Talk:René Vilatte

New York Times article
Came across a long article about Vilatte in The NYT of 10 February 1907 with photos etc: can a link be added. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PRINCE-ABBOT OF SAN LUIGI?
There is a very strange person claiming that Abp Vilatte was 'Prince-Abbot of San Luigi' and I cannot find any reference to such a claim anywhere except on that persons site...............It would seem strange if a Syrian Orthodox Bishop somehow got a Western type title - but I suppose anything is possible. Anyone ever hear of this before??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.210.66 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Vilatte wrote to Le catholique français: "I do not carry the title of Marie Timothée, much less that of Prince, Grand Master of the Order of the Lion and the and Black Cross [...]" It should be in the public domain; but, the volume is only shown on Google Books' as a snippet view and does not include enough context to include in the article. I imagine reading that article would be enlightening. BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From searching that article in Google Books with other keyword combinations, this is my cut-and-pasted reconstruction of the article:


 * M. Joseph-René Vilatte nous écrit que nous nous sommes trompés en l'identifiant avec le Mar Timothée qui donna un diplôme à une certaine Mme X.


 * « Comme vous mentionnez le Matin, nous écrit-il, je vous prie de relire son article et vous pourrez voir que je n'ai rien à faire avec ce diplôme ni avec l'ordre du Lion et de la Croix noire.


 * « Je suis grand maître de l'Ordre chevaleresque et religieux de la Couronne d'épines qui a pour but la défense de la divinité du Christ et n'a rien de commun avec ce diplôme de la Principauté de San-Luigi.


 * 1° Je n'ai jamais eu aucune relation directe ou indirecte avec ce M. Valensi ou son amie que vous désignez par Mme X.
 * 2° Je ne porte pas le titre de Marie Timothée, encore bien moins celui de Prince, grand maître de l'ordre du Lion et de la Croix noire.
 * 3° Ce diplôme a été donné, dit-on, à Genève le 15 avril 1910; or, je n'ai jamais été à Genève le 15 avril 1910; j'habitait (sic) à cette époque à Chicago et non pas en Suisse.
 * 4° Je n'ai jamais eu de chancelier ou garde de sceaux au nom de Arth. Haurahan.
 * 5° Je ne signe jamais aucun document au nom de Marie Timothée ou Mar. Timothée, pour la simple raison que je n'en ai pas le droit et que ce nom ne m'appartient pas.


 * « Les 3 évêques syriaques jacobites, par ordre du patriarche d'Antioche, m'ont conféré la dignité archiépiscopale sous le nom de Mar Timothéus 1° et non Marie Timothée.


 * « J'espère, Monsieur le Directeur, que vous relirez l'article du Matin, vous serez ainsi convaincu que vous vous êtes induit en erreur et avez jeté le discrédit sur ma personne. »


 * Nous ferons remarquer que M. Vilatte reste à côté de la question. Nous n'avons jamais dit qu'il ait eu des relations directes ou indirectes avec M. Valensi, ni qu'il ait été à Genève, ce qui ne fait rien à la chose, car personne n'ignore que ceux qui font trafic de ces ordres de fantaisie se passent mutuellement des diplômes; celui dont nous avons parlé est signé Mar Timothée; si le journaliste du Matin dit ailleurs Marie Timothée, il y a grande apparence que c'est de sa part un lapsus calami. L'archevéque Mar Timothée, signataire, est un prélat sans siège, ce qui n'est pas commun, et avec cela il est grand maître, entre autres ordres, de celui de la Couronne d'épines. D'autre part, M. Joseph-René Vilatte, qui est l'archevêque Mar Timothée I, est grand maître de l'ordre chevaleresque et religieux de Ia'Couronne d'épines. Cela ne peut manquer de créer une fâcheuse confusion. Nous serions heureux de savoir qui est le Mar Timothée signataire du diplôme, et nous l'avons demandé à M. Vilatte qui ne nous a pas répondu.


 * Nous ne serions pas moins curieux de savoir en quoi un ordre de la Couronne d'épines avec ses diplômes et ses décorations peut servir a la défense de la divinite du Christ. Mais nous sommes sans doute trop curieux.


 * This is my translation of it:


 * Joseph-René Vilatte wrote us that we were wrong in identifying him as the Mar Timothée who gave a diploma to a Mrs. X.


 * As you mention Matin that we write about, I beg you to reread its article and you will see that I have nothing to do with this degree or with the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross.


