus curae! I try and clean it up later, and will be marking this as a bad article (or a slightly lesser offense) after I have created an account and figured out how. - HappyRecusant 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
On August 23, 67.79.170.194 changed the description of the material found in Mapp's house which she was convicted of possessing from "pornographic material" to "policy paraphernalia" which 67 then said was "most likely communist propaganda" and then referred to in the next sentence as 'communist propaganda' with no "most likely" qualifier.
Reading http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/643.html and http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/mapp_v_ohio_transcript.htm makes clear that 67's changes are mistaken. It's possible to see how the mistake was made, because the informant who told the police that there was some person connected with the bombing hiding out in the Mapp home did claim that there was "a large amount of policy paraphernalia" there as well. It's unclear just what "policy paraphernalia" in the abstract means, but in the oral arguments it's made clear that this specific paraphernalia was equipment for gambling -- not Communist propaganda. It's also made clear that on the charge of possessing that "policy paraphernalia", Mapp was tried and acquitted.
It was the other charge, the one on which Mapp was tried and convicted, which Mapp appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was "knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code." In other words -- teh pr0nz. -- 192.250.34.161 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it relevent to include in the article that Mapp, living in the New York City borough of Queens in 1969, was arrested on drug charges (along with co-defendent Alan Lyons) and subsequently convicted (along with Lyons? And the fact that she and Lyons sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, primarily on the grounds that they claimed that, in certain evidence introduced at their joint trial was the product of an unconstitutional search? (Dollree Mapp and Alan Lyons, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Warden, New York State Correctional Institutution for Women, Bedford Hills, New York, and Warden, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Comstock, New York, Respondents-Appellees) [1] [2] [3] I feel that it's very pertinent. Or perhaps should it be mentioned, along with other things about the life of Dollree Mapp, under an article separate from the Mapp v. Ohio article, entitled " Dollree Mapp"? Anybody want to chime in on this? I feel that it's very important. Slater79 ( talk) 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am finding too many of the edits by User:96.255.47.141 to be false and am therefore reverting all of them. Examples:
Dbiel ( Talk) 03:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Could link to Wolf V. Colorado
The NYT is reporting Mapp's death last October: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/us/dollree-mapp-who-defied-police-search-in-landmark-case-is-dead.html . The story has some substantial detail on Mapp's life post-Mapp. I think it's worth including details like this, as there are real people behind the cases, and knowing the extent to which they were affected is worth noting (Mapp, for example, maintained that she was targeted by police because of her role in Mapp v. Ohio). Buck v. Bell, for example, discusses what happened with Carrie Buck following the decision. TJRC ( talk) 00:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)