Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 8

Rfc: "anti-LGBT lobbies"
Should the lead section of the article contain the sentence "Between 2008 and 2012, KoC gave at least $15 million to anti-gay marriage and anti-LGBT lobbies"? gnu 57 21:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

 * No. Elizium23 (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Francis1867 (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Malformed RfC. This is not a simple yes/no: the question in fact is how to represent their substanbtial donation to anti-LGBT lobbying, not whether to include specific text. Guy (help!) 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 3 "Between 2008 and 2012, KoC gave at least $15 million to anti-same-sex marriage and anti-LGBT lobbies".Or yes That they have given this money, to oppose same sex marriage is sourced. So its just a question of semantic as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tend to ignore "Yes" or "No" votes unless there is a comment explaining why the editor voted "Yes" or "No." SlowJog (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - Option 3 The statement is a good specific example of the previous sentence: and from a Reliable Source. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes - 2/3 as per Avatar317. In context it's an example of the opposition mentioned in the previous sentence. Loki (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No The $15 million figure is not true: see my comment below. gnu 57 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4 (based upon one source provided) "Between 2008 and 2012, KoC gave at least $15 million to lobbies opposed to marriage equality".Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC) This might confuse the closer to be clear, this is now my preferred version, with it the order of preference being options 4 then 3 then current wording.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No Per WP:LEAD - that isn’t a major part of the article, so it is UNDUE to give such prominence. This aspect doesn’t seem to have a WEIGHT in press so isn’t worth mire article space.  I’ll also note that 2018 *alone* had over $185 million given to charities, so a created aggregate of this relatively minute amount then given such a vague and inflammatory label seems just a smear.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No This type of detail should be in the content section rather than the lead and it's not even there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes The funding is a notable aspect of what the Knights have done over recent years. I haven't seen many references otherwise to them in mainstream press beyond their active opposition to same sex marriage. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes if it's part of why they're notable lately, which seems to be the case Ikjbagl (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No I think without significant further mention in the article, its place in the lead section is questionable. I agree that its contributions have been a major source of notability/infamy recently, but until that's reflected in the article body putting that sentence up top seems arbitrary. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
First of all, ignoring the larger question of whether such verbiage should be there or not, let's address the non-neutral language of "anti-gay marriage". That's not how we phrase things on Wikipedia: it's called "same-sex marriage" and I would neutrally describe it as something like "lobbies opposed to same-sex marriage". Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with colleague above, would further say that this does not need to be in the lead of such an article, even if the information in it can be mentioned in a later relevent section. Francis1867 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , giving millions to bigotry seems kind of significant to me. Guy (help!) 11:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * bigotry does not mean what you think it does. A biggot is someone who cannot accept other point of view, a bit like you with the knights of colummbus'view on how mariage should be and when life begins. People who come on wikipedia don't all want to have a quick check on a person or organisation's purity, for that there is rational wiki. Francis1867 (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * bigot, n. and a. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion. or A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual. So it seems to me they fit as the opposition to same sex marriage is based upon a superstitious adherence to a religious doctrine to an  unreasonable degree.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , what part of their position is consistent with accepting the point of view that who you love is none of anyone else's business? Guy (help!) 13:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I love my cat and I am not married to him. My mother loved me and we didn't get married. One can love more than one person at a time, but cannot marry them. One can feel romantic love for a close relative, yet the governement feel its their buisness making incest illegal. You are reversing the burden of proof and making a false equivalency between love and marriage. Marriage is a public institution, in most countries it is mandatory to publish a notice long enough in advence to allow eveyone a chance to oppose a union. In all countries there are several rules around it. You might feel that same sex marriage is better than polygamy or incestuous marriage, and it is a valid opionion, but others have different opionions, and if you listen to it, you might find some of their arguments compelling. That being said, this is not a forum, Wikipedia is a neutral information platform, which aims at sharing objective knowledge, not morally rightious thinking, independant of what you think is moral or not. Francis1867 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.From old french bigot, tranlation: "person of excessive and narrow devotion. synonims: zealot, politically correct(...) " Are you claiming the knights of Columbus are hypocritical, opposing same sex marriage while practicing it? Francis1867 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that their support of opposition to Gay marriage is motivated by an obstinate and intolerant devotion to their own opinions and prejudices.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A statement which seems predicated on the premise that the only way someone could come to a different opinion than yours on the topic is that they are prejudiced and hatefull, something a bigot would think. Francis1867 (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the definition does it say hateful? Where did I say they were hateful?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you agree then that thereis nothing hatefull about opposition to same sex mariage? Then we can agree that opposition to same sex mariage does not support your claim that KoC are a bigoted organisation, and can stop implying it is so in the lead! Francis1867 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I said that the definition both you and I provided does not include any reference to hate. However obstinate and intolerant devotion to their own opinions and prejudices might make them bigoted. But this is also irrelevant to whether or not they have given money to anti marriage choice organisations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you do know the history of anti-miscegenation laws, right? And the crossover between the individuals and the arguments used against interracial and same-sex marriage?
 * Not marrying gay people in your church is religious freedom. Trying to stop gay people from marrying anywhere is bigotry.
 * Simple.
 * To state that anti-gay bigotry is not motivated by hate is a red herring. The definition does not require hate, and if you ask the people who are the targets of bigotry whether it feels differently depending on whether it';s done in hate or in self-proclaimed love, they will tell you that it feels like hate whatever the internal monologue of the bigot. Homophobia may be fear, may be hate, may be both, but it all feels like hate to the target.
 * To rely on the etymology and archaic meaning is also unacceptable. This is Wikipedia. You don't get to claim that faggot means a bundle of sticks or gay means happy. Merriam-Webster: bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" Obstinacy and intolerance are the key. Guy (help!) 10:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you agree than the ban on polygamy and incest is bigotted. Are homosexuals a race? Normal marriage does not exclude homosexuals, its simply between one man in one women. So a Gay men and a gay women could marry, as much as two straight men could not marry. Like wise, a Straight men could not marry his sister, even if they are both heterosexual. Believing that marriage should be between one women and one men is no more or less bigotted than believing it should be between any two persons, or believing it could be between more than two. Marriage is a public affaire, an important part of private in Family law. In France, anny parent, descendant or sibling can oppose a marriage project, in which case the court must decide if the marriage should be allowed to proceed. This is because a mariage includes obligations for these non-contracting parties, including alimonies. Quebec law has some similar elements, but its not a wide as French law. If someone is of the view that family is the basic unit of the nation, and that mariage is the legal act which creates the family, one has a keen interest in how and when marriage can happen. In Canada, marriage is betweem two person aged 16 or above, in France its between people 18 or above... Unless the court allows someone younger to marry. In other countries there is no minimal age. Isn't it one thing for you not to get married at 9, but stopping others is bigotted? A bigot still means a zealot, even if it now is used more often to denote people who have unpopular views on race, sex, and sexuality. Francis1867 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The larger issue is that the article still maintains its former emphasis on KoC's community support and fraternal outreach. But today, it's a colossal financial services enterprise headed by a savvy right-leaning Washington insider and the organization promotes the reactionary and backward-looking threads within contemporary Catholic thinking. It needs further development in the article text and the lead will follow.  SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is an excellent point. Guy (help!) 10:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My Grand Father was a KOC. Didn't speak a lick of english, never set foot in the united states. Participated in charities to help the criples, some bar games and hunted with the others. Where I live, KOC is an organisation of rural seniors. Everyone is catholic and I never heard of any form of activism here. Your focus on the political activities of the US branch, where catholics are not the majority, is excessive. The organisation is much broader than ths. Never heard any KOC talk about gay marriage here, only muslims and mexicans seem to. That may just be because it was so long ago that it was forced by the courts. Now aborption, that still has some opponents, but thats different. Francis1867 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I would distinguish the opposition to same-sex / gay marriage from a wider "anti-LGBT." I know many people who would argue against gay marriage but also argue against a business discriminating against a person based on their sexuality or any legal concern about what LGBT people do in the bedroom (many would hold what they do in the bedroom is immoral but thinking something is immoral and it should be illegal are separate questions - nobody wants to make adultery illegal despite the majority thinking it immoral). From my experience with the Knights, they generally seem to match this. Also, if you look at the 13 donations listed by the RS, all are about marriage, not promoting discrimination against LGBT people. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A sound argument. Some may feel that there is a direct and perfect corolation between the two, but thats an opinion, not a verified fact. Francis1867 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , that right there is the separate-but-equal argument. Guy (help!) 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not true that $15 million went to "anti-same-sex marriage and anti-LGBT lobbies". According to the "Equally Blessed" report, $6.25mil went directly to anti-same sex marriage lobbies, $9.6mil went to "to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture." The latter includes a diverse collection of groups; for instance, the KofC gave $265,000 to Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, an association of American religious sisters which does not engage in political lobbying and has no involvement in any LGBT issue. It is ridiculous to call them an "anti-LGBT lobby". The $9.6mil also includes, inter alia, $6.1mil given to a theology school, $225,000 to an anti-porn group, and $150,000 for a telecast of the pope's visit to the US. The Equally Blessed report infers that the KofC's $9.6mil "cultural conservatism" donations were all calculated to foster a climate hostile to same-sex marriage; this sort of interpretation requires attribution and should not be in the lead. Cheers, gnu 57 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You left out "...to oppose efforts for marriage equality." It actually reads " Since 2005, The Knights of Columbus and Anti-Marriage Equality Funding the Knights of Columbus has provided more than $15.8 million dollars toward these efforts, providing $6.25 million directly to anti-marriage equality efforts and $9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture to oppose efforts for marriage equality." So they themselves admit it (but thanks I know they had just could not remember where).Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They themselves admit it? What do you mean? "Equally Blessed" is a coalition of Catholic dissident groups in favour of same-sex marriage. (The KofC report was funded in part by the HRC). The National Catholic Reporter, which reported on the EB press release/report, was also strongly in favour of same-sex marriage. (See e.g. ) Also, I was quoting from the line on page 5 which reads "The Knights of Columbus donated $9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture between 2006 and 2010". See also the section beginning at page 24 with "The Knights of Columbus involvement with efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriage does not end with direct anti-marriage equality efforts. The Knights of Columbus also gives generously to organizations designed to promote a conservative reading of Catholic theology and a political culture that is favorable to claims of religious rights over civil law, which would allow Catholic health and social services providers to refuse to recognize gay and lesbian unions". Cheers, gnu 57  18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or they gave $9.6 million to indirect methods to fight marriage equality. Its still opposition to marriage equality.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yup. That, after all, is what "organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture" do. Guy (help!) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep saying things like They themselves admit it and based upon the KOC own statements and I still have no idea what you mean. The source for "organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture" is not the KofC itself. Equally Blessed is an activist group diametrically opposed to the KofC on this issue. We have no direct information about the KofC's intentions in donating money to the nun group or to the telecast of the pope (neither of which is a lobby). The sums of money mentioned aren't particular grants earmarked for a particular purpose, they're the total amounts given in that time period. The interpretation "Their reason for giving money to nuns was, ultimately, to prevent same-sex marriage" has to be attributed to EB and does not belong in the lead. gnu 57 12:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes we do know why they donated it "providing $6.25 million directly to anti-marriage equality efforts and $9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture to oppose efforts for marriage equality." over 15 million to "oppose efforts for marriage equality", its what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out to me where the KofC themselves have ever said that? Cheers, gnu 57 12:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not going to be nice now, you could try reading the document you linked to. Everything in quotes is a cut and paste from your source (its title is "The Strong Right Arm of the Bishops: The Knights of Columbus and Anti-Marriage Equality Funding", did you not even read the title?), as for the rest its from page 3-4.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also sure I have been involved in this dispute before, and it followed exactly the same lines (almost word for word). Indeed I seem to recall it ended up with the KOC document being called a primary source and thus not usable for this information (not by me).Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That document was written by Equally Blessed. Equally Blessed is not the KofC. It is incorrect to attribute Equally Blessed's statements to the KofC. gnu 57 13:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK then Equally Blessed have said it, ironically my opinion of the KOC has just gone down.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you consider changing your !vote above, now that you understand that Equally Blessed is not the KofC? gnu 57 14:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * NO, as it still supports it. By the way, you are the one who used it to prove your contention. Do you accept that in fact it does say they have used all that money to oppose marriage eqaulity?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have already said many times over the course of this discussion: (1) the report by Equally Blessed says that the KofC gave $6.25mil directly to anti-same sex marriage lobbies. This is uncontentious. (Though it may be undue for the lead.) (2) The report also claims that the $9.6mil donations which EB classifies as "cultural conservatism" were intended to indirectly prevent the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. This is a contentious, WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. (For instance, there are many reasons one might give money to nuns that have nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and it is highly unlikely that the KofC's giving them money had any effect on marriage equality) Claim number (2) requires attribution to Equally Blessed and should not be in the lead. gnu 57 15:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet you...Ohh why bother, I will not change my vote. This is my last word about this report.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole TBAN appeal
See WP:AN. Slugger O'Toole is appealing his topic ban from this and related articles. Guy (help!) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic composition
From https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/how-columbus-day-fell-victim-to-its-own-success/261922/
 * its first generation of members was almost exclusively Irish.

