Talk:Covington Catholic High School

message: The lawyers for Nick Sandman have produced an eleven minute video that should be on this page with the notation that it is from their lawyers but it gives their side and therefore is well worth adding in order to be balanced. The video is by  L. Lin Wood. It can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=lSkpPaiUF8s
Bjorklund21 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conclusively proves"? Wikipedia is not a court of law. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me the current edit (see second paragraph on section as of 4:12 EST) is very one-sided in the students favor. Need more reliable sources here. Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right now the edit is extremely one-sided AGAINST the students. In both the controversy section and opening section. The "build the wall" chant was proven false by video evidence, and I think there should be AT LEAST one line explaining the other side's argument of the controversy. You say Wikipedia is not a court of law, but this article makes it seem like they were proven guilty. --2600:1700:9980:FB60:1013:F7CC:823F:E28E (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

text: "Given that we can all see for ourselves" is a statement of your opinion, not fact. The fact is that the videos are open to interpretation. If major media outlets begin credible reporting of this alternative version of events, it can then be added to the section. And I will add that if this version is the truth, then the students involved are unlikely to be expelled from their school. PrimaPrime (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  new information Irishfrisian (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  March for Life controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Covington Catholic High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100416014834/http://www.advanc-ed.org/schools_districts/school_district_listings/? to http://www.advanc-ed.org/schools_districts/school_district_listings/?
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Covington Catholic High School. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.advanc-ed.org/schools_districts/school_district_listings/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928074332/http://covcath.org/?page=history to http://covcath.org/?page=history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: School is dedicated to youth promoting deportation of Native, yes Native Americans!!!!!!!!! 2601:603:1F7F:B4F2:B8B6:B46B:AAE:DEBB (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019  

message: This paragraph was 1) completely uncited and 2) full of WEASELy statements like "Graduates tend to score highly on the ACT and almost all enroll in a four-year college or university." I have since removed it. I encourage editors to restore it when appropriate sources can be found. Thank you. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited academic life section 

message: Please change 'On January 18, 2019, the school attracted national attention' to On January 18, 2019, the school attracted international attention'.   Because the incident is being reported in Europe as seen here -  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/20/outcry-after-kentucky-students-in-maga-hats-mock-native-american-veteran  AND here   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46935701 Poukie (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for raising this. I've removed the phrase entirely, as it's rather hackneyed anyway and adds little to the section. MPS1992 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019  

message: So here are some facts:
* The students were there because for March for Life 2019
* The students behaved antagonistically towards participants of the Indigenous People's March
Calling it the "Indigenous People's March controversy" (or scandal) is weird because the students were not participating in that march. They were participating in the March for Life. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title Indigenous Peoples' March scandal is more accurate than Indigenous Peoples' March controversy as it is clearly a scandal, but I also think that both of these titles are better than March for Life 2019 and student conflict with the Indigenous Peoples' March. Please see Richard Nixon and the section "Reelection, Watergate scandal, and resignation". Should that be changed to the Watergate controversy? I don't think so. How about the Bernard Madoff and his "Investment scandal" or should that be the Investment controversy? There are many other titles at Wikipedia that correctly include the word scandal in their name. Let's keep Indigenous Peoples' March controversy for now and see about a consensus later. Jerry Stockton (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, "controversy" for now, as a current event. In days to weeks there may be enough confirmation of facts to describe it as "incident." "Scandal" tends to be used as description for deliberately planned actions (Watergate, Madoff), while this appears to be a consequence of different groups happening to be near each other, unplanned. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

text: It's not "every detail" -- in this case, it makes it clear there are two different parties and events that intersected at a singular place and time. Those are rather broad details. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case, there are at least three parties to the controversy. A time & place label (e.g. '2019 Lincoln Memorial Controversy') might avoid loaded terms and excessive length. StuartH (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing a neutral header 

