Talk:Loudoun County Public Schools

Accusations

Does this belong in the article right now? "In May 28, 2021, reports of multiple sexual battery committed by a transgender student in one of the school districts has come up and investigations are ongoing". It seems we don't actually know what happened and I think this may go against Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Remember (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Something should probably be mentioned if this story has any staying power. It's getting significant coverage. The prose, however, should be crafted by consensus. I support leaving it out of the article for now, semi-protecting the article, then coming up with good prose here for insertion upon consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It definitely will have staying power. I'm just not sure how easy it'll be to find non-vitriolic pieces with reliable reporting right now. Maybe after the election is done and there's been time for people to cool down. Icowrich (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the sources that are being added, one does not specify gender, one says gender-fluid, and one uses transgender. I think the gender is likely going to be DUE, as transgender policies in the schools are also part of the story. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Per your removal – this scandal has caused a lot of media attention and pressure for members of the board to resign. Perhaps it could be trimmed, but it bears mentioning. The New York Post is unreliable and should be removed (only used once, added in here to specify the assault), however the two most used sources were Newsweek and the Washington Post. Per WP:RSP, there is no consensus on Newsweek and the WP is reliable; the other source used was WJLA-TV which isn't mentioned there. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek is not reliable per WP:RSP after 2013. NYP is basically a rag. Further, this is wildly WP:UNDUE and while it doesn't name names, it's definitely a WP:BLPVIO as mere accusations are not sufficient for inclusion, especially considering it's in the first 4 paragraphs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Further, the only source you've mentioned that is truly reliable, WaPo, says They asserted that the charged youth is “gender-fluid” and that the incident occurred in a girls’ bathroom. Those details have not been confirmed by authorities. which is a bit of a nothingburger and the focus on "transgender" and "gender-fluid" is also wildly undue. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP says there is no consensus for Newsweek post-2013 and it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I see nothing that says WJLA is unreliable. This goes beyond the sexual assault accusations. It should be mentioned because it involves the school board being accused of a cover-up, parents calling for board members to resign, the superintendent later apologising and acknowledging error, and policy changes subsequently being proposed. There are more sources available: NBC Washington, KCRG by CNN, another WaPo article. Pinging @Remember, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Icowrich: for more input. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources like NBC, CNN, and WaPo are all sufficient to establish notability here. Given that this isn't just news reporting, but an extended series of controversies over the course of five months, there should certainly be some mention of what happened there. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There should be at least some reference to that case since it made singificant news. There's also an update on the case ( https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/10/loudoun-co-judge-rules-teen-sexually-assaulted-girl-in-school-bathroom/ ) with the accused being pronounced guilty. --1234567891011a (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

adding archive-link to a washington-post article regarding this update https://archive.ph/Knzex --1234567891011a (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

it appears that @Praxidicae:'s concerns about low quality sources (Special:Diff/1050558645/1050559724) has been addressed with todays news on several reliable sources about the youth being found guilty of sexual assaults. identifying the rapist as transgender or genderfluid does seem unnecessary, but i will leave it to someone else to restore the material that was removed here: Special:Diff/1050554019. pinging @Remember, ScottishFinnishRadish, Icowrich, Abbyjjjj96, and 1234567891011a:. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

see also: CBS News "Loudoun County walk-outs planned to show solidarity with sexual assault victims". 99.152.115.208 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Providing the self-identification of the perp is non-controversial, it is routine, and should be included. XavierItzm (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not wether it is controversial or not. It's wether or not it's due, which it isn't, and only serves to push a specific POV. Something that isn't helped by the fact that WJLA-TV, which seems to be the most prominent source used, is owned by Sinclair, which should be a massive red flag when it comes to their reliability. Not to mention the fact that this story is primarily being pushed by far right interest groups for propaganda purposes, mainly to stir up mass hysteria against transgender individuals. That's the main reason why it went viral in the first place. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, as 46. IP said. This is a hyper local story that has more bearing on BLP than it does on the relevance to the article itself and serves as a propaganda piece. There is no indication that this has any lasting significance and accusations are exactly that and in the interest of BLP, we should not be including such widely disputed (all the sources differ on their wording transgender/non-binary/etc...) accusations from hyper local sources. (sorry I ECd with Primefac) PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any specific policies that speak to "hyper local"? I'm not aware of any, but I haven't been researching this of late. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