 * I am Grand Master of the chivalrous and religious Order of the Crown of Thorns, which aims to defend the divinity of Christ and has nothing in common with this diploma from the Principality of San Luigi.


 * I have never had any direct or indirect relationship with this Mr. Valensi or his friend you designate as Mme X.
 * I do not carry the title of Marie Timothée, much less that of Prince, Grand Master of the Order of the Lion and the Black Cross.
 * This diploma was said to be given in Geneva April 15, 1910, yet I've never been in Geneva April 15, 1910, I lived in Chicago at that time and not in Switzerland.
 * I never had a Chancellor or custody of seals with the name of Arth. Haurahan.
 * I never sign any document in the name of Marie Timothée or Mar Timothée, for the simple reason that I do not have the right and that name does not belong to me.


 * The three Syriac Jacobite bishops by order of the Patriarch of Antioch, had given me archepiscopal dignity under the name of Mar Timothéus I and not Marie Timothée.


 * I hope, Mr. Director, that you reread the article in Matin, you'll be convinced that you are misled and have discredited me.}}


 * We may remark that Mr. Vilatte remains beside the question. We never said he had a direct or indirect relationship with Mr. Valensi, or that he was in Geneva, which has nothing to do the thing, because everyone knows that those who do traffic these orders of fantasy are reciprocally passing diplomas; the one we talked about is signed Mar Timothée; whether the journalist from Matin stated Marie Timothée elsewhere, appears to be a slip of the pen.


 * Archbishop Mar Timothée, signatory, is a prelate without a see, which is not common, and with that he is grand master, among other orders, of the Crown of Thorns. On the other hand, Joseph-René Vilatte, who is Archbishop Mar Timothée I, is grand master of the chivalrous and religious Order of the Crown of Thorns. This can not fail to create an unfortunate confusion. We would be glad to know who is the Mar Timothée, diploma signatory, and we have asked Mr. Vilatte but he has not responded to us.


 * We would be no less curious to know in what way an order of the Crown of Thorns with diplomas and decorations can be used to defend the divinity of Christ. But we are undoubtedly too curious.
 * But, I can't read the actual article and don't know the context. Finding the preceding article and the Matin article would give more context. From this reconstruction, it is clear to me that Vilatte was either peddling fictitious diplomas or not involved as Marie Timothée with Order of the Lion and the Black Cross. It looks like some kind of fraud either way. BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What was he?
This is a fascinatingly detailed article, but it has one serious problem. When I told someone about the article, and it's subject, there was nothing I could look at or point to that actually said in any vaguely concise way what or who he actually was. From the very start, it's all adjectives - "Joseph René Vilatte (January 24, 1854 – July 8, 1929) was, at different times, a Roman Catholic, Methodist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Russian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, and Old Catholic." A Roman Catholic what? A Methodist what? A Presbyterian what? Gardener? Dean? Altar boy? Pope? Con man? Huckster? Prelate? I can't tell. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the lead was nebulous at best. I rewrote it to reflect the article but it still doesn't show his connections to criminals or his socialist and anarchist facets. For example, what I see as an inconsistency of being a bishop hired by socialists or anarchists such as Chrostowski. For another example, his justification for ordaining and consecrating substandard candidates to serve groups that hire him or the candidates; was he one of the earliest operators of an "ordination mill"? Other facets are what seems to be his work as a dubious real estate agent; his connection to "College of Church Musicians"/"Intercollegiate University" as a "diploma mill" to provide his "ordination mill" clients with the pretense of an education and credentials to facilitate their ministerial desires. Both of his business partners in his religious venture, Kaminski and Miraglia, were convicted or admitted forgers, Kolaszewski seemingly practiced medicine without a licence, Donkin was an impostor, etc. The "transfer" of titles to him, from a man who admitted to the fabrication, added to his repertoire the ability to provide additional distinction for clients through, what seems to me to be, an "award mill". Seen as a whole, he, in my opinion, was able to provide what in the 21st century is marketed as an "integrated turn-key solution" and provide "support services" such as confirmations and church dedications for a want-to-be-priest client. BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Vilatte autobiography?
I removed the unverifiable quote attributed to Vilatte. For convenience, the revision date is 2014-01-08T14:41:35‎ and the number is 589813510.

