Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 5

California ballot iniative
Contaldo80 has made several edits changing wording around the Knights' efforts regarding California Proposition 8 (2008). He is absolutely correct that one of the effects of this Constitutional amendment was to prevent same sex couples from getting married. However, the text of the amendment reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." If the amendment had instead read something like "Marriage between two people of the same gender shall not be valid in the state of California," then I would agree with his edits. Given the contentious nature of this issue, I have reverted his edit to reflect what the ballot initiative actually said and did, not what one of the consequences of it was. That is to say, the Knights supported "the successful initiative to define marriage within the California State Constitution as a union solely between a man and a woman." --BrianCUA (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But they did it for the fairly explicit purpose of blocking same-sex marriage. I support that wording, rather than one that hides the intent. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See the National Catholic Reporter's article on the subject here -- "Knights of Columbus key contributor against same-sex marriage" -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No BrianCUA you are being disingenuous. A statement in the article that suggests the Knights seem to be keen - for no particular reason - in tinkering with the constitution to make remind everyone that marriage is between a man and woman tells us nothing. Presumably just because they think it's a good thing. Like apple pie. Rather the Knights are actively opposed to the legal recognition of gay rights and their active participation in the poll was solely to stop same sex couples marrying. Let's ensure the article is informative, not an organisational press release. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the article on how the ballot initiative came about, you will see that it was not for no reason. There was a distinct history behind it, and it wasn't to simply remind people of what a marriage is.  Rather than edit war, I have inserted some compromise language that says exactly what they were supporting without ascribing any motives.  The first sentence of that paragraph already states that they oppose, and are active in so opposing, gay marriage.  I am not interested in adding any PR spin for the Knights, but neither do I want to us do the reverse, which would to be see Wikipedia take a negative tone when describing what they have done.  --BrianCUA (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A sensible compromise - it's clear that the motivation was specifically to stop gay couples getting wed. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it might be a stretch to based on this discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knights of Columbus. 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:
 * Added tag to http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1556/~/acf-messenger-archive%3A-president-discusses-compassionate-conservative-agenda-in
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0404254.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523063027/http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=7656203&ct=12240657 to http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=7656203&ct=12240657

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) 16:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Political activities
On my talk page, Steeletrap has accused me of "hiding the description of their political activities." This is not true. I simply think that he is adding too much detail to the lead. The information he wants to convey is described more fully in the body of the article (Section 8 is all about their political activities) and the lead already mentions that they advocate in the public square for Catholic public policy positions. In addition, given that he has described the Knights as a bunch of "idiots," I will give his edits extra scrutiny for NPOV. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely was not describing them as "idiots." I apologize for calling editors who were trying to revert my editors idiots and tendentious. (I meant to say "Don't see how one can dispute [my edits], these idiots," but I was too overheated to review the text.) But it would be stupid and ignoble to call such a large group, that does great work, idiots. That said their more controversial political donations, which are vast, deserve a mention in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree that their political donations should be spelled out explicitly in the lede per WP:LEDE, WP:DUE, and WP:PROPORTION. WP:LEDE says that "A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell..." and that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic."  WP:DUE states that "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including... prominence of placement."  You are taking a couple of actions taken in the last couple years and singling them out for special attention over everything else in the history of a 136 year old organization.  Why these, but not others?  Why not mention their opposition to the criminalization of giving humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants?  Why not their anti-racism efforts?  Why not their partnership with the ACLU to strike down an unconstitutional law?  There are many things the Knights have done that are far more important and notable than this in their history.
 * WP:PROPORTION says that "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." (my emphasis) That is what is happening here.  You are taking an issue that is important to you, and overemphasizing it in the lede.  It is sufficient to say in the lede that they promote Catholic public policy positions, and then spell out what those positions are in the body of the text, as directed by WP:LEDE.  For these reasons, I am once again reverting.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are spurious. Are you a member of the Knights yourself? Why are you so concerned to obscure their ideology? Steeletrap (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not attempting to obscure anything. I simply don't think the lede should delve into this level of detail.  I tried to make a serious argument, outlining my reasons and appealing to WP policy.  You responded by questioning my integrity.  I would kindly ask you in the future to WP:Assume Good Faith. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly it's hard not to do that in view of your previous arguments about prop 8 not being a ban on gay marriage. That is ludicrous.
 * The problem is that people don't know what "catholic public policy positions" are. Which positions and what does that mean? Left-wing catholic groups sympathetic to LGBT would say they're doing the same thing. I have again tried to clarify, in just a few words, what "Catholci public policy positions" means to the Knights. Please stop reverting this. It only serves to obscure the group's ideology. I am not trying to downplay the immense contributions they make to secular charities and you should not downplay their consistent, and highly substantial donations to religious-right causes. Steeletrap (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It goes into the lead. They were the single biggest contributor to Proposition 8. The recent set of edits have gone too far and are just turning into a kind of PR. We can't have it both ways - we like to reassure that they are champions of "traditional marriage" but like to downplay the stuff where it's denying rights to other people. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited three policies in my argument above why it should not be placed in the lead, of which the most relevant to your argument here would be WP:PROPORTION. Again, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."  Why do you feel their actions in a single issue deserve mention in the lead, but none of the others in which they have been involved?  Why is it not sufficient to mention it in the body and allude to it in the lead?  --BrianCUA (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is your looking at it from a very catholic perspective. I suspect you are a regular church goer and often hear mention of the nights. I had only heard about them after reading a number of articles in respected media about how they had been the biggest funder of the Proposition 8 - and I suspect most readers of wikipedia (of whom a small minority will be catholic) will likewise have come across them in a similar way. So I think it is perfectly proportionate and meets the notability criteria. I guess it may make uncomfortable reading for some but that's not my concern.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point. You are reading about them now, and gay marriage is in the news now.  If you were reading the news 100 years ago, you would had read about the Knights' efforts in the Christero War, or that they published The Gift of Black Folk, by W. E. B. Du Bois in an effort to combat racism.  Why should gay marriage be mentioned in the lead, but not these other two efforts?  -BrianCUA (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason that I don’t go to the library to sit down with the 1870 copy of the New York Times to tell me what’s going on in the world today. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but the MOS:LEAD isn't supposed to tell you what's going on in the world today. It should serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."  You have not made the argument why these issues are more important in the context of this 130 year old organization than others, and thus why they should be included in the lead.  I am all for keeping them in the body, just not in the lead, and not to obfuscate, but to follow WP policy.--BrianCUA (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You’ve not said why it’s not sognificant. Although clearly happy to have some warm words by John Paul ii left in the lead. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said it isn't significant. I said it is WP:UNDUE in the Lead.  You have still failed to respond to any of my concerns citing WP policy. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the Lead section
