Jump to content

User talk:CSavonaVentura

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Yopie (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Lazarus[edit]

The recent posts and amendments are meant to correct the repeated historical mistakes that were being perpetuated by the biased errors that have been written on the original article. All facts MUST be referenced and based on documentation and not bias. Many reversions were made by contributors without even an attempt at reading the new text or requesting clarification. The individual is simply engaging in an "edit war" without even attempting to verify the text reverting automatically even bonafide attempts to provide references for statements. This is contrary and an abuse of Wikipedia policy. CSavonaVentura (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please use talk page of the article and we can talk about various points of your opinion.--Yopie (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Definitely. I can give you a contemporary reference to all the statements made within the text BUT this would put the article on the level of an original article. All the statements can be supported by definite scholarly research papers. This includes the period for the time in the Holy Land [see reference: The origins of the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus in the Further Reading], the European period during the later centuries until the 16th century, the legal aspect of the state of the Order in France after the mid-16th century [cf C. Savona-Ventura and M.W. Ross: The Heraldry and Development of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. Published in 'Double tressure: The Journal of the Heradry Scoiety of Scotaland, Summer 2013, 36:+28p.], the existence during Bourbon Restoration Period, the 1830-1850 period [Savona-Ventura C. The French Revolution's mark on the annals of the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem. Journal of the Monastic Military Orders, 2010, 3:51-70], and the post 1910 period. The only shadowy period to date is the 1850s - 1910 period since documentation is poor since most has been lost. This is clearly stated in my amendments for fairness sake! You have opted to arbitrarily remove the most referenced work which shows all this documentation from the Bibliography list [incidentally the fruits of my academic researches over the last 10 years utilizing original documents going back to the 12th century and including all the Papal Bull in Latin - * Savona-Ventura, Charles (2014) The History of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, Nova Press, New York. ISBN: 978-1-62948-563-8] but have opted to retain the unreferenced and very biased text by Sainty, Guy Stair, ed. (2006) World Orders of Knighthood and Merit. You have FURTHERMORE also removed the link I have prepared making available ALL the original texts relating to the Order made available for bonafide serious investigators which I added under External links [* Research Library maintained by the Office of the Grand Archivist & Historian of the united MHOSLJ This source provides access to the full original cartulary of the Order with original documents, including all the relevant original Papal Bulls, dating back to the 12th century.] The removal of these links suggests either that you yourself are biased or more likely that you do not even bother to look through the notes presented in the "Difference between revisions" provided by Wikipedia preferring to retain wrong concepts and even spelling mistakes! CSavonaVentura (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Let me comment in detail about what you persist to retain.

1. "It is believed to have given rise to the use of the green cross as the universal symbol for retail pharmacies worldwide." This uis rubbish and there is absolutely no documented link between the two crosses. Somebody started this myth which the article keeps perpetuating. Incorrect & misleading.

2. " Orléanist, under the Temporal Protection of the Count of Paris". Again this is in error since the Count of Paris has actually withdrawn his protection in a statement ["Communiqué de Monseigneur le Comte de Paris" (in French).]

3. "From its foundation in the 11th century, members of the Order of Saint Lazarus dedicated themselves to two ideals". The foundation of the Order was in the early decades of the 12th century NOT the 11th!

4. "The first mention of the order in surviving sources dates from 1106-16". This is in error based on a document wrongly ascribed by Sibert to Henri I when it was written during Henri II period. The Order's cartularly starts in the 3rd decade of the 12th century not the first or second. This revision is presently being prepared for publication in a scholarly article.

5. "It is unknown when the order became militarised but militarisation probably occurred before the end of the twelfth century due to the large numbers of Templars and Hospitallers sent to the leper hospitals for treatment." This again is in error since only the knights Templar regulations specified the rule to transfer Templar leprous knights to the Order of St Lazarus. The Knight Hospitaller regulations never included this provision - Hospitaller leprous knights were kicked out of the community.