none of this was listed as a complaint when Praxidicae (talk · contribs) removed this material, they complained that the sources were low quality and the inclusion of the gender-fluidity violated BLP and is undue. BLP is not an issue when the perpetrator is anonymous, and while i tend to agree that inclusion of the genderfluid material is probably undue, the fact remains that a student was raped by another student and the Loudon Co School Board tried to cover it up. if Wikipedia wants to help with that, then by all means leave out the material entirely. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the perpetrator has been found guilty, so we are well-passes accusations. In addition it is hard to give your point much credibility about this situation having no long lasting significance, when 1) There are even more allegations of sexual misconduct (including by the same guilty party). 2) The Smiths have had their name besmirched by the NSBA, which has caused several states to drop their affiliation with them-specifically about this event. 3) The DOJ has involved itself, causing much derision around the country which could affect education policy. Also your using of WP:BLP as a justification is unclear, as no one has been named except the Smith family, and Beth Barts who is a public figure of significant history; not even the rapist has been named because they are a juvenile.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My two cents as someone who has edited this page before. Specifically I added all the past school board memberships that were removed because someone claimed they were irrelevant. The sexual assault/title IX incidents should probably be included, but in a much condensed form (perhaps a separate article is best). The length of the sexual assault section, in this article, before its removal was as long as all other sections combined (minus the schools lists). This story is also changing every few days with new information, and certain perspectives written here are showing some editor's biases. Specifically, 173.87.170.14 (talk) claiming the school board and superintendent "covered up" the incidents. The assaults were immediately reported to the Sheriff's Office and arrests resulted. You cannot claim something was covered up when it was immediately handled by local law enforcement. The school system is also legally prohibited from releasing information about disciplinary actions, so they could not "cover up" something they were legally not allowed to tell the community. If this story is to be added to this article as it unfolds, then it will need constant monitoring. I would also recommend those who are interested in discussing this topic also check out the Broad Run High School, Stone Bridge High School, and other Loudoun high school Wikipedia pages, as Abbyjjjj96 (talk) has added paragraphs about the sexual assaults to those pages as well. Entitled2Titled (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

im not the only one who believes it was a cover up. as for including the material here, this particular school district has been described as "ground zero" in an important upcoming election, and been described as "ground zero" in "astroturfed right-wing freakouts over "woke" school policies". regardless, i am unable to edit the page due to the protection as discussed below, so i my work here is done. :^) 173.87.170.14 (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

this particular school district has been described as "ground zero" in an important upcoming election, and has been described as "ground zero" in "astroturfed right-wing freakouts over "woke" school policies". You just proved my point. That was probably the opposite of your intention, but thank you nonetheless. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Page locked

The slow-burning edit war here is problematic, so I have fully-protected the article until there's a solid consensus about how to proceed with the various cases of sexual assault and whether (and how) they should be listed on the article's history section. I am watching the page but will not be involved in the consensus-making process in order to remain impartial. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to keep this content off the article forever. This has been an ongoing series of events for many months now that's been getting significant coverage in the mainstream media. It's probably better to build it out in a separate article as opposed to here. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There was consensus already. In this section, the user Remember thought maybe it shouldn't be mentioned, while ScottishFinishRadish and Icowrich thought it should be. Praxidicae wants it gone, I thinks it's relevant. I waited a week for a response after my last comment here on the 18th and didn't get one at all; I was considering pinging everyone again when further information came out on the 26th and 99.152.115.208, 1234567891011a and XavierItzm expressed support. After it was added back in with more info, 46.97.170.79 was against. Praxidicae's reason for removal was no consensus which I just see as disruptive. And, if anything, 46's point over far-right propaganda concerns could be alleviated by making sure accurate information is given here. Again, it goes beyond how the perpetrator identifies because the controversy is mainly over how the superintendent and board handled it. I would support 99's suggestion of maybe building a separate article though, with a link to it on this page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the mass-deletion done 2 minutes (literally) before the page was locked was very, very disruptive and not in agreement with TP.XavierItzm (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was that mass removal that prompted the protection. I might have protected the WRONGVERSION but at least it stopped the warring. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The removed content is the disputed material. It needs to ke kept off the article until there's a definitive consensus. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

