Talk:Military order (religious society)

Untitled

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

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)

---

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

---

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

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)

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

<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

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)

"Orders of Chivalry" and "Orders of chivalry"

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)

Requirements to be a Military order

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)

Origin of military orders

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)

Need disambiguation

"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)

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

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

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Best first look at the list of meanings in Military order (disambiguation). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The dab page was created yesterday. Nobody thought to make one in eleven years. Srnec (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)