Talk:Hornstine v. Township of Moorestown

message: Inserted some citation changes to the page.  I came across this article in my research of Education Law and the ADA.  Some portions of the current page, where citations are requested seem to be speculative, but I can't say for certain because I only know whats in the case law. Perhaps Dickey is right on the others, I guess it is up to Century40 to back his edits up.  Mealoat22 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply pasting two copies of the original url (from which the larger chunk of text was pasted).  WP is not a source of knowledge - there's no reason for bulk cut/paste from other webpages. Tedickey (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The website that was cited is rutgers lawschool's online library - it is a direct link to the opinion that decided Hornstine's case.  What could be more neutral and cite-worthy than a court opinion? Mealoat22 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't worry - the cite is still there (without having to delete the content and supporting cites the gave the topic some balance).  Tedickey (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: COI Allegation

message: The phrase "other resume highlights" and the following bulleted list seem completely nonenyclopedic. If anything, a single sentence listing a few representative items should be plenty. These accomplishments are of interest only as an illustration of her academic reputation and success, which we can pretty well surmise from the story itself. Remove? emw 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to leave the bit about her being an Olympic torch carrier, as it bears on the honesty of her claim to be so physically disabled as to be incapcable to taking gym class. As for the rest, it can stay or go, so long as the remaining text makes clear that Hornstine was an ambitious, accomplished young woman. Uucp 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resume highlights?

message: There is a Blair Hornstine at St. Andrews, as a variety of recent editors have suggested without evidence. Her e-mail address is xxxxx@st-and.ac.uk. I would not feel comfortable including this claim of alma matter in the article without proof that this is the *same* Blair Hornstine. And I, frankly, do not incline to e-mail her and ask. Uucp 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Review WP:LIVING for guidelines on how to handle biographies of living people.  Also, WP:NOR reminds us that original research in the form of rumor or Internet phonebook searches does not belong here.  There is one quote in the bio policy, "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a newspaper."  I believe the current ending of "...has kept out of the limelight" is sufficient, and we should not add any speculative information about "where is she now" unless she makes a public statement.  I have taken the unusual step of eliding the email address written above; I realize that it can be easily found with a little bit of research, but I see no reason to include the email address of a potentially random, uninvolved person in the Wikipedia talk database.  Random Task (T·C) 15:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed an edit just now that mentioned "websites" as a source for Hornstine's current location.  Again, we don't know if it's the same person, and WP:NOR this is not the place for investigative encyclopedia writing.  Random Task (T·C) 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is she now?

message: I found a picture of her here. I think it can get by with Fair Use, but I'm not sure. Opinions?--Miguel Cervantes 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just requested permission here. --Ali 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Several statements in this seem to describe the general community feelings towards Blair. although sources are cited properly, words such as "some" and "most" are used often to describe what the author seems to imply is a straightforward attack on Blair.  Regarding bias, all content has to respect WP:NPOV. --Daniel ellis 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At a glance, every such claim is footnoted. Can you point to any examples that aren't? Uucp 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is what HAPPENED though...she was isolated...whether that makes u feel pity or not is entirely up to you. Some feel she got what she deserved, others do not. Make ur own judgment (which u clealy have) but don't try to keep pertinent facts out of the story bc u feelshe is getting an unfair shake. Those who steal intellectual property are disgusting human beings who have no regard for a creator;s hard work.
I'm removing the NPOV tag - the POV is not glaringly obvious in this article.  If you disagree, feel free to place the tag back on the article.  Remember, if you feel that specific diction is biased, you are always free to edit it to remove the bias.  I will try to address POV concerns myself in the meantime. Ali (t)(c) 06:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The references section in this article should be merged into the article text, as in-line references.  I have attempted to do this myself, but I do not have access to all the references mentioned in this section.  Ali (t)(c) 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "References"

message: I received a complaint from someone familiar with this matter saying that the article was biased and that recent attempts to add balance were summarily reverted. I reviewed the article per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP) and found a number of problems which I have attempted to correct. Some of the problems are straightforward, such as use of POV terms like "supposedly" or unsourced sections that appear to be original research or statements that are not supported by the sources cited or the inclusion of a "trivia" section (not permitted under BLP).
There is a broader issue that is more problematic. There are two distinct narratives for this story.  It received extensive press coverage which was mostly negative towards Ms. Hornstine, to put it mildly. The other version is told in the Federal District Court opinion. I've largely presented the valedictorian story as described in the court opinion. I believe this comes closest to WP:NPOV. Few facts are in dispute, rather it is which facts that get mentioned that seem to be the difference. For example, many press accounts (and the previous version of our article)  dwell on the fact that Ms. Hornstine was not required to take gym, allowing her to take highly weighted AP and honors course instead, but none mention the fact that the runner-up was nonetheless able to take more AP courses than Ms. Hornstine. 
I've trimmed the Courier-Journal section to the basic facts. The newspaper stated Hornstine failed to properly attribute sources. It did not use the word "plagiarism." I believe we should use their language, though many later press reports did use that word.  The comparisons of text that was in our article are unsourced and I believe unnecessary.  She admitted her failure to properly attribute material and apologized. Note that Ms. Hornstine was a minor when she submitted these stories.
I would urge anyone editing this article to carefully review WP:BLP. --agr (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trimmed, but has several minor errors.  Given the tone of your comments so far, I'm reluctant to repair these. Tedickey (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about describing the errors and changes here first? That's always safe. --agr (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP edit

message: The given reference (and about 90% of google hits) give this spelling rather than "Marilyn" in the topic. Tedickey (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it, thanks. I also removed the link on her name as there doesn't seem to be a likelihood of an article about her.  If you disagree, feel free to put it back.--agr (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marlyn McGrath Lewis"

message: The article ought to mention the location of the story. Following a link, I find that Moorestown is in New Jersey. I cannot, however, find a way to insert this fact into the text without disrupting the flow of the article. Anybody want to do it? Ronstew (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alansohn. I guess that was the best way to do it. Ronstew (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Moorestown?

