Talk:Abington School District v. Schempp

Markup Errors
The citations in several sections - such as Justice Brennan's concurrence - are in such a format that I'm unsure how to fix them. They look like law book references, but contain limited data and are showing through as if Justice Brennan was quoting someone from the future. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I changed the inline MLA citations to endnotes where they link to the full citation in the ill fittingly titled "further reading".  Were these the kinds of citations you were talking about?  They are a trick to edit at first, but this style works well for readers. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Author
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 &#91;at this address Mateo SA 19:10, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)&#93; 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.&mdash;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)&mdash;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. &mdash; Mateo SA | talk 19:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Lawrence v. Texas
Contrast this with Lawrence v. Texas. What a difference! Noisy 18:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

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 template) was that "  ". Since his objection was limited to that section, I changed the NPOV to a  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. &mdash; Mateo SA | talk 02:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

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. &mdash; Mateo SA | talk 02:32, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

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)

"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)

What the heck is SCKITANOR?
Who put that on there? That's not even a real word, I googled it and no results came up. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT WORD!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested reading ... Peter McWilliams?
Who suggested this book (Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do) as a follow-up to this article? I worked on this book with Peter and fail to see the relevance. Please come forward and explain or I will remove the entry. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyrabbit (talk • contribs) 07:57, 28 April 2010


 * This has been in the article for 6 years now - it was originally used to source a quote ("kicked God and prayer out of the schools") - the article was lifted virtually word for word from here (later re-edited due to copyright viol). The original editor probably didn't consult the book itself.  I've looked in the book and the quote isn't found on page 107.  The index suggests the topic of prayer in school was discussed on 410 but unfortunately the copy I have was printed without the pages 403-434 and I can't check for it there.  If you have a copy you might help look there.  It's not unlikely that the quote is there given the separation of church and state, religious right, and prayer in schools are issues touched on in the book.  But I've been unable to verify the quote either.  I'll make a note of this in the article to see if another editor can verify it there on another page than 107, but this article doesn't get much traffic and the note is likely to go unnoticed. It should be removed if it isn't verified to Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do within the next week or so.  Professor marginalia (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ellery Schempp
What do people think about adding in some information on Ellery Schempp? Ellery was Edward's son and he still travels the country speaking about the case and his atheism to this day. It might make an interesting post script. Constitutional Scholar (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a separate article, already linked. As this is peripheral to the legal case, it would be best not to duplicate content.Novangelis (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Still, the whole family brought the lawsuit, not just Edward.  Edward is named first, his family (Sidney, Roger, and Donna) and the Murrays are the "et al" in the Sup Ct decision.  But all were plaintiffs.Constitutional Scholar (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abington School District v. Schempp. 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/20131013184924/http://www.rydal-meadowbrook.org/history-supreme-court-ruling to http://www.rydal-meadowbrook.org//history-supreme-court-ruling

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) 20:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)