There is a dispute about how much content is appropriate for the lead section. Steeletrap wants to mention that they were a major participant in the election over gay marriage in California, and that they support other issues "generally associated with the religious right." I believe that it is enough to say in the lead that they support Catholic positions on public policy issues, and then spell out the details in the body. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a properly constructed RfC. You have to separate the gay marriage California issue from the religious right issue. As to the latter, of course it should be included, since all of their political donations are religious right oriented, and RS (including Catholic RS) have criticized or commented on this. Steeletrap (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "They support Catholic positions on public policy issues" - this is biased wording. There are many catholics - including senior leaders - who support gay marriage or gay civil unions. The active opposition to gay marriage is notable - what have they done that has spent more money recently? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I support BrianCUA's proposal. However Contaldo80's point is also valid. Could we use "They support Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues" instead? -- ScitDei Wanna talk? 11:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ScitDei's version.Marauder40 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm open to this compromise in principle but I want the language to more clearly differentiate between Catholic opinion and that of the Church hiearchy. Can we say "They support the position of the Catholic Church hiearchy on public policy issues"? --comment by Steeletrap, 10:28, January 10, 2018
 * I prefer ScitDei's terser wording. While I've pointed out in the past that the Catholic Church is much more than its leadership, I don't feel that's a useful distinction to try to make in the lede. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like ScitDei's version as well, and while I hope others will chime in, I will update the language for now.--BrianCUA (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ScitDei has proposed language. Marauder40 is OK with it, as is SarekOfVulcan.  Steeletrap has indicated that he is "open to this compromise in principle."  Can we move forward with "They support the Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues"?  --BrianCUA (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough consensus to make the edit against continuing opposition yet. btw, tweaked your wording, hope that's ok -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war (which is why I created this RfC), however I do want to respond to this edit summary from Steeltrap. Two points. First, my RfC says I want a brief overview in the lead, and to spell out the details in the body. That includes both details about causes which they support, and whether or not they are part of the religious right. Secondly, the burden for inclusion is on the editor who wants to include it. This article was stable for a very long time, and it is you, Steeltrap, who wishes to change it. That means it should stay off until a consensus is reached. You make a fair point about this process not being complete, so I will ask you to remove the language until it is. Finally, I will once again ask you to WP:AGF. In your last edit you accuse me of "propagandizing." Previously you have called me an idiot and accused me of trying to obscure information about the Knights. While I may not be the brightest person in the room, I think the other two comments are unfair and unhelpful, and that all three are unkind. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your editing has rebutted an assumption of good faith. I mean, you're reverting attempts to characterize Proposition 8 (which the Knights supported) as a ban on gay marriage. Pretty tendentious. Steeletrap (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steeletrap. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer if you would respond to the substance of my arguments instead of making ad hominem comments. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Brian, are you in the Knights? Please answer my question. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean you have to persist in that assumption when it is repeatedly rebutted. Steeletrap (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling someone Idiot and other ad hominem comments are definitely against ethics, both inside WP or outside. It doesn't help at all in resolving the dispute and apologising for it is something which could be done if possible. Also, reverting something which a person was already "open to this compromise in principle" is beyond my understanding, especially when he knows that the wording he is introducing is both under dispute and discussion.
 * The use of "(they were the largest single donor in support of California's Proposition 8)" in the lead section is WP:UNDUE. That statement is exclusively related to US and should come under the appropriate section. Moreover "...and promoting other causes generally associated with the religious right." is too vague since (a) 'religious right' itself is an ambiguous term & (b) KOfC doesn't identify itself as "religious right" and it maybe possible that it may oppose some issue which the general "religious right" may be actively endorsing. A single compact sentence about its political position would be enough in the lead para, since it is mentioned in detail in the Political activities section. This section can be expanded if required. I propose : .-- ScitDei Wanna talk? 07:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I am a Knight is irrelevant. The issue here is how much content is appropriate for the lead, not organizations to which I may or may not be a member.  Please respond substantively about the issues, and not make this about any single or group of editors. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * what’s same sex marriage got to do with culture of life? Also their opposition to LGBT rights extends beyond marriage and beyond just the us. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, your being a Knight is highly relevant. That would make you a connected contributor, and compromise your ability to be neutral (we're all human). And you need a template on your page if you're going to continue to edit this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Connected_contributor
 * So again, I ask: Are you a Knight? Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you don't need a Connected Contributor template, unless you're fairly high up in the governing structure. See WP:EXTERNALREL. (And for the record, yes, I used to be a Knight.) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a volunteer group/fraternal organization. We have never interpreted the COI guideline to require disclosure for things such as this, Freemasonry, the LDS Church, the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts of America, the Democratic Party (United States), the Communist Party of China, or any other similar membership based group. The COI guideline is typically only applied when something approaching self-dealing would be concerned: namely when it is an autobiography or the individual is a paid employee or contractor of the organization, and even then our requirements are less strict if the individual is not in the marketing/sales realm. Continuing to push for disclosure here when he has declined to answer is inappropriate as it is pushing an editor to out information that is non-public when not required or expected by a policy or guideline (and no, I've never been a knight, have never revealed my religious affiliation or lack thereof on-wiki, and don't really care about the outcome of this RfC). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm mistaken on the specific policy. But it doesn'negate the allegation of tendentious editing, which is clearly established in the case of an editor claiming Prop 8 (which the Knights supported) wasn't about banning gay marriage. Let's please move on to the conversation at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's bizarre to see specific mention of Prop 8 in the lede. In the long 135 year history of KOC, this project lasted only a couple of years. The amount expended, $14 million, is small change compared to the cumulative $50 billion or so spent on charitable giving. Our own article contains only 1 sentence about Prop 8 in the body. Despite the distribution of KOC across the globe, we're mentioning a topic which involved 1 U.S. state in the first paragraph. How is this not a prime, textbook example of WP:UNDUE? Support Briancua proposal. – Lionel(talk) 22:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been a few days without discussion, and the consensus here seems to be in favor of ScitDei's language, as tweeked by Sarek. I have updated the page.--BrianCUA (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeltrap has reverted me, saying there is no consensus. I'm a little confused as to why he thinks that.  From this discussion, here is what I see.  ScitDei says he supports my proposal, while also seeing merit in Contaldo80's comment about the language I used (as do I, for the record).  He then proposes new language which garnered support from Marauder40, SarekOfVulcan, and even you, Steeltrap, said you are "open to this compromise in principle."  Finally, Lionel chimed in to say he agreed with me.  No one outright opposed that language. That sounds like a consensus to me.
