Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No need to let this linger: consensus is clear. Let me note that the final keep vote, by an SPA, presents no credible arguments or reliable sources pertaining to the topic, which is an order, not whether some royalty existed at one time and for how long. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had originally submitted this as a WP:PROD which was objected to. This is the reason for the AfD. This is an obvious fantasy order created by an invidivual claiming the Ghassanid headship, a Kingdom that has not been extant since the early 8th century and no claims to it since this particular fellow appeared. The article itself lacks any reliable sources and anything found online is self published. Neither the claimant, who goes by the title of "Prince Gharios of Ghassan" nor his "order" are listed or recognized by any of the major sources such as the ICOC.  Kimon talk 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I edit conflicted with Kimon in creating an AFD; I'll post my nomination here.
 * I suppose "hoax" is too strong a word, but this order and this royal house are very trumped up, and do not meet WP:GNG.
 * For the person behind this, see Articles for deletion/Prince Gharios of Ghassan. If the prince is not notable enough for WP, I don't think a sacred order he made up is notable.
 * Note that "international recognition by royalty" consist of thank you letters from royal staff for sending them a free book: www.princegharios.com/letterkings/.
 * "United States Special Congressional Recognition" appears to be not all that "special": lunarembassy.com/us-congress.
 * "Knighthood from the Order of the Holy Sepulchre" appears to be something that rich Catholics can buy with "passage money": Order of the Holy Sepulchre
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I should note that if this AFD looks like it's going to turn into the same kind of trainwreck that Articles for deletion/Prince Gharios of Ghassan was (see that AFD's history and talk page) I encourage people to go to WP:ANI quickly, rather than wait for it to get seriously out of control. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete because this "Order" is not notable. Only sources about this "Order" are self-published by the "Prince" and "Order" himself.--Yopie (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable and all sources are self-published. Just because someone claims they are the descendent of some ruling house does not make it so. If your chivalric order isn't recognized by the ICOC ... it's ain't notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of independent sourceing, hence fails WP:Verifiability policy. --Bejnar (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent verification of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Sirs:

1. You're citing the ICOC. This organization is a mere association with neither legal nor sovereign recognition. It was popular on the 1960's but presently is begging for attention in the international scene after many scandals involving corruption:

"Since the Niadh Nask was heretofore unknown within the world of chivalric Orders, Gayre and the ICOC expanded the original focus of the group to include a new category, called "Dynastic Nobiliary Fraternities". Hundreds of people, taken in by these claims, joined the Niadh Nask or donated to their "cause", totaling about $1 million. Among those convinced by the hoax were former Irish Prime Ministers Charles Haughey and Albert Reynolds, and John Brook-Little. After Gayre's death in 1996 MacCarthy assumed the position of President and continued using the ICOC as a vehicle to advance his fraudulent nobiliary claims. In July 1999 the falsity of MacCarthy's claims was discovered and reported in the media, and he resigned from the ICOC.[9][10]"

Also:

" It was believed that an organization like the ICOC, while not possessing any actual powers of enforcement ..."

The ICOC lost the mandate from the International Congress of Genealogy and Heraldry over 40 years ago.

"the plenary session unanimously resolved that "the question of legitimacy of orders of chivalry is excluded from the activities of the international congresses of genealogical and heraldic sciences." This resolution was solemnly renewed in the plenary session of the 7th congress in 1964 (see the acts of that congress). "

Also, the so-called "major sources" like The Almanac Gotha, for example, only present the European Houses with accuracy and a very few (the most famous) from other continents.

2. It's a huge insult to the Order of the Holy Sepulcher, one of the oldest in the world (and broadly recognized by the ICOC if you want to mention - so clearly double standards here), to imply that the Order is "bought" without any proof. According to the Wikipedia:

"The honor of knighthood, and any subsequent promotions, are conferred by the Holy See through its Secretariat of State, which approves each in the name of, and by the authority of, the Pope. Each diploma of appointment once approved is sealed and signed in Rome by an official of the Secretariat of State (The Assessor for General Affairs) and the Cardinal Grand Master of the Order."

