Talk:Court of Historical Review

Removing Orphan Tag
As of this edit, Fortune Cookie links to this article, so it is no longer an orphan 50.133.246.19 (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Category of "courts " and "parody"
From the Wikipedia article "In contemporary usage, parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule it. Parody exists in all art media, including literature, music and cinema."

The Court of Historical Review has been described in the LA times article as a " the historical court retries still-raging controversies, such as whether Bruno Hauptmann should have been executed in the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby. But it also takes a tongue-in-cheek look at less weighty issues, such as who invented the martini." (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-09/local/me-2159_1_sister-aimee)

It does not seem appropriate to classify the the Court of Historical Review as parody since in many of these cases the mock court tries is not designed to ridicule or satirize the cases they represent, and some are serious cases, hence restoring the court category. SteamWiki (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the article from Category:Courts because the article suggests that it is more of a parody than a real court. Look through the list of example cases and they are mostly humorous than serious, e.g. fortune cookies, Martinis, chicken soup, Cinderella, Elvis, and baseball. Perhaps what we need is a Category:Mock courts? Green Giant (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current categories are probably not as precise as they could be.  Some cases seem silly, as the Elvis case though maybe the "exercised procedure" of it has some kind of merit.  Others have real world consequences.  As an example, the  FourSquare Gospel Church used the Aimee Semple McPherson ruling in 1990 as a vindication by professionals who actually sat down and re-examined the evidence coming to the conclusion there was nothing substantial disproving their founder's  kidnapping story in 1926.  Other rulings may have possible economic or prestige impact such as there seemed to be interest of this mock court and another of where the martini was actually invented; which would add to the stature of either location if they could actually claim its origin.


 * And I agree the vast majority of cases seem to be humorous as you noted.  The article could benefit from more serious cases discussed.  Even though these are lawyers and judges doing this in their spare time, they have the skills to evaluate evidence and add to to historical knowledge by re-examine old cases for merit and following proper procedure.  I located an LA Times article about them ruling on the Bruno Richard Hauptmann case for example http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-09/news/mn-3355_1_bruno-richard-hauptmann and added it to the article.
 * SteamWiki (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Court of Historical Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829011025/http://www.baseball1.com/carney/index.php?storyid=187 to http://www.baseball1.com/carney/index.php?storyid=187

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)