text:
Talk:Order of Saint John (chartered 1888)

Original research
The article is original and is based on original research. Dr Michael Foster.

I increased the amount of information on this Order and sited my information as the last two outside references on the page. I also added three pictures to the site. ESQ24

The statement that the postnominals associated with the Order of St. John are only used within the Order is incorrect, though they do not indicate rank on the Scale of Precedence, as correctly stated here. See the discussion about this on the talk page of the British Honours article. I have revised the statement in this article. 66.156.107.108

Russian Order
I have recently been doing research into soap opera actress Ruth Warrick and from a book published in 1992 I have found her listed as "Dame of Honour and Merit by the Imperial Russian Order of Saint John of Jerusalem Ecumenical Foundation". I assume she got this when she traveled to Russia circa 1991 as part of a "Global Forum" which met with Gorbachev about environmental problems. Can anyone tell me more about this ? Dowew 02:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The organization you reference is a self-styled order, not a legitimate one. There's a full run-down of this fake order here: http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/selfsty2.htm Bricology (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Badge pic
I seriously doubt that Image:CrossofVOSJ.jpg is licenced under GFDL. In fact it says right under that image on that website on the desc. page, "Copyright (c) 2002 Order of Saint John. Priory in USA." Greentubing 08:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Name...
Greetings,

I was wondering if anyone can explain why this article is entitled Order of St John. It seems to me that it would be better to use its full title or a longer abbreviation (Venerable Order of Saint John, perhaps). It just seens that there is no reason why the British Order should have the title that makes other believe it is THE order of Saint John, even when there are many many others. For example, the German Alliance order is known by its full name of Balley Brandenburg des Ritterlichen Ordens Sankt Johannis vom Spital zu Jerusalem.--Evadb 10:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Any other thoughts on this question since I posed it a couple months ago?-- E va   d  b  08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The move seems sensible, insofar as I have grasped the situation. However, there are a huge number of pages which still link to Order of St. John.  These will all need disambiguation carried out. - Crosbiesmith 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something with an article for each of these:
 * 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-- 05:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That looks like a very nice proposal, dave. I will try to help you move/make these articles as time permits. Does that look good to you, Crosbiesmith?-- E va   b  d  21:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Knights Hospitaller(covering the general broad history of the order from its beginnings in the Holy Land to present)
 * Alliance of Orders of St John(a description of the structure and purpose of this group)
 * Order of Malta(the catholic order with extended history from the beginnings to present)
 * The Four Main Protestant Orders
 * Balley Brandenburg ("Johanniterorden")(Germany)
 * Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem(England)
 * Johanniterorden I Sverige(Sweden)
 * Johanniter Orde in Nederland(Netherlands)
 * The Four non-German Commanderies of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg
 * Swiss Commandery of the Order of St John(Switzerland)
 * French Commandery of the Order of St John(France)
 * Hungarian Commandery of the Order of St John(Hungary)
 * Finnish Commandery of the Order of St John(Finland)

I think that an organization this way would be helpful. We could also add a category such as or something like that to group them all together, as well as a possible template showing their relationships. What say ya'll?-- Eva  b  d  19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 * In an effort to keep the discussion in one place, how about we do all the discussing here.-- Eva  b  d  19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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  b  d  18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of this article seems to me to be a little artificial and not reflective of real usage - I can't find any citations of the Order being referred to as simply the "Venerable Order of Saint John". We should either use its full name (ie Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem), or the most commonly used short version, with appropriate disambiguation in parentheses (eg Order of St John (England)). --Kwekubo (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Order of St John Ribbon
Hello! Thanks for putting the ribbon of the VOSJ on the page. I'm not sure it is entirely necessary, though, as the actual ribbon is shown immediately above it in the photograph. Would you be terribly offended if I removed your addition?-- Eva  b  d  12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Eva - I moved your question to this talk page for the sake of keeping track of it... I placed the ribbon picture on this page for the sake of completeness more than anything. For many orders, it is not immediately obvious what the ribbon of the order is that would be worn when full regalia is not worn (e.g., see Order of Merit or Order of St Michael and St George). I was actually researching what each ribbon was for the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, and as I went through uploading various images, I have been including the ribbons on the appropriate medal/order page. However, if you feel that it is obvious, then feel free to delete. Of course, whilst I was not completely surprised to see what the ribbon turned out to be (after having seen the pic of the insignia on this page), I still couldn't put my hand on my heart and guarantee it. PalawanOz 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm OK with it staying. Thanks.-- Eva  b  d  13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Name and disambiguation
Hi, I'm doing some link-fixing on the disambiguation page Order of St John and see from the discussion above that there are several pages that you list that might usefully be added to that page - there are only 4 listed so far. Hope this will help cover Crosbiesmith's concerns as well.

BTW I like the template and think it should go a long way towards sorting out from the understanding and disambiguation angles. Think that should probably go onto the disambiguation page too. Good luck in your endeavours... Abbeybufo ( talk  •  contribs )

Badge Picture in Infobox
Can someone explain the image that is currently leading the article? It appears to be an oddly edited version the actual photograph of the insignia on the commons. I'd propose that we change it with the picture that actually shows what the insignia looks like. Any thoughts.-- Eva  b  d  04:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Another possibility might be the outline cross below-- Eva  b  d  09:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Hearing no strong opinions either way after five days, I'm going to go ahead and change the image.-- Eva  b  d  04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The convention is to use the most common form of the name used in English, therefore this article should properly be titled Order of St. John, per WP:NCCN, see http://www.orderofstjohn.org/. The full name, since the 1974 supplemental Royal Charter, is The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (as noted in the lead and infobox); it is never referred to as the "Venerable Order of Saint John" (a Google search only returns this page) and use of that designation here is incorrect.

I have moved the existing page at Order of St. John to Order of St. John (disambiguation) to accommodate a move. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose; the convention is to use the most common name if it is not ambiguous. This is ambiguous, hence the disambiguation page, which should be moved back to. --Una Smith (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment. I do not think Order of St. John is ambiguous to English speakers. The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta is commonly known as the (Sovereign Military) Order of Malta, see http://www.orderofmalta.org.uk and http://www.orderofmalta.org/english. In any case, we should not use made-up terms in an encyclopedia. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Una's agenda, concerning guidelines on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC disambiguation, is subject to discussion at AN/I. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad hominems are a tactic of weakness. --Una Smith (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. And what precisely is the purpose of that remark Una? I think I have answered your objection in my earlier comment. Do you have anything else relevant to add in response to that? Chrisieboy (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on grounds of ambiguity. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have addressed supposed ambiguity, above. Could you please be more specific. Chrisieboy (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The term "Order of Saint John" can be used to refer to more than one thing. In this case, neither thing is more likely to be the referent than the other. I do not believe the Venerable order to be famous enough, nor the application of the term to the Hospitallers to be rare enough. This is all based on my reading alone, and I may be wrong. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose A very large number of uses of the term "Order of St. John" in published literature are not to the Venerable Order but to some other organisation (whether the Catholic order pre-1800 or one of several unrelated but strictly religious orders). The present article title is unambiguous. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can you provide any examples of this "very large number" Noel? Chrisieboy (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google search for "order of st john" -venerable (i.e. minus venerable) finds thousands of uses of the phrase "Order of St. John" in reference to organizations other than the Venerable Order . Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose-- Eva  b  d  04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Eva, this is not a vote, it is a discussion. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The venerable is necessary for disambiguation. Order of St. John could be applied to other organizations as well (such as the Knights Hospitaller). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Which of these "other organisations" has primary usage, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Chrisieboy (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure - which is usually a good reason to disambiguate :-). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Justice/Grace
Though the article mentions Knights of Justice and Knights of Grace, it does not say what the difference is. Opera hat (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Esquires
Recently, mention of Grade VI (Esquire) was removed from the article, along with a couple of other changes. Having done an extensive copyedit and update of this article not too long ago, I don't recall seeing anywhere that Grade VI, Chaplians, and Serving Brothers and Sisters had been abolished. Sedacca, could you please provide sources to support the edits you're making? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No use of post-nominal letters???
The text claims that no post-nominal letters of the order are used outside the organization itself. However, contrary to that claim, my believe was always that it is common and allowed to use the post-nominal letters, as seen in many biographies in the media. This also would make sense since every grade has specific designated post-nominal letters; it would not be logical not to use those. So what is right? I think the Wikipedia text is wrong about this. Could someone show me the specific source that supports the current text ? I could not find anything about non-usage of the post-nominal letters in the official Royal Charters and Statutes of the order, other than that is explained which designated post-nominal letters each grade has. Diodecimus (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added sources for the post-nominal letters. They are not used outside the order itself; official publications never include them (in Canada, Australia, and Britain, anyway). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Structure
In the section structure we should include who are the high officials. (The Sovereign Head, The Grand Prior, The Lord Prior of St. John etc.) In fact I know only who is The Sovereign Head (Elizabeth II) and even if The Grand Prior and the others have not an article, if someone knows their names he/she should include them. Thanks!--46.246.166.248 (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that the article has already been updated to reflect some of this information, but just to give closure to the question: the Grand Prior is HRH Prince Richard, the Duke of Gloucester. The Lord Prior is Prof. Anthony R Mellows OBE TD, the Prelate is The Right Reverend John Nicholls, and the Secretary-General is Sir Paul Lambert.  There are 8 Priories around the world; the Prior of the American chapter is A. Marshall Acuff, Jr. Bricology (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Badge v insignia
Regarding the terms "badge" and "insignia", in keeping with other articles on heraldry, I take "badge" to mean a usually-metallic device that can be worn suspended from a ribbon around the neck, pinned to the breast, on a sash, or on a small piece of cloth. "Insignia" seems to be a more general term, which may include badges and ribbons as well as embroidered or printed symbols and illustrations. The current lead image is a badge according to the above, and its description by the original uploader.

