Talk:Knights Hospitaller/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Headquarters

It is a christian order, with its headquarters in the [Vatican]. Jerusalem is certainly NOT, a meeting point nowadays ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.105.208 (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Revision

This article needs a complete revision. It's very large and the wikibox is bad. In the spanish and/or french version it is a better article. I think that we should rewrite the article using this two ones like a model. Thank you for your attention.--83.50.129.1 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The picture on the right-hand side of the main page, showing the Mamluk siege of Acre in 1291, by Dominique Louis Papety, seems to be an inverted mirror image of the original: see [1] Also, the name of the marshal of the Knights Hospitaler seems to have been Guillaume de Clermont or Guillaume de Villiers (rather than Mathieu de Clermont), as the same website indicates. The fort in the picture is NOT the Krak des Chevaliers, which was far away from Acre, and was a Templar rather than a Hospitaler fort. --Groucho (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I second the part about the image appearing to be a mirror image of the original painting. See also [2]

The defender Knight Hospitaller is never said to be Guillaume Villiers in descriptions of the paiting; the painting is said to depict Guillaume de Clermont defending Acre. [3] Since that is how it's described in all the instances I could find, that's the title that should be given for the painting in the article. However, the painter, Papety, probably meant to depict Matthew de Clermont, the Hospitaller's Marshall.

No notable knights by the name of Guillaume de Clermont appears in the histories and there were no Grand Masters by ether name. There was a Grand Master at the time of the siege named Jean de Villiers (he survived the siege and served until 1293/94) and fought at Acre, and a Guillaume Villaret who was Grand Master from 1296 to 1305 and may have fought there. One account says that a William of Villiers met with the Sultan for negotiations. [4]

Matthew de Clermont, who was the Marshall of the Hospitalers, was said to have distinguished himself at various points in the battle and seems to have led various defenses, including towers and gates. See [5] It is this individual whom the painter probably meant to depict. Don't know if this info should be included, but the article should not imply that the painting's description is factual. Ileanadu (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankhouse

Does anybody know about this phenomenon associated with the Knights' Hospitallers throughout Europe? A spelling of "Frankhouse" and "Frank House" has very few results. All I know is what is on this page (put 'Frank' in Find in Page): http://www.annebrook.ie/history.php. They were apparently medieval hostels for soldier-priest types where they could rest on their way to the crusades. But they appear to have a more general function and were still in existence in Ireland at the end of the sixteenth century. Alas, I cannot find anymore about the early modern role of the Frank House/Frankhouse. Does anybody have any suggestions for reading? 86.42.125.116 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bringing order to Orders

The family of Orders of St John is confusing. There is a good deal of chaos in their organization on Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring a proposal here (originally proposed by User:Boven who now seems to be inactive). I'd like to see the articles written and organized thusly:

  • Order of Malta (the catholic order with extended history from the beginnings to present)
The Four Main Protestant Orders
The Four non-German Commanderies of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg

I think that an organization this way would be helpful. We could also add a category such as [[Category:St John Orders]] or something like that to group them all together, as well as a possible template showing their relationships. What say ya'll?--Eva bd 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does the Scottish John Arbuthnott, 16th Viscount of Arbuthnott fit into this? - Kittybrewster 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It all looks quite reasonable, except, as Kittybrewster draws our attention to, the parenthetical "(England)". The order started as a resuscitation of the English Langue is not restricted to England and is now active in many Commonwealth countries and the US. John Arbuthnott was the Prior of the Scottish Priory of this order. JPD (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Because they are not separate orders recognised by the Alliance. Priories of recognised members are sub units. Priories or claimed priories outside of the members aren't recognised internationally. 86.134.78.14 10:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that they should be listed separately, just pointing out that the "(England)" could be read as implying that they are separate. JPD (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Good points about the VOSJ. I just put England for convenience, but it certainly covers Scotland, the US, Canada, South Africa, etc. These would all be included in an article for the VOSJ. --Eva bd 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that I may finally have time to implement these changes. There seems to be a consensus that this would improve things, so I'm not worried about that. I'll probably start by making a navigation template and will work from there. Any help that anyone can give is most welcome.--Eva bd 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

CONFUSING

in 600 bla bla bla... What happend? did this hospital in 600 sucseed? did it last until the 12 century? What does it have to do with the knights hospitaller? Simillar with the next centence, in 800 ad bla bla. What happend? Why is this relevant. This is an encylopedia, not a bunch of facts thrown everywhere. Qustions like what for, how, why him, what next, relavence to the knights hospitallers need to be answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.1.63 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit dense with facts. And the 11th century dates in the intro don't seem to immediately square with the early foundation. Maybe we need an article in Simple English? It might be worth it to have new readers comment on the "big picture" here. Student7 01:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant because there was a precedent for hospitaler-like orders in Jerusalem before the crusades, and the Hospitalers themselves recognized this. That is, they didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1113, and they knew that. Adam Bishop 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Navigation Template

How does this look for a possible template to be used to navigate between the various orders of saint john:

{{Saint John Orders}}

I'm not sure how best to list each order's name and there obviously a lot of red links, but any suggestions are more than welcome.--Eva bd 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hospitaller in Art

from : Marie_de'_Medici_cycle#The_Disembarkation_at_Marseilles
Notice the man on the Left, Is he a Hospitaller ?

