Talk:Order of Saint Stanislaus

Orders, decorations, and medals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Visual arts / History Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Untitled

There is a terrible chaos in this article. It has to be split up in two different ones - one pertaining to the historical Order of St.Stanislas and another one dealing with the present one. I shall see if I could do it.

--Alexvonf 09:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Polish name

Why not call this decoration by its authentic Polish name, "Order of Saint Stanisław"? logologist 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As this is a Polish order, named for a Polish saint, why not use the Polish name?
Even when it was included in the Russian Orders its name stayed much the same; Орден Святого Станислава.

The English Wikipedia article on the saint himself uses the Polish spelling, so why defer to one or other spurious latinized form for the order named after him?--FwdObserver (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two competing Wikipedia pages on this Order

Someone has created a SECOND wikipedia web page dealing with this Order. That web page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_St_Stanislas On this page they have written an article making all sorts of claims that Sokolnicki was a legitimate president of Poland (which is debated).

Is it not possible to alert the Wikipedia moderators about this second web page and ask them to remove it or to put the correct history? The new web page does not include teh letter "U" in Stanislaus/Stanislas. As most English speakers call the Order "St Stanislas" and NOT "St Stanislaus" I suspect that the second web page might get more visitors consequently something must be done. The aWikipedia authoriteis must be notified.

Geocities links

Shouldn't the geocities.com link be removed? Sites such as angelfire, geocities, and the like generally do not meet our standards for reliable sources. Also, might someone be able to assist in the expansion of the Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki article using quality sources as well? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Objectivity, Just Opinion

As long as people use perjoratives, and Wikipedia allows non-subjective and slanderous terms such as "self-styled," "illegal" or "illigitimate" concerning Mr. Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki there can be no claim of neutrality or objectivity by Wikipedia or its "contributors."

"Self-styled" and "illegal" is not perojative, it is clearly objective statement about validity of Mr. Nowina-Sokolnicky.Yopie 23:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Its prejorative if you can not back it up with some kind of proof, which I never see much of on here. It is all personal opinion, no objectivity, just character assassination. When someone tries to post something authorative on the subject that is affirmative, it just gets deleted by those who are only interested in their own position and not the actual subject. Without substantiated documentation terms like "self-styled," "illegal," etc. are slander, not that those who seem to so vociferously hate Mr. Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki care anything about substantiation, all they care about is propounding their uninformed slander.

Yopie - I suggest that you obtain a dictionary and try to find the definitions for "slander" and "libel." I am sure it will enhance your understanding of the proper use of those terms.

"Self-styled" and "illegal" is actually a perjprative if no other evidence is presented. Just because you say is not does not make it so!

Dear anonym, I don´t talk with people, who don´t use signature. And "prejorative" or "perjprative" is not in any dictionary :-) And facts - see here http://www.president.pl/x.node?id=470 )official page of president of Poland). Any Nowina is not mentioned... Yopie 09:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey people, the word is spelled PEJORATIVE. That link didn’t say much of anything about anything, which is hardly the substantial truth required to base a slander. But that figures based on the level of discourse on this subject.

Anon material moved from article space

(quote)

Order Now

The Order of Saint Stanislas, one of the true, great and historic orders of chivalry, was founded by the last native King of Poland, Stanislas Augustus Poniatowski on May 8th 1765.

The Order of St. Stanislas is based on the principles espoused by the Polish Martyr Bishop, and Patron Saint of Poland for whom our Order was named. The principles we are sworn to uphold require us to give very careful consideration to any decision that might impact on others. The decisions we make, individually and collectively, are a great importance, because they help decide the future direction of our world.

The Order is made up of honourable men and women of all Christian faiths, Judaism and Islam; who believe in one Almighty God, and share a common concern for their fellow man. The Order itself reflects chivalry in its' purest form; that is "people helping people", the strong helping the weak and those with the skills, knowledge and finance helping the less fortunate in todays turbulent world.

External links

* http://www.order-sw-stanislaw.eu/  (European Homepage of the OStS)
* http://www.swstanislaw.ws/  (Polish-Mazovian Homepage of the OStS)
* http://www.order-sw-stanislaw.eu/komandoria-DL.htm (Polish -Lower Silesia Homepage of the OStS)
* http://www.geocities.com/osts_canada/ (the OStS in Canada)
* http://www.sanestanislao.org/     (the OStS in Spain)
* http://www.angelfire.com/realm/StStanislas/  (the Order in USA)
* http://www.saintstanislas.com/index.html (the OStS in New Zeland)

(unquote)

First of all this material looks like copyvio from other websites. Secondly, the paragraph makes the ordinary reader believe that the so-called order outside of Poland / Russia is recognized, which is not the case. According to positions of both Poland and Russia, the Order of St. Stanislas ceased to exist in 1917. Salvage whatever anybody can, but it needs to be absolutely clear what information relates to the historical and recognized order and what information relates to the current so-called "order". Secondly, it was a very bad idea to split out virtually identical pages about the later inventions. This material should be reintegrated into the main article text.Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it might be better to simply translate the page from one of the other wikis. The other wikis seem to have treated this material better. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it as it is

