Talk:Knights of Columbus

Sectarian?

Should this organization be described as "sectarian" because it restricts membership to Roman Catholics? Irvine22 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that your many blocks have failed to show you the error of your ways, I believe it is time to go for a full topic ban. O Fenian (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a Roman Catholic lay organization. "Sectarian" (and all its connotations) is not properly used in this situation. umrguy42 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So, can non-Catholics join? Irvine22 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Members must be Catholic. One of the requirements for admittance is that the member be "a practical Catholic in communion with the Holy See." SeanAhern (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The ideological underpinnings of attitudes and behaviors labeled as sectarian are extraordinarily varied. Members of a religious or political group may believe that their own salvation, or the success of their particular objectives, requires aggressively seeking converts from other groups; adherents of a given faction may believe that for the achievement of their own political or religious project their internal opponents must be purged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.132.134 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So it's sectarian then.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.132.134 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You would need to provide reliable secondary sources documenting the beliefs you claim Knights hold. I suspect you will have much trouble finding any. Elizium23 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

'if' that's in response to my post - the source was wikipedia ...... rgds

College Council

From official Knights of Columbus publications it has been proven that the Notre Dame Council is the first college council. Three citations are provided. To those that are changing it to other places, please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbohnert (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

While ND is undoubtedly the oldest college chapter today, it depends on whether you count inactive chapters as being existent in their period of inactivity. Georgetown outdates ND, but was inactive for about 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.208.63 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like "longest active" and "eldest" chapter situations. With precision in nomenclature, both have some claim to "fame" as it were. Student7 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Integration

The Knights of St. Peter Claver were founded because KoC didn't have Black participation. We should add this to the Integration section. I'm looking for a source, but if someone has one go ahead. Lionel (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Charitable giving

I just trimmed this section way back, because I thought too much weight was being put on individual donations, rather than to the order's charitable work as a whole. As such, I removed information about Haiti, Katrina, and university donations, but left information about United in Charity.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can some of what you removed be summarized instead? (At work, and don't have time to take a full look at it myself right now.) E.g., the Knights have given to various relief efforts, such as 9/11, Katrina and Haiti (with suitable cites)? umrguy42 20:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that in general, but it seems like huge numbers of organizations would have donated in these cases, so I'm not sure it's noteworthy enough to mention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that what the Knights are doing in Haiti in particular is remarkable and unique. Yes, lots of organizations donated money, and that's great, so did the Knights, but they are also donating prostethic limbs to every child in Haiti who suffered an amputation as a result of the earthquake. In my opinion that is significant and noteworthy, and i would like to include it on this page. Matthew stjohn (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Typographical errors

In the "Similar organizations" section:

Original Text: In the Prilippines, the Kngiht of Columbus ladies auxiliary is also known as Daughters of Mary Immaculate (http://dmiinternational.org/about/Index.html) with a youth arm dubbed as Ssquirettes of Mary. The Ssquirettes of Mary can be considered as the counterpart of the Knights of Columbus' youth arm, the Columbian Squires.

Corrected: In the Philippines, the Knight of Columbus ladies' auxiliary is also known as Daughters of Mary Immaculate (http://dmiinternational.org/about/Index.html) with a youth arm dubbed as Squirettes of Mary. The Squirettes of Mary can be considered the counterpart of the Knights of Columbus' youth arm, the Columbian Squires.

Criticisms ?

How come the article does not address criticism or controversy concerning the KOC ? The fact Carl Anderson's salary exceeds 1 million dollars might be a great place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BAFRIEND (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, provide sources and we'll get started! Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

i'd like to add that the article should cross-link to the national organization for marriage page. it details how they gave in excess of a million dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage#Funding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9B02:48B7:48B2:FD6F:7061:BADB (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cristero cover controversy

The following contribution of mine was just removed, with the justification that the incident was not covered in reliable sources:

The Knights have been criticized for a hyperbolic historical comparison in the context of Catholic opposition to the federal contraception mandate in 2011 and 2012. The cover of the May 2012 issue of its monthly magazine Columbia showed a Cristero fighter and the contents made the connection explicit without acknowledging the difference in severity between the two historical episodes or disavowing the implicit endorsement of violent opposition. "Rifle with Crucifix," U.S. Catholic blog

The reference I gave was an article posted by the Online Editor of U.S. Catholic magazine and written by Steve Schneck, director of Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, an recognized authority on the Catholic perspective on public policy. My contention is that this post is itself a reliable source. The piece of work itself makes accurate claims (and actually shows great respect for the Knights in the second-last paragraph). The writer of the piece is an authority on the relevant issues who frequently appears in the media. The publisher is also reputable.