Also, why did you revert the table changes? My changes made better use of space, properly used the caption, bolded the headers (instead of fading them), all in keeping with the current MOS for tables (and using the class intended).

BTW, there seems to be an inconsistency over what the actual six grades are. In some places (here and in sources), Grade VI is Esquire, while in other places, Grade VI is Member and Knights of Justice and Knights of Grace are separate grades (II and III). —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

St vs St.
The "St" versus "St." is a common problem. Shouldn't this particular article, being mostly related to the English arm of the Order, use the BrE standard "St"? It seems like much of the original prose did so, as do many of the articles to which it links. The history link on the unified site to which I pointed in my previous edit uses "St" uniformly. In fact, the entire website uses this form with the exception of the graphic in the header, and just 4 excerpts from other documents on the about page. —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Further reading: —[   Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 21:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this article "mostly related to the English arm of the Order"? It covers the order as a whole; there are no other articles mostly related to the Scottish arm or American arm or Australian arm. Here the order's Prior and Chief Officer in Canada uses the 'St.' format. The website of the Grand Priory of Australasia does the same. Assuming 'St.' is used in America, too, then it would seem more of the order's branches around the world use that method, rather than 'St'.
 * The inconsistency in the Alliance of Orders of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem's website renders it unsuitable as a guide.
 * I assume the resolution to this issue lies in Wikipedia's own guidelines. But, I don't know which apply here. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The American Priory of the Order seems to use "St", but I didn't scour the site that closely. The The website of the Grand Priory of Australasia that you note is not actually associated with the Venerable Order of St John. It is not one of the Mutually Recognized Orders and its usage should not really have any bearing on this page. I would agree that the Alliance webpage should not be used here. It would discuss the German, Swedish, and Dutch Orders that should also have no bearing on this page. So...in conclusion...I don't know what should be done on this page! :) --dave-- 19:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Move
This page was recently moved from Venerable Order of St John to St John International. I don't think I agree with the move, but welcome the thoughts of others. From what I have understood, the recent branding of St John International is meant to bring all the St John establishments under one umbrella. Thus, the Order still exists as such, the Ambulance organizations still exist, and the hospital in Jerusalem still exist. These are all run from St John's Gate as St John International. Would it not be better to leave this page where it was? Or am I not understanding the branding changes? Thanks.--dave-- 20:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts?--dave-- 11:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Was there a discussion ? The Yeti 12:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The current title makes no sense; the order is still called the Order of St John, not St John International. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This still doesn't make any sense. Is Sophie, Countess of Wessex, now a Dame of Justice of St John International? Something's amiss and I share dave's suspicion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 * It's just a different name for the same thing. Like "Order of the Temple" is a different name for "Templars" and "Teutonic Knights" is a different name for "Ordo domus Sanctæ Mariæ Theutonicorum Hierosolymitanorum". DrKay (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2015