My point was more that whichever version I protected, someone would find disagreement with it, which is why I linked to a humorous essay on the matter. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Understandable, though I'm a bit puzzled as to what the essay writer was thinking when including "nationalism" among the things the strawman in their essay is complaining about. People who constantly complain about bias on wikipedia are typically of the opposite sort (i.e. whining about globalist/far-left agendas). Eh. Doesn't matter. That has little to do with this article. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC for Sexual Assault Investigations

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am snow-closing this as "include". When I initially protected the page, my initial read of the talk page discussion that there was concern over how the information was being presented, not necessarily that it was being presented (which clearly has support based on this RFC). Thus, the protection was intended to force a discussion about the matter, which is now the next step; I have started a subsection below this discussion to hopefully obtain some form of consensus. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

---

I'm creating this RfC to establish whether or not coverage of the sexual assault investigations and related coverage should be included in this article. There is extensive discussion above to refer to, and getting input from non-involved editors should help delineate what does and does not belong in this article. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• (invited by the bot) Suggest include Has immense coverage in RS's including larger scale ones, and the subject organization Such sources all discuss significant impact. The subject school district organization is in the center of it. To me it looks like a slam-dunk case for inclusion. Per WP:BLP I'd stick to strongly sourced facts about the victim and perpetrator, even if still anonymous. The section looked a little long for this article. Sourcing looks strong enough beyond what's needed for inclusion in this article and enough for a separate article. Perhaps if/after a separate article is made it should be condensed here. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would suggest inclusion. While the story was mainly pushed by far-right media for political points, it has grown beyoind that with it also appearing in reliable sources. So this case should be adressed, with prefereably some disspelling of misinformation from the far-right sources not backed up by RS. --1234567891011a (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Include - when the sources deleted include The Washington Post, Newsweek, WJLA-TV, NBC Washington, etc., evidently this all meets the notability policy.XavierItzm (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek's reliability is dubious and WJLA-TV is owned by Sinclair. I'm not sure why mentioning them makes a good case for inclusion. And just because reliable sources mention something, doesn't mean they meet standards of notability. This is an ongoing story, and for all we know, it will be dropped in a few days by all but the usual suspects. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the perennial RS list is here: WP:RSP. Newsweek is "no consensus". Surprisingly, Sinclair is not listed there. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Include: This has generated a lot of media attention and is covered by reliable sources. The controversy is not just over two sexual assaults occurring at schools in the county, but how the Loudoun County Public Schools superintendent and board handled everything, which is what makes it relevant to this article. The fact that the story is being pushed by right-wing sources is not a reason for it to be ignored; if anything, concerns over it being used for propaganda purposes stress how important it is to have the information recorded so it can be done accurately. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Soft Exclude: If enough reliable sources cover it, along with confirmation that the stories are real and the perpetrators have been properly convicted, then maybe it deserves a brief mention of a sentence or two, but that's it. On it's own, this story is nothing more than a small part of an astroturfed campaign by the GOP that also includes anti-vax and anti-CRT "protests". Wikipedia doesn't have to signal-boost that kind of nonsense. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The suspect has been found guilty all charges in the Loudoun County School assault. [1] SaltySaltyTears (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So a brief mention then. Although WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS still need to be considered. Also, if we're going to speak of this in detail and mention the protests, should we also mention the parents doing nazi salutes? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't see anything about Nazi salutes at a Loudoun County school board meeting. The NSBA said it happened in Michigan to protest mask requirements (WaPo). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that the one that Ted Cruz defended? There's just been a surge of right wingers harrassing school boards for all sorts of things, and it all blurs together... Yeah, I should probably withdraw from this one. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Include: This is a big story spanning many months, covered by multiple mainstream media outlets, to the point that it is impacting the gubernatorial election: NPR, NPR, WaPo, WaPo, many more WaPo, The Independent, National Review, NYT, NYT, Washington Examiner, The Hill. Dozens of other articles across all the mainstream media refer to the School Board, and the surrounding impact of the Sexual Assault. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That National Public Radio link you included is quite definitive: "the system's handling of two alleged sexual assaults in schools reignited the media frenzy." There's your notability right there. Having said that, perhaps the NPR journalists don't read newspapers? NPR's "alleged" sexual assailant "was found guilty on all counts" the day before and reported by the media the day before. Who knows, maybe NPR's internet access was down that day. XavierItzm (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

