Talk:Order of Saint Lazarus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Historical Order and Revival (Modern "Order")

Perhaps this page should be divided between the two entities so at least the historical order will not be the subject of an ongoing edit war. Russophile2 02:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps

I agree with split, for NPOV I suggest new names as "Order of St. Lazarus till Revolution" and "..after Revolution". This divide undoubtful medieval and pre - Revolutionary Order and new era.Yopie 21:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a page proviving an overview of the Order of St Lazarus, perhaps explining right at the beginning that the Order is contentious, and has been riven by dissention - which was ended as recently as 12 October 2006. I note however that the list of grand masters is misleading in including Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, duc d'Anjou, who is only recognised by a recent schismatic splinter group.Ncox 16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Defence article

Francis Elphinstone wrote an excellent article in defence of the present Order entitled The Opponents of St Lazarus which appeared in The Armorial, vol.III, no.4, November 1962, Edinburgh. David Lauder 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

An edit war seems to be raging with sometimes crass edit comments from the participants. What about using this discussion page for explaining your positions? I have already censured some of the involved parties on their user talk pages. Now I do it here. __meco (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Meco, if you read the talk pages, you will find that Turtus/Rawicz and puppets thereof are the problem. Turtus operates from a rotating Polish IP which cannot be blocked because it constantly generates a new IP number. The only thing which stops (his?) misguided fanatacism (see below) is constant vigilance. Ich Dien Jon Jonasson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Jonasson (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Please note the previous message was signed, but with an error. Jon Jonasson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Scandal

It is scandal, that for blocking was chosen antilazarite's, falsyficated edits. Definitly uncredible and not understanded why only one, completly unpopular view is promoted by Anonymous Dissident. This is unfair WAR. If You want to block something show both different views! It is horribly unjust to bloced war on edit create by people accusing lies to Catholic Patriarche of Antioch, friend of Pope. I have lost all liking of it. I hope so, not for all Wikipedia. UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.3.134 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I empathize with you completely – in principle, as I have no idea which is the reasonable version as which is the outlandish, fanatic one... Actually, when administrators intervene after a page protection has been requested on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, they rarely look into the conflict matter, but simply check to see if, for instance, as the case was here, edit warring is in progress and has been for some time. I was the editor who requested this protection since noone involved seems to be in the slightest interested in presenting the contentious issue here, on the discussion page. In previous edit conflicts where I myself have been a party, I too have been infuriated by the apparent bias by the intervening administrator. Now I know that is probably rarely the case. It's just random. You who are involved in the conflict have the responsibility and opportunity to present the issue here on this page, and as one of the parties, according to what I have picked up, is not of sound mind, surely it will be easy for the reasonable party to convince everyone reading this page about the correctness of his/her position. __meco (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Historic agreement concluded with the Grand Chancery of the Légion d’Honneur in France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.245.134 (talk) 22:05, December 12, 2007 (UTC)

Hate Speech must stop

Turtus and his puppets need to be counseled about his/their hate speech. It is inappropriate for this or any other setting. The last refuge of scoundrels is calling people Nazis and Terrorists, the way he does. Christian Left (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wald/Rawicz/Turtus/Trafalgar Abyss is still spreading his hatred unabated. The only defense is to counter him at every turn, since he can't be blocked. Jon Jonasson (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Jonasson, Christian Left and Croquen is the same pathological vandal. This person is anti-catholic and anti-Polish chauvinist, the true master of hate speach. Look at "history" section. Turtus (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • This from a vandal with more socks than can be counted. Please read the rest of the talk page for context. This vandal has been vandalizing this page for years, first as "Wald" and then as a variety of other socks. Additionally, shouldn't there be a requirement for people editing the English Wikipedia, to actually read & write English at better than a 1st grade level? Christian Left (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Ditto. Jon Jonasson (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

El C's latest version

The latest 2 paragraph short version by El C is actually preferable to the long Rawicz version full of misrepresentations, exagerations, and fanciful fantasy. Jon Jonasson (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just made a modest edit of "revived" to describe the modern organization. Even the staunchest supporters of St Laz should be able to accept that. Maybe this thing can rest now. Christian Left (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Did Rawicz have a stroke? This is the longest stretch of inactivity from this vandal and his sockpuppets I have ever seen! I hope he is well, in body, mind, and soul. God Bless, Christian Left (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Peace is good. Jon Jonasson (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility Please!

Gentlemen. Do we really want another edit war? It is a waste of everyone's time. Gobbschmacht (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to website of Grand Bailiwick and Priory of England & Wales

I recently took down a link to a defunct website cited in this article (that of the former Malta Obedience, which no longer exists) and replaced it with this link: www.st-lazarus.org.uk , which is the newly opened website of the Grand Bailiwick and Priory of England & Wales - part of the United Order of St Lazarus whose international website is already linked in the article. I did this because the England & Wales website is a particularly good example of the genuine attempts at unity at jurisdictional level that are going on throughout the Order. I now see that the link has been removed. I maintain that it is a valuable and informative link and without bias. I would like to know the reason for its deletion, and would respectfully suggest that it be restored.

Gareth41 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Simply, because rules (WP:LINKFARM]) says, that "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" and because in article is nothing about England Priory and web added nothing new, in compare with "main" web.--Yopie (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate Articles

The current Order of St Lazarus is not a continuation of the medieval Order. It is therefore inappropriate to attempt to link the two by including information related to both within the same article, especially when using a word like revived, which, in my opinion, is the same as suggesting that you can raise someone from the dead by creating a clone of them. That said, the modern Order of Saint Lazarus is a large and influential organization that deserves a comprehensive article under the heading "Modern Order of Saint Lazarus" or "1910 Order of St Lazarus". To simply firewall the present Order from having a real article just because some hold the view that they are fraudulent is a little odd, especially when you realize that there organizations who are actually criminal, i.e Gestapo, KGB, that have articles of their own. Personally I can't help but feel a little surprised by the hostility surrounding this topic. Time for less petty politics and more encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.168.244 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the French wiki article is better: One page on the Royal Order of Mont Carmel & St Lazarus réunis, which goes from medieval order to 1830, and a separate page for the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.88.218 (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity March 2011

Yopie seems intent on designating the section on the Order's modern history as "Disputed Continuity" and in doing so reveals his/her own bias which in turn undermines the objectivity of this article. I have renamed this section as "Interruption and Continuity" as this acknowledges that there was a break in the normal life of the Order after the French Revolution but leaves it up to the reader to determine if they think this constituted an end to the Order or just an interruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollamhnua (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Gereda y de Borbon

This sentence is quite propostrous and attests to the desperation of the order to be recognized: "The Order has also received the de facto approval of Juan Carlos I of Spain who allowed his kinsman Don Carlos Gereda de Borbón to accept the position of Grand Master of another branch of the Order in 2008." First of all, de facto approval is another way to say that there is no approval. Secondly, I am surprised how easy the Spanish way of writing the Grand Masters full name - Gereda y de Borbon, which means that his father was a Gereda and his mother a Borbon - has shifted to Gereda de Borbon, which more implies direct (male) kinship. It is perhaps expected that the Borbon family has some control over different male descendants, but it is impossible to keep track of sons of female Borbons. The thought put forward in the cite is - I am sad to say - quite silly. And the rest of the "Approval" section is almost as bad. But this is up to the proponents of the order to realize - and amend.

---

The article has been altered to be more precise about the Grand Master Gereda y de Borbon being allowed to become Grand Master. However, it is hardly scholarly to describe the rest of the recognition section as "silly". If you can point out parts of this section that are inaccurate then change them. I think you will find that an objective reading of the section on recognition will show that all is as stated. The forms of recognition may not be what you would like but they are forms of recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollamhnua (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to unaccepted request

This is a quite surprising answer, since the references 9 to 10 about Count Jan Dobrzenský z Dobrzenicz is supported "only by self-published web of this group and involve claims about third parties". If the my web link to the Orleance obedience http://www.oslj.org/ is considered unreliable it is surprising to find it among the existing references to the article. Why don´t you remove it?