 * 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: Moved to Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) per the additional discussion that followed the relisting on 16 March. Some editors proposed 'founded 1831' but it's hard to find reliable sources for that date. 'Most Venerable' is occasionally used by this society but it's not part of their official short name (The Order of St. John) which is ambiguous on Wikipedia. Per WP:OFFICIAL we prefer the common name anyway. The qualifier 'chartered 1888' is enough to uniquely identify this order. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Venerable Order of Saint John → Most Venerable Order of Saint John – Requested by User:Mabelina, because "the order is styled Most Venerable. If any prefix on the title page is going be used at all, why not use the correct one?" --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC) DrKay (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment/question Why should the title contain any prefix at all? The titles of similar articles don't: Order of the British Empire (not "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire"), Order of the Bath (not "Most Honourable Order of the Bath"), Order of the Thistle (not "Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle"), etc. Order of Saint John is now just a redirect to Order of St. John. That latter can remain a disambiguation page and this article can be moved to the former. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Mild oppose. It most definitely does need a prefix of some sort, because of the multiplicity of "Orders of St John" (which doesn't apply in the other cases mentioned by Miesianiacal), the fact that there is a great deal of confusion between the Orders in the minds of newcomers to the subject, and the fact that no one of them can really claim priority. As to whether we stick with "Venerable" or move to "Most Venerable", I don't feel particularly strongly on the subject, but I would have said that the general tenor of WP:COMMONNAME is to use the simplest version available that avoids ambiguity, even though it may not be the "official" name. GrindtXX (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks for these two points: so it comes down to whether Wikipedia should participate in propagating the Order's incorrect styling all over the internet. Since we all attach well deserved importance to MOS, why should Wikipedia decide, on its own part, how an official organization should now become commonly styled? M Mabelina (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I've asked numerous times on your Talk page for some reference that makes it clear that one of these versions is more correct than another and you've never provided me with one. Can you give us something here? It might help make a consensus easier to reach.--dave-- 01:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "qte"I still fail to see how "Venerable Order of St John" is any more incorrect than "Most Venerable Order of St John." The 1974 Charter (as I've already noted) makes it clear that the name of the Order is “The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem” and that, for brevity, it may be called “The Order of St. John.” There is no mention of using "Venerable" or "Most Venerable" in the short form. It seems best that we just agree to disagree on whether one or the other of these is more correct and we'll just move forward using the official short form.--dave-- 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)"unqte" M Mabelina (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) (that's from my Talk page)
 * My answer:"qte"You've just answered yourself - the order is styled Most Venerable. If any prefix on the title page is going be used at all, why not use the correct one? M Mabelina (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)"unqte" M Mabelina (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But, Wikipedia doesn't have a multiplicity of articles on "Orders of St John". And, even if there were, that's exactly what disambiguating hatnotes and pages are for. Look at how many Orders of Merit there are, but, still, one article gets the title "Order of Merit". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * that is a good point, Miesianiacal. i would say, however, that because of the long history of hospitaller orders of st john, this case may be a bit more problematic. i know that i tried a number of years ago to get the various orders of st john organized in some sensible way, but it was very difficult. i am certainly not an expert in wikipedia style and naming policies, but to me it would be much better to have "order of st john" as a disambiguation page with all the various pages listed there--including the venerable order of st john.--dave-- 01:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this suggestion (and was going to make it myself). A disambiguation page is an appropriate MOS way to disambiguate articles on organisations with the same or similar names. As the official name of the "most venerable order" is not in fact "The Most Venerable Order of Saint John" it seems to me that for its article name we need to use either the official name in full (which is probably far too long for an article name) or the order's own sanctioned abbreviation "Order of Saint John" with a disambiguation in the article name, such as "Order of Saint John (established 1831)".  This seems acceptable to the MOS and a common sense solution. Anglicanus (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Miesianiacal, Boven, Anglicanus and others - appreciate all your contributions - it seems to me that Wikipedia's MOS doesn't fit comfortably with something as complicated as the Order of St John's history, so perhaps you may allow me to make just one point of order: Order of Saint John (instituted 1888) would be an incontrovertible style should that be the route we/Wiki go(es) down; the order wasn't really established (it was there before, thus was it re-established??) in Britain and as to whether this happened in 1831 is also a matter of debate - however, there is absolutely no doubt Queen Victoria authorised its institution in 1888. This British Order of St John (howsoever Wiki may determine to style it in future) is a Crown order and as such it is fully recognised in and by all sovereign states which I believe is significant, hence my concern for it to be properly styled by Wikipedia. I never would have imagined proposing Most Venerable Order of Saint John to be renamed could cause such excitement, but I welcome the interest and let's hope some good comes out of it - thanks again. Best M Mabelina (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that you may be a bit confused on the specifics of the Order's history. Though the men who established the Order in 1831 may have claimed some continuity with the original hospitaller Orders, there is little serious scholarship that contends it was anything but a new creation. The Order was very much established in the early 1830s with the hope that it would be folded into the Order of Malta--but it was not. By the 1880s, the Order had gained the patronage of the Prince of Wales and eventually Queen Victoria issued a Royal Charter making it a Royal Order.--dave-- 03:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your latest, and how to reply? Whilst I am not confused about how to style the Most Venerable Order of Saint John, I am a bit bemused as what point you are trying to make. Your take on the Order's history seems a bit blurred - let's suppose for a minute that a small group of members of what was then effectively a "self-styled" Order of Saint John were holding out the hope (& no harm in so doing) that it would be merged with Order of Malta but that didn't happen whilst what did happen is that it became a British Sovereign Order... It really couldn't be more simple in my view (especially being a senior member of the Order) as to what did happen versus what might/should/could etc.. What will be confusing is if Wikipedia continues to base articles on info of this standard... when all the Order's official articles/codes/notices state Most Venerable (as you have already kindly provided). I thought Wikipedia aims to present accurate info or are we now assuming the role of "self-styling" official titles for the sake of strict adherence to our self-devised MOS (which for all we know might change)? Best M Mabelina (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. just to reinforce the point, St John's Gate survives at Clerkenwell, and that was not "established" or built in 1831 - if you would like to know more about the Order's history I am very happy to invite you to our Priory HQ and give you a guided tour. M Mabelina (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PPS. however, let's stick to the simple and initial point of how to style the Order properly...

Oppose: As noted by GrindtXX the very sensible MOS principle of WP:COMMONNAME is that article names should normally use the common names of people or entitities in preference to either their full or official names. These can be mentioned and clarified in the article. Whatever the order's common name is this ought to be used for the article's name. Anglicanus (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid you oppose everything I say Anglicanus (which recently caused you problems despite my wishing to help you), so let's have a real substantive point? M Mabelina (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. and it still remains that Venerable Order is NOT (or at least was not!) a common name for the Order, when it is either known as the Order of St John or the Most Venerable Order of Saint John
 * As usual, Mabelina, your highly patronising attitude and your repeated inability to understand even the most basic MOS principles causes you to make irrelevant comments. The "substantive point" has already been made by me and other editors. Because you don't like it you choose to ignore it. Anglicanus (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My most basic principles are to stick to fact, so I invite others to voice their opinions accordingly. M Mabelina (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose: As has been noted elsewhere, the 1974 Charter of the Order (the most recent) makes it clear that the name of the Order is “The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem” and that, for brevity, it may be called “The Order of St. John.” There is no mention of using "Venerable" or "Most Venerable" in the short form. Since we cannot simply call it by its official short form (because there are so many Orders of St John), it seems reasonable to keep it where it is. There simply seems to be no official preference for one or the other, so it makes sense to use one word to distinguish it rather than two.--dave-- 01:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 * qv: The Alliance of the Orders of Saint John of Jerusalem M Mabelina (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC) (no conflict between the Alliance Orders, just as to nomenclature on Wiki unfortunately)

 * Comment - I know that Google search outcomes can vary according to circumstances, but I find about 3590 results for Venerable without Most, and about 6950 for Most Venerable. That might give some support to "Most Venerable" as the WP:COMMONNAME as proposed. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an artifact, it's actually 3590 against 63. DrKay (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you compare like with like, your 3590 goes down to 116, but admittedly that's more than 63. I always get very confused by Google's options. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose: Let it be re-named "Order of Saint John ( instituted chartered 1888)" as suggested above below, and let the content of the article explain the events leading up to the order's institution, including the earlier politically or otherwise motivated machinations in France. Neither the present nor the proposed pre-fix suffice to identify this order unambiguously and accurately. In respect of this particular article, that wiil avoid pov nuances connected with the origins and rivalries recounted in the article. Further, it is better to avoid a title which has one name, in this case, 'Venerable Order of Saint John', followed by an opening with a different name, here 'Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem' requiring some incomplete, perhaps only partially accurate, explanation cluttering the lead.  The link to Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem  and thence to Sovereign Military Order of Malta suffices to alert a reader about the various other orders also active today, and their respective origins. Qexigator (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, but I would think that "Order of Saint John (chartered 1888)" would be better. I'm not sure what "instituted" would even mean in this case. There was a definitive moment of chartering in 1888. I'd support Qexigator's suggestion.--dave-- 12:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Qexigator (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Relister's comment: User:Qexigator and User:Boven have supported Order of Saint John (chartered 1888), which appears to answer many objections. Can others say whether they accept this solution? User:DrKay, User:David Biddulph, User:Mabelina, User:Anglicanus, User:Miesianiacal. There is already a DAB page at Order of Saint John. All that is needed here is a good choice for a fully disambiguated name for the 1888 order. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) per arguments above. GrindtXX (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 * "Founded" or "established 1831" seems more reasonable to me; the order did exist before 1888 and this article covers that period. But, there may be something about that that could be confused for something else; I'm not extremely well versed on this subject. Also, it seems now "chartered 1888" has the majority support. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose - I don't think adding anything to the start helps in any way, the full name is Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, I don't think we need to have that either, by using just the venerable we are avoiding confusion, alternate shorter names also include "Order of St. John of Jerusalem", there is no ambiguity which adding the word "most" to the beginning of the name would clear up. WildWikiGuy (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Because this is the order's own endorsed short name and its official name is too long for an article title. Neither "Venerable Order of Saint John" or "Most Venerable Order of Saint John" are, apparently, endorsed or used officially by the order itself so the argument that the latter is somehow the order's "correct name" does not appear to be factual. As to what its usual or common name is this is not clearly known. Anglicanus (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I support the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) idea because of all the reasons that have already been given. It makes sense to me.--dave-- 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentJust a small point. The most recent charter says that the proper short form is "The Order of St. John" with the St. abbreviated. Not sure how that fits with the MOS, but it seems like Order of St. John (chartered 1888) might be even better as the main article page.--dave-- 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Support Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) is okay - thanks Mabelina Mabelina (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. it has been common practice for some time that an abbreviation ending with same letter does not require a period - thus since consensus (as we know it) is seemingly within reach let's use Saint?? M Mabelina Mabelina (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PPS. otherwise the Order of Malta & every other improperly designated Order will need to be styled in full.... This exercise is simply to avoid non-cognoscenti from thinking that venerable is somehow the most venerable order's proper style so let's go with the flow & get Wiki better fixed...

