Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Self-sourced", "promotional"?

It is not "promotional" for an organization to publish how many members it has. And it is not "promotional" for Wikipedia to include this count in articles. Perhaps attribution is called for, but to remove membership numbers because they are "self-sourced" is ridiculous. Elizium23 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. It is also allowed per WP:SELFSOURCE. I have reverted. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a wider discussion at WP:RSN#Avatar317 removing WP:ABOUTSELF material due to Avatar317's attacks on sourcing in other articles besides this one. Elizium23 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, it is not permitted. Self-sourcing is for minor and uncontroversial facts, not PR claims. Around half of this article is self-sourced, virtually all of that is promotional. Typically we source simple things like founding dates. Here's we're sourcing huge tables of financial data, membership numbers, self-congratulatory descriptions and so on. That is a gross failure of WP:NPOV. Guy (help!) 20:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

We now have two editors who have deleted content because the references for it come directly from the Knights themselves. In general, we should be using secondary sources. However, as pointed out several times, WP:SELFSOURCE states that

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

There has been a longstanding, stable, consensus version of this article. If there are editors who believe that sources in this article are inappropriate for the content they back up, I would encourage them to state them here and explain why they run afoul of SELFSOURCE. We can look at them individually and determine whether they are appropriate or not on the merits. It would be far preferable to deleting huge swaths of content in a single edit. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a qualified exception. The rule is, reliable, independent, secondary sources. The ABOUTSELF exception is designed for minor uncontroversial facts, not for half of a huge article, and definitely not for promotional claims such as the amount of money or time given to good causes. This article is vastly over-reliant on self-sourced material, and that needs to change with some urgency. If it's available in a reliable independent source (and I hope I don't have to remind you that churnalism doesn't count), then fine, otherwise it's WP:UNDUE and needs to go. See, for example "unduly self-serving". Which most of the content here unquestionably is. Guy (help!) 21:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in WP:SELFSOURCE that only "minor" facts can be self-sourced. As for uncontroversial, I don't see that either. The closest I can find is that it not be an exceptional claim. I don't think the fact, for example, that the cross on the Knights' emblem "represents the Catholic identity of the order" is an exceptional (or even controversial) claim. I don't think any of these claims involve third parties or claims about events not related to the Knights. I haven't heard any doubts about their authenticity. And I also think you are mistaken that self sources constitute "half" of the sources. By my count, there are 217 references in the article (some footnotes, like 24, cite multiple sources). Of those, 60, or 27%, were published by the Knights Supreme Council or a sub unit of theirs. I thus conclude that the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Additionally, you have tagged this article with a half dozen maintenance templates. It would be helpful if you could initiate a discussion on each so that the community might address your concerns. I would suggest a different section for each so the issues don't get confused. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, are you a member of this group? The only time I have seen this level of determination to resist canonical policy is with alumni of Liberty University. I counted 80 sources that are either kofc or affiliate groups. That's half of the distinct sources cited (most of the rest are page cites to one of a handful of books).

Wikipedia's sourcing trifecta is reliable, independent, secondary. Sources should be all three, not any one of the three. When supporting a statement about the number of members, a document published by KofC on its own website is unreliable (they have an incentive to inflate), non-independent, and primary. It fails all three. Same with sourcing "The order consists of four different degrees" to a page called, $DEITY help us, "Why You Should Become A Knight". That's not remotely appropriate.

This article currently reads as if it were written by their PR department. In large part that appears to be because it was: much of the content is sourced to material they produced. That's a huge problem for WP:NPOV.

Also, do you think sites like futureboy.homeip.net pass muster as RS?

See my last few edits for examples of what needs to be done. Read it as if you are a skeptic and ask yourself: does this appear to big up KofC without imparting real information? Does it use KofC jargon and terms of art Does it include things like mission statements, which are pure PR? Are the sources clearly intellectually independent of the KofC, and not press releases or articles written by members in other publications? Guy (help!) 11:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I chose to edit on a variety of topics to which I have connections of varying degrees. In all cases, I do my best to edit without bias. It's inappropriate to ask another editor to reveal personal information about themselves. To your main point, you are right that, usually, sources should be reliable, independent, and secondary. However, you seem to be ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE and at this point it seems to be deliberately so. This article has been stable for a long time. It's even a Good Article. I've asked you not to delete big chunks of text in single edits.

You were bold and made a bunch of edits. That's great. You were reverted. Per WP:BRD, it is now time to discuss them. If you have any changes you would like to make, please bring them to talk and we can discuss them individually on the merits. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, it is time to be blunt. I have more than five times the number of Wikipedia edits that you do, and your top four articles are all associated with the subject of this article. Much of my admin activity hinges around source quality (check my user page).

It is time to remove the self-sourcing. If you continue to prevent that, I think you will find yourself topic banned. It is not acceptable to edit war in order to retain content identified by other editors as promotional. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Guy (help!) 18:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit numbers are impressive (more so than your admin status), but that doesn't mean you can come in and throw them around as if they automatically make you more qualified, or right-er, or smarter than anyone with fewer edits. It's not as if I am a newbie. I agree that it is not acceptable to edit war to include promotional content. Neither is it appropriate to edit war to remove content with which you disagree against consensus. Additionally, as an administrator, you should know better than to WP:THREATEN me. Especially when you take these three things together, it does not make for a collaborative editing environment. You may have noticed that I started to find additional sources to try and address some of your concerns as a gesture of good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, you missed the point. You edit narrowly, I edit widely. You focus on this topic, boosting the KofC. I focus on sourcing. You're disputing my statements on sourcing because they conflict with your desire to make KofC look good. That way lies a topic ban. Guy (help!) 13:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I edit on a wide variety of topics that interest me. I have made hundreds if not thousands of edits on other topics in other areas in the months since my last substantive contributions here. You do not know why I chose to edit here and would appreciate it if you would not ascribe motives. I think an apology would also be in order. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

1) Membership numbers (and financials) are marketing claims, because every organization likes to claim they have more "members/marchers/rally attendees/viewers/subscribers/etc" to show how popular/influential/powerful they are. WithOUT reliable, INDEPENDENT, and NEUTRAL sources to verify the accuracy of these claimed numbers, these are self-serving marketing. WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

2) Without an independent source to decide whether the membership number (and financials) is IMPORTANT enough to be includeded in a Wikipedia article, it should not be included: WP:IS Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia.

