Talk:Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	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.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Template

This article needs an infobox from the template Template:SCOTUSCase. I'll try to take care of that sometime today. Metros232 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove wikify

I added a link or two, but I dont see much else to be wikified in this article. Can the tag be removed? Mleinart 05:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

yeah there is a few things wrong with the case and the heading. I have never heard of the school or of the place it is located. If you could just change that for me that would be awesome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.180.58 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by User:165.234.180.58 which also made a number of vandal edits to this article, including this one. Sander123 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Prayers were offered dent chaplain" mean? 164.58.19.230 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gideons

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Though I have a WP:COI in this matter, I'm leaning towards the Gideons' distribution being irrelevant to the article. The cited reference does mention it, but it doesn't say that the practice ever stopped (which makes the inference that it did a violation of WP:OR and WP:V), the distributions were not part of the court ruling, and without getting into details of how the Gideons operate, distributions in or near public schools are not an uncommon thing (which would make any belief that it is or should be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP). I recommend removing the mention of the organization. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 09-JUN-2018

Although you have stated a COI on your user page ("I am involved in politics and have served as an official of the Republican Party (United States) at local level." you have not ~~repeated~~ stated the nature and specifics of that claim on this article's talk page, which is necessary if you're going to claim a COI in this case. As far as this case is concerned, if you are not directly related to one of the parties in the case (a lawyer representing either side or a member of the Gideons) then it is hard to see that there is a COI relationship here. You are a highly-experienced and — from what I can tell — well-respected Wikipedian, and it is commendable that you are self-reporting a COI. But as far as political subjects go, there is no "COI" with respect to an editor's political identity. Republicans are allowed to edit articles whose topics concern Republican-type ideologies just as much as Democrats are allowed to edit articles concerning their ideological topics — as long as NPOV is respected. If your desire is to avoid the appearance of impropriety in removing this information about the Gideons, then may I suggest raising the question here on the talk page to garner a consensus, but without the COI request edit template. Regards, spintendo 00:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have specified this, but I am a member of the Gideons (I recently joined the organization). PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see. Then you're right, that association may rise to the level of COI, although it is still debatable whether Wikipedia quantifies COI relationships based on religion. If you were to be paid by the Gideons then definately COI, but ultimately, the nature of your association with them is a private matter, so further clarification from you is unnecessary. I will take a look at making this edit for you.

Thanks spintendo 03:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved I have removed the mention from the article, which was added 2 1/2 years ago. As you can see from that diff, the editor who added it also added a lot of material which could be considered "not germane" to the article, including details regarding distributing bibles, information regarding students being harrassed for handing out flyers, and information regarding what the plaintiffs were to be addressed by in the lawsuit. All of this info seems like extraneous details which are not necessary for the article. As for the article itself, it needs additional references (there are only 3) so I've placed the More citations needed maintenance template in the article. Regards, spintendo 04:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]