Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Unused sources

Hey all, I found a ton of unused sources. in the article and it was creating a syntax error with the article. I copied and pasted them here and I was wondering if that was the best way to handle this. Michepman (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Seems sensible. Here's a cut-and-paste of another batch. all throwing up red errors such as "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "chief" is not used in the content (see the help page)." 92.19.28.14 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Another emerged (is there some limit on how many are reported at once?) and twenty-seven more unused ones were commented-out, enough to count as clutter per MOS:COMMENT. Here they are. 92.19.28.14 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Refs commented-out in article:

References

That triggered red cite errors for another batch that had been commented out as a block. 92.19.28.14 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

After saving this edit, I found I couldn't remove the batch beginning "ref name=supcouncil"; it triggered an edit filter. Maybe another editor can. 92.19.28.14 (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Governance section

The seven-figure salaries of senior KofC officers have been criticized as excessive. The first ref dates to 1991, and there were no seven-figure salaries to criticize at the time. Also, I would typically tag this construction with {{by whom}} because anonymous criticism doesn't carry much weight. Elizium23 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you know the 1991 salaries? Sounds like a citation needed tag is in order. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Dechant's is in the cited article, and it's 5 figures. Elizium23 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Elizium23 - Honestly, if the criticism is not attributed to anyone then it doesn't need to be in the article. If the excessiveness of the Knights of Columbus's executive salaries is a major issue then it should be easy to find a source of notable people talking about it. If no such source can be found, then we can probably just remove the line entirely, right? Michepman (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Anti-religious discrimination section

There's been some edits to the "Anti-religious discrimination efforts" section lately, mostly to remove content. In particular, there was a "Chair of American history" subsection. Many of the details were cut, and I didn't object to them. In fact, I was among those who cut text from the section. Sometimes the cuts went to far, and editors like Genericusername57 restored some of the content.

SPECIFICO then came and gutted the section, calling it undue. He didn't explain why he thought it was undue, however, and I thought he was mistaken. His edit left a line saying that a commission was formed, but deleted everything about what the commission did. (It also, not for nothing, left an awkwardly formatted section.) This seemed odd to me, so I restored some of the text. My restoration was reverted. I am not certain why other consider three lines describing the work of the commission is undue, and hope someone will explain it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, you keep putting in huge chunks that others are finding undue because they quickly veer into extremely tedious details. While I don't think whole reverts were proper, neither is your insistence on putting them back without rewording. At this point, I feel like I have read Kauffman's entire book through your edits. The amount of a check or the material isn't all that relevant especially if no newspaper of the time ( or any other publications) found it interesting to write about.

I'm going to try and take a look at the section tonight and see if I can pull out some salient details but you can save yourself some heartburn if you keep the writing on point in the first place. Less is more.

Tl;Dr The topic is relevant, the details aren't.    

I do think less reverts and more copy editing would be nice but no all editors have the time or patience to do so and will instead revert until they see acceptable copy. Slywriter (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, you are adding these materials when you already added them 18 months ago to another article. With the numerous articles created concerning the Knights, their is no reason for this article to be engaged in any of the trivia found in History of the Knights or History_of_the_Knights_of_Columbus_and_The_Catholic_University_of_America

Slywriter (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of the check is a tedious detail. $55,633.79 in 1904 is worth $1,569,594.20 today. That's a significant sum for a poor immigrant community to raise in such a short period of time. Additionally, hundreds of newspapers wrote about it, but now we are moving the goal posts. It's not just a non-primary source, it's multiple non-primary sources. I appreciate your efforts, and thank you for looking at it, but disagree that removing whole chunks of prose is an acceptable alternative to doing the hard work of editing the copy. The goal here is to expand and improve the encyclopedia. Massive deletions in lieu of copyediting do not bring us towards that goal. Finally, I haven't contested much of what has been removed precisely because it is found in other articles. I am OK with some overlap, but in the spirit of conciliation went along with others. That's not the case for every massive deletion, however. Some of the information exists here, and only here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Aquillion for edits like this one. I think it is far better to tag content that needs to be improved instead of simply deleting it all. I also think it would be still better yet to actually improve the text instead of tagging it, but it's an improvement none-the-less. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Under God