3) @Slugger O'Toole: The question by JzG about your potential tie to this article seems valid to me, have you honestly disclosed if you have a conflict of interest? WP:COI - I would like to credit Elizium23 for disclosing his CoI and not editing on this article.

4) It doesn't matter how longstandingly stable from consensus an article has been, that may merely be a function of what editors have bothered to look at it and how knowledgeable they were about wikipedia's policies. We follow policy, we don't keep poor content in articles because a previous group of editors agreed to include it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The #1 reason we would keep content in an article is "because a previous group of editors agreed to include it." That is the definition of WP:CONSENSUS and here on Wikipedia, Consensus is King. Consensus is Policy because Policy is Consensus. If a previous group of editors here at this article determined that, e.g. a quote of a membership number from kofc.org conforms to policy, then that is WP:CONSENSUS. Now here we have a few new editors coming in and saying that's contrary to policy. You're well within your rights to say that, but just because you say it doesn't make it so. Consensus makes policy. So if you manage to establish a new consensus that says we can't source things to kofc.org because the claims are "unduly self-serving" then we have made consensus anew with a new interpretation of policy. That doesn't mean the previous interpretation was wrong, it was not wrong because it was consensus! Perhaps it was too local to override or be noticed by Wikipedia's global consensus. It doesn't matter, because interested editors here had formed a consensus and followed policy to the best of their ability.

So, if you wanna argue against consensus and say it's against policy to do these things, go ahead, knock yourself out. You just can't claim that this article has always violated policy, because Policy is Consensus, and the content, up until this point, had overwhelming consensus, though quite contentious periods of discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, The main reason we keep content in an article like this is very often that a handful of editors deeply vested in the subject have worn out everyone else, or formed a "local consensus" to include a lot of material that should not be there.

This is Wikipedia, the rules are simple: all content must be stated from the neutral point of view and must be verifiable from independent reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override the huge and long-lasting support represented by these high level policies.

It does not matter how many fans of a subject agree that self-sourced marketing claims can be included, Wikipedia policy says otherwise.

There is a qualified exception to the secondary source rule for uncontroversial minor facts (e.g. if a website has its founding date and two other sources disagree on it or none of them mention the day of the month but all agree it was in March 1848 or something). It's a qualified exception, not a license to pack an article with PR.

I hope this clarifies your understanding. Guy (help!) 22:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What we have here is not a local consensus that is overriding a global policy. What we have is differing interpretations of policy. There are those of us who believe that the material is valid per SELFSOURCE. There are those who believe it is not. There has also been a longstanding consensus that it is appropriate. I believe that those who wish to make the change need to change the consensus before they make the change. WP:BRD is a best practice here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, nope. Self-sourcing is a limited exception for minor uncontroversial facts, not for entire articles. Guy (help!) 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Slugger, but this is simply wrong -- a misunderstanding of policy by those who insert trivia sourced to closely affiliated authors and publishers. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. In fact, I've been to the KofC's headquarters and their extraordinary museum there, and they do a great job of telling their proud history to visitors physically and on their website. Wikipedia is not going to mirror that content here. We provide the link to KofC at the bottom of the page. The article itself is currently a multiple of its eventual length once all the chaff is sorted out. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Now Avatar317 (talk · contribs) is removing WP:IS such as the National Catholic Register because "they're repeating press releases" and "didn't seem to fact-check this". Is it your own WP:OR that the NCR isn't fact-checking? Because they do indeed have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, and they are independent of the topic. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, I see that you've just added reference citations to press releases from Catholic News Agency here. These are among the kinds of citations that are not independent RS references. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: CNA is owned by EWTN, which is not related to the KofC. Why do you think that that news article is a press release? Cheers, gnu57 15:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Genericusername57, A Catholic group issues a press release, a Catholic paper publishes it as "news". That's how it works. It happens even in ordinary journalism where the publisher doesn't have a vested interest in common. Guy (help!) 16:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: The particular article SPECIFICO linked is covering public comments made by the U.S. senator Ben Sasse and the judicial nominee Peter J. Phipps during a Senate confirmation hearing video clip. Sasse's comments were also covered by the National Review[1], Bloomberg Law[2], and ALM's New Jersey Law Journal[3], as well as the Daily Signal[4], the Washington Times[5], and the Free Beacon[6]. It doesn't appear to me that the CNA news coverage of the senate hearing is intellectually dependent on the KofC press release about the hearing. Cheers, gnu57 17:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to link this diff: [7] so you have two UNDUE support via an additional ref there as well. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a little confused, SPECIFICO. The relevant paragraph from that source says "Sasse noted that the Knights of Columbus is the largest Catholic fraternal service organization in the world, with more than $185 million dollars and 75,600,000 hours contributed to charities in the United States in the year 2017." Could you please show me the Knights-issued press release upon which you think this news article was based? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This one, I'd imagine: http://www.kofc.org/en/news/media/185.7-million-donated-to-charity-in-2018.html. At least it merits qualification that the numbers are self-reported by the organisation, since having a press release quoted by a Senator doesn't exactly scream independent sourcing :) Basie (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, Basie, but in your comment you are assuming that 1) the senator got his information from a press release, 2) the senator didn't fact check the Knights' numbers, 3) the publisher didn't fact check the senator's information, and 4) the publisher didn't fact check the Knight's information. Unless we are saying that publisher is not a RS, I don't think we can make all those leaps. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Charitable giving

I am not going to get into an edit war. I came here to help since I saw this article was about to get overrun by ownership and coi issues.

Now I suggest rereading the sources and see that Garcia used Catholic News. Then read the Star Tribune and see that the comment about the donations and volunteer hours is attributed to Carl Anderson speaking.

From Article:

   The organization’s challenges, and opportunities, were evident during the gathering, starting with Anderson’s annual report to membership.

  There are nearly 2 million Knights of Columbus globally, making it the largest fraternal group in the world, Anderson told a packed conference hall. The United States, Canada and the Philippines have the largest numbers. The group donated $185 million and 76 million volunteer hours last year for projects ranging from disaster relief to Special Olympics to food packages.

