Talk:Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive discussion[edit]

  • /Archive 1 (was an independent talk page when we had two versions of the same article)

Merge summary[edit]

I merged this article with Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Since more pages linked here than Sovereign Military Order of Malta, I decided that this page is to stay. I also changed some sections into subsections. I wrote new paragraph about government of the Order basing on their WebPage FAQ. I tried to changed what needed as to not constitute copyvio, but I might miss something. I fixed all links to point here (almost, as Micronation is protected).Przepla 23:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

International status[edit]

I cannot see what is "nebulous" there. That an area of land is extraterritorial does not mean that it is not a constituent part of the territory of Italy (in this case), it just means that Italy cannot exercise its jurisdiction there, because it is hindered to do so by international law.

This is the same status that an embassy has.

If I hear no objections here, I will rewrite that paragraph.

P.S.: What is interesting about the order is that it once _was_ a state but stopped to do so when it lost its territory (but did not stop to be a subject of international law).

JensMueller 09:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The part about the coins and stamps is outdated; there are 2004 coins on the Order's web site.

Order of Knights of the Hospital of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem[edit]

Any information about the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem?

Proposed Merger[edit]

The two new articles should not be merged with this one. They are written by representatives of Don Grady, and put forward fraudulent text from a blatantly self styled order. These two articles should be deleted rather than merged into this one.

New Picture[edit]

If someone could find the cross of Knights Hospitaller (which I believe was a white cross on a black background) or their seal and replace the portrait of the Knight at the top of the page, that would be a big improvement.

official language[edit]

for the constitution of the order http://www.orderofmalta.org/pdf/costituzione.pdf the only official language is the italian.

Souvereign, monarchy[edit]

DrKay (talk · contribs) objects the entity being listed in Template:Current sovereigns of monarchies, after having been there for a long time per WP:Consensus. So did evidently also GoodDay (talk · contribs) about categorising it, as well as regarding Template:Monarchies, and Template:Current heirs of monarchies. However, as you can see in this article, it has long been described as a sovereign elective monarchy. If you object to that description and its support in sources, please address that here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a sovereign state, btw. Malta itself, is a republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I looked at the constitution of the order and the order's website but neither describe it as a monarchy. I would prefer not to trawl through the 70 other references, can you please pull out some quotes from them that say it is a monarchy? DrKay (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not a state, but it is a sovereign subject of international law. It has United Nations permanent observer status and has its own passports, currency, and postage. It is ruled over by the Prince & Grand Master (elevated to the rank of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire in 1607 and holds the precedence of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church since 1630 and addressed as His Most Eminent Highness), who is elected to the position and is described by the Order as a Sovereign and having supreme authority, making it an elective monarchy. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
No, there are lots of orders with sovereigns who aren't monarchs: there's a list at Dynastic order#Bestowed by head of formerly reining dynasty. We need to distinguish between a sovereign of an order and a sovereign of a state. We need an actual source stating it's a monarchy. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
So a sovereign prince isn't a monarch? Also, the Orders you are referring to are not granted sovereign status, they are in connection with a Sovereign Monarch. The Order of Malta does not serve another monarch except their own Prince and, as a lay order, to some regard the Pope. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in sophistry or straw men. I asked for reliable sources calling it a monarchy. If there aren't any, then the order shouldn't be described as one. If there are many, then the objection is refuted. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I must be confused, as I cannot recall when or how I presented myself in a manner that was intended to deceive you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just asking for sources. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. No need to name call in the process. I was merely trying to explain how I, and others, would see the order as a monarchy. I agree that we should search for sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What country is reigned over, by this position? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not a country, but a sovereign entity[1] recognized by the United Nations. Their official headquarters is the Palazzo Malta in Rome which was granted extraterritoriality by the Italian government. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It is not a country and no one says it is. The Order is a sovereign entity that is subject to no other political entity. The fact that it's an anomaly means we have to look at it carefully. Common sense says a monarchy must be a country. But maybe not always. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the recent deletion of the characterization of the Order as a monarchy in the summary for lack of a citation in the body of the article, I merely offer the Order's description: "The government of the Sovereign Order of Malta has a similar structure to state governments. However, it also includes specific features associated with its nature as a lay religious order, as well as particular terminology evolved from nine centuries of history.