This article on the history of the Order of St. Stanislas represents a balance between warring factions within and outside the various Orders. This article has been at equilibrium for some time and any effort to modify it will only spark another futile "edit war" which will result in the article being protected. Another "edit war" will be inevitable if this article is modified and that helps no one. All parties concerned are satisfied (if not happy) with these divisions as they are. These current divisions are the result of a great deal of trouble and foment. I suggest in the strongest terms possible that this article be left in its current state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.9 (talk • contribs)

Articles should be left "as is" since the temptation for abuse on this subject is seemingly irresistible. We have all seen how “neutral” people seem to be on this subject and at present there has not been much vandalism to these separate pages so why alter a system that works? If people are interested the information is one mouse click away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.7 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism is not a good argument for having five articles on the same subject. The orders awarded by Poland-Lithuania had official status, so had the orders awarded by Imperial Russia. All creations since 1917 have no official status and separate articles only help reinforcing such myths. They can all be mentioned in a paragraph stating that they exist, also mentioning the creation from Italy. This paragraph should say that they don't recognize each other and that official Poland / Russia don't recognize any of them either. Both the German, Polish and Russian Wikipedias have one article only describing all variants. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Valentinian, It seems that the war-of-words on the legitimacy of these Orders only takes place in English. The Dutch and German Wikis are not effected. On the Dutch page describing the two Orders of Saint Lazarus the contributors respect each other and only add facts concerning their own obedience. I am afraid that that the chances of this happening here on the English Wiki are slim. There is a lot of anger out there! As it is now the separate pages function reasonably well. A change will, in all likelyhood, start the vandalism all over again.

I agree that " The Order of Saint Stanislaus (re)esteblished in Poland " is a bit of a mouthfull. And I am sorry thaat there are so many articles. It sounds a bit like " The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" doesn't it? That is because it is a diplomatic solution in a quarrel without an end. They all claim to be THE Order of Saint Stanislaus, and then claim that the other ones are fake. In fact they are all somewhat questionable. Then there is the issue of the propper name and style of one of the Grand-Masters and the undissolved and unsolvable question as to who was the legitimite Polish government in exile. Given a free hand a number of anonymus contributers keep adding and deleting the same words over and over again at an astonishing pace. They do not reveal who they are and they do not discuss the questions before us. One gentleman once contributed a list of books and I added them to the appropriate branch of the Order.
All I ever wanted to do was describe the historic order, now I found myself in a quagmire of pseudo-orders and well intended charitable foundations that call themselves orders. If I put all the information on these orders on one page there is no possibility to keep the subject neutral. The zelots of the various orders will get into a frenzy and this will undoubtably result in a useless, opiniated article that will change every minute or so. But I am open to suggestions...

Faithfully Yours, Robert Prummel

P.S. I started or contributed to dozens of articles on orders of merit, try my dutch contributions on the Military Order of William and Orde van Sint Stanislaus ( Dutch Wiki). These articles give a lot of historical facts and pictures. Here all I ever get to is restoring mischief. I am happy to say that this one is unique! I am allso glad that there are only two orders of the Garter, the American one is, I am glad to say it, very meek. Would they dare to call Elizabeth II an imposter?

Robert Prummel Robert Prummel 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter

I don't think these articles should be merged or changed, but it doesn't matter what I think because someone will go ahead and do it anyway, starting yet another useless and stupid edit war.

Grand Master of the Order of Saint Stanislaus Chev. Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki

700px|Grand Master of the Order of Saint Stanislaus Juliusz Nowina-Sokolnicki(JN-S - right)

Chev. Juliusz count Nowina-Sokolnicki - right.

In left Dr Norbert Wojtowicz - author "Praemiando incitat - Order Świętego Stanisława" (2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ETFTE (talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stair Sainty

http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/slfstlod.htm

Stair Sainty is a rather reliable and objective source on all things noble and decorative - his view on this "order" is rather uncompromising....77.1.251.153 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Order of Saint Stanislaus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Order of Saint Stanislaus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Duren":

From International Order of Saint Stanislaus: Duren, Peter Bander van (1995). Orders of knighthood and of merit: the pontifical, religious and secularised Catholic-founded Orders and their relationship to the Apostolic See. Gerrards Cross: Smythe. pp. 380–86, 682–90. ISBN 9780861403714.
From Fount of honour: Duren, Peter Bander van (1995). Orders of knighthood and of merit : the pontifical, religious and secularised Catholic-founded Orders and their relationship to the Apostolic See. Gerrards Cross: Smythe. pp. 307–94. ISBN 9780861403714.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]