Please have a look at the PDF file found under http://www.oslj.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Docs/Int/2011/20111017-LettreDuComteDeParis_FR_EN_ES.pdf and find out for your self. Unless you consider the document as false, you need to change your position.

Best regards

Uno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unokodak2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested edit

The claim "The Order has also been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations." seems highly dubious, and is not confirmed by the linked page (United Nations General Assembly observers). I suggest at least adding a "Citation needed" tag to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.91.191 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed claim, can't verify it and not listed at [1]. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest original research

There was some additions, based on original research and made in conflict of interest. Calling Henry, count of Paris as "distant relative" of Bourbon is strange as he is head of one branch. Group of count Dobrzensky also have as temporal protector Royal house of France [2] and his election was supported by count of Paris and Grand Prior of France is H.R.H. Prince Charles-Philippe d’Orléans. --Yopie (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The page continues to be incorrect

The page continues to be incorrect. Yopie continous maintain incorrect information on the page. Every attempt to discuss is supressed, unwanted comments are deleted. Can anybody do something? --Unokodak (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is helpful if you know how Wikipedia works. The community works on the basis of verifiable information from reliable sources. Using truth as a measure is not how it works, as truth is subjective. The subject of this article is controversial as there are competing groups who claim to be the rightful group. In an effort to maintain a neutral point of view, both groups should be covered equally as best as possible based upon what can be found in reliable sources. Sources published by the competing groups may not be considered reliable since they will be inherently skewed toward their own point of view. As far as discussion to "correct" the article, the best thing to do is to use this talk page to propose changes, specifically the verbiage to be used with the sources to back them up. That allow the community to discuss changes and give feedback and constructive criticism. If a consensus is reached on those proposed changes, then the change is implemented. Unfortunately, this talk page has become a place to debate the Order of Saint Lazarus, which is not its intended purpose. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Eric. I hope, that Unokodak will understand and all interested users will reach neutral consensus, based on reliable sources. --Yopie (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The previous editor seems to think that just because a source comes from the OSL that it is not acceptable. It is perfectly normal in scholarly research to use "original sources" to illustrate or evidence a fact about a person or entity. So for example where it states that the Count de Paris is Temporal Protector of the Order the source is the actual letter signed by the Count de Paris - by its nature the letter can not be independent in the way you desire but as an original source it is perfectly acceptable as a form of scholarly evidence. I have checked each source in the footnotes that comes from the OSL and each of them is an original source and support a fact about the Order in a descriptive sense - it would not however be appropriate to use this type of original source to support argument or opinion about the Order. Ollamhnua (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You just reverted YOpie yet called me vandal in the edit summary. I am the third party opinion. You're the first party, Yopie the second party (see the discussion above), me the third party. You are restoring material reverted by two editors. You can't request a 2nd third party. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, that you use sources published by one (probably "dissident" group) against other. You mentioned some letter by Count of Paris against Count Dobrzensky, but there is another letter, again by Count of Paris, dated 23.9.2010, for Count Dobrzensky. And so forth. It will be better, if we use sentences as: "According to HRH Prince Charles-Philippe d’Orléans and Count Dobrzensky z Dobrzenicz, they are under protection of Royal House of France (some ref), but according to Mr. Piccapietra, they are not (some ref)." --Yopie (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

AH - I apologise, I did not realise you were the third party and I am not aware of the 23.9.2010 letter in favour of the other group. Will look at this article again some time to see if I can make a positive contribution. Thank you. Ollamhnua (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this polite response. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice conversation but please note that nothing of this is implemented in the article. --Unokodak (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference document

Enclosed is the Open letter written by the Count of Paris provided as support of my statement above regarding the errors in the article. --Unokodak (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Open letter by Henri Count of Paris.jpg

Open letter by Henri Count of Paris

One editor has initiated the removal of the picture of the letter arguing that it appears on another website (to which the editor refuse to make a link in the article). This website is not different from other websites of Saint Lazarus branches linked in the article. This editor has also, without a comment, deleted a balanced update of the article (made by one for me unknown editor) and refused well supported and relevant changes of the article. Actions like these are a disgrace for Wikipedia. --Unokodak (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC) −

• Dear Unokodak, is hard to communicate with you, as you are changing your opinion every hour (literaly) . So, please stop your changes for day...--Yopie (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am very clear in my opinion. Maybe my editorial changes of the existing material made you discover something new? --Unokodak (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Principle of Consensus

Following the principle of consensus we, the editors, need to establish the last date of concensus regarding this article. I really hope that we do not need to go back to zero. I hereby invite all the auditors to come back with the lataest date of acceptance of the texts in this article. Let us put the deadline for input regarding this until 31 March 2012.

Then we need to undo the changes back to the last date and start to build the article in consensus from there. --Unokodak (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Unokodat, please read carefully WP:OR and WP:V, your edit is only based on one primary, unpublished source. Do you have any reliable, published source about Count of Paris as grandmaster of OSLJ? If yes, please add this source, but if not, please refrain from adding your original research. And please, adding reference as this is not good - in article is nothing about the Order. I propose more neutral tone of article, with something like "According to Mr. Garand, his group is under protection of Count of Paris", where we can use primary sources. I hope that you agree with this way... My proposal is, that we all can make draft in this talk page, without disrupting of article. Agree?--Yopie (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yopie. I'm fine with your proposal. First a clarification I do not claim that the Count of Paris as grandmaster of OSLJ - only protector. There are no grandmaster of OSLJ for the moment. But agree with you that it could be clearer in the article.

I am also fine with the article but for one section:

"Due to disputes and schisms within the Order there are now two distinct obediences (branches) both of which claim the mantle of the Order of Saint Lazarus. For many decades the Malta and Paris Obediences feuded over the Grand Magistry of the Order, eventually reconciling as a united order in 2008 when don Carlos Gererda y de Borbón, Marquis de Almazán, was elected as 49th Grand Master of the Order. However, previously dissatisfied members of the Paris Obedience continue to operate separately having formed what became known as the Orleans Obedience under Grand Master HRH Prince Charles Philippe, Duke of Anjou. In 2004 Prince Charles Philippe successfully achieved renewed temporal protection of the Royal House of France. However, in 2010 Prince Charles Philippe retired as Grand Master of his branch of the Order and was replaced by his uncle Count Jan Dobrzenský z Dobrzenicz.[9][10][11]"

Let's rework it togheter in a way that is decent for all parties. But the section above need to be removed until we are all fine with it. I made a small cleaning without favouring any of the branches. I can live with if now and I think it could be OK with you too.

I think one way forward is to skip the history of schisms and unifications in various settings. It is almost impossible to describe these developments in a way that is possible to understand for the average reader. For example the Gererda group claim to be a united branch while the Charles Philippe group disagreed in 2004 on this unification.