I know that everyone in these USA knows this, but you might want to explicitly say that the KofC's lobbying for "Under God" in the Pledge was successful (I hope the source says so). Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC) Should the article mention that the Knights' lobbying for the phrase "Under God" to be inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance was successful, or not? Elizium23 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Slate article finds their effort was not what brought success. Jzsj (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point, Father. The other source concurs. The legislation supported the by KofC was an early test balloon and did not succeed until others made a later push. So, what I would counter-propose is that the text merely notes that "Under God" was indeed inserted into the pledge, for the benefit of non-American readers. The text can even elaborate by describing the "languishing" of the KofC-supported legislation. That's in the sources, and, I trust, is not UNDUE. Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Evangelization

@Jacknstock: it really is known as "evangelization" please do not use "evangelism" because that does not have the proper connotation as "evangelization" is commonly used among Catholics. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference? Bear in mind that not all readers of this article will be Catholic — we are not writing for Catholics. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• EVANGELISM. Zealous preaching of the Gospel, commonly applied to persons or religious bodies that are dedicated to converting people to Christ. The term has this basic meaning of an outspoken proclamation of the Christian message, but it is also used in a negative sense by critics of an aggressive promotion of Christianity.
• EVANGELIZATION. Zealous proclamation of the Gospel in order to bring others to Christ and his Church. In the words of Pope Paul VI, “Evangelizing means to bring the Good News into all the strata of humanity, and through its influence transforming humanity from within and making it new, ‘Now I am making the whole of creation new’ (Revelation 21:5). But there is no new humanity if there are not first of all new persons renewed by baptism, and by lives lived according to the Gospel” (Evangelic Nuntiandi, 18). Evangelization, therefore, includes three distinctive elements: 1. interior conversion to Christ and his Church; 2. affecting not only the individual person but the whole culture; and 3. as a result, changing this culture and its institutions to make them Christian and Catholic. (Etym. Latin evangelium; from Greek euangelion, good news, reward for bringing good news, from euangelos,bringing good news: eu-, good, + angelos, messenger.)

Source: Modern Catholic Dictionary, John Hardon, SJ Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

May I ask why you decided to change the terms? You did not understand the difference? Did you think it was a typo? Elizium23 (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I was aware of those definitions before changing the terms, but this is not the Catholic Wikipedia. You are using the wrong dictionary. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's a WP:RS. Hardon is a noted moral theologian and wrote his own Catechism. He's an expert on the meanings of these words. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Recognizing the diverse readership of Wikipedia, it would be helpful to expand the article section to further detail how they evangelize, and how the Knights of Columbus differentiate "evangelization" from "evangelism". Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

They differentiate it the same way every other Catholic has for decades. I am not sure how it became an issue on this page other than your decision to subvert what the reliable secondary sources say and put in your own original research about what term should be used, even after we're having this discussion here and I have an edit request and shown you a dictionary entry for it. Elizium23 (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on your source, it seems that Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. used both terms, at least to the extent that he saw it fit to define both terms (virtually as synonyms: "zealous preaching of the Gospel" and "zealous proclamation of the Gospel"). Many general dictionaries define "evangelism" but fail to define "evangelization", such as Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary (1984), and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2019) as adapted by dictionary.com. Collins English Dictionary treats them as synonyms. I used the more widely-understood and widely-used form of the word. Your objection seems to be that "evangelization" is the term preferred by Catholics and the Knights of Columbus, but that is not an argument we use in WP because of WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

"Evangelization" is the term used in reliable secondary sources (and primary sources) and at Wikipedia we do not Do our own original research on the preferred meanings of words we'd like to see but we follow the reliable sources! Why don't you want to follow the reliable sources? Elizium23 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable source
• Reliable source #2
• Reliable source #3