 * The discussion then went dead for a couple days. Even after I asked about a consensus, you made no comment, and no effort to improve upon the language.  Even after seeing my edit you did not come here with a suggestion about how to move forward.  Instead, you simply reverted back to your preferred version.  I would like to try to accommodate your point about some Catholics not agreeing with the official position of the church (just as I would imagine some Knights don't agree with all of the Order's official positions).  So, how does this sound to you: "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's official positions on public policy issues."?  --BrianCUA (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the compromise. The compromise was to remove "religious right," not to remove any mention of the substance of the political activities (anti-gay marriage, pro-life). Steeletrap (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That didn't come across in what you said on January 10th at 10:28. In fact, you suggested language very similar to what I have just proposed above.  Again I will ask, how does this sound: "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's official positions on public policy issues."?  If you are not happy with it, could you please suggest some alternative language?  Additionally, would you please respond to the concerns that multiple editors have raised about including too many details in the lead as being WP:UNDUE?  --BrianCUA (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a whitewash. The wording has to include reference to the group's opposition to gay marriage. The language otherwise is deliberately bland - perhaps hoping no-one will spot that the Knights are active opponents of LGBT rights.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't. It's covered in detail later in the article - it's undue weight in the lede. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No it really isn't. It is especially notable. I note that you think a blood drive is notable. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that it isn't notable. We are saying that placing it in the lede violates NPOV because it is WP:UNDUE.  As that section says, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  I have cited policies several times, including quoting from WP:LEAD.  So have others who agree with me.  You have not.  Please remember, One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject and One who repeats the same argument without convincing people are tendentious editors.  I think you will find that you will win more people to your side if you can explain how including these details is in line with Wikipedia policies, espiecially in light of your admission on your user page that you are a "one-issue editor." In addition, I will make the same request of you that I did of Steeletrap.  Instead of just reverting back to your preferred version, would you please suggest some compromise language that we can workshop here?  If you are not happy with "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's official positions on public policy issues," then how can we improve it?--BrianCUA (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was a one issue editor - I said some people have (incorrectly) call me that. So stick to the article rather than giving me your views on what makes a good editor. There is no reason NOT to include Proposition 8 in the lead. This is extremely notable and covered in a number of mainstream media. There's nothing tendentious about it. I accept you personally may not like attention drawn to it but that's not my concern. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * RS mention the gay marriage and abortion stuff more than the blood drive. ALl of it belongs in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether it belongs in the article, it's if it's prominent enough to show in the lede.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The text "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues" is the best summary of the content in the article. Specifically mentioning gay marriage and abortion and all of the other positions is unnecessary.– Lionel(talk) 08:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the support the Church's position on all public policy issues? I have seen no evidence of much if any work on many of the issues the Church talks about, such as discouraging divorce. It seems more religious-right oriented.
 * I will be reverting this unless you can provide a source that the Knights generally support the Church's position on public policy (as opposed to focusing on a couple, reigious-right oriented issues). Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In their statement on Catholic Citizenship And Public Policy, they say that "In the political realm, this means opening our public policy efforts and deliberations to the life of Christ and the teachings of the Church. In accord with our Bishops, the Knights of Columbus has consistently maintained positions that take these concerns into account. The Order supports and promotes the social doctrine of the Church..." --BrianCUA (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This point about "public policy" is simply nonsense. It's euphemism. What public policy? Do they run a campaigns that urge all followers to give all they have to the poor? Er no. They focus on issue aligned with the religious right. I've not heard one good argument as to why this can't be covered in the lead. I think some editors need to put some distance between themselves and the Knights. They have a website for their own PR work.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeltrap asked for a source that the Knights "support the Church's position on all public policy issues." I provided a source that says they support "public policy efforts and deliberations to the life of Christ and the teachings of the Church."  A source was requested, and provided.  If you don't know what public policy is, I suggest to you that the WP article is a good place to start learning about it.  As to your statement that you haven't heard one good argument, I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or not.  Multiple editors have made arguments, and have cited WP policy.  I am sorry you don't like them, but you can't claim the arguments haven't been made.  I have asked you to respond to these arguments citing policy multiple times (e.g. 7:47 pm, 9 January 2018; 8:42 pm, 11 January 2018; 9:52 am, 17 January 2018; etc), but so far you have not. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeltrap: your comment seems to imply that you are abandoning WP:BRD and are about to start another edit war. Is this correct? Contaldo: perhaps you've forgotten that one of our fundamental principles is WP:AGF. – Lionel(talk) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You just failed to AGF by removing all the edits I just made. It is perfectly fine to have a section on opposition to LGBT rights. You don't own this article anymore than I do. $14m is significant and is a lot of money. Can Catholic editors please try to approach this article in a more neutral way. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Contaldo, the consensus is against you. I have asked repeatedly for you to work on some compromise language here, but instead you just revert back to your preferred version.  I have already submitted a RfC, but now plan to post a notice on the dispute resolution noticeboard.  I hope you will be willing to work on the talk page to resolve this instead of just constantly reverting. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How can there be compromise language when you keep taking out Proposition 8 - propose some compromise that references the activity. Giving $14 million is significant - it is a lot of money and it got them a lot of media coverage. You've also conflated a discussion on the lead with a section on LGBT rights. What is the argument about removing this section? I also want someone to back up this $50billion argument - it sounds pretty spurious to me. I also keep reading the section on the Cristero war and it doesn't look to me that the Knights played a particularly significant role in this - as opposed to the Catholic church more generally. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The current wording of the lead seems fine. Presumably, the only reason we're discussing these two particular issues at the moment rather than the Cristero War (which was in every appreciable respect, an event of entirely more lasting and far ranging significance than a provincial referendum that was, in historical terms, very quickly superseded by a national judicial decision anyway) is at best WP:RECENTISM.
 * Having said that, stand alone sub-sections on both pro-life activity and anti-LGBT activity seems fine, and the subjects appear to be currently awkwardly split between the level two header under political activities and the level three header on cultural issues, with equally awkward placement of other topics, as if "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is somehow not a "cultural issue", which it obviously is. At the same time, the heads of state sub-section is itself fairly UNDUE, and probably overly self-serving in a name-dropping kind of way.  G M G  talk   13:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would probably also add that the tone of this discussion is out of line, and veers several times into disparaging assumptions of bad faith. Stop it.  G M G  talk   13:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Carl Anderson in the lead
In the lead currently it mentions that "The current Supreme Knight is Carl A. Anderson, who is also vice president of the Washington session of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family." I don't believe that mentioning one of his many appointments is necessary in this article, and especially not in the lead. First, this article is about the Knights, not its leader. That fact is much more appropriate for the article on Anderson himself. Second, "a good WP:LEAD tells the reader the basics in a nutshell..." I'd hardly consider his role as VP of his institute a basic fact about the Knights. Third, why include this one fact about him, but not that he is a Knight of St. Gregory the Great, for example, or was named one of the "100 Most Influential in Business Ethics," or is a New York Times bestselling author? I propose that we trim this sentence down to just say "The current Supreme Knight is Carl A. Anderson." --BrianCUA (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable trim. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, good edit. --Jahaza (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
At some point today, without looking at the article, I'm going to protect it at WP:THEWRONGVERSION for a long time. I'd suggest quitting the edit warring and coming to a consensus on talk, before I have to take this to ANI, where I'm sure there will be some other admin who will make life miserable for the lot of us. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I give up. I'm unwatching this. Have fun getting blocked/protected/whatever happens. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC regarding Prop 8 in lead

 * Q: Should the article mention Proposition 8 specifically in the lead?