Maybe we can conclude that the order has history of various branches and there are three branches (Dobrzenicz, Garrard and Gereda) maintaining the continuity of the order (The United Grand Priories is a recent organization founded 1995 inspired by the old order but without claiming continuity). Further we could conclude in general terms that the Order is under protection of the Royal House of France. Is this something you can develop? --Unokodak (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, this way is OK, I will add references from World Orders.--Yopie (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I´m happy, that now edits are neutral, without warring. This is good for all branches of OSLJ and according to WP policies. --Yopie (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanking by User:Unokodak

User:Unokodak, why are you blanking swathes of the talk page? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already removed own issues settled in consensus with other editors. Next step will be to implement the following:

Unokodak (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved issues should be left in place so that editors can see what issues have previously been discusses, and what the outcome of those discussions was. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough if you are interested in my previous discussions. However general discussions have to go. Unokodak (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my interest, it has to do with the fact that any user should be able to see what has been previously discussed so they can get a better picture of the state of the page without rehashing an old discussion. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:89.100.150.198 - deleting references made by others

Why are you, User talk:89.100.150.198, not using this forum yourself, instead of continuously deleting references made by others in the article? Unokodak (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deleting references. I'm deleting uncited material, and explaining those edits in my edit summaries. Why are you wikistalking me? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dear anon, please explain, why you are deleting referenced information about royal house of France. --Yopie (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained in the edit summaries, France no longer has a royal house. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have source, that France is without royal house? You probably dont know, that royal house can be reigning or no-reigning. You was warned twice about edit warring and I will report you.--Yopie (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Only monarchies have royal houses. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Again, do you have reference for this?--Yopie (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for france having a royal house? 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• How can it not? There is a "legitimate King of France", following the succession laws from Hugh Capet. Why would France lose its Royal House? Take a look at Royal House#Deposed or extinct sovereign Houses. Besides, if the House of Orleans wasn't 'Royal', it wouldn't have the necessary soverignty to serve as a fons honorum and preside over the Order anyway. Achowat (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• But, you asked for a source. Here it is. Specifically point #2. Achowat (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly: How is that an RS? Secondly: Nowhere does that page say that Orleans is the royal house of france. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• First, in what way is that source not reliable? Second, it clearly states that an sovereign house that was sovereign on or before the 1814 Congree of Vienna maintains sovereignty. Also, there is the small issue of the source you keep removing; please demonstrate why that is insufficiently reliable, in your eyes. In regards to your edit summary, WP:OR does not allow all unsourced (or unreliably sourced) information to be removed. "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed". Achowat (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Give WP:RS a read. Sorry, I meant to say WP:V allows for removal of uncited material. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:RS and WP:V. Please tell me why you think the citations are Unreliable, don't just point to the entire policy. As for WP:V, it is equally clear; the policy is that things need to be "Verifiable", not "verified". You can also see, quite clearly, that the fact is verified by the references you keep removing. Achowat (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at 2 Reverts right now, so if anyone wants to flip it until this Edit Warrior is blocked, be my guest. Achowat (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a blatant case of WP:GAME. I'm going to stop assuming any good faith on your part. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, and I offer you my apologies. I should never have suggested such a thing in a content dispute and I'm sorry. I have stricken it through, but if you prefer I'd be happy to Redact in entirely. Achowat (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Friends, according to WP:CON and Wikipedia:No consensus a status quo approach is preferable to promote article stability and to prevent edit warring. I will do my best to implement this approach in the article. Unokodak (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Friends, an indication of accepted Wikipedia behaviour: User talk:89.100.150.198 reported by User:Unokodak (Result: blocked one week). Conclusion: Use the talk page to reach consensus and do no edit-war in the article. Unokodak (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by Rawicz

What is to be done about the persistent vandal Rawicz? Jon Jonasson (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please, read all discussion, and all history of edits. In that point unfortunatelly Jon Jonasson and his puppets are Vandals. Their statements are strictly false. Thay provoke another second edit-war, even wikipedians had got an agreement, agreement not vandalised during one year period. Very unfair in Wiki. Rawicz (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • We have been through all this before. Rawicz insists on calling the present organization an "order" rather than a "revival." The death of this "order" is well documented. Unfair? The point of Wikipedia is not fairness, but accuracy. Jon Jonasson (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition, there is not just one, but there are multiple "Orders of St Lazarus", each claiming the other institutions are illegitimate. These types of schismatic tendencies are typical of the self styled orders - observe a similar history in the self styled revivals of St Stanislas. One Lazarus body even admits that it is a revival, and merely a hospitaller organization, rather than a military order. How are we to even decide which one of these revivals is the topic of this article? A more realistic approach would be to stop with the death of the order, and then provide a paragraph which notes there are several self-styled revivals.Jon Jonasson (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Two notes:

• Having multiple branches is not sign of "self-styled order", see Order of the Golden Fleece or Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George.
• Please use "revived order" not "self-styled" (see World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, is not in part about self-styled orders, but in another.--Yopie (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually Yopie, Sainty lists it among "questionable revivals" rather than just as a revival. Jon Jonasson (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. I only want differentiate between OSLJ and bogus orders, as many members of OSLJ are real nobles and the French Crown is fons honorum. Questionable, as Sainty concludes, is link between mediaeval military order and today OSLJ. --Yopie (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yopie wrote "...many members of OSLJ are real nobles and the French Crown is fons honorum." Sorry, but there hasn't been a "French Crown" since 1870, when the last crowned head of France was deposed. (One *might* be able to argue that Napoleon III could still have acted as a fons honorum until his death three years later since, as fount of honor states, "A legitimate fount of honour is a person who held sovereignty either at or before the moment when the order was established.") Such is not the case with the OSLJ which claims Henri d'Orléans and Don Carlos Gereda as its current fons honorums. Neither wears a crown; one is a pretender to a throne that no longer exists (indeed, that has been illegal for 140 years), and the other is merely an aristocrat, so neither can function as a fons honorum. In short, with no King or Emperor of France, there can be no "crown", without a crown, there can be no fons honorum, and without a fons honorum, there can be no chivalric order. Q.E.D. Bricology (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

saintlazarus.org

If this [3] is their website, why isn't it linked? And if it isn't, how does it differ? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment. This link is now included in the article.Unokodak (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SUMMARY

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreement between The Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem and the Légion d’Honneur in France!

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Lazarus Alliance

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Found a booklet about it

• Section deleted. Included information about a booklet and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This order within Canada

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Order of St. Lazarus dispute

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous

Our most recent anonymous contributor has removed all sides of the story but his own. This is not appropriate. Until all viewpoints are included in the article, its accuracy is disputed and it must be labelled as a slanted, one-sided history. - Nunh-huh 03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Cornelis of the french-speaking wikipedia. I think your anonymous is the same who tried to rewrite the article fr:Ordre de Saint-Lazare in the french-speaking wikipedia. His modifications are mainly made of a copyvio from a PDF edited by the so-called "order of Saint-Lazarus". Beware, he's kind of stubborn. Cornelis

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A contributor, a member of the group engaged in active rebellion against the modern Order of Saint Lazarus has now removed the controversy of neutrality banner that was placed on the article some time ago by a third party. A similar banner on the French language version of this article was also removed by the same anonymous contributer whose only identity on French and English wiki is an IP address, 83.3.10.17, which apparently originates from an ISP located in Poland.

This action is typical of the rather "stubborn" (as Cornelis politely mentions above) behavious of the dissident faction that broke off from the main group a couple of years ago.

My wish is to see a fair and unbiased article published in all language versions; a brief summary article that would include a section of links to legitimate historical sites for those who seek further detail. Grncrx 00:05 22 January 2006 UTC

Self-styled Order?