 * 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.

Titles/names
I don't see why the names of peers should be included, not just their titles. "Fred Templeton-Barkley, 9th Duke of Benthamshire" is unwieldy and unrealistic; peers were (and are) addressed (formally) as "the Duke of [X]" or "the Lord [X] of [Y]". One can find out which duke or baron it is that's being mentioned on this article by either clicking through the link or by noting any related date, searching for the article on the peerage, and looking for who held the title at the time. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  08:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I very strongly disagree. Apart from none of these names being especially "unwieldy" or "unrealistic" (no more so than "Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury"), specific people mentioned in articles ought to be referred to by their names rather than just their titles, at least and especially in the first instance. The fact that they are or can be addressed by some title is an irrelevant argument. We would not, or at least should not, just put the "Archbishop of Canterbury", for instance, in these instances in an article. This is an encyclopeadia, not Burkes Peerage. We do not make things more complicated for readers than they need to be. Anglicanus (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The Manual of Style gives some guidance on this kind of issue at WP:SURNAME when it says:

 * "A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, may become "the Earl of Leicester" or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions (my emphasis). Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use "Robert Dudley" or "Dudley" when describing events before his elevation to the peerage in 1564."

 * This is good common sense style in my opinion. I don't believe there is any good reason for only referring to a specific person by their title in an enclyclopaedia article even if this is a custom elsewhere. Anglicanus (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Agree with Anglicanus, usually names with identifying title visible are more useful to readers, however long-standing the article's lack may have been. In this sort of context, hiding behind a |pipe| can be an unhelpful mannerism, here or in other articles. In this article, let the definite article be omitted  and name be 'William Montagu, 7th Duke of Manchester', and in any subseuqent mentions refer to as 'Montagu'.  Qexigator (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * What you emphasise relates to "Leicester" only. So, your excerpt doesn't help.
 * If you insist on their names being mentioned, why not "William Montagu, Duke of Manchester"? Or "The Duke of Manchester (William Montagu)"? No peer is ever addressed using a number. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of Establishment
There have been some reversions related to the date that the Order was established. I think we've all agreed that the Order received its Royal Charter in 1888, but prior to that, what was the Order. I would contend that the Order was established in 1831 and was not a re-establishment, reincarnation, revival, etc. in anything but spirit. It was a new establishment in 1831. In Fincham's 1915 book on the Order, he admits that "...the Order was framed, as far as possible, on the precedents of the old Order" (that is the Order of Malta as we know it today). More recently, Riley-Smith's book makes it clear that in England, the Order of Malta ceased to exist in 1540. He also describes the early-nineteenth-century members of the Order of St John in England as "dreamers." He writes that "They recognized all the virtues they most cared about in the order of Malta, of which in spite of everything they believed themselves to be members." Any connection to previously established Orders of St John was purely fictitious. This was a new establishment. Guy Stair Sainty also discusses the foundation in 1831. He mentions that the knights of the new foundation had "the hope of reviving the Letters Patent of Queen Mary" that had reestablished the Order of Malta after its English dissolution in 1540. He also notes that "the early-nineteenth century English Priory was a purely private organization" even though the "claimed" a connection to the Order of Malta.

All of these scholars make the case pretty concretely that these early members of the Order BELIEVED that they were reviving the original hopsitaller Order of St John in England, but that this belief was totally unfounded in fact. Unless someone can provide a source claiming that there is some legal connection between the current Order and the original Order, I think it's clear that this is an Order established in 1831 and not re-established then. I'd love to hear others' thoughts.--dave-- 21:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I absolutely agree with the above, and was going to post something similar. What was established in 1831 was to all intents and purposes a new foundation: the idea that it was a revival was (and apparently remains) a piece of neo-medieval romantic fantasy. The fact that it was established within, and later acquired ownership of, the former Clerkenwell Priory buildings does not make it a "revival" in any real sense. I would suggest a form of words along the lines of: "The modern order was established in 1831, in supposed revival of the medieval order of Knights Hospitaller, before being granted a royal charter by Queen Victoria in 1888." GrindtXX (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * My dear fellow Wikipedians - it is not up to you to agree with each other & decide the date of establishment. I am afraid this reveals an almost insoluble weakness in Wikipedia should it carry on like this. The Order of Saint John as much as it pains you to recognize from what I have told you never ceased to exist following the Dissolution of the Monasteries and therefore it was revived, not anything else you might care to attribute to it. In fact a lot of people did try to do a lot of things to the Order but Queen Victoria put an end to all the messing around by instituting it as a Crown order in 1888. FULL STOP (please prove me otherwise rather than the other way round). Ciao M Mabelina (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * My dear Mabelina. Had it been a true revival, it would have been re-established as a Roman Catholic order, owing allegiance to His Holiness the Pope. It wasn't and isn't, and it took until 1961 for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – which undoubtedly can claim to be in direct line of descent from the medieval order – to give the Most Venerable Order even grudging and half-hearted recognition within the "Mutually Recognised Orders of Saint John". Now, Boven has cited three reputable historians to argue that there was no real connection between the medieval order and the 1831/1888 order. If you can find just one reliable source to suggest a genuine element of continuity, we might have grounds for a proper debate. GrindtXX (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong - there is nothing to debate - the Order was instituted in 1888. And Order of St John property remained Order of St John property continuously from the Middle Ages until the 19c. Don't you get shirty with me - the problem lies firmly at Wikipedia's MOS door. M Mabelina (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I have already explained what type of obscurity the Order fell into on another page so kindly look at that before you try to rewrite history & as far as evidence goes - please take care to fully examine http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol2/pp178-179 & all following history (of which you will not find a great deal of evidence because by its very nature it kept its head down so as to avoid what might have become the end). As far as true revival - I never said it was a TRUE REVIVAL - putting words in mouth - I am saying that the Order never became extinct - TRUE OR FALSE?! You guys are unbelievable - the world according to Wikipedia... M Mabelina (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * THIS ARGUMENT STARTED OUT ABOUT CORRECTING THE HONORIFIC PREFIX OF VENERABLE - WHICH IS INCORRECT - THEN SOME ASSERTED THE ORDER WAS FOUNDED/ESTABLISHED IN 1831 WHICH IS ALSO INCORRECT - I HAVE NEVER MAINTAINED ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT WAS INSTITUTED IN 1888 BUT DUE TO THE MOS CREW SACRIFICES AS TO LINGO HAVE TO BE MADE - BUT WHAT IS FOR SURE IS THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT "ESTABLISHED" IN 1831 & IT IS ALSO BEYOND PERADVENTURE THAT A COUPLE OF ST JOHN PECULIARS REMAINED FROM THE MIDDLE AGES - SO DO YOU WANT TO REWRITE HISTORY OR SIMPLY TO STATE THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS REVIVED? M Mabelina (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC) qv: User talk:Qexigator

Frankly the whole Order of Saint John article was a complete mess before I made substantial corrections - which please take care to review properly and in full - were I more senior in Wikipedia I should have suggested to rip it up and start again but I chose to improve the existing articles - just take a look & then decide... Thank you. M Mabelina (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. my overriding concern at the outset was to make sure that it is crystal clear that the Most Venerable Order of St John is a Crown order which is recognized in and by all sovereign states - this was not at all clear previously - but somehow there seems to be a lobby which wants to confuse the issue - scrap all the other stuff & start by stating that it is a BRITISH CROWN ORDER (if MOS will accept it of course!)....