 * Note: Originally summoned bot. I'm boldly cutting short the previous RfC and opening one that is specific enough to reach an actionable consensus. Per this comment, this one issue seems to be a a particular enough sticking point where consensus can fall clearly one way or the other, and one side or the other is going to need to accept it and move on.  G M G  talk   14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose - As RfC-starter-person-thing. It seems well enough to warrant mention in the article, but is a comparatively minor part of a very long organizational history. This appears to be singled out more due to WP:RECENTISM than relative WP:DUEWEIGHT.  G M G  talk   14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose mentioning it in the lede. Support mentioning it as appropriate further down. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit, I think that this short-term political issue is important to cover, but over the 100+-year-history of the Knights, is more of a blip. Getting "under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance arguably affected more people for a longer period, but we don't argue about adding that to the lede.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did that change anyone's life? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Agree with SarekOfVulcan as he stated it. Marauder40 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. A significant issue with lots of media coverage. A google search for "knights columbus gay" throws up a million hits; "knight columbus cristero war" throws up 15,000. Go figure. Also avoids the article becoming a PR "love in" for fans of the Knights. I'd also rather this dispute by arbitrated over by non-Catholic editors - I don't believe Catholic editors can be reliably neutral and objective (particularly NOT if they have a membership connection to the Knights). Contaldo80 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:GreenMeansGo, WP:RECENTISM, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:LEAD. For the record, I think Catholic editors, Knights of Columbus editors, gay editors, and even gay Catholic Knights can be reliably neutral and objective.  This isn't to say all will be, but they can be.  --16:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sarek's arguments. But I favor mention of the more general and long-standing support for conservative political causes. Steeletrap (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap's reasoning seems correct to me. Jzsj (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

?]] 07:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prop 8 was one ballot initiative in one US state 9 years ago. If that is in lede so too should the mention of the R&R centers set up at home and abroad during WWI by the US and Canadian councils; or the amount spent on reconstruction in Europe after WWII, as well as the ongoing funding for various Vatican art restoration, including the Sistine; as well as various other charitable initiatives etc. etc. -all of which dwarf any funds spent on Prop 8. (and I think their positions on social issues are a bit more nuanced than the blanket label "conservative"). Mannanan51 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prop 8 is too specific to be mentioned in the lead and is a violation of MOS:INTRO. – Lionel(talk) 12:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as stated above by others. -- ScitDei [[User talk:ScitDei|Wanna talk
 * Oppose Presentism and progadandizing if in the lead. Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a notable controversy that they are opposed to same sex marriage. Their opposition to it may have been demonstrated on multiple occasions and P8 is one example. It is perfectly reasonable that we should mention their stance on the issue of same sex marriage in the lead as it demonstrates their alignment with the catholic church. This has been done adequately in the present rendition of the text and it is good structuring per WP:DETAIL to introduce a notable topic to the reader in the lead, expanding on it in greater detail in a later paragraph which deals with said topic Edaham (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose it comes across as extremely autistic and undue weight to advertise homosexual marriage (0.0016% of the US population have undergone this) in the introduction of an article about a Catholic organisation. We don't mention ACT UP's fascistic and far more hysterical opposition to the Catholic Church in the introduction to their article, for instance. When the Knights of Columbus enter homosexual clubs and break-up homosexual events, then maybe. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Is... using "autistic" figuratively... a thing now?  G M G  talk   22:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, but as part of a larger discussion of their political beliefs. It's one of their most significant recent actions and has attracted huge amounts of coverage, far more than the other things people have mentioned (even back in the appropriate timeframe) - more than most of the things in the lead's final paragraph.  They were the lead contributor, and I think it's fair to unequivocally call it their most widely-reported action of the past few decades.  Mentioning it as part of a longer sentence that touches on the context of their larger political history is therefore appropriate for the lead.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Inclusion in the lead overstates the significance Gumsaint (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Based on the above discussion, it appears that a consensus is forming against mentioning prop 8 in the lede. I see Steeletrap is proposing that we also include "mention of the more general and long-standing support for conservative political causes." He has made a few edits adding this information in, but I have not reverted while this discussion is ongoing to avoid an edit war. I oppose mentioning this in the lede given that it is only in recent years that the Knight's activism has taken on a more conservative bent. Several Supreme Knights (John J. Phelan, James E. Hayes, Francis P. Matthews) were high ranking Democratic politicians and officials. So were many other top officials of the Knights. I will once again propose the following language for the lede: "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues." How do others feel about this?--BrianCUA (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like you shouldn't be hijacking the RFC to discuss a different topic, actually. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... the good thing about RfCs is that they're very good at settling a disagreement for a long time. The bad part is that they take a lot of patience. This may be a candidate for a WP:SNOW close if it continues over the next week or so as it has over the past day, but 24 hours is really not enough time. If this is opposed, then we kindof go back to "if not this language then what", and that would be a good follow up. But it's overall more important to do things correctly, so we get the benefit of a solid measurable consensus that can help folks move on from the current conflict without immediately restarting it where we left off.  G M G  talk   11:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Point taken.  I just saw the same arguments with the same results that we've seen for the last three weeks and wanted to move the discussion along.  I will be more patient going forward.  --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely tendentious. The RfC relates to whether Prop 8 should be discussed in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Political activities organization
Sarek deleted a line from what was the "Building a culture of life" section about the Order's response to the mass shootings. He said that adopting resolutions was "hardly noteworthy." I disagree in that I think statements by the highest body in the Knights are noteworthy. If the consensus is that they are not, I will accept that. However, this edit from Steeltrap also simply mentions that a resolution was adopted. If we are going to get rid of one, we should be consistent and get rid of all of them. Again, my vote is in favor of inclusion for both. If the consensus is against inclusion, I am not sure two sentences would merit it's own section and would advocate that it be combined with another section.

Also, in his previous edit, Sarek changed the name of the section from "Building a culture of life" to "Opposition to abortion rights." I don't believe this title accurately captures everything in the discussed in the section, as I said in my edit summary when I changed it. The section also discusses stem cell research and euthanasia. The Knights classify all of this under the banner of "culture of life," but I am open to other suggestions as well. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, now it's "Opposition to abortion rights, euthanasia, and contraception." The knights are also opposed to sterilization, cloning, the destruction of embryos, assisted suicide, unjust war, and the death penalty. So should we change the section title to:


 * Opposition to abortion rights, euthanasia, contraception, sterilization, cloning, the destruction of embryos, assisted suicide, unjust war, and the death penalty
 * There's nothing wrong with "Culture of life." It's a thing. – Lionel(talk) 12:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap has, without coming to talk first, changed the title of this section from "Building a culture of life," which I proposed here and he did not oppose, to "Pro-life advocacy." His edit summary accuses me of using a "propaganda word" but says he wants to "at least use one that people understand."  I disagree that this is any clearer.  When people hear "pro-life," they think abortion.  As stated in the article, however, the Knights oppose "abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide, or other offenses against life."  I'm open to other suggestions for a name, but I don't think "pro-life" cuts it.  Are there other suggestions?  How do others feel about a culture of life? --BrianCUA (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk about content, not contributor. This seems to be a problem with both sides in this back and forth.
