Talk:History of the Knights of Columbus
Supreme Knights
Why does this section duplicate the article on Supreme Knights? Should the latter be a redirect? Mannanan51 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Two references sections and the lead
- This article has two references sections with 90 cite errors, how on earth did that happen? Seen here - References - and here - References 2. If the content and references of this article were copied from other articles, therein lies the problem, this issue needs to be addressed so our readers can verify the content they are reading through properly formatted references and inline citations.
- The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Please see WP:MOSLEAD for further information on how to properly write the lead section of an article. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- The references issue happened when Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus was updated and the Template:Onlyinclude template was inadvertently deleted. It has been readded, which fixed the problem here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Level of detail in this article
The main Knights of Columbus article has been reduced by 20%, with much of it getting cut by an editor who believed it to be too much detail. Before that happens here, I'd like to point out that this is an article on the history of the order, and as such a greater level of detail is due. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
BRD
Now that this article is getting some renewed, welcomed, and well deserved attention, it seems a good time to remind people about WP:BRD. If you are bold and make an edit that gets reverted, the next step is to come to talk and gain consensus for that edit, not to edit war it back in. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Cite errors
SPECIFICO, this edit, like many of your edits, has created a large number of citation errors at the bottom of the page. Would you please clean them up? Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Massimo Faggioli
The "recent history" section of the article starts with this sentence: "According to Massimo Faggioli, the Knights of Columbus are "'an extreme version' of a post-Vatican II phenomenon, the rise of discrete lay groups that have become centers of power themselves."[1]" The comment is more about changes in the church after Vatican II and much ink has been spilled on that topic which is not reflected in that one quote. What Faggioli means by "extreme" is not "extremist" as in ideology but that on a bell curve consisting of any post-Vatican groups that "became centers of power themselves", the Knights would be on one end of that curve. There's a lot packed into the quote: Faggioli believes that there was something he refers to as "the rise of discrete lay groups" that occurred as a "phenomenon" (he must mean widespread) in the wake of Vatican II. For any group like the Knights that existed prior to Vatican II, this must also mean that it noticeably changed post-Vatican II (this would mean it became more of "a center of power" after Vatican II than it was before Vatican II). All of that would be something you could historically test to see if it is true. Was there a rise of discrete lay groups after Vatican II? Did many of them become "centers of power"? Of those that became "centers of power", did this occur far more so with the Knights? Is there a historical discontinuity between the level of the Knights power prior to Vatican II and its power after Vatican II? Novellasyes (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Novellasyes (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Are you proposing that we cut the sentence? Add additional context? Something else? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm hoping that whoever put this in might weigh in with a justification. I don't think it is justified (or I am not seeing the justification and I am seeing various problems; in that sense I'd remove it). So I just thought I'd let it sit here and see what people think. Novellasyes (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed it. Among other issues, it is WP:SINGLESOURCE and as far as I can tell, no one else has said something like this about the Knights, so it's not a notable fact about them. Novellasyes (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)