Talk:Covington Catholic High School

March for Life controversy

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)

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)

This article is biased. It was a pro-life March. Why can one side be called pro-choice and the other not allowed to use the word “pro”. What the incident shows is bad journalism by CNN and Washington Post, some would call “fake news”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.158.49 (talk) 08:37, 24 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)

"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." People who receive honorary degrees are often more notable than people who received ordinary academic degrees, e.g. Oxford gave honorary degrees to Samuel Johnson (known ever after as "Dr. Johnson") and F. J. Haydn. Pascalulu88 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (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: 18 January 2022).

• 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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

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)

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)

The fact that the New York Times and other mainstream news sources are now falling over themselves apologizing and issuing retractions should be a warning to the editors of Wikipedia. The fact that something that is obviously false can be universally reported as "true" and then inserted into Wikipedia means that Wikipedia must take into account the fallibility of mainstream media before defacing an entire article about an institution with sensationalist lies. Please get your act together. Your responsibility is to deliver truth to your readers.98.167.61.12 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Request for comment: Including material on the incident

The following discussion 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.

---

How should this article deal at this time with the recent incident? Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC) 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. 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]

[Ref's removed, they were somehow breaking the format... they're in the page history.] (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)
• Redact/Trim so that the remaining material is balanced relative to the actually article subject. This material can be trimmed down to a brief paragraph. More than that is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. The current text as of this version is not full of BLP violations. (By the way, I've started trimming. We don't need an RfC for the obvious, although it's good to establish a clear consensus.)- MrX 🖋 12:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Redact the material So many outlets are stumbling over themselves to report on this and getting it embarrassingly wrong. I don't want to see Wikipedia join that club. A short few sentences that conform to NPOV is all that is needed. CordialGreenery (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Redact/Trim Not the entire text is a BLP violation. Some of the portion should be retained. Capitals00 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep but reduce the material. In most similar cases where a school is involved in a scandal, it is fairly minor relative to the school itself. If at some point we found out that Jack the Ripper was an Oxford professor for example, it would deserve minimal attention about the university. I do not know at present how representative this event, the blackface incident, and the rape allegations against a graduate are, although I have a personal opinion, and think we should wait to see what reliable sources say. I also note the irony that the students who were in Washington to protest abortion got into a dispute with another group that opposes abortion. TFD (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Trim. Clickbait tabloids can make up a lot of stories, but we don't have to write about all of them. The initial controversy can probably be summed up in a paragraph because some of the involved people are related to the school. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Redact and BALANCE. Replace with just a couple-few bland sentences remarking that an incident naming the school went viral, and wikilink to the Indigenous peoples march. A name-by-name detail about it is OFFTOPIC not about the school. Also, this should not fail to mention that accounts are disputed and some retractions or alterations were issued. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:39, 24 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 negative.
• 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)

• We should not mention the minors names, but their age is not a valid reason for not summarizing that the incident happened and went viral.
• We should briefly summarize both interpretations of the incident, probably giving more weight to the more recent reports, which seem to give a more complete picture.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)

If you need a secondary source, here [1]. 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)

 Partly done - 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)

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)

Sorry SeanusAurelius, 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)

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)

Parking a reference. Bekiempis, Victoria (21 January 2019). "New video sheds more light on students' confrontation with Native American". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 January 2019. ClemRutter (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Expansion

Hey I've found a number of news articles featuring topics that either directly or indirectly discuss Covington Catholic High School.

(Redacted)

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)

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)

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)

Please stop now.

@S1d6arrett23:, do not include on this talk page any material -- ANY MATERIAL -- that would not be appropriate for the article. You cannot do this, it is not allowed, and this is going to blow up if you don't stop. OK? I've removed the material again -- you know what I'm talking about -- and it would probably not be a good idea to engage in edit warring over this, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Who decides what's "appropriate" to post on a talk page? Kire1975 (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The "blackface" stuff I've left in... I guess it's not impossible that it could be added to the article, and it's true... so it's legit to discuss I guess. At this time I oppose adding it, myself. Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Viral video came from fake account

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

On January 22, 2018, the school closed for security reasons.[2] 128.163.239.166 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - 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)

"encountering a group"

In the section that we've all been picking at, there's been some back and forth about verbage regarding the initial interaction between the children and the older man. While I personally favor "confronted" as that's what the video shows. I've seen "encountered" which is a little more vague. I recently saw "facing" and that just seems silly. Can we work on a set verbage and get this done with? CordialGreenery (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What the original coverage said about the incident is not contentious, or shouldn't be. Some aspects of the factual veracity, maybe, but what the initial videos showed and what the initial reports said is obvious, literally close to every major media company in the country wrote similar stories. SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the topic I've proposed. Are you sure you're in the right place? CordialGreenery (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources use "encountering" and it is a neutral way of not taking sides in the dispute. The alternative is to say that some sources reported that Phillips confronted the boy, and others reported the boy confronted Phillips. I don't think "facing" is good.