message: This article is a disgrace. The copious and wholly unwarranted addition of salacious bits of tabloid sensationalism, most of which were later proved unfounded, greatly degrades the prestige and respectability of Wikipedia. In particular, the segment about President Trump's use of the moniker "Pocahontas" as a potential influence on the students was entirely inappropriate, unless Wikipedia permits mind-reading and baseless speculation. This is vandalism by zealots. Please try to confront your toxic internal culture and revert this to an article about the academic institution. It is your duty to maintain neutrality and objectivity during times when the internet is slithering with obsessive political saboteurs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.61.12 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, 98.167.61.12, you say "the fact" twice, as if a simple assertion will not convey your thought.  Wikipedia neutrality and objectivity is a reflection of publicly available press accounts.  You seem to assume that there is an objective truth available to you that is not available to editor-zealots.  If the press is issuing retractions, they will be reflected in the article. That's a self-correcting mechanism that will result. eventually in a good article. The article appears to be in relatively good shape right now, free of "salacious bits of tabloid sensationalism." Please contribute to the article ... or write a letter to the editor of your favorite paper.  You can skip the complaining on this page. Rhadow (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professionalism 

message: Since the name of student's at the center of the controversy is now known, I want to preemptively urge us not to include his name in the article per WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I believe this is standard practice in these situations. If anyone disagrees, this would be a good place to discuss it.- MrX 🖋 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the student 

message: That this event pushes a lot of political and racial buttons is causing the editing here to get ahead of the facts. Please slow down. David notMD (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid rush to judgement 

message: This article is indeed a disgrace. The  conntent  needs to  be removed from  the sources leaving  only  the links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate  content 

message: According to the Cincinnati Enquirer here the first impressions about the video were wrong, or partly wrong. The videos were apparently cut/edited to make the students look bad.
"People across social media have responded to the video saying it shows the students were provoked and that the man put himself in that position... Phillips said the incident started as the Covington Catholic students were observing a group of Black Hebrew Israelites talk, and started to get upset at their speeches." (This might be understandable, as our article on the Black Hebrew Israelites says that at least some fringe members of that group "believe that Jews are devilish impostors and ... openly condemn whites as evil personified, deserving only death or slavery" so.....) After that it's not clear, but I mean read the article yourself. The Cincinnati Enquirer is a legit operation and I think is the main newspaper for Cincinnati.
Right now I think this is too much in flux us to be able to deal with this situation. There's no hurry. We're not able to describe this incident to the reader in a neutral and accurate manner, because apparently no one can at this moment. There are living persons involved, who are not public figures, and in particular are minors (this is important), and even if we don't identify them they are easy identifiable and at least one of them has name all over the internet. So given that, and that we can't yet present a neutral and accurate description, I've removed the material for now on WP:BLP grounds. Restoring it without a clear consensus to do so would be a BLP violation and we wouldn't want that. Re-adding material on the event and subsequent kerfluffle would be OK if its short bland and neutral, but that's as far as we ought to go now. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting opinion, but with no names given in the article, it doesn't hold up. Plenty of other editors have worked on this piece, so just one editor cannot gainsay all their work. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose this is rather unilateral action and the material is well sourced. Do you have a reliable source proving the videos were cut in a malicious manner? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I claim that it's a WP:BLP issue. I believe that, even if I'm wrong, I have reasonable -- even substantial -- grounds grounds for saying that. However, I'm not going to again remove the material at this time, although others may wish to and IMO should. Let's see if we can get consensus to include this material. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text: OpposeThis is entirely unilateral, the story is of ongoing interest and there are more and more reliable sources about every detail of this story. The media inaccuracy/rush to judgement angle makes the event noteworthy in itself and should be mentioned. At the moment, this article serves as a very soft implicit confirmation of the initial, inaccurate reporting - the only thing we know from it is that Phillips (passively) encountered the schoolboys and they wore MAGA hats. Not good enough. SeanusAurelius (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've removed the material on the incident on [[WP:BLP]] grounds 