Elizium23 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

To borrow a religious metaphor, the {{request edit}} template can offer no absolution in this matter. If there is a stalemate, please seek out one of the strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  09:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Should the article use the term "evangelization" (1) or "evangelism" (2) to refer to the KofC's participation with the Catholic Church in proclaiming the Gospel? Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Neither. Based on what is said in the present section, the section heading "Evangelism" and mention of evangelism should be eliminated, for only education and disinformation are discussed there. Jzsj (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask what content should be in there, I'm asking which term should be used if we discuss such content. Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that we rather speak of evangelization in the Catholic church, but it would be good to know what matter in the article is being discussed. Their evangelization efforts needs a reference. They may be generally issue-oriented rather than faith-oriented in their organized efforts. Jzsj (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jzsj: I had the same problem with the content in the section, with doubts that it really falls under the category of evangelization/evangelism. I looked for sources regarding evangelization (or evangelism) by the Knights of Columbus, but I found very little, only a few brief references including publications on the New Evangelization published by the Knights of Columbus, and a call to the Knights of Columbus to participate in the New Evangelization. However, I wanted to wait until this specific question was resolved before addressing that. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jzsj and Elizium23: In response to the concerns about the use of the word "evangelism", and the lack of specific examples of proclamation of the gospel, I have created a new section specifically providing examples of the Knights' participation in the new evangelization. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Evangelism and Evangelization is given as one article, Please See Talk:Evangelization. I think Evangelism is the idea of preaching gospel to people. Evangelization is the Process involved in Evangelism by evangelists. Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 04:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• From what I gather "Evangelization", at least from a Catholic context, does not involve ringing doorbells. Manannan67 (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes

• As above, "evangelical" is not a word used to describe non-Evangelical Christian entities, but rather "evangelistic" would be the term used here. It would be worth mentioning one of the current KofC mottos, "A Charity That Evangelizes".
• KoC gave at least $15 million to anti-gay marriage and LGBT lobbies should read more like The Knights of Columbus gave at least $15 million to organizations opposed to same-sex marriage and LGBT causes.
• In the lede, "birth control" should be qualified as "artificial birth control" because the Catholic Church promotes the use of natural family planning which can be employed as a form of birth control. Elizium23 (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

All seems a tad semantic and weasily.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In that neutral language about their positions is more weasely than calling them Anti this or that? I agree that language should be toned down in article. Slywriter (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's worse than that. In the lede (nowhere in the body is this detailed) we read that "KoC" gave "at least $15 million" to oppose LGBT causes between 2008 and 2012. It seems the editors derived this by adding $9.6 million to $6.25 million in the NCR article, but that figure covers 2005-2012. The wording as it is makes it sound like the Order gave money to "LGBT lobbies". Furthermore, we do not use the term "gay marriage" on Wikipedia, preferring, of course, "same-sex marriage". The weasel wording lies strictly with the text as it stands now. Elizium23 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Editors?'. I think you are referring to a finite and small number of edits. Please suggest ones that can be improved or reverted by consensus. I see, reading this thread, that there's a wikilink to the "new evangelism" article. Do sources tell us that's the form of evangelical activity, or is it distinct from or broader than what's described in that article? Can we find sourcing, including primary sourcing, as to the facts concerning evangelical activity? As to the $15 million edit, I'm not sure the number matters, and if it's disputed or misleading, I see no reason to keep that detail. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Domestic Church is key in Evangelization - Building the Domestic Church program
• New Attitude
• Election Day novena - the Order regularly calls members and all the faithful to participate in novenas for special causes. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  One thing the Knights have done for a long time is supply the satellite link from the Vatican for special Masses such as Christmas Midnight Mass. Here's an article about making it ready for HD with a mobile studio. Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Article on financial donations shows contributions to satellite links for canonizations and papal visits, among other things. Elizium23 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Membership requirements

men who vow to uphold the theological and social teachings of the Church. — I don't know where you guys get this stuff. It's not in the cited source. How about men who are willing to accept the Church's teachings on faith and morals.? Elizium23 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that is accurate either, they have to be "men who are practising Catholics, who accept the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals, aspire to live in accord with the precepts of the Catholic Church, and are in good standing within the Catholic Church." however this would still be a copy vio so still needs work.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If the KOC are not an RS why is it still begin reinserted?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