Unfortunately the Google link does not work anymore. Something should be said about the evolution of the ethnic composition of the membership. --Error (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Emblem, primary or non-primary source
The section describing the emblem and what the elements in the emblem have a tag indicating a non-primary source is needed. But, should the tags be there? There are times when a primary source in a Wikipedia article is acceptable, and, in my opinion, this is one of them.

Suppose a committee solicits designs for a new flag, and I submit one, along with an explanation of the interpretations of the elements I used. In that case, I would be the only reliable source. Any secondary source that is reliable could only pass on what I described. It seems to me, that applies to the description of the K of C emblem. SlowJog (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I would say its not our job to say it. If RS do not think it important neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think, with regards to the elements of the emblem, the Knights are the only reliable source. Did Slatersteven mean "If Secondary Sources do not ..." ? Aside from that, the reply raises another question: Does the description of the emblem belong here in the first place? Is it "encyclopedic"? SlowJog (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Willingness to publicize charitable works
I think it is ridiculous that this edit should cover up the Knights' publication of their charitable works by falsely claiming that they are unwilling to discuss their charitable works, just because their spokesman refused to contact a reporter seeking to smear them in the least Catholic publication in the United States. It is intellectually dishonest to say that they are "reluctant" to discuss where the money and volunteering goes, because they regularly document everything they do for the IRS and for the world to see. It is just a few editors who have twisted Wikipedia policy to disallow those publications to be used here, unlike the rest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with your belief that Primary Documents should be used, I do find it concerning that NCR was acceptable to write a negative comment about the KofC but was removed when used to cited charitable giving. Editors can't have it both ways and cherry-pick the use of a source. Slywriter (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking about this. Here is what I added ( WP:BRD) to the article that Avatar317 then reverted:
 * “At their 2019 convention, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson claimed that the organization had donated $185 million and 76 million volunteer hours toward charity projects in 2018. Charitable activities include support for refugees, aid for victims of natural disasters, and promoting family & life issues. After the Knights had donated more than 1,000 ultrasound machines to pregnancy resource centers from 2009-2019, Anderson said "Our ultrasound initiative is now the greatest humanitarian achievement in the history of the Knights of Columbus. ... We can, and I am confident that we will, save millions of unborn lives.”


