Talk:Covington Catholic High School

March for Life controversy

This is not the first time that a Covington Catholic student has been documented behaving inappropriately during a "March for Life". See the caption and photo for http://www.iowastatedaily.com/roe-v-wade-years-later/article_98d090dc-ffdb-11e7-9b69-b73ad29d2953.html

Students from this school have a history of damaging and entitled behavior: https://www.nkytribune.com/2018/12/former-covington-catholic-basketball-player-jacob-walter-jailed-for-alleged-sexual-assault/

The Diocese of Covington has also quite recently censored a gay student at another school, claiming that his Valedictorian speech was too "political" (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/29/gay-valedictorians-speech-rejected-kentucky-catholic-school-diocese/650814002/) while simultaneously sending student delegations every year to a political rally in Washington DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MooneMan (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone going to update the page with information from the full video that conclusively proves the kids innocent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.61.204 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

The word 'controversy' is often used in various Wikipedia articles summarily to reference what could be considered a conflict. It seems very common. Suggesting the use of the word 'conflict' or 'antagonism' in its place as I've seen in some of the edit history for this page seems somewhat ambiguous. I do appreciate the oftenly used word 'controversy'. Take for example this article on Josiah Whitney, should all uses for the word conflict be changed to controversy? If you'd like to go through all of Wikipedia and pick apart the use of the word 'controversy' then go ahead - but since this controversy is recent I suggest waiting a bit before reverting the use of the word controversy. 2602:306:CFC7:CB00:68D9:646B:7EA0:DF65 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Given that we can all see for ourselves that the the claims that the teenagers were being racist, are false, yet there are no major news outlet reporting on this yet and therefore we cannot source any major news outlet. And we also know that threats have been made against the teens and they could loose their places at school, what action can be taken to document what has really happened, on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.253.166 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"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)

new information Irishfrisian (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html

I think this needs to be updated. Most of news stations across the country are reporting that it appears Phillips is at fault. Yet none of that is on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookiebalookie2 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable alumni

For an alumnus to be notable they must have a Wikipedia article - this is the definition of notable. The way forward is to write a page on the person, in a manner that meets WP:BIO, and source that the person attended the school. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"For an alumnus to be notable they must have a Wikipedia article". I disagree.EagleFan (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

please add:

Jacob Walter, rapist (https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/northern-ky/2018/12/17/jacob-walter-former-xavier-commit-has-rape-case-go-grand-jury/2335844002/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.186.7 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Notable alumni - Inclusion criteria:

A person should be included as a "notable alumna or alumnus" if the person would qualify for an article in his or her own right under Wikipedia: Notability (people)/WP:BIO. By implication, this means that each person listed in a "notable alumni" or "notable alumnae" section should have a wikilink, either red or blue.

Thus, people who have their own Wikipedia articles should generally be listed under "notable alumni" (if there is such a section at all), and people who do not have an article should generally not be listed unless the reason they don't have an article is because, although it would qualify under WP:BIO, the article simply hasn't been created yet.

Individuals receiving honorary degrees should generally not be included, unless the awarding is itself notable. In all cases, honorary degrees should be identified as such.

It is possible that some institutions would have so many notable alumni, that including all of them in the main article would be inappropriate. This guideline is not meant to govern that situation. (If the total number grows very large, it would probably be appropriate to simply offer a few emblematic examples and create a separate article for the full list, or simply not have a section on "notable alumni".) Jerry Stockton (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Covington Catholic High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Uncited academic life section

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

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)

 Partly done 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)

Choosing a neutral header

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)

"Indigenous Peoples' March controversy" was the original name of the header and I see no reason to change it, nor any consensus for doing so. Your alternative is longer and a bit unwieldy. All the details are already in the text, they don't need to be in the title. Also, "antagonism" is not neutral, whereas "controversy" is commonly used on Wikipedia. I would be willing to change it to "Indigenous Peoples' March incident" or "March for Life incident" or similar. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the common use of the word 'controversy' is very common on Wikipedia. 2602:306:CFC7:CB00:68D9:646B:7EA0:DF65 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't think scandal is appropriate. To me, that usually implies the subject was a secret that developed over time and was then dramatically exposed. It would be a scandal if students from this school had repeatedly filmed themselves harassing Indigenous people and the school knew but covered it up. This was a brief moment in time in a public space -- the Watergate comparison is a little far-fetched. I would consider it an "incident" if anything. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I propose "March for Life 2019 incident with the Indigenous People's March". Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I still think that's needlessly long. Titles don't need to encompass every detail. Maybe "2019 March for Life incident"? PrimaPrime (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Professionalism

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)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html Irishfrisian (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Name of the student

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)

Avoid rush to judgement

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)

Inappropriate content

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)

I've removed the material on the incident on WP:BLP grounds

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for comment: Including material on the incident

How should this article deal at this time with the recent incident? I've included a copy of the current material that is (or was) included in the article, below.

Useful responses might be along the lines of "That's basically fine" or "No, that's not fine" with a brief exposition on why you think that, and what ought to be done different.

Here's the material in question, hidden

In the lede:

The school gained notoriety in January 2019 when a group of its predominantly white students were filmed allegedly harassing and insulting Native Americans participating in an Indigenous Peoples' March in Washington, D.C., and images and video of the incident were circulated internationally.