*exclude: this incident is obviously causing great distress to some people. despite obvious consensus here, we should all consider their feelings and leave the material out. (edited) 173.87.170.14 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC) changed !vote, see below. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop adding sarcastic jabs to the RfC, especially after you've been told multiple times that this sort of behavior is disruptive. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

speaking of disruptive, why don't you strike your false assertion that anyone at these meetings did a Nazi salute? those are living people, after all and BLP applies on talkpages. besides who are you to decide that my words are sarcastic? 173.87.170.14 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The assertion is supported by reliable sources, including Snopes. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I went to Snopes and did not find any piece that said there were Nazi salutes in Loudoun at school board meetings.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm just discussing the incident with Springee on the Ted Cruz talk page. A parent at a school board meeting thought it was appropriate to compare the school board to nazi germany by mockingly doing the reich salute and yelling "Heil Hitler" in response to a woman talking about the importance of mask mandates. But that has nothing to do with this particular topic, which is why I specifically said I will not bring it up again. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

your dispute with another editor at a different page is not relevant here, and trying to bring it here could be construed as disruptive. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Soft Include: The issue with LPSB and Loudoun county officials encompasses more than just the rape and the revelations of the schoolboard and principal previous knowledge of it. There is also all the issues regarding attempts by members of the school board, the common wealth attorney, and local activist and political groups via the facebooks group to doxx, harrass, and spy on parents who were questioning the validity of district policies. These have predated but are nonetheless related to the rape revelations so should be included, however, it is likely a WP:Undue weight issue will arise, so recommmend likely will need to fork to a new page "Loudoun Parent Protests" or something to be determined. With regards to the transgender issue, it is entirely germaine to the issue, prevalent in lawsuits, the the dubious actions of the commonwealth attorne-needs to be kept. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the entire school system gets notable controversies every two to three years so I would suggest a Controversies section of which the current sexual assualt discussions is but one. Other controversies included Bruce Damron a former teacher and Lawsuits against staff due to suicides Victortan (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely Include: If there's a controversy section it can go there, if not stand alone section as last resort. The school's protection of a rape suspect ties into other controversies happening in conjunction with the school e.g. the father of one of the victims being charged for making a scene when officials refused to even admit the allegations, or Superintendent of Schools Scott Ziegler's blatant denial of the facts. 人族 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• include, per the numerous arguments seen above. hopefully this can be snow closed tomorrow, which would be about seven days since this RfC was initiated. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC) — 173.87.170.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltySaltyTears (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  SaltySaltyTears, please do not bite the newcomers. While it's fine to inform the IP of wp:spa, your comment comes across more as a warning to other users to be doubtful of their input. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Include, as this controversy has resulted in significant regional and national coverage by reliable sources over the span of months. It is important to note some media outlets have implicitly, if not explicitly, reported the sexual assault allegations as cases of stranger rape. This is in apparent furtherance of a strategy of fanning an anti-transgender bathroom panic. IIRC, there is information published by reliable sources that indicates neither alleged sexual assault was a case of stranger rape. Rape is still rape, whether by a stranger or not. So, this distinction speaks to the politicization of the allegations not to the potential ethical or criminal culpability of the alleged sexual assault perpetrator if the allegations are true. That said, if reliable sources support the stranger rape framing then that should also be included regardless of how it is leveraged politically. --Mox La Push (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content to include

As mentioned in my RFC close above, my initial read of the talk page discussions was less about whether or not to include the various sexual assault allegations, but that what we did include was undue, potentially failing BLPCRIME, as well as potential NPOV issues. Rather than open up the page quiet yet, I'd like to see discussion on what content should be included based on what was initially, which I have included below for reference.

