Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

German control

An important aspect is missing from the 2016 coup and that is the elephant in the room of German control. The Germans have gradually, especially since the founding of the Malteser International, come to power in the organisation on an international level to the extent that Boeselager is effectively in charge and the SMOM is a proxy of Merkeland. Different ethnic groups have had influence in this organisation throughout history; the French, the Spanish and the Italians mostly; but today it is German controlled. We need to name the German in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Find the credible sources for this.. interesting claim.. and then feel free. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge summary

I merged this article with Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Since more pages linked here than Sovereign Military Order of Malta, I decided that this page is to stay. I also changed some sections into subsections. I wrote new paragraph about government of the Order basing on their WebPage FAQ. I tried to changed what needed as to not constitute copyvio, but I might miss something. I fixed all links to point here (almost, as Micronation is protected).Przepla 23:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

International status

I cannot see what is "nebulous" there. That an area of land is extraterritorial does not mean that it is not a constituent part of the territory of Italy (in this case), it just means that Italy cannot exercise its jurisdiction there, because it is hindered to do so by international law.

This is the same status that an embassy has.

If I hear no objections here, I will rewrite that paragraph.

P.S.: What is interesting about the order is that it once _was_ a state but stopped to do so when it lost its territory (but did not stop to be a subject of international law).

JensMueller 09:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The part about the coins and stamps is outdated; there are 2004 coins on the Order's web site.

Sovereign state

Hi @DrKay: you removed an assertion about SMOM being a Sovereign state because it was "unsourced". Then you added your own unsourced statement! It was easy for me, even with a naive Google search, to find multiple sources that identify SMOM as a sovereign state. These sources say that recognition is not universal, but that is far from it being totally unrecognized, as you have asserted in Wikipedia's voice. So, please source or remove your statement. Also, please refrain from deriding editors and edits as jokes and vandalism - I have been adding legitimate sources and acting in good faith, so your comments are considered personal attacks. Elizium23 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been going around saying Liberland is a sovereign state. That is either a joke or foolishly misguided. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

– I know this has been brought up before. But I'm not sure it has been brought up trying to embrace the topic as whole, which arguably merits a collected discussion? For a visualisation of the issue, please compare the History section in Template:Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Actual final choice of naming should arguably be secondary to the concern of WP:CONSISTENCY of WP:CONCISE WP:COMMONNAME (=Order of Malta for the contemporary entity) where applicable? The idea is to use "Order of Malta" consistently for the contemporary entity and "Order of Saint John" for the entity prior to Malta. WP:CONSISTENCY concern is in reference to a selection of preexisting articles chosen to be considered considered default as a place of departure for the nomination: Contemporary: Order of Malta Ambulance Corps, Pre-Malta: Commanderies of the Order of Saint John, Navy of the Order of Saint John, List of ships of the line of the Order of Saint John, History of Rhodes under the Order of Saint John, History of Malta under the Order of Saint John. PPEMES (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. What problem are you trying to solve? Srnec (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The idea is to try to go at least from four to two names for the same entity. One and the same name would be preferable, but perhaps that is wishing for too much. Anyway, better proposals per WP:CONSISTENCY that I could come up with would be welcome. PPEMES (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. This would misleadingly conflate multiple historical entities in various centuries and countries under the title of "Order of Malta", with the latter title primarily referring to the contemporary organisation based in Rome. --Kwekubo (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why limit to 4 names? I am sure you can find more variations for referring to the same thing throughout its history? PPEMES (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. We don't rewrite history. Successor organisations such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Order of Saint John may claim connection to the Knights, but we're not going to treat them as if they were the same thing. There may well be some sorting-out to be done here – I can see a case for splitting the list of grand masters into two, for example, one for the Knights, another for the nineteenth-century successor order – but I see little logic in the naming proposed, and no sources cited which might support such changes. I also note, for what it's worth, that "Knights of St. John" occurs more than four times as frequently as Knights Hospitaller" on JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hospitallers gets twice as many as Knights of St. John on JSTOR. Srnec (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

1) Sovereign Military Order of Malta, 2) Order of Malta, 3) Order of Saint/St./St John, 4) Order of Saint/St./St John of Jerusalem, 5) Saint/St./St John of Jerusalem, 6) Knights Hospitaller, 7) Hospitallers, 8) Knights of Rhodos... and now also 9) Knights of Saint/St./St John. Any more variations? PPEMES (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty. "Knights of Malta" is another very common one. What's your point? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY? PPEMES (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

...does not override COMMONNAME. Knights Hospitaller → Order of Saint John in the Holy Land makes no sense at all. Srnec (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's see. So for Coca-Cola, we should have a history article History of the The Coca-Cola Company, then Coke in United States, then Cola in Europe... and 4 other names for Coca-Cola for articles about other related topics, such as Cocacola in South America and perhaps add some C.-C. soft drink of US in Asia? Would that be helpful? PPEMES (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Coca-Cola hasn't been around for 900+ years. We'll see what it looks like in 2939. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you implying a one and only entity here in question has been around for 900+ years? PPEMES (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. ——联合果君 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Striving for consistency is something I sympathize with, but for an entity with such a complex history, it tends to have a distorting effect. Constantine ✍ 17:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Transition period

During the 17-years transition period between the defeat of Malta and the General Peace, the head of the Order was named Lieutentant of the Magistery and it was ad interim the Grand Master of the Order. A free article of Notes and Queries (4 April 1863, Oxoford University Press) argues that "it is an important fact, and implies that the Order could not have been in the disintegrated state in which it is represented to have been". So it is relevant for the WP article, as well as for the history of that period.

The article cited the Synoptical Sketch whose text is available there (at p. 21). One of the authors is the Grand Secretary and Magister in repect of which Grand Magister' and Grand Master' sound to be the same charge.

The same N&Q of 4 April 1863 was notably replied few days later by the Freemasons Monthly Magazine (April 18, 1863, p.3), as to establish an implicit connection between the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (in the XVIII century) and the Scottish Rite Freemasonry refounded some decades before. England had a role in the defeat of Napoleon who led the French occupation of Malta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.12.102 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Congress of Verona (1822)

Did the Congress of Verona in 1822 "guarantee the continued existence of the Catholic order as a sovereign entity"? In terms of international law, is the Order "an establishment of the 19th century, recognized at the Congress of Verona of 1822"? If so, is there a reliable source for these statements? Jeff in CA (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Exile

"the formality of electing a brother Chief to discharge the office of Grand Master, and thus to preserve the vitlaiy of the Sovereign Institute, was duty attended to"

I can't find language ressembling this in the cited sources. I am unfamiliar with the noun "vitlaiy", which I suppose might be a typo of "vitality". I haven't bothered to correct it, because I intend to delete the sentence as "Not supported by cited sources", and because I have no way of knowing if my interpretation is correct. I'll leave that deletion for a couple of days, to give fellow editors who are better-informed than me to correct the passage, or put me straight on my reading of the sources. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)