 * Yes, the term "culture of life" does appear to be a more-or-less distinct theological term, and more accurate a header that appears to address other issues like euthanasia. I've taken the liberty of putting it back, but only as "Culture of life", simplified from "building a culture of life"
 * The tone was getting a little spammy feeling, and I've simplified the wording some and toned it down a bit in the section.  G M G  talk   16:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have to go with what the sources say and what they focus on, though. If there's more emphasis on the Knights' anti-abortion activities than the rest, that should be given similar prominence in our article - and, of course, we also have to cover (and respect) what the sources say is their main focus.  If they're anti-death-penalty on paper, but devote little time or money to trying to end it, while devoting massive amounts of time and effort to fighting abortion, obviously it makes sense to devote a paragraph to their stance on abortion and not the rest.  The reasons they say they oppose abortion (and the context they, as an organization, would put it in) are not as important as the analysis of their positions and actions made by reliable secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Columbiettes
Knights trying to propagandize for their organization keep removing content about the Columbiettes, the female auxiliaries to the all-male organization. I have edited the article describing them as female auxiliaries to the Knights. This was labeled "inaccurate" by a Knight. However the Columbiettes' website states: "A Columbiette Auxiliary is in existence only with the consent and approval of the Council with which it is affiliated." http://www.columbiettes.com/about-us/-purpose.aspx Steeletrap (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap: accusing editors of biased editing because they are a member of KofC is an ad hominen attack. If you continue you will be reported at WP:ANI. This is your only warning. WP:WIAPA – Lionel(talk) 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you are at 2RR, maybe even 3RR. If you continue to edit war you will again be reported to WP:3RR. I doubt if you will get off with page protection like last time. IMO, based on your behavior, only a block will suffice.– Lionel(talk) 01:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, the issue here is not whether or not the Columbiettes should be mentioned, but whether it belongs in the lede. Once again, I argue that it does not.  1) There is already a section below talking about related organizations.  2) It is a completely separate organisation. 3) Why should the Columbiettes get mentioned in the lede, but not the Daughters of Isabella?  Why not the Catholic Daughters of America?  Why not the groups that just call themselves ladies auxiliaries?  These all serve the same purpose as the Columbiettes.
 * Also, the same paragraph you are trying to edit already states that membership is limited to men. We don't need to repeat it a few sentences later.  Finally, you were bold and added this content (and others).  That's your right, and good for you for doing so.  However, you were quickly reverted.  WP:BRD says you should not simply revert back, but rather take it here to talk first.  You did that, but only after reverting to your preferred version.  That's not how it works.  Right now I am of the opinion that this information should not stay in the lede, for the reasons stated above.  Can you please address my concerns and convince me otherwise?  --BrianCUA (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The junior organization is mentioned in the lede. The Columbiettes are distinguished from those other trad catholic groups as formal auxiliaries to the Knights. And "men" is a vague term that can include men and women, so it's important to mention women are prohibited from joining. (But you know this and just want to obscure that fact.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The junior organization are an official program of the entire Order. The Columbiettes are not. Also, I am not trying to obscure anything, and doubt that anyone is confused by what is meant by "Membership is limited to "practical" Catholic men..." --BrianCUA (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the term "men" is vague in the context of a men's fraternal organization. "Fraternal" rather implies that, as does the word "Knights". (If women were routinely admitted to membership in the KofC would they not have to change their name to the "Knights and Dames of Columbus"?) Nor do I see what the big deal is. It was hardly unusual for organizations formed over 100 years ago to restrict membership to men or women, and with changed circumstances, many have made various accommodations, particularly where there may be a decrease in membership. The Shriners are a men's fraternal society with ladies auxiliaries, as are the Oddfellows (at least outside the US and Canada). "In Europe and Latin America, however, the Rebekah Lodges are exclusively for women ...while the Odd Fellow Lodges remain for men." Not just anyone can hold themselves out as representing a larger established group. It is perfectly appropriate for a group of Columbiettes to have the approval of the council with which they are affiliated, that is merely common sense. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of being a "big deal." Whether gender discrimination is permissible (and in what context) is a matter of opinion. But the exclusin of women is notable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How are they excluded with an integrated affiliate? Mannanan51 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kinda funny to watch how Steeletrap's POV argument to push "gender discrimination" into the lead is just confusing everyone. That said, to single out "Columbiettes" out of all of the women's auxiliaries in the lead is WP:UNDUE.– Lionel(talk) 09:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Steeletrap: you are at 3RR. If you think you can edit war your POV into the lead it won't work at this article.– Lionel(talk) 09:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Evangelizing
The article establishes that the Knights are an evangelical organization: they actively seek to convert people to Catholicism. Doesn't this deserve a brief mention in the lede? It is covered in RS (has long had a section in the article explaining it), and distinguishes the Knights from other religious charities. Steeletrap (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source that says the Knights actively seek to convert non-Catholics, please? Also, how does this sound for the lede instead: "The Knights also support the Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues, and are active participants in the New Evangelization."? --BrianCUA (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is more accurate. From what I can see, it would appear that the Knights' effort re "evangelizing" were directed to their largely poorly instructed fellow-Catholics, and that still seems to be the case. Any activity toward non-Catholics would appear to be have been (and somewhat continues to be) less evangelization than anti-defamation directed to dispelling what they perceive as misinformation. According to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, while 77% of US Catholics self-identify as such, only 23% regularly attend church. It would seem the Knights would hardly have to go beyond their own fold. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Have removed this sentence as overbroad and seemingly not entirely accurate: "An evangelical organization, the Knights actively seek to educate and convert non-Catholics." I didn't know a great deal about this outfit until I started researching them yesterday. (1) It would appear that they are first a fraternal and charitable organization. (2) Then I looked up "New Evangelisation" and found this description “where entire groups of the baptized have lost a living sense of the faith, or even no longer consider themselves members of the Church, and live a life far removed from Christ and his Gospel. In this case what is needed is a ‘new evangelization’ or a ‘re-evangelization.’” This accords with Pope Benedict at one time bemoaning the fact that the French are Catholic only in name, or something to that effect. It would appear that it is largely directed at their own. (3) I would be a little more cautious throwing around the term "evangelical". There are groups, some of whose activities may be termed evangelical, and then there are Evangelicals -which is a politically charge label in the US. There appears to be different ways in which the term is understood, to wit: ecclesiastical and political, and depends on context. The difference is a bit subtle and perhaps not everyone would get that. Mannanan51 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, how about "The Knights actively seek to evangelize non-Catholics"? Surely that is accurate. Steeletrap (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not just non-Catholics, and probably not primarily them but maybe the so-called "lapsed". Let me think on that. I have to read up more on what it is they actually do in that regard. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap: your proposal is ridiculous. Nowhere in the article is there anything to even remotely support "actively seek to evangelize non-Catholics." Your POV pushing is obvious and well past the point ob being annoying.– Lionel(talk) 09:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Steeletrap: I asked you to discuss this language with me on the talk page, and even proposed some language that I though we might be able to agree on. Instead you just went and added your preferred language back into the lede after it had been reverted. I'd like to work with you, but not if you are going to act like this. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion appears to be happening in a complete absence of sources. That's a problem, and probably why it not going anywhere. Specifically, the word "actively" seems a lot like editorializing and needs a source to establish that this is "done actively", and that the phrase is at all meaningful. (What would passive evangelizing really mean exactly, and is there really a meaningful distinction there, or are we just using the word because it sounds nice, even though it doesn't actually add any real information?)  