Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Company

Is the Knights of Columbus a publicly traded corporation? It is listed as 950 on the Fortune 1000.

I doubt that. Veronica Mars fanatic 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is incorporated for the management and operation of its members-only life insurance arm, but it is certainly not publicly traded. Nor is it a for-profit organization per-se. Its life insurance arm must be run like any other life insurance firm, so there is a quasi-profit intent there. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

POV/Lack of substantiation

Some serious POV rv and at least one unsubstantiated and quite dubious statement tagged as unreferenced. If not referenced timely it will be removed as well. Wikipedia is not to be used for propaganda purposes by any side. Veronica Mars fanatic 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You should cite which sections/statements you believe violate [POV]. Keep in mind that this was a featured article. Lwnf360 (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Year of founding versus meeting date

This Growth of the Knights of Columbus gives Oct. 2, 1881 as the first meeting date. But, on the The Life and Times of Father Michael J. McGivney lists the founding date as per his article here (which is the incorporation date). Which date should be used in both this article and that of the priest? Plus, somewhere on the site, I saw that they celebrated the 100 year anniversary in 1982 which lends credence to the 1882 incorporation date. Morenooso 04:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The founding date is the one that's considered to be the official date, because that's the point where the organization was officially recognized as such by external powers. I'm sure that they had several meetings prior to actually forming and founding the council, but the Knights have always considered 1882 the year they were founded in... 24.242.251.187 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture section

There was an edit made, in good faith, removing this section from the article. According to WP:POPCULTURE this should be done by integrating the information into the rest of the article if necessary. To prevent edit wars, there should first be consensus on the talk page to enforce this action. To avoid this, I have started this section to discuss incorporating these items into the main article body. If there is concensus that this information is truly superfluous, only then should it be deleted. Jim Miller 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The section contains nothing but moronic, pointless trivia. What the WP:POPCULTURE essay says is "Items in trivia sections worthy of mention should be integrated into the rest of the article." Do you seriously think that any of the drivel currently in this section is "worthy of mention"? Garbage like this generally gets added to an article by "drive-by editors" who think they're making a contribution by adding some meaningless little scrap of trivia. Since such editors rarely visit the article again, there is little chance of an edit war. The only warring going on is being caused solely by your misplaced concern about edit warring. Quit fretting over nonsense and be bold. RedSpruce 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be one of those who believes that the Popular culture sections in articles can be useful, and don't see the point in removing them on sight. I find them to be good indicators of the subject place in the public consciousness at points in time. However, I am only waiting for a consensus to take place before seeing it removed. I know the original Trivia section was added after this was made an FA, however I don't believe in this case it takes away from the article. If I wanted to remove anything it wouldn't be this.Jim Miller 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The last two movie references seemed relevant as they addressed characters or areas being affiliated with the KofC. The first two didn't seem to add anything. I'd be in favor of adding these two back -

• In the 2006 movie The Departed, Irish mob chief Frank Costello, played by Jack Nicholson, claims that the Knights of Columbus were extremely powerful in Boston, particularly among the Italians of the North End.
• In the 1973 movie The Sting, J.J. Singleton refers to Doyle Lonnegan as "an Irishman who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, and doesn't chase dames. He's a grand knight in the Knights of Columbus, and he only goes out to play faro."

Ultimate ed 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ultimate ed, those two pop culture references seem sufficient enough to retain. Clint (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Degree requirements

The article currently states that a Knight must be a First Degree member for a year before he can join the Fourth Degree. Perhaps someone can back me up, but I thought that was changed to six months a few years back. Anybody else heard this? --Umrguy42 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• that is true... a first degree can be a forth degree in a year PROVIDING he has completed the second degree and third degree beforehand. i know this because i am a first degree knight AnthonyWalters 23:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true. The requirement is one year, but Supreme has been giving district masters the authority to reduce it to six months on a case by case basis. If a candidate for the fourth degree does not have one year of service but does have six months, he has to apply with the master prior to the degree to receive the exemption. SK Gentgeen, Faithful Captain, Portola Assembly #49 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As of July 1, 2008 (start of the 08-09 fraternal year), the new rule is that a candidate must have been a 1st Degree Knight for 6 months and be a current 3rd Degree Knight. This saves the Master from having to make any exceptions (which became more of the rule than an exception). Also, there is no more exception process for Masters. The 6-month rule is hard and fast. SK Jason Seiler, DD, PGK, PFN, Virginia State Council.