Text of the article, from Special:PermaLink/1051992100#2021_sexual_assaults

2021 sexual assaults On May 28, 2021, a male teenager was accused of sexually assaulting a female student in a girl's bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. Parents of students at the school have said the accused identifies as "gender fluid". At a Loudoun County School Board meeting on June 22, while discussing the school's policy on transgender and nonbinary students, superintendent Scott Ziegler stated that there were no reports of any assaults occurring in the school's bathrooms and that a "predator transgender student or person simply does not exist". The father of the alleged victim accused the school of covering up the assault to push Policy 8040, which the school passed in August to allow students to use lockers rooms and bathrooms corresponding to their "consistently asserted gender identity". The father was arrested at the meeting for obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. The Loudoun County Sheriff's Office have stated they were "immediately" made aware by school officials of the alleged assault on May 28. On July 8, a 14 year old male was arrested and charged with two counts of forcible sodomy. The suspect spent time in a juvenile detention facility before being released and transferred to another school. On October 6, 2021, the same male teenager, now aged 15, was accused of sexually assaulting a female student in an empty classroom at Broad Run High School in Ashburn; the male student was arrested the following day and charged with sexual battery and abduction of a fellow student. The student again spent time in a juvenile detention facility; it is unclear if he is still detained. At a school board meeting on October 12, parents criticized the handling of the alleged assaults, expressing fear for their children's safety in Loudoun County Public Schools and calling for the school board, including superintendent Scott A. Ziegler, to resign. On October 15, the father of the Stone Bridge victim stated his family would sue the school. Later the same day, Ziegler said he "wrongly interpreted" questions at the June 22 meeting and apologized, calling his comments "misleading". This was disputed, with some parents accusing him of lying. Ziegler stated that, while the schools complied with requirements on how sexual assault allegations are investigated, they "failed to provide the safe, welcoming, and affirming environment" they aspired to. He proposed board policy changes to "protect the safety of the student body and the rights of the accused" and "place greater emphasis on victim rights". Later on October 15, Beth Barts, a school board member representing Leesburg, announced that she had submitted her resignation, effective November 2. On October 25, the suspect was found guilty on all charges. School students across Loudoun County, including students at Stone Bridge High School, Broad Run High School, Loudoun County High School, Briar Woods High School and Lightridge High School, performed walkout protests on October 26 in support of the victims. Students at Broad Run chanted "Loudoun County protects rapists". The father of the first victim has demanded an apology and retraction from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) after he and other parents were characterized as "domestic terrorists" in a September 29 letter to President Joe Biden, with the NSBA citing his arrest at the June 22 board meeting. His attorneys said that the NSBA released an apology to other NSBA members on October 22 but "did not include any specific apology" to him or other parents. References

Thoughts on what definitely needs keeping and what should be struck are appreciated. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was inaccurate as of Oct. 25 to say that "On October 25, the suspect was found guilty on all charges." As the cited WaPost article says: "a Virginia juvenile court judge found sufficient evidence during a trial Monday to sustain charges that a teen sexually assaulted a classmate in the girls’ bathroom of a Loudoun County high school in May. The teenager, now 15, is also charged with the sexual assault of another student that occurred months later at a different Loudoun school. Loudoun County juvenile court Chief Judge Pamela L. Brooks said she would wait to sentence the teen until that case is decided in November." I am unaware of the status of the charges in the second case. In any case, the same WaPost article reports information that contradicts a stranger rape narrative in the cases. --Mox La Push (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me quote from WP:RS ABC News 7 (WJLA-TV): "the teen suspect in a sex assault at Stone Bridge High School in Loudoun County in May has been found guilty on all charges". That should settle your concerns.XavierItzm (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The suspect was found guilty on all charges for the May assault, but the case for the October assault is undecided. I must have got mixed up by the wording when I made that edit. This WJLA source from November 3rd says the suspect will be back in court on November 15th for the second assault and will be sentenced that day. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

🙄 this page was protected in error. there never was a "slow burning edit war" or whatever the stated justification was. one user, Praxidicae, who did not participate in the RfC above by the way, unilaterally felt that this material should be excluded. Primefac failed to properly assess this situation and could remedy this by unprotecting the page but i aint holdin my breath. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP that the intervention was incorrect and that the RFC shows there was never any valid reason to close the page.XavierItzm (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

* Include text as is, immediately unblock the page to let Wikipedia collaborative editing as intended. The result of the RFC was a snow include. Evidently if one feels the blanket include has the odd detail not warranted per policy (such as WP:BLP or whatever), then one can edit as appropriate. Short-circuiting the collaborative approach to Wikipedia editing is entirely inappropriate, and that is what is being done on this page despite community agreement. XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

