Talk:Military order (religious society)

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

Untitled[edit]

Added Knight's Templar flag. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article claims there were military orders within Eastern Orthodoxy, but never lists any. Am I missing something? Themill can't be bothered to sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed any references to Ortodoxy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.55.6.82 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, somebody anonymous greatly changed article, without previous talking about it. Please use talk page before great changes. Yopie 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Military Order of the Crusaders of the Red Star[edit]

or better name Knights of the Cross with the Red Star because this order is Czech, so official name is Czech Křižovnický řád rytířů s červenou hvězdou and there is not anything about "crusaders" or "military" (in fact, the Orders wasnt military). In Ackermann are names "Orden vom Kreuz mit dem rothern Stern" , in official pages [1] are many names in Latin as Canonici Regulares Sanctissimae Crucis a stella rubea, Crucigeri cum rubea stella, Crucigeri stellati, Stelliferi, Křížovníci s červenou hvězdou, Křížovníci. On other page of one church attached to the Order, himself is called Knights of the Cross with the Red Star (see [2])So, other test "Knights of the Cross.." 729 ghits, "Military orders.." 0 ghits. Be honest, I found one citation of this name in old Catholic Encyclopedia here, but this entry is full of incorrect fact. The Order wasn't in the Holy Land and was founded in Bohemia, so connotation to Crusaders is simply false. This Order is and was "military" only in pure ceremonial way, and it is mainly hospitaller order. --Yopie 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Many "Crusaders" never fought in the Holy Land. Many Crusades weren't directed at the Holy Land. I have provided a citation, but the Latin provided at the article is already evidence enough. Srnec (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Story about "Betlemites" as predecessors of Knights of the Cross is common error (as Order of Tutsin, or one Order of the Christ). Knights of the Cross were founded by pope Gregory IX in 1237 (bull Omnipotens Deus) and by princess St. Agnes. You cited Walsh, but he wrote about the Order only few lines and without sources/references. My opinion is based on Milan Buben, Encyklopedie řádů a kongregací(annotation) and Ivan Koláčný "Řády a vyznamenání" (with English resume, I can scan it and send to you by email). I will search for more sources on-line and in English.--Yopie 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is publication, published by the Order itself, under name The Treasure of the Order of the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star. Same name is in Britanica I hope, thats all we need for official English name of the Order. --Yopie 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

foreign language template moved from main article[edit]

<ref name="HistoriaRioja-EdadModerna">{{cita libro| apellidos = Hernández Lázaro | nombre = José Fermín | enlaceautor = | título = Historia de La Rioja. Edad Moderna - Edad Contemporánea. | año = 1983 | editorial = Caja de Ahorros de La Rioja| id = ISBN 84.7231-903-2|páginas= 52 |capítulo= Órdenes militares, divisas y linajes de La Rioja.}}</ref>

Hospitallers / Knights Malta[edit]

This page has the Hospitallers and the Knights of Malta listed separately, with different dates of founding... but the Knights of Malta aka Sovereign Military Order of Malta _are_ the Knights Hospitaller... they are the modern version of them. Why list them separately? Especially with different dates of founding? Leecharleswalker (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Orders of Chivalry" and "Orders of chivalry"[edit]

It's strange and misleading that "Orders of Chivalry" redirect to Military order and "Orders of chivalry" redirects to Chivalric order. --79.20.253.233 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements to be a Military order[edit]

A list of requirements for an organization to be a true military order or various types of orders and the requirements for each type would be helpful,if I had not done further link clicking I would have been un aware that an order must have a fount of honor. If it doesn't it's a self styled order, self styled orders were mentioned but a full list of requirements would be a good addition to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlathropn (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of military orders[edit]

Like a lot of historiography, the article assumes that military orders originated after the first crusade. But in a later section, it lists the Order of Saint James of Altopascio which was founded in 1070. To my knowledge, similar institutions existed in Spain, too. There is no doubt that the crusades helped the military orders to become important, but I would like to see a more detailed account in the article. -- Zz (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need disambiguation[edit]

