Jump to content

Talk:Landon School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.205.26.5 (talk) at 19:32, 9 April 2013 (→‎Another incident that gained the attention of the Washington area has been detailed in Washingtonian magazine: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSchools Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMaryland Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

"Exclusive" has a much more negative connotation than "top" as a descriptor of the school. Kukini 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but "top" is a subjective term. The school is certainly "exclusive" by virtue of its high tuition and admissions standards. One problem with this article is that it is nothing more than an advertisement for the school itself. Terms like "exclusive" seem more objective than "top". There is no citation for the use of the term.

I've flagged the article NPOV, since there seems to still be potentially excessive details and minutia about the school, including non-notable people and faculty. -- Bovineone 04:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i give up, someone else put in the link to the homepage in the top info box thing on the right—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.238.107 (talk • contribs).

It appears to be unsupported, I replaced the infobox with the current one and it still wont display the link, I tried using [[link]], [link], and just "link" and nothing happened... --MNAdam 03:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating Scandal Section

As you all can see from the edit history, there's been an ongoing issue with wholesale removals of the section about the 2002 SAT cheating scandal. Thanks to User:Kwsn, User:Beeblbrox, User:Mike R, and User:Tiptoety, the section has been restored relatively quickly nearly each time.

This section refers to an incident that gained the attention of the Washington area in 2002 and 2003, with coverage in the Washington Post, Bethesda Gazette, Washingtonian magazine, and other media. I can understand that it isn't the most positive thing for those associated with the school, but it is notable, and as far as I know, the school has made at least a verbal commitment to prevent anything like it in the future.

If you are making a good faith edit of grammar or addition of information, that's great, and I don't want to discourage you from making your additions. However, the bulk of the edits to that section have either been to cut the entire section or to remove large chunks of it. Whether they're pure vandalism or an attempt by a school supporter to hide an ugly episode involving a few of the school's students, these redactions hurt the process of building a comprehensive picture of the school.

--Blahblah29 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cheating section needed major editing, as it contained unsourced and erroneous information, especially regarding the connection between the cheating scandal and lacrosse program. A good amount of the information from the Washingtonian article is incorrect, as the author made numerous statements based on rumors and heresay. For example, only five of the ten students involved in the cheating scandal were members of the lacrosse team, and none had committed to Division 1 programs. As the school Headmaster Damon Bradley stated in a letter to alumni shortly after the incident, the punishments were meted out on a case by case basis without regard to whether the student was on a sports team.

Timmysmith36 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information there was sourced. If you believe it to be erroneous, please cite verifiable sources to the contrary. If you have that letter from Damon Bradley, for example, you might add it to this article or expand the section into a larger article about the cheating incidents.

For now, since you can see there have been multiple attempts at vandalism of this section, I've reinstated what was deleted. However, I left intact the new content you added.

--Blahblah29 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the newspaper and magazine articles and deleted information that is not stated as fact in either source. If you want to re-add them, please provide a direct quote from either source. For example, the students that had already "committed to division 1 scholarships" or that 8 of the ten accused students were lacrosse players. I'm not trying to vandalize the article, just trying to present the facts in a more accurate, concise and encyclopedic manner.

--Timmysmith36 (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like people have been spending an inordinate amount of time adding dubiously sourced info to this section in an attempt to smear the school. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip website. I think it best that this section simply be a concise summary of the facts of the case from a NPOV.

--Timmysmith36 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attempt at smearing, and I took care to double-check everything in the most recent revision, even things that had been in there for a long time, such as the number of lacrosse players (5, not 8) and the fact that the two students were pressed to withdraw (not expelled). Add what you'd like, if it's accurate and sourced; simply deleting a bunch of stuff, however, doesn't seem to be in good faith.

This was a highly visible and controversial news story in the DC area, and I understand how it's easy to find words leaning one way or another. I'm sure some wish the whole thing could be forgotten--evidenced by the many anonymous wholesale deletions of that section in the past. However, this was a notable event that should be included in an article on the school. Lots of Landon students have done good things as well, and if they're notable, they should be included, too.

--Blahblah29 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A minor schoolboy caught cheating is not the kind of minor issue we should report even with a citation. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been significant coverage of these issues that has been in-depth and long-term, and in multiple news outlets. I imagine that for many people, the only things they've heard about Landon School are the SAT cheating incident or the more recent fantasy sex league. You're right: one boy cheating isn't notable. However, entire long-form magazine pieces have been written about this stuff involving large groups of students at the school: each deserves at least a paragraph. --Blahblah29 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few students cheating in there sats should not be named and shamed here for ever and a day, the content you are replacing imo is undue and creates an attack article, how are you involved, please declare your interest. Perhaps a single line is addable and we can discuss that here, but as you are adding is excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce either issue into the article, though I have been occasionally active in undoing anonymous section blanking of the cheating scandal section. I've also sought to clean up that section and the Maureen Dowd content because of the large amount of attention they get. To be clear, I have absolutely no involvement in either of these situations. Regardless, I don't get your point; the only student named here is a mention of Maureen Dowd's reference to George Huguely, who's got an entire article about him. --Blahblah29 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Alumni

One individual over the past 3 years has continuously added the name "Tully Alford" to the famous alumni section of this school. A google and wiki search of both Tully Alford and "Terry and the Pirates"(the band) leads to nothing of relative importance. Could someone explain to me who and why this person is important? Otherwise it will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.245.131 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yannique Barker" is not a notable alumnus. Please remove this person's name if you see it on the list of notable alumni.

Yannique Barker is a hip hop artist that is currently using the name $tacks. He has produced songs with Lil' Wayne and The Game so I feel that he should in fact be considered a notable alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.212.53 (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited almuni claims

I removed this as uncited and it was replaced, alumni are not uncited, they are real people who verifiably attended the school) (undo) ...which is all very well but we need WP:RS support that says they went to this school or we can't add them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Notable alumni

Scandals???

If a fantasy sex draft organized by adolescents outside of school is notable, shouldn’t there be some mention of the fact that Landon has avoided scandals involving school employees. Take Sidwell Friends, for example. Prestigious school to be sure. Last year, police a long time Sidwell Friends middle school teacher with sexual abuse of a minor and other sexual offenses, according to law enforcement officials. Robert A. "Pete" Peterson taught seventh and eighth grades social studies at Sidwell, but was fired in 2010. In 2011, Sidwell Friends School was sued for $10 million by Arthur Newmeyer, the father of a 5-year-old studen. Newmeyer says that Sidwell was negligent and inflicted emotional distress on him after he found out that his wife was having an affair with school psychologist James Huntington. Huntington was fired in February 2011 after 10 years at Sidwell.

If Wikipedia is to become the scandal sheet - these stories are fair game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.64.224.128 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another incident that gained the attention of the Washington area has been detailed in Washingtonian magazine

As of today, another incident that gained the attention of the Washington area has been detailed in Washingtonian magazine:

http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/local-news/trial-date-set-bob-woodward-subpoenaed-in-sidwell-friends-sex-counselor-case.php

This time the subject is Sidwell friends school. Really nothing out of the ordinary, just the school shrink using his position at the school to enter into raunchy affairs with the parents of the kids he’s treating; the P.E. teachers hitting on 8th grade girls and high profile parents are outraged by the school’s handling of bullying. Nut, you know, not exactly consistent with Quaker values. The P.E. teachers hitting on 8th grade girls is a bit troubling since Sidwell had to fire an 8th grade teacher for fondling a 15 year old.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...010/09/20/AR2010092005889.html


It will be interesting to see whether Wikipedia deems this incident as newsworthy as the cheating scandal a decade ago.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Landon_School&oldid=549561285"