Talk:Abington School District v. Schempp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Abington School District v. Schempp has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
My name is Cale Corbett. I am the author of the article. I maintain copyright and ownership of the material. It has been served at infidels.org [at this address Mateo SA 19:10, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)] since 1996 with my express permission. I would greatly appreciate it if the article were not mistakenly removed as a copyright violation.
Thank you,
Cale Corbett
ccorbet2@mac.com
- The thing is, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be public domain. If you want to maintain your copyright, I don't know that I'd classify removal as a mistake. Notice how heavily edited it's been already.—Calieber 19:09, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
-
- No, they are not supposed to be public domain. They are supposed to be under the GNU/FDL. Andre Engels 11:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- Actually, by selecting Save page when editing the page, a contributor consents to release his or her contribution under the GFDL, no "supposed to" about it. This includes Mr. Corbett (assuming that he was actually the one who contributed the article)—when he pushed "Save page", he released his work under the GFDL. Since the GFDL is not exclusive, he separately controls the original copyright, but only to his original contribution. He can do what he wants to with that contribution, but he can't revoke his licensing of it under the GFDL. He also can't claim any copyright to the subsequent changes to his work by other editors on Wikipedia. — Mateo SA | talk 19:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Is this a copyvio?
"Abington School District v. Schempp - this is an infidels.org essay. Probably one of the biased article I've seen so far and not a good example of a NPOV " - If this is true, wouldn't this be a copyvio? WhisperToMe 21:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Note statement at the top of this Talk page. The author has knowingly placed it here under the GNU FDL, and it has been edited accordingly, although there's still more work to be done. Noisy 22:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] This is not an NPOV article, it shouldn't be here. It'd do better on a place like Kuro5hin!
Firstly, I notice that although the article does mention opponents of this case, it always mentions them in a negative light.
This article makes numerous assertions that need to be fixed.
For the middle part of this post, listing various paragraphs that need to be edited, see /This is not an NPOV article, it shouldn't be here. It'd do better on a place like Kuro5hin!.
Look, I could go on (and I may edit this tomorrow), but it's getting late for me. I think I've proved that this article is really an essay written by an author with an axe to grind. It needs serious work!
Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Lawrence v. Texas
Contrast this with Lawrence v. Texas. What a difference! Noisy 18:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wow!
What a difference a good editor makes! This is looking a lot better. Both User:Mateo SA and User:Soren9580 need to be congratulated on their efforts! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Query: what is POV about this article?
I notice the NPOV tag is back on it. Why? What's POV about it? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Soren9580 put the NPOV tag back. His explanation for the tag (included as a comment along with the {{NPOV}} template) was that "<!--The opinion section is still POV-->". Since his objection was limited to that section, I changed the NPOV to a {{SectNPOV}} tag in the section "The decision" (I assume that was the section he meant). I don't really think that his comment was a sufficient explanation for the tag. I plan to remove the tag in a few days if no one objects. — Mateo SA | talk 02:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted POV paragraph
I deleted the following paragraph from the section "Subsequent history":
The need for such an amendment is clear, say its proponents, citing as evidence the several hundred percent rise in incidents of campus crime, unwanted pregnancies, suicides, murder and lower aptitude test scores seen since the "banning of prayer and Bible reading" in the 1960s (Licciardello, 1994, p. 81). Critics of this view label it as "simplistic and ignorant of complex socio-economic realities" that have surfaced since the early 1960s (Boston, 1993, p. 228).
I don't think we should rely on the claim of one extremely POV author to support such an extraordinary claim about crime, pregnancy, suicide, and murder rates. This paragraph should be left out until we find better support or a clearer explanation of what the sentence is talking about. — Mateo SA | talk 02:32, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ==Questionable Deletion from The Decision ==
This edit, which is recent (2005-11-10), but not the most recent, deletes two paragraphs without giving a reason. The IP address from which it was issued has been used to post obvious vandalism to other articles.
Could someone familiar with the subject please check whether the deletion is legitimate, and, if not, re-instate the deleted text. --David Woolley 17:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Secular purpose" and "primary effect"?
Weren't the tests of "secular purpose" and "primary effect" established in this case? I see no mention of them in the article. - Brian Kendig 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