It is not independent research by either writer, and neither the writers nor anyone else can verify a statement that includes a 176 million volunteer hours. Slywriter (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Slywriter. Your efforts here are appreciated. Take a look at the Klemond source. She says "Last year, the Knights gave $185 million in charitable donations and dedicated 76 million volunteer hours." Knestout said: "The Knights of Columbus contributed more than $185 million to charity in 2018." Neither is attributing the figure to Anderson's speech. As I said in an edit summary, there are multiple RS reporting this figure. I'm not sure why it is so controversial. While on the topic, the first principal of the Knights is charity. This section has been cut down pretty significantly. It should be expanded to be a WP:SUMMARY of the main article.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, despite being on RS sites, they are all sourced from Catholic News Services and all refer to the same comments given at the Conference.

I don't think Mr. Anderson is lying but no one attributes the statement to anything other than the KofC own Press Release, which is found here:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/knights-of-columbus-announce-185-7-million-donated-to-charity-in-2018--300895133.html

Slywriter (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Knestout doesn't attribute it to the CNS, but does speak about the convention. I have found yet another source that doesn't mention either the convention or Anderson's speech to remove any shadow of a doubt. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq-phillydeals/catholic-sex-abuse-knights-of-columbus-josh-shapiro-carl-a-anderson-20180824.html

Appears to be same article or at least similar that I am able to review the sourcing and yes, you seem to have found a source that is willing to own the statement as far as money goes. Still 99.9% certain, he is just regurgitating their press release.

The volunteer hours line should still be removed. It's is fundamentally unverifiable.

And yes, the section should be redone to capture information in the charity article. Though a review of that article shows it to have been created and solely edited by you and relies heavily on materials directly from the Knights for current events.

Slywriter (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that's the same source. Would you like to work together to improve the charitable giving section? We can either work on it in the main article or on here on talk first if you prefer? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're advocating UNDUE detail. Further, you've reinserted undue detail I trimmed from the article recently. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The first principle and primary objective of the organization is charity. It seems to me that there should be more than just a line about their charitable activities. In addition, about a year ago a new article was spun off. Per WP:SS, we should be including enough detail here to adequately summarize that article. Right now all we have is a description of what was done in the last year or two. That isn’t adequate and more can be added with getting into UNDUE territory. Would you be willing to help craft a new section with Slywriter and myself? —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

KofC has a rich history and the one line which is current events doesn't do it justice. This article needed its fluff cut out and it's well on its way.

The charity article needs some trimming but not nearly to the extent this article did.

With all that said, the charity section here certainly needs more detail and should focus on the reliably sourced history of charity that has been placed in the other article.

Where I see UNDUE coming into play is the focus on current events. They tend to sound like advertisement, mostly because they are coming directly from KofC and not from published research or independent articles.

 Slywriter (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Touting Dollar totals tells us nothing about the charity program. I actually added a little about where the money goes, but it was removed. You need to find mainstream unaffiliated sources to guide you as to due weight and significance. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I went back through the edit history and can't find where you added content. Can you provide the dif, or better yet just reinsert the content? We can improve the section together. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion at ANI

FYI editors, there is a discussion related to this article at ANI SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

4th Degree

While possibly notable, few issues I see:

• Too much 'exemplification' and 'Patriot.'

• Uniform Description - Questionable notability, far too detailed and many of the secondary sources are intimately linked with the Catholic Church.

• Still reads as promotional not educational.

• A single paragraph can likely summarize the degree. Slywriter (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The entire "organization" section, which the 4th degree falls under feels more like- "A guide to Knights of Columbus" as opposed to an encyclopedia entry on it. I would love to see the whole section trimmed down significantly. Support the above change and been reflecting on what else can go. Sethie (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sethie, agreed. And every time any promotional text is removed, Slugger O'Toole adds it back in, swapping affiliated sources with something slightly less obviously primary if he can find it. It's quite wearing. Slywriter makes some solid edits, then Slugger makes a dozen edits in quick succession basically adding the crap back in. Guy (help!) 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, have a feeling I have signed myself up for a long tour here.

Slugger O'Toole should start paying attention to the overall conversation here and that the concern is that not all facts are noteworthy.

Sources are not the sole justification for adding material. The KofC does just fine promoting themselves and doesn't need Wikipedia to justify their existence.

Continued tendentious editing is going to result in those involved seeking more formal processes to get this article under control. Slugger O'Toole has dedication and ability that I don't want to see chased out of here if more rule minded editors get involved that make JzG look like a rebel. Slywriter (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There are times you remove content by calling it "promotional" that absolutely leaves me scratching my head. I find it descriptive and encyclopedic, not overtly or overly promotional. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you could work on the language instead of just deleting huge chunks of text. I think I have shown an effort to meet you half way by finding additional sources even when I don't think any are necessary. It would be nice if you would work with me to improve the prose instead of just deleting things you don't like. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand and I have been avoiding reverts, preferring to put comments here so that you have an opportunity to clean up the text. I respect your passion and dedication to the issue which has lead to better sources being found and rewrites that are less likely to be challenged. Being BOLD is part of wikipedia, sadly so are reverts and mundane policy discussions. Slywriter (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Slywriter. I appreciate that. You'll notice that I took your comments into consideration and edited the article accordingly. To be honest, the multiple mentions of exemplification and patriotic was just bad writing on my part. I was glad you pointed it out. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The excuses for removal are beginning to look more tendentious to me. "Questionable notability"? Notability as a concept determines our inclusion criteria for articles, not for facts. "Secondary sources intimately linked with the Catholic Church"? What did you expect them to be, Presbyterian? I am not sure that I like this line of reasoning that can disqualify reliable secondary sources because they're... too reliable. Elizium23 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources mirror Press Releases and Promotional materials of the Knights and in this particular case we are talking about a detailed description of the uniform. Along with other insider baseball discussions of the Knights that are all sourced to similar media. Historical data, genuine informational details sourced from the same places has not been challenged. You may not like my wording and I'm sure the Jesuit teachers I've had want to smack me for questioning their newspaper as a reliable source but the challenge isn't their honesty, it's that they are merely reprinting press releases.

Slywriter (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Slywriter, exactly. Newspapers cover parades and the like, if they have not considered some specific uniform trivium to be worth writing about then neither do we. Guy (help!) 16:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, of course, but we've already established that you're not neutral. It's really very simple. A significant fact is one that is covered in reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. not KofC press releases, their website, Catholic sources republishing press releases, books commissioned by KofC and the like). You might think a fact is significant, but if literally nobody outside KofC gives enough of a damn to write about it, it's not significant. Guy (help!) 16:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

We have established no such thing. You suspect I am not, but that's not the same. Also, WP:N describes "how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article..." Additionally, WP:BIASEDSOURCES are "sometimes... are the best possible sources." Finally, I find your tone and editing style to be hostile. Though I disagree with you, I am attempting to AGF and work with you. I wish you would do the same. I suspect our interactions, and this article, would be the better for it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, yeah, we have. Every single independent commentator has said that the article, for which you are the main author, is bloated out with promotional material and weasel words. Your failure to understand this is a major ongoing problem here.