Please let's try to find consensus here rather than edit warring.- MrX 🖋 21:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, but look at yourself hard for that too, friend. Is there not a consensus that media reported the boys as having harassed Phillips? Was there an alternate universe were that's not what was reported or something? Encountered? Are we suggesting that the original stories *didn't* present the boys as antagonists? SeanusAurelius (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(Indent by typing one more colon than the previous comment.) Sources initially reported that the boy harassed Phillips, then they backtracked after they actually looked at the unedited video. So no, there definitely is not a consensus that media reported the boys as having harassed Phillips, because "the media" is not a monolithic entity that acts in unison.- MrX 🖋 21:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't strawman. There was a media consensus. In this case it did in act in unison (not necessarily intentionally, mind). Do you recall any major publications that took a line other than that the boys had misbehaved? And if so, why did you allow what they said to be considered reliable enough to be described as fact here? SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(Indent by typing one more colon than the previous comment.) Yes. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic....- MrX 🖋 22:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In the initial stories? Are you serious? Want to provide a reference link to one of the initial reports that didn't allege the boys misbehaved/taunted and mocked Phillips?

Here's a nice recap - yes, from a biased source, but with screenshots - of some of their social media links: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2019/01/21/here-are-some-of-the-news-outlets-that-had-to-issue-corrections-to-stories-about-a-high-school-groups-encounter-with-a-native-american-activist-n2539360. NYT had "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March". CNN had "Video shows a crowd of teenagers wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats taunting a Native American elder after Friday’s Indigenous Peoples March at the Lincoln Memorial". NPR had “Video Of Kentucky Students Mocking Native American Man Draws Outcry”. WaPo had "a large group of teenagers, many of whom wore red Make America Great Again hats, surrounded Nathan Phillips, an elder of the Omaha Nation, while he was performing a song. The teens, who appear to be students at a Catholic high school in Kentucky and apparent participants in the simultaneous March for Life, were caught on video hurling insults at Phillips and trying to drown him out.” But hey, it's POV to say that media sources said the boys did something wrong, right? SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Townhall is not a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hence why it's not in the article. It's fine in the talk page. Will you concede if I show from archived versions of the articles in question that they used those words? And could you address how it is that you allowed the article to present the allegations as fact (despite BLP) but somehow now don't think that the articles say what you said they did?SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the story has developed, casting significant doubt on the veracity of the initial report which arose out of an illicit social media campaign (JMO, probably by Russian bots).- MrX 🖋 23:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, so 1) The original reports were incorrect. At this point we're all agreed. I've suggested using a more formal version of your own words. 2)Russian bots? Says which reliable source? SeanusAurelius (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How about using a slightly more formal version of "Sources initially reported that the boy harassed Phillips, then they backtracked after they actually looked at the unedited video." I for one am happy to roll with that.

I think "encountered" is acceptable and provides a good NPOV. Before we get off-track and forget what this discussion was about. CordialGreenery (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Encountered" would be fine if we're not talking about reported speech. In the reported speech, "encountered" or any other neutral word was not what was being described. SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's use MrX's eminently sensible suggestion of "Sources initially reported that the boy harassed Phillips, then they backtracked after they actually looked at the unedited video." SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. That's sloppy and WP:UNDUE . Encountered is short, accurate, and nuetral. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. CordialGreenery (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sloppy, yes, we could tighten it. Undue, absolutely not. The misreporting is a big part of the controversy, mush like with Jackie or Duke Lacrosse. It's been an important enough feature of it that both the Atlantic and NYT have released op-eds lamenting the rush to judgement. The Atlantic one is already linked here. 22:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) SeanusAurelius (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact, WP:UNDUE actually requires in no uncertain terms that we do note the condemnations of the boys as it made up a significant amount of the coverage provided by reliable sources. Thanks for reminding me to read it, I hadn't for a while. SeanusAurelius (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I'm fine with either of these approaches. Hopefully others will comment soon.- MrX 🖋 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that's not what the statement is about. It's not what " the media" reported on or the opinions therein. It says a viral video showing an encounter. They encountered each other. There was an encounter. That's what the video shows. This article is about a school and this small bit about an obscure controversy should be kept small, quick, and to the point. Litigating the minutiae of the event in this article is sloppy and unnecessary. CordialGreenery (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You might think it's minutiae but multiple reliable sources have considered the misreporting important enough to include in news stories, not to mention the op-eds. Most current stories are starting with a description of the controversy and how the story developed. As per WP:UNDUE it's not about editors evaluations of what's important, it's about whether reliable sources did at the time. Which they did. Might be time for you to refresh on UNDUE? SeanusAurelius (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

