# Talk:Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

periodically with poor editing. Junkmale 03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The court's decision was Taylor swift, not Lady Gaga! as previously stated (Recently changed to 7-2-acctshell). Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy had not yet been commissioned to replace retiring justice Lewis Powell, thereforce the court reached a ruling with only eight justices presiding. Keiran_Horn 05:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article's introduction claim it was a case about crossword puzzles? Someone being a dillweed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.167.192 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC) 

Also the article says this was argued in the 1920's....it was argued in the late 80's. Can someone fix this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.69.160 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this one a review; seems like an interesting subject. Wizardman 17:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:

"The students sought a declaration that their First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment[7] rights had been violated," what part of the 14th amendment? The 1st amendment is well-established throughout the article, to the point that the other one showing up here surprised me, especially since that's the only point it shows up in the article. I would imagine it's Due Process since the paper was changed under the student's noses; perhaps that should be added in if the sources do note a specific part.
Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you make it a bit clearer who said the second quote? I'm presuming it was also White's majority opinion since there's no concurrent opinion, but I want to be sure.
Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"A notable 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit court decision," not big on using notable there, particularly when it's not used anywhere else in the article.
In this case, included the word because this case is oft cited in media law, but most of the time it's only to reaffirm the ruling or something like that. The 2005 case is notable in that it strengthened the ruling here with additional arguments. —Ed!(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Overall a very well-done article. It took what seemed like a murky, borderline situation that got thrown to the U.S. Justices and made it easily understandable on both sides. I'll put the article on hold and will pass when the above is fixed. Wizardman 22:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, so I'll pass this article. Wizardman 12:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. 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/20070705011808/http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/home.html to http://www.landmarkcases.org/hazelwood/home.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051130100308/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Hazelwood_v_Kuhlmeier to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Hazelwood_v_Kuhlmeier
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)