I see a distinct lack of a citation for both the foundation year being 1831 and any claim the order was "revived" (and from what, exactly). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like you see much at all. Perhaps revisit all the reams of correspondence which have been expended over this matter & you should just become enlightened. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody could ever say you are a quitter! Anyway please take a look & see for yourself how preposterous it is to suggest that the Order of St John was "established" in 1831.. Best M Mabelina (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * x2 I see you can't stop being rude.
 * Please read WP:V and WP:RS. (You've been editing here since 2008; how do you not know these policies yet?) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it rude that you persist on contradicting historical facts - I stated clearly yesterday that the only way forward is to make robust statements because nothing else seems to get through. I should take massive offence at your affrontery if this is the case - but why don't you just go back to studying the historical literature as opposed to whatever you have been reading before? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * & why don't you spend more time engaging in adding to Wiki rather than causing MOS arguments?
 * I am so sorry it has come to this but surely Wiki can't be left to state historical inaccuracies simply because it doesn't quite accord with a self-devised MOS??? What do you think?
 * There is so much else to be getting on with rather than going round in circles about effectively one word....
 * WP:V is not a Manual of Style matter; it is a CORE POLICY of Wikipedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina, your argument would be more persuasive if accompanied by reliable sources. The link you provided above, at, gives no evidence of any institutional continuity between the original Hospitallers and the 19th-century order chartered in 1888. There surely must be books by regular historians that look into this chain of events. The present article cites a book by H. J. A. Sire, The Knights of Malta, which is published by Yale so must be respectable. A limited preview is here. It does include some mentions of the modern Protestant orders. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is not created by me - there seem to be some over zealous Wikipedians who have their own ideas about history - I have already explained at length that the Order of St John lapsed, fell, endured the dark ages between the Dissolution & the early 19c - I am not sure that anybody is focusing on the historical content but simply pursuing a mission: http://www.essexchurches.org.uk/lmaplestead.htm & User talk:Qexigator - anyway this is getting boring - please decide what you want to do.... M Mabelina (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you both inserted the claim and refuse to cite it, you are the catalyst for the argument.
 * If there's as much to back up the claim you inserted in the article about "revival" or the order as you say there is, it should be a very easy exercise for you to provide just one citation. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Refer User talk:Miesianiacal for further comment... & for an educated & more informed perspective qv: User talk:Qexigator (altho I think things are so far gone with the MOS gang that only Wiki authorities can set this dispute back onto a proper footing, i.e. relaying the correct info to the public). M Mabelina (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, pinpointing the date the order was created is difficult. However, it certainly wasn't 1888; receiving a royal charter was just one step after many in the order's history. Since the history section seems to convey the idea the order didn't appear on a specific date, but, rather, through development over a period between 1823 and 1831, I hope circa 1830 works for the "Established" parameter of the infobox. If not, maybe the field should just be left empty. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External link to the chartered body's Museum at Clerkenwell
I have added the above link. The following is an edited extract:
 * While the English Priory and branch of the Order was dissolved in England by King Henry VIII in 1540, the other Priories throughout t Europe remained strong...in 18c, with the French Revolution and the invasion of the Knights headquarters on Malta by Napoleon, the Order left the Mediterranean for good. The remaining members retreated to Rome, where they [sic] remain as direct descendants of the first Hospitaller Brothers in Jerusalem. They are known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. In the 1820s, a group of French Knights from the Order in Rome began recruiting new members of the Order in Britain, as part of an unsuccessful attempt to raise funds to restore the Order’s naval presence in the Mediterranean. However, the new Priory formed in Britain was not recognised by the Order in Rome, due to the fact that the new members recruited in England were a mix of both Anglican and Catholic. ... the new members in England ...established their own, new order, known as “The Order of St John of Jerusalem in England”. ...in the 1860s ...they sought a humanitarian role. They acted as observers at the Geneva Conferences that set up the Red Cross, and by 1877 had set up the Order of St John Association to train people in First Aid. In 1888, they set up the Brigade as a uniformed volunteer organisation, treating people injured in industry and everyday life, and they established an Eye Hospital in Jerusalem. This work was officially recognised by Queen Victoria in 1888, when she made the Order an official Royal Order of Chivalry, with the right to use the lions and unicorns, bearers of the Royal coat of arms, and the name “Venerable”.

Qexigator (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)16:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you. Your editing has slightly abridged a sentence which I think is quite important in the present context: "However, the new members in England felt that they were a part of Order [sic], and established their own, new order, known as “The Order of St John of Jerusalem in England”." The point is that the men involved in establishing the new body in the 1830s regarded themselves as heirs to the original English branch of the medieval order, but the verdict of history – as now acknowledged by the present day Venerable Order – is that they were not, but were setting up an entirely new organisation. (Within the four paragraphs on the Museum's page, the phrase "new Priory" or "new order" appears three times.) If our choice is between myth or history, there is no doubt that Wikipedia policy, not to mention modern scholarly norms, oblige us to follow history. So the question now is how we summarise this in the lede. I return to my suggestion made above that "The modern order was established in 1831, in supposed revival of the medieval order, ...".
 * (Oh, and just as an aside, note that the Museum appears to be perfectly comfortable using the short name "the Venerable Order".) GrindtXX (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * There is some difficulty in that line of reasoning. The Museum's website makes clear that the modern body, that is the one with definite and continuous existence as incorporated and given the status of a duly constituted order of chivalry by royal charter in England, was not 'established' as such before 1888, and no definite earlier event can be adopted, unless the charter itself shows otherwise. Before then there was a worthy body of persons in England, stemming from the efforts of the French recruiters aborted by the Papacy, who in time gave themselves a new direction and purpose in a spirit of Victorian voluntary practical philanthropy and Christian service. A body of private citizens, however worthy, do not attain the public status of an 'order' simply by self-declaration. But, as a result of the activities they had undertaken, they were successful in their petition to the Queen for the grant of such status. Qexigator (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * +Note also the use of lion and unicorn by the chartered body, signifying a newly created Order of chivalry situated in England, and distinct from the papally instituted Knights Hospitaller. --Qexigator (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I am certainly not seeking to deny the importance of 1888, but the Order does have a pre-history before that date (which the article covers), and during part of that period it had a legal status as a corporate body – able to own property, for example. I take your point that it had no absolute clear-cut start-date, and it may be preferable to refer to "the early 1830s" rather than homing in on 1831. All I am suggesting is that we need a succinct form of wording for the lede which states that:
 * The modern order came into existence (in some form) in the 1830s
 * The men who brought this about claimed to be reviving the medieval order in England, but that claim is no longer sustained
 * The order was chartered, and therefore constituted in something approaching its present form, in 1888.
 * The lede's present wording, that the order "reappeared" in 1831, is not satisfactory, suggesting as it does a genuine reinstitution of a previous state of affairs (not to mention giving the complete newcomer to the subject no information at all as to what the previous "appearance" may have been). GrindtXX (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 * This edit is meant to avoid putting in the lead inexact, loaded, or erroneous information. This suffices to indicate that the charter was preceded by definite and lasting public good works. The information about the (relatively trivial) goings on before that and about claims to be reviving the medieval order is better left to the History section, and the article linked in the hatnote. Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For infobox: Established
Given the use of 'established' in this sort of context, and that this article is about the modern order as constituted by charter, and that it was certainly 'established' not later than 1888, there is no apparent reason for not letting the year '1888' be stated in the infobox. Was Canada 'established' before the federal constitution of 1867; or Australia before 1901; or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg before 1815; or the Republic of India before 1950; or the Royal Society before 1662? (comparators chosen not entirely at random). As said above:
 * '...the modern body, that is the one with definite and continuous existence as incorporated and given the status of a duly constituted order of chivalry by royal charter in England, was not 'established' as such before 1888...'. The article recounts that before then there was a body of persons in England, who had given themselves a certain direction and purpose in a spirit of Victorian voluntary practical philanthropy and Christian service. A body of private citizens do not attain the public status of an 'order' simply by self-declaration, but, in this case, as a result of the activities they had undertaken, they were successful in their petition to the Queen for the grant of such status, and thus became 'established'.

Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I already addressed this matter above.
 * If there's agreement the order was established in 1888, then, that year can go in as the date of establishment. But, you're aware, I'm sure, from participation in prior discussion on this page, there's little to no agreement as to when this order was established. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Less negativity would contribute more to improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Non-sequitur. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

'continuation'
The article content does not support 'continuation of a body that emerged in the 1820s'., but in fact shows otherwise. After some private persons had been engaged in some activities, a group in England gave themselves a new direction and purpose of their own and formed a body by the name 'The Sovereign and Illustrious Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Anglia', intended to be distinct from what had gone before. ''This new entity grew its membership over the ensuing three decades. In 1871, a new constitution brought about further changes to the order's name, offering the more modest Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in England...'' That may be seen as consistent with continuity from 1830's but not 1820s. Qexigator (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why does the history section go back to 1823? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interrogative Non sequitur! Historians understand that it can help to introduce their topic by giving some preliminary account of certain events before or collateral to its inception, sometimes, as here, to explain that pre-conceptions or vague notions connected with persons or bodies or activities of the same or similar name are distinctly not to be taken as a starting point, and may have fizzled out or continued in some other way. It is one of the ways historians perform the task of identifying and clarifying what has been, or may be, or continues to be, muddled, whether intentionally, casually or inadvertently. Qexigator (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly. The history begins with a group in France in the 1820s and traces the evolution of that group into one across the Channel and onward to the present day. "Evolved" is the word to use, then. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not: please identify the 'body' from which you infer it indisputably 'evolved'. Qexigator (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did above, of course. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not see in the text 'a group in France in the 1820s'. Please refer to the text. If you know what you mean, I do not. Qexigator (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then try being not so literal. If the lede is a summary, do you expect it to repeat the text in the article body word for word? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am asking what body named in the main text you consider, in your above comment, can be identified as the 'body' from which you infer it indisputably 'evolved'. If there is none there, the lead ought not to be written as if there were. Qexigator (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Group in France". "1820s". I'm sure you can take those extremely simple clues and match them with the relevant content of the history section. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 * If you read the article carefully you may be able to discern that the early history is not as simple as you are implying, and it is important to present the information clearly to avoid confusing the reader. If you are sure you know what you mean by 'a group in France in the 1820s', I am not, but it is a simple matter for you to reply by specifying in the words of the text. Qexigator (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rectifying the top
Certain recent edits have tended to be sniping more than improving the article, not only by direct error, as here, but in obscuring the actual sequence of events which brought into existence the Order which is named in the article's title, as here. It is not acceptable repeatedly and erroneously to remove from the lead the significant and decisive fact of the formation of the distinct and separate body, by the name The Sovereign and Illustrious Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Anglia as described in the History section, and replace that with the vague and misleading words '...a faction of the Order of Malta that emerged in France in the 1820s ...after operating under a succession of different names...'. It is not clear why that editor has resolved to put the latter in place of the former, but, like any editor, he is free to discuss the point. In the meantime, the words which he has removed, are, contrary to his edit summaries, more in line with the History section and should be retained. It is because there are a plethora of names that it is important to identify the body by the name its then founder members adopted when they first formed themselves into a body having a separate and independent existence, as the name was intended to demonstrate, both then and after the later minor change of name. Qexigator (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede summarises the article. Your lede doesn't do so; it simply leaves out much of the history; nearly the entire "Emergence" section, in fact. It also pretends there was a disconnect somewhere that separates the modern order entirely from the original Council of the French Langues. The history section outlines the evolution, progress, however one wants to describe it, from the Council of the French Langue to the Order of St John. A name change does not necessarily mean the creation of a new organisation. And a declaration of independence doesn't break the "independent" body from the history of the body from which it declared independence. It's rather like the Australian monarchy, an independent organisation, cannot be said to have not evolved out of the British monarchy and earlier English and Scottish monarchies and earlier kings of the Angles and... I'm sure you get the point.
 * The notion that the Sovereign and Illustrious Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Anglia, separated from anything doesn't align with history, anyway. The order in the UK sought to become a grand priory and langue of the Order of St John, but, was turned down. It was therefore never part of anything larger from which it could separate. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 * The continuity the above comment proposes is better affirmed by the list of Grand Priors. Qexigator (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 * +Let this discussion be considered now resolved.

SBStJ and SSStJ versus MStJ
I think it's the case that the class in question is now "Member" and therefore MStJ? Could someone verify and edit article if necessary? Rorate (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Further comment: one of my sources would be http://www.stjohnsa.com.au/cms_resources/Understanding%20the%20Most%20Venerable%20Order%20of%20St%20John.pdf Rorate (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 * My understanding, Rorate, is that the decision has been made to switch the grade from SBStJ/SSStJ to MStJ and it has, in practice, been implemented. I think, however, that the previous grade names are given in the statutes of the Order and those will need to be duly updated and approved before the change is official. The most recent (2004) Statutes still list SBStJ and SSStJ and even the most recent London Gazette notice (from last week) makes it known that individuals have been appointed as Serving Brothers and Serving Sisters. Until the statutes are updated, then, I think that it's just going to be a confused situation. The Order says that they've changed the name of the grade, but I don't think that officially they have.--dave-- 22:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I am really grateful to you, dave--, for this most illuminating and cogent explanation. I too have noticed the nomenclature in the London Gazette. Does anyone know where the Statutes can be read online? There is a dead link in the article: http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/Order_of_St%20John_Charters_and_Statutes.pdf. It would be good to refer to the official text on this and other matters. Rorate (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 * From what I've heard, the Order took the Statutes off of the main "St John International" website. They are still available to members of the St John community who log in, but my understanding was that they were removed from the public page so that they could be edited and revised. Presumably these revisions will, among other things, add things like changes to the name of Grade V. I have no idea what the time line is for these edits, but I presume that they would need to be approved by the Grand Council. Perhaps the issue was taken up at the meeting last week in Edinburgh... --dave-- 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reasons for link removal
I have just removed three links from the article:
 * 1) the Marquis de Sainte-Croix du Molay was linked to Marie Louis Descorches - despite the fact that the latter was, at least before the French Revolution, the Marquis d'Escorches de Saint-Croix, the two men are very clearly different. Descorches supported first the revolution and then Napoleon, went into retirement after the French Restoration and died in 1830, while the Marquis de Sainte-Croix-Molay (whose title, interestingly, does not seem to have been French) died in 1841;
 * 2) a link to the Orden de Malta pointed to the Spanish Wikipedia page for the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, for no obvious reason;
 * 3) a link to Knight of Malta went to a disambiguation page - seeing that the only suitable alternative target would have been one or other of the orders which are already linked to from the article, it seemed best just to remove it. PWilkinson (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New Resource
It seems that the Order of St John has just instituted a new journal of historical papers related to the Order. These might help clarify some of the questions regarding the date of foundation/revival. The first issue contains a very relevant paper by former Lord Prior Anthony Mellows. It can be downloaded here if anyone wants to start incorporating anything.--dave-- 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Improvements
You had objections on my proposal. What are your objections, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Grammar, linking (WP:EGG, WP:OVERLINK), irrelevant detail, weasel words, alteration to wording that was decided on by consensus after lengthy debate, to name a few.
 * The more important question is: in what way did they improve the article? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your most contentious change is "royal order of chivalry first constituted in 1888" to "dynastic order of knighthood chartered in 1888". As I've already mentioned, there was much discussion around that particular sentence and what's there now was the result. As such, if you want to change it, you're going to need to form another consensus.