The article is confusing. The "Knights Hospitaller" is the "Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John, Knights of Malta", but the article describes the "Millitary Hospitallar Order of St. John and Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta" that is a separation of the "Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John, Knights of Malta". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.62.71 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A confusing Article

The article is confusing. The "Knights Hospitaller" is the "Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John, Knights of Malta", but the article describes the "Millitary Hospitallar Order of St. John and Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta" that is a separation of the "Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John, Knights of Malta".84.190.62.71 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes, external references, etc.

There seems to be some confusion about identifying the source of single line edits to the article. This is properly done, not by claiming that "it is in the external reference" at the bottom of the list, but by supplying a brand new footnote. Never mind that it is the reference list already. That worked when the article was brand new. Today we need to know exactly where any new sentence or paragraph is taken with a footnote please. There is one example in the text. If you are not familiar with footnotes, please look at other articles or a Wikipedia:Footnotes. Student7 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has insufficient in-line footnotes for its lengthy size. There should be about 30 or so for an article of this length. As of this writing there was only one. When I asked an editor why he removed the note informing people of this, he answered that "it didn't look pretty." Sorry, readers need to be warned off articles with poor documentation. THAT is why "it doesn't look pretty." It isn't supposed to! Student7 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean " warned of " not " warned off ". A subtle difference, but with large implications. And kudos to the reference improovments by User:Rarelibra! That was a lot of work and is/will be appreciated by many. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusader wiki as a reference

Someone has added the crusader wiki to the list of external links. We know what problems we have with our article. We have no idea what problems or what quality they have with theirs. I think one wiki using another as a reference is probably (with the exception of Wikicommons and Wiktionary) probably not a good idea. What info can they provide that we can't? Just found out that this is now a reference for the Crusades as well, and probably a lot of other sites. So it seems that it is really more or less spam for the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

References/footnotes

Editors are not familiar with WP:FOOT. An editor just inserted support for a 200,000 attack figure and cited an encyclopedia. We are not supposed to be citing tertiary references on scholarly stuff! This is not a high school class paper! We are supposed to be using scholarly secondary references. I realize that is sometimes difficult. However, it is better to not use figures at all unless better references can be obtained. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The primary references on the siege of Rhodes crumbled hundred of years ago. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A Christian Order?

Throughout the article it makes reference to Knights hospitallers as being a Christian order, but the details state that they were appointed by the Papacy. Surely this makes it a Catholic Order?--87.112.52.135 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely you are not going to argue that Catholics are not Christians. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
They were formed prior to the Reformation so included all western Christians of the time. Student7 (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Knights of Rhodes

According to Hospitallers: The History of the Order of St.John by Riley-Smith, the order is officially known as "The Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, called of Rhodes, called of Malta." At the very least, the inclusion of Rhodes should stop being reverted.--Eva bd 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Revived"

I think, that use word "revived" is not appropriate in situation of SMOM after 1834. Order continues (at least in Grand priory of Bohemia), yes his situation was difficult, but order was still same in persons, part of assets, law etc. Thus this was same order in 1834 as 1797, of course, without territory of Malta. Because SMOM is order and not state, this don't play any role. Use words, that SMOM "claims sovereignty" is not appropriate, because SMOM is in diplomatic relations with more than 100 states and this states recognize his sovereignty. This is not claim, but fact. Yopie 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the "claim" verb needs to be documented. That is, some scholar needs to say that they are merely "claiming" and that the use of the word is not just an editor's observation.
The same with "revived." In what reference is the word "revived" used? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Revived" was, indeed, an editor's observation. Current footnote documents continuous existence. The word "revived" requires another footnote. Please stop using that word unless a new reference is supplies. It is WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I tend to agree that the order had survivied, and thus did not need to be "revived". "Rejuvenated" might conceivably be an acceptable alternative, but the order didn't die which would be required for it to be "revived". John Carter (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Naive question: so the order did not obtain a new charter or whatever from the Vatican? Let's face it. If there is a chartering agency involved, they have to know with whom they are dealing. They don't just get a letter in the mail saying "Hey, we just think we recreated the old order. I bet you are glad." There needs to be some positive connection there. A nucleus or something that survived.
Along the same lines - is there a listing of leaders from day 1? (or anyway, through the period in question?). Not challenging. Just asking! Student7 (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Responding to RfC: In order to use the word "Revived", we need reliable sources that use this term. Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources. --Elonka 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Revived" to me would suggest that it was recreated after becoming extinct. The position of the order for 40 years before 1834 was weak, but those who resuscited the order in 1834 were surviving members of the order when in Malta, so that there was continuity: Desmond Seward, The Monks of War: the Military Orders (Folio Society, London 2000), 241-2. On the other hand the links of the Venerable Order of St John to the Maltese Order are tenuous (to say the least) and probably non-existent (ibid. 270ff). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Claim"

Just learned that "claim" is one of those words that should probably should be avoided. See WP:AVOID. Student7 (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, in used context is offensive. If anybody have diplomatic relations with over 100 countries, must be sovereign. Of course, USA don't have diplomatic relations with SMOM, but reason for this is not because USA think, that SMOM is not sovereign, but because USA think, that diplomatic relation with religious Order violates internal separation of state and church.--Yopie 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

