Talk:Knights of Columbus

message: 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)
thread_title:  Named for Christopher Columbus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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and there's a lot of numbers in there that some editor carefully curated into the article years ago that are far out of date.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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Curious about the trade-off between updated/current numbers and self-publishing 

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

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

text: What has this do do with anything? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article was balanced (which it is not), it would be an insurance company. Twillisjr (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then produce an RS that says it is primarily an insurance company. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Like all companies, an SEC Filing: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=0001688666
Twillisjr (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Overhaul  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent history/Massimo Faggioli