• Section deleted. Included only general discussions about the Order of Saint Lazarus and no suggested implications on the article.Unokodak (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that another edit war threatens to erupt on this article, this time between another anonymous contributor from Poland, ("Wald"?) and Ordrestjean. Just to put in my two bits: it seems obvious to me that the Order does still exist; however, there is obvious controversy as to its current legitimacy. Most of the controversy seems to revolve around the question of its extinction circa 1830, along with the French monarchical regime. As I have noted above, another controversy is playing itself out in the "real world", on various media and judicial fronts, regarding the legitimacy of the usurpation of the Order's name by French Orleanist pretenders. Contributors to this article may be well advised to take heed of a recent decision of the Wiki arbitration committee that passed unanimously on 17 February 2006. Obviously this guideline permits me to remain on the sidelines of this time consuming polemic, since I have identified myself as a member of the Order as it stands, for better and for worse, in the modern world. Grncrx 13:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition to the lead paragraph

I have appended the following sentence to the lead paragraph: "A group by the same name exists today, although its legitimacy as a chivalric order is controversial since it has lacked a proper fons honorum since 1830." This is, in itself, a non-controversial statement that appropriately reflects both the Order's lack of a proper fons honorum and the dispute that seems to be the main topic on this "talk" page. Very few other chivalric orders have the same degree of controversy over their legitimacy. Without at least a reference to this controversy being included in the lead paragraph (which is intended to provide a distillation of the subject), the impression is given that the Order is equal to say, the Order of the Bath in the consensus of legitimacy. Please do not remove the sentence without first debating its inclusion here. Bricology (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not add your POV without consensus.--Yopie (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not PoV. I defy you to show any of my PoV in a sentence that is factual and noncontroversial. I'll break it down for you so you can't prevaricate: 1. That a group of the same name exists today. FACT. 2. That its legitimacy as a chivalric order is controversial. FACT. 3. That the group has lacked a proper fons honorum since 1830. FACT. Again, I defy you to show how any of that is my PoV. It isn't and you know it. Bricology (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It is POV. It is true, that group exist today and its legitimacy is sometimes controversial. But fons honorum is French Crown in person of HRH Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris - see World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, by Stair Sainty and Heydel-Mankoo, ISBN 0-9711966-7-2, pp. 1869-70. Please refrain from pointless edit-warring, read WP:CON before another revert and read above mentioned book (interesting reading about others orders too).--Yopie (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Everything in the sentence that I added is already stated elsewhere in the article. I merely added a condensation of that content into the lead paragraph. So if you think this information is just my PoV, you must either remove that content elsewhere in the article for likewise being PoV, or explain why a synopsis of it shouldn't be included in the lead paragraph. Henri d'Orleans cannot be a fons honorum since he has neither crown nor kingdom. If he were allowed to act as a fons honorum, then every other descendent of every other deposed monarchy would likewise be able to act as one. Bricology (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yopie, I can see from the edit history of this article that you are determined to remove anything critical of the Order from the article. This begs the question of whether or not you are biased in favor of maintaining the Order's appearance of legitimacy. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Order of St. Lazarus? If not, why are you editing out the work of other editors when you think them critical of the Order? I should also point out that you are subject to the 3-revert rule, and to having the page locked and reviewed for NPoV. Bricology (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Argument ad hominem and personal attacks are not good way for discussion. --Yopie (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Except, of course, that I have never engaged in ad hominem or personal attacks against you. As with your claims of my violating the 3-revert rule, you're pulling these claims out of thin air. I defy you to show any personal attacks on my part. You can't and you won't. I will, however, ask you again: are you now or have you ever been a member or employee of the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem? Bricology (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You'd be mindful to read WP:OUTING before pressing so hard for that information. Achowat (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Achowat, I first asked if Yopie was a member of the Order. After he ignored that, I asked again, adding the question if he was an employee. I expect that he'll ignore that as well, but I'll retract the second question to comply with the letter of WP:OUTING. I'm not asking for (or interested in) Yopie's personal information, just affiliation to know if there's a possibility of bias or conflict of interest. It's no different from asking if an editor on the Wiki about say, Scientology, who removes anything critical of Scientology is themselves a member. Bricology (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
          • Demanding to know personal information about a user is the very reason we have WP:OUTING. If his edits, in your opinion, are white-washing or sugar-coating the OSL, then the person doesn't matter, and neither do his motives. Talk about the edits, that's what matters. Achowat (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
            • Achowat, my asking to know whether or not Yupie is a member of the organization he so zealously is defending the WP article on is in no way "demanding to know personal information", and you know it. It was expressly to determine if WP:NPOV is being violated. I believe that it is. WP:OUTING reads thus: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." Now then: do you see anything in that list of prohibited personal information that says "affiliation or membership in an organization"? No, you don't, because it isn't there. Bricology (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Ahem "Personal information includes"...includes, not is limited to, but includes. You've stated you opinion on WP:OUTING, and you have mine. Don't press the man for information he doesn't chose to disclose. Strange that you haven't referenced my request that you discuss "Edits, not editors". Achowat (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
                • Claiming that the word "...includes..." automatically implies "...but is not limited to..." is a stretch, as well as a slippery slope. Should we also assume that WP:OUTING's "...includes..." also covers not asking editors to sign in, lest their WP handle reveal who they are? -or the timestamp of their comments, which might reveal which hemisphere they're in? The list is of prohibited personal information is long enough for brevity to not have been the most important factor for its creators. If they meant that it was a violation to ask another editor's membership or affiliation, they could easily have said so. They did not. And considering the Order has thousands of members, his affiliation (if he is a member) would in no way identify him as anything more specific than being one of thousands of people; it does not violate the purpose or spirit of WP:OUTING which is explicitly intended to prevent the personal identification of an editor. As for your "request that (I) discuss 'Edits, not editors'" -- that was only your request, and carries no weight. I would like to know if Yopie is biased towards the Order, or has a conflict of interest, both of which are relevant to the way that he reverts changes and quashes views with which he disagrees. But beyond that: I am discussing edits (see below), and would much rather continue to do so instead of responding to endless, groundless accusations of my supposedly violating WP's rules. Feel free to weigh in on those edits, instead of merely acting as Yopie's "champion". Bricology (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yopie wrote "But fons honorum is French Crown in person of HRH Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris - see World Orders of Knighthood and Merit, by Stair Sainty and Heydel-Mankoo..." I find it interesting that you are putting forward Guy Stair Sainty as an authority on this matter. I am willing to accept your assertion that Stair Sainty is authoritative. Here is something else he wrote: "The Order of Saint Lazarus, although it is to be complimented for its considerable charitable efforts (notably in Germany), need not pretend to an historical continuity to which its claims, at the very least, are unsubstantiated. Were it to assume the character of a private association, founded in 1910, to emulate the traditions of the ancient crusader Order, it could deflect much of the hostility it has attracted from those bodies which can be more properly characterized as Orders of Knighthood, founded by Papal Bull or Sovereign act or charter. Without such authority behind it, it is difficult to find any justification for this body's claim to be considered an Order of Chivalry." Well? Bricology (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• About fons honorum and deposed royal house, see eg. Habsburg Order of the Golden Fleece or Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) with head Oskar, Prince of Prussia. BTW read basics about wiki-syntax, is different from HTML.--Yopie (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You obviously don't understand fons honorum, and you're conflating two entirely different situations. A fons honorum relies upon either a reigning monarch (as with say, the Vatican or the Queen of Great Britain) or upon an unbroken line of succession within a princely house, as with the two Orders you cited as examples. The OSJ (Brandenburg) has had both the patronage of the Royal Princes of Hohenzollern and the recognition of the secular State in which they reside. The Austrian branch of the OGF has had both the patronage of the Hapsburg Archdukes and the recognition of the secular State in which they preside. That makes them legitimate fons honorum. Neither of those conditions are true of the OSL. Its supposed fons honorum has no crown or official recognition by the secular State; he is merely one of multiple pretenders to the throne. Consequently, he cannot be a fons honorum. If he could be, then any descendent of any deposed monarch could style themselves a fons honorum and start selling titles. Bricology (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Source? Read some books, find references and we can continue with this talk. Did you know something about Mediatisation? Did you know Orders of knighthood, Awards and the Holy See by Peter Bander van Duren, or World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Guy Stair Sainty? Otherwise it is pointless...--Yopie (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • You asked for sources, so here you go:
        

British law: "As the 'fountain of honour' in the United Kingdom, The Queen has the sole right of conferring all titles of honour, including life peerages, knighthoods and gallantry awards...Since The Queen confers honours mostly on the advice of the Cabinet Office, recommendations for honours must be sent to the Ceremonial Secretariat of the Cabinet Office, not Buckingham Palace. While most honours are awarded on the advice of the Government, there are still certain honours in the United Kingdom that the Sovereign confers at his or her own discretion. The only honours for which the Sovereign personally selects recipients are: the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of Merit, the Royal Victorian Order and the Royal Victorian Chain, Royal Medals of Honour and Medals for Long Service." (source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/Honours.aspx ) Note that the only agent/agency other than the monarch that can confer honors is the State, of which she is the titular head.

