Talk:Knights of Columbus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleKnights of Columbus is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleKnights of Columbus has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
June 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 5, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 4, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
July 31, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 24, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 26, 2013Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 29, 2011, March 29, 2014, and March 29, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Fair use rationale for File:Knights of Columbus color enhanced vector kam.svg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

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

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

Removal of KoC political activism in the lede[edit]

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

The rationale is that their political activities are already mentioned in the lede by saying they support the Church's public policy positions. Public policy, by definition, takes place in the public (i.e. political) sphere. The link remains.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No, public policy is not synonymous with politics. The four word qualifier is necessarily to contextualize the meaning of it. Steeletrap (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC) And it's four damn words, my friend. Why would you want to remove it so badly? Steeletrap (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I never said they were synonymous, but it encompasses it. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Steeletrap, I find it baffling. This obfuscation is not in the spirit of wikipedia. I find this a common issue with Catholic related articles in my experience - almost a "brand reputation" thing if one were being cynical. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I created the political activity article and greatly expanded it. I'm not trying to obfuscate or purge anything. Perhaps you should be a little less cynical and assume a little more good faith when I tell you what my motives and reasons are.--BrianCUA (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
A cynic could say that you created the political activity article for the purposes of obfuscation, since the creation of that secondary article led to a lot of the more controversial political stuff being removed from this page. Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
An approach that has parallels with the changes made to Homosexuality and Catholicism - taking out the stuff that looks controversial or embarassing for the Catholic Church and slip them into a side article in the hope that fewer people will see them. Can we stop playing these games please. All editors need to better demonstrate neutrality and even-handedness. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no obfuscation just attempted POV pushing. Brian is correct: public policy encompasses political activity. – Lionel(talk) 11:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
And if you truly feel that the political subarticle is mere obfuscation, why not just merge it back into the main???Lionel(talk) 11:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't just say "POV pushing" without being specific about what POV you think is being pushed! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of female auxiliaries[edit]

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

Because the Colombian Squires are an official program of the Knights. The various auxiliary groups (Daughters of Isabella, Columbianettes, etc) are not. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Briancua, can you provide a citation for the claim that the auxiliaries are not "official," and an explanation as to why this legalistic distinction is relevant? Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You are asking me to prove a negative. The burden is on you to prove that each of the auxiliary organizations are "official." Find for me a reliable source that the Catholic Daughters of the Americas, the Daughters of Isabella, the Daughters of Mary Immaculate, and all the other auxiliary groups are run by the Knights of Columbus. Then we can talk about including them in the lede. I also made just an edit where I deleted the exceedingly detailed definition of a practicing Catholic. The WP:LEDE is supposed to "summarize the most important points." For the purposes of the lede, it suffices to say that members must be Catholic men. The details can live in the body.--BrianCUA (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Didn't we already go over this a few months ago? – Lionel(talk) 04:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