The head of the Order of Malta is the Grand Master who governs both as sovereign and as religious superior, and is assisted by the Sovereign Council, which he chairs."

Emphasis added. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

None of that's in dispute. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Summary and Quizzes[edit]

I got sent an e-mail today on the joke circuit, stating: "The actual smallest sovereign entity in the world is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (S.M.O.M). It is located in the city of Rome, Italy, and has an area of two tennis courts. And, as of 2001, has a population of 80, 20 less people than the Vatican. It is a sovereign entity under international law, just as the Vatican is." I'm sure you will agree there's a classic Quiz question here, and yet (unless I missed it, apologies if i did) the topics mentioned are not addressed here. Should not this "interesting info" (properly corrected and sourced of course) be inserted nearly at the very top of the article? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The two buildings of SMOM in Rome have extraterritoriality, like any other embassy. That is not the same thing as sovereignty. The SMOM headquarters buildings are located on the sovereign territory of Italy. SMOM owns the buildings by virtue of having bought them in 1834, and Italy granted them extraterritorial status in 1869. If you bought them from SMOM it would be a transaction under Italian law, not international law. With you installed in Palazzo Malta, it would no longer have extraterritorial status, and the new building SMOM moved into would only have extraterritoriality if Italy granted it. They are not the only embassies of SMOM, and SMOM embassies in other countries also have extraterritoriality. Indeed, as the article states, SMOM is often cited as the only example of a sovereign subject of international law which does not hold territory. The situation is unlike Vatican City, which under the Lateran Treaties of 1929, is the sovereign territory of the Holy See, and is not part of Italy. As the article also states, it is subject to debate whether SMOM is sovereign at all, though it has some of the hallmarks of sovereignty. SMOM considers itself sovereign, and is frequently cited by others as sovereign. One of the reasons given for SMOM not being sovereign is that is does not hold any territory. By the way, Vatican City is also not, strictly speaking, sovereign. The sovereign entity which holds Vatican City as territory -- its only sovereign territory -- is the Holy See. Vatican City is not the same as the Holy See. In addition to Vatican City, which is its sovereign territory, the Holy See also holds several non-sovereign extraterritorial properties in and outside Rome, similar to SMOM. So the email is wrong on Vatican City being sovereign. The Wikipedia articles on all of this are correct. You should trust them over emails. Person54 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Italy recognizes, in addition to extraterritoriality, the exercise by SMOM of all the prerogatives of sovereignty in its headquarters. Therefore, Italian sovereignty and SMOM sovereignty uniquely coexist without overlapping.[1] Jeff in CA (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Arocha, Magaly (May 1999). "La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurídica (The Order of Malta and Its Legal Nature)". Caracas, Distrito Capital, Venezuela: Analítica.com. Archived from the original on 1 August 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2012. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
The extraterritoriality granted by Italy to the SMOM headquarters buildings in Rome isn't really any different from the extraterritoriality granted to embassies of other countries or to the various buildings of the Holy See in Rome and elsewhere in Italy. It is not different from the extraterritoriality of all embassies everywhere. It means only that while the buildings remain the territory of Italy, SMOM rather than Italy exercises legal jurisdiction within the buildings, in the same way countries exercise legal jurisdiction within their embassies. The notion that there is something mystically "unique" about the coexistence of SMOM sovereignty and Italian sovereignty in the Roman buildings is nonsense put forward by SMOM and its advocates. It tries conveniently to overcome the argument that SMOM isn't sovereign because it doesn't have territory by trying to make sovereign territory out of SMOM extraterritorial buildings. Italy recognizes SMOM as sovereign, but not all countries do; and the extraterritoriality of its embassies and buildings in some countries, notably Italy, doesn't transform those buildings into sovereign territory. Person54 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sovereign Military Order of Malta. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

German control[edit]