In the article body, in a separate section titled "Indigenous Peoples' March controversy":

On January 18, 2019, the school attracted international backlash after a group of predominantly white students were filmed allegedly harassing and insulting Native Americans participating in an Indigenous Peoples' March in Washington, D.C.[3][4] The students were visiting to participate in the simultaneous anti-abortion March for Life, which attracts many Catholic groups.[5] Many of the students wore "Make America Great Again" hats.

In one of several videos of the incident, a student wearing a Covington Catholic sweatshirt is seen smirking and blocking the path of Nathan Phillips, an Omaha elder and Vietnam War veteran who was playing the AIM Song on a ceremonial drum. The students reportedly chanted "build that wall", while others stood in a circle nearby and chanted "CovCath is the best."[6][7][8][9][10] Marcus Frejo, a member of the Pawnee and Seminole nations, observed students in Covington clothing doing the Haka, a Māori cultural dance, which he felt was an attempt to mock Phillips. He said that Covington students also engaged in verbal heckling with several black men in the area, who appeared in videos to be Black Hebrew Israelites.[11]

Joe Meyer, the Mayor of Covington, condemned the actions of the students as "disturbing, discouraging, and appalling" and demonstrative of "intolerance and ethnic intimidation."[12] Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes chastised the "adults that are teaching them and those that are silently letting others promote this behavior."[13] Representative Deb Haaland, one of the first indigenous women to serve in Congress, said that the incident was a "signal of how common decency has decayed under this administration."[14]

In response, the school made its social media accounts private and apparently disabled its public phone number.[15] A spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington announced: "We are just now learning about this incident and regret it took place. We are looking into it."[16][17]

With the refs being, in order (if I got it right, refer to the article or history for guaranteed correct refs):

• Londberg, Max (19 January 2019). "USA TODAY". 'Blatant racism': Ky. high school faces backlash after video shows students surrounding indigenous marchers. USA TODAY. Retrieved 19 January 2019. The video shows a young man wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap standing near and staring at a man who is drumming as other young men surrounding them cheer and chant. Some of the onlookers appear to wear clothing bearing insignia from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky. […] "As a Native American journalist, I find this to be one of the most egregious displays of naïve – I can't even say naïve - I t's racism. It's blatant racism," Schilling said.
• Olivo, Antonio; Wootson, Cleve; Heim, Joe (19 January 2019). "The Washington Post". ‘It was getting ugly’: Native American drummer speaks on the MAGA-hat-wearing teens who surrounded him. MSN. Retrieved 19 January 2019. … a Native American man steadily beats his drum at the tail end of Friday's Indigenous Peoples March while singing a song […] Surrounding him are a throng of young, mostly white teenage boys, several wearing "Make America Great Again" caps, with one who stood about a foot from the drummer's face also wearing a relentless smirk. […] The encounter generated a wave of outrage on social media less than a week after President Trump made light of the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre of several hundred Lakota Indians by the U.S. Cavalry in a tweet that was meant to mock Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), whom Trump derisively calls "Pocahontas."
• Londberg, Max (19 January 2019). "CovCath faces backlash after video of incident at Indigenous Peoples March surfaces". Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
• Murdock, Sebastian. "Native American Vietnam Veteran Speaks Out After MAGA Hat-Wearing Teens Harass Him". Huffington Post.
• Schilling, Vincent (19 January 2019). "Outrage as non-Native youth wearing #MAGA hats taunt and disrespect Native elder". Indian Country Today. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
• https://twitter.com/UncededClothing/status/1086677183458934784
• https://twitter.com/2020fight/status/1086476619877765120</ref><ref>https://twitter.com/lulu_says2/status/1086552871674368001
• Beam, Adam; Melley, Brian (20 January 2019). "Students in 'MAGA' hats mock Native American after rally". AP News. Associated Press. Retrieved 20 January 2019.
• "Covington Mayor Joe Meyer: March confrontation doesn’t represent city’s values". Cincinnati.com. Retrieved 2019-01-20.
• Schladebeck, Jessica. "Viral video shows teens mocking Native American demonstrators at Indigenous Peoples March". New York Daily News.
• Gstalter, Morgan. "Haaland condemns students' behavior toward Native elder at Indigenous Peoples March". The Hill.
• Gallucci, Nicole. "Teens in MAGA hats sparked outrage after crashing the Indigenous Peoples March". Mashable.
• The Associated Press. "Diocese investigates after students mock Native American". Rochester First.
• "Local high school 'looking into' incident at march in D.C." WCPO. January 19, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)
• Redact the material and do it immediately. The current text is full of BLP violations. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• As far as the WP:BLP issues are concerned, on the one hand you have that none of the students are named (or shown). On the other hand, you have that:

• At least one of them is well known and his name is all over the internet. And the others probably not all that hard to find their names either.
• AND They're private persons.
• AND they're minors. I'll repeat that in case it's not crystal clear: they are minors.
• AND the material is extremely defamatory.
• AND they contest the narrative of events that many sources (and us, for now) imply. If they were out-and-proud "Yeah we did this and we'd do it again" that'd be one thing. But they're not.
• AND we don't even know what happened. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer the full tapes show a rather different story than has been reported. And apparently some of the tapes were made by a fringe racist black-supremacist group. And actually at this point the Enquirer doesn't know who made the tapes.

That's a whole lot of "AND"s for my taste, or I would hope, anybody's taste. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

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)

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)