Talk:Knights of Columbus

If you are a member of the Knights of Columbus, do you have a COI with respect to editing this article?

November 2020: Several times over the years, detailed conversations have occurred on this talk page about whether an editor has a WP:COI with respect to editing this page if the editor is a member of the Knights. This is a summary of the points made. This section was developed in order to avoid a certain Groundhog Day-ish aura surrounding the question of whether a Knight has a COI. The (always defeasible) consensus as of November 2020 is that being a member of the Knights is not a COI for editing this page. Here are the three main points. Policy about when a WP:COI exists is a well-understood and long-standing policy. It is set by those who work on it at WP:COI who have considered it over the years in many different situations. The best thing to do if you disagree with how it is being interpreted in the specific situation of a Knight is to take it up over there, which you would do on WP:COIN. (Here is an example of how to do that, as well as a detailed discussion on this very point.) Editors who say that members of the Knights do have a WP:COI largely base this on three different ideas: The second sentence of WP:COI says "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." Since "being a member" of an organization is an external relationship, they think that being a Knight should be considered as the type of external relationship that does trigger a COI. In response to those who say that being a member of a large organization should not be considered as having the type of relationship that constitutes a COI, the argument has been made that while this might be true for many large membership organizations, there is a unique factor when it comes to the Knights, which is that it has certain values or principles and/or a history about what the point of the organization is that should be interpreted to mean that being a member of the Knights means that the individual has signed onto those values/history and therefore has a COI. One editor who is a member of the Knights says on his user page that he is a member of the Knights and therefore believes he does have a COI with respect to editing this page. Editors who say that members of the Knights do not have a COI largely base this conclusion on these arguments: WP:COI policy does not list "being a member" of an organization as one of the things that triggers a COI. WP:COI is a very well-considered and hashed-out policy and if the editors who have hashed it out over the years considering many different situations wanted the policy to define "being a member of an organization" as a characteristic of an editor that triggers a COI, they would have said so. But they didn't, presumably because they don't think that being a member of an organization is the type of thing that triggers a COI. The Knights is a large membership organization. It has around two million members in the United States and more across the globe. Many of these people are members of the Knights because it sells attractive insurance policies and you have to be a member of the Knights to qualify to buy that insurance. It is also a pervasive social club in many Catholic parishes, with the Knights sponsoring a variety of parish-oriented events. Belonging to the local Knights allows a person to participate in those activities. But beyond those considerations, being a member of the Knights doesn't imply a COI anymore than living in Nebraska implies a COI with respect to editing Wikipedia's article about Nebraska. Does membership in the Knights constitute a WP:COI? (open to read the talk conversation on this topic that occurred from November 9-26, 2020) This is the talk page conversation that occurred on this topic between November 9-26, 2020. Avatar317 believes that membership in the Knights constitutes a COI. In a 2-million-member organization, there are likely past and future editors of this page besides myself who are members of the Knights, so it seems worthwhile to discuss and resolve this question in a general way and not about me in particular. Also, Avatar317, WP:BRD. You made a bold edit in labeling me a COI editor; I reverted it; now let's discuss rather than engaging in an edit war. Here's my perspective on this COI question: WP:COI and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide heavily emphasize situations like business owners, employees, paid editors, and family members of WP:BLPs in their examples of COIs, and say that beyond that, "how close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." I don't see that membership in an organization passes the "common sense test" for a COI any more than being a customer of a business, or a donor to a nonprofit, or a citizen of a country gives rise to a COI for articles about that business, that nonprofit, or that country. Catholic things (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Yes it does, as it would constitute an "other relationship".Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Literal reading says yes. Practical reading says maybe. Only you can declare whether your involvement is beyond checked the box and it's something I do once a month. For whatever reason, fanatical opinions of the Knights seems to exist on Wikipedia and tendentious editors will seek to banish anyone remotely connected to them from editing the page. So, while the community can impose a COI on you, I do believe this is a bad faith challenge which serves no purpose other than to discourage your involvement in this page. Your name serves as more than enough notice of your possible "biases" and everyone involved is aware of your membership. So if the wiki-lawyers want to keep beating a dead horse, it's their right but it serves little purpose Slywriter (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC) They can still ask for edits to be made here, and I suggest reading wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC) I agree that this should be clarified. Thanks for opening up this section of the article for discussion purposes, Catholic things. I gather that Avatar317's strong instinct was that if someone is a member of the Knights, then clearly they obviously have a COI. But can that interpretation be sustained by reading WP:COI? The first sentence says you have a COI if you are contributing