"Military order" has several other meanings in English like written military operations order or type of Military decoration like Order (honour). We need some sort of disambiguation. --Jarekt (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Jarekt:. I'll start working on a disambig page soon in my spare time. Post on my talk page if you've got input, and I may need backup against the naysayers
This is a military order
Military Order of Saint Hermenegild

Requested move 08 October 2014[edit]

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: withdrawn. I have opened a different move proposal below. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Military order (society) → Military order – Recently moved without discussion from its longstanding title. – Srnec (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best first look at the list of meanings in Military order (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dab page was created yesterday. Nobody thought to make one in eleven years. Srnec (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I attempted to create a discussion in the section above...forgot to sign my comment though. Nobody seemed interested. Besides, my understanding of policies is that I only need consensus in a controversial move, and I was merely trying to help possibly confused readers. I only moved "without discussion" because a week went by with no input. I originally redirected Military order to Military order (disambiguation) but somebody changed the redirect to here and added a hatnote, and that's okay, I think that's a good way to do it and I'm glad my dab page wasn't trashed entirely. Pariah24 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I fixed every link in article namespace to point here to the new name. 200+ links. Pariah24 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You commented on 6 October and began implementing changes the next day. Besides, we have a way of doing these discussions: WP:RM.
          You always need consensus, but you can be bold. The problem here is that (a) this title has been stable for 11 years, (b) nobody ever thought we needed a dab page before and you just created it and decided there was no primary meaning to the term, and (c) by redirecting the old title to the new dab page, you prevented anyone from reverting you, thus interrupting the BRD cycle. This should obviously have been RMed.
          I fixed the redirect, but the current setup is not correct. "X" should not usually redirect to "X (something)". Either the dab page or this page ought to be moved to that title. Are you saying that you don't oppose this move?
          Finally, in fixing those 200+ links, did it not occur to you that there was a clear primary usage? Srnec (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Maybe I was mistaken but I thought I posted that unsigned comment a week or so ago. I did not intentionally try to keep anyone from reverting me. I just thought that since this term doesn't really have any usage that is clearly the most common (imho) then readers would benefit from going straight to dab. So yes, you are correct in saying I decided there was no primary meaning. A lot of terms in the encyclopedia are like that; I didn't think I was breaking any new ground. And I was acting on an idea @Jarekt: had months ago, with no one commenting from then until now, so I didn't expect any opposition. Maybe I should have went to RM first, but I was not trying to circumvent/fast-track/whatever anything. However I think the idea is a good one, and the fact that no one has thought to disambiguate the terms in over a decade doesn't mean anything. I agree that most general terms shouldn't redirect to more specific terms. I think Military order should go straight to a dab page that's a bit more expanded than it is now, but I don't mind the way it's set up at the moment with the hatnote on Military order (society). So I guess I don't really care if its moved back or not as long as the dab page is easily accessible. That was my concern - helping people understand the many different meanings of the term. I am of the opinion though that moving it back would imply that the societies are the predominant meaning and I don't think that's true. Pariah24 (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While I do completely understand any frustration or disagreement over the context of the move, the actual action does make sense. It is not clear, either from common conversational usage or from reliable sourcing, that the subject in question is the primary topic over modern day societies, orders of merit, or the concept of order as a command or law, all of which we also have pages for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the revert. This is much less confusing. See my comment above. I am also confused about "without discussion" part. I proposed to create disambiguation page in March and for half a year there was no opposition, it is a reasonable to assume that this is such noncontroversial move that nobody feels like talking about it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the disambiguation page should be moved to the plain location. If there were a primary topic, it would not be this one, it would be Order (honour) instead. The primary meaning is also not this one, bur rather a command order issued by military authorities. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 10 October 2014[edit]