On January 18, 2019, the school attracted national attention when viral videos showed a confrontation between a Native American who was participating in an Indigenous Peoples' March, and a group of Covington students participating in the anti-abortion March for Life. Jerry Stockton (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct CordialGreenery (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"Confrontation between" would be a good alternative. It's what is used by The Guardian - MrX 🖋 23:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty apt description. CordialGreenery (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I can live with "confrontation" and that's a good one line summation of the initial controversy, but not with that sentence composing the entirety of the controversy section. The media mistake angle is significant, according to multiple reliable sources and we are required to include it. Not wax lyrical, not POV it, not editorialise, but include it. SeanusAurelius (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As a compromise, why not: "On January 18, 2019, the school attracted national attention when viral videos (and reports based thereon)(?) showed a confrontation between a Native American who was participating in an Indigenous Peoples' March, and a group of Covington students participating in the anti-abortion March for Life. Sources initially reported that the Covington students harassed Phillips, but issued apologies/retractions/corrections after unedited videos surfaced." Succinct, agnostic on the merits and demerits of the boys behaviour except insofar as it was not what was initially reported. Personally I'd like to see a description of the racist BHI abuse, how Phillips lied/changed his story, the multiple mea culpas and "rush to judgement" articles, but this does have the bonus of brevity and doesn't imply that the original videos ad reports were accurate. SeanusAurelius (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"National attention" has already been questioned for being both hackneyed, and inadequate (the attention was much wider). "Viral videos" is not a useful phrase. "And reports based thereon" is not good either. The / construction is not encyclopedic writing. Otherwise some of this is good and useful. MPS1992 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of that seems bloated and unnecessary, to me. But I agree with MPS1992 in the "viral" being removed. CordialGreenery (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorporating MPS1992's feedback, how about: "On January 18, 2019, the school attracted international media attention when videos and accompanying media reports showed a confrontation between a Native American who was participating in an Indigenous Peoples' March, and a group of Covington students participating in the anti-abortion March for Life. Sources initially reported that the Covington students harassed Phillips, but issued apologies/retractions/corrections after unedited videos surfaced." SeanusAurelius (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Or the even more vanilla version: "On January 18, 2019, the school attracted international media attention when videos showed a confrontation between a Native American who was participating in an Indigenous Peoples' March, and a group of Covington students participating in the anti-abortion March for Life. Sources initially reported that the Covington students harassed Phillips, but issued apologies,retractions, and/or corrections after unedited videos surfaced." It's not Raymond Chandler, it's definitely not Wordsworth, but it (barely) works. SeanusAurelius (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that "viral video" is not a useful phrase. It has a well-understood meaning and is the reason why this even became a controversy. Sources seem to agree:

• Viral video sparks outrage
• After Viral Video, Families of Covington Are Swiftly Circling to Protect Their Boys
• Covington High School student's mom speaks out about viral video encounter
• A viral story spread. The mainstream media rushed to keep up. The Trump Internet pounced.

This is central to the story, in large part because of the fraudulent Twitter account that spread the video. I do agree that "something/something else" is not consistent with our style guide.- MrX 🖋 11:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The latest development in the controversy

• 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)

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)

This has nothing to do with the subject of this article.- MrX 🖋 01:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

Change Anti-Abortion to Pro-Life 162.197.53.174 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - "Anti-abortion" is the more neutral way of saying "opposed to abortion".- MrX 🖋 21:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

Proposed new article "2019 Lincoln Memorial controversy"

Main article: 2019 Lincoln Memorial controversy

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)

You may be new but that is the right thing to do- however that has already happened; see

Further information: Indigenous Peoples March § Incident

I suspect that this link will change in the future. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

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)

•  Done Seems correct. Thank you. Iselilja (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

State championship titles

I restored the list of KHSAA state championship titles. It shouldn't be removed from this article on the grounds that it's trivia. This kind of list is a common feature of U.S. high school articles on Wikipedia, since state championship titles are the main claim to notability for many U.S. high schools. (This happens to be a private school, but many communities post their high school championship titles on or near their welcome signs.) – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 07:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Mxn, state championship titles are not a feature of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the titles themselves are notable for Wikipedia, but rather that a list of titles does very often form the nucleus of a U.S. high school article on Wikipedia, for better or worse. It would be strange for nearly all of the Kentucky high school articles to enumerate the titles, except for one of the most well-known and most decorated. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 08:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Mxn, state championship titles are not a feature of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. From a global point of view they are just mystifying. Following the list of notable alumni, and reading references and biographies- I often see comments that Covington Catholic was a sporting powerhouse- and I think that should be a starting point.