to a WP article about "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Being a member of the Knights and then editing this article is not the same as editing an article about "yourself, family...clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." It conceivably could be said that if you are a member of the Knights and you edit this article, that is like editing an article about a friend. But that would be an interpretation and a stretch and not the literal meaning of friend. Notably, the sentence on WP:COI that defines the relationships that constitute a COI does not say "organizations you are or were a member of" or "organizations you volunteer for". The WP:COI policy has been hashed out very extensively over years and is a very well-established policy. If those policy-makers wanted to define "being a member of an organization" as constituting a COI, they easily could have done so. But, they didn't. Novellasyes (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 1) Note that User:Elizium23 states that his membership in the Knights constitues a COI on his user page. 2) From WP:COI, second and third sentences: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." Nowhere does it say that an editor can choose for themselves whether a conflict of interest EXISTS. COI is not about whether someone believes they have a COI; COI is a situation. The policies do not ban someone from suggesting edits on the talk pages and participating in discussions, it just means that their connection with the organization will be transparent/visible because it can/will be posted on all relevant pages. This way others will be aware of a potential bias. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Interestingly nowhere in the policy does it say an Editor shall declare another editor's conflict of interest on an article's talk page. Which is what was done here. Every single procedure says "should" or "may". No where does it say 'must". Which goes back to only the editor KNOWS if he has a COI, though the community may impose disclosure. Finally, no where in the policy does it say mere membership is a COI.Slywriter (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC) @SarekOfVulcan: says mere members have no COI and @TonyBallioni: agrees that mere members have no COI and anyone who disagrees with these admins is maliciously misrepresenting Wikipedia policy Elizium23 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Elizium23. Thanks for this information. What I get from this is that the conversation about whether members of the Knights have a COI has already taken place on this talk page, but apparently that content was archived. This isn't on you, but I hope that going forward, a "Do I have a COI if I am a member" section stays on the non-archived version of the page. Otherwise as the years roll on, there's going to be a Groundhog Day situation that could so easily be avoided. Novellasyes (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Or they may have made a mistake, or they just have a more ridged interpretation that would apply to themselves as well. wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Regardless of anything to do with Catholic things, to me, the main point of this conversation should be to guide future potential editors of this page who are members of the Knights. When there is a very well-established policy like WP:COI, and there is a dispute about whether it applies in a particular situation, the first responsibility of those who are not agreeing is to carefully read the policy and then try to apply it in a reasonable way to the facts. What happened here to spark off this conversation is that one user ( Avatar317 ) believed that his or her interpretation of WP:COI is indubitably correct and wants others to see things the very same way. To see it the same way requires believing that WP:COI indisputably applies to a member of an organization. It is said that this is the case because being a "member of an organization" constitutes having "an external relationship" with the organization, and WP:COI says that "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest". However, WP:COI certainly does not say that having an external relationship does trigger a conflict of interest and thank goodness for that. If WP:COI did, counterfactually, say that, then anyone who votes for Democratic candidates would have to declare a COI if they edit an article about a Democratic candidate (or vice versa for Republicans). If you purchase an insurance policy from Allstate, boom. That's an external relationship so you have a COI. Did you run in a Susan G. Komem race for the cure? COI, because you have an external relationship with them. The idea that any kind of an external relationship leads to a COI quickly leads into a reductio ad absurdum. This, I infer, is why the WP:COI policy as written doesn't say that having an external relationship does trigger a COI but only that it might. This leaves us with the question of whether being a member of an organization triggers a COI. As we can see from the discussion above, some people think it does. Other people think it does not. The WP:COI policy doesn't list membership in an organization as something that clearly triggers COI. At a minimum, the arguments put forth so far in this conversation establish that there is significant, reasonable, dispute around the idea that membership in an organization triggers COI. Novellasyes (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC) (pinging @SarekOfVulcan: and @TonyBallioni: because their views on this subject as expressed here (link that Elizuim provided earlier) are different than mine; maybe they can give their response to my view below: My view: there is a difference between owning an iPhone (NOT a COI for editing Apple-related articles) and working in an Apple store (yes COI), or registering/voting Democrat (NOT a COI for editing Democrat-party related articles) and volunteering for your local Democrats' office (yes COI); the latter cases both involve promotion of a product or ideology; those institutions exist SOLELY for that purpose. The Knights' founding purpose and reason for existence is to improve acceptance/reduce discrimination against/"evangelize for" Irish Catholic immigrants/Catholics in America. This (in my view) makes all members in the organization participants in and biased toward that goal. This is distinctly different from Scouting whose goal is to build "character" in young adults. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Whatever is the result of this ongoing conversation I just want to say that if a nice long dialogue occurs and something resembling a consensus is eventually reached, let's memorialize that on this talk page. I am saying this because apparently this very issue has been previously discussed at length on this talk page but that was all archived. It wouldn't have occurred to me (and did not occur to me) to hunt through the archives of this talk page for such a conversation. I am supposing that in the future, other members of the Knights will come into the orbit of this page. So, we would want them to have some guidance. Here's another thought: In the absence of the relatively small number of us talking about this reaching a consensus (although that could happen!), perhaps we could alternatively agree on the wording of a note on the talk page to future Knights saying that the issue of whether members of the Knights have a declarable COI or not has been broached from time-to-time and we're not telling you what to do, but here are the arguments that have been put forth saying "it is not a declarable COI" and here are the arguments that have been put forward saying "it is a declarable COI". (They could just read this, but in the nature of these beasts, it's a mess to read if you're not part of it. Novellasyes (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC) I agree; a small FAQ type statement at the top pointing to this discussion-whether resolved or not-with arguments presented as you state would be a good addition to this talk page.---Avatar317(talk) 04:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Oh great. Depending on how things evolve here, I would volunteer to work on that in a couple of weeks. Novellasyes (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Avatar317, thanks for your comment and for pinging SarekOfVulcan and TonyBallioni. I hope they're able to weigh in here. In the meantime, I'd like to ask for two points of clarification on your last comment. First, I'm just unclear on your phrasing; are you saying that in your view owning an iPhone or working at an Apple store does not constitute a COI for editing articles related to Apple, but that registering, voting, or volunteering as a Democrat does constitute a COI for editing articles about politics and politicians? Second, do you have a source for the Knight's founding purpose? I've never heard it described in any of the three ways you listed—improving acceptance, reducing discrimination, or evangelizing. Here's what I could find about the founding purpose on their website: "[Fr. McGivney] proposed establishing a lay organization to prevent Catholic men from entering secret societies antithetical to Church teaching, uniting Catholic men and helping families of deceased members." Further, on the KofC article here, the founding purpose is just referred to as "a mutual benefit society" for Catholic immigrants, i.e., the "helping families of deceased members" or insurance aspect. Catholic things (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Membership in the KofC does not constitute a COI. Membership in the Freemasons does not constitute a COI. Membership in the Catholic Church does not constitute a COI. This has been hashed out at length on quite a few pages - I see no reason to do it again at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC) And if you're going to quote WP:EXTERNALREL, don't cut off the quote just before it stops supporting your point of view. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. If you want to redefine the COI policy, do it over there -- NOT HERE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Being one of 2 million random members of a group gives you approximately the same COI as a Nebraskan editing the article on Nebraska. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks, SarekOfVulcan. A conversation has occurred more than once on this page about this topic. Previous attempts to resolve this were archived and the current disputants weren't aware of them. I've written this to summarize the situation. For the sake of future Knights who might edit this page, and future editors who might have a problem with that (and other editors who might have a problem with them having a problem), I'm proposing to install this toward the top of the page. I would also archive this long section (but would link to it). Several editors here have argued that being a member of the Knights is a COI. If any of you disagree with how I have summarized that argument, please drop me a line about that on this sandbox page. I would want to fairly characterize your arguments. Novellasyes (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I've now searched the COI noticeboard archives (and this page archives) and the best discussion I found was here: [[1]] I asked a similar question on this noticeboard a few months ago (regarding how I should handle being a member of the United Methodist Church if I were going to update some articles on Methodist history and whether I should be using edit requests). Here's my thoughts on the matter: *Being a member of a large organization, in and of itself, is kind of a hazy area, but I'd generally call it "not a significant COI" - not enough that I would expect disclosure or edit requests. There may, however, be a predisposition toward bias, but as we all know, bias is not the same thing as COI. *The COI scales with responsibility - if you have a leadership role within an organization, that's getting into COI territory. *The COI also scales as we get into subgroups of the organization - in the example I gave, writing about the history of United Methodism as a whole probably doesn't trigger a COI, whereas writing an article on the specific church I'm a member of would probably be COI *Because of your relationship with that large organization, voluntary 1RR would be best - if challenged, let the other person revert and talk it over. Recognize that even if it isn't an outright COI, you're likely to have some bias toward the organization. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) ---Avatar317(talk) 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Named for Christopher Columbus