6. the name "Royal, Military and Hospitaller Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St. Lazarus of Jerusalem" is incorrect. The true name should be placed in the original French since this reflects the true status of different separate Orders with same management stricture. 'Ordres Royaux, Militaires & Hospitaliers de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem & de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel réunis' reflects a plurality "Ordres" not "Ordre".

7. "The French fons honorum was renewed in 2004 by Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, as a claimant to the headship of the Royal House of France." Again the fons honorum by the French crown was really renewed in 1969 when a member of the French Bourbon Family became GM of the Order. Henri d'Orleans actually has withdrawn the fons honorum from the so-called Orleanist group even though their webpage [see above] continues to state his protectorship.

8. I cannot understand why you opted to exclude the following text: "After 1830 the French foundation of the Order of Saint Lazarus continued under the governance of a council of officers.[1] Unfortunately documentation of to the subsequent decades is unavailable, but the Order is documented to have been active philanthropically in Haifa, while contemporary biographies do mention late 19th century individuals as having been members of the Order of St. Lazarus. Traditionally it is believed that around 1841, the Council of Officers invited the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Maximos III Mazloum to become Spiritual Protector of the Order, thence re-establishing a tangible connection with the Order's early roots in Jerusalem. By 1850, under the authority of the Patriarch, the Order had consolidated and numbered about twenty knights supporting the rebuilding of the Mount Carmel Monastery in Haifa, Israel, then under the responsibility of the Melkite Patriarch. On 27 May 2012, the Greek Melchite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch signed a declaration at Kevelaer in Germany confirming the continuity of the Order under the Patriarchs of Antioch since his predecessor Maximos III Mazlûm had accepted the role of Spiritual Protector of the Order in 1841.[2]" The Haifa connection is found in a text dating to the late 1840s. It clearly states "Unfortunately documentation of to the subsequent decades is unavailable" to emphases that this period is poorly documented.

9. Again I cannot understand why you arbitrary excluded the new division which I introduced to separate the undocumented "Dark Ages" with the Modern Priod after 1910 when documentation is quite readily available.

10. Again, I cannot see your reasoning for reverting the text I amended reading "The Vatican State can only formally recognise orders of chivalry that are under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See [1][3]; or are formally-constituted Dynastic Orders [2] or formally-constituted National Orders of Merit. The Order of Saint Lazarus does not fall under either of these categories. This has not precluded Catholic prelates from joining the Order." This now given reference links to what is meant by the different groups of authors.

11. The use of the term "Spanish" does not exist. This was the Malta Obedience until the reunification and now is simply known as the United Order.

12. Arbitrary exclusion of added references as endnotes or in bibliography and web links added to give academic credence to the text.

CSavonaVentura (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

CSavonaVentura, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi CSavonaVentura! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, CSavonaVentura. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Order of Saint Lazarus, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, understand, that you are in conflict of interest with the Order of St. Lazarus and your edits are one-sided, based on original research. By the way, editing without logging is not "helpful", because you are "logged" with your IP from Malta. Thank you for understanding. --Yopie (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Yopie. I have not been afraid go say who I am at any stage. But I do take offence at your comment that my edits are one-sided. I have simply updated the changed situation of the two groups as is evident on the Internet pages to which I have referred the readers. Nothing original in this. The situation whether you like it or not [and we cannot know your biased agenda since you have opted to remain anonymous unlike myself] is that the Paris and Malta Obedience have reunited in 2008 [see their homepage] and that the Count of Paris has formally declared his withdrawal of temporal protection in 2012 [see his statement on http://www.la-couronne.org/blog/actualite-royale/communique-de-monseigneur-le-comte-de-paris-12.html]. But you seem to have your own biased agenda to distort the truth.

Another point - why would I bother to log in anonymously when I have not been afraid to show my credentials. That is your assumption.CSavonaVentura (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CSavonaVentura&oldid=1067365929"