Reference formatting

Ok, how's that look? Did I mangle anything too badly?--SarekOfVulcan 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Secret society?

Are the knights really a secret society? The degree ceremonies had an amount of secrecy around them, but since the old third degree ceremony was done away with there really aren't any "big secrets" anymore. I ask this because Wikiproject Secret Societies has taken an interest in this article and I think they will find it is a touch beyond their scope. Is there a Wikiproject Fraternal Organizations? The knights have more in common with the Elks Club then they ever will with Skull and Bones. -- SECisek (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a stretch to see KofC as at least within the scope of the project, as (1) the ceremonial is kept secret (although I take it that no throats are cut), (2) it was a Catholic response to Freemasonry, and it is seen as a Catholic version of the Freemasons, (3) a number of conspiracy theories around the Knights were promulgated - especially during the 1928 Presidential election and (4) there used to be far more secrecy in the KofC than there is now. In short it doesn't need to be a secret society to come under the project. JASpencer (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree, in part, about this statement: it was a Catholic response to Freemasonry. It was Catholic response to friendly/beneficent societies. Groups such as the Oddfellows, which were, by the church, lumped in with the Masons, offered things that the Masons did not, namely, death benefits, monetary support during times of sickness (when unable to work), all as part of the subscription to those groups - they were mutual aid societies, which the Masons were not. Additionally, one should look at the Red Knights, which drew their membership from the Sarsfield Guards militia unit, as well as the Ancient Order of Foresters (permission to affiliate with this latter group was denied to Fr McGiveny, by his superior, Bishop Lawrence S. McMahon) There is a decided difference between Masonic pledges of aid to distressed brethren, and the mutual aid societies' direct use of membership fees allocated to specific types of aid, and this difference is the main one (IMO) between fraternal organizations and beneficent/friendly societies.--Vidkun (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a project can define their own scope, just thought I would comment. -- SECisek (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly reasonable to ask. I just think that you deserved an answer. JASpencer (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus Oath

This was a forgery that was put out in the early twentieth Century which basically said that the KofC were going to murder Protestants in their beds. Has it been covered here? It;s not there at the moment, would anyone object to me entering it in? JASpencer (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

JA, I think I would have a problem with it in that putting the full text here would lend some credence to the validity of that oath. I've seen the false oath, and took the real ones, i know they are different, but, should we put EVERY bit of slanderous propaganda about every group, on that group's page? That being said, I also recognize that it IS verifiable that someone claimed this oath was the KofC oath, but has there really been anything put out disproving it? I think, if there hasn't, yet WE know it's a false oath, it's an undue weight issue.--Vidkun (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the point is that the oath was put around, and apparantly believed both in the period before the first world war (when it was read into the Congressional record) and the 1928 Presidential election. So it was an important part of the Knights' history.

There's a Time article here that has both the bogus and what they claim to be the real oath sworn in 1928.

JASpencer (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing that puzzles me, how did a neopagan become a Knight of Columbus? JASpencer (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't, at the time, Neopagan. I am no longer a Knight, although it would have been an interesting quandary had I been an insurance member, instead of an associate member.--Vidkun (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the bogus oath, too. It is worth mentioning but printing out in full or part is giving it undue credit. -- SECisek (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in printing it out in full, but some mention of the kerfufle may improve the article. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Would anyone else be interested in forming a Knights of Columbus Wikiproject? Between the potential of interesting material for thousands of councils, roles, titles, and concepts regarding the Knights of Columbus, I think one of these would not only be necessary, but extremely helpful to someone wanting to know more about the Knights than we can practically keep on a single wikipedia page. Clint (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you get it started, let me know, I'll be happy to sign up as a Fourth Degree member here in Missouri... umrguy42 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus in fact identical to the Knights of Cologne