message: That appears to be a self-published webpage (perhaps factual, but it was used by an anon-IP in apparent COI-based edits a while back).  Perhaps there's a reliable source available Tedickey (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: http://www.blairhornstine.net/blair_today_future.html

message: Per a parallel discussion at Talk:Kaavya Viswanathan, this article would seem to fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. It primarily deals with one event, the lawsuit over the valedictorian award at Moorestown High School in 2003. While Ms. Hornstine played a major role in that controversy as the one who filed the suit, she is not the only key player. The Superintendent of Schools  played a major a role too, arguably at least as significant. Actions by parents and other students were also important. Wikipedia's approach in such cases, per WP:BIO1E, is to "cover the event, not the person." Further BLP1E applies: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted."  Accordingly, a more appropriate name for the article would be Moorestown v. Hornstine, which would focus on the suit and the resulting precedent in disability law, the latter having perhaps the greatest long term significance.--agr (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the article from Blair Hornstine to Moorestown v. Hornstine and copy edited to focus on the law case.--agr (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. It should be Hornstine v. Moorestown, of course. She initiated the suit. I moved it again. My bad.--agr (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move per BLP1E

message: Most of the content of the Crimson source focuses on the reported plagiarism - the recent edits have removed all of that, leaving only the out-of-context comments relating to unpopularity.  Tedickey (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I replaced cites to the Harvard Crimson and a WCAU report no longer on line with the Weekly Standard article and copy edited to match what they say. Note that according to the Standard, the hostility intensified immediately after the injunction, long before the plagiarism report surfaced. So I think the hostility has a place in an article about the case. --agr (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While one might infer it, the Standard does not state (as does this topic) that "her classmates had been throwing eggs".  Also, the plural in the Standard about threats over the phone would have to be considered that there would be a police report to refer to; otherwise what we have is reportorial hearsay.  Tedickey (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right about "her classmates had been throwing" not being in the Standard article. I've just removed that language and stuck more closely to what the Standard says. I had already removed any mention of phone threats--that was from the Crimson article--so I'm not sure what you are referring to in your second sentence. --agr (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: re phone - right, I was reading side-by-side, and had switched without noticing. Tedickey (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've done that. Anyway, thanks, another pair of eyes always helps.--agr (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: no problem (perhaps tired) Tedickey (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective use of the Crimson source

message: As Arnold recalls, he removed all of the sources relating to this.  It would be nice to see an accurate change summmary, rather than a misleading one. Tedickey (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy is abundently clear that it is the responsibility of the editor adding contentious material about a living person to provide reliable sources. Stuff that is sourced to anonymous "protestors" doesn't belong at all. In any case, the physical education allegation is dealt with in the court ruling. It was raised by the school superintendent as part of his claim that Hornstine was able to take more high weighted courses. The court rejected those claims, pointing out that the runner-up actually had a slight mathematical advantage, as our article describes.--agr (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi - before spouting off in that manner, it's your responsibility to read what I said, reflect on the factuality of the comment, and then compose a civil and factual response.  Tedickey (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw contentious material attributed to "protesters" added by an anonymous editor and I removed it.  I included a pointer to our BLP policy in the edit summary rather than just clicking the rollback button. I guess you could argue I should have added an explanation on their talk page as well, per WP:BITE because it was the person's first edit, but I didn't think of that. This article is about the court case. The gym argument is in the court opinion, which is still referenced in the article, so I'm not clear as to what source removal on my part you are referring to.  The facts are that Ms. Hornstine not taking phys ed was raised by the town in their defense and the Judge rejected that  argument on several grounds.  Maybe I'm missing what your issue is here. --agr (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see "gym" in the court case, though there can be construed an oblique reference to that.  I recalled that the comment was explicit in one or more of the sources removed when you refocused the topic from the controversy itself into the court case.  (By the way, the link on the title to the court case points back to this topics - some work is needed to avoid doing that in the template) Tedickey (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Search on "physical education". It's there. Good catch on the unnecessary template link. I eliminated it by adding "et. al." to the litigants field in the cite (there were other defendants). It turns out that anything you do to the case name that makes is different from an article title will eliminate the wiki link. Changing v. to vs. also works. Feel free to find a better fix. --agr (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "unsourced contentious material"

message: I find the emphasis of this article to be pretty flawed. The lawsuit itself would not have been notable had it not been for the media coverage and public debate it provoked.
The Hornstein Incident is an iconic parable about the perils of contemporary achiev-o-tron values, and this article in my opinion utterly fails to convey what was reported on and how the story was told in the media. That's important.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis of article flawed