Talk:League of Mercy

Clear distinction needed re. new NPO with same name, or removal entirely
Whether inadvertently or intentionally, the article makes it seem as if the organization today that calls itself the "League of Mercy" is some kind of legitimate successor to the actual Royal Order that existed from 1898 to 1947. This is not the case, and the article needs to make that distinction clear. The "real" League of Mercy was founded by Edward, Prince of Wales, and had the protection of Queen Victoria. The soi-disant League of Mercy, founded in 1999, is a private charity that is not under any royal or governmental protection or patronage. Conflating the two makes it seem as if the 1999 NPO has the status of a Royal Order. The website of the new group appears to want to encourage that conflation, as the seal depicted on it carries a claim of being in existence from 1899-1999, which is clearly not the case. Indeed, I'd rather have any mention of the new organization removed, since it doesn't seem to meet WP:N and none of the information provided has citations from proper secondary sources, just their own website. Bricology (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have, in part, reflected these comments by amending the article to clarify that the first organisation was closed in 1947 and the second established in 1999. Hsq7278 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The legitimacy of the claim that the League of Mercy Foundation is a re-establishment or re-founding of the original League is extremely weak. The Order of Wear published in the London Gazette in January 2019 specifically states that only medals awarded prior to 1947 have any legitimacy, quietly shooing away any self-proclaimed successors. The Foundation has even bestowed the honours of the "higher grade of Companion of the Order of Mercy" to two heads of Royal Houses, and in return have had reciprocal dynastic orders bestowed on their President. If this doesn't sound alarm bells already, the two Houses in question have more than one claimed head, and are rather controversial in the world of self-styled orders themselves. The new version of the League, significantly lacks reliable coverage, all media mentions simply referring to recipients and usually getting their facts directly from the Foundation as opposed to independent research. I have considered creating two separate articles to remedy this, however upon discovery of the aforementioned facts, it became clear that the article would more than likely be promptly deleted from lack of notability and coverage in reliable sources. As a result, I have completely reformatted the article, removing dubious claims and creating a section for this new Foundation, including a subsection on their legitimacy. I thank User:Bricology on finding that excellent source, material from which I have subsequently added to the article. I am personally of the philosophy of WP:KEEP even when content loudly WP:QUACKS. ;) UaMaol (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

New Organisation
I have noticed on this page that there is not much of a distinction between the original League, and the unrelated charity founded 50 years after the former's Royal Charter had been surrendered. Obviously the new one is not a successor simply because it has the same name, and it does not hold a Royal Charter stating any connection between the two. Unfortunately the new self-styled order clearly does not meet WP:N and to include it on the page seems to give it credence and the prestige of the previous League by riding on its coat tails. There also seems to be some very clear WP:COI with the edits that use significant original research (see WP:NOR). If there continues to be reverts of edits and addition of this unreliable information, it would probably be best to protect the page for a period of time.Ortolan57 (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reformatting, corrections and additions.
Formatted templates to uniformity. Added new information regarding history and Foundation, providing examples of awards, clarified only chariities can nominate, and peer review process. Legitimacy section removed (as Foundation is not a chivalric order, self styled or otherwise - see Burke’s World Orders of Knighthood and Merit (2006). Points of UK Order of Wear for the 1899 League and 1999 Foundation clarified and affirmed. Inclusion of Distinguished Community Medal (Amy Cadet Council).

Regarding both on the same site as mentioned here, I agree the association by proximity is not desirable. They could be separate and refer to each other only. It is debated if the Foundation should have its own page. Discussion on notability has referred to independent sources as being from news reports on recipients, which may be low indicators of notability. However, this should be viewed from the aspect of the nominating charities, over 500 charities (25 x 25 years) have successfully nominated their volunteers, this demonstrates notability. Furthermore, the Army Cadet Force requested the Foundation create and independently review applications for the cadet Distinguished Community Service Medal with a max of 5 to be awarded each year. This is highly notable.

An independent comment on this from NG Goulding, Editor of the Journal of Orders and Medals Research Society, March 2003, p240:

'''I have in the past been extrmely critical of the plethora on unofficial medals or 'purchased commemoratives' which have made their appearance in later years... In this case, however, the revived Order of the League of Mercy has two redeeming factors, even though it remains an unofficial award and cannot be worn with those which are awarded by the Sovereign or State. First, it cannot be bought. Nominations to the Trustees are made only by charitable organisations in the heath field. Individuals do not nominate. Secondly, the insignia are presented to recipients at no cost to them. Taken together, these two facts make this a worthy attempt by a charitable group to honour those volunteers on whom, given our ageing population, it seems we will become increasingly dependent'' '. Prof M Seed (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (January 2024)
User:Prof M Seed states on their Talk page that they are a Trustee of the League of Mercy Foundation have have made large changes to the section relating to such. UaMaol (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, this is true. I am very happy to help resolve any changes you and reviewers feel are untrue. I have tried very hard to be factual and honest (especially about my role as a Trustee). As a Trustee this does mean I can support with facts that may be hard to find, and would be pleased to do so. This is the first time anyone involved with the Foundation has engaged regarding this site, and I am new to this and would be grateful for help. Prof M Seed (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)