"The king or queen regnant is the fountain of honour, of office, and of privilege. 'By the laws of England,' says Lord Coke, 'as all degrees of nobility and honour were derived from the king as the fountain of honour; so all the lands of England were derived from the crown of England, and are holden to the same, mediately and immediately.' 'The law,' says Blackstone, 'supposes that no one can be so good a judge of the merits and services of the people as the king himself who employs them. It has therefore intrusted with him the sole power of conferring dignities and honours in confidence that he will bestow them upon none but such as deserve them.' 'By the constitution of every feudal kingdom in Europe,' says Mr Cruise, 'all dignities were derived from the sovereign' and Lord Coke says that by the law of England all the degrees of nobility are derived from the king as the fountain of honour." (source: "The Legal Observer, or Journal of Jurisprudence", vol. 19; Feb. 8, 1840)

Danish law: "The Royal Orders of Chivalry: The Queen heads the two Danish Royal Orders of Chivalry, the Order of the Elephant and the Order of the Dannebrog, while the Prince Consort is their Chancellor...Any decision about the bestowal of honours continues to lie solely with the Head of the Order, but the day-to-day administration of the honours system is undertaken by the College of Arms, which forms part of the royal court." (source: http://um.dk/en/~/media/UM/English-site/Documents/Service-menu/Publications/Factsheets/the_queen_and_the_royal_house.ashx )

French law: France recognizes only chivalric orders that the State authorizes, or those authorized by foreign sovereign states. Consequently, any so-called chivalric order operating within France, but not authorized by the State, is outlawed from calling itself a chivalric order or from pretending, through name or decoration, to being one. This applies particularly to the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem, who claims as its authority figure Henri d'Orleans, a French citizen with no legal power. Upon this, the French State has been unequivocal: "All decorations and orders, of whatever designation or form, which have not been awarded by us or by foreign sovereigns are declared illegally or abusively obtained, and those who wear them are ordered to relinquish them immediately." (source: "Le Moniteur", Apr. 18, 1824; English translation from "British and Foreign State Papers", vol. 11, p. 159) The website of the Order of St. Lazarus itself states "The French Government recognizes only the Orders and decorations of other sovereign states...All members of the Order (of St. Lazarus) resident in or visiting France continue to be required by law to respect and observe the Code de la Légion d'Honneur, with regard to the use of titles and insignia." (source: http://www.oslj.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=265 ) That Code de la Légion d'Honneur expressly prohibits the public wearing of decorations that even resemble "approved" ones (i.e., issued by the French State or foreign sovereign states), which effectively forbids the wearing of the insignia of the Order of St. Lazarus in public in France as if it were a chivalric decoration.

Italian law: In 1953, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a list of self-styled orders that it considers to be illegitimate. Included in that list is the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem. (source: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/itbgord.htm )

Vatican law: The Vatican authorizes five chivalric orders, and the Pope is their fons honorum. (source: http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/papal.htm ) In 1953 and 1970, the Vatican published a list of orders that it considers to be illegitimate. Included in that list is the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem. (source: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/popebg.htm )

The WP article on chivalric orders states "Most scholars agree that a chivalric order (that is, an order which can bestow knighthood) must have a fons honorum ('fount of honour') provided by its founder and current principal patron for it to be considered a true chivalric order. A fount of honour is defined as someone who held sovereignty either currently or formerly at the time of the creation of the order." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_order )

Finally, Guy Stair Sainty, who Yopie has already referenced as an authority on chivalric orders, wrote this: "The existence of a body with an international membership styling itself 'the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem' has caused some confusion with the Royal Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, not least because both assert the same historical origins as successors of the crusader Militia of Saint Lazarus. This claim to continuity by the modern 'Order of Saint Lazarus' has been questioned by many historians over the last eighty years and, at best, must be regarded as unproven...The supporters of the modern revival state that in 1841 the surviving knights persuaded the Melchite Patriarch of Antioch, then visiting Paris, to assume the role of Protector of the Order. If there is any documentary evidence of this, it has never been produced...The Order of Saint Lazarus...need not pretend to an historical continuity to which its claims, at the very least, are unsubstantiated. Were it to assume the character of a private association, founded in 1910, to emulate the traditions of the ancient crusader Order, it could deflect much of the hostility it has attracted from those bodies which can be more properly characterized as Orders of Knighthood, founded by Papal Bull or Sovereign act or charter. Without such authority behind it, it is difficult to find any justification for this body's claim to be considered an Order of Chivalry. Private individuals do not have the authority to form Orders, at least none that will be generally recognized." (source: http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/lazarus.htm )

So there you have it: the sovereign states of Great Britain, France, Italy, Denmark and the Vatican, all agreeing that the fons honorum for any chivalric order can only be the monarch or the State itself, and Guy Stair Sainty, twice referenced by Yopie as authoritative on these matters, declaring the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem as lacking a legitimate fons honorum.Bricology (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• • To this, I would add the further fact that, as opposed to the OGF (Austria) and the OSJ (Brandenburg), the soi disant fons honorum of the OSL, Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris is just one of a few rival pretenders to the Crown of France. No one seriously disputes the position of the Hohenzollern family as the sole royal line in Prussia, nor the Hapsburg family in Austria. Henri d'Orleans, however, has at least two substantive rivals to his claim on the French throne: Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, the direct descendent of Napoleon Bonaparte, and Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, the direct descendant of King Louis XIV of France. With no agreement upon who is the legitimate pretender to the French Throne, there is no way that Henri d'Orleans can act as a fons honorum. AFAIK, there is no example of a chivalric order having a disputed fons honorum, other than the OSL. Bricology (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, source? Read WP:OR please. --Yopie (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can someone please explain why Yopie reverted my text and reference???OSLJA (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear friend, this is because a) category "Esoterism" is for mysticism and magic, not for Christian order, b) links in infobox are for obediences (Malta, Orleans), not for every jurisdiction, and Grand priory of GB is in Orleans obedience, c) examples of notable members are for notable members. If any question occurs, please PM me. Thank you for understanding. --Yopie (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fellow editor, not your friend! And no, I don't understand why every single one of my edits have been reverted - malicious I would say. For example, there is no reason why, as this is the English wikipedia site, that a website specific to GB (oslj.org.uk) should not feature in external links so I've put it back in external links. It is specific to GB events and not the same as the one featured in infobox. There is no reason why social network sites shouldn't feature in external links - I've seen them on other articles. There is no reason why a perfectly good article shouldn't be featured in external links such as the one I posted from the Los Angeles article (Queen of Angels) OSLJA (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See links normally to be avoided in reference to your question about links. English Wikipedia covers the whole English speaking world, so adding the GB Grand Priory is rather narrow don't you think? Having the various obediences web sites probably fits the bill for "necessary" external links. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For fellow editor - a) WP:ELNO point 10 - "Links normally to be avoided - Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." b) Conflict of interest - please explain who and why. If its you, as can be seen from your user name OSLJA, please follow the rules WP:COI. --Yopie (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Dear OSLJa, explain your COI tag. Who and why have confict of interest? Only person, who declared affiliation to the Order, is you, by your username.--Yopie (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Please could someone explain why the categories 'Fraternal service organizations' + 'Religious service organizations' are inappropriate to the subject? Thanks. They've been deleted twice by Yopie. OSLJA (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Order of St. Lazarus is an Order of Chivalry under the Protection of the Royal House of France, it is not a religious service organisation or a fraternal service organisation, both of which are defined differently from an Order of Chivalry. (Ollamhnua (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC))

Social Media References

I have removed reference to social media as a means by which the Order of St Lazarys makes its "ministry" accessible today because there is no way of knowing that any social media site actually is operated on behalf of the Order and secondly because no where in the Order's constitution or official policies can I find reference to this being an official activity of the Order. (Ollamhnua (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)).