* Unblock the page and WP:SEMI protect it and let the process work as intended. The amount of pearl clutching on this article is getting ridiculous. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

In any event, the main question in what was described as an edit war has been resolved. The normal editing process should now resume to develop the specifics. IMO if everyone just tries to make the article informative rather than striving for making it better or worse looking towards their particular POV it will work out better and less likely to end up with any new restrictions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

References

restored

per WP:BOLD, i restored an old version by Abbyjjjj96. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

new grand jury report

https://www.loudounnow.com/report-of-the-special-grand-jury-on-the-investigation-of-loudoun-county-public-schoools/pdf_3f37a688-74bf-11ed-bca4-739294eb5497.html

New developments today. As far as I can see, there is no principled reason not to incorporate the perspective of the Special Grand Jury report in this article. It would be wrong to just try to suppress everything that goes against the narrative, as might have been part of the motivation of the LCPS administrators. I urge everyone to not hold uncomfortable findings to an unusually high standard of notability for partisan reasons. For instance, on page 17, the jurors say that they believe Mr Ziegler was relying on the public's unfamiliarity with Title IX when he said that the matter was not investigated because Title IX prevented it. "A shield to fend off criticism", in their words. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree and also there should probably be a discussion about creating/forking a whole article strictly for this issue as it has now encompassed beyond just the LCPS. The Commonwealth's Attorney's office has been implicated (and has been cited in several court cases) for her misbehavior in this chain of events-which are 100% notable and relevant, even though she is not part of the LCPS.

Also, it appears that many of the responsible parties (i.e. Ziegler, Bijeraj, LCPS's attorney) have been the sole authorities of many of the so-called "reliable" sources on this page. In light of these new revelations, there should be a reexamination of the reliability and appropriateness of citing said sources-in particular the WashPost, Politico, etc.-who have relied solely on those with zero credibility, and in Ziegler's case, outright lied according the the grand jury. CheerioHoundofBaskersville (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Misleading "New York Times" claim

The sentence 'The New York Times further noted that early media coverage of the assaults had sensationalized the story by failing to report that the victim and assailant "had an ongoing sexual relationship and had arranged to meet in the bathroom." ' is potentially misleading as it implies that the rape that occurred was actually consensual and that the whole news story was being blown out of proportion, which is obviously untrue. JH2903 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As I understand that sentence, it isn't implying that "the rape was consensual". The sentence seems to be implying that the rape was "sensationalized" by conservative news outlets that exploited the case to advance a false narrative about transgender students sneaking into bathrooms and assaulting people at random. It's not victim blaming to note that political actors advanced a false narrative about the assault. That said, The New York Times didn't use the word "sensationalize" so I removed that word, but the rest of the sentence is accurate and supported by the Times article, so it should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.199.139 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Their information is factually incorrect because "ongoing" is not true, and that word heavily implies consent which is obviously false. "arranged to meet" is misleading for the same reason, the victim said "here i'll meet u but i'm not promises anything" [2]

Also to note that the "zeroed in on the transgender angle" quote is irrelevant because it's admitted that policy 8040 is by all means vital to the incident. JH2903 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence says that they had an ongoing sexual relationship at the time of the assault. Once the assault happened, it was no longer consensual. A sexual relationship can start out consensual and then become nonconsensual. So no, stating that they had an ongoing sexual relationship before the assault happened isn't factually incorrect. Nor does it imply that there was consent when the assault happened.

Policy 8040 wasn't even in place when the assault happened, so I don't know what you mean when you say that the policy was "vital to the incident". According to who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.199.139 (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding clarification in the article, but "had" is used because the NYT article was obviously written after the assault, and is therefore using the past tense. There would be no need for the term ongoing if they were using it to refer to before the past tense they were already in.