In addition to the reference I gave, this episode has also been discussed in a number of other reliable sources, some of which I list here:

• Widely cited WaPo blog post
• America Magazine blog post
• A different U.S. Catholic blog post
• National Catholic Reporter blog post by the Editor at Large

This are all associated with left-leaning outlets, but isn't that where you would expect to find such criticism? And this comes in the context of broader questions in the media about a possible partisan bias in the Knights' recent activities. So I don't think the reliable sources charge holds up and I am reverting the removal. I think it may be more helpful to discuss this in terms of recentism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugetim (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that these are all blogs, though they're associated with otherwise-reliable sources. Now, if we get a news story that the Secret Service is investigating them because one of the outcomes of the Cristero War was the assassination of the President-Elect, that would be reliable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The blog posts themselves are sufficient evidence that the criticism has been made. (To cite an example I am familiar with, blog posts serve as references for criticisms that have been retained on the William Anthony Donohue page. I added those references a year and a half ago and they have remained through 75 edits since.) The question in my mind is whether these criticisms are notable enough to be included in the article or whether including this at all gives them undue weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugetim (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Blogs such as these may be acceptable as reliable, secondary sources under the provisions of WP:NEWSBLOG. I see no reason to discount them just because they are called blogs. The US Catholic blog is definitely an opinion piece, so it should be couched in terms of "Steve Schneck says..." Elizium23 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Blogs like the one cited are sometimes acceptable. Here it is not news reporting but opinion. The edit appears to be an instance of recentism and is arguably POV pushing. There are good reasons to remove it. Not every minor kerfuffle needs to find its way into the encyclopedia. The fact that it is sourced to a blog is all the more reason why such recent "news", trivia is not proper encyclopedic material. I'm going to remove it. Mamalujo (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to say for the record that I accept that there is no consensus on adding this minor controversy re the Cristero cover, and do not support the revert by the IP. Hugetim ^(talk) 01:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the weight of this issue doesn't warrant it remaining in the article.Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Weight necessary for inclusion has not been established. Fails WP:DUE. Appears we have consensus to exclude. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Description of John Kerry

I agree with Tom Harrison's version. Here's what the referenced source actually says: "Kerry, a Catholic, has been criticized for political positions that conflict with church teaching on issues such as abortion." I would like to propose discussion here before further edits. Whatever "practicing Catholic" and "ardent dissenter" mean, they aren't supported by the source given. Hugetim ^(talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that adding "practicing" is an unnecessary and loaded qualifier, that isn't in the source.Marauder40 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knights of Columbus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lede hardly mentions the group's history or political activities. It should also make note of its affiliation with other groups and something about the degrees of members.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Biggest problem with this article is all the uncited material. I have tagged the general area where I would like to see more citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think the Canada Hall section is a bit more than necessary, but not enough to fail the criteria.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Describes the issues without taking sides, presenting information that can be favorable or unfavorable.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I feel I need to say that, while my reading of the discussion about the Cristero War comment is that there is no consensus on whether to include the material, the IP's actions do not appear to be part of any legitimate content dispute and it appears there is legitimate agreement to reserve the dispute to constructive discussion on the talk page.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I improved the captions used for the two images in the section about the Fourth Degree, but the others seem suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The lede and citation issues are not too cumbersome I think for this to be resolved quickly so I will put a final decision on hold so there can be improvements.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Comments