• According to whois these are operated by the Prince Charles Philippe, Duke of Anjou, Grand Prior of France, Chairman of the Governing Council of the Order and former Grand Master. --Yopie (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Head of the Royal House of France"

Under the heading "The Order Today: Recognition", it reads "The Order of Saint Lazarus has the protection of HRH prince Henri d'Orléans, count of Paris, duke of France, head of the Royal House of France". In fact, there is no "head of the Royal House of France" today; there are indeed at least two current pretenders to that particular title. The Order is promoting the claim of Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris over those of his rival, Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou who is supported by the Legitimists. The WP article on the House of France makes it clear that Henri d'Orleans is not the only claimant to that title. The WP article on Henri d'Orleans makes it clear that he is the Orléanist pretender to the title, rather than actually possessing it, so to claim otherwise here is factually incorrect.

Nor is the "House of France" even the only claimed crown of France. Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, is the direct descendent of Emperor Napoleon I, and as such, has support among many French people (known as Bonapartists) as the legitimate heir to the Imperial House of France. In short, it is absurd to assert here that Henri d'Orleans is the "head of the Royal House of France" when he has a rival even within the Bourbon family for that title, much less when he has a second rival for the crown of France in Napoleon's heir. Nor can Henri d'Orleans "protect" the Order from or against anything. He is its patron, nothing more. Consequently, I move that the sentence be changed to the following (changes bolded): "The Order of Saint Lazarus has the patronage of HRH prince Henri d'Orléans, count of Paris, duke of France, Orleanist pretender to the head of the Royal House of France". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricology (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Again, do you have source, that "there is no head of the Royal House of France today" and that "Henri d'Orleans cannot protect the Order"?--Yopie (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There cannot be a "head of the Royal House of France today" simply because there are two rival claimants to that title, both with some legitimacy and neither with the ability to negate his rival's claim. Guy Stair Sainty has an exhaustive study of the Legitimist argument and why and how there became two rivals for leadership of the House of France here: http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/bourbon/france/frenlegt.htm There is also a useful synopsis of the Orléanist cause in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Orleanists Britannica also touches on some of the Legitimist background here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Legitimists "The Royal House of France" does not exist a priori; it is a human construct that is asserted to exist and can be described. Ultimately, the assertion that there is a "head to the Royal House of France" carries with it the onus for the party making the assertion to prove. The onus is also on that party to demonstrate that their particular claimant is the valid one. Has this been done here? Nope. Perhaps you should give it a shot. Bricology (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Couldn't it just as easily be said, instead of there being "no head of the French Royal house" that there are two? Achowat (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I can think of no monarchy on earth where there exists two heads of a royal house, except in a co-regency and I don't think that a hypothetical co-regency is in the works in France. Nor do I think that claiming there are actually two heads of the House of France would satisfy either camp. Either way, this entry asserts definitively that Henri d'Orleans is singularly "...head of the Royal House of France", which is patently untrue and only asserted by his supporters. Bricology (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • You make a compelling point, and one I'm inclined to go along with. Absent a verifiable source calling him the "head of the Royal House of France", it would be our own research claiming him to be so. Might I suggest that the sentence currently reading "The Order of Saint Lazarus has the protection of HRH prince Henri d'Orléans, count of Paris, duke of France, head of the Royal House of France" read instead "The Order of Saint Lazarus has the protection of [[Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris]]"? Achowat (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• There seems to be some confusion over the word "pretender", as it's used here. The word, as used in these contexts, does not claim that such claim to the throne are true or false (as you might assume the word means a false claim), just that there is a legitimate claim based on established rules of succession that, because someone else is recognized as monarch or the monarchy has been replaced, is not acted on. Being the Orleanist pretender does not mean that he is not the rightful King of France. (Which, I'll admit, there is some debate over, but the fact that such a word is used does not end that debate). Achowat (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not even slightly confused about "pretender". As Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou states, "Louis Alphonse is championed as the pretender to the throne of France by the Legitimist faction (légitimistes), one of three monarchist parties supporting different claimants to a restored throne of France." Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon likewise describes him as a current pretender to the throne. So there are currently three simultaneous pretenders to the throne, not one. I doubt that any of this comes as news to you. Bricology (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Not at all, but it's good to get these facts written down for the next group of editors who come by. Achowat (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, sources, that he is "Head of the Royal House of France" - LA Times:"Henri Robert Ferdinand Marie Louis Philippe d'Orleans took over as head of the royal house of France in 1940", The Telegraph:"Her Royal Highness the Countess of Paris, who has died in Paris aged 91, was the widow of Henri, Count of Paris, Head of the Royal House of France, and regarded by most French legitimists as King Henri VI.", Royalty Who Wait, Olga S. Opfell, McFarland, 2001, p.21, Le Figaro:"le chef de la Maison de France" and International Commission for Orders of Chivalry: "H.R.H. The Count of Paris, Head of the Royal House of France".--Yopie (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's take a look at your sources:
      source #1 (the L.A. Times) -- claiming that an American reporter for a Los Angeles newspaper is an authority on the relative legitimacy of pretenders to the hypothetical French throne is, to say the least, questionable.
      Source #2 betrays its ignorance in its opening sentence: "Her Royal Highness the Countess of Paris, who has died in Paris aged 91, was the widow of Henri, Count of Paris, Head of the Royal House of France, and regarded by most French legitimists as King Henri VI." News to them: the "legitimists" are actually on the other team; supporters of the Duc d'Anjou's claim to the throne. Someone is utterly confused.
      Source #3 doesn't actually support your claim at all! In fact, "Royalty Who Wait: The 21 Heads of Formerly Regnant Houses of Europe" makes both claimants' cases equally, as can be seen in the name of the first chapter in the book, titled "H.R.H. Louis-Alphonse, Prince of Bourbon, Duc d'Anjou, Royal House of France, House of Bourbon" (emphasis added). Compare this with the chapter on Henri d'Orleans: "H.R.H. Henri, Count of Paris, Royal House of France, House of Bourbon-Orleans". Note the identical weight given to each claimant.
      Source #4 ("Le Figaro"): My grasp of French isn't perfect, but as near as I can tell, that article does not claim that Henri d'Orleans is the head of the House of France.
      Source #5 -- a page on the website of the so-called International Commission for Orders of Chivalry -- is not an impartial source at all. The former Secretary-General of that group, James J. Algrant, alleges that they changed from being an unbiased group to essentially being at the hire of creators of honors-for-pay (source: http://www.maineworldnewsservice.com/caltrap/internat.htm ) The ICA's website makes much of who was a part of the original Commission in 1960, but considerably less of who comprises it 52 years later. Indeed, if you look at the "Patrons and Members" list on that website, it lists 13 "patrons", and they bear closer inspection. First on the list is Philip, Duke of Württemberg. He died in 1975, 37 years ago. Numbers 2 through 5 are all Catholic cardinals, and all dead. Number 6 is Archduke Otto von Habsburg who died last year. Number 7 is Archduke Andreas Salvator, who is nothing more than just one of 23 Hapsburg archdukes in the minor (Tuscan) line currently alive. Number 8 is Walburga Maria Douglas, a Swedish citizen. Number 9 is Dom Duarte Pio, pretender to the throne of Portugal. Number 10 is Prince Serge (I presume they mean "Sergius") of Yugoslavia; third-eldest son of Prince Alexander. Number 11 is Maria Wladimirovna, the disputed head of the Romanovs. Number 12 is József Árpád, a minor Habsburg archduke in the Hungarian-Palatine branch, which is not recognized in Hungary. And number 13 is Bruno Platter, a priest. Taken in whole, the 13 can be divided into four groups of "patrons": the first six are dead people. Numbers 7 and 8 are two minor members of nobility with no authority. And numbers 9 through 12 are all pretenders to royalty that is outlawed in their respective nations. And number 13 is a priest. Now, why do you suppose that numbers 9 through 12 would want to have anything to do with a group that purports to have some form of authority in matters of royalty and chivalry? My guess is that they hope to use it to influence their own chances to return to power.
      I should point out that I don't have a dog in this race; I don't care if the Orleanists, Legitimists, Bonapartists or Noneoftheaboveists "win" the right to call themselves the imaginary heads of an imaginary French kingdom. My beef is with one group claiming that the matter is settled in their favor when it hasn't been, and it can't possibly be. Bricology (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the LA Times is not a reliable source? Achowat (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I think that the LA Times (today) is a reasonably reliable source about things within its sphere. Clearly, the relative claims of the pretenders to the nonexistent crown of France is far outside of their area of knowledge. Regional newspapers are just that: knowledgeable about their region. Just because something is published in an otherwise reputable regional newspaper does not make it reliable about very minor yet complex foreign matters. I wouldn't trust a newspaper in say, the Punjab to understand the intricacies of the political system in Yorkshire or Seattle, nor would I trust the LA Times to understand the intricacies of the political system in France. And at times, the LA Times has a history of being anything but objective. For example, the Pulitzer Award-winning writer David Halberstam wrote, in his book "The Powers That Be (book)", "LIt (the L.A. Times) was virulently partisan. The Times was not an organ of the Republican Party of Southern California; it was the Republican Party. It chose the candidates for the Party. If anything, the Republican Party was an organ of The Times. Fairness had nothing to do with it." So, between the potential for bias and the illogic of expecting a regional newspaper in LA to be anything like a reliable authority about nobility 10,000 miles away -- no, I cannot accept the opinion expressed in this article as "reliable". Bricology (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but at the point. I was asked for sources that Cout of Paris is "Head of the Royal House", not about only Head and this is proven by sources. Comment above is your original research and POV. BTW calling Grand Master of the Teutonic Order Bruno Platter only as priest is like calling Mr. Obama as lawyer.--Yopie (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
      • It's neither original research nor PoV for me to be critical of your sources. Your sources are questionable. You don't get a free pass to post any old source you want and expect others to accept it as authoritative; otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority fallacy. Your first source is a prime example. You're quoting an American writer for a Los Angeles Newspaper that says that Henri d'Orleans is the head of the House of France. Why should we accept this as authoritative? Would you accept a French newspaper's article describing who is "the best actor in Hollywood"? If I find a newspaper article from New Zealand or Zimbabwe, claiming that the Duc d'Anjou is actually the head of the House of France, will you accept that as authoritative? I doubt it. The second source totally shot its credibility by referring to Henri d'Oreans' supporters as "legitimists", which disproves their grasp of the situation since the Legitimists are against Henri's claims. Your third source does not support your claim at all; it actually calls Henri's rival "head of the House of France" as well! And your fourth source doesn't appear to support your claim either. As for Bruno Platter -- as near as I can tell, he has a D.D. degree, he's a priest, and he's in charge of a group of less than 1,000 Catholic "knights". Yeah, he's just like President Obama, the most powerful human on earth. Analogy fail. Bricology (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Logic as "two Heads - no House" is interesting. What about non-existent Order of the Golden Fleece with two Heads? Even countries can annihilate - China and Republic of China, United Kingdom with Jacobitism, Spain exploded after Carlist met with Liberals etc. Of course, Libya returned from nowhere as Gaddafi was killed... But return to the Orders, what about Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George with three heads? Teutonic Order is probably non-existent too, because have Protestant Balije van Utrecht with own Head. Knights Hospitaller are non-existent five times, terrible... --Yopie (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Check your reading comprehension, Yopie. As I have stated all along, the question of "two heads" is between the leadership of the House of France, which this article asserts is Henri d'Orleans, without proving any such thing. I can cite sources that claim that the Duc d'Anjou is the head; I doubt that would prove it to your satisfaction, but it demonstrates that the claim that Henri d'Orleans is the head is false. There cannot be two heads of a house except in a co-regency. There can only be rival claimants. Franz, Duke of Bavaria, the heir to the Stuart Kings, is not the "co-head" of the Royal House of Britain; at best, he's a pretender. To cite the Order of the Golden Fleece as being relevant is nonsensical since it's not a "royal house". Nor does it have "two heads"; there are two rival factions, neither of which can prove its preeminence. Likewise, the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George does not have three heads; it has three rival factions, each of which dispute the validity of the other two. This is entirely different from the OSLJ, which does not have a rival faction headed by the Duc d'Anjou. Bricology (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Dear boy, again, do you have source for "There cannot be two heads of a house except in a co-regency"? BTW Duke of Anjou is Grand Prior of OSLJ in France... And please, read any book about chivalric orders. --Yopie (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Yopie wrote "Dear boy, again, do you have source for 'There cannot be two heads of a house except in a co-regency'?"
          In Europe today, there are exactly ten Royal Houses with a regnant Head: United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. (There are also two soi disant "principalities" which are non-hereditary and whose heads are appointed by election, and are thus not Royal Houses). None of the ten have two heads except in the cases of co-regencies. Since you are asserting that there can be, or are two heads of a Royal House in Europe today, the onus is on you to demonstrate how this could be true since it defies convention and laws of inheritence. "And please, read any book about chivalric orders." From where I type this in my library, I can see my bookcase which holds about 18-20 books on chivalric orders, all of which I've read. And you? Bricology (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
          