According to Leo Zagami in a June 18 interview the Knights of Columbus are actually the same organization as the Knights of Cologne in France and Spain and that this is a well-kept secret. I don't suppose this can be corroborated at the present time, but I will mention it so that reactions to this claim or pertinent information at a later time will be considered for later mention in the article. __meco (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that I have no idea what the "Knights of Cologne" are (a Google search didn't seem to turn up any handy results), nor just what this Leo Zagami's credibility is... I don't see much point in including anything on this at the moment, given a real lack of reliable sources. umrguy42 23:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I just felt it relevant to have it mentioned here on the talk page in case more on this surfaces. According to Zagami (a self-professed Illuminati leader) this is highly delicate information and he is putting himself at risk for disclosing this link. At least we know what to do with it if corroborating information should arise. __meco (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is an screed from Zagami's site. Nothing from him directly. It is impossible to cooberate his membership in the Illuminati, Bilderburgers, Justice League, or Superfriends. I would say he is an invalid source. [1] Dominick ^(TALK) 11:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong Right Arm

I have been looking for a few of the requested citations in the article. I have searched through tons of stuff with the Strong Right Arm quote, but have been unable to find anything other then references by the Knights themselves (especially from Carl Anderson). Does anyone have a citation where someone outside of the Knights (i.e. Pope, Bishop, etc.) referred to it as a strong right arm of the Church? Marauder40 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't happen to have sources, but I would say if we do have ones from the Knights (but none from others), then it may be valid to change the sentence to say that the organization "refers to itself as the 'strong right arm'..." and give those references. umrguy42 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but during my searches I found people claiming that Pope JPII said it. I searched the Vatican archives and couldn't find it. I figured maybe someone that monitors the site might have the actual cite. Here is the link from Carl Anderson talking about the fact the KoC earned the title, of course it doesn't have a ref or who they earned it from. Marauder40 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well since nobody has provided a link to someone outside the KoC calling the KoC the "strong right arm" I have changed the text to reflect that it calls itself the "strong right arm" and provided a link. Marauder40 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

KofC activism (NOT criticism)

So, the following keeps being added into the "Criticism" section; since it's not (as stated) an actual criticism, we keep pulling it out. HOWEVER... since the latest addition came with a source, I thought I'd preserve it here for the IP editor (or whoever) to work it into the political activities or other appropriate section of the article. Please keep in mind, however, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV when doing so. umrguy42 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

In California’s 2008 election the Knighs of Columbus donated $1 million to [[Proposition 8]].<ref>[http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&view=late1 “Campaign Finance, California Secretary of State, 2008.”]</ref><ref>[http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Donors_who_support_Prop._8 “Ballotpedia, California Proposition 8, 2008”]</ref><ref> |url= http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/08/prop-8-post.html |title= Knights of Columbus tip the balance with big anti-gar marriage donation |publisher= LA Times |accessdate= 2008-08-20 }}</ref> Proposition 8 would deny marriage between same-sex couples in the state.

Thank you for helping me. To be honest, this is one of the first wikis I've done, but I think I've got it right now. I now have information to demonstrate how this is criticism. If there are no problems with it, tomorrow I'll be adding the following:

In California’s 2008 election the Knighs of Columbus donated $1 million to [[Proposition 8]].<ref>[http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&view=late1 “Campaign Finance, California Secretary of State, 2008.”]</ref><ref>[http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Donors_who_support_Prop._8 “Ballotpedia, California Proposition 8, 2008”]</ref><ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/08/prop-8-post.html “Knights of Columbus tip the balance with big anti-gar marriage donation,”] [[LA Times]],[[August 20]],[[2008]]</ref> Proposition 8 would deny marriage between same-sex couples in the state. Upon learning that the Knights of Columbus are one of the proposition’s largest supporters, a group called “Californians Against Hate” have added the Knights of Columbus to their “[http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html Dishonor Roll].”<ref>[http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html “Dishonor Roll”], [http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/ Californians Against Hate], Retrieved on [[August 26]], [[2008]].</ref>

• Well, to begin with, I'll admit to a bit of a bias, in that I am a member of the organization. But I think, critically speaking, this particular section may still lend too much weight to one incident. It might be better included if there've been more criticisms of the organization as a whole for not supporting gay rights (of which this would be one incident - but not enough to necessarily extrapolate widespread criticism). (I'm also slightly concerned with the LA Times Blog source - kind of a grey area in that, while the LA Times itself could be considered a reliable source, the blog aspect may or may not qualify.) Again, my concerns are undue weight to a single incident, recentism in that same incident, a possible WP:RS issue with the blog thing, and still whether this would be better served in the political activities section. (I know the end of the section has another paragraph on a single incident, but I'm still kind of leery on whether that really belongs in Criticism for the same reasons.)