Although the article says the anchor in their logo represents Christopher Columbus, the article doesn't explicitly mention that the group is named in his honor and why. --Mr. Lance E Sloan (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Curious about the trade-off between updated/current numbers and self-publishing

This article (and a lot of other long articles about organizations) reports a variety of numbers about the organization. These are numbers that presumably change every year. Sometimes an RSS will write an article reporting on a number. But then it can happen that no other RSS feels any particular reason (I would gather) to write an article that reports on this or that number. Then as editors, we would experience a trade-off between having an obviously old number (to the eyes of a reader) versus reporting on an updated version of the number, based on what the organization itself has to say for itself. If anyone has any accumulated wisdom on how that trade-off is usually handled, I'd be curious to see what it says. Novellasyes (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Or have none, as, if RS do not care why should we (see wp:undue). As (arguably) its puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a trade-off. I picked at random Center for American Progress and there's a lot of numbers in there that some editor carefully curated into the article years ago that are far out of date. These seem like good things to have numbers on and at some point, an RSS thought so too. Example: "Generation Progress was launched in February 2005 as "the youth arm of the Center for American Progress". According to the organization, Generation Progress partners with over a million millennials." If the Center for American Progress lists an updated number of members of that initiative, I think it's a good trade-off to list the updated numbers, even if it is self-published. I am mostly wondering if this trade-offs discussion has been held amongst editors (I've looked around and can't find it but that surely doesn't mean it doesn't exist)." This article Bank of America in the infobox lists a number of key data points that are self-published. It might be that a good trade-off is "does this number represent some key aspect of the company" so it is a number we'd want readers to have the updated figures on. Novellasyes (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it always strikes me as a bit of puffery, with no real encyclopedic value. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've always thought of these numbers as WP:PROMOTIONAL, because the larger the numbers, the more popular/successful/etc. the organization, (and political organizations like to inflate their numbers to make it sound like more people support their cause and therefore they should be listened to in policy decisions) and I generally have argued not to include them, but in the space of churches, I somewhat lost that argument, but with the caveat that these numbers are carefully ATTRIBUTED. Something to the effect of: "Church X in 2023 reported having Y number of regular attendees." Not stating it as verified fact. That said, real members might be listed, but an organization's website visitors or email list subscribers is CLEARLY WP:UNDUE promotional trivia. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Overhaul