US, Canada, & Mexico have diplomatic relations with Vatican, but not with SMOM, so your argument is moot. Cagney & Stacey (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A statement might be made that 100 countries have recognized SMOM's sovernity. There is no outstanding reason to rain on their parade. It is no big deal that I can see. The whole world clearly hasn't done so which is why the number. We don't use numbers for (say) France! Readers can figure these things out for themselves. We don't have to "guide" them IMO.
Unless a nation is challenging their sovernity. Then that might be mentioned. But John Doe can't challenge it. John isn't a nation. Student7 (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
* I agree. With counting, one can easily prove, that People's Republic of China isn't sovereign, because 23 countries don't have diplomatic relations with PRC, but with Taiwan.--Yopie 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)

Their sovereignty exists in one small building in the Vatican. So we have a the state of Smom, inside the state of Vatican, inside the city of Rome, inside the state of Italy. Ridiculous. Cagney & Stacey (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(I like your spelling better than mine:) I don't know if the UN hands out observer status like pennies. They might. Still they haven't handed ME one. Nor the Iran government in exile, etc. So they do have SOME standard, I presume. Sovereignty isn't for places anyway, it is for governments. And this is a Middle Ages organization so it might not quite be that either. Let's confine our arguments over the word "sovereign." Their "claim" to the word (or whatever word is used) is justified by their high level memberships. But it might be short of "sovereignty," I suppose. Student7 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Student7, your last edit is more appropriate. Just allow me to correct your spelling. (;>) Thanks Cagney & Stacey (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but I'm wondering if the SMOM's alleged sovereignty may lie rather under the UN's charter than under any pretence from the distant past. See Non-governmental organization. And the US's (and probably other countries as well) reluctance to recognize, not based on religion but more on concern of exactly who can get a passport and the care exercised with that.
I'm now thinking that the UN's idea was that if the "Planet Bank" is based in Burma, and Burma closes it's borders, does this shut down the Planet Bank? If it can issue passports AND other countries recognized this passport, the organization may be able to function without Burma, thank you very much. If true, this may have ramifications for the NGO article as well. In other words, there may be literally 10,000 "sovereign" entities out there with no more acreage than a postage stamp, all with "observer" status at the UN! And, in fact, this may have been the historical use of this sort of thing long prior to the UN - say under the League of Nations and earlier. SMOM may have paved the way, who knows?Student7 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Vague references to the actual time involved in the articles events.

From the article:

"The Sovereign Military Order of Malta recently established a mission in Malta, after signing an agreement with the Maltese Government which granted the Order the exclusive use of Fort St. Angelo for a term of 99 years. Today, after restoration, the Fort hosts historical and cultural activities related to the Order of Malta.[10] The Venerable Order of Saint John has had a presence on Malta since the late 19th-Century."
I would suggest that in an article which relates to a subject whose lifetime has spanned on the order of a thousand years, "recently" is a term that is not hugely informative. Even just the correct decade would be a useful clarification to the timeframe which is involved here. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Crazy war about Acre

There was wrong link Acre heading to article about unit of area. This link was corrected by anon to Acre, Israel, what is about city in Israel /Palestine. Now is this is reverted by Cagney & Stacey as Zionist Vandalism.. I have suspicion, that somebody is mentally unstable..--Yopie 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I noticed that the caption to the picture attests that it is an image of the hospitallers defending "Acre, Israel". Now, politics aside, it is true that there was no such thing as Israel in the thirteenth century. Furthermore, despite American convention, it is possible to name a city as a place without then following it with a comma and a country name. However, if this convention must be followed can we please use a region name that makes sense for the time? I assume that it is too confusing to use the term 'Syria', even though this is what all historians of the period would call the area, that is fair enough, confusion is not our object. Furthermore, it would be confusing also to use the term 'Palestine' because most people understand 'Palestine' to mean 'The West Bank and Gaza as set out by the 1948 armistice line' or something. So, I propose that we use the term 'Galilee', which I think is correct in time and place, and not a confusing name. I'm going to change that now any issues with it feel free to change it back, but please explain why. Louboi (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What about "Holy Land"? Galilee is commonly associated with antiquity. --Yopie 11:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war, morality and such

Not following the edit war entirely, but one of the editors is trying to make the Order look good (WP:POV?). The other, trying to make the Order look bad (WP:POV?). Can we argue here instead of driving other editors nuts with repetitive changes? Either 1) the reference says "moral" and other things or it doesn't and/or 2) the reference is not WP:RELY, in which case why are we using it and making changes above the reference, which BTW is a practice that kind of annoys me when I do not have access to the reference.

Which is it guys? One person trying to prove a point, or one person trying to correct the material to the reference? We're lookng for scholars here not warriors! Please cut it out!