Therefore, it's a sovereign recognition directly from the Pope and investigated by the Vatican secretariat of State.

Also:

"As late as the 18th century, all but the last were approved by Pope Benedict XIV who also stated that the Order should enjoy precedence over all Orders except over the Order of the Golden Fleece."

So, the Order of the Holy Sepulcher is the second in precedence over all Catholic Orders (not only the papal ones).

The so-called "passage money" is common to almost all Orders of Chivalry, that's how they finance their activities. Unless, of course, it's a state order, merely honorific with no actual humanitarian work.

3. Obviously, none here actually neither researched the subject in dept nor is an expert on Arab Dynastic laws of succession.It's accepted by historians like Professor Irfan Shahid and the Maronite Patriarch Esthepahn Douahy - considered to be the greatest Arab historian of the XVII Century and in the Beatification process by Pope Benedict XVI - that the Ghassanid kingdom didn't end in the 8th century but on the 18th Century ruling a small area in modern Lebanon,

'''"After the disappearance of the Ghassanid state, isolated Ghassanian Princes continued to reign in some oases and castles, along with Salihids and some other phylae." ("Late Antiquity" - Bowesock/Brown/Grabar, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 469)''' '''

'''"Although little is known of Jabala's activities after his emigration to Anatolia, his place in the history of the Ghassanids in the Middle Byzantine period is important, since it was he who established a strong Ghassanid presence in Byzantine Anatolia, one which lasted for many centuries. The climax of this presence was the elevation of one of his descendants to the purple [as Byzantine Emperor] and his establishment of a short-lived dynasty which might be described as the House of Nicephorus." ("Ghassan post Ghassan" by Prof. Irfan Shahid, Festschrift "The Islamic World - From classical to modern times", for Bernard Lewis, Darwin Press l989, pg. 325)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havaran (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's an official article by the Lebanese National News Agency - Ministry of Information of the Republic of Lebanon http://nna-leb.gov.lb/ar/show-report/371/ where the Sheiks Chemor or Shummar are mentioned by their titles (in 2014). On the same article the book from Father Ignatios Tannos Khoury "The Sheiks Chemor rulers of Al-Zawiya" (last recognized Ghassanid state that ended in 1747 AD, very small but considered to be sovereign by the Ottoman Empire) is also mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havaran (talk • contribs) 07:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

4. There's no such thing as "Royal recognition for deposed monarchs". That doesn't exist in practice as a document. HM Queen Elizabeth recognizes personally all of her cousins, the deposed monarchs and descendants of Europe, but no "special document" is issued. That's the reason of the Orders of Chivalry, when a sovereign honors someone by the title it's a formal recognition without creating diplomatic embarrassments for the sovereign. On the cited web-link www.princegharios.com/letterkings/ there's a letter from HM the ruling King of Cambodia, where he personally acknowledges that read the book and knows the author's "mission". I also don't see anywhere on the website any claim that those letters are "royal recognition".

5. If the US Special Recognition "is not special", the Congress should not give it nor call it "special". So, unless it's illegal or a fake document it should be called as it is.

6. The Order is not notable??? There are 2 Popes, 3 Cardinals, one Patriarch, 3 archbishops, several Middle eastern ministers and other politicians as members. I can agree that VIP members by itself doesn't mean legitimacy but definitely means notability.

7. All the editors seem to ignore sources deemed as valid according to Wikipedia rules, like Zenit News Agency - the second most respected after L'Osservatorio Romano (official Vatican news agency)and other Middle Eastern Sources as Noursat-Jordan (TV Lumiere) famous news agency in Lebanon and also Roya TV of Jordan.

8. There's definitely a lack of sources' abundance in English, but if you Google it in Arabic there are several from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. So, you cannot judge someone's work because you've never heard of it. also, you cannot judge an Arabic claim by European sources.

I'd support deletion if you could satisfactory respond to all of the issues raised here. Thank you. Havaran (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.