Thank you for doing the GA Review. I agree with most of what you list but I am not sure about "It [Lead] should also make note of its affiliation with other groups and something about the degrees of members." I am not sure what you mean by "affiliation with other groups", Do you mean mentioning how it is affiliated with the Catholic church? Do you mean how it interacts with similar organizations listed in the final section? Do you mean how it interacts with politically opposed parties? Do you mean just mentioning the fact that it is a "member of the International Alliance of Catholic Knights"? or something else? As for "the degree of members" I am not sure how important that is for the lead. Yes, 4th degree is mentioned because they are the most visible with their capes, swords, hats, etc. but the difference between 3rd and 4th degree is minor, a 3rd degree Knight is considered a full membership Knight and the difference between all the degrees is really just what initiation ceremonies the person has seen. I am not real sure what warrants inclusion in the lead other then maybe a statement similar to "Membership in the Knights consists of 4 degrees, each exemplifying a principle of the Order."Marauder40 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The content of the "Similar organizations" section is what I was referring to, and I feel that can be dealt with in a single sentence or as part of another sentence. Your wording there with degrees seems sufficient for the purpose of summarizing that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have found two different references for these quotes "Today the Order offers a modern, professional insurance operation with more than $80 billion of life insurance policies in force as of June 2011.", "The Order holds $16 billion in assets and had $1.8 billion (as of August 2010) in revenue and $71 million in profits in 2005." The one with the latest figures is a self published reference [1]. The other is with older numbers and isn't self-published [2]. I personally am not sure which is best, is it better to have the latest figures, but self-published and maybe add a disclaimer or go with the older figures. I am not sure whether this fits under the allowed exceptions for using self-published sources.Marauder40 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a recent third party source: [3].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that one but wasn't sure it counted far enough into the 3rd party realm. Unless Lionelt has more changes to make, I think we have addressed all the issues mentioned in your review. I think most of the stuff that he removed concerning protocol and stuff like that is just fluff and doesn't really need to go back in. I can easily find sources for most of it, but I don't think it is important to an outsiders view of the organization. Marauder40 (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The protocol is a pretty important aspect, I think, as these fraternal organizations are most known for being "secret societies" of individuals and so having some material about the actual nature of that secrecy is important. I think at least some of the organizational details that were removed are also important, though for GA status you probably don't need all of that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. The secrecy within the Order is minor. The only secret aspects of the entire Order are the initiation ceremonies and honestly they are no big deal. None of the stuff removed from the article mentioned that stuff. Most of the stuff removed was just things talking about council vs. state vs. regional and the protocol of who is in charge of the meetings. Personally I think the stuff isn't important, but if you do I will see if I can find the sources. Most of the sources are written and I don't have the actual copies, but I will see if I can find online versions.Marauder40 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

At this time I think we've done a great job improving the article thanks to TDA's suggestions and Marauder's sourcing and prose. The protocol stuff would be an excellent future addition, but I think the present state of the article meets GA. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am not going to have time to wrap up this review until Sunday at the earliest. While, I think some of the material should be re-added and would feel easier passing it if it were, I will consider whether this is perhaps too demanding for GA status. I do think it is going to have to happen for it to get Featured status.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think we need more stuff let us know. Keep in mind that one of the noms here is a Knight, and the other is a nephew of a Knight, so if we're happy with the article... – Lionel ^(talk) 05:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with adding back in some of those sections is that they are based on user manuals and things like that. I don't have easy access to them, even though I am technically a Knight I don't usually get involved in leadership type stuff. Some of the stuff is online but usually only on individual council pages (i.e. http://www.kofc-2169.org/kcrank.htm or http://www.sansecondodasti.org/!SanSec_htm/Knights%20of%20Columbus/knights_of_columbus__protocol.htm ) I am not sure whether they meet RS. One page says were they are adapted from but can you honestly put the one as the source without actually seeing it.Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the S&P downgrade mentioned in the lede is not mentioned in the article body. Also the wording "along with the United States government" does not clearly reflect the material in the source, which links the downgrade of the Knights with the sovereign downgrade. Those things should be addressed. Additionally, the lede still seems to refer to the protocol even though the material has been removed from the article body. I do think the secrecy aspect is important to mention as I have said above. I think the Emblems section could probably use work in the wording. Should some of the statements such as "through which all graces of redemption were procured for mankind" be taken straight from the Knights it should be indicated as such. As it stands, some of the descriptions of the symbolism come off as statements in the editorial voice asserting the truth of these ideas or reading like a manual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I just addressed a couple of your issues in the article itself. As for the Emblems section. I found the first two paragraphs exactly as written on several KofC council pages, so I first had to figure out who was copying from whom (WP from KofC or the other way around.) Well I found most of the section is a word for word copy of [4] so unless someone else wants to do it before I can, I will try to re-write the section within the next couple of days. Thanks again. P.S. In your opinion do either of the links I give above about protocol meet RS requirements? I can find tons of links linked to things like individual council pages or things like Ladies Auxiliary guides i.e.[5], but it doesn't seem like they have anything like that on the national page itself or in books that have been officially published online.Marauder40 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a pdf of the booklet from this page on the national site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wonder why it didn't show up when I did all my searches. Must not have been using the right combination of words. Thanks again. Marauder40 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems the lede goes into a little too much detail about the present state of the insurance program. I think that should be shortened a bit in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think all your issues have been addressed. Let me know if you find anything else that needs attention for GA status.Marauder40 (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think the material about the women's auxiliaries should be cited and the comment in the protocol section that "all other events are open to non-members" should be cited as well. Do that and I think we will be finished.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you want cited with the women's auxiliaries? Just that they exist is sort of a fact, not really needing a cite. You can find hundreds of existing women's auxiliaries, including the Phillipeans one listed in the section that I am sort of questioning noteworthy-ness on, but figure that it can stand just to give a little world-view. How about this page [6] in your opinion does it hold up enough to RS? It mentions both the need for secrecy and the fact that only the ceremonies that business meetings are the only members only thing. I purposely changed one of the words in the sentence from public to non-members since not all meetings are open to the public per-say. Some "other" event are only open to family, some to school kids, etc. saying public sounds like all meetings allow EVERYONE in.Marauder40 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it is attempting to promote membership and is just a local council, I think it is probably not reliable. If you are having difficulty finding a good source for the statement then you could remove it. I don't think it is essential to say, given the preceding comment is sourced and covers the question well enough. To answer your question about the need for a citation regarding the auxiliaries, I think any statement that two organizations are connected should typically be supported by a citation, if not in this article than in the article on the organization, unless the organizations are widely-known as being connected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the women's auxiliaries is pretty common knowledge, but just in case I went ahead and referenced it. I removed the one line about non-members. That should address everything. Thanks again for all your support. Marauder40 (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is "common knowledge" in the sense necessary to say it is not material not likely to be challenged. That may be well-known among Knights and their associates, but the average person likely knows little to nothing of the Knights themselves, let alone any affiliated groups. Removed the youth arm Squirettes for that reason and now I think it is done. Passing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I mainly was referring to it as "common knowledge" since most men fraternal organizations have some type of ladies auxiliary associated with them. But that is why it is always good to have different people looking at the articles. Thanks again for all your support.Marauder40 (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nature of secrecy