kofc.org (not "KoC") is a reliable source. Self-published sources are reliable for claims about themselves that meet several requirements. It is remarkable, the extreme prejudice that is being exercised against SPS on this article that is not seen on others (for example, ANY OTHER NONPROFIT OR BUSINESS, for example Boeing) all articles about orgs typically source information about those orgs to publications by those orgs. Yes, we rely on independent secondary sources and not primary ones for most of our information, but get real now: why in the WORLD would you not want to use kofc.org to source membership requirements??? It just boggles the mind that [[[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] deleted.] Elizium23 (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not me that said they were not, I am just asking we apply any finding evenly. Either they are for what they say (in which case it should be attributed) or they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Standards are being applied to this article that do not apply anywhere else in Wikipedia, and that's because the standards are not found anywhere in policies and guidelines. Editors have used misinterpretation of SPS policy to gut useful information from this and many other articles. Avatar317 (talk · contribs) for example, since this article came to dispute, Avatar has been on a long-term, wide-ranging rampage, running roughshod over SPS policy to use it as a bludgeon against every article he can find in the pro-life category. And since he is working in this singly focused topic area, it's POV pushing, plain and simple. The articles on the other side of the fence are given a free pass while Avatar guts everything else that may have offended Wikipedia's systemic bias. Elizium23 (talk) 10:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but I was was had a go at for using KoC as a source about what they think, and no one made this point. What I am asking for is equitable treatment. Nor do I care who has done what, until they do it to me.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Divorce

I removed "divorce" from the lead and was reverted. Opposition to civil divorce as a matter of public policy is found nowhere in the cited source; it's an informational booklet printed by the KofC about religious teachings on annulment. Divorce is also not mentioned in the body of this article. Looking for additional sources, I found an article from 1976 about a bishop at a KofC event describing divorce as a social ill[1], but nothing more recent than 1911 about attempts to influence policy on divorce.[2]. Cheers, gnu57 14:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

NO I reverted as there was more then one change made.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT lobbies

The line Between 2008 and 2012, KoC gave at least $15 million to anti-gay marriage and LGBT lobbies. is incorrect: the figure corresponds to 2005-2012. It comes from a report by "Equally Blessed", an activist group with a remarkably broad view of "anti-LGBT lobby". According to EB, $6 million went to organisations directly opposed to same-sex marriage, $9 mil to promoting "cultural conservativism" through "organizations designed to promote a conservative reading of Catholic theology and a political culture that is favorable to claims of religious rights over civil law". Recipients of the $9 mil included the John Paul II Institute, a theology school; the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, a nuns' association; the Pontifical Council for the Family, a Vatican committee; Morality In Media, an anti-pornography pressure group; and the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. Besides the mention of the specific sum of money, I think that the sentence is redundant to The Knights promote a conservative Catholic view on public policy issues, including opposition to same-sex marriage, in the previous line. Cheers, gnu57 14:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thus rewording, not outright deletion was the answer. I am not however too sure that is neutral and thus may not be an RS. However the report says that "providing $6.25 million directly to anti-marriage equality efforts and $9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture to oppose efforts for marriage equality." I make that over 15 million. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I would object less strenuously if the line read something like "Between 2005 and 2012, KoC gave at least $6.25 million to organisations opposing same-sex marriage" (though I still think that's an undue detail for the lead since it isn't covered in the body); but I think it's completely bogus to portray supporting a nuns' association or a theology school as funding "anti-LGBT lobbies". Cheers, gnu57 15:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Except you soruce says it was $6.25 + $9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture to oppose efforts for marriage equality".Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know; the authors of the source report say that the KofC spent $9.6 mil on other culturally conservative causes, including the prayer breakfast and the anti-porn group; they (the report authors) conclude that the KofC's motivation for doing so was to "build a conservative religious and political culture", which would then help the KofC to "oppose efforts for marriage equality". For instance, the nun group was involved in a different culture-war issue, the U.S. contraception mandate, which involved claims of religious liberty/conscientious objection. One could conclude that the KofC's support for the nuns would wind up affecting cases of religious objection with regard to same-sex marriage; but it is false to say that the nun group is an "anti-LGBT lobby"; their group has no involvement with LGBT rights issues whatsoever. Cheers, gnu57 17:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, this "$9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture to oppose efforts for marriage equality." is a quote form the source. Which part of "oppose efforts for marriage equality." does not mean opposition to gay marriage? It does not matter how it was done, its the intent. If you oppose something you are against it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Read pages 24-30 of the report and you'll see what I mean. gnu57 18:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have quoted the document, it admits this money has gone to groups who "oppose efforts for marriage equality.", how they do it is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a poorly written/semi-weaselly sentence: in "providing $6.25 million directly to anti-marriage equality efforts and $9.6 million to organizations to build a conservative religious and political culture to oppose efforts for marriage equality." the blue portion modifies "organizations", the red is a purpose clause depending on either "build" or "providing". The report elaborates on this point in the section about the 9.6 mil:

The Knights of Columbus involvement with efforts to ban gay and lesbian marriage does not end with direct anti-marriage equality efforts. The Knights of Columbus also gives generously to organizations designed to promote a conservative reading of Catholic theology and a political culture that is favorable to claims of religious rights over civil law, which would allow Catholic health and social services providers to refuse to recognize gay and lesbian unions.