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: consensus to move the disambiguation page to the plain title, and consensus not to move Military order (society) to Military orders, per the discussion below. For the time being, also redirecting Military orders to Military order, although further discussion of the redirect might be advisable. Dekimasuよ! 21:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– The primary usage of the plural form is the medieval monastic orders of knights, as Google Web, Scholar and Books search will show. The singular form does not have a primary usage, because there are many honours known named "Military Order of ..." and there are many references to this or that order from a military officer. There is very little written about military orders (in the latter sense) in general, and so the plural of the common noun does not compete with the medieval orders for primacy. Also, the medieval orders are limited in number: the military orders can be precisely enumerated. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approve Pariah24 (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these people noticed anything amiss between 2003 and this year. I question whether they exist. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "Military order (society)" move. WP:PLURAL should use singular titles. Enumerating all the orders should be done in a separate list article. Support moving the disambiguation page to the plain name. The plural should redirect to the disambiguation page. --- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary topic of the plural term is apparent and you're ignoring it. Srnec (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. We don't decide what a term means by consulting a dictionary to see how it could be used. We look at how it is used. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed when fixing links that a great majority of articles use Military orders in the context of societies. Only few used it to mean command or standing order. Even fewer used it to mean an order of merit and most of those were already linked to Order (honour). Based on that prevalence I think it's okay to make the moves. There are vastly more articles in the encyclopedia written about history than there are about the nuances of commands/orders/honors. Pariah24 ┃ ☏ 06:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the disambiguation page to "military order"; oppose moving "(society)" to "military orders". Using our senses, no average person would think "(society)" while typing "military orders". --George Ho (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page was at "military order" since 2003 and nobody before saw a problem. Srnec (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realize that "(society)" discusses a historic Christian military movement(?). I didn't know what "(society)" is about. Other uses, like military command shown in the dab page, may be more prominent than some historic topic. --George Ho (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a single other article on Wikipedia titled "Military order". Never has been. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "military order" were a proper noun ("Military Order"), maybe "(society)" would be a primary topic. "military order" is not a proper noun and can't be treated as such. This isn't an album, like In My Wildest Dreams, so perhaps there must be other examples whose name is not a proper noun. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving Military order (society) as proposed (possibly relist to consider other names?) but support moving the DAB, no primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

[weasel words]/ [citation needed][edit]

In 1820, José Antonio Conde suggested they were modeled on the ribat, a fortified religious institution which brought together a religious way of life with fighting the enemies of Islam. However popular such views may have become, others have criticized this view, suggesting there were no such ribats around the Outremer until after the military orders had been founded.

How popular have such views become? Indeed, what are "such views" (as opposed to the specific stated view)? Who are these others that have criticized it? Is the "suggestion" that there were no ribats around there supported by evidence, or just their own speculation? Iapetus (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2015[edit]

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: no consensus. Reasonable arguments from both sides, votes roughly splits. Jenks24 (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Military order (monastic society) → Military order – Replacing the current Military order with Military order (disambiguation). Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srnec are you sure? Because when I looked in Google Books and did a search on "military order is" the results I got included all (1) monks (2) medals (3) de:Militärischer Befehl meanings. Of these three meanings (3) is evidently the most important and basic topic, as the umbrella category above other orders. As for creating missed redirects that should happen in every RM discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try "military orders are". The results I get for "military order is" are a little weird and not very helpful.
There is no entry for "order" in the DOD glossary. There is here. An order in military parlance is just about the same as an order collquially. I suspect that's why we have never had an article on it. Certainly putting "military" on the front of it does not make it more notable or distinct. It just acts like any old adjective. I have no problem with encyclopedia coverage of orders, commands and instructions in a military context. But I see no evidence that such coverage should be done under a title beginning with "Military order" or that making this major topic primary and using hatnotes to direct readers to other topics will inconvenience anybody. It was the status quo for years. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose orders that are military are military orders, this is not restricted to monks. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dictionary does not control us here. A "royal navy" is a navy that's royal, but the Royal Navy is the only encyclopedic topic—and it's not the only royal navy. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the basic meaning doesn't control Royal Navy is that Royal *N*avy is distinguished by WP:CAPS, military order (monastic society) isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to turn royal navy from a redirect to a dab page? Certainly, Royal Navy is the correct translation of Regia Marina. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The only thing that's commonly referred to by the full term "military order" is as described on this page. Orders (i.e. commands) are generally referred to simply as "orders" without any qualifier, so should probably be at Order (command). Certain military decorations can be referred to as "military orders", but I think this is the primary topic (and Military order (medal) is a redirect in any case). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not so, see "military order is" test in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When searching for simply "military order", most of the titles on the very first page seem to be about the military order that this article is about, or imitations. Thus, such a search would most definately encourage the proposed move. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Military order can mean a lot of different things; see In ictu oculi's response above, I agree 100% with those points. Rockypedia (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but some definition could positively be considered as more widespread than others. The above is certainly a good candidate since the last 1000 years or so. Furthermore, it's current article name implies an organisation that few of any persisted with over time, thus misleading. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Orphaned references in Military order (monastic society)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Military order (monastic society)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Davies":