 * The sources I used were this article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune (August 2019) and this article from the National Catholic Reporter (also August 2019).


 * Avatar317 says in his edit summary: “these giant NON fact-checked claims about money donated and volunteer hours given have been removed from this article by multiple editors, so there is currently no consensus to have these unsupported claims in the article.” I wasn’t aware of that history (it is not on this talk page) but I can see that there have been possibly hundreds of edits made to the article since the two sources I looked at were published in August 2019.


 * If I am understanding Avatar317 correctly, his objections to the new content are:
 * The claims about money donated and volunteer hours given are giant
 * The claims are non fact-checked
 * The claims were previously added to the article and then removed by multiple editors and that means there is no consensus to have these claims in the article


 * I hope that last bullet point can be resolved in a way that helps future editors by having a discussion here on this talk page.


 * Of the points Avatar317 makes, I’m not sure what the user means by "giant". Does he mean that the figures themselves are giant? (the figures of $185 million and 76 million volunteer hours). Or does Avatar317 mean that these figures are giant in the sense of being surprising, out of the ordinary or some other possible way?


 * The main issue though, it seems to me, is the point about the claims being “non fact-checked” as Avatar317 describes the situation. I believe that in general, WP:RS would say that if an assertion of fact appears in an WP:RS, then it can generally be relied on enough to appear in an article. In rejecting the sources, I can’t tell if Avatar317 is saying “these sources aren’t reliable” or whether Avatar317 is saying “as far as I can tell from reading those sources, it’s not clear to me whether or not those reporters actually fact-checked the data before they put it into their stories and since that is not clear to me, then I conclude that they did not do their fact-checking adequately as reporters, so I don’t think the content belongs in this article.” Catholic things (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its attributed, but still it is only their claim. I can see why this was objected to as self serving puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is not their claim, it is the claim of the Star Tribune and the National Catholic Reporter, which are reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No they report the claim, made by Carl Anderson.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , a claim we can be confident is fact-checked because these are WP:RS Elizium23 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No we cannot as they are quoting, thus the only fact they have checked is he said it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Elizium23, thanks for your comments and perspective here. Slatersteven, are you saying that if a WP:RS quotes an individual or organization making some claims about the person or organization (what the person believes or has accomplished or what the organization's annual budget is, for example), that the doctrine of WP:RS forbids Wikipedia users from noting in the article whatever it was that the person or organization said, that was quoted by the WP:RS, unless the RS additionally went beyond that and assured its readers that in addition to quoting the individual or organization, the RS also separately fact-checked the claim? Catholic things (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am saying you both have a valid point. wp:undue may come into this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. As far as undue weight: I think it's due weight to report on the annual budget of a very large organization like the Knights. The number for what their annual revenues are, for this organization or any other organization, show a significant fact about the organization. I also think readers of an encyclopedic article would appreciate getting that information, for this or any other organization, since it gives them a quick read on the size of the organization. And, it is also "due" to report on what a big organization like the Knights has to say about what its main projects and priorities are. (It would also be due to report on things an organization does that it doesn't self-report on, if those are covered to a considerable extent in RS.) In the case of what the main projects are that a group like the Knights does, an enyclopedic article, or a newspaper article, can either quote the organization's self-reported claims, as the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and NCR did in this case (which gives some distance) or it can just flatly say "they do this, that and the other". But whether the information is conveyed in a somewhat distanced way (by quoting) or otherwise, I would think most readers would want to know what the main projects are that a large organization engages in. When RSes report on this, as they do for the Knights, that gives good guidance on what is noteworthy or due weight here. Catholic things (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what YOU THINK that readers might want to know about an organization, it matters what Reliable Sources publish. Also, NON-fact-checked boastful claims are WP:PROMOTIONAL and don't belong in articles.  Publicly listed companies are held to legal standards (both civil and criminal for the execs) about what they can say about their corporations; non-profits can say whatever they want with practically no repercussions.