I see that there was already a lengthy and heated debate on the subject, but it seems that there is still some confusion regarding "the head of the Royal House of France". The wiki on that subject, linked to in the article itself, makes it clear that there is no such "head"; that there are in fact three separate claimants to the title. So for this article to state that "HRH prince Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France, as the head of the Royal House of France" serves as the fons honorum is flat-out wrong. Unless the editors of this article can prove that Henri d'Orleans is the only head of the Royal House of France, they cannot claim him as a fons honorum. And even then, I do not buy that a descendent of a deposed monarch of more than a century ago, pretending to the throne of a nation that has banned the monarchy, can act as a fons honorum. I suggest that the claim that Henri d'Orleans can serve in that role be removed from the entry. I also think the article needs a "controversy" section to reflect the heterodoxy of opinion on the subject. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Again, do you have any source for your opinion? Without it, it is your original research.--Yopie (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not my opinion. Look above at the citations to the wiki on the House of France. That page directly refutes your claim that Henri d'Orleans is the head of the House of France. It states "Since the death of the latter (the Comte de Chambord in 1883), the French royalists are divided on the question of succession between supporters of the Spanish Bourbons and the supporters of Orléans." I notice that you haven't done any editing of that wiki, nor bothered to argue your views in its "Talk" section, so I presume you cannot fault the entry. Next, look above at the "Addition to the lead paragraph" section where bircology lists citations of primary sources from British, French, Danish, Italian and Vatican law spelling out exactly what a fons honorum is, and just below that to what Guy Stair Sainty spelling out what it is not. French law explicitly states that it ONLY allows French citizens to publicly wear the decorations of orders that the French State awards, or those awarded by other nations, including the Vatican. Therefore, the "House of France" is, in the eyes of the French State, NOT a legitimate fons honorum. That's not only persuasive, it's overwhelmingly so. Obviously, the States are authoritative beyond any doubt on the subject, and Sainty is widely regarded as an expert on it. Ultimately, the onus is on you and others who want to defend the OSL to demonstrate that their fons honorum is legitimate. You have never done so; all you have done is give *opinion* and OR. Therefore, this entry cannot be left as it is, giving, as it does, incorrect information. Occam's Shaver (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Some notes: a) You cannot use other article as the reference, see WP:CIRCULAR, b) there is huge difference between State of Vatican and the Holy See. Vatican does not have any law about chivalric orders. --Yopie (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Nice prevarication. I never said "Vatican State", now did I? One uses "the Vatican" to refer to the Holy See, the Pope and the entire apparatus there. Are you saying that the Holy See doesn't have laws about chivalric orders? Because you know that they do, and you know that they have explicitly stated their qualifications for chivalric orders and that the OSL does not meet those qualifications. I didn't use the other article as a reference for a claim; I referred to it as an example of what the term "fons honorum" is accepted to mean, and I pointed out that you, who have spent so much time and energy promoting a different definition of it here, have not bothered to spend any time or energy correcting that article. That's not evidence of anything but I do find it peculiar. Regardless, the points I've made above stand. You/the OSL claim a legitimate fons honorum. The onus is on such claimants to support their claim. Support the claim, or I'm going to change it to reflect the majority and orthodox opinion on the subject. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Good grief - this debate is still going on?! I'm with Occam's Razor; it's time to tidy this article up and make sense out of nonsense. I'll be happy to rewrite the dodgy bits and remove the unsourced claims. Any help would be appreciated.Bricology (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