message: *Redact the material and replace with a couple-few bland NPOV sentences just generally describing that the incident occurred. Reasons being: 1) we literally don't know yet what happened because we don't know what is in the full, non-excerpted videos, or even who took them and why, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer yesterday (article is here). We want to get this right, and there's no super hurry here. 2) IMO there're serious WP:BLP issues, and I'll expand on that in the section below. Herostratus (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Delete the line "Later, fuller, videos that emerged appeared to show that the students did not insult the marchers but were themselves abused by a group of Black Israelites and the marchers, who had moved and approached the boys.". This is a heavy claim that has no proof backing it. So far no reliable source has proven that the boys were harassed first. Please do not insert your own opinion into a Wikipedia article. 68.4.219.58 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It has no backing apart from the full video taken by the BHI themselves, where at 48 minutes - from a distance and unprovoked - they start calling the boys crackers, school shooters and saying that they burn in the sun. You're welcome 89.243.227.163 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text: If you need a secondary source, here . The BHI were making racist comments to both the CC students and the natives, as well as homophobia. Quote: "None of the videos show students attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites". Looks like you're the one who wants to insert your own opinion into the Wikipedia article.:) 89.243.227.163 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text: - The material has been edited to conform to the sources. If you see something specific that is not verifiable in one of the four sources in that paragraph, please indicate so below.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Retain it. The videos do indeed show that all of those slurs were used. Hard to see the rationale for removing my edits on the basis of unreliable sources when said sources are citing minute and second of a video that is verifiable by any editor, and the Cincinnati Enquirer backed up the general claims that the Black Hebrew Israelites were the party most at fault. Now the page is back where it started: Poor old Nathan Phillips passively "encountered" the boys and they wore MAGA hats. No mention of the Black Hebrew Israelites, no mention of the boys being ratially abused by Phillips supporter, no mention of the media firestorm and subsequent retractions which is probably the most newsworthy element of the story. No one reading this article after hearing the initial, completely false news reports would be any the wiser. SeanusAurelius (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry , but there is more recent information reported in highly respected source like The Washington Post and The New York Times. We are not allowed to edit content based on our impressions or analysis of primary sources (which includes videos). See WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

text:  Hence why I provided secondary sources which accurately noted the component incidents. And I cited both WaPo and NYT, so there's that. Furthermore, WaPo and the NYT have not covered the media failure angle despite a lot of attention to it.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanusAurelius (talk • contribs) 05:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Parking a reference.  ClemRutter (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019 

message: Hey I've found a number of news articles featuring topics that either directly or indirectly discuss Covington Catholic High School. 
===Blackface Incident===
*https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/
*https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/covington-catholic-blackface-videos-photos/
*https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 
:I think we'd probably need to see a conviction before it's worth including in the article. Presumably, alumni of many schools get charged with many serious crimes. Nicholas Udall, for example, was convicted of a capital crime, and was notable in his own right, but still is not mentioned in the article about Eton College where he was headmaster.
 
:I'm not sure Heavy.com is a reliable source for these sorts of accusations. Nor Snopes, on its own.
:Finally, I've changed one of your subsection headings because it was completely inaccurate. Please read WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these should be included, especially the alleged rape by a former student. It has nothing to do with the school. The blackface incident is not noteworthy as far as I can tell. Heavy.com is not a useable source. A Snopes entry is not worthy of inclusion in a major encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Inside Edition broadcast an African American former basketball player named Philip Hawkins from an opposing team who claimed the CovCath boys made reference to his skin color when they chanted "Caramel! Caramel!": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lf9x5Ma5qI Kire1975 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who decides what's "appropriate" to post on a talk page? Kire1975 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: *https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/
*https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/covington-catholic-blackface-videos-photos/
*https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covington-catholic-black-paint/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 
:I think we'd probably need to see a conviction before it's worth including in the article. Presumably, alumni of many schools get charged with many serious crimes. Nicholas Udall, for example, was convicted of a capital crime, and was notable in his own right, but still is not mentioned in the article about Eton College where he was headmaster.
 
:I'm not sure Heavy.com is a reliable source for these sorts of accusations. Nor Snopes, on its own.
:Finally, I've changed one of your subsection headings because it was completely inaccurate. Please read WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of these should be included, especially the alleged rape by a former student. It has nothing to do with the school. The blackface incident is not noteworthy as far as I can tell. Heavy.com is not a useable source. A Snopes entry is not worthy of inclusion in a major encyclopedia.- MrX 🖋 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Inside Edition broadcast an African American former basketball player named Philip Hawkins from an opposing team who claimed the CovCath boys made reference to his skin color when they chanted "Caramel! Caramel!": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lf9x5Ma5qI Kire1975 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who decides what's "appropriate" to post on a talk page? Kire1975 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackface Incident

message: CNN have reported that the account that uploaded the minute-long video showing Phillips and the students but not the preceding events is a fake account using someone else's photo, and has been suspended from Twitter for "Deliberate attempts to manipulate the public conversation on Twitter by using misleading account information is a violation of the Twitter Rules." According to another investigator, the red flags were "high follower count, highly polarized and yet inconsistent political messaging, the unusually high rate of tweets, and the use of someone else's image in the profile photo." I think this should be included in the article, just like you would mention who Alex Jones or Paul Joseph Watson are if they made a selective video about someone. 89.243.227.163 (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be included because this is an article about a high school. Social media manipulation is important, but not in the context of the article's subject.- MrX 🖋 12:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viral video came from fake account 