And another thing, this happened a couple of hundred years ago. Can we act grown up about this?Student7 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the Knights of Malta experienced a decline in morality during the period 16th and 17th centuries, where they turned a blind eye to their religious virtues in favour of a more commercial outlook. Their chosen method of commerce was less than chivalrous (i.e. illegal), and coupled with the shift in their lifestyle to the equivalent of a medieval rock star it can be very clearly argued they suffered moral decline. This viewpoint is supported by Joseph Attard (1992), Fernand Braudel (1972), Peter Earle (1970), Stanley Fiorini & Victor Mallia-Milanes (1989), Quentin Hughes (1967), Desmond Seward (1972), D F Allen (1970), Paul Walden Bamford (1964), Robert C Davies (2001), Lee W Eysturlid (1993) and the rest of my bibliography which I don't have time to type out.
In removing the word moral preceding the word decline, it fails to specify what exactly is in decline, negating the point of the paragraph. It could be a decline in the availability of stuffed toys for all the reader knows. I'm not trying to make them look bad, its just what happened. I don't have an emotional attachment to any of the themes in this piece, I just find them interesting.
The last point of contention is that the word 'perceived' was taken from preceding the Barbary Corsairs. Recent historiography has shown that the English made greater financial gains in piracy on the Mediterranean, however the methods the Barbary Corsairs used created more hysteria or dread as they repeatedly attacked certain geographically diverse settlements and took huge numbers of inhabitants as slaves, rather than solely preying on passing shipping. On the 26th July 1549, Marques De Cortes the Governor of Galacia wrote to his friend 'Molina' saying that "this sea coast will soon be peopled with French and English pirates, and I live in daily apprehension of their assaults". Robert C Davis writes of a 'corsair hysteria' gripping Europe throughout this period, a reputation enhanced by the success of their attacks and the fate that awaited those captured, and the widespread nature of their attacks. M. J. Rodriguez-Salgado writes:

... less romantic, but certainly closer to the truth, the corsairs, as he emerges from recent research, is more of a skilled sailor and an artful politician than a wild rover hunting down his prey with a sadistic grin ... They were a scourge, but for Islam as well as Christendom, and then only for some."

Regarding the fact it happened hundreds of years ago: Its history. Most of the stuff in history is old. Ampupandamplify (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well put. Thanks. I presume that the inline citation at the end of the sentence(s) support this position? It is not difficult to imagine that people with power would misuse it for a time, however well-intentioned their founders were.
What about it, "other" editor? What is wrong with these references if anything? If there's nothing wrong with them, why shouldn't "moral" decline and other supporing information be included? Student7 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Congratulations! This ridiculous edit war has led me to protect the page. Please discuss before any further edits can be made. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The determined POV violators "Pietru il-Boqli" and "Yopie" continued to change the long-standing text which indicated the Knights Hospitaller had several succeeding offspring, to text which indicated that SMOM was the only successor. Any reputable historian will tell you that succeeding offspring include sister orders based in England, Germany, Netherlands, etc. "Pietru" and "Yopie" seem to be typical POV pushing sockpuppets. Il Castrato (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hah. With comments that cretinous, you do not deserve my response. You are the sock and your fictitious "sister orders" are fantasist ravings. Also, you appear to have a history of malicious editing related to this article: desist such behaviour, it's in your best interests too. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The sock "Pietru" didn't even sign his name. He must have forgotten who he is today. His charges of malicious editing are the "fantasist ravings". Il Castrato (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sock? Me? Please. I called you out and now you're hot under the collar. Stop your pov pushing Castrato. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
* I´m not sockpuppet. If you want, try checkuser.
* There are five legit hospitallers orders. German (and dependent Sweden and Dutch) were separated 1538, so they cannot be successors of SMOM in 1798. What about VOStJ? They are revival of Order of St. John, suppressed in England in reformation. There was not any direct link between SMOM in 1798 and VOStJ.
* Il Castrato is involved in so-called "Russian hospitallers" and this is reason for his hysterical edit war.
* If any is sockpuppet, so this is Il Castrato and Calypso Joe. Both are very pro "bogus orders" as Order of St. Joachim, Russian Hospitallers etc. --Yopie 16:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • OK everybody, can we stop namecalling and actually accomplish something productive? I suggest that since all the orders spawned by the Knights Hospitaller are described in the article, we just eliminate this troublesome sentence in the introduction. Kennel Kough (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this issue has been resolved and the offending editors will see sense. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with deleting of sentence.--Yopie 16:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I have no regrets in regard to this argument, I am willing to let Kennel Kough have the first chance at the next edit. What the hell. Why not. Calypso Joe (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Successor?

For the convenience of all parties, I moved the following comments down from the last time this issue flared up. Student7 mediated this debate and led the other editors to agree that "successor" is an inappropriate word to apply to any of the orders. Kennel Kough (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SMOM is not successor. It's the same order. Protestant "orders" are not successors too. So, we can say Protestant churches are successors of Catholic church?!--212.86.230.114 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Protestant state churches of northern Europe are very definitely successors of the Catholic Church in those countries, taking over (as reformed churches) the buildings, clergy, and episcopal structure of the Catholic Churches in those counties, lock stock and barrel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's think about this out of the context of SMOM. Are the Baptist churches then "successors" to the Anglican Lutheran churches. Is Mormonism the "successor" to Baptist, etc.? Is there an end to succession? While Christianity believes it is the "successor" of the Jewish faith, it is a belief only and can't be proven. Failing that, is Christianity the successor to pagan churches because they sometimes took then over and converted them for worship? Similarly for Islam and Christianity in the middle ages. This is non-obvious and POV IMO.Student7 (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has taken a bizarre deviation. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It is a legitimate concern. Student7 is right. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

typo needs correction

spelling: persue -> pursue LilHelpa (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism

Weren't these guys utterly Catholic? And why doesn't the article reflect that consistently? One editor changed every reference to 'Christian' to 'Catholic' apparently messing up links. While the execution may have left something to be desired, the idea behind it seems sound. In fact, it's a little surprising to see the article written so. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to be vandalism by the sort of person who doesn't want to consider Catholicism part of Christianity. (And lazy vandalism too, since he obviously replaced all instances of "Christian" with "Catholic" leading to absurdities like "Catholicity".) Adam Bishop (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how it follows that referring to Catholicism excludes Christianity; it's the oldest form of the religion that exists. I might fix the article to reflect this rather than leave it wrong. 'Christianity' is too vague and ignores historical fact. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
PS. Catholicity is a perfectly acceptable word in English. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
But these replacement were incorrect, becase before 1000 was only one Christian church etc.--Yopie 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This Encyclopedia is a contemporary reflection of facts... and I'd dispute it was the 'only' Church, since several Knights and Maltese were executed for being protestants. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Tartana.jpg may be deleted

I have tagged File:Tartana.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Holy Roman Empire

I would just like to point out that Charlemagne was not an emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Special:J (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's generally accepted that Charlemagne was the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, crowned by the Pope in 800. Is there some technicality or other basis for your statement? Please clarify. 99.185.244.53 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

After some thought, I'm assuming the technicality is that the term "Holy" was not added until 962, long after Charlemagne was cold in the ground. 99.185.244.53 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Naval cities

in the paragraph "The Knights in the 16th and 17th centuries" Florence is cited as a Naval city state. I was born and raised in Florence and I can assure you that there is no sea. The nearest naval city is Pisa that is in Tuscany as well as Florence. I think that Pisa is the city to be mentioned. To complete my statement I have to note that Pisa was eventually conquered by Florence and in the latest part of the XVI century the Order of Saint Stephen was created in Pisa by the Great Duke of Tuscany in order to police the western part of the Mediterrean sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.228.98 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I wrote the paragraph you mentioned but someone else added the reference to Florence. I don't think Florence is on the coast. Ampupandamplify (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Order of St. John

Discussion concerning merging "Order of St. John" into "Knights Hospitaller" is taking place at Talk:Order of St. John. May we please only discuss this suggestion at that location. Thanks. Ubama (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Knights Hospitaller More than Just Malta

This article presents knights hospitallers as the root from which only the modern Knights of Malta emerged when in fact three hospitaller orders share the same origins and today are refered to as Knights Hospitaller - these are, Knights Hospitaller of St. John (now Malta and Venerable etc), Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of Jerusalem (Teutonic Knights) and the Military and Hospitaller Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem (closely associated with Crown of France). Should this article should be rewritten to reflect the complete concept and identity of Knights Hospitaller or be renamed Knights Hospitaller of Malta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.63.6 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But we have articles about them, Teutonic Knights and Order of St. Lazarus. You're right they also had "hospitaller" duties, but the proper noun Hospitaller refers only to this one group. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The Knights of Malta section seems largely lifted verbatim (without reference) from R. Cohen's 1920 essay, "Knights of Malta 1523-1798". What's the usual way of handling this type of thing? Woodard.dave (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your keen eye in spotting this potential copyright issue. Thankfully, the essay can be taken to be in the public domain in the United States, as it was published before 1 January 1923 (see Wikipedia:Public domain). There should however be mention of the essay as being a significant source, preferably through inline citations within the body text, but at least a mention in the References section; I shall add the latter for now. --Kwekubo (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Knights Hospitaller NOT same as SMOM, nor St Lazarus

This article needs a total rewrite showing that more that the hospitaller knights evolved into more than just SMOM - it should also include the Knights of the Teutonic Knights, Knights of the Holy Sepulchre and the Knights of St.Lazarus all of whom share the same hospitaller roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.106.13 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but while the Order of St Lazarus did arise from a group of hospitaller's, they were not the same group as the hospitallers of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. 155.84.57.253 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Order even possessed a German tongue which was part Protestant and part Roman Catholic.[citation needed]"

In reference to "The Order even possessed a German tongue which was part Protestant and part Roman Catholic.[citation needed]" (paragraph "The Knights in the 16th and 17th centuries: Reconquista of the Sea".

The sentence (as formulated) may have potential problems. Specifically the use of the word "even" may lead the casual reader to the opinion that the German tongue was not part of the order until up to this point, which stands in contrast to references of the tongues" of the order. One (on the same page) within the paragraph "Knights of Cyprus and Rhodes" (quote) "The holdings were organized into eight "tongues" (one each in Crown of Aragon, Auvergne, Castile, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Provence)." Also on the page "Tongue (Knights Hospitaller)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_(Knights_Hospitaller)) and the page "Bodrum Castle", (quote) "The construction of the castle began in 1402 under the German knight-architect Heinrich Schlegelholt" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodrum_Castle)).

While the sentence has validity in the spirit of illustrating the effects of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation on the order (the succession of the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I, etc), it fails to underline the context of the paragraph. The German tongue of the order was strictly Roman-Catholic during the 12th and 13th centuries until the 16th century, when a section of the Grand Priory, the Bailiwick of Brandenburg of the Order, became protestant (source: webpage "Order of Malta, http://www.orderofmalta.int/history/802/orders-of-st-john/?lang=en).