We include material covered in reliable independent secondary sources. Not everything a notable group does, is itself notable. We include material only if its significance is demonstrated by its inclusion in sources provably independent from the subject. You are conflating notability and significance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and trivia can be left to their own website. Guy (help!) 18:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I agree the article needs work. Never denied it. That is a different issue than whether or not anyone has a COI, though. Instead of arguing here, do you think you could edit some of the language you find problematic, rather than deleting it? Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when content is UNDUE, POV, or poorly sourced, it simply needs to be removed. It sounds as if you do not understand the fundamental criticism of the current article text. WP is not here to mirror the organization's own accounts of its history and traditions and achievements. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Sometimes. And sometimes it can be edited to retain the information in a more encyclopedic tone. That's what I am trying to do here. Are you willing to help? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: You seem to be repeatedly either failing to comprehend or INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the repeated comments by other editors to point out this principle: WP:IS "Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Avatar317, I'm not ignoring that. I've said elsewhere, multiple times, that although I agree with the longstanding consensus that the sources used in this article were OK for the statements they backed up, I have been finding new sources for them as a gesture of good faith. I'm asking others to help move the ball forward and do the same. Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, you've repeatedly responded to criticism with appeals for "help" in what editors have told you is a fundamentally incorrect approach. I hope that does not suggest that editors who decline your request -- and instead try to observe policies and guidelines -- are refusing to collaborate. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger, your continual re-adding of deleted content with new "sources" is NOT a gesture of good faith, it is your attempt to own the article and prevent anyone else from removing anything from the article that you think belongs in it.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Avatar317, If content is removed because someone objects to it being sourced to a primary source, I don't see the problem with reinserting the material with secondary sources. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No source cures undue play-by-play and adoring narratives. That's not encyclopedic. It may work OK for a history like Kaufman's but not for Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Department of Insurance source

I tried to add a source from the Conn. Department of Insurance, but was reverted by JzG who claimed it was a primary source and thus unacceptable. I believe he is mistaken.

First of all, a WP:PRIMARY source is one that is "written by people who are directly involved." In this case, the report was written by the Examiner in Charge of the Department, a government agency, not anyone from the Knights. He examined the books and records of the Order (the actual primary sources) and offered an independent assessment of the insurance operation. As a WP:SECONDARY source, it offers the "author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." It makes analytic, evaluative, interpretive, and synthetic claims based on the independent thoughts of someone who not only has nothing to gain by promoting the Knights, but in fact is paid to discover things that are wrong with them.

Additionally, the types of content I was using this source to support were nothing extraordinary. For example, I used it to support the date of incorporation of the Order, and historical data about when various types of insurance were sold. Nothing there seems particularly promotional or undue. For context, see the sub-sub section in MetLife's article that is just a timeline of various similar events or the history of New York Life that outlines when various products began and stopped being sold.

There should be no problem with non-promotional information backed by secondary sources being included. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

In this context it is plainly WP:PRIMARY, in the sense that it presents facts and figures with no analysis or interpretation. You seem to be confusing WP:PRIMARY with WP:INDEPENDENT; what I think we need for this article are more independent sources discussing things in depth, and fewer bits of random trivia cited to sources like these. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. If you read the "scope of examination" section of the document, you will see that "a comprehensive review was made of the financial analysis files and documents," that they "conduct[ed] an evaluation," that "the evaluation was conducted on a full scope, comprehensive basis," that they "evaluate[d] the financial condition and identif[ied] prospective risks," that they assessed the risks used by management, ect. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That isn't the sort of "interpretation and analysis" that WP:SECONDARY sources are relied on for; from our perspective, they simply state a list of random facts and figures. What we need is a source that indicates what these numbers mean in context and analyzes what they say about the subject, so we can evaluate where and how to cover them, and in what depth. EDIT: I've opened an WP:RSN discussion here, since I think that this is obvious enough that we can settle it quickly there. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Insurance fraud allegations

Arising out of a contract dispute in which the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages, there were further allegations of fraudulent representations in connection with KofC's insurance business. See [8]. This is fairly recent, and I do not know how widely it has been covered in the mainstream press. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on Kauffman.

While Kauffman's Faith and Fraternalism: The History of the Knights of Columbus, 1882–1982 is an excellent source (especially compared to the primary sources that plague the article), we're still relying far too much on it per WP:DUE - entire sections cite it and no other secondary source. It's also fairly dated (from nearly 40 years ago, with many social changes in the intervening years specifically touching on aspects it's used to cite here.) We need to find more recent sources and to balance our coverage between them. (And Kauffman himself, who was the Catholic Daughters of the Americas Professor of Church History at the Catholic University of America, can't reasonably be considered an entirely unbiased source; that level of minor, indirect bias wouldn't be a huge deal if we were just citing him in a balanced factor, but it's a problem when huge swaths of the article are cited to him and nothing else.) I'm certainly not suggesting we need to go through and aggressively remove it the way we need to with the primary sources, but we do need to find other such secondary sources and start shifting the balance to cover them as well. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'm not familiar with another source that examines the topic to the degree that Kauffman does, though. Could you suggest something? --Slugger O'Toole (talk)

The point is that if only a single source covers it in that level of detail, then that level is WP:UNDUE for encyclopedia text. Interested parties can just read Kaufman's book. Your understanding this backwards. Summarizing a single source is not what we do. Since nobody has a second source, the text needs to be removed. In its entirety. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Roughly 30% of the unique citations are to Kauffman. However, many if not most of them are backed up with at least one other source. For example, in the very first section, there are 20 citations with 12 of them going to Kauffman. However, in only three instances does Kauffman stand alone. Nine of the statements backed up with a Kauffman citation have a second source. I bet a similar analysis of the rest of the article will show a similar pattern. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

PS - I can only find a single section that is only attributed to Kauffman. It had additional sources until SPECIFICO removed them earlier today. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of it is UNDUE and should be removed. SPECIFICO talk©

I have tried to find additional sources. In particular, I went searched academic journals and found two more sources. You then reverted it, calling it undue. I'm not sure what you are looking for here. You say there is an overrliance on Kauffman. You complain that some of the sources are too closely related. Then when I find independent sources, you delete them. It's a no-win situation here. What exactly will satisfy you? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, especially since the book was actually commissioned by the KofC. I'd also note that the "Maryland State Council", publisher of the two cited books by Bauernschub, is, in full, Maryland State Council, Knights of Columbus. The Egan source is incorrectly identified: the actual publisher is - and I know you'll be shocked - Knights of Columbus, New Haven, Connecticut. The other Kaufmann book was also produced on behalf of the Knights.