Then the report lists the recipients: groups which, as I said, promote religious liberty or religious conservatism but did not directly participate in lobbying against same-sex marriage. (Some, but not all, of them were involved in the issue less directly, e.g., the report says that the theology school teaches their students about the pope's views on marriage. The report draws no connection at all between the nuns' council and LGBT issues, but merely states that they "tend toward doctrinal conservatism".) Cheers, gnu57 19:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Its still opposing gay marriage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The Knights promote a conservative Catholic view on public policy issues, including opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and birth control." ...should be amended to read "The Knights promote a Catholic view on public policy issues." -without necessarily categorizing it and with details discussed in the text. Surely things are a bit more nuanced. What is their position on immigration? I'm not sure it would be classified as "conservative" -whatever that means. And healthcare? when even the bishops and the nuns don't agree? Unions? Support for military? etc. In as much as it only mentions hot button topics that they are seen as being against, it appears to lean a bit one-sided. It also looks as if the local chapters/councils? focus more on the charitable aspects (like the Rotary?) frequently making donations to agencies who serve developmentally disabled people, etc.. and others. Manannan67 (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Conservative here does not mean "politically conservative", rather in the wider meaning of "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.", within the context of Catholic tradition.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

How is the average reader supposed to know that? If it means adhering to so-called "traditional" values, it might just as well say that. Manannan67 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Because traditional values are not always conservative in application. It is a narrow and ridged definition that they seek to defend.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Evangelisation/conversion pledge?

I removed the line In addition to its charitable and political work, KoC is an evangelical organization whose members pledge to try to convert people to Catholicism. and was reverted. I have found zero evidence for the existence of this pledge. This edit is somewhat of an improvement; I suppose which has published guides about converting people to Catholicism is meant to reflect the line "The CIS published a series on the new evangelization in 2011" in the body; however, it does not accurately reflect the contents of the CIS booklet series[3], which talk about "proclaiming the Gospel" and "bearing witness" rather than specifically how to win converts. Cheers, gnu57 14:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

[[4]] says "evangelizing modern culture" evangelize /ɪˈvan(d)ʒ(ə)lʌɪz/ verb convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity. Its hard therefore to not take this to mean that this is about converting people to Catholicism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Evangelise" means "preach the gospel"[5]. The "New Evangelization" is a specific movement associated with John Paul II; somewhat akin to Chabad outreach, it involves encouraging fallen-away/cultural catholics to adopt orthodox catholic beliefs and practices. (The movement includes a loose collection of organisations and initiatives, often involving youth or modern media; our article on it is very poor.) I agree that promoting conversion can be an aspect of evangelisation, but object to the specific wording in the lead "published guides about converting people to Catholicism". Cheers, gnu57 16:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II said of New evangelization that is was aimed at to proclaiming Christ to all peoples. Weasel words for conversion, telling them about the truth of the gospels in order to convert them. The fact that there is then caveats about how it is only aimed at lapsed Catholics does not alter the fact it is also aimed at "all peoples" (not everyone is a lapsed catholic) [[6]] is a good example of this, its about "selling the brand", its a fluid concept that means many things.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, textbook WP:OR going on from you. Keep up the good work. Elizium23 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"The definition of New Evangelisation in Magisterial documents is still a bit ‘fluid’.", that is not OR its a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• In addition to its charitable and political work, KoC is an evangelical organization that promotes new evangelization.
• I suggest In addition to its charitable and political work, the Knights of Columbus promotes the New Evangelization through such efforts as the Catholic Information Service. Elizium23 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Elizium, "evangelization" new or old, is proselytizing. Contrary to what you wrote above, it would be OR to weasel it into something else. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, {{citation needed}} Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Diocesean websites, Catholic publications and KoC documents should not be used for either promoting the Knights or attacking them. This article went through a huge cleanup of self sourced material and it would not be proper to now say all the negative things found in the documents can be used against them but none of the positives. It is an UNACCEPTABLE double standard especially given an editor was BANNED from the topic due to their willingness of dying on the hill of KoC self sourced documents. Slywriter (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I get that, but on this subject its virtually all we have to work with. I would love a non catholic source for what "new evangelism" means. Sadly catholic websites are all I could find. But as far as I can tell no one has tried to use a KoC source for negative information about them. In fact the only sources I have added (either here or to the article) are attempts to give an indication as to what New Evangelism means, and the KoC attitude towards it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/942866816 relies on ncronline and KoC website. And yes the challenge to writing about the Knights is the lack of reliable secondary coverage. On mobile, so I may be missing other sources, if so, feel free to correct me Slywriter (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually NCRonline seems to rely on more than a press release and did independent fact checking. With that said, the article only delineates the political spending. The further 9 million would have to be attributed to the group . And if it needs attribution than it shouldn't be in the lead. Instead it should be in the body. It's abortion and birth control views should not survive in the lead as they are primary sourced and no proof they are notable is shown. Slywriter (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What is "KoC"? What WP:RS use "KoC"? Has Wikipedia invented a novel initialism? Elizium23 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently so, since we use it in the lede. And I was referencing that material is being taken from the primary source KnightsofColumbus.com Slywriter (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not add it, I reinserted it after another equally bad sources replaced it. But is this is badly source we can remove it, not alter it. Can you point to the ruling that said we cannot use catholic news services as sources, as I was not aware such a finding existed (I note much of this article relies on such sources).Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Found it, not sure there was in fact a conclusion so much as a petering out. I think an RFC on the subject of catholic news services is needed. SPS should not really be used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC sounds like a good idea. As I recall, part of the issue is a tendency to reprint press releases verbatim. Slywriter (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Columbiettes