The section on athletics should explain how PE is taught to the average pupil and being inclusive to the those with special needs and handicaps, within the curriculum. You then can go on to explain how the gifted are persuaded to give up their free time to participate in after school coaching- it is within this sub-section on extra-curricular coaching that you could discuss the success rate with in intra state competitions- where obviously they are locally reknown. This though is merely a useful indicator rather than a 'wikinotable' event.

So some basic questions. This is a High school (North America). How many hours a week does a year 10 do mandatory sport/athletics, and how many hours a week may a year 10 do if he selects to do it as an option? How many fte sports teacher are there? Budget? How does a pupil get selected for extra-curricular training? How many hours a week will that? How do pupils select which extra-curricular sport to adopt? This may seem naive to a native of the parish but on my side of the pond- this is what a Good Article should be addressing. ClemRutter (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Thank you for breaking down the disconnect that a non-American reader may experience in reading this article. No need to apologize for naivety; it isn't often that an article like this has a global audience, so scrutiny is good. Some of your questions may be answered at Kentucky High School Athletic Association, since that organization governs high school athletics in Kentucky. Maybe we can find a suitable way to refer to relevant sections of that article to keep the focus on what makes this school unique among its peers. It's probably worth clarifying that "athletics" in this article refers to the extracurricular or "cocurricular" programs, not to required physical education classes.

Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Education provides some examples to follow. Not all of the U.S. high schools there have won any state championships – some are located in states like California that have no such championships. But many do enumerate championship titles and even non-state titles; examples include Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans)#Athletics, Garden City High School (Kansas)#State championships, Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)#Athletics, and duPont Manual High School#Athletics (also in Kentucky). Two extreme examples are Auburn High School (Alabama)#Athletics, which uses prose to summarize a team-specific article that itself contains a list of championship titles, and Roswell High School (Georgia), which links to a list article specifically about state championship appearances (!). I think turning the existing list into a paragraph of prose may be a good path forward, since it allows us to provide some commentary about the individual athletic programs that achieved those titles.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 01:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It is too easy to get frustrated and to start to take sides; many of the schools articles appear to suffer from WP:UNDUE (WP:PROPORTION) and are far from balanced. I don't think concentrating on the format of the cocurricular atheletics section is particularly profitable at the moment as the real frustration is the sparse description the school's core function- being a school. Here, Benjamin Franklin High School (New Orleans) does provide a useful model though I would personally downgrade it to a B due to the quality of the lead and the need for a rigorous copy-edit.

I am resisting the temptation at the moment to edit schools in a system I don't fully understand.

You are right that this school has been thrust into the media limelight and is of international interest. Taking school kids on a political demonstration (Anti-womens right to choose) would be illegal in the UK, and this sort of thing would have to be done by the parish, which is not subject to such laws. I feel for the kid who was pilloried and was obviously out of depth- and for the school and the diocese who were not prepared for such attention. From Wikipedia standpoint- it is almost a duty to help by writing a good article that gives the world comprehensive information. ClemRutter (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree, those articles have their own problems, and this article feels unbalanced without a dedicated section on academics, no matter how reasonably we cover the school's athletic program. Unfortunately, I'm more familiar with resources about schools across the river in Ohio (which has some differences from Kentucky). Someone from Northern Kentucky would probably have an easier time researching the topic. For my own alma mater, I heavily consulted the school's student handbook, school profile (the document sent to colleges as part of the admissions process), and course catalog. If CovCath has posted any of those documents on the Web, that would be a good starting point for an "Academics" section. On the other hand, overreliance on primary sources can be problematic, and other editors have pointed out to me that much of what you'd typically find in a student handbook is... typical.

That brings me back to the state championship titles, which at least are unique to CovCath (other than the tie in 1974 in swimming). If we can frame the titles in the context of the overall strength of the athletic program, then even if a reader from outside the U.S. is unfamiliar with Friday night football, they can understand why the article brings it up. For football, we already have sources calling CovCath "dominant" since the 1960s. If we can find something similar for swimming in the 1970s, then we can round out the rest of the titles with an "other titles are" sentence at the end.

 – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 11:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Structure

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)

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)

I have been tempted- and made the structure change -any comments ClemRutter (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

The word pastor

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)

See Pastor#Catholicism. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC).

Mea maxima culpa. ClemRutter (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

A month on- what a transformation

@Mxn: 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)

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? [3] 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)