  • From Livonia: Norman Davies (1996). Europe: a History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 555. ISBN 0-19-820171-0.
  • From Order of Saint Stephen: Davies, Jonathan (2009). Culture and power : Tuscany and its universities 1537–1609 ([Online-Ausg.]. ed.). Leiden: Brill. p. 33. ISBN 978-90-04-17255-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International or National?[edit]

I'm a bit puzzled by the distinction between "International" and "National" orders. Many, if not most, of the orders listed as National did actually include knights coming from several lands and countries, as any other religious order. I strongly feel that this highly artificial division should be removed. But of course I'd like to hear the other contributors' opinions. Best regards. --Arturolorioli (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good question. For the moment, the distinction is explained in the text. This distinction was made somewhere else. However, for instance, Polish Wikipedia uses another logic for its distinctions: pl:Zakon rycerski. Chicbyaccident (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. The reason for the current distinction given in the text (i.e. according to "adherence, mission, and enrolment") is, alas, so vague that it defies understanding ;) (or maybe I'm just particularly dense ...). Could you please be so kind to give me a rough outline of the system used in the Polish page? I do not speak polish, and the automated translations are always awfull. Thanks in advance. --Arturolorioli (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the Polish page seem to be divided as such:
  1. Orders founded in connection with the pilgrimages and crusades
  2. Orders founded on the Iberian peninsula
  3. Orders established to fight the pagans in Eastern Europe
  4. Other military orders
  5. Secular military orders
What do you think about that? I would say at least the first three divisions makes sense. I suppose the contents under the current title "International" would probably then be folded under "Orders founded in connection with the pilgrimages and crusades", or some better equal definition. By the way, a few of the comments on this very last right column could well be shortened a bit, keeping only the most necessary information, for better overview of the table. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, your proposal looks perfectly OK for me. I also agree to entirely delete the last section (Secular military orders) as it's obviously not included in this article (that is about the *religious* military orders). I suggest to wait a couple of weeks more, so that other contributors could share their opinions, and then go for a major overhaul. All the best. Sorry, I forgot to sign --Arturolorioli (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a single table with an additional column or shaded background colour to explain such divisions, if they are necessary at all (I don't think those are necessary, at those times the concept of a "nation" was incompatible with the present one, in my opinion). --Rquesada (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence for the Order of the Holy Sepulchre existing before the Templars[edit]

The article begins by stating that the first orders were the Templars, Hospitallers, etc., but later, in the chart of orders, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre is listed first. There is no primary evidence of this. Citations are needed for the bull of Paschal II, and I have serious concerns about the recognition of the 'Militi Sancti Sepulcri' that is claimed, especially since the plural of 'miles' is not 'militi' but 'milites'. No other primary source evidence is cited for this claim. What seems far more likely is that members of the later chivalric order misinterpreted the primary sources of the period to lend greater age and authority to their order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.80.128 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milena ovalle llinas[edit]

milena 191.156.248.36 (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrecho[edit]

Milena ovalle llinas 191.156.240.119 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_order_(religious_society)&oldid=1214097466"