• Women may participate in KoC through the Columbiettes and other female auxiliaries, and boys may join the Columbian Squires.
• Women and boys cannot be members of the Knights of Columbus. (Also, where did "KoC" come from, other than some editor's fertile imagination?)
• Women may cooperate with the Knights of Columbus through the Columbiettes and other female auxiliaries, and boys may join the Columbian Squires before becoming Knights as adults. Elizium23 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC about sources

In essence its three questions.

Are the following sources reliable for use as sources about the KoC?Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A. Diocesean websites

B. Catholic publications

C. KoC documents

Discussion

No opinion except please review WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#Knights_Of_Columbus for background on how this article got here. Slywriter (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is about one users lack of neutral POV and over use of SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• We already had this discussion. They are affiliated sources, reliable for adding minor details to content sourced to independent sources, but their use should be kept to a minimum and anything that is not covered at all by independent sources should be avoided. Guy (help!) 18:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Then it is not (as has been suggested) blanket ban you can get sanctioned over?Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you can be sanctioned for persistently adding self-sourced promotional material. One editor already has been: a topic ban. Precedent is pretty clear here. Guy (help!) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

True, and that is (I think I may have even said this) the situation as I saw it once I was pointed to the ANI. That is (however) not what was stated to me. Hence I felt clear clarification was needed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was good NPOV content in the National Catholic Reporter. Certainly KoC publications, including books they sponsored (some published by reputable publishers) are predominantly promotional and should not be used to establish WP:WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede: Carl A. Anderson

Should the lede state:

• It is currently led by Washington, D.C. attorney and former Republican government staffer Knight Carl A. Anderson.

Or

• It is currently led by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson.

Slywriter (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance to the Knights of his former or current job, particularly in the lede of the article. Anyone wishing to learn about him can click through to his article. This gives UNDUE weight to a trivial point. Slywriter (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the longstanding mention of his professional qualifications is appropriate. KoC is a huge and complex organization. It is both a fraternal group and a vast financial services enterprise. It also has a very significant Washington, D.C. presence and is politically aware and engaged in various social issues as they relate to Church teaching and belief. I think that the first version above should be restored. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If this were a business article, we would not neglect to give a business title of CEO or Chairman or President, so I don't quite understand why we are allergic to his proper title of "Supreme Knight". Certainly not to the exclusion of mentioning his past jobs, but they are indeed in the past and the prominence of their mention is questionable, as if the editors are pursuing an agenda by placing them there. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: It is currently led by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, a Washington, D.C. attorney and former Republican government staffer. This preserves the full title and provides the context of who he is. CJK09 (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well if this were a business article, say a clothing manufacturer, and instead of CEO, the boss was called Lord Muffintop Jimmy Bones, I think the article would just say the CEO is Jimmy Bones. Also though, if bones worked his way into the job on the design side it likely would say former Hollywood costume designer, Jimmy Bones. SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-LGBT"