Aside from that, there's no need for "Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". "Queen Victoria" suffices. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. OK. I basically only wonder one thing. Were is the consensus that chivalric order is more correct than dynastic order of knighthood in this case? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't really say that's specifically what the discussion focused on. But, you can see above (and in the article's edit history from the same time) those opening sentences were the focus of intense attention.
 * I can't say whether or not the order is chivalric, dynastic, or both. Are there any reliable sources to say one way or the other? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess the contents of order of chivalry and dynastic order of knighthood settle it. If you don't think dynastic would be more suitable as a term for this one, I guess you ought to change the contents and definition stated in that article? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about those articles. I asked if there's a source to tell us whether this order is chivalric, dynastic, or both. That's what WP:V requires. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I object. I don't think self-identification necessarly, if differing, should decide over conventional terms for such an entity. Numerous order are listed as dynastic orders of knighthood, despite their own claims to constitute military orders both in descriptions and even names. Take for instance Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George as a prominent example. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * If you can't provide a source to settle this, then I recommend you move to the next step of dispute resolution. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  21:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Chivalric order and dynastic order of knighthood are full of those requested sources. It is them I am referring to. There is a lot of examples all around were self-identification do and doesn't settle different articles categorisation as well as descriptions. It's all comme-il-faut. Sometimes an organisation that claims to be a state is described and categorised as such, sometimes not. The same with chivalric orders, military orders, dynastic orders of knighthood. I don't really see anything controversial with that. If you insist that sourced self-identification should overrule settled definitions for this very organisation, what would be your argument in this exceptional case, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No source has so far been presented telling us what kind of order the Order of St John is. Cobbling together content from other sources to conclude the Order of St John is a dynastic order of knighthood is original research. Of course, so is determining it's a chivalric order.
 * Though, if it's "comme il faut", as you say, what objection do you have to the Order of St John being called an order of chivalry? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/Order_of_St%20John_Charters_and_Statutes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Post-nominals of the British order redirecting to the Italian order
CStJ for instance, refers to a Commander of the British Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) and should be redirected to this page as well as any other of its post-nominals. It was chartered by Queen Victoria and is not to be confused with this reconstituted lay Catholic Order Sovereign Military Order of Malta based in Rome. The British Order of Saint John is responsible for the all volunteer St. John's Ambulance Brigade etc around the world and is the British Order referred to by this post nominal.

See both different Wikipedia pages for full explanation of the different Orders. The British Order to which the decoration post-nominal CStJ etc applies is Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) - details can be found on the post nominals in the entry on this gage - but It has been confused and erroneously redirects to the Catholic lay order Sovereign Military Order of Malta. They are two entirely different Orders involved in entirely different things.

The names are easily confused but this needs clarifying.

Dear Editor, can you kindly correct this mistaken redirect to correctly direct to the British Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) from, the incorrect present re-direct to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta ? I imagine both Orders and any confused readers would be grateful. Many thanks. All of you do a wonderful and much appreciated work.

William Macadam (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably you have found articles on well-known people who may be members of this order. If you know of any which are linking to the wrong Order of Saint John, it would help if you can list them here. I spot checked a couple of articles linking to 'Order of Saint John' and they were correct. We have an entry for CStJ but it redirects to the British order as it should. There is no simple way to follow up on your request unless you can share your findings. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Please go to Ivison Macadam page (Sir Ivison Stevenson Macadam KCVO CBE CStJ FRSE FKC) and you will see what I am talking about. The CStJ links incorrectly to the Rome lay Catholic Order and not the British Order of Saint John (sovereign head Queen Elizabeth II, responsible for the all volunteer St John's Ambulance Brigade etc internationally and you will see the problem. Google has it right and takes it CStJ to the right order. Wikipedia headed Order of Saint John (chartered 1888).

I took it out of the post nominals earlier today because of the wrong re-direct but have reinstated it so you can see the problem.

Would much appreciate hit if you can help sort it.

Many thanks,

William Macadam (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a problem with the redirect at Commander of the Order of St John. It redirects to Sovereign Military Order of Malta. This needs more study. Does the British order also have a 'Commander' rank? There may need to be a fix to Template:Post-nominals. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I may have fixed this, per this change to Commander of the Order of St John. Try clicking on the postnominal CStJ in the Ivison Macadam article. I think this one is fixed. If you know of any other article, try checking CStJ there as well. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I see the Ivison Macadam page now redirects correctly to Order of St. John. Very good of you.

CStJ refers to Commander of this British Order of St. John with the British monarch at its head. See the Wikipedia page which lays out the ranks and post nominals correctly at Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). Because it can easily be confused with the different Rome (Vatican, I believe) Catholic lay Order is the more reason the online Wikipedia Encyclopaedia has them both right, especially as most people will not know what this British post nominal stands for and may use the link to find out.

Much appreciate your assistance on this.

William Macadam (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609150450/http://www.orderofstjohn.org/who-we-are to http://www.orderofstjohn.org/who-we-are
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613035402/http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/Order_of_St%20John_Charters_and_Statutes.pdf to http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/Order_of_St%20John_Charters_and_Statutes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827120016/http://www.orderofstjohn.org/structure to http://www.orderofstjohn.org/structure
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132742/http://museumstjohn.org.uk/faq/index.html to http://museumstjohn.org.uk/faq/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215204135/http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/Order_of_St%20John_Regulations.pdf to http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/Order_of_St%20John_Regulations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of Saint John (chartered 1888). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902191858/http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/order_of_st_john_structure.pdf to http://www.orderofstjohn.org/uploads/PDF/order_of_st_john_structure.pdf
 * Added tag to http://atlantic.heraldry.ca/resources/post-nominals-form-of-address/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826020937/http://www.saintjohn.org/c/Glossary.cfm to http://www.saintjohn.org/c/Glossary.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lady Mary Barttelot
Under DGC we have Lady Mary Barttelot. Only first glance this looks wrong. As we talking about Hon. Mary Angela Fiona Weld Forester who married Colonel Sir Brian Walter de Stopham Barttelot, 5th Bt. The honours referenced to her appear to match; then she is "Lady Barttelot" Garlicplanting (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Justice vs Grace
Unless I've missed it, this article doesn't explain what the distinction is between a Knight/Dame of Justice and a Knight/Dame of Grace. Are they considered different levels of seniority, or would each one be awarded to a different category of person (clergy vs non-clergy?)? Proteus (Talk) 11:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Judging from page 192 of McCreery armigerous knights are 'of Justice' and non-armigerous knights are 'of Grace'. DrKay (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Proteus (Talk) 17:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Osjknights

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

snoyes 15:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Reve'nd Dr Michael Foster. Could you please format your articles according to wikipedia standards? Follow the above links for pointers or post a question in my talk page. Cheers, Muriel Victoria 15:45, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Father Michael, Sorry about the mix-up regarding the word "dormant". My usage of this word was based on my faulty understanding of the history of the Paris Group. I remain your loyal friend. JC Ordrestjean 05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution,, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from. As a copyright violation, appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. SUBWAYguy 22:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the copyright holder - the existing version(s) of the article on the Internet, is(are) in violation of copyright, as I was not consulted as to its upload! Thus the content is in my own words! --Osjknights 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lybrook Deletion
Despite this defence on the 29th December the article was deleted but has been restored on the 1st January 2007. From Talk:Lydbrook;

This article has been uploaded onto Wikipedia by the copyright holder, The Reverend Dr Michael Foster.