There is no record of any published Vilatte autobiography on WorldCat. Is there a reliable citation for any Vilatte autobiography? --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

far too long for anyone to read
If there are sections which ought to be separate articles, that is one thing - but the article is one of the longest in all of Wikipedia, and thus is unlikely to be read by anyone. Lots of interesting stuff -- but if no one reads it, it is simply wasted effort. Let's start by removing all the stuff not directly related to the person. That will cut this down to a reasonable size I hope. The aim is to get under 100K in size ... anything more is really not going to be read. And we do not need all the slew of references -- really over citation is the bane of Wikipedia. Single cites work just fine for an article of this type. Including bots, the page gets all of 23 views a day ... of which almost all are the bots. Figure the article gets clicked on under five times a day by readers, and I suspect not one in ten reads the article with this size. I love all the "stuff" but there comes a time when it really needs a lot of pruning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Due to one editor the length of this article has become completely ridiculous. Far too much verbosity and too much intricate and non-notable information. We should start seriously pruning the article without further delay. Anglicanus (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is long, it shows what this person did in a way that is not written by only his followers. Most English language works that I found used only sources from groups of his followers, that includes articles in relatively modern encyclopedic works such as The Old Catholic Sourcebook and Independent Bishops and its derivatives, which I read but did not include. This Vilatte article shows the subject in context and exposes documented fallacies that have been repeated for 100 years. The content in this article is unique in that it is fact checked and not just repeat the framing of followers opinions, for example editors of both of the above works were publicly criticized by skeptics for their links to alternative religious groups and for "the larger problem of scholars being co-opted by alternative religions", see "When Scholars Know Sin" which was published and responded to in Skeptic.
 * In response to Collect:
 * It is not "simply wasted effort" because a page on the internet is there for anyone at anytime to read.
 * The context is "directly related to the person" &mdash; a person lives in a context of other people.
 * Yes, the page load is a problem.
 * The references are needed because the content of the article is written from more than one perspective and is providing the burden of proof for facts and opinions which are not the same as the followers opinions.
 * A page views happens before a reader can determine the size or even the content of an article &mdash; the amount of page views does not reflect the quality of the content.
 * I think it should go through the Wikipedia peer review process. Readers of Wikipedia should have the facts about Vilatte and have a good bibliography to make up their own minds. The article should not be reduced to a repetition of what seems to be a groups un-critical oral history.
 * I also think it should be split &mdash; in a way that doesn't lose the context of his questionable dealings and prevents card stacking it into a one-sided argument of followers opinions.
 * I think an article split about the Vilatte orders would be a good start. Which I'll do soon.
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Then reduce the material in this article to a précis of the new subarticle - which should help a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A huge amount is tangential to the person -- I suggest you ask for a "good article review" and see what other editors think. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is too long for anyone to read — unless their habitual reading is confined to Twitter. The article needs the detail to explain the man. "Tangential" is a pejoritive word, like 'trivial'. The content of the article is neither.

--Vicedomino (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is absurdly long. The over-extended treatment gives the misleading impression that he was a major historical figure. 213.205.241.233 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not neutral article
This article is non neutral is breaching the Wikipedia rules. The presentation of Vilatte only shows the "dark side" of the guy, not what he did during his lifetime.

On the top the page on this Old Catholic Bishop is written by a Roman Catholic who is fairly against such movements (good sign of his Christian spirit).

Should we put on the pages relating to their popes only the scandals ? Should we point out the Vatican affairs ? No. It is an element of the history. Here this article is just a charge against someone dead who cannot defend himself. On the top it is presented with lots of references coming mainly from Catholic or far-right, fascist sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartakusFreeMann (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you SpartakusFreeMann for reading the René Vilatte and the Vilatte Orders article. I will reply to each of your comments on both talk page, Talk:René Vilatte and Talk:Vilatte Orders, separately. I believe your accusation that the René Vilatte article is not neutral is unfounded. The article does not just show "only shows the 'dark side' of the guy" but does present what he did during his life. If there is more about him please add it. Yes, I am Catholic. I did write a neutral biographical article about the man in context not an article about any movement. I don't understand what you mean by "good sign of his Christian spirit". Are you implying that a Catholic cannot write a neutral article? Are you implying that the René Vilatte article should not be neutral but written in a "Christian spirit"?


 * Yes, an article about a pope should include facts about scandals and affairs that took place during his tenure. To use your words, "It is an element of the history." Yes, Vilatte has been dead for many years – I do not expect him to defend himself in the 21st century.


 * If you have a specific citation you would like to discuss, I will explain my selection. I don't understand why, in your opinion, a Catholic source is not a valid, verifiable, and reliable source.