A possible modification or rewrite of this sub-paragraph might be: The knights’ changing attitudes were coupled with the effects of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation and the lack of stability from the Roman Catholic Church. This affected the Order strongly as the 16th and 17th centuries saw a gradual decline in the religious attitudes of many of the Christian peoples of Europe (and, concomitantly, the importance of a religious army) and thus the Knights’ regular tributes from European nations.[21] The Knights, inherently a Roman Catholic military order, pursued the re-admittance of England as one of its member states. Under King Henry VIII (1491 – 1547), the Order was suppressed along with it's monasteries. The succession of the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I (1533 – 1603), aptly demonstrates the new religious tolerance within.[22] Reformation and conversion to the Protestant church within the German tongue of the order contributed to its decline and socio-economic standing. [6]

I'm sure some of the Wiki pros will find a better way to remove the [citation needed] than I can. I hope this helps a little108.198.24.122 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (Alex M)

Reference as to why Ferdinand von Hompesch zu Bolheim is listed as "last" Grandmaster and image discrepancy "The Hospitaller grand master Guillaume de Clermont defending"

It might just be an oversight (excusable, all human parameters considered). Average users (like me who have slept through half of my history classes), may stumble over today's "Order Of Malta website" (http://www.orderofmalta.int/history/680/the-79-grand-masters/?lang=en) which lists the consecutive line of Grandmasters from Blessed Gerard (1120) to (79th) Fra’ Matthew Festing (2008 -). If not an oversight, it should be explained in the interest of historic-academic acuracy why Ferdinand is listed as last Grandmaster.

Image file page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SiegeOfAcre1291.jpg). Under file history, the last (3rd) entry, dated 1 September 2007, shows a left to right image reversal. A short, superficial internet search did not yield conclusive information but a few more instances of the same image reversal without a lead to the original. Simple me, figure the ratio of right-handed versus southpaws or omni-dexterous, the 3rd (left to right reversed) image made more sense to me (I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, nor the last... lol). Which is right?108.198.24.122 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (Alex M)

PS thank you wiki folks, for bringing history back to life

Corrections Regarding the Ecumenical Order

Under section headed ‘Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order’ it is stated that in a recent court case between: The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, better known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) and The Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order (The Ecumenical Order) the Ecumenical Order won their case and established that they had an unbroken line back to the origin of the Order in the 11th century.

In contrast, under section headed ‘Mimic orders’ the ‘Ecumenical Order is stated to have lost the case to ‘SMOM’ which is why it is listed under “Mimic orders’. This is clearly in conflict with the paragraph above. In fact, ‘The Ecumenical Order’ won both the original District Court and the Court of Appeals cases.

Reference to the two court cases (detailed below) shows that both ‘SMOM’ and ‘The Ecumenical Order’ had a common history before 1798. The Appeal Court decision effectively signals that ‘The Ecumenical Order’ and ‘SMOM’ both have a creditable claim as direct descendants of the original Order. It also signals that these two Orders are the only two which can make such a claim.

On the basis of the above, it is requested that all reference to the ‘Ecumenical Order’ under section ‘Mimic orders’ be removed, including the statement that it lost the case to ‘SMOM’.


Access to the results of the two court cases are as follows:

United States District Court Southern District of Florida. Case No. 09 81008. The full 24 page report can be obtained through the local Florida court Pacer System (www.pacer.org). This requires registration (free of charge) then the report costs 10 cents/page. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. DC Docket No 9 09 cv 81008 KLR. The full 35 page report can be downloaded from the internet using this number. The Appeal case No is 11-15101 although this is not needed to get access via the internet.

Gt Briton (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Corrections Regarding the Ecumenical Order 2

The ‘Corrections’ dated October 10, 2013, I assume by ‘Yopic’, have compounded the errors in this Article and thus degraded it. The ‘corrections’, inserted into my submission above, replace the link to the final Revised Version Appeals Court outcome dated December 18, 2012 with an earlier version dated September 11, 2012. The ‘corrections’ also make misleading changes within the main Article. These include removing the entire section devoted to the ‘Ecumenical Order’ and incorrect statements within ‘Mimic Orders’.

Access to the final, December 18, 2012 outcome is obtained via - Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. DC Docket No 9 09 cv 81008 KLR.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). The full 35 page report can be downloaded from the internet using this number. The Appeal case No is 11-15101 although this is not needed to get access via the internet. Ensure that the document is dated December 18, 2012.

In my submission above, ‘Corrections Regarding the Ecumenical Order’ I am simply reflecting the final conclusions of the two referenced court cases, which are available for anyone to verify using the means of access provided.

To summarize the salient points arising from the court cases:–

SMOM brought action against the Ecumenical Order for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices – alleging that the Ecumenical Order falsely represented itself as having a connection with SMOM.

The result of the District Court case is that four of SMOM’s trademarks were cancelled on a technicality and SMOM’s claims against the Ecumenical Order were denied.

At the subsequent Court of Appeal the District Court’s ruling in favor of the Ecumenical Order was upheld. The cancelled trademarks of SMOM were reinstated. However, SMOM’s trademarks cancellation/reinstatement is irrelevant to the key issue, which is that both courts ruled in favor of the Ecumenical Order’s claim to have a direct and independent link back to the original order founded in the 11th century.