message: On January 22, 2018, the school closed for security reasons. 128.163.239.166 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019 

message: *Updated: Nathan Phillips rally protesters attempted to disrupt Mass at DC’s National Shrine
*So apparently, Phillips was the leader of a protest group which was attempting to enter the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception during Holy Mass. There were about 20 people in the invasion force. 2600:8800:1880:93E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So what verbage do you propose, IP? Maybe I'm missing something, but this discussion is about verbage in an article, not really the place for posting up-to-the-minute breaking news. If you have a point, and it's just going over my head, help me understand. Because as I currently see it, this topic discussion has gone off the rails. CordialGreenery (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the subject of this article.- MrX 🖋 01:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The latest development in the controversy

message: Change Anti-Abortion to Pro-Life 162.197.53.174 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - "Anti-abortion" is the more neutral way of saying "opposed to abortion".- MrX 🖋 21:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Don't you mean a more biased way of saying it? Consciously or unconsciously, it still projects a negative connotation to the term. Opposed to abortion instead of in favor of life. The tables could easily be turned. Instead of pro-choice, it's anti-life, a more neutral way of saying "opposed to life". Completecommonsense (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019 

message: I'm too new here to create a new article, but I'm hoping someone else will click on the link to create it.
Burtbroil (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new article "2019 Lincoln Memorial controversy" 

message: In the History section, change the "Society of Mary" link to Society of Mary (Marianists) -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mary_(Marianists). "Society of Mary" currently links to Society of Mary (Marists), which is incorrect. Society of Mary (Marists) is a separate organization that has never been affiliated with Covington Catholic High School. 38.104.182.190 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019 

message: :If I were tempted to edit- I would introduce the heading ==Extra curricula activities== above a ===Athletics ===. I would assume that ===March for Life=== is extra curricula, and move all that stuff out of history to the ===section noe under ===Athletics===  Explain why taking pupils on a politic process is considered acceptable, then ====2018 incident==== could go there. That would flow and allow details of the school to take priority. Explanation  of the Kentucky schools sporting organisation and the schools prominence that outsiders could understand can now be the first paragraphs in the Athletics section. ClemRutter (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Without seeing the course catalog, it's unclear to me whether participation in the March is considered an extracurricular activity, or whether students may earn credit for it as part of a course in the religion or community service department. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been tempted- and made the structure change -any comments ClemRutter (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My only reservation is that the controversy section is about a part of the school's history, not really about a planned extracurricular activity. Maybe it deserves to be in a separate "Controversy" section, I don't know. If it stays in "Extracurricular activities", I'd suggest retitling it to "March for Life" and pulling the sentence explaining the annual trip out of a parenthetical to the top of the section. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Pastors from 13 Northern Kentucky parishes approved plans for construction  To me 'pastor' is a evangelical protestant position- I have never heard it being used within the Catholic Community here in the UK? Is this acceptable in Kentucky? Can you drop in a reference that confirms Catholic usage- and explain what is their JD? ClemRutter (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pastor#Catholicism. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Mea maxima culpa. ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

text: This term is also used in the cited source, which was authored and published in Northern Kentucky. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word pastor 

message: and other contributors. Excellent work. There is however one section left to tackle! To European readers a school is about learning, and how it is done- they start from a very low knowledge base as the US doesn't have an Abitur or IBs or GCSEs or even a National Curriculum. So the direct question to answer is how does the teaching deviate from the average school described in High school (North America). Terms such as AP, Carnegie Units need to be explained of linked on the way. Clicking through links such as Project Lead the Way or worse still STEM lead through to multiply flawed start class articles that don't give us the beef! How would this be different if CovCath had not been private, or not been affiliated to the church. I have written this paragraph to suggest a few ways you could approach the section- or to inspire someone to take up the challenge. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "STEM" just means the set of those four subjects, so you're right that it needs more context. All I've seen so far is that Project Lead the Way has provided curricula for those subjects, and there's a new STEM wing of the school building that... includes drama and music classrooms?  The school's website is finally back online, minus some potentially controversy-related sections, so that can be a resource for expanding the section on academics (provided that we corroborate it with other sources, of course). To be honest, I don't expect to be able to write a ton about CovCath's current academic program; the school isn't nearly as experimental as it was during the 1970s. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A month on- what a transformation