This was removed, apparently because a good source could not be found:

All the Order's ceremonials and business meetings are restricted to members, though all other events are open to the public. A promise not to reveal any details of the ceremonials except to an equally qualified Knight is required to ensure their impact and meaning for new members; an additional clause subordinates the promise to that Knight's civil and religious duties.

However, this is important information (if true), as this is one of the most common questions people have about the Knights. Can anyone find a source? -Hugetim ^(talk) 16:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec), now I have to re-type everything, grrrr. The first sentence of what you said was removed has since been placed back in the article with sourcing (just not in the lead). As for the portions talking about secrecy I cannot find a RS. Yes the information is true. I seem to remember it being mentioned in the ceremony but you will not find a RS for the ceremony itself since it is "guarded". It is also mentioned at meetings when there are people that are known to be 1st or 2nd degree in attendance, but honestly the secrecy only applies to the ceremonies itself so it doesn't come up a lot. I can find places on the net that it is mentioned (i.e. individual council pages) but none of them hold up to RS standards. See GA review comments above for more details. Marauder40 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been told this in person by a KofC field agent (even though I am not a Knight). I just don't understand why it wouldn't be published somewhere in a prominent place, given the (maybe only fringe) controversies about this. -Hugetim ^(talk) 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am just a "standard" member, never had a leadership position or anything like that, so I can't officially answer the why. Maybe it is and we just haven't found it in normal online documents. Maybe it is similar to having a security clearance. Officially if you know something that is classified you aren't even allowed to say "I can't tell you because it is classified" because you are admitting you know something classified. A Knight during the ceremonies promises not to reveal any aspects of the ceremony, except if compelled to under certain situations (unlike Masons that don't have an exception clause.) I don't have the exact phrasing since I am not a member of a ceremony team and even if I gave it to you, it wouldn't be a RS. But an example of a compelling reason would be say some crime was committed during a ceremony, a Knight could validly report the crime and be compelled without going back on his promise to give details about what happened. Also unlike other "secret" fraternities, the KofC promise is written in a way that doesn't violate Catholic ideals on promises/vows. Marauder40 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another question regarding secrecy: Why is this article within "Wikipedia:WikiProject_Secret_Societies"? The order claims it is not a secret society, but do others agree? Does an organization closing the ceremonies and business meetings to non-members qualify it as a secret society, or is more needed? If it is a secret society, the article should have a section or something about it being a secret society. If it is not a secret society, then the article should have something to justify the inclusion of the article in the project. SlowJog (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it, as it is unsourced and inappropriate. Elizium23 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sub-headings

Could somebody please organize this page with some sub-headings. It has 20 headingas but only 3 sub-hedings which seems a little disorganized to me. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

College Council

I have again reverted a entry about a council being the first public college council. I have done this because this section constantly has people claiming that so and so college council was the first something or other. Usually the thing they insert is just local fokelore being passed down. Also having monitoring this page for a long time we constantly have people doing factual vandalism where they just insert their own college name with no proof whatsoever. This section has been trimmed lots of times in the history of this article. If it is the first, the cite should be real easy to find.Marauder40 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Split the article