What of the source Educational work of the knights of Columbus, by Mark J. Sweaney of Washington Board of Education? "It is our purpose, therefore, in the following report, briefly to present the outstanding features of the development of our educational program, together with certain facts and figures that will indicate its scope and purpose and the extent of the undertaking." So not a report by the board byut a report too the board by Mark J. Sweaney, Director of the Knights of Columbus Educational Activities.

So we have the usual problem: vast swathes of the article drawn from books that are not intellectually independent of the subject. But in fact I am by now wondering if we can even assume good faith here? This wilful misrepresentation of clearly affiliated sources as independent is really not acceptable. Slugger O'Tool is clearly experienced and must know better than to misrepresent sources in this way. Guy (help!) 16:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As has been established already, I have a looser definition of what is acceptable for primary sources than other editors. For example, look at the single sentence the two Bauernschub sources (admittedly both primary sources) supports: "In 1919, Mount St. Mary's College and Seminary Council 1965 became the first council attached to a college and seminary, at what is now Mount St. Mary's University." That sentence does not strike me as unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, the issue here is that they are affiliated. You seem to struggle with the whole notion of independence. Guy (help!) 17:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, that claim and citation has been in the article since February 4, 2007 and was not added by me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, but you keep reusing it to cite more and more cruft. Guy (help!) 17:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please provide the dif for that? To the best of my memory, I have never used the Bauernschub source. I certainly haven't used it recently. I haven't cited Sweaney or Eagan recently either. As to Kauffman, there are fewer citations to him today than there were a month ago. If the percentage is going up, that is because the denominator is shrinking. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, the problem is this: you want to include a whole lot of text that everyone else thinks is promotional trivia. You're looking for sources that support the content you want to add. What you should be doing is looking for sources that are clearly independent of KofC - no press releases, no articles in catholic magazines written by members and so on - and then see what can be written from the sources. Guy (help!) 18:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, But as pointed out, I didn't add all of it. I also have not restored much of what has been cut. Before this recent flurry of activity, the article was 131,294 bytes long. Today it is 112,311 bytes, a 15% reduction. I don't think it is fair to say I am opposing all deletions. That said, if I think something is relevant, I am working to find sources for it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Tag Bombing

JzG WP:TAGBOMBed this article a couple days ago and, despite suggestions that he do so from both other editors and the maintenance templates themselves, has not started a discussion here. I am creating discussions here so that we may resolve them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

JzG has added tags for relying too much on references to primary sources, containing excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources, and relying excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject. He also deleted a good deal of content that he felt was inadequately sourced. I have found independent RS for all of the information and reinserted it. If there are other objections to other content, please list them here and we can deal with them. If not, we can remove the tags. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, correct, it has too many references to primary and affiliated sources. See above. Guy (help!) 11:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you please identify the statements you find problematic and we can attempt to find additional sources for them? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, perfect example of WP:IDHT. Take out ALL statements sourced to KofC and associates, or obviously based on KofC press releases. All of it. Including the tables of dollar amounts and so on. Guy (help!) 13:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a wise course of action. First of all, many statements are attributed to both a KofC source and an independent source. Are you really suggesting that they should be removed simply because one of the citations goes to kofc.org? Secondly, the following illustrative passage is sourced to a Knights publication: "In the United States, Panama, and the Philippines, baldrics are red, white, and blue. Red and white baldrics are used in Canada and Poland; red, white, and green in Mexico; and blue and white in Guatemala." I think that is useful information to include, but I doubt those details can be found in a non-Knights source. Do you really think it should be removed? The table of dollar amounts is a fair example. I will work on that. It would be nice if you did as well, unless you are more interested in placing a badge of shame upon the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Of course you don't. But people who are long-term Wikipedians and experienced in our sourcing policies, and have no significant editing entanglement with the subject, do. In fact it's not only wise, it's mandated by policy. Guy (help!) 15:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have been editing for over 10 years with a registered account and longer without one. I think that would qualify for most as a long-term Wikipedian. However, since I obviously am not as well versed as you are in the sourcing policy, could you please cite for me where it says content must be deleted if, among multiple citations, one is primary? Or where it says a self source is inappropriate for the color of baldrics? I can't seem to find anything. Thank you.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Of the 162 current sources, two of them point back to the Knights. I would imagine this is enough to remove this tag now. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the current content is still WP:UNDUE and written in an insider's adoring tone and narrative. It's too bad, because this is indisputably a notable organization with an important historical role, and its story is really not being told here at all. In fact in my opinion the current article trivializes this organization by making it look like a self-promoting fraternity. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, That may or may not be true, but that is not the question I asked. Do you think the article still warrants the Primary Sources tag? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Advertisement

JzG has also tags saying this article contains content that is written like an advertisement and that it promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. As explained above, all of the content he considered to be promotional now has additional sources. Again, if there are other objections to other content, please list them here and we can deal with them. If not, we can remove the tags. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Correct, the article reads like an advertisement. This is largely a result of the above. The article is full of self-sourced numbers, peacock terms, value judgments and other indicia of promotion. Guy (help!) 11:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, it would be helpful if you could identify the text which is making you uncomfortable. It's difficult to fix when you are so vague. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, The entire tone of the article is promotional. Guy (help!) 13:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is more than 6,500 words long. Could you perhaps provide a few examples of text that you feel is promotional with examples of how it could be better phrased? I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, No. The tone is a holistic thing. The use of weasel words and bloated promotional statements is called out on the RSN discussion so you're in a minority in not understanding the issue. Guy (help!) 15:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for being so dense. Please help me understand. Can you not provide a few examples of weasel words or bloated promotional statements? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

