Talk:Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George

message: I recommend this stub as a candidate for speedy deletion.  There are hundreds of these social clubs claiming descent from everyone since Adam (altho they might more properly claim descent from Lucy!) masquerading as genealogical societies or military orders: they have nothing to do with either.  Doubtless they would all like their group listed in Wikipedia for their own glory.
If this group is worthy of note, then I recommend that it be added to its entry under 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_chivalry
although I frankly believe that this page too is a mistake.
Orders of knighthood should be listed by country and by the monarch who created and maintains them.  Certainly, Britain's Queen Elizabeth maintains an order of knighthood for those deemed worthy of inclusion.  But membership is by order of the Queen, not by membership application and all such individuals are already public figures, such as Sir Sean Connery. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Connery
I further recommend that a disambiguation article be written on pseudo-genealogical social clubs to distinguish them from real genealogical groups (such as the New England Genealogical Society), and to distinguish these pseudo-military orders from real military orders (such as the US Army Rangers).  Wikipedia should expect that these pseudo-military orders will seek Wikipedia entries again and again.  Seeking such a listing goes along with the feelings of inferiority that leads those who belong to these clubs to seek to prove their genealogy so as to gain admission to their little social club. 
````
The above unsigned comment is rife with factual errors:
1) The Sacred Military Constantinian Order is not a "social club".
2) The US Army Rangers is not a "military order". It is a military unit.
3) The SMCO is not a genealogical ("pseudo" or otherwise) group. It does not require proof of geneaology for admission in the categories of grace or merit (or even in some instances in the category of justice.)
4) "Feelings of inferiority..." etc. is an ad hominem attack, and is not a proveable or quantifiable statement.
5) The author of the above comment does not appear to be entirely familiar with what an Order of Chivalry is. He/she mentions that Queen Elizabeth II maintains "an order" of knighthood. She "maintains" several different orders. His acceptance of her "order of knighthood" (sic) contradicts his belief that the article of the same name is a "mistake".
6) This Order of Chivalry was founded by a reigning monarch, and is maintained by his legitimate successor. The rights of deposed, non-abdicating monarchs to their heritable properties, including their chivalric orders, are protected by international law, beginning with the Congress of Vienna
71.85.151.177 (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article seems to simply take the Don Carlos side in the dispute - it says that Prince Carlo's renunciation cannot have possibly applied to the Constantinian order.  Presumably the other two claimants hold different interpretations on this.  I assume Guy Stair Sainty was involved in putting the article in its current form.  This is a bit problematic - Sainty obviously knows a lot about the subject, but he is also a partisan of the Calabrian side in the Two Sicilies succession dispute; he shouldn't be taken as a disinterested observer.  It would be useful if we could do a better job on this. john k (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking sides 

message: Article was recommended for deletion in 2008 and has copyright issues and it is still here?
Why? It is clearly not a real, recognized order that benefits only Bailey
2601:989:4200:88D:0:0:0:BD05 (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Bailey is involved in a "rival" parallel organization based on the fact that there are two people who claim to head the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. It will take some work to make this clear. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why still here? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20120305153513/http://www.constantinianorder.org/the-order/the-government-and-grades-of-the-order.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: In these edits we have a new editor removing stuff that one major faction in the current dispute won't like. I have reverted it. Hunc (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CoI edits