Talk:Holton-Arms School

Let Us Not Cover Up Sexual Harassment Allegations Which Very Well Relate to the School
Lies like it " there is absolutely NO content in this section that relates to the school in any way" are really unhelpful.2601:447:4101:41F9:5441:21E5:5C49:CEF7 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since admin JamesBWatson has thoroughly scrubbed what he calls "the libellous section," please recap whatever point you made there so that we can restart the discussion. This time, be careful to avoid libel. KalHolmann (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not libeling, but rather a dishonest and poor excuse for a coverup. I even let you quote the people because I felt teamwork was needed.2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You "let me" quote the people? I have no idea what you're talking about. KalHolmann (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You quoted the people who approved the letter. They all signed the letter and approved the wording.2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean this paragraph added on Sept. 20, I did not require your permission. And note my edit summary: "We must be wary of libel here." In any case, that content was removed two hours later by User:John from Idegon, who explained: "Clearly WP:COATRACK. This article is not about the alumni, it is not about what may or may not have happened off campus, and it sure as hell ain't about politics." You really ought to calmly address the issues and forge consensus instead of crying "cover-up" and assuming bad faith on the part of editors. KalHolmann (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Since when I did ever say you required my permission? I merely typed about what you edited. This article is about the Holton Arms School and an issue of high importance which relates to a scandal for the school should be included. The fact that it happened off campus is no excuse to defend the school, which managed the party. Even the fact that people like Jackie Kennedy attended it is no excuse to continue a coverup.2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How did the school "manage" an off-campus party? KalHolmann (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You think the students managed a school-provided party and didn't need permission or oversight from the faculty? LOL. Even my high school had similar parties2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where was it reported that this was a "school-provided" party? KalHolmann (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That's the way it was, even by laws concerning underage minors. Please don't try to corrupt how a high school is organized or how laws involving minors are enforced. You think a party involving numerous students from the same school who were not only friends, but also strangers, was somehow not school-provided? LOL.2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your second LOL, which exceeds my tolerance. Thanks for the fascinating discussion. I'm outa here. KalHolmann (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the way it was, according to what published reliable source? And even so, the standard would be that the school was directly involved in the misconduct or had shown a pattern of disregard that allowed it to happen before it would be mentioned in the article. What source has demonstrated either of those? —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that over 1,000 former alumnae who went back as far as the 1940s stated that there were similar allegations during their time with the school indeed concerns the school management. There was not even criticism directed to the city of Bethesda or even schools they probably attended beforehand in that letter.2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D, provide a reliable published secondary source for your statement above, and for everything you say going forward. Wikipedia has no interest in your opinions or anything else you have to say (the same is true for everyone). If you say something, you are required to cite it. What you have been doing is discussing the subject of the article, which is expressly forbidden here (see NOTFORUM, a pillar policy). I'm going to leave a formal warning on your talk page for this one, and if violate NOTFORUM again, I'll leave a final warning. As the person wanting the content, onus is on you to convince others that it belongs. You are not doing a very good job of it.


 * Of the two sources provided in the content I removed from the article, the NBC story does not even mention the school. The only fact about the school from the WaPo story is that Ford attended here. Not one single thing else is said about the school. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to quit making up excuses to cover up up this very credible story which relates to Holton Arms School.2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Here are just a few numerous stories about the letter. .2601:447:4101:41F9:75E2:D8C2:E31F:75D (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * IPV6 user, I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. The protection on this article will lift in two days.  You've made no efforts whatsoever to work collaboratively to craft out what if any of the content you want will be in the article.  If you go back to editing this stuff into the article after protection is lifted, I can guarantee your IP will be blocked for it.  Make an edit request, start a discussion or please leave a clear message that you intend to drop this so the other editors watching this can get back to what they were doing.  Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , where do you stand on this? Ford attended here. She is listed in the notable alumnae section. I see no need for anything else, nor do I see any need for any references to be used that tie back to the Supreme Court nomination thingie. It's all WP:COATRACK. And frankly, I haven't seen any arguments presented here (or in edit summaries) that make any source or policy based arguments to the contrary. John from Idegon (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Christine Blasey Ford has never suggested that Holton-Arms had anything to do with the sexual assault she claims by Brett Kavanaugh, which allegedly occurred off-campus one summer when the school was not in session. We should add nothing further about her. As for the Sept. 20, 2018 letter signed by more than 1,000 Holton-Arms alumnae in support of Dr. Ford, it asserted no on-campus assaults or other sexual improprieties for which the school was responsible. It has no place in this article. KalHolmann (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if Ford had made a suggestion that somehow this school had culpability in whatever she claims happened to her, I cannot see how we could ever include it, . Statutes of limitations have passed for both criminal and civil action, so there is no way what she is saying can ever rise above being anything more than just accusations. John from Idegon (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Protection was off for a whopping 22 minutes before being reinstated. Wow. John from Idegon (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense and I'm closing this as trolling by the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018 Julia Louis-Dreyfus
ADD quote:

"'There were things I did in school (Holton-Arms School) that, had there been boys in the classroom, I would have been less motivated to do. For instance, I was president of the honor society' - Julia Louis-Dreyfus"

"'There were things I did in school (Holton-Arms School) that, had there been boys in the classroom, I would have been less motivated to do. For instance, I was president of the honor society' - Julia Louis-Dreyfus"

ADD: to Notable alumnae

FROM:

* Julia Louis-Dreyfus, actress

TO:

* Julia Louis-Dreyfus (1979), actress,

ADD: to Notable alumnae ADD alumna:


 * Shelley Moore Capito

* Shelley Moore Capito

69.181.23.220 (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC) 69.181.23.220 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

❌ You'll need to gain consensus for your changes John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I oppose the quote from Dreyfus. There is no place in the article where it adds context (and BTW, the requesting editor did not specify a location), and frankly appears to be just another attempt to wedge off topic content into the article regarding current events. I'm ok with adding the school reference to her entry in notable alumnae, and have no opposition to the other notable entry. I also oppose the reference about current events for Dreyfus.John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)