This article is getting to be a bit long. What do people think about Wikipedia:Splitting it into some daughter articles? I think moving the history and political activities articles would be a good place to start, leaving brief synopsis here, of course. Any thoughts? --Briancua (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

PR

Has this article simply been drafted as a pro-Knights public relations exercise? Is anyone else concerned at the "aren't they great" tone of the whole thing? A bit more objectivity would be nice to add some credibility.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has gone through a GA review where independent people review it for balance, POV, etc. It passed that review. It also hasn't been that long since it went through the GA review. After the GA review it also went through a peer review. The article includes several criticisms of the Order. You need to be more specific about your issues.Marauder40 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a closer look and bring forward my concerns. It's all very upbeat isn't it. You don't think it all looks a bit too glossy and one-sided?Contaldo80 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the OR and POV items you just added. The sentence "(the the former predominantly anti-gay initiatives, and the latter initiatives such as soup kitchens)" Is totally original research and/or synth. Just the portion that says "anti-gay initiatives" is totally reflecting a particular POV. As being discussed on the other page. The NCR article fails RS since the quote isn't found in original source document. The other stuff will also probably be removed soon for the lack of a reliable source.Marauder40 (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

My changes

I just made a few changes, but forgot to put in an edit summary. The rational for the biggest of these, cutting a sentence or two, is that the sources cited did not support the claims. The others were just a few grammatical changes made for flow and clarity. Apologies. --Briancua (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Persecution by the KKK

The only citation for some of this entry was written by a Knight of Columbus (Kauffman 1982). I would consider that a kind of POV. It certainly wasn't written by a neutral party. Therefore I would think it needs to be removed or at least noted in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.249.124 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added a couple more sources that I hope address your concerns. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be neutral. In fact, none of them are. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL of course the KKK persecuted Catholics. Are people this ignorant of history? Brian is a tendentious editor but he's right on this. Steeletrap (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Compliance and Ethics Program Award

Under awards, the Knights are currently the only organization of their kind to have been recognized for their compliance and ethics efforts. http://www.kofc.org/en/news/releases/kofc-2016-most-ethical-company.html Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.141.124 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2016 (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kofc.org/news/releases/detail.cfm?id=19846

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523062401/http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/squires/circleguide.pdf to http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/squires/circleguide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027164403/http://www.kofc.org/un/en/college/2012/ann_coll_conf.html to http://www.kofc.org/un/en/college/2012/ann_coll_conf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523061714/http://www.kofc.org/un/en/membership/strategies/membership_benefits.html to http://www.kofc.org/un/en/membership/strategies/membership_benefits.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718182047/http://dmiinternational.org/about/ to http://dmiinternational.org/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314234735/http://www.iack.org/members.htm to http://www.iack.org/members.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515131128/http://www.daughtersofisabella.org/aboutus.asp to http://www.daughtersofisabella.org/aboutus.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C928041%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821155214/http://www.zenit.org/article-29570?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-29570?l=english
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523055659/http://www.kofc.org/un/en/columbia/detail/549413.html to http://www.kofc.org/un/en/columbia/detail/549413.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102163356/http://cuatower.com/cua-knights-honored-retreat/ to http://cuatower.com/cua-knights-honored-retreat/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523060613/http://www.kofc.org/un/en/about/history/anniversary/historical/yearsinreview/1890.html to http://www.kofc.org/un/en/about/history/anniversary/historical/yearsinreview/1890.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609072849/http://www.kofc.org/en/squires/index.html to http://www.kofc.org/en/squires/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130702055930/http://www.kofc.org/un/en/squires/membership.html to http://www.kofc.org/un/en/squires/membership.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227155652/http://kofc8600.org/These_Men_they_Call_Knights.pdf to http://www.kofc8600.org/These_Men_they_Call_Knights.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523111258/http://kofcwarrenton.org/wordpress/?p=442 to http://kofcwarrenton.org/wordpress/?p=442

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 7 May 2017 (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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513122736/http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf to http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Good source

Lots of useful information here: https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/knights-columbus-financial-forms-show-wealth-influence

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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 call this consensus wording 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1556/~/acf-messenger-archive%3A-president-discusses-compassionate-conservative-agenda-in
• Added {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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 :The Knights actively support the [[Catholic social teaching|Catholic Church's positions]] such as "[[culture of life]]" on specific public policy issues like [[same-sex marriage]], [[abortion]] etc..--~~ 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)