If we're looking for some kind of compromise, I might propose something on the order of (bare bones outlines here) "KofC promote the idea of marriage as only between men and women, which has drawn fire from gay-rights groups" followed by a slightly briefer explanation of the incident you bring up, and the sourcing. Also, if it does go in, it should probably (given that there are already incidents mentioned in chronological order) go at the end of the section. Anyway, that's my opinions. umrguy42 22:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - not to sound flippant, but given that it's a Catholic organization, part of me feels that saying people are unhappy with their stance against homosexual activity and homosexual marriage (which is in line with the Church's) is kind of a "no-brainer" which may or may not really need mentioning. Kinda goes with the UNDUE concerns I have. umrguy42 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly in order to maintain a NPOV I think the original quote would work fine under the activism section, not where the original person was trying to put it. To have an opinion either way on a ballot issue doesn't make something a criticism or a honorable thing in a NPOV way. The fact the KoC gave money to support or oppose a ballot issue is activism pure and simple. I personally think it is a non-issue from a NPOV perspective unless you want to go through and put something under the critisim column of EVERY group that has an opinion either way for the issue in the entire encyclopedia. Marauder40 (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marauder, your last sentence totally expresses what I was trying to say above much simpler than I did (the thing about the "no-brainer" stuff). Thank you :D And while I agree that this should be in activism, I think it should only be an example of the larger trend of opposing gay marriage, as I said above. umrguy42 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got it now. I agree it should go on the bottom for the sake of chonology. I say it qualifies as criticism based on the amount of newspaper and television coverage we're seeing here in California that specifically names the KofC as the second-largest financial backer of Prop 8. For the people that feel that Prop 8 promotes inequality and homophobia (roughly half,) the KofC is an agent of intolerence and their criticisms are now part of the political dialogue in California. To keep a balanced POV, I have added two sources defending/supporting the KofC's donation, don't know why I didn't earlier. Also, I do think that it could indeed be shorter but because of the complex nature of the issue and peoples' strong oppinions/responses to the issue of gay-marriage, I can't see what I could omit without negating somebody's viewpoint. Oh, and I took out the LA Times Blog source. Here's what I have now:

In California’s 2008 election the Knights of Columbus donated $1 million to Proposition 8. Proposition 8 would deny marriage between same-sex couples in the state. Upon learning that the Knights of Columbus are one of the proposition’s largest supporters, a group called “Californians Against Hate” has added the Knights of Columbus to their “Dishonor Roll.” Ned Dolejsi of the California Catholic Conference stated, “this generous donation from the Knights of Columbus shows the broad-based support that Protect Marriage is receiving from a variety of faith-based organizations. Proposition 8 is honored to have the support of an esteemed organization who has such a strong record of public service and success.”Patrick Korten, vice president of communications for the knights of Columbus said of the issue, "We hope that people look to this donation and are inspired by it and add to the resources available to pass this referendum.”

Antwonbonson (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better. I still think that it might be better in the political activities portion, but, your mileage may vary. If you have more sources pointing out how big of an issue it's become in CA, and particularly if they've more on criticisms, that may be useful in references, again, here I'm concerned about recentism and undue weight on one event Like I said above, if you could establish a pattern of criticism for their support of heterosexual-only marriage (is there a better term for that? I dunno), I think this would better answer my concerns there. But, again, that's my opinion. umrguy42 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Other then a few issues with Capitalization in the last sentence (i.e. Vice President of Communications and Knights of Columbus) I think it is fine as written above. With the same comment that Umrguy42 had about recentism. Do we really need to get into every organization that is for or against a ballot issue in every election? Will this mean anything to anyone a few months after the election. Marauder40 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently lacks sources

Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Dec 2008), Articles with unsourced statements (Jun 2008, Jul 2008, Aug 2008, Feb 2009). Anyone finding time to make improvements would be appreciated, thanks Tom B (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided the references for all but those in the criticism section. That entire section related to the racism claim appears to be a cut an paste directly from another Wiki page. Technically it should be the responsability of someone posting a criticism to back it up with the facts and references otherwise the section should be deleted. Marauder40 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8