The Knights of Columbus is foremost an insurance company, followed by lesser, it being a Catholic organization and not the other way around. Please see: Infobox company Twillisjr (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that in fact true? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If,

* Catholicism is based on worshipping God
* God calls his servants to expel resources to aid those in MOST need
* Gods Servant creates an organization for added servants to join 
* A disabled servant joins, and must pay double for the same benefit based on the limitation 

Is this God, or is this Insurance? To me it’s hypocritical all around, but I’ll settle for calling it insurance. Twillisjr (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe to you, but that is wp:or how do RS describe them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The deception lies in the idea that Underwriting rules are different. Rejection, Pricing, and the like… are man made tangible ideas and bear fruit for the rich, while simultaneously robbing the poor. Twillisjr (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What has this do do with anything? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If the article was balanced (which it is not), it would be an insurance company. Twillisjr (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Then produce an RS that says it is primarily an insurance company. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Like all companies, an SEC Filing: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=0001688666

Twillisjr (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:primary and this is "Knights of Columbus Asset Advisors LLC" (also that is assets management, not insurance) not https://www.kofc.org/en//index.html. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent history/Massimo Faggioli

In the History#Recent history section, there's an opening sentence citing some commentary by Massimo Faggioli. This same sentence appears within the History of the Knights of Columbus article and I asked on that article's talk page about it. If any editors of this article have thoughts about that, would you mind engaging over there? Thanks much. Novellasyes (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Political activity in the lede

Every so often there are edits made to the lede regarding the Knights' political activity. They are usually quickly reverted, but it happens often enough that I think it is worthwhile to have the discussion again and see where the consensus lies.

Currently, there is a single sentence on the topic:

The Knights promote the Catholic view on public policy issues, including opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion.

There is a section of the article devoted to the topic and an entire article that explores the subject in greater detail: Political activity of the Knights of Columbus. There, the lede is four paragraphs long, and includes one paragraph on their more recent political activity:

More recently, it has taken an active stance on social issues and causes, supporting religious freedom and opposing efforts to introduce or promote same-sex marriage, abortion, and mandates that require employers to pay for artificial birth control, even if they violate their religious beliefs. The Order has also taken an interest in the rights of immigrants and refugees, especially those immigrants and refugees who come from Catholic-majority countries.

According to MOS:LEDE, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Considering that "The Knights of Columbus has played an active role in politics ever since its formation," and covers a range of issues well beyond same sex marriage and abortion, both historically and currently, I don't think the current sentence is a concise overview, nor does " the emphasis given to material in the lead... reflect its importance to the topic." Same-sex marriage is only a tiny fraction of what they have done over the last century and a half.

Even if you were just looking at recent history, the Knights' efforts surrounding immigration are more recent than their activities surrounding same-sex marriage, yet that topic is not covered in the lede at all. Neither are their efforts to promote peace and trade unionism, the protection of civil rights, and efforts to address racism, to give just a few examples. It is also very heavily focused on the US.

All of that would be far too much detail for the lede of this article, however. Given that, I propose a new, one sentence summary to replace what is currently there, to wit: "The Knights of Columbus have played an active role in politics ever since its formation, and promote the Catholic view on public policy issues around the world." Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We already do. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Already do what? Also, I've laid out an argument and proposed new text. I'd appreciate your thoughts on what you think of that new language, and how it might be improved. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Knights promote the Catholic view on public policy issues..." so all you are in fact doing is removing wording, and not just about gay marriage. Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not all I am doing. Not even close. I am removing two very specific items that are not representative of the entire century and a half history of this organization. I am adding a new preceding clause to help put it in greater context. I am eliminating problems with WP:RECENCY. I am improving the "emphasis given to material [to] reflect its relative importance to the subject." I am "briefly summariz[ing] the most important points covered in an article" while avoiding "overly specific descriptions." I am making it more WP:DUE.