It was deleted by Alphachimp despite the copyright being defended in Talk:Lydbrook

Here is some of the Talk:Lydbrook I have rescued from the deletion:

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Lybrook. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Lybrook, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. SUBWAYguy 22:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am the copyright holder - the existing version(s) of the article on the Internet, is(are) in violation of copyright, as I was not consulted as to its upload! Thus the content is in my own words! --Osjknights 16:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus I assert and affirm that under the right of The Reverend Dr Michael Foster (alias Wikipedia name of osjknights) to be identified as the author of the work in question has been asserted by him in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

--Osjknights 08:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! SUBWAYguy 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lybrook
Hi, regardless of copyright (i just reversed my deletion at Lydbrook again), is the article supposed to be at Lydbrook or at Lybrook? -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

/Send the Light
I have userfied the revision as of 20:12, May 15, 2008 to /Send the Light. Best of luck, – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Chplan.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Chplan.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chplan.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Osjknights


text:
Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology

The Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology is a research institute located in Moscow, Russia that specializes in neuroscience, and is a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Leading scientists of the institute

 * 1950-1952 -, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
 * 1952-1957 -, Academician of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences
 * 1957-1960 -, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
 * 1960-1981 - Esras Asratyan, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences
 * 1981-2000 -, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
 * 2000-2005 -, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
 * 2005-2018 -, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
 * 2018-Present - A. Malyshev, Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences


text:
User:Umal~enwiki

it:utente:umal

Hello, I'm trying to contribute to Wikipedia, hope it works! Look at my italian page on Italian Wikipedia, here! ;) My home page: In English: http://www.aliotta.it/eng In italian: http://www.aliotta.it

Yours, umal

title: User:Umal~enwiki


text:
User:Osjknights

osjknights - chosen as a simple name for web use - Dr Michael Foster.

My hobby is historical research - at present on the Knights Hopsitaller.

I am a Parish Priest of the Church of England. I am at present Rector to 10 Parishes in rural Dorset, in England.

title: User:Osjknights


text:
Asiana

Asiana may refer to:

 * Kumho Asiana Group, a South Korean conglomerate whose subsidiaries include the following notable companies also with the name Asiana:
 * Asiana Airlines, one of South Korea's two major airlines
 * Asiana IDT, an information technology service provider
 * Asia (Roman province), a late Roman Republic province also known as Asiana

title: Asiana


text:
Talk:Kingdom Hall

Article name
I have moved the article back to "Kingdom Hall". The article was previously moved by User:Mikhailov Kusserow to "Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses" without consensus (twice the same day, after being reverted User:Alexander Moritz), with the claim that "A Real Name. I have been changed it to all Wikipedia" [sic].

Per WP:NAME, the current name is concise, only as precise as it needs to be, and is the common name. Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Library CD uses the term "Kingdom Hall" nearly 7000 times, but "Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses" only about 200 times.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Gallery
I suggest to place one of the best image at the top as It was before. See the Church (building) article for example. Only extra images are placed at gallery--Logical Thinker: talk 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved it to balance the gap left by a building that is not actually a Kingdom Hall.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Images
I have moved the second 'meeting' picture into the Uses section. However, it would add a little more balance if one of those 'meeting' pictures were removed and a picture relevant to construction (e.g. a half-built KH) were placed in the Construction section instead.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

origin of "Kingdom Hall"
the phrase "Kingdom Hall" is an almost exact translation of the Latin (from Greek) basilica, the hall where royal business was conducted. Is this a coincidence? --199.91.207.3 (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is probably a coincidence. Even if it is not, there would need to be a reliable source to mention it in the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanking Room
There seems to be some notable dispute over the subject of whether Kingdom Halls are or are not built with a specific room dedicated to be used for child discipline. Some sources, such as http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spanking-Room-Jehovahs-Witnesses/dp/1579219659 seem to indicate this, but word of mouth such as http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/196639/1/The-spanking-room seem to make the subject disputable. Perhaps it is worth mentioning, if someone could post a more erudite segment about it or two? Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

JW.ORG -signs
According to info I got from an elder, blue JW.ORG-signs are going to be a global policy. For meanwhile how about like this:
 * JW-ORG -signs
 * To advertice society's website, blue JW.ORG -signs are going to be added on visible place outside kingdom halls from mid 2014s.(etc)

--Russellin teekannu (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggested text, which has no official source, would be promotional and is therefore inappropriate. 'Info you got from an elder' does not constitute a reliable source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How about images of K-Halls with signs on? So far Ive seen jw.org sign in every one ive passed? (in Finland&Sweden)--Russellin teekannu (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like original research. Images of halls you've seen isn't evidence of a "global policy", which would require a specific source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Our Kingdom Ministry (April 2009, page 4): "Congregations or individuals should not use logos or names of the organization’s legal entities, or variations thereof, on their Kingdom Halls, signs, letterhead, personal objects, and so forth. Such use of the organization’s logos may cause confusion for public officials, publishers, and others about the legal affiliation of the congregation with the organization’s legal entities." It is entirely possible that they have started doing so since then, but I am not aware of any source to support the claim.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, even in our k-hall there was a "Watchtower" sign on the wall (and still is painted on inside walls). "Watchtower"-sign was even used when pointing route to summer assemblies. I remember it was said there is no point to start painting those over until next uplifting of the k-hall. ("Watchtower"(tm) is a registered trademark). But about the Jw.org signs, so far a've been visiting different places, all have had it on their wall. Took even pictures, shoud I upload them to Commons?Russellin teekannu (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing stopping you uploading your photos, but your personal photos do not constitute a reliable source, nor do they constitute evidence of any policy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see cover of March 2016 THE WATCHTOWER (Study edition).Russellin teekannu (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A picture is not an indication of a policy. It is only evidence that some halls have signs. Unless you can cite a source indicating a policy, you may as well stop making the assertion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also unremarkable for a building associated with an organisation to have the organisation's logo on it. It is not appropriate to try to promote the website here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

New construction and funding arrangements
Information has been added about recent changes to the way Kingdom Halls are to be constructed and funded. I have copyedited the new material, but sources are still required for the changes. The information is based on official statements that have been leaked, but I haven't located a specific source that can be cited, as it has been reported on various blogs and forums. Does anyone have a specific source in line with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources that the new information can cite? Or can we have further discussion about a) whether the leaked video can be cited as a source, and if so, how it would be cited.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * My first question would be where can I find the video? If it's easily accessible to others via a link, then that takes care of whether it can be used (a video that can't be readily found, imo, is the same thing as not having a source. For an example, for all the talk of the missing minutes of the Nixon tapes, lack of evidence proves nothing). After that you'd have to be sure of the legality on whether the leaked video could be used in a lawsuit against WP if it was indeed used as a source, as depending on how it was leaked (was it stolen? or did an attendee at the event release it?) it could be an issue. If it turns out that it is both easy to get to and doesn't constitute a form of theft of intellectual property/some other legal issue, I wouldn't see why it couldn't be used as a source. Vyselink (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaked information that appears in sources that otherwise qualify as reliable sources can be cited. However, to my knowledge, information about the leaked video about kingdom all construction is only available on sources such as YouTube, and blogs, which don't generally qualify as sources here. It may be that the information is also available elsewhere, and there could also be suitable sources other than the leaked video.
 * A separate but similar issue is the letter about the funding of Kingdom Halls, which is arguably usable as a source; although parts of it were 'to be read' only by JW elders, it is also published by the Watch Tower Society into a larger compendium of letters. However, use of similar letters as sources has been disputed in the past.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. The video (if indeed those are the only two types of places that it can be found) would seem to not qualify as useable here, for as you correctly stated YouTube and blogs are not generally reliable sources, and adding that information would essentially be WP:OR as it would be a WP editor who watched it and boiled it down.
 * As for the letter about funding, if it was published in a larger bunch of letters (even if it wasn't supposed to be), I don't see the issue with using it as a source. I personally think it is irrelevant if the information was published by mistake (a literary version of a "Freudian slip") or not. It was still published by the source (i.e. not stolen), can be considered reliable, and is being used in good faith. If "we printed it by accident" could be effectively used as an a posteriori argument to subdue information, imagine what information we wouldn't have. Every statement made by a politician that he/she didn't like would just be swept under the rug so to speak. Vyselink (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked the editor who added the new information to engage in discussion here. Hopefully they will be able to clarify what sources they were actually alluding to when they added the material.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kingdom Hall