G M G  talk   14:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, GMG. How do you like this: ""The Knights also support the Catholic Church's positions on public policy issues, and are participants in the New Evangelization."? --BrianCUA (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong opinion on whether it is a stand alone sentence or an independent clause, and I don't think it makes very much difference in the relative weight assigned in the lead. New Evangelization (which apparently redirects to Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization) comes of as jargon-y at first glance, and is probably far from self-evident for non-Catholics. (e.g., I was raised Protestant Evangelical and am an overall non-religious adult, and I had no idea what it meant, and only searched deeper because it was a capitalized proper noun.) Besides that, I'm not really seeing the source anywhere indicating that it's meaningfully important to specify New Evangelism (proper noun) rather than simply evangelism (common noun) of which New Evangelism is a constituent part.  G M G  talk   15:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have " actively defending Catholicism in various nations, and promoting Catholic education." Imo adding "participants in the New Evangelization" is overkill. I'm going to AGF here and just say: previous versions of this text with the word "evangelize" would probably have lead some readers to the conclusion that the Knights are a bunch of overzealous proselytizers who only engage in charitable activities to manipulate new recruits into converting to Catholicism. – Lionel(talk) 05:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... I don't think "evangelize" necessarily has a negative connotation to most. I mean, it is a technically correct theological term, and there are many many sects that self identify as evangelical, and see it as a positive label. In comparison, there are other religious traditions that explicitly do not proselytize (compare Hinduism, Sikhism). There are other traditions that do, but not in some circumstances (compare Balamand declaration).  G M G  talk   16:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Practical" vs "Practicing"
Rather than go from wprding which is slightly confusing to that which is slightly inaccurate, why not un-hide the note explaining the KoC usage, possibly with some added bit on the 19th century use of "practical? Anmccaff (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Or we could always use Template:efn, which I'm hopelessly addicted to in my own writing.  G M G  talk   18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is a bit too much information for the lede, but agree it would be helpful in the body. --18:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Abortion and same-sex marriage
I think it is reasonable to concretize in the lede what the political activity means in practice. Examples are given of the charitable activity so examples should be given of the political activity, which if anything gets more media scrutiny. It can be done in only a few words.
 * This addition to the lead has been repeatedly reverted per MOS:BEGIN. Please review the editing history. When you compare the charity examples to political examples you're comparing apples to oranges. Charity is the far and away the most prominent, most distinguishing aspect of KofC. The vast majority of reliable sources going back over 100 years bear testament to this. SSM is a recent development at KofC. In the history of the org it is a blip. It does not have even near enough coverage in RS to be placed in the lead. – Lionel(talk) 05:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus and "ethnic" Americans?
It is touched on in the article that the Knights of Columbus emerged partly among recent Catholic immigrants to the US as they saw themselves somewhat excluded from WASP society. In the article, it isn't mentioned, but the founder Michael J. McGivney, was also a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, almost all the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus would appear to be of Irish descent and there is the equivalent Knights of Saint Columbanus in Ireland itself. Do the Knights in the US also have a significant membership from Italian, Polish, German and more recent Mexican, Filipino and South American Catholic communities, or is it essentially an Irish-American Catholic group? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to their website they are active in: the USA, Canada, Mexico, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Poland, Panama, Guatemala, Lithuania, Bahamas, Saint Lucia, South Korea, and the Ukraine - (see the lede). The Canadian knights were very active during WWI in providing R+R facilities both at camps in Canada and "over there". A number of Mexican knights were killed during the general anti-Catholic regime in Mexico during the twenties. So their extension beyond the US goes back about 100 years. The Irish tradition seems to derive from it's base in New Haven. (However, please note the current Supreme Treasurer is named Schwarz and the Supreme Advocate Marella.) International Alliance of Catholic Knights gives a list of similar organisations in other countries. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Excessive primary sourcing
This article relies too much on primary sources published by KoC and needs secondary, independent, Reliable Source references for verification and to establish Due Weight of article content. Please help find better sourcing for this article content.  SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I specifically tried not to use the Knights as a reference but I'm not sure that specific information about their operations is detailed elsewhere. For, example, While its possible to find a local news story about the donation of an ultrasound machine, the local reports don't appear to connect to the total under that particular program. Should that info be deleted pending another source? There's a lot of references to the CEO's annual report, but the specifics wouldn't necessarily be covered elsewhere. Why would it? By my count about 1/3 of the 157 citations are probably from the K of C website. What is the correct percentage? Mannanan51 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the correct percentage is, though I agree with you that much of what is cited by a primary source probably wouldn't be covered in a secondary source. I haven't done an exhaustive analysis, but having followed this page for some time I think they are all OK per WP:SELFSOURCE.  Perhaps SPECIFICO could shed a little more light on where he thinks the problem lies.  --BrianCUA (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's not considered important enough for secondary RS coverage, then unfortunately it does not belong in a public encyclopedia. This is not to say that the primary sourced material is not of interest to readers who are already interested in the subject, but WP requires us to measure article content by RS sourcing.  It should be possible to find secondary sourcing for much of what's currently referenced to primary publications. Briancua, the concern per your link is The article is not based primarily on such sources.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage in a secondary source is always preferable, but not required per WP:SELFSOURCE so long as several criteria are met. Could you explain to me which of the criteria are not met for the inclusion about the call for national healing following mass shootings?  Additionally, there are many, many sentences in here, including entire paragraphs, about resolutions that were passed by the Knights that only cite primary sources.  Why is this one different?  Finally, by my count there are 37 references out of 183 that are primary sources.  That is roughly 20%.  I wouldn't say that this article is "based primarily on such sources." --BrianCUA (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have shown no secondary sources that indicate the importance of this proclamation. Millions of people made similar proclamations, yet we don't describe them all on Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a serious problem and would support fairly broad blanket removals of anything sourced solely to the knights themselves unless it is both strictly uncontroversial and obviously necessary, since it seems to have become a constant problem throughout the article. We have nearly fifty cites to a single annual report (one from 2013, a year that appears to be chosen completely at random - often the figures and data cited to this report isn't even noted as being from 2013.)  That's an absurd number.  One or two cites for uncontroversial and obviously-relevant figures are fine, but ~47?  Most of those need to be taken out until / unless we can find secondary sources to establish relevance.  This article needs to be written primarily from the perspective of what secondary sources say about the Knights, not what they say about themselves.  I'd also argue that most cites from the Catholic Church itself should fall under this rubric, since I see a large number of them in the article.  If something is WP:DUE, it ought to be reported in a source more thoroughly independent of the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that nothing controversial should be included here if it is only sourced to the Knights. However, WP:SELFSOURCE says nothing about the information being "obviously necessary."  Instead, it says that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." as long as several criteria are met.  I haven't gone back through the edit history, but I am willing to bet that those 47 references were all added shortly after the speech was given, and no one bothered to do the same in 2014, 2015, or any year since.  I am willing to try and find additional sources for them, however.  Will you help? --BrianCUA (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply to most of the primary content here, and KoC is not a person. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

How should we handle this? The Egan & Kennedy source is self-published by KoC. Should we start by tagging the content in-line cited to that source? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't WP:SELFSOURCE apply?--BrianCUA (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFSOURCE most certainly applies. It has always applied to organizations. Here are the pertinent facts regarding Egan:
 * 1. WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"
 * 2. The article has more than 183 citations. Only 12 of those are from Egan. That is not excessive by any measure.