The bottom line is that both SMOM and the Ecumenical Order have equal rights to make this claim.

I would like to identify any legitimate disagreement with the foregoing, before correcting the Article.

Gt Briton (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Dear G. Bruton, do you have secondary, reliable and verifiable source? Reference "via internet" is very poor and cannot be accepted. --Yopie (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As requested Yopie, here is a link to the December 18, 2012 Court of Appeal case

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201115101op2.pdf

This Supplementary ruling is unanimously in favor of the Ecumenical Order; the earlier ruling was 2:1 in favor of the Ecumenical Order

This decision makes it clear that SMOM (the Vatican's Order of Saint John) and the Ecumenical Order share the same history and origins prior to 1798 AD, ie to the beginnings of the Order in 1048 AD.

Refer specifically to page 12 of the Appeal Court decision which states that SMOM and the Ecumenical Order share a history "through a common predecessor".

It is believed that no other Order of Saint John has gained this distinction.

Gt Briton (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gt Briton (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)*Dear Gt Briton, your opinion is interesting, but not fit to our policies. The Appeal Court decision is primary source and according to WP:PRIMARY any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. And now we have two opposite Appeal Court decisions. Is matter of fact, that court decision, especially in unusual case, cannot be interpreted without specialized knowledge. Sorry, but your entry is invalid.--Yopie (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Dear Yopie. Let's stick strictly to facts then - The Appeals Court decision dated September 11, 2012 came out 2:1 in favor of the Florida Order. For reasons best known to yourself, you are basing your interpretation of the result on the comments of the single dissenting Judge, Mr Prior. Read the actual outcome on Pages 37 and 38. The results of the Supplementary Ruling dated December 18, 2012 were unanimously in favor of the Florida order. Summary - all three rulings, including the original District Court ruling, were in favor of the Florida Order. Gt Briton (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Is anyone other than Yopie monitoring this Talk site? If not I will move on to the next step available within Wikipedia to get this article, with respect to the Ecumenical Order, corrected.

Before taking that step, I invite agreement or constructive comment regarding the insertion of the following into the main article: 

“Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, the Ecumenical Order

.Recently, the Catholic-sponsored ‘Sovereign Military Order of Malta’ (SMOM) took the Ecumenical Order to Court in the U.S. over charges of trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices – alleging that the Ecumenical Order falsely represented itself as having a connection with SMOM. The result of the District Court case, upheld by a subsequent Court of Appeal[44], is that SMOM’s claims against the Ecumenical Order were denied. The court also found that since the two organizations share a common history prior to 1798, references to that history are appropriate and do not constitute false advertising under The Lanham Act. SMOM and the Ecumenical Order have equal rights to claim a history going back to the origin of the Order in 1048”. This contains no opinion, simply the verifiable outcome of the court cases referenced above All reference to SMOM and The Ecumenical Order should be removed from the section on ‘Mimic Orders’ Gt Briton (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm watching, but you are free to correct the article yourself...honestly I'm not even sure the one sentence that is currently in the article is even necessary at all. Maybe it would be more appropriate on the SMOM page? In fact, maybe everything in this article past 1798 should be removed... Adam Bishop (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made the changes proposed in my previous comments. I appreciated your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gt Briton (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that the section on the ‘Ecumenical Order’ has been removed by ‘Magicalyak’ for the same incorrect reason as that given by ‘Yopie’. As I’ve stated several times, all three court cases ruled in favor of the Ecumenical Order. The cases are available to read and confirm. This unwillingness to accept the truth by these two contributors leads me to conclude that they are either a) sloppy editors or b) have a hidden agenda. Which is it? The ‘Ecumenical Order’ is a legitimate entity which should certainly be included in a comprehensive article such as this. I would appreciate any guidance from mature contributors as to how to get this article corrected. I do not wish to take up undue amounts of space on this site but I am serious about achieving truth and integrity.Gt Briton (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I have seen no further communication on the above I have reinstated the paragraph. Gt Briton (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that my reinstated paragraph was rapidly removed by person/s anonymous with no explanation provided. This clearly answers the question posed above - 'Are we dealing with a) sloppy editors or b) hidden agendas? As I move onto the next steps available within Wikipedia to correct this article can anyone offer any guidance as to what this 'Hidden Agenda' is? It's always valuable to shine light in dark places! Gt Briton (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no agenda, it's just that no one else sees why this is relevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You cannot be serious! SMOM, a major Order, saw the Ecumenical Order as being sufficiently important/threatening to take to court (it's pretty unseemly for one group of Christians to take another to court but let's ignore that for now...). The fact that the Ecumenical Order won all cases, enhancing both theirs and SMOM's claims to links back to C11, SHOULD be seen as relevant by any objective standard. Attempts to conceal the truth have taken three stages 1) Statements were made regarding the outcome of the cases which were totally untrue. 2) Attempts were then made to suppress the truth by a series of denials and 'technicalities'. After these ran out of steam we've now moved into 3) where the strategy is to regard any reference to the Ecumenical Order as being 'Not notable' or 'Not relevant'. Sorry, but this points ever-stronger to an 'Agenda'. I'd be interested to hear the views of an impartial contributor! Gt Briton (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not disputing any of that, but as I said back in November, I don't think this has any relevance to a Wikipedia article on the Knights Hospitaller (which ceased to exist in any practical sense in 1798). There is already a separate article for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and other descendant orders. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your confirmation of the points I've been making - I sincerely appreciate that, since my involvement with this site has been a bit like being in never-never land! Eliminating everything after 1798 would certainly remove bias - but I think it would be a shame since the OSJ, in its various forms, continues to be active. Recent chicanery by some Order/s is probably not that different in principle from the position the Knights faced centuries ago when fighting their greatest battles - and enemies rose up from within their ranks to attack them! This is probably my last posting but I will keep an eye on the site to see that no-one 'slips-in' anything untrue about the Ecumenical Order... Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and witness someone inserting an objective piece which doesn't quickly get removed! From my personal knowledge I can state that the leaders of the Ecumenical Order are true Christians, dedicated to continuing the mission that was established by the Order nearly 1000 years ago. Gt Briton (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Differences between Knights Hospitaller & Knights Templar?