At least I am trying to do all of those things. If you think I am mistaken, I would appreciate a more substantive reply. If you think you could improve upon my proposal, I would be glad to see it. If you think what currently exists is superior to what I am proposing, I would welcome an explanation of why. I've made a good faith proposal, and a three word ambiguous reply is not terribly helpful in moving the ball forward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So have they stopped opposing those things? Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge but, if you read what I said above, that's beside the point. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree, if they no longer existed what they did 100 years ago would matter, but they do still exist so what they do today is in fact far more relevant than what they did a century and a half ago. But I feel it may be time for others to chip in, take silence from me as a no. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some other voices would be helpful here but, if your point is that we should be discussing their most recent activities, then we should cut gay marriage and add their "resolution criticizing the Trump administration family separation policy." I believe that's the most recent activity cited. Regardless, I think we should be summarizing the entire article, not just what is newest. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC) [Correction: Here is the most recent activity: In the wake of killings of two men, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, by police officers in Louisiana and Minnesota, and the subsequent shooting of Dallas police officers, the Order has campaigned for peace. After multiple mass shootings in 2019, the Knights were among a group of Catholic leaders who decried the shootings and urged policy changes.]] --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Could we start with the lead sentence: "It has grown to support..." (one before the one you are talking about) and summarize the lead of Political activity of the Knights of Columbus into those two sentences, briefly mentioning all their activities (opposing anarchism, communism and socialism, supportive of trade unionism, civil rights, against racism, opposing same-sex marriage and abortion, supporting immigrants and refugees).

As a side comment, activities like "supporting immigrants and refugees" doesn't seem to me like it would automatically be "political" unless lobbying governmental bodies is involved. Giving money and help to refugees and immigrants isn't what I would consider "political" and I think the article could benefit from clarifying this for the reader; is this just social help or political lobbying? ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In the sentence, "The Knights promote the Catholic view on public policy issues, including opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion." I'm in favor of at least removing the part about same-sex marriage. The linked article is based on a study that covers their spending on (mostly) ballot measures about same-sex marriage covering the period 2005-2012. That period ended 12 years ago. Spending money on anti-same-sex marriage politically has been a dead letter since Obergefell v. Hodges. I'm sure the Knights still oppose same-sex marriage in some sense, but at least as far as anything we've linked here, the last time they opposed it in a specifically political sense (spending money on ballot measures) was over a decade ago. Novellasyes (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we are heading in the right direction here, although I worry that listing every cause they have ever supported will create a list that will 1) be too long to comfortably read, and 2) too much detail for the lede. That said, do you want to propose some new language and we can workshop it?

As to supporting refugees and immigrants, I think their activities have been both charitable and political. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

All things considered, I am now in favor of your proposal to change the sentence to "The Knights of Columbus have played an active role in politics ever since its formation, and promote the Catholic view on public policy issues around the world." This is because I think it is somewhat lame to substantiate their political involvement on same-sex marriage when it probably ended 12 years ago, and I also think it is somewhat lame to then have just one specified political topic (abortion). That would imply that their political involvement in abortion stands out head-and-shoulders above their political involvement in anything else. That's probably not an implication that can be substantiated. Also, do they get politically involved around abortion these days? For example, there are numerous abortion ballot measures on state ballots these days. Are they putting money into those? If they are, does major notable RS around the Knights indicate that when you think of the Knights and any political activities they get into, should abortion be the first thing that comes to mind or does come to mind or is written up in RS as a singularly notable aspect of what they do. I don't think so. Novellasyes (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we explicitly thinking of "political" as meaning instances where they give money to political campaigns or to activities that are very adjacent to a political campaign? Or paid money to actual political lobbyists, as per Avatar317. So for example, if the Knights frequently say and opine and assert on their website that they oppose/support X, but don't give political money to oppose/support X, does that count as political giving or as one of their political activities? I would say "no". There might be a bit of a line-drawing problem here but maybe none of us disagree on that anyway. Novellasyes (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)