 * 3. I reviewed the 12 cites. None of them are used to support exceptional claims thus no secondary sourcing mandated.
 * 4. Even though Egan is considered "self-published", the reputation of Maurice Francis Egan is exemplary. We're lucky to have such a high quality source in this article. His Wikipedia page is here.
 * Thus, because SELFSOURCE allows Egan, and because Egan is a highly reliable and reputable writer, there are no grounds to tag Egan.– Lionel(talk) 03:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Knights of Columbus color enhanced vector kam.svg
File:Knights of Columbus color enhanced vector kam.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of KoC political activism in the lede
I'm baffled by editors who went out of their way to create a KoC politics page but want to purge all mention (and a wiki link to that page) of KoC's political activism from the lede. I am not suggesting we go into detail about specific political efforts in the lede; I accept the consensus against that. But it is surely justifiable to include a brief, abstract statement that the Knights engage in political activism, with a link to the article about their politics. Can someone explain the rationale for removing this other than white-washing? Steeletrap (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The rationale is that their political activities are already mentioned in the lede by saying they support the Church's public policy positions. Public policy, by definition, takes place in the public (i.e. political) sphere.  The link remains.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, public policy is not synonymous with politics. The four word qualifier is necessarily to contextualize the meaning of it. Steeletrap (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC) And it's four damn words, my friend. Why would you want to remove it so badly? Steeletrap (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I never said they were synonymous, but it encompasses it. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steeletrap, I find it baffling. This obfuscation is not in the spirit of wikipedia. I find this a common issue with Catholic related articles in my experience - almost a "brand reputation" thing if one were being cynical. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I created the political activity article and greatly expanded it. I'm not trying to obfuscate or purge anything.  Perhaps you should be a little less cynical and assume a little more good faith when I tell you what my motives and reasons are.--BrianCUA (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A cynic could say that you created the political activity article for the purposes of obfuscation, since the creation of that secondary article led to a lot of the more controversial political stuff being removed from this page. Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * An approach that has parallels with the changes made to Homosexuality and Catholicism - taking out the stuff that looks controversial or embarassing for the Catholic Church and slip them into a side article in the hope that fewer people will see them. Can we stop playing these games please. All editors need to better demonstrate neutrality and even-handedness. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no obfuscation just attempted POV pushing. Brian is correct: public policy encompasses political activity. – Lionel(talk) 11:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And if you truly feel that the political subarticle is mere obfuscation, why not just merge it back into the main??? – Lionel(talk) 11:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't just say "POV pushing" without being specific about what POV you think is being pushed! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of female auxiliaries
Can someone explain why the Knights' Youth Group is mentioned in the lede but any mention of the female auxiliaries is deleted? Steeletrap (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Because the Colombian Squires are an official program of the Knights. The various auxiliary groups (Daughters of Isabella, Columbianettes, etc) are not. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Briancua, can you provide a citation for the claim that the auxiliaries are not "official," and an explanation as to why this legalistic distinction is relevant? Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You are asking me to prove a negative. The burden is on you to prove that each of the auxiliary organizations are "official." Find for me a reliable source that the Catholic Daughters of the Americas, the Daughters of Isabella, the Daughters of Mary Immaculate, and all the other auxiliary groups are run by the Knights of Columbus.  Then we can talk about including them in the lede.  I also made just an edit where I deleted the exceedingly detailed definition of a practicing Catholic.  The WP:LEDE is supposed to "summarize the most important points."  For the purposes of the lede, it suffices to say that members must be Catholic men. The details can live in the body.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't we already go over this a few months ago? – Lionel(talk) 04:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
As a review of this talk page shows, there has been a trend in this article for some editors to try and insert a large amount of detail into the lede section. In almost every instance, the consensus has been to pare the information down. In the most recent instance, Steeletrap inserted some language that describes how the Knights define a practical Catholic. This was less than three weeks ago. He is now claiming that this was consensus version for a long time. I would hardly consider something around for only a couple weeks to be a long time, and as the language has changed several times, by myself, Steeletrap himself, and others, it also does not qualify as consensus language. The language prior to Steeletrap's involvement here stood, unchanged, for years.