An important aspect is missing from the 2016 coup and that is the elephant in the room of German control. The Germans have gradually, especially since the founding of the Malteser International, come to power in the organisation on an international level to the extent that Boeselager is effectively in charge and the SMOM is a proxy of Merkeland. Different ethnic groups have had influence in this organisation throughout history; the French, the Spanish and the Italians mostly; but today it is German controlled. We need to name the German in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Find the credible sources for this.. interesting claim.. and then feel free. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign state[edit]

Hi @DrKay: you removed an assertion about SMOM being a Sovereign state because it was "unsourced". Then you added your own unsourced statement! It was easy for me, even with a naive Google search, to find multiple sources that identify SMOM as a sovereign state. These sources say that recognition is not universal, but that is far from it being totally unrecognized, as you have asserted in Wikipedia's voice. So, please source or remove your statement. Also, please refrain from deriding editors and edits as jokes and vandalism - I have been adding legitimate sources and acting in good faith, so your comments are considered personal attacks. Elizium23 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been going around saying Liberland is a sovereign state. That is either a joke or foolishly misguided. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


– I know this has been brought up before. But I'm not sure it has been brought up trying to embrace the topic as whole, which arguably merits a collected discussion? For a visualisation of the issue, please compare the History section in Template:Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Actual final choice of naming should arguably be secondary to the concern of WP:CONSISTENCY of WP:CONCISE WP:COMMONNAME (=Order of Malta for the contemporary entity) where applicable? The idea is to use "Order of Malta" consistently for the contemporary entity and "Order of Saint John" for the entity prior to Malta. WP:CONSISTENCY concern is in reference to a selection of preexisting articles chosen to be considered considered default as a place of departure for the nomination: Contemporary: Order of Malta Ambulance Corps, Pre-Malta: Commanderies of the Order of Saint John, Navy of the Order of Saint John, List of ships of the line of the Order of Saint John, History of Rhodes under the Order of Saint John, History of Malta under the Order of Saint John. PPEMES (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. What problem are you trying to solve? Srnec (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The idea is to try to go at least from four to two names for the same entity. One and the same name would be preferable, but perhaps that is wishing for too much. Anyway, better proposals per WP:CONSISTENCY that I could come up with would be welcome. PPEMES (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would misleadingly conflate multiple historical entities in various centuries and countries under the title of "Order of Malta", with the latter title primarily referring to the contemporary organisation based in Rome. --Kwekubo (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Then why limit to 4 names? I am sure you can find more variations for referring to the same thing throughout its history? PPEMES (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't rewrite history. Successor organisations such as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the Order of Saint John may claim connection to the Knights, but we're not going to treat them as if they were the same thing. There may well be some sorting-out to be done here – I can see a case for splitting the list of grand masters into two, for example, one for the Knights, another for the nineteenth-century successor order – but I see little logic in the naming proposed, and no sources cited which might support such changes. I also note, for what it's worth, that "Knights of St. John" occurs more than four times as frequently as Knights Hospitaller" on JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    Hospitallers gets twice as many as Knights of St. John on JSTOR. Srnec (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

1) Sovereign Military Order of Malta, 2) Order of Malta, 3) Order of Saint/St./St John, 4) Order of Saint/St./St John of Jerusalem, 5) Saint/St./St John of Jerusalem, 6) Knights Hospitaller, 7) Hospitallers, 8) Knights of Rhodos... and now also 9) Knights of Saint/St./St John. Any more variations? PPEMES (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty. "Knights of Malta" is another very common one. What's your point? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY? PPEMES (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

...does not override COMMONNAME. Knights Hospitaller → Order of Saint John in the Holy Land makes no sense at all. Srnec (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's see. So for Coca-Cola, we should have a history article History of the The Coca-Cola Company, then Coke in United States, then Cola in Europe... and 4 other names for Coca-Cola for articles about other related topics, such as Cocacola in South America and perhaps add some C.-C. soft drink of US in Asia? Would that be helpful? PPEMES (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Coca-Cola hasn't been around for 900+ years. We'll see what it looks like in 2939. Srnec (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you implying a one and only entity here in question has been around for 900+ years? PPEMES (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ——联合果君 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Striving for consistency is something I sympathize with, but for an entity with such a complex history, it tends to have a distorting effect. Constantine 17:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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.