COI

JzG has added a tag saying a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Both JzG and Avatar317 have asked me if I have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. I have read the policy, and do not believe that I do. There have been a handful of occasions when I have had a conflict of interest when editing articles in the past and disclosed it each and every time, in accordance with the policy. Unless JzG believes another major editor has a conflict, we should be able to remove this tag. This is also a good time to remind people that when "investigating COI editing," the policy prohibits "reveal[ing] the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Nobody needs your name, we do need to know if you, like Avatar317, have a connection to the article. Your edits strongly suggest you do. Declaring this is not optional. Guy (help!) 11:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have already answered this question. Is there someone else you are worried about? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I do not see an unambiguous answer to: do you have a personal connection to the subject of this article (e.g. are you a member). It's a yes/no. Feel free to point me to the answer if it's given but I don't see it re-reading this talk page. Guy (help!) 13:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. In this thread I said that "Both JzG and Avatar317 have asked me if I have a conflict of interest with regards to this article. I have read the policy, and do not believe that I do." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, but you have not answered the yes/no question: are you a member of KofC or an affiliate. Guy (help!) 15:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have explained above, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, I chose not to reveal any personal information about myself. If I was to declare myself to be a Knight of Columbus that would tell you 1) my gender 2) my religion and 3) my approximate age. I could be a Knight, a non-member Catholic man, or even the Supreme Knight. I could also be a 16 year old Muslim girl. It's none of your business. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, OK, so we'll take that as a "yes" then. There is literally no reason for you to refuse to answer a simple yes/no question on the objective question of whether you are a member or affiliate, unless the answer is yes. You say you ave no COI, but your editing reeks of it and you refuse to affirm or deny a direct connection. At that point we are permitted to draw our own conclusions, and yes, that is absolutely consistent with WMF terms of use and Wikipedia policy. Guy (help!) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason not to say yes or no, and I have explained it to you. Several times. I am sorry you don't like my answer, but you should not read more into it than what I wrote. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, there is in fact no reason. The question is simple: per Wikipedia policy, being a member or affiliate of this organisation raises a COI. You refuse to answer whether you have such a COI, and will only answer based on your own decision that being a member is not a COI, which is incorrect. Guy (help!) 21:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken on both counts. Simply being a member does not necessarily indicate that there is a COI per WP:EXTERNALREL. I also never said "that being a member is not a COI." I simply said that based on my situation, and my understanding of the policy, I don't have one. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

My reading of COI in this situation is that being a member of KoC MAY create a COI.

However, being in a leadership or missionary role in the organization would ABSOLUTELY constitute a COI.

So Slugger,Are you in a leadership position, do you do missionary work or promotional work for KoC?

If you are unwilling to give a clear and direct answer to THAT question, you need to step away from this article and all related articles. Sethie (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

JZG- I have read over the above dialogue a few times... and I have to say I am pretty disturbed by the overall tone you took- telling this person they HAVE to disclose whether they are a member of KoC? Granted it is a bit odd for someone not to answer the question- but it seems even more odd for you to DEMAND an answer! Does say a Quaker have to disclose that they are a Quaker if they are working on a Quaker related article? Does that constitute a definite COI? Not just by being a member... not by my reading of it. Sethie (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• According to the archives of this talk page, this issue (COI) has previously been raised and addressed by TonyBallioni here, in January 2018. And a look back further in the archives of this talk page show that Slugger has previously said (many years ago) he is a member of KofC (GK), of course his status as a member may have changed now. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  Isaidnoway, thank you. That almost certainly explains the appearance of motivated reasoning in his interpretation of sourcing policy. Guy (help!) 18:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's self-declaration of a COI may not be as ideal as I'd like. In the field of law it has been said many times, by multiple supreme court justices, that not only is it important to avoid COI's, but it is EQUALLY important to avoid the APPEARANCE of a COI, because that would undermine the public's confidence in the courts.

If all editors had to edit publicly, (anonymous editing not allowed) how much credibility would an article or the whole Wikipedia project lose if the public could see that ~60% of all edits, and ~75% of all text additions to THIS article were done by someone who is a member of KofC, potentially a publicist/promotional officer?

My opinion, based on seeing Slugger's edits (he cares most about keeping promotional content and whitewashing the article -see this edit [[9]] ) and tone of responses on the talk page, and his behavior as if he owns WP:OWN this article, is that he should not be editing this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Compensation of officials

I know there's been some controversy and mainstream press coverage of the multi-million dollar compensation of the CEO and other compensation matters relating to KofC. This would be an area that could be improved with mainstream RS references. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree but, as I pointed out elsewhere, JzG removed the content that discussed it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, With all of the discussion on this page about primary sources, I am a bit perplexed by your addition of this source. Do you believe it to be secondary? There are plenty of other sources, including some alrady used, that talk about what the supreme officers are paid. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As you really should be aware, with your prolific editing history, there is no problem adding a primary document in support of a statement made by a secondary source, the cited "finance" source you have used many times. Further, the primary IRS document is itself referenced in the secondary source. So I'm afraid your questions make no sense. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I happen to agree with you. As has well been established, I am OK with using primary sources for straightforward statements like this, particularly when there is a secondary source backing it up. Others disagree. I wonder what @JzG: thinks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That directly contradicts what you said a half hour previously, above. It really looks like you're just throwing up nonsense and ignoring policy to "see what sticks", so I've posted to WP:NPOVN for more participation here. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Recommended cleanup

Temperature seems to have risen a bit too much on this article with a lot of well meaning folks starting to adopt a battleground mentality.

So, don't shoot the messenger but looking at the sources and what an article on Wikipedia should provide to readers, here is an objective review of the sections and sources:

4th degree section should be removed. It's not relevant to a reader and lacks Reliable Sources.

Charitable giving should at a minimum have 2017 and 2016 deleted. The data can not be verified through secondary sources (mostly because the Primary documents, IRS filings, are not available for a secondary source to develop).

Volunteer hours should also be removed as it's impossible to verify.

Paragraph immediately after the chart also seems to be self promotion and adds little to an objective understanding of the organization.

Insurance

"Over $286 million in death benefits were paid in 2012 and $1.7 billion were paid between 2000 and 2010."

While likely accurate, it's Primary Sourced which is not Wikipedia. Really only the AM Best line can survive as the rest of the paragraph is primary sourced.

"The order's insurance program is the most highly rated program in North America" should be deleted as promotional and again Primary Sourced.

Organization

Lead Paragraph All Primary Sourced, albeit uncontroversial.

Supreme Council All Primary Sourced, albeit uncontroversial.