The WP:LEDE is supposed to be a summary of the article, and should tell the reader the "the basics in a nutshell." Using 28 words to describe what a practical Catholic is, as defined by the Knights, is hardly summarizing the basic points of the article. The full definition already exists in the body of the article. If people prefer, I would be happy to put the full definition back into the lede as an explanatory note, but it should suffice to say in the lede that the organization is made up of Catholic men. For these reasons, I am reverting.--BrianCUA (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows what "practical" means. That's why we use the term practicing, which is also used on the KoC site, but which you dislike because it clarifies the meaning of the membership criterion. As for "years" of stability on this page, well, there's a reason for that and it doesn't speak well of the people who have been editing here. Consider my intervention a counter-crusade. Steeletrap (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The current language says practicing, not practical. Also, remember to WP:AGF.--BrianCUA (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? There is now no mention in this article of the opposition of the knights to gay marriage?! This is a travesty. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. This whole same sex marriage thing is a recent development in the 136 year history of this organization. Sorry but SSM just doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in the lead per WP:LEADREL. Maybe you should try to be more objective instead of taking it personally. – Lionel(talk) 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a significant development and highly notable in the context of the article - more notable than most of the things covered in the article. 136 years isn't that long in any case. And don't patronise me by talking about being "objective" and "taking things personally". if you want to talk about objectivity then how about you make edits to articles without automatically defending the teaching/ position of the Catholic church and its organisations. That would indeed be refreshing. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's all take a deep breathe here and WP:AGF. Contaldo, I reverted your insertion.  The sentence is about resolutions.  Grammatically, your addition was awkward, and the resolutions didn't provide any funding for any particular effort, so it was incorrect to boot.  Additionally, we don't provide context for any of the other five resolutions in the list.  Why should we single this one out of the five for additional detail when all of it can be found in the main article?  --BrianCUA (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No sane person would assume good faith at this point. Lionel and Brian are thoroughly biased editors who are whitewashing the socially conservative politics of the Knights on issues such as gay marriage. Steeletrap (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap, you didn't address any of my concerns about the addition being awkward or untrue, or why we should provide context for this resolution but not others. The whole of your argument is to accuse me of being biased.  Additionally, your edit summary says you are restoring sourced content.  Neither of the two facts you are introducing are discussed in that source.  I am reverting.  --BrianCUA (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording isn't "awkward" - in what way? It certainly isn't untrue - or are you arguing it is a lie? The argument about resolutions is a red herring. If you think it a genuine issue then I can simply insert a sentence after these "resolutions". It is an important point and I don't like that we keep trying to cover it up. it's getting embarrassing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The extra sentence at the end is less objectionable, but I still think it is redundant. We don't present the other side of any of the other issues here. For example, we don't say, "the Knights support building a culture of life, in opposition to those who want the institute the death penalty for serious crimes," or "the Knights opposed communism, in opposition to those who wanted a more equitable splitting of resources." Why are we singling out your pet issue but not any others? Why not let it all live in the daughter article? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in awe at how on the question of including same-sex marriage the deciding editor says "Nope, they've been around a long time", yet on the question of saying "practical" instead of "practicing" the deciding editor says "Nope, their website currently says 'practicing'." Your hypocrisy is showing, and it looks to this editor as if the time has long since come for us to *ahem* "revert" to a true Wiki model ;) Johnpfmcguire (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Culture of Life
From the article: "The phrase "culture of life" is a term used in discussion of moral theology, especially that of the Catholic Church." Note it is in speech marks as it is something that some religious folk use to describe a group of somewhat random positions on social issues. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Right. The term is used to describe a way of life, just like rape culture, cannabis culture, or hookup culture.  As I did on the political activity article, I am removing your scare quotes per WP:SCAREQUOTES as "quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression."  Additionally, per MOS:QUOTE: "Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can often seem to imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted."  --BrianCUA (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What on earth is a rape culture?! No, go to the article on "culture of life" and you'll see that it's in quotes. Frankly it's your problem if you regard these are scarequotes or not. There is not a common interpretation of "Culture of life" - it's a made up thing by the followers of John Paul II to justify a number of socially conservative positions. If a women dies because she is not allowed to have an abortion then how on earth is that a culture of life. Refer for a third opinion if you want but I will continue to resist this subversion of the english language by the religious right. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have requested a third opinion rather than edit war. However, you may want to reconsider your stance as you have at least twice now provided a definition of culture of life as "a made up thing by the followers of John Paul II to justify a number of socially conservative positions."  You seem to have at least a rough idea of what it is.  Sounds to me like there is a common interpretation.  --BrianCUA (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: While having culture of life wikilinked on first use may suggest to readers that it has a specific meaning (which, frankly, I didn't know before checking) it could use further explanation. Single or double quotes will make the term stand out but don't do anything to explain it. Perhaps a parenthetic defining note could follow, something like: culture of life (the protection of life from conception to natural death)? This seems NPOV and will save readers time from chasing links to understand. I would also suggest interchanging the order of sections Awards and Political activity, since some of the awards are for political activity, and so it would make more sense to introduce the political activity information before the awards. This would put the first mention of "culture of life" in the political activity section and the parenthetic defining note suggested above fits a little better in a political context. I hope this is of help. If you go this route, please agree to the wording before making a change. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree. Adding quotes does nothing to clarify, and could be taken as dismissive, of the phrase. A quick definition, parenthetical or not, could be helpful   Work permit (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have pointed out: when the article culture of life uses double quotes – the expression "culture of life" – it's talking about that as a term and is a words-as-words situation (Manual of Style/Text formatting). I believe the MOS generally recommends italics in those situations but I've also seen double quotes used.  Either way, that doesn't apply here where the term is used normally as part of the text and not referred to as an expression. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But it is referred to in the text as an expression. It does not refer to "the protection of life from conception to natural death". That is simply the opinion of some of the religious right. The term is not widely accepted or understood and is FRINGE. If you look at those championing a "culture of life" they actually permit a mother to die to avoid an abortion or accept that killing someone is permissible in the circumstances of a "just war". It is therefore an expression. I also base my argument on the fact that the main article puts the word in quotation marks to indicate that it is not actually a thing. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Contaldo: this tendentious editing against consensus will only get you blocked. Per MOS:SCAREQUOTES Culture of Life should not be in quotations.– Lionel(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying, but I feel that's an argument for the culture of life article. I think the readership are informed enough to know that people advocating "the protection of life from conception to natural death" are on one side of the abortion/euthenasia debate and we don't need to bring up that whole can of worms.  I feel I'm repeating myself a bit but let me try once more to explain it in terms of style.  In this article, culture of life is used as an expression.  In the culture of life article, the part I quoted above like this, culture of life is referred to as an expression for the purpose of examining that expression. That's why it gets special styling in that one instance to distinguish it from the rest of the text. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Reidgreg. I would still rather we make plain that it is a term/ ideology that the knights perceive as a culture of life, even if ultimately we don't use quotes. I don't want the casual reader to think it is really about pursuing a culture that promotes/ supports life. Lionel - don't threaten me ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think MOS:SCAREQUOTES necessarily applies here. It's not a commonly used expression, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice unqualified has implications. --tronvillain (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Likewise my view. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Secret Society category?
This article is included in the "Secret Societies" category. Why? The article mentions nothing about them being a secret society. Although meetings and degree ceremonies are closed to non-members, the organization denies they are a secret society. Nothing is mentioned in the article about them being a secret society. My thinking is, if they are a secret society, there should be something mentioned in the article, else the article should not belong in the category. SlowJog (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CATV requires removal of categories that are not both sourced and mentioned in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On that basis, I removed the category. Of course, if someone edits the article showing it the category applies, the category can be re-added at that time. SlowJog (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)