I've moved the following paragraph from the article:

==The two World Wars==

The order's activities halted in 1914, perhaps due World War I. Possibly, it is because Moser and an accomplice named Hans Branco were both arrested in Paris for trafficking in fake orders and decorations. Moser had apparently gone too far and started selling fake Legion of Honor medals. He was sentenced to 4 months in jail, after which he returned to Berlin, and committed suicide in 1928. The offices of the Société were searched by the police and many counterfeit diplomas, crosses and various insignia were found. This probably put a damper on the Order of Saint Lazarus. By a strange coincidence, Fritz Hahn alias Guigues de Champvaus was jailed in 1936 in Paris for illegal sale of order and decorations. [4]

In June 1933, the Duke of Seville, who had fled Republican Spain, was hosted at a dinner at the Hotel Iena in Paris. To replace the publication La Science Historique, a new periodical appeared in April 1933 under the editorship of Paul Bertrand, La Vie Chevaleresque, as the official mouthpiece of the order. The new periodical chronicles the expansion of the order. In December 1935, the Duke of Seville was elected Grand-Master of the order. Presumably, the duke's royal connections (he is a member of the Spanish royal family) impresses Spanish-speaking applicants, and the order becomes linked with a number of Latin American diplomats in Paris. Otzenberger was made consul of the Dominican Republic in Mulhouse.

The order's ideological slant was quite visibly inherited from Watrin's original legitimism: the Duke of Seville himself is a colonel in the fascist Falangistas. The handing out of crosses confirms the political inclination: between 1933 and 1936, the following individuals become members: Francisco Franco (dictator of Spain 1936-75), Carol II of Romania (king/dictator of Romania 1930-40), Rafael Trujillo (dictator of the Dominican Republic 1930-52), Fulgencio Batista (dictator of Cuba 1933-44, 1952-59), Getulio Vargas (dictator of Brazil 1930-45), and a few other presidents of Latin American countries (Argentina, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala). Whether all of these distinguished gentlemen were actually aware of his membership is not quite clear: the order occasionally bestowed its cross on unsuspecting individuals, as happened to the Mexican Marquis de Guadalupe, whose protestations were obviously ignored. [5]

Without commenting on its merits in terms of neutrality etc, it appears to be a more-or-less cut-and-paste (and certainly a copyright violation) from [6]. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This tirade is lifted from the Heraldica Organisation, itself a self-styled organisation (unsurprisingly) with no official status anywhere in the world, and with a secret membership list. In addition to the endless bilge against St.Lazurus it cites one of its sources as Guy Stair Sainty..........say no more?! David Lauder 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough on both counts, but the fact remains that this articles is far too glowing. I would, for the sakes of neutrality, rather have some material reflect that anti group, then have the remaining article written from the vantage point of the Order itself. Especially disturbing is the near-total WWII omission, not a word about that, but of course the Order's activities to liberate Poland (there's a WWII favorite!) from "communism occupation" gets mentioned in the intro, no less. El_C 19:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First, it's entirely possible that the original author of that text is the one who added it here, so it may not be a copyright violation. Second, to David Lauder's statements: Heraldica is not an "organization", it claims not "official status" anywhere, and it certainly has no "secret membership list". Heraldica.org is an information website compiled by a hobbyist, as stated explicitly on their "about" page ( http://www.heraldica.org/presentation.htm ) As for "...the endless bilge against St.Lazurus [sic] it cites one of its sources as Guy Stair Sainty..........say no more?!" -- I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest, but in fact Guy Stair Sainty is internationally recognized to be an authority on these very matters. He's the author of no less than five books on the subject, including a comprehensive 2 volume set on chivalric orders published by Burke's Peerage, whose reputation would make it unlikely for them to choose to publish disreputable work; indeed, the work has been roundly praised in journals for its accuracy. Sainty is also a member (advanced member, in many cases) of a slew of chivalric orders whose legitimacy is beyond question. Exactly why you try to suggest he is an unreliable source is a mystery to me, unless you happen to belong to the Order of St. Lazarus, which he describes as "self-styled". Sour grapes do not make for good WP editing. Occam's Shaver (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

Background:

"Due to disputes and schisms within the Order there are now two distinct obediences (branches) both of which claim the mantle of the Order of Saint Lazarus. For many decades the Malta and Paris Obediences feuded over the Grand Magistry of the Order, eventually reconciling as a united order in 2008 when don Carlos Gererda y de Borbón, Marquis de Almazán, was elected as 49th Grand Master of the Order. However, previously dissatisfied members of the Paris Obedience continue to operate separately having formed what became known as the Orleans Obedience under Grand Master HRH Prince Charles Philippe, Duke of Anjou. In 2004 Prince Charles Philippe successfully achieved renewed temporal protection of the Royal House of France. However, in 2010 Prince Charles Philippe retired as Grand Master of his branch of the Order and was replaced by his uncle Count Jan Dobrzenský z Dobrzenicz[9] [10] [11]."

However Count Jan Dobrzenský z Dobrzenicz represent an defection from the Orleans obedience without support from the Royal House of France. In the Oreleans obedience HRH Prince Charles Philippe, Duke of Anjou is replaced by Right Reverend Richard Garrard, Anglican Bishop, elected Administrator General of the Order 12 March 2010, pending the election of the 50th Grand Master. Source: The letter from the Royal House of France found on: http://www.oslj.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Docs/Int/2011/20111017-LettreDuComteDeParis_FR_EN_ES.pdf

Change from: "However, in 2010 Prince Charles Philippe retired as Grand Master of his branch of the Order and was replaced by his uncle Count Jan Dobrzenský z Dobrzenicz[9] [10] [11]."

Change to "However, in 2010 Prince Charles Philippe retired as Grand Master of his branch of the Order and was replaced by Right Reverend Richard Garrard, Anglican Bishop, elected Administrator General of the Order 12 March 2010, pending the election of the 50th Grand Master. <ref>http://www.oslj.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Docs/Int/2011/20111017-LettreDuComteDeParis_FR_EN_ES.pdf.</ref>. At this time a group defected from the obedience and elected a "50th Grandmaster" of the Order Count Jan Dobrzenský z Dobrzenicz[9] [10] [11]."

Add link to the original Orleans obedience: http://www.oslj.org/

Best regards

Uno

Unokodak (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Dear Uno,

your request cannot be accepted, as is not supported by reliable source, but only by self-published web of this group and involve claims about third parties. Please read WP:SELFPUB. BTW read WP:SOCK, why is page protected and some user blocked. --Yopie (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, the Order could not have the protection of -- nor a letter from -- "the Royal House of France" for the simple reason that no such agency exists. There are three rival groups that claim the same title: the Orleanists, the Legitimists and the Bonapartists. French law refuses to accept any of them as legitimate (much less ranking one above another), so there's no reason for anyone else to. Bricology (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)