Board and Officers All Primary Sourced, albeit uncontroversial. Exception information that came from Kaufman

Assemblies and College Council's All Primary Sourced

Awards "The award "recognizes individuals for their exemplary contributions to the realization of the message of faith and service in the spirit of Christ as articulated in the document for which it is named" is informative but Primary Sourced.

2nd Paragraph is also Primary Sourced.

Political Activity Anything not from Kauffman current events is Primary Sourced

( Primary Article on Political Activites, while having some issues, has plenty of secondary sources to build out this section)

Auxiliary All Primary Sources except a few lines attributed to Kaufman

Similar Organizations All Primary Sources except the Protestant Reference

So there you have it, a layout of the issues with this article. Slywriter (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Slywriter, I am happy with this, feel free to make it so. Guy (help!) 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully didn't break anything as mobile was not very cooperative but I have been BOLD and done the above cleanup. Not everything attributed to the KoC was removed, leave further edits and improvements to those who follow. Slywriter (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Slywriter:. The formatting of your comments is less than ideal (perhaps you could go back and fix it on a desktop), but I appreciate the effort. This was a very constructive comment and helps move the ball forward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, and what he's doing is what you reverted when I did it. Weird, that. Guy (help!) 16:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I asked for specific examples of things you found problematic so we could address them. You refused. Slywriter did so without being asked. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, because 90% of your "requests" read as sealioning. Guy (help!) 15:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-Removal of NPOV sourced content

In this diff, (two edits) NPOV content that reflects the statements in the cited source has again been removed, this time with the strange edit summary "per consensus on talk". I see no such consensus on talk, as others have noted. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussions where those consensuses were formed are linked above. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

Just wanted to say that overall the article looks.... LIKE AN ARTICLE. A lot less like a collection of too many facts and a more coherent written piece. Nice work all, glad to have been a part of it. Sethie (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert warring

Various editors have been trimming undue detail, trivia, and promotional content from the article recently. Editors should not reinstate such text without using the talk page to explain why they feel it is significant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Some editors have been deleting text that has long since gained consensus. If they are reverted, they should come to talk to explain why the text should go and gain a new consensus for it per WP:BRD. Those who are deleting huge chunks of text should also be careful not to produce cite or other formatting errors. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. e.g. you reinstated the bit that "charity is the first principle" and sourced to an old article about baseball. And then when one takes the time and effort, in good faith, to actually read the source, it does not verify the text you reinserted, but instead lists several key principles. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to read the source, but I think you must have missed this line: "His dedication to charity -- the first principle of the Knights of Columbus -- would go on to impact millions of lives, especially children." I very much disagree with the approach you are taking to the article. However, for the sake of getting along, I have gone along with most of your deletions. I have even thanked you for some of your edits when I think they are an improvement. However, it seems at times as if you have not found a fact that you don't think is undue. For example, I can't imagine why you think listing the key officers of the order is an undue detail. I'd like to work with you but believe you are taking it too far with some of your edits. Additionally, I have made an effort to go out and find new, independent, RS. You have deleted many of them. It makes it difficult to diversify the sources used in this article when you just come in and delete them. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a prime example of what I mean when I say I disagree with your approach. If you feel some of this content cant be placed in the text (even though other editors have removed similar details in the text recently), why didn't you? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's quite strange to see an opening statement that something is the "foremost principle" of an organisation sourced to a passing comment of "first principle" in an anonymous article about fantasy baseball explicitly provided to a favourable news agency by the organisation itself (as stated in the article), a lightweight piece in which the comment is indistinguishable from a promotional rhetorical flourish. Can this statement not be sourced to a third party making a considered comparison of the relative importance of the organisation's principles - that is, a reliable source for Wikipedia - and if it cannot, should it remain here stated in Wikipedia's voice? 80.41.131.175 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It easily can be. And was done. It just seemed such a silly thing to quibble over I didn't put a whole lot of effort into it and picked the first independent source that popped up. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It wasn't an independent source; it was an article provided by the Knights of Columbus itself. It is not a suitable source for this statement and yet you left it in place while adding another. I'll remove it. You describe it as one that "popped up", which would sometimes suggest that you composed the statement first and then sought evidence for it, but this section begins with LeRoux and Feeney's precise words, "Charity is the foremost principle of the Knights" including that choice of "foremost" as opposed to, for example, "first", which cannot even be called uncomfortably close paraphrasing. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. That sentence has been in the article since July 2006. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, since your edit of 03 June 2006 and unsourced until today. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It wasn't as if I just inserted the sentence today and then went back later to try to find a source for it, as you implied above. I also didn't copy directly from the source, as I wrote the sentence more than a decade before the book was published. In any case, it is cited now. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I've linked this at ANI. Slugger, why don't you quickly and easily find 2 or 3 fully independent, reliable source references that state Charity is the foremost principle of the KofC, such that WP could state it as fact? SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that it's already been done. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the current references. You have not provided sourcing remotely like what I requested above. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Let's start with the basics: per WP:NPOV, we don't include mission statements and other marketing slogans unless their significance is established by being the focus of substantial independent commentary (e.g. the Coke "It's The Real Thing" slogan). Because we're an encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 23:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you kindly explain to me how these sources are deficient? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Slugger O'Toole, if you [https://books.google.com/books?id=01uUCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 click on that link of yours}, and read the text, and then maintain that the book can be cited to make an objective, factual statement that we can stick in an article, you need to be just blocked for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

As a current Knight, I am very upset by the churn on this page. Hundreds of edits in two months is a failure of Wikipedia's editorial process. The mess has left the "Recent History" subsection with nothing more than an oblique criticism by Massimo Faggioli (who is not seen as even-handed in Church circles) and anodyne praise from JPII. There seems to be a reasonable skepticism, in Wikipedia, on the inclusion of "promotional content." What about the opposite? Should Wikipedia also restrict "adversarial content"? Or "adversarial editing" I'm not talking about reasonable criticism—I'm talking about oblique defamation like quoting Massimo Faggioli's "centers of power" remark from the partisan National Catholic Reporter, and the interjection of deceptive trivia like Carl Anderson's history with the Republican Party, and misleading interjections like "conservative" Catholic social teaching. It's hard to see user SPECIFICO as an even-handed editor ready to cover this topic in a disinterested fashion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schemaczar (talk • contribs)

References

Lede

Hi all,

I'm interested in cutting down the lede somewhat. I personally believe that ledes should be short and contain only a snapshot of information about the organization from a bird's eye view. For example, a brief description of what the Knights are, who runs it, what their mission is, and maybe some cursory statistics like membership, locations, etc. I propose removing overly specific details like opposition to the Affordable Care Act, which is in the lede even though it is not mentioned in the rest of the article, not mentioned in the content fork Political activity of the Knights of Columbus, and does not appear to be a major aspect of their notability. I don't have a problem with it being in the article, but as a random aside in the lede it seems out of place.