 * As far as "far-right, fascist sources", I did not live then to know the political views of the various publications. I do judge what I read.
 * --BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed - grayed out text?
Can someone explain the grayed-out 'citation needed' lines of text that appear at intervals? I've never before encountered this particular styling in any Wiki articles. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it is a system wide CSS change for the way text wrapped by some templates is displayed without affecting the content – the wrapped span is distinguished by a text color change instead of the previous background color change. In other words, it is not something just in this article or controlled by the contributing editor. I have seen it for a few months and like the presentation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation Irish Melkite (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on René Vilatte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131002234700/http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/aasc/9780195301731.e.0391 to http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/aasc/9780195301731.e.0391

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 11:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Brandreth inaccuracies in the notes
For some odd reason, the notes like Ren%C3%A9_Vilatte seem to be filled with commentary like "Brandreth incorrectly dates this event as 1898-09-09." For that, it cites Brandreth from 1947 and then it cites a 1908 Polish article. I doubt the Kruszka article actually explicitly states that Brandreth is wrong so we have two competing statements on when an event occurred, one that is stated as "wrong" and yet cited for some pointless reason and the other that is stated as "right." I don't think these are actually competing theories so how do we know which is right and which is wrong and from there, can we just remove the wrong information rather than citing it as "wrong"? I'm certain that will help cut this article down in chunks without meandering between sources. - Ricky81682 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * both the accurate and the inaccurate dates are cited. No, you are correct to doubt that "Kruszka article actually explicitly states that Brandreth" – it does not. Brandreth is a commonly cited English language source about the subject and Kruszka is a commonly cited Polish language source. The reason I added the note is that the Kaminski date could be changed into the incorrect Brandreth date without the note by a good faith English language editor. I think the note could be moved to a common questions section in the Vilatte talk page and into the Kaminski article as a note. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So how do we know which one is right? That could be made into a hidden comment noting the talk page without the need to explicitly cite Brandreth and the note. It's not like I see some massive edit war or dispute here that one or the other is clearly right and it's ambiguous. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * no, I don't see an edit war over this either. From what I recall reading, I think the Kruszka date is. FYI Anson – the most cited English source about Villate – used much of Brandreth's research but Kruszka was closer to the events both in time, in place – US vs GB – and in language of the Poles living in Buffalo where Kaminski was. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So what is the actual source that Brandreth is incorrect? Is it Anson who said that? Then the citation should be to Anson for that point. - -Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * from what I recall reading when I edited this article years ago, I think newspaper articles pointed to March (also see this German source for March). No, the citation should not be to Anson. Both Brandreth and Anson wrote in GB – in the 1940s and 1960s respectively – while the event occurred in US. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Validity of orders
the validity of Vilatte's orders is the topic about Vilatte that is most relevant in the 21st century. I reverted. Many independent bishops – including christians, gnostics, theosophists, satanists, etc. – claim to have valid ordinations originating from Vilatte. This is not "just speculation based on how to interpret other organizations". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is Vilatte orders, an entirely separate article on the matter. It is ridiculously excessive for this biography article. It barely could relate to an impact section about the orders from his life. There is no need for this entire lengthy discussion about this portion for this issue that is what ongoing 90 years later. Are you saying that literally none of that should be cut? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I am saying the content deleted in should not be cut. The Vilatte orders article is about orders in the sense of associations while the validity of orders is about orders in the sense of ordinations. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that the heading should be changed to "Recognition of orders" or, to avoid any ambiguity, "Recognition of ordinations". We cannot comment with any factual objectivity on the "validity" of anyone's ordinations, we can only comment on whether and by whom such ordinations are recognised or not recognised. Afterwriting (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, that is a good idea. I think "Recognition of ordinations" would be best. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on René Vilatte. 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.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=6029
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/us/24mary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231161925/http://books.google.com/books?id=aBCO9MHxHTAC&vq=Miraglia&pg=PA164 to https://books.google.com/books?id=aBCO9MHxHTAC&vq=Miraglia&pg=PA164
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details/AssetMain?iaid=C13213356
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://newspapers.bc.edu/cgi-bin/bostonsh?a=d&d=BOSTONSH18921008-01.2.29
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH19110603.2.114.16&e=---10--10--

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) 09:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on René Vilatte. 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 https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/us/24mary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019115152/http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/etd/id/3150 to http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/etd/id/3150

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) 21:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)