It is clear that the Knights believe in marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and have funded groups that defend that idea & to have that as the rule of law in the USA. However, in this article, it states, "Between 2008 and 2012, KoC gave at least $15 million to anti-gay marriage and anti-LGBT lobbies." The question is the latter half. A report by pro-LGBT activists is cited in a reliable source (National Catholic Reporter) stating that they gave money to wider anti-LGBT causes but other than saying the report claims this, the reliable source does not confirm this. That only means that the source reliably quoted a report by activists who hold opposite views to the Knights, not that those activists are correct. The reliable source cites 13 donations made by the knights that they say they have been able to confirm for the most part. All 13 of those are about gay marriage, not anything that would be anti-LGBT in a wider sense. The opinion listed in a report by organizations critical of the group makes perfect sense in a criticisms section but not in the header. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep I can see that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@MPSchneiderLC: The courts in MANY countries have decided that making same-sex marriage illegal is infringing on the rights of gay people, therefore anti-gay marriage IS anti-LGBT. Would you support simply stating "anti-LGBT lobbies" ? ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The courts in most countries haven't. The courts in all countries have ruled that homosexual sex is an unatural act and therefore a crime. Many countries have rules that having sex with 9 year old girl is moral and not rape, some have ruled miscegenation to be a crime. Should we all determine that being for same sex marriage, age of consent laws or miscegenation is being anti nature or pro crime? Francis1867 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@MPSchneiderLC: I find no flaws in your reasoning, we ought to make the improvement you suggest. Francis1867 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the courts say, we go with what RS say. If RS do not say they are "Anti-LGBT" neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Avatar317:I think you and I may disagree on whether opposing same-sex marriage is anti-LGBT. However, whichever way you go, anti-LGBT seems unnecessary. If you argue it is not anti-LGBT, then adding this affects NPOV. If you argue that opposing same-sex marriage is anti-LGBT, if you want to add two terms on either side of "and," you need to prove that both the term before "and" and the term after "and" are needed separately. If I say X donated money to "the University of Y Chemistry and science labs" then I go look at the RS and it only says you donated to chemistry labs, brevity says you remove "and science" as the average reader would not need both terms. Here we have a case where every donation mentioned in the RS is about same-sex marriage not workplace discrimination based on sexual identity, the legality of consensual adult sexual acts, etc.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Make of these what you will [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote added to the footnote after this phrase was to support adding both terms. The quote was quoting the report by activists of the opposite persuasion, not a claim made by the RS (other than that the activists make this claim). You can go back into edit history if you doubt this. I ask User:Avatar317 and/or user:Francis1867 to confirm this as User:Slatersteven seems to think the quote is still needed after we decided that "Anti-LGBT" would be removed. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1) We HAVE NOT decided that the anti-LGBT would be removed, the RfC has not closed.

2) I generally always use quotes when I ADD references, see this edit of mine for example: [11], and I agree with you that the RS source is repeating the report; "says the report"... the quote HELPS to make that clear. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that the reader can make his own mind about the organisation's leaning towards LGBT stuff and people, and that trying to tell him what to think is not helpfull, as those who agree will not be phased, and those who disagree will see everything we say as suspicious, since this is a biased position. One can come to this conclusion while still being reasonable, but one could also reasonably disagree. Secondary sources' opinions are irrelevent, unless they are authoritative and reliable. They are not a credible peer-revied journal sharing an academic consensus, so we should not try to repeat their opinions. I don't think quotes of opponents is needed, unless we are having a specific criticism section. Even so, we should keep to things of note. I think that the majority has spoken and is being reasonable: The anti-lgbt opinion is not authoritative or objective, it is not necessary and it at the very least creates the impression of bias. One's opinion of what is anti LGBT will form one's opinion of the status of KOC as a pro or anti LGBT organisation, following the facts we present in the article. Francis1867 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)