Does anybody know? This article should at least try and answer that question. So far, I gather the Hospitallers were originally about looking after the sick but they changed and became like the Templar knights. How true is this? Were each of them stronger in different parts of Europe? etc 79.97.64.240 (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine the primary difference is that one is not the other....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.137.54 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources

One: The following passage refers to the Templars, not the Hospitallers:

The shift in attitudes of the Knights over this period is ably outlined by Paul Lacroix who states:

"Inflated with wealth, laden with privileges which gave them almost sovereign powers ... the order at last became so demoralised by luxury and idleness that it forgot the aim for which it was founded, and gave itself up for the love of gain and thirst for pleasure. Its covetousness and pride soon became boundless. The Knights pretended that they were above the reach of crowned heads: they seized and pillaged without concern of the property of both infidels and Christians".[27]


Two: The citation for this quote is wrong. This article does not appear in The Historical Journal:

In February 1641 a letter was sent from an unknown dignitary in the Maltese capital of Valletta to the knights' most trustworthy ally and benefactor, Louis XIV of France, stating the Order's troubles:

"Italy provides us with nothing much; Bohemia and Germany hardly anything, and England and the Netherlands for a long time now nothing at all. We only have something to keep us going, Sire, in your own Kingdom and in Spain."[28]

Also, I highly doubt this letter was sent to Louis XIV in 1641, because Louis would have been 2 years old, and wouldn't take the throne for several more years. It's pretty hard for a 2 year old to be the most trustworthy ally and benefactor of anything.

Bk262 (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Order dissolved "c. 1800"?

On what basis is it claimed that the Order was disestablished in c. 1800? It did lose its territory in 1798, and although it was much weaker than it was prior to the French invasion, it remained active throughout the 19th century:

  • it was mentioned in the Treaty of Amiens in 1802
  • Sweden offered the island of Gotland to the Order in 1806
  • it settled in Rome as the SMOM in 1834
  • Giovanni Battista Ceschi a Santa Croce became GM in 1879

This comment might be of interest to User:Kwekubo, User:BushelCandle and User:Chicbyaccident.

Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. (You may see that I self-reverted my reversion of your edit. Unfortunately, that self-reversion probably happened while you were penning the above exposition.) BushelCandle (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Order Insignia

I've noticed that the insignia of the order has been changed from the famous one to the flag of the Knights of Rhodes. Yes I know the red & white St George's cross symbol is the original one, and also the symbol of the Knights of St John, and the most famous grand master was known as 'Grand Master of the Knights of Saint John' and he bore that symbol. But the Black & White one is the most well known and it was the one they bore on the crusades, and what they who're on an every day basis. So please just change it back. Dragon25920 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Female members of the order

I don't know were this should be placed, but it is certainly relevant. Normally, the order did not accept female members in the 16th-century, but it had one exception to that rule: the order made Donna Eleonora Spadafora Sambuca the first Knight of Devotion of their Order after the death of her father Count Federico, who died in 1598, because they had promised to make his unborn firstborn a knight, and when it proved to be a girl, they still had to keep their word: [7]--Aciram (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

SMOM Lease on Malta

There is a comment in SMOM on the lease for the Fort St Angelo. I didn't find any specific links but it is mentioned here - http://www.culturemalta.org/51/61/The-Knights-Hospitallers-and-Malta- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicalyak (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Consensus is that the current title is appropriate for this article. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


Knights Hospitaller → Template:History of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – To get things straight; straghten out the content mess a bit of this article and its relation to the article Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which contains chunks over overlapping content. Lots of reasons: the List of Princes and Grand Masters of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta already treat these two articles as if they would be renamed, as do other articles, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I have no idea why you are proposing this. I assume you do not mean a move into templatespace. In any case, "Knights Hospitaller" is a perfectly good article title for the subject. Srnec (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose a mistake using the move request, that should be History of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. --Robertiki (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for the correction! Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a common name, and indeed far more common in historical sources than SMOM. However, I would support a clarification of the scope of the two articles, with "Knights Hospitaller" referring to the history of the Order from the foundation to the loss of Malta, and SMOM to everything after. Constantine ✍ 17:54, 4 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knights_Hospitaller/Archive_1&oldid=1181034743"