 * Also, concerning your previous clearly biased edit that I reverted here: where you REMOVED sourced material critical of the Knights and REPLACED it with promotional material, and given your username and other edits on subjects about the KoC, do you have a WP:COI that you should disclose in relation to these articles? --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , It doesn't matter what YOU THINK that readers might want to know about an organization, it matters what Reliable Sources publish. And you seem to want to keep out reliably published information here. So it is not about however much you misrepresent Wikipedia policy at these articles, it is about the real Wikipedia policy that governs how we edit. Elizium23 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm a member of the Knights, if you want to know, but that's not a COI in a 2-million-person organization, any more than being a voter is a COI for editing articles on politics, or any more than owning an iPhone is a COI for editing the article on Apple Inc. And WP:AGF. Instead of you saying that this or that edit is clearly biased, or that certain material is promotional, I think the dialogue will work better if you use the talk page (thanks for doing that here), and make specific arguments about specific lines of text. In this section, we are talking about information about the Knights of Columbus that appears in RS. You reverted an edit I made where I added information about their annual budget, volunteer hours and the main projects they are doing. This information was from RSes. Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about that where we reached a measure of consensus on that point. When I wrote above that I think a reader of an encyclopedic article would expect to learn about an organization's budget, if that information is available in RS, I was weighing in on a concern raised by a user about whether that information is due. How do you think users here can discuss whether a piece of information is due or not, once someone asks about that? Do you have an alternative proposal about how to go about settling that concern? Catholic things (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The information is in reliable sources. No one is arguing that the cited sources are anything other than reliable. After that discussion, there was a hint of a concern that perhaps the information isn't due, and the user who had added the information said why they think it is due. I agree that it is due, and is significant information about the organization. It's pretty hard for me to imagine why any editors think that readers of this article should be denied information about the size of the organization's budget and so on that has appeared in multiple RS. But I'm all ears. Novellasyes (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , a certain set of editors have invaded a certain set of articles, and they are willing to act as one to misrepresent Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to keep the articles blatantly biased in a negative way against the article topics. Elizium23 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * careful on the attacks there. The issue with the KofC article specifically was that virtually the entire article was sourced to self published materials including news articles that were straight re-publishing of press releases. Even here, the information looking to be included is an end run around sourcing by using the fact that two newspaper quoted the leader of the organization (possibly by reading a press release). They did no fact checking, no independent research. So while the quote appears in a reliable source, it is still self sourced information published by writers who do religious puff pieces. Slywriter (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

, reading the sources in question would disabuse you of your presumption that anybody was quoting a press release, or that it was published by people who do "religious puff pieces". The Star-Tribune sent their own reporter to the Knight's 2019 convention (in Minneapolis). To help you and others avoid a paywall, I'll quote that article at length here to illustrate the lack of religious puffery: "But a glance around the conference hall showed one of the biggest challenges behind the accomplishments: an aging, predominantly white membership.

Attracting new faces

Attracting more and younger members is a priority. Following research and focus groups, the group made several changes to attract new faces, including ditching the feathered-hat uniform and offering online memberships that let men join without going through a long initiation process.

“Young people like myself don’t want to get dressed up in a cape and feathered chapeau,” said Jeremy Hadash, a 32-year-old member from Mounds View."

Further, NCR is frequently critical of the Knights of Columbus. There's no question of "religious puffery" from that source. Nevertheless, NCR also seems to feel that it is appropriate to publish an annual wrap-of up the Supreme Knight's remarks at each annual convention, and that's the other source in question for 2018 numbers. Catholic things (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about all that history but thanks for the background. I don't understand why the editors here who are arguing against including the data about the size of the organization's budget don't want readers to have that information. It was described as self-serving. How is it self-serving? It's just some data about the organization. If it weren't for the fact that it appeared in RS, it could be read off of their income tax returns which are easy to find online. That would be OR, but since in fact the info is reported in various RSes, why wouldn't that be a fact to note? Novellasyes (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The bit of info that was desired to be included was NOT their annual BUDGET; it was their CLAIMS of their annual DONATIONS to charity and their claims of volunteer hours donated. This info may or may not be on their IRS forms; I'm not familiar with what IRS reporting is required for non-profits, and what the consequences are for false statements. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Does it make sense for you to impose a higher degree of suspicion on their claims about their donations to charity than RSes do? You may wish that the reporters for the Minneapolis Star Tribune had done more investigating. You may think that they didn't do enough. If you were an editor at an RS, you might have insisted on more investigating. But you're not as far as I know. Why do you think it is okay to substitute your judgment in this matter for the judgments of the RS? Novellasyes (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I can provide some context re: your concerns here. Volunteer hours are not reported to the IRS; dollars donated are reported to the IRS. Because of the Knight's legal structure, there are many different legal entities reporting separate numbers. Each local council has to file their own tax return, and then the supreme council files a separate tax return as its own entity. For instance, here's the 2015 tax return for the Supreme Council, reporting $38,750,809 in charitable giving (section IX, lines 1-3). The total numbers they claim come from that plus the separately-reported numbers for each local council and some other related entities, such as Knights of Columbus Charities Inc. One key possible consequence for mis-reporting numbers to the IRS is the loss of tax-exempt status. Catholic things (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Now that the discussion on COI has been wrapped up, let's return to this discussion on charitable giving. I think at this point I would be justified in simply re-inserting my reverted edit, but out of respect for the community I'd prefer to make a detailed defense of it here. First, I'd like to address this: Avatar317 and perhaps others seem to be persistently holding the (unwarranted) assumption that I am a deeply biased editor, and that therefore any edit I propose must also be ipso facto biased. That is not how wikipedia works, and it is not how bias works: there's no such thing as objectivity, and yet we still believe that it is possible to write unbiased articles. So let's get back to talking about the content in question. As of this writing, the Charitable giving section in the article is four short sentences that summarizes old history, and says nothing about contemporary 21st-century giving by the Knights. Some information about recent giving is due for an organization widely known (both by proponents and opponents) for its charitable activities.