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

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

Nobody knows what "practical" means. That's why we use the term practicing, which is also used on the KoC site, but which you dislike because it clarifies the meaning of the membership criterion. As for "years" of stability on this page, well, there's a reason for that and it doesn't speak well of the people who have been editing here. Consider my intervention a counter-crusade. Steeletrap (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The current language says practicing, not practical. Also, remember to WP:AGF.--BrianCUA (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? There is now no mention in this article of the opposition of the knights to gay marriage?! This is a travesty. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. This whole same sex marriage thing is a recent development in the 136 year history of this organization. Sorry but SSM just doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in the lead per WP:LEADREL. Maybe you should try to be more objective instead of taking it personally. – Lionel(talk) 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a significant development and highly notable in the context of the article - more notable than most of the things covered in the article. 136 years isn't that long in any case. And don't patronise me by talking about being "objective" and "taking things personally". if you want to talk about objectivity then how about you make edits to articles without automatically defending the teaching/ position of the Catholic church and its organisations. That would indeed be refreshing. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Let's all take a deep breathe here and WP:AGF. Contaldo, I reverted your insertion. The sentence is about resolutions. Grammatically, your addition was awkward, and the resolutions didn't provide any funding for any particular effort, so it was incorrect to boot. Additionally, we don't provide context for any of the other five resolutions in the list. Why should we single this one out of the five for additional detail when all of it can be found in the main article? --BrianCUA (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No sane person would assume good faith at this point. Lionel and Brian are thoroughly biased editors who are whitewashing the socially conservative politics of the Knights on issues such as gay marriage. Steeletrap (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Steeletrap, you didn't address any of my concerns about the addition being awkward or untrue, or why we should provide context for this resolution but not others. The whole of your argument is to accuse me of being biased. Additionally, your edit summary says you are restoring sourced content. Neither of the two facts you are introducing are discussed in that source. I am reverting. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording isn't "awkward" - in what way? It certainly isn't untrue - or are you arguing it is a lie? The argument about resolutions is a red herring. If you think it a genuine issue then I can simply insert a sentence after these "resolutions". It is an important point and I don't like that we keep trying to cover it up. it's getting embarrassing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Culture of Life[edit]

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

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

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: While having culture of life wikilinked on first use may suggest to readers that it has a specific meaning (which, frankly, I didn't know before checking) it could use further explanation. Single or double quotes will make the term stand out but don't do anything to explain it. Perhaps a parenthetic defining note could follow, something like: culture of life (the protection of life from conception to natural death)? This seems NPOV and will save readers time from chasing links to understand.
I would also suggest interchanging the order of sections Awards and Political activity, since some of the awards are for political activity, and so it would make more sense to introduce the political activity information before the awards. This would put the first mention of "culture of life" in the political activity section and the parenthetic defining note suggested above fits a little better in a political context.
I hope this is of help. If you go this route, please agree to the wording before making a change. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I happen to agree. Adding quotes does nothing to clarify, and could be taken as dismissive, of the phrase. A quick definition, parenthetical or not, could be helpful Work permit (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I should have pointed out: when the article culture of life uses double quotes – the expression "culture of life" – it's talking about that as a term and is a words-as-words situation (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Words as words). I believe the MOS generally recommends italics in those situations but I've also seen double quotes used. Either way, that doesn't apply here where the term is used normally as part of the text and not referred to as an expression. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. But it is referred to in the text as an expression. It does not refer to "the protection of life from conception to natural death". That is simply the opinion of some of the religious right. The term is not widely accepted or understood and is FRINGE. If you look at those championing a "culture of life" they actually permit a mother to die to avoid an abortion or accept that killing someone is permissible in the circumstances of a "just war". It is therefore an expression. I also base my argument on the fact that the main article puts the word in quotation marks to indicate that it is not actually a thing. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo: this tendentious editing against consensus will only get you blocked. Per MOS:SCAREQUOTES Culture of Life should not be in quotations.– Lionel(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Contaldo80: I hear what you're saying, but I feel that's an argument for the culture of life article. I think the readership are informed enough to know that people advocating "the protection of life from conception to natural death" are on one side of the abortion/euthenasia debate and we don't need to bring up that whole can of worms. I feel I'm repeating myself a bit but let me try once more to explain it in terms of style. In this article, culture of life is used as an expression. In the culture of life article, the part I quoted above like this, culture of life is referred to as an expression for the purpose of examining that expression. That's why it gets special styling in that one instance to distinguish it from the rest of the text. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Reidgreg. I would still rather we make plain that it is a term/ ideology that the knights perceive as a culture of life, even if ultimately we don't use quotes. I don't want the casual reader to think it is really about pursuing a culture that promotes/ supports life. Lionel - don't threaten me ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talkcontribs) 12:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think MOS:SCAREQUOTES necessarily applies here. It's not a commonly used expression, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice unqualified has implications. --tronvillain (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Likewise my view. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)