As for policy 8040, the policy explicitly allowed for the perpetrator to be where he was when he committed the rape, that's just what the policy is about. Additionally, the policy was revised after the rape as mentioned in the article, so it was the school themselves who admitted that it was relevant. JH2903 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be getting Policy 8040 confused with Title IX. The article states that Title IX was revised after the assault. I'm not seeing anything in the article about revisions occurring to Policy 8040 after the assault. Again, Policy 8040 wasn't even adopted until after the assault occurred. And even if Policy 8040 had been in place at the time of the assault, it would not have allowed the perpetrator to be where he was, because the perpetrator isn't transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.199.139 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

with "the perpetrator isn't transgender," I assume you haven't seen the picture of him (and his pride flags)[3] or the fact that he was also wearing a skirt when he raped the victim JH2903 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of reporting that the perpetrator wore a skirt. But there's a fundamental difference between wearing gender nonconforming clothes and identitying as transgender. The perpetrator's lawyer and mom have both confirmed that he isn't transgender. So Policy 8040 would not have applied to him, regardless of how he dressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.199.139 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the flags in the picture is a "non-binary" flag, so I can't tell if you're purposefully being obtuse and also can't tell that the lawyer was just concerned with optics or if you actually believe he's a "cis" man. Regardless i see no point in going forward if it's either of these. JH2903 (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how the perpetrator identifies. Neither of us do with any certainty, unless you know someone personally involved in all of this. There's a reasonable chance that the perpetrator is, or at least was at the time, unsure about how he identified. But Policy 8040 doesn't apply to students who are unsure about their identities. The policy only applies to students with a "consistently asserted gender identity." Available reporting gives every indication that, even if the perpetrator may have been unsure about his gender identity, he never "consistently asserted" himself as transgender or nonbinary. So as I understand it, Policy 8040 would not have applied to him.

Even more relevant though, is the fact that Policy 8040 simply wasn't in place when the assault happened. So regardless of the perpetrator's identity, it's incorrect to say that any school policy allowed him to be in the bathroom when he committed the assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.182.199.139 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Population growth

I question attributing the population growth to Dulles in 1962. Washington Post article from 1985 says the population of Ashburn is 200. I think this is a typo and it should be 2000, as Ashburn elementary was listed as 200 students. It wasn't until 1985 that they opened up Ashburn Village bringing in 5000 homes, and a little before with Sugarland Run, that the population could be said to skyrocket. 71.62.43.59 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Private figure conviction

greetings: the name of the rapist has been repeatedly removed by ScottishFinnishRadish, most recently using the rationale WP:BLPNAME which states that "caution" is to be used when naming a rapist whose name has not been widely disseminated. this particular individual has been named on a widely read website, and appeared on the national sex offender registry for some time, so i would argue that their name has been "widely disseminated". i do not see any reason to exclude the name of this individual, certainly not based on the rationale given. i welcome ScottishFinnishRadish to provide input as to why this individual's name should be excluded. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Because permanently listing the name of someone who committed a crime at 15 in the article on a school district is exactly what BLPNAME is meant to address. The name adds no context and just serves to publicize the name of a non-public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Hello, in my opinion it is not about using a "rationale" here, it is a very clear-cut case for the application of WP:BLPNAME. You mention that you see no "reason to exclude", but that is exactly where I think you are approaching it the wrong way, since it is about having strong enough reasons to include, which to me are clearly not there in this case, since the article is not even primarily about the sexual assaults. Choucas Bleu^talk_contribs 14:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with the statements and characterizations by ScottishFinnishRadish and Choucas Bleu, above. It would be one thing to list a name as a notable former student at a school without much commentary — schools often have long lists of alums and attendees notable for any reason. But it's another thing to inject off-topic BLP material textually. It provides WP:UNDUE weight and is countermanded by WP:BLPNAME. The addition was cruft of no encyclopedic value. JFHJr (㊟) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• I also agree with the previous responses regarding BLPNAME and UNDUE. I'm not sure what encyclopedic value is added by including the name of a person who was convicted when they were 15 years old, especially when I can only find two sources, both from July 2024, that mention the name at all, and none of the sources from the original reporting appear to include it. "Widely disseminated" means by numerous reliable sources. I also wonder if the whole section may be undue as WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is meant to include important information that will have enduring encyclopedic significance, rather than to memorialize any crime that receives news coverage. – notwally (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• That entire section needs to be trimmed back and summarized more succinctly. That paragraph that goes into details about the court's actions is wildly undue. What the judge said in court is not relevant to Loudoun County Public Schools, nor is the timeline of dates in the judicial proceedings. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)