Of course, if you disagree with any revisions that I make please feel free to revert me and we can talk about it on the talk page here. Michepman (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you move a little slower. In particular, edit only one section at a time. This allows someone to revert the edits they dislike without reverting edits they like. I agree that information should not appear in the lead if it isn't covered in the body of the article. Of course, another way to fix that is to add it to the body of the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

OK will do> Michepman (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Did some trimming

I personally think it is notable that multiple US presidents attended this annual meeting... I don't find the dates, who invited them, or if they sent a written message as notable. Sethie (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to inclusion of facts in articles. Elizium23 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't think it belongs, take it out... the organization section feels bloated to me and was just trying to move things forwards..... Sethie (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am just saying that it is unhelpful to try to play "notable" / "not notable" on individual facts rather than a topic that would be given its own article. Nor is notability a personal belief. If you want to discuss scope and inclusion criteria, then good, we can begin at WP:DUE (although DUE is really for neutrally presenting multiple viewpoints). Perhaps you are looking for a non-jargon word as "noteworthy" or "interesting". Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok.... I mean I appreciate that wanting to be clear on words and how they relate to wikipedia policies... and I am more just going from my gut. This article reads not like an article- but like a pamphlet with LOTS of facts and I am trying to remedy that..... Sethie (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Another discussion about removing this section began a few days later at Talk:Knights of Columbus#BRD. Maybe no-one noticed this was about the same Supreme Convention section - I didn't, anyway. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

BRD

SPECIFICO removed content about the Supreme Conventions, calling it (what else?) undue detail. I disagreed, and restored it. In my edit summary, I said "I disagree. This is not undue detail. We can discuss on talk if you like." SPECIFICO did not come back to talk, but rather deleted it again without consensus. WP:BRD is a best practice in this area. I am going to restore it once again. If the consensus here on talk changes, and it is agreed that this is undue detail, I will abide by the consensus. However, I believe that three sentences about a half dozen US presidents is not undue detail. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is down to you to start any discussion once material has been reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That material has been in the article for years. There was a consensus to keep it. If he can change the consensus that's fine, but it is on him, not me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you added that section in 2006[10] but a search of the talk pages reveal no discussion and no consensus, then or since. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

That is called a WP:SILENT consensus. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Without any argument for retention beyond "been there a long time" from Slugger O'Toole in the three days before they were topic-banned or from anyone else, but with a detailed argument below following Specifico's removal (reverted by Slugger O'Toole), it would seem we have a new consensus that the material may be removed as undue, promotional and lacking sufficient encyclopedic interest. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

So why is this Undue, we are supposed to be having a discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be undue even in an article about, say, a cathedral or mosque to list its famous visitors as if the place was lifted by their reflected glory, and if every article about every place ever visited by a president or monarch had that visit painstakingly recorded in Wikipedia, the entire encyclopedia would be bloated and indigestible. This is even more true of an article about a large organisation like the KoC, and while the KoC might be promoted by such material, it is not useful to the reader. 80.41.131.175 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 80.41.131.175 's reasons for removal. Additionally, this is not sourced by any independent sources. The majority are some Catholic news agency or other, and the other "sources" (WashingtonPost and UCSB Reagan statemtment) are passing comments in articles whose subject is devoted to something else. To me this is another case of "Slugger thought it important enough to include" and therefore found "sources" for it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It does read a bit like puffery. Its a bit like some security guards inviting Pope and Harold Pinter every year to their works christams party.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, SPECIFICO made changes to the lede of this article. Many were an improvement. I thank him for it. However, I thought the language could use some tweaks and made a series of edits adjusting it. I explained my edits along the way. SPECIFICO then came in and unilaterally undid all my edits, telling me to "Use talk if you feel you omission of detail and context can be justified." I believe he has it backwards. He was BOLD. Great. Good for him. He was then REVERTED. The next step is to DISCUSS them on talk, not simply to edit war his preferred text back into the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede section

Some of the edits SPECIFICO has attempted to make to the lede have already been the topic of discussion on this page before. First, it was agreed not to discuss the other elements of Anderson's CV in the lede. We agreed upon "The current Supreme Knight is Carl A. Anderson." I have no problem saying "It is currently led by Carl A. Anderson" but prefer "It is currently led by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson." The second I can think of off the top of my head was whether to discuss specific policy initiatives in the lede. The closing admin said "consensus is pretty clear that no, Proposition 8 should not be mentioned in the lede." I would suggest that Prop 8 and the ACA are pretty analogous. Specific legislation shouldn't be in the lede. I would be glad to discuss other proposed changes as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Though I believe the onus is on SPECIFICO, as a gesture of good faith I am going to more fully elaborate on my edits.

1) I am changing "a global Catholic fraternal service organization," to "the world's largest." It is true it is global, but that doesn't tell the entire story.

2) I am adding "and global Catholic causes" to the end of the litany of causes the Order supports. Many of the big dollar donations go to support the Church around the world. Likewise, I am adding a mention of support going to local parishes. Much of the charitable effort at the local level is given at the local level.

3) I am changing "a conservative Catholic view on public policy issues" to simply "a Catholic view on public policy issues." As the article makes clear, while the current leadership of the Order is conservative, it has not always been so. The purpose of the lede is to give a broad overview of the article.

4) I am changing "invests in accordance with its conservative interpretation of Catholic social teachings" to simply "invests in accordance with Catholic social teachings." I can't find anything in the sources that talks about a conservative interpretation. Adding a qualifier is OR and POV.

I wish SPECIFICO had come to talk but, seeing as he has made additional efforts since my comment above, I don't believe he intends to. I also question whether it is appropriate to mention Anderson's compensation in the lede, but will leave that up for greater discussion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, the edits by SPECIFICO appear policy compliant in a way that your proposals are not. Guy (help!) 20:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

1)Is it the worlds largst RS for the claim please?

2)Again we need an RS to say "global Catholic causes"

3)We would give its current status, and them maybe go into how it was not always the case. 4)Seems valid, if the source does not say it neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)