 * When I initially made this edit:

At their 2019 convention, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson claimed that the organization had donated $185 million and 76 million volunteer hours toward charity projects in 2018. Charitable activities include support for refugees, aid for victims of natural disasters, and promoting family & life issues. After the Knights had donated more than 1,000 ultrasound machines to pregnancy resource centers from 2009-2019, Anderson said "Our ultrasound initiative is now the greatest humanitarian achievement in the history of the Knights of Columbus. ... We can, and I am confident that we will, save millions of unborn lives."


 * I wanted to give due weight to both their non-controversial charity, such as aid for refugees and victims of natural disasters, and also their controversial activity, such as opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion. In the latter category of controversial charity, the article already had a sentence in the introduction about their funding of the anti-same-sex-marriage lobby, so there was no need to repeat that here, and referencing abortion was the logical next move. Further, Anderson's remarkable quote about the ultrasound initiative as the "greatest humanitarian achievement of the Knights" lends weight to that initiative, whether you agree with Anderson or not, and whether you like the Knight's opposition to abortion or not. I note that while this edit of mine was reverted in full, no one has voiced any concern about bias in that portion of my edit.


 * The claims about total charitable giving are widely reported in reliable sources and provide relevant context to particular initiatives, so it was an obvious choice to include that as well. First, I note that I did not write "[The Knights] donated $185 million and 76 million volunteer hours." Instead, I made it an indirect quote, writing "Anderson claimed that the organization had donated $185 million and 76 million volunteer hours". This conversation so far supports writing the first version without the indirect quote, and my version with the indirect quote is surely even less objectionable. Avatar317's objections in this discussion so far have focused on the substance of the claim, not on the quote. There's a concern about these figures being fact-checked. I'll note that it is undoubtedly true, and fact-checked by RSes, that Anderson made this claim. So what I wrote is indisputable. If there were any reason to doubt these figures, wouldn't it be best to include the claims and also include sourced reasons to doubt the claims? That is the approach preferred by wp:undue; to describe both sides of a contested point, rather than ignoring it altogether. On the other hand, if there is no good reason in RSes to doubt Anderson's claims, then quoting them here is surely appropriate; again, some top-line information about the giving of an organization known largely for its charitable activities is due.


 * For all of these reasons, and based on the way this conversation has unfolded on the talk page, I will re-insert my edit early next week if there are no substantive, sourced reasons to modify it. Catholic things (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "family & life issues" reads like weasel wording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Y'all: Thanks for cleaning that up. I became a Catholic a decade or so ago as an adult. It took me a long time to figure out what the American church meant when it said "family and life issues" which they do in contexts such as for example my diocese which has a Ministry for Family and Life Issues (as do many other dioceses). After awhile I realized it was a term of art for their (what the church calls) pro-life and pro-life-adjacent activities and family ministries thrown in (such as marriage enhancement workshops). Anyway, in my experience, definitely a term of art that does not really sustain a publicly available meaning outside the church. Novellasyes (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have not really encountered this phrase as a standardized term for anything, really. In my Catholic grade school, "family life" was our version of sex education. "Family and Life Issues" could have a wide variety of meanings, including but not limited to, pro-life and marriage, and is by no means standardized, even across dioceses or parishes in these United States. I would request that you furnish WP:RS that would support your opinion that this is a "term of art" if you intend to apply this opinion to article space. Elizium23 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will offer the idea that "Family" and "Life" are two distinct categories of service programs which are specified for all councils by the Knights of Columbus "Faith in Action" master plan. There is a good deal of leeway for individual councils to decide for themselves which service programs fit in those categories, as well as the other two - "Faith" and "Community" - so when Anderson speaks of "Faith and family issues" he is referring to those categories, and the grouping according to the Supreme Council can be found on the kofc.org website. Elizium23 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , please delete the word "claimed" and replace it with the neutral verb "said" to comply with WP:CLAIM and WP:NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Supreme Knight: Patrick E. Kelly

 * Patrick Kelly elected Supreme Knight. He will take office on March 1. Elizium23 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Patrick E. Kelly has a Wikipedia article, it may be wise to link it from here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

New assessment
I am demoting this to B-class because I am not seeing any significant NPOV issues upon skimming the article. I assume you all are more familiar with the topic, and if you feel that C-class would be more appropriate, feel free to change it to that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
As a member of this organization I believe I would have a conflict of interest by participating in any editing. How can someone such as myself, who genuinely believes there is a public value in having a balanced and factually accurate article on this organization on Wikipedia, contribute positively without engaging in improper activity? Thank you. Edokin (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit, 17 June 2021
Regarding this tag, please replace with citation:. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔️ by — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to birth control
The introduction includes this sentence: "The Knights promote the Catholic view on public policy issues, including opposition to same-sex marriage,[8] abortion,[9] and birth control.[10]" That "birth control" line has been disputed several times in the edit history, but I'm not aware that it's ever been discussed here. I think the usual reason for attempted changes is that "birth control" is seen as vague or misleading, and Catholic ethics permits charting or "periodic abstinence" to deliberately avoid conception, and the term "artificial birth control" is helpful to specifically clarity that point. Even apart from disagreements over the best phrasing—birth control, artificial birth control, contraception, etc.—it seems to me that any or all of these terms are out of place in the introduction. This sentence in question is part of a paragraph briefly summarizing major focus areas for the Knight's public policy advocacy and charitable/political giving. I am not aware of any public policy advocacy of the Knights related to legislation around birth control, nor is there any source in the article claiming that; the source is a pamphlet published by the Knights discouraging the individual use of hormonal birth control. Even in the sentence in question, "The Knights promote the Catholic view on public policy issues, including...birth control". But taken literally this makes no sense, as birth control is not a public policy issue. There's no question of the Knights spending $15 million trying to outlaw the pill like they did with same-sex marriage. So setting aside the challenges about getting the best terminology in the article, why does "birth control" deserve a place in the introduction at all? -Catholic things (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the explanation for the content removal. It was here for over two days with no engagement before I made the edit to the article. If you can offer an answer to my question—why does "birth control" deserve a place in the introduction, in a sentence labeling it a public policy issue and implying that it's a top-3 policy priority for the Knights, please do so. Otherwise I will remove the content again in 3+ days. -Catholic things (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like your complaint is solved by changing the term to artificial birth control. You should revert your edit, given it was an unnecessary deletion of sourced info. Then just add "artificial" to before birth control if that's supported by the source. I'll add it back in myself if you don't but I want you to see my reasoning here. 108.174.175.69 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there an orthodox version of The Knights of Columbus?
I am curios to see if an orthodox version exists.Help is apreciated! 185.53.197.102 (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Needed edits
On this talk page a year and a half ago, identified the following areas as needing improvement:


 * "The Knights promote the Catholic view on public policy issues, including opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and birth control." -- this info is present in the lead but not in the body, also doubling as a violation of WP:LEADCITE
 * "History" section is woefully short even with the subpage.
 * "Degrees" and "Membership" sections are extremely short.
 * "Emblem of the Order" is entirely sourced to primary sources.
 * Lots of sources are missing publisher/work and access date info.

It doesn't appear that much, if anything, has been done to rectify this since. I'm going to start chipping away at it and would appreciate some help. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes the body does mention abortion and same-sex marriage. So do not remove it on those grounds. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also you can't remove something as mentioned already and then remove the other mention as well. Remove one or the other, not both (or reword).Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From your subsequent edits, I think we are mostly on the same page about this. A few things, though:
 * I don't think donations to political campaigns in opposition to same sex marriage is "charitable." I would classify it more as political. That is why I deleted it from this section, as I said in my edit summary. Fortunately, it is already covered in the political section, although not in this level of detail. Then again, with a daughter article, I am not sure this level of detail would be DUE in this parent article.
 * I am going to work on the issues identified by others first, but I have noticed the difference in the size of the sections on political activity and charitable giving. The daughter articles for both subjects are basically the same length, but the summary of the former is seven paragraphs long while the summary of the former is a single paragraph. I don't know if one is too long or the other is too short, but I don't think the relative WEIGHT given to both is appropriate. What do you think?
 * Finally, in this edit, a couple other edits seemed to have been inadvertently rolled back as well. I don't think they were controversial, and they are not related to what was in your edit summary, but I also don't want to war over them. Would you mind fixing them? Thanks! --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You may not think "donations to political campaigns in opposition to same-sex marriage is charitable". As I recall (Its been a while since the discussion) that is how it is listed by them, under charitable donations.
 * I am unsure about inserting a source I have not read. The rest I am unsure needs changing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Modern program" lawsuit
There's a "modern program" subsection in the section about the Knight's insurance program. This section is three relatively short paragraphs long. The last paragraph says this, "For 40 consecutive years, the order has received A. M. Best's highest rating, A++. A 2017 lawsuit claimed the Knights were inflating their membership numbers to improve their rankings and demanded $100 million in damages. A jury ruled in favor of the Knights in two of the three counts of the lawsuit, but ordered them to pay $500,000 for breach of contract." This seems WP:Undue to me. It's about one lawsuit out of what has to be many: "the average company balances a docket of 37 U.S. lawsuits. For $1 billion-plus companies in the U.S., the average number of cases being juggled at home soars to 147.". The Knights say that this was a garden variety contract dispute. Does anyone want to argue to leave that in? Beyond that, I'd like to generally speaking say more in this article about their insurance business. They are a huge insurance company but this tends to get lost in their charitable and political activities. Novellasyes (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't feel strongly either way about that detail, but I also don't have any way of knowing if this was a garden variety dispute or was something more. If you want to delete it, I won't complain. I agree that this section could and should be much longer. If you go back to early 2019, you will see that it was. Much of that content was self-sourced, but it could provide you avenues to explore if you want to tackle an expansion. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've read some of the background material. The Knights entered into a software development contract with the company that went on to sue them. This was because after some period of time, the Knights abandoned/breached the contract. That's what the $500,000 was for. The litigant made more dramatic claims which we currently re-state in the article, namely, "A 2017 lawsuit claimed the Knights were inflating their membership numbers to improve their rankings and demanded $100 million in damages." The part about how they were inflating the membership numbers is one of the two counts (of three) that the Knights won on. It doesn't seem fair to repeat the allegation, since the court evidently disagreed with it. But if we take out that sentence, which contains a rather dramatic allegation, I don't see how we can justify leaving in anything about the lawsuit, because reporting that they were sued for breach of contract with a software developer and had to pay $500,000 -- that just doesn't seem due at all. Novellasyes (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I had read about that case in the past. I agree with removing the statement about the inflation of membership numbers and the case overall. That lawsuit was interesting, I think the software company tried to throw in other "defamatory" claims against the Knights which they figured would make headlines to pressure them to settle the breach of contract issue before even filing the case or to settle.  I support removing that. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Knights as an insurance/financial services company
Here are links to a few other articles on WP about insurance/financial services companies; the ones I chose are the five largest life insurance/financial services companies.


 * Northwestern Mutual, New York Life Insurance Company, MassMutual, Prudential Financial, Lincoln National Corporation

To my eyes, they all seem to have a slight tinge of puffery about them. I don't think it would wear well in this article to treat the KOC insurance/financial services division to this level of detail. I do wonder if, just as WP has separate articles about the History of the Knights of Columbus and the Charitable activities of the Knights of Columbus and the Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, there should eventually be a separate article called something like Life insurance and financial services of the Knights of Columbus or something along those lines. In the meantime, I will (eventually) add more content to this article about this part of the Knights. Novellasyes (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Life insurance is the main business of the Knights of Columbus. I'd say the exact opposite, that other articles about insurance companies, should be a good template for the KoC article with the addition of the fraternal/religious elements. Jahaza (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Council officers
I am curious to know how a local council is structured. What are its officers? J S Ayer (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You would really need to ask them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no published description? I should look. J S Ayer (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a weighty tome with the information, and inserted a list of the officers of a council, and hours later the information was deleted. Should we list the officers (there is a separate article on Masonic lodge officers), or should we not? J S Ayer (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For one thing, I noticed your addition was from a 1982 edition, and it is already quite outdated; I have been a Knight since 2008 and I've never heard of the "Physician" office, and we have 2 Guards, just as a few examples. I believe Slugger O'Toole's table adds value, considering that it collates the information from Council/Assembly/Circle fairly well. We definitely don't need a separate article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well. J S Ayer (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Slugger O'Toole, do you have a reference for the current officer line-ups? If you don't, it could be primary-sourced from kofc.org's booklets; they publish voluminous info in PDF form that could be easily searched. Elizium23 (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't. It was added in 2007 by anon and removed at some point. I remembered it when I saw JS's list in prose and went back to find it. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is your primary source. It was an easy search. I don't envision any obstacles to citing this in lieu of a secondary; it should satisfy WP:SPS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Council Officer roles are described in the Charter Constitution and Laws of the Knights of Columbus, Linked here: https://www.kofc.org/en/forms/leadership/charter-constitutionlaws-30.pdf
 * Particularly, Chapter XV, Duties of Council Officers. 138.88.147.70 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The list of officers shows some titles marked with asterisks, or double asterisks. Is this explained somewhere? J S Ayer (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know why I missed that the first few times. J S Ayer (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Degrees
The Order comprises four different "degrees", each one of which exemplifies one of the core principles of the order. So says the lede, but all I find in the article now is a statement that there is a fourth degree with its own assemblies. I may be impertinent, but what are the degrees? Are they the same as in medieval knighthood? I don't even see a list of the core principles. Has the article been over-edited, or am I again suffering from spot-blindness? J S Ayer (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In 2020, the order changed from 3 separate degrees with separate exemplification ceremonies:
 * 1. First Degree: Charity
 * 2. Second Degree: Unity
 * 3. Third Degree: Fraternity
 * to a combined exemplification of Charity, Unity, and Fraternity, detailed here: https://www.kofc.org/en/news-room/knightline/2020/february/new-kofc-exemplification.html
 * The practical effect is that once a person joins the order and takes this degree, they are a 3rd degree Knight.
 * The 4th degree is the patriotic degree of the order; and with its own separate hierarchy (subordinate to the Supreme Council, but separate and distinguishable, with its own roles). An Assembly (the 4th degree version of a council